Gabbard and Ratcliffe’s Text Fiasco Hearing Was An Absurd Denial Fest

Summary

Bulwark Takes: Episode Summary – "Gabbard and Ratcliffe’s Text Fiasco Hearing Was An Absurd Denial Fest"

Release Date: March 25, 2025

In this episode of Bulwark Takes, hosts Sam Stein and Tim Miller delve into the highly charged hearing involving Tulsi Gabbard and John Ratcliffe. The hearing centered on controversial revelations from an Atlantic article by Jeffrey Goldberg, which exposed a Signal group chat where high-ranking officials discussed sensitive military operations in Yemen. The episode provides a comprehensive analysis of the hearing's proceedings, the denials presented by the witnesses, and the broader implications for national security and administrative accountability.

---

Overview of the Hearing

The episode opens with Sam Stein introducing the context of the hearing: Tulsi Gabbard and John Ratcliffe, among other Trump officials, were questioned about their participation in a private Signal group chat that allegedly discussed strategic military strikes in Yemen. This revelation stems from Jeffrey Goldberg’s investigative piece in The Atlantic, which has sparked intense scrutiny and debate within political circles.

Key Discussions and Denials

Tim Miller provides insight into the dynamics of the hearing, emphasizing the administration's consistent denial of any classified information being shared in the Signal chat. He comments, “The White House keeps calling him a liar and the people testifying today keep kind of denying that there was any secretive or sensitive information on this text chain” (02:47).

A significant portion of the discussion revolves around the reluctance to disclose the contents of the chat. When Senator Jack Reed presses Gabbard and Ratcliffe on whether the messages should be publicly released, both evade definitive answers:

• Jack Reed (02:47): "Would you have any problems with him releasing everything?"
• Tulsi Gabbard (02:55): "I don't feel I can answer that question here."
• John Ratcliffe (03:25): "That wouldn't be classified information."

Responses from Gabbard and Ratcliffe

The hosts scrutinize the evasive responses from both witnesses:

• Tulsi Gabbard consistently deflects questions about the nature of her phone usage and the specifics of the group chat. When asked about whether she was using a private or government phone, she states, “I won't speak to this because it's under review by the National Security Council” (09:40).
• John Ratcliffe admits to being part of the Signal group chat but maintains that no classified information was shared. When pressed about legal liabilities for Jeffrey Goldberg, he responds, “I think you're asking for a legal answer that I'm not able to give” (03:54).

Sam Stein highlights Gabbard's nervous demeanor and lack of preparedness, noting, “She just seemed like somebody that was very much in over her head” (11:30). Tim Miller adds, “It was just preposterous” (04:51), criticizing Ratcliffe’s inability to recall specific details despite his role as CIA Director.

Administration's Handling and Accountability

The episode critiques the administration's approach to handling the situation, pointing out the inconsistency in their denials. While top officials publicly warn Pentagon staff about Signal’s security vulnerabilities, key figures like the Secretary of Defense are allegedly using the app to communicate sensitive war plans. Sam observes, “The Pentagon people that worked for him... were warning about the Signal app itself” (08:09).

Furthermore, the hosts discuss the political fallout, mentioning that two top Democrats are calling for the resignation of Pete Hegseth and Mike Waltz due to their involvement:

• Sam Stein (17:50): “The two top Democrats have called for Pete Hegseth and Mike Waltz to resign.”

Implications for National Security

The conversation underscores the potential risks to national security stemming from these communications. Tim Miller draws parallels to irresponsible behavior, stating, “the chain begins with Waltz asking everybody... [and] he probably should get a heaping of blame for that” (16:00). The hosts express concern over the administration's inability to manage internal protocols, with Sam noting, “If you have a government phone, only certain apps can be downloaded...” (09:32).

Final Thoughts and Conclusions

In their concluding remarks, Sam Stein and Tim Miller emphasize the administration's flawed handling of the situation, marked by denial and lack of transparency. Sam speculates on the future of accountability, stating, “None of it is going to happen here” (07:33), while Tim questions the sustainability of the administration’s stance: “I just don't know how that's sustainable” (15:12).

The episode wraps up with the hosts reflecting on the broader implications for government integrity and national security, urging listeners to consider the long-term effects of such administrative failures.

