It so happened that the annual meeting of the Senate committee on intelligence was scheduled for the morning after the monumental, self-inflicted security breach by senior cabinet members of the Republican administration – and that could be categorised as the first break the Democrats have had in months. The performance of Jon Ossoff, a star in waiting, was the second.
There, at 10am in the Hart Senate Office Building, were Tulsi Gabbard, director of national intelligence, and John Ratcliffe, director of the CIA, both of whom had featured in the 18-strong Signal chat group that also, for reasons yet to be explained, included Jeffrey Goldberg, a veteran journalist and editor-in-chief of the Atlantic magazine.
The fallout in Washington from what was categorised by committee vice-chairman Mark Warner as a “mind-boggling” lapse looks set to continue. Although President Donald Trump offered a stout defence of Mike Waltz, the national security adviser who administered the group and invited a disbelieving Goldberg to join, on Tuesday morning many Republicans were acknowledging the gravity of the mess-up.
“This is a gross error,” the Nebraska Republican Don Bacon told reporters on Capitol Hill. “I would have lost my security clearance in the Air Force for this – and for a lot less.”
‘Pete Hegseth texted me the war plan’: How top US officials shared military strike details in group chat with journalist
Israel reinstating military rule in Gaza would have big implications
Trial of alleged former Red Army Faction terrorist to open in Germany
How Jeff Bezos made peace with Donald Trump
The Senate committee hearing lasted for two hours, during which the members questioned a panel that included Gabbard, Ratcliffe and FBI director Kash Patel. The tone of the questions alternated according to party affiliation, with Republican senators quizzing the attendees for national security updates while the Democrats focused solely on the Signal chat leak.
It was a particularly gruelling morning for Gabbard, who, at the outset, refused to even confirm she was part of the group chat, on the grounds that the episode was under internal review. Her position was made to look absurd when Ratcliffe, sitting to her left, allowed that he was part of the Signal group.
Under prolonged Democratic questioning, both witnesses repeatedly asserted that nothing in the messages fell under the category of classified information. At other times, when asked specifically about the messages sent by defence secretary Pete Hegseth regarding imminent plans to execute a bombing mission on Houthi rebels in Yemen, they referred their answers to Hegseth’s department. But the attempts to stonewall the committee gradually backed both cabinet members into a corner.
“You are the head of the intelligence community,” independent senator Angus King from Maine reminded Gabbard. “If it is not classified, then please release that whole text stream.”
Ratcliffe’s repeated assertions that he couldn’t recall the specifics of the messages, given that the group chat existed between the dates of March 11th-15th, looked equally unconvincing. His admission, in answer to a question by Arizona Democrat Mark Kelly, that he did not know that Trump’s Middle East adviser was in Moscow on the day of the message thread, was also damaging.
The exchanges pivoted around an interjection by Tom Cotton, the Republican chair, to clarify the position of the witnesses.
“They testified – correct me if I’m wrong – that there is no intelligence community classified information. Is that correct?”
“That’s not correct,” called a Democratic senator.
“She [Gabbard] said repeatedly there was nothing classified. Period.”
All of this was a prelude to the final interrogation of the session, which fell to Ossoff, a 38-year-old Democrat from Georgia. His was a formidable exhibition of unimpeachable logic delivered with withering coldness. He began by inviting Ratcliffe to agree – yes or no – that the entire episode was a “huge mistake”.
“No,” came the reply.
“No, no, director Ratcliffe,” Ossoff continued, arguing the CIA director into silence.
“I asked you a yes-or-no question and now, you’ll hold on. A national political reporter was made privy to sensitive military operations against a foreign terrorist organisation. And that wasn’t a huge mistake? That wasn’t a huge mistake? This was an embarrassment. There has been no apology. There has been no recognition of the gravity of this error. And by the way, we will get the full testimony of this chain, and your testimony will be measured carefully against its content.”
The witnesses looked ashen. The session ended. The controversy will rumble on.
