I have waited five days since marking this link and still have not found anything about this shallow attempt to cultivate yet another silly narrative against President Trump that interested me more than the term introduced to me here:
The Signal chat thing is a gut check for alleged cons.
Nothing significant was revealed. Worst case, it was a mistake that will never happen again. More likely, a proven liar has now lied about at least some of it. …
[Emphasis added]
You really don’t need to go beyond the last two words of that first sentence…as one who has posted much about the embarrassing big-tent-ism of the first decade or so of this century under the equally embarrassing marketing gimmick of “compassionate” conservatism, I was hooked immediately on the further isolation of a portion of the not-really-part-of-the-movement under the “alleged cons” moniker. Great stuff.
But the commentary goes on:
And yet, so many people are delighted to have the opportunity to freak out about something that Trump administration did. It’s bizarre how they play along with leftist narratives. The answer to your enemies is to give them nothing. Nothing.
You’re not being principled. You’re not demonstrating integrity. You’re showing weakness.
Never ever ever give them the head of one of your allies.
Understand that your enemies never get anything except pain and mockery. There’s no such thing as even handedness. Either win or you lose. I choose winning. You do you.
The Signal chat thing is a gut check for alleged cons.
Nothing significant was revealed. Worst case, it was a mistake that will never happen again. More likely, a proven liar has now lied about at least some of it.
And yet, so many people are delighted to have the opportunity…
I should pause here to make clear…I know nothing about mainstream reportage or actual facts of this “scandal”. I have followed none of it. Nothing about the facts of the case or any media spin on it interests me in the slightest. (Given the backdrop of (investigative?) “journalism” over the last eight and a half years – from the fake to the corrupt to the just plain stupid…and don’t forget how that whole industry just flopped on its side like a fainting goat for four years between the Trump terms – my noninterest is completely justifiable. But I digress.) I do skim coverage for the narrative cultivation aspect and how those who are prone to still fall for such things continue to self-identify. That is probably why I also marked the following from Madam Althouse on that same day:
…there’s something about his bizarre inclusion in a group chat about crushing the Houthis.
For the annals of Things I Asked Grok: When did Shakespeare use the plot device of a character who thinks he’s secretly eavesdropping who is being deliberately fed false information to get him to do something?
More than just a gut check, this twist just might put the Alleged Cons in a rather uncomfortable situation…I wonder how many of them were smart enough to keep their powder dry on this one for the 24-48 hours that has proven to be wise with all things Trump? If only I cared enough to actually follow the “news”.
But I do want to circle back to this with a link from earlier today:
… is that really the entire narrative? That a Progressive-Liberal journalist just happened to be accidentally added to a high-level chat group discussing policy positions and goals? One that includes some of the most powerful figures in the current administration? Which led to the inevitable story being leaked? …
I lean towards a theory of “Signalgate” being intentional, starting with some of the members the chat. You have Vice President JD Vance, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller. These are all heavy-hitters in the admin and most former military with the training and experience around handling sensitive information. The Signal messaging app was not some new piece of technology handed out to them as if they were natives of the New World with a Musket.
Pretending they are clueless about operational security doesn’t pass the common-sense test.
These folks regularly make the rounds on the cable news circuit advancing the policies of the administration. If the interview goes well and has catchy sound bites, maybe a few Op-Eds will hit the internet. In the Signal GC, specific policies regarding issues with Europe, Red Sea trade defense, and the inability of the EU to counter these threats are laid out.
Thanks to The Atlantic, these positions have European policymakers and leaders’ full attention. …
Yes, yes. That all makes sense. But this is the part I like:
Another sign that this was a calculated move was the fact that these messages sent in the group chat are long. It was odd how fully-formed the texts were crafted, as if bullet points on the ideas and policy goals for the administration. This kind of detailed discussion is usually reserved for foreign policy strategy meetings, not GC comms where all members are familiar with the material.
the philo t. custis institute 