---

Notable Quotes:

• Sam Stein (00:29): “We were obsessing over yesterday.”

• Tim Miller (01:14): “He smartly used a lot of discretion... but the White House keeps calling him a liar.”

• Jack Reed (02:47): “Would you approve that for public release?”

• Tulsi Gabbard (05:42): “The information was not classified.”

• John Ratcliffe (03:25): “That wouldn't be classified information. I know the context of what that is...”

• Mark Warner (06:02): “Would you consider that classified information?”

• John Ratcliffe (17:09): “I communicated the name of a CIA officer not operating undercover. Completely appropriate.”

These quotes capture the essence of the hearing’s contentious atmosphere and the administration's defensive stance.

Conclusion

This episode of Bulwark Takes provides a critical examination of the recent hearing involving Tulsi Gabbard and John Ratcliffe, highlighting significant concerns about transparency, accountability, and national security within the current administration. Through detailed analysis and incisive commentary, Sam Stein and Tim Miller shed light on the complexities and implications of the Signal group chat controversy, urging listeners to remain vigilant about the integrity of government operations.

Transcript

[Northwest Handling Systems]

Northwest Handling Systems is hiring now recognized for their industry leading products. They're hiring field service technicians for equipment troubleshooting, diagnosis and repair. Entry level technicians start at $27 an hour with full benefits plus a $2,000 sign on bonus. A leading distributor of material handling equipment for over 50 years serving Alaska, Washington and Oregon. Apply [e-mail] careers Northwest Handling Systems, an equal opportunity employer.

[Sam Stein]

Hey guys. Me. Sam Stein, managing editor at the Bulwark. I'm joined by Tim Miller. We're here to discuss a pretty explosive hearing that just occurred with a number of different Trump officials, some of whom were on the Signal chat. That would be Tulsi Gabbard and John Ratcliffe. In addition, Cash Patel was at the hearing. This was about worldwide threats, but clearly the focus turned quickly to the explosive bombshell Atlantic story about this Signal group chat where they were discussing the strike in Yemen that we were obsessing over yesterday. All right, Tim, I know you were hustling. You had a great interview with Jeffrey Goldberg that went out during this hearing. Jeffrey Goldberg was the editor and the author of the piece in the Atlantic. But you did catch some of the hearing and I'm kind of curious for your main thoughts on how it went down.

[Tim Miller]

Yeah, I cut the second kind of half of the hearing after I interviewed Goldberg. It's interesting in the context of the Goldberg interview, what I spent most of the time with him on is this kind of decision that he has about whether to release more information. I think that he smartly used a lot of discretion, appropriately, maybe not smartly appropriately used a lot of discretion into not wanting to release classified information, not wanting to release anything that would put anything out there that would endanger American troops or American interests. But the White House keeps calling him a liar and the people testifying today keep kind of denying that there was any secretive or sensitive information on this text chain. And so to me, I just in the context having just talked to Jeffrey, there's going to be just an overwhelming amount of pressure on them, I think, to release this information and from the Democrats on the Senate and the Intel Committee, and maybe there wouldn't have been had the administration just owned up to the fact that this was a mistake. But instead, what you saw from the press secretary this morning, which I asked Jeffrey about, but then at this hearing was like this just absurd repetition of the party line that there was no classified information in here that you know, that like planning the strikes, the details of the strikes was appropriate. And you saw the absurdity play out in a couple of ways. Like, one was, I think both Jack Reed and, I believe, Mark Kelly, Jack Reed center from Rhode Island, Mark Kelly from Arizona, were like, okay, if there's nothing classified in here, shouldn't Goldberg just release all of it? Would you have any problems with him releasing everything? Because then we'd be able to see for ourselves. And they, like, refused to answer that question.

[Jack Reed]

So yes or no, would you approve that for public release?

[Tulsi Gabbard]

I don't feel I can answer that question here.

[Cash Patel]

According to the article, quote, the message contained information that might be interpreted as related to actual and current intelligence operations, and the author did not disclose that information. So the question would be if he disclosed everything he heard, in your view.

[John Ratcliffe]

That wouldn't be classified information. I know the context of what that is, and I think the author said might be interpreted as related to intelligence information. It was not classified information.

[Cash Patel]

So it goes back to my point. If he released all this information he did not release, he could do so without any liability at the federal level.

[John Ratcliffe]

I think you're asking for a legal answer that I'm not able to give.

[Tim Miller]

They won't answer it. Then Jack Reed was like, well, could you guarantee that if he releases it, he wouldn't be prosecuted by the administration? And Patel wouldn't even answer that.

[Cash Patel]

Mr. Patel, can you opine, you're a lawyer, and you're the director to the FBI. Would he face any legal liability if he released the information?

[Sam Stein]

Because of the questions you and the vice chairman have put to me, I'm not going to prejudge the situation. And that legal call is ultimately for the Department of Justice.

[Tim Miller]

They're trying to have it both ways. Like, there's nothing to see here, is there. Is there? Obvious lie, party line. But then anytime that's pressed, they. They really dissemble to the point of, like, absurdity in several cases. I mean, the most absurd was like, John Ratcliffe, who's the head of the Central Intelligence Agency. So it's kind of your job to know about intelligence around the world. Like, acted like he didn't remember what was on the chain. He kept being like, I can't recall. I can't recall what J.D. vance. I can't recall what the vice President's position was on this bombing campaign. I don't recall, Vance, quote, I think we are making a mistake. I am not sure the President is aware of how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now. There was a strong argument for delaying this a month.

[Northwest Handling Systems]

You don't recall?

[John Ratcliffe]

I don't. As you.

[Tim Miller]

As you don't recall seeing that read that.

[John Ratcliffe]

I don't.

[Tim Miller]

I mean, it's just. It was just a preposterous.

[Sam Stein]

In fairness, they said a one week disappearance on the messages. So, you know, you can't go back and check. I thought the. To your point. And we can play this clip. This is Mark Kelly, where he's pressing them on this idea that. How. How could it possibly be that the discussion of very important war plans that are about to take place in two hours, how could it be when you're listing the specific targets and the individuals who you are targeting, how could it be that that's not classified? And this is what the exchange is.

[Jack Reed]

The deliberation as to whether or not we should launch a strike on another country. Would you consider that classified information? Ms. Gabbard.

[Tulsi Gabbard]

The information was not classified.

[Jack Reed]

I'm not talking about this. I'm just talking about deliberation as from principles as to whether or not we should launch a strike on another country. Would you consider that classified information? I'm not talking about what happened this week.

[Tulsi Gabbard]

There are other factors that would go into determining that classification.

[Jack Reed]

Mr. Ratcliffe, the deliberation between principals in our national security apparatus about whether or not to strike another country. Would you consider that to be classified information?

[John Ratcliffe]

Pre decisional strike deliberation should be conducted through classified channels.

[Tim Miller]

Thank you.

[Sam Stein]

All right, so to me, that was just. Got it. I mean, it might not have been the most, you know, explosive moment of the hearing, but to me, that just got at the bind that this administration is in, which is, oh, nothing, nothing happening here. And yet this was like the most beautifully executed and orchestrated bombing of the Houthis that you could possibly imagine. And also, it's deeply sensitive. We don't want to talk about it. You can't have it both ways. And also, it doesn't really make sense. Right.

[Tim Miller]

Like, I don't even understand why they're doing, like, who are they fooling? I mean, I guess this is kind of like the big lie type thing where it's just like, oh, if we just say the most absurd thing, we can, we can make it a badge of honor among our biggest supporters on the Internet that, you know, that they have to shame themselves and embarrass themselves also by defending this. And so that creates.

[Sam Stein]

Well, the reason they have to do this is because if they don't, if they admit that they were discussing classified information over signal, that's a serious offense. If they admit that they were.

[Tim Miller]

But the whole. I mean, it's only a serious offense. Like if Pam Bondi is going to investigate them, which obviously she's not. I mean the Vice President, everybody's implicated, like what, we're going to jail the entire cabinet.

[Sam Stein]

I mean President Cash Patel. Yeah, no, it's, it's, but this, this is the, this is the up nature of this story is that clearly, and Bill Crystal is writing about this morning, let's just assume this happened in any administration. It's, it's impossible to really imagine, but let's just assume, you know, we would have congressional inquiries, we'd have a congressional hearings, we would have the DOJ investigating, we have the FBI investigating, we have an intel assessment about the damage that was done. None of that's going to happen here. None of it. The only reason we had this hearing this morning is because pre planned and there was only I think maybe a half an instance where a Republican asked about this. Everything else was about something else.

[Tim Miller]

And also just real quick on this about the sensitivity and it shows kind of the two track thing that you're having in this administration. You have the people actually making the decisions who are totally irresponsible and clowns sending texts with muscle emojis about serious bombing campaigns. And then meanwhile you still have what is left of the remaining responsible people that work in the administration. And so it's pretty notable that simultaneously that the Secretary of Defense was sending these specific war plans about a bombing campaign over Signal to a wide variety of people. The Pentagon people that worked for him sent out an email to the, you know, to everybody that worked there warning about the Signal app itself and that it had a vulnerability and particularly had a security vulnerability with regards to Russia. And so essentially they're saying like you guys got to be careful if you're in the Pentagon staff of using Signal. Meanwhile, the Secretary of Defense is sending our bombing plans over Signal and then.

[Sam Stein]

John Radcliffe is out there being like, well, you know, signal is allowed. It was on our government computers. It's down there. And sure, I think there is some, there is some cases where you, we.

[Tim Miller]

Don'T actually know if it was on the government computers in some cases because this was my other favorite part of the hearing was when Tulsi is asked, I believe it was by Jack Reed again whether she was on her private phone, whether she was on her personal phone or whether she was on a government phone. Right.

[Cash Patel]

Were you using your private phone or public phone for the Signal discussions?

[Tulsi Gabbard]

I won't speak to this because it's under review by the National Security Council. Once that review is complete, I'm sure We'll share the results with the committee.

[Cash Patel]

What is under review? It's a very simple question. A private found or officially issued phone. What could be under review?

[Tulsi Gabbard]

National Security Council is reviewing all aspects of how this came to be, how the journalist was inadvertently added to the group chat, and what occurred within that chat across the board.

[Tim Miller]

Because this does matter. If you have a government phone, only certain apps can be downloaded. There's certain, you know, there are additional security, you know, elements. And she wouldn't answer, which leads me to believe that she was, like, on her cell phone. Like, Tulsi was, just like the Director of National Intelligence was in a foreign country, and she is just on her cell phone up on regular 5G or WiFi, just, like, texting with the Secretary of Defense about the bombing campaign. I mean, we don't know about the WI fi.

[Sam Stein]

We don't know what kind of WI fi they had over there. Could have been Starlink. We have no idea.

[Tim Miller]

Speaking of which, where was Howard Luckman? I missed this, but you tell me that there was also no Steve Witckoff.

[Sam Stein]

He was apparently in Moscow when he was added to this list. It's. It's really bad. And this did come up in the hearing.

[Mark Kelly]

Did you know that the President's Middle east adviser was in Moscow on this thread while you were, as director of the CIA, participating in this. In this thread? Were you aware of that? Are you. Are you aware of that today?

[John Ratcliffe]

I'm not aware of that today.

[Mark Kelly]

This sloppiness, this incompetence, this disrespect for our intelligence agencies and the personnel who work for him is entirely unacceptable. It's an embarrassment.

[Sam Stein]

I will say Gabbard, compared to Ratcliffe, Gabbard seemed totally unprepared for this and scared.

[Tim Miller]

I thought. I thought she seemed very nervous, I think.

[Sam Stein]

I think so. I mean, it was from the jump, because the first question that she was asked was, you know, can. Will you talk about this, you know, situation? And she says, you know, she just refuses to answer if she was on the. On the signal chat. And she's just, you know, this is when Mark Warner is pressing her. He's the ranking member. He gets the first Democratic question. He's like, can you just talk about. I'm not going to talk about the signal shot. I'm not going to talk about the single chat. And then literally, Warner then turns to Ratcliffe and he's like, can you talk about the signal chat? And he's like, I was on the signal chat. Yeah.

[Mark Warner]

You are not TG on This group.

[Tulsi Gabbard]

Chat, I'm not going to get into the specifics.

[Mark Warner]

So you refuse to acknowledge whether you.

[Tulsi Gabbard]

Are on this group chat, Senator, I'm not going to get into this.

[Mark Warner]

Why are you. Why are you going to get into the specifics? Is this, Is it because it's all classified?

[Tulsi Gabbard]

Because this is currently under review by the National Security.

[Mark Warner]

Because it's all classified. If it's not classified, share the text.

[Tulsi Gabbard]

Now, as the White House previously, is.

[Mark Warner]

It classified or non classified information on.

[Tulsi Gabbard]

This text, I can confirm.

[Mark Warner]

Dr. Radcliffe, were you on the group chat?

[John Ratcliffe]

Senator, I was on a signal messaging group.

[Sam Stein]

And so it's like they're just sitting next to you. Like, did you not coordinate? And then afterwards, later, like not even like five, 10 minutes later, you know, she's been like, going on, but she's not going to talk about what's on the central chat. And then I guess she, she must have like gotten the, the gist from Rackliff that it's okay to maybe talk in the abstract about it, because then the next questioner comes in. She's like, I will say this about the signal chat. There was no classified information shared in the signature. It's like you just said you were not going to talk about what's on the signal chat. Like, you get it. You know, just stick to one script. But it seemed like she was kind of winging it at portions of this.

[Tim Miller]

Yeah, I mean, her whole body going back to the cell phone thing because she got pressed on a couple times. Was it. Were you on your personal cell phone and government phone? She wouldn't answer. She seemed very nervous, though. Honestly. She just seemed like somebody that was very much in over her head. And she was like, we are going, you know, there's going to be a review. There's currently a security review of everything that's happening. And so I can't tell you. And Senator Reid's like, okay, but, but what is the review? What does the review have to do with you just telling us if you're on your cell phone or not? Like, why does, why does, why do you have to wait for that? Like, you either were or you weren't. And she kind of realized, it seemed to me, at least, body language expert Tim Miller, that she sort of realized that she's in a ridiculous corner here and she just, like, she just didn't.

[Sam Stein]

Know what to do. Now they did. Again, I have no hopes for this moving anywhere in terms of accountability. I just don't. But they did it. If you were to cut, if you were to look at. They did both agree that there should be an audit of what happened here. I'm sure they'll make it a private audit if they do it at all. But that did come out of here. And, you know, I think there was one Republican, Todd Young of Indiana, who did say, I want to get some answers to what transpired here in a more dispassionate setting than what the hearing had. So there is, like, some maybe chances that we get some accountability here. You talk to Goldberg. He seemed really on the fence, probably leaning to not releasing more, but we'll see if he feels differently, seeing what happened and everyone coming out being like he's a liar.

[Tim Miller]

Yeah. And I just think in a vacuum, he doesn't, obviously doesn't want to. He didn't in the article. Right. And so. But they really are putting.

[Sam Stein]

My question for you is, what do you think? What do you think happens next here? Like, where does this go from here?

[Tim Miller]

I just, again, everybody can watch the interview with Goldberg for themselves. So I'm not telling you anything that he didn't say. And as you said, he seemed to be leaning towards not releasing more information. I just don't know how that's sustainable. Like, I just don't know how that's sustainable when you have a hearing like this where they're lying about what is on the, on the chat. And you have Democratic senators that are going to want to pressure him to say they, like, for intel, for national security reasons, rightfully, you know, not even for political reasons, though there are political reasons, but for national security reasons, like, we should get to see this. Like, senators got to be like, this can't just be a situation where only the Republicans get to know what was on, what exactly was discussed on this chat. And so, and then, so then that adds to the list of people that have seen the actual details. Do one of those Democratic senators leak it?

[Sam Stein]

And it's not just this chat. Right. Like, I mean, if I were a lawmaker, I would want to know how often they're on signal, what else they've discussed on signal, who gave the authorization to use signal, you know, what kind of security vulnerabilities existed through this. I mean, there's a lot of questions here that a serious Congress would want to look into for sure.

[Tim Miller]

And then the COVID element of this, I don't, I don't think it wasn't brought up in the part of the hearing I watched. So maybe someone else said it. But like, I talked with Goldberg about this. Ratcliffe, the CIA director who's testifying. You know, the chain begins with Waltz asking everybody, like, who is your main point person? To add to the chain, Ratcliffe names a covert CIA agent.

[Sam Stein]

Yeah, he was pressed on this to hear he was.

[Mark Warner]

And according to report, two of our witnesses here today were members of a group chat that discussed highly sensitive and likely classified information that supposedly even included weapons packages, targets and timing, and included the name of an active CIA agent.

[John Ratcliffe]

So I communicated the name of a CIA officer not operating undercover. Completely appropriate. Who does openly and routinely coordinate with the White House as a member of my staff. So the intimation there, that there was something inappropriate was clearly incorrect.

[Sam Stein]

Trying to make the case that this was not something that was classified by nature. But I. And I'm not technical. I don't know the technicalities of this, but it strikes me that even if this person was not undercover, that you would probably still want to protect his or her identity. So, you know, it might be a distinction without a difference here. Yeah. I will say the.

[Tim Miller]

The.

[Sam Stein]

The two. Two top Democrats have called for Pete Hegseth and Mike Waltz to resign. Waltz, obviously, for the. Originating the entire up, and Hegseth for sharing the clearly sensitive war plans.

[Tim Miller]

It is interesting. I just will note it felt like there was some subtle Hegseth blame shifting among. Oh, not Radcliffe.

[Sam Stein]

Very, very overt. I picked it up, too. Yeah. I think. Well, so yesterday it seemed like Waltz would be the guy that everyone threw under the bus. Right. Because he had originated this and he had invited Goldberg onto the chat, and he probably should get a heaping of blame for that. I would be pissed, obviously. But you could see today that it was just sort of like, you know, people were kind of focused on Pete Hexeth and. And for obvious reasons, which is discussing this among these people. And then I think having that kind of braggadocious response yesterday when he landed in Hawaii, being like, jeffrey Goldberg is such a, you know, a conspiracist. And nothing in this, you know, article is true. It's like, again, this gets back to your original point, which is like, there's another way to do this, which is admit culpability, downplay the severity of it, but say, we shouldn't have done it. It was up. Let's get. Let's look and review how it happened and, like, create a process. But I think their response is actually going to create some unnecessary headaches for them. And Hexagon is the guy who's going to take it.

[Tim Miller]

One more thing. I just want to bounce around with you on the hexa Thing. I mean, neither of us have ever been on a text chain where people are discussing, you know, bombing.

[Sam Stein]

Speak for yourself.

[Tim Miller]

Terrorist groups. Okay, well, I haven't. So there's a. There is a try hard, like, kind of. I know I don't deserve to be here. Elements to the hegseth parts of the text for me a little bit where it's like, it's hard to imagine Jim Mattis as Secretary of Defense in a text chain feeling like he wants to get the approval so badly of all these other people. You know, like, Pete is trying really hard to talk about why they're doing this, what the point. And then he shares all the details, and then it's. I agree with you so much, vp. These guys are pathetic. All caps. And like there is. And there's a real. And you just, you do wonder, like, just as a process standpoint, like, the fact that he felt the need to send the detailed strike plans and all this. It almost was like a kid who's like, I want the grownups to trust me.

[Sam Stein]

Well, you're saying what you're getting is, does he have imposter syndrome? Like, here's this guy who's a TV host and ran a non profit advocacy group. He's not been involved in these types of discussions and deliberations. He probably feels like he's got to prove himself. Yeah, I would too, honestly.

[Tim Miller]

Right.

[Sam Stein]

No one's appointing me defense.

[Tim Miller]

Yeah. But my point is that potentially that imposter syndrome led to, like, the fact that this chain, which would be ridiculous in any context, like, the potentially really dangerous part is what Pete is sharing.

[Sam Stein]

Well, there's the imposter syndrome, and then there's the just sort of lack of seasoning. And I think if you've been in government and you know, and you've gone through these types of discussions before, you probably know that there are certain procedures that you have to follow, and there are certain ones that you should avoid. And, you know, Hexith is kind of learning on the fly, and this is what happens. Yeah. All right, man. Well, thanks for doing this. Thanks for the Goldberg interview. It was great.