Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., said on Sunday that if information had been leaked from top Trump national security officials’ Signal chat discussing plans to strike the Houthis in Yemen, American lives could have been lost.
“I was, yesterday, down in Hampton Roads. I did two big town halls, Virginia Beach and Chesapeake. There are people in the town hall who are either friends or relatives of folks who are on the [aircraft carrier USS Harry S.] Truman. Those folks were saying if their friends or loved ones were flying those jets and that information had been released and the Houthis were able to change their defensive posture, we could have lost American lives,” Warner, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in an interview with co-anchor Martha Raddatz on ABC News’ “This Week.”
On Monday, The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief revealed that national security adviser Mike Waltz had inadvertently included him in the chat with top Trump officials discussing plans for the Yemen attack. The Trump administration has pushed back against claims that the information included in the chat was classified information.
Warner said, “There is no question, regardless of agency, that this was classified … and those folks who are obfuscating and giving them the benefit of the doubt, I think they’re lying about they should know this is classified.”
Republican Rep. Mike Turner, a former chair of the House Intelligence Committee, and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander James Stavridis also weighed in on the Signal chat on “This Week.”
Here are highlights from Warner, Turner and Stavridis’ interviews:
Warner on whether the information in the chat was classified
Raddatz: “There have been very strong denials from the administration that there was anything classified. So quite simply, was this classified information or not?”
Warner: “Absolutely. It was of such a nature when you were doing the actual battle plans and the timing, what type of aircraft were being sent out. If you had been a traditional military officer or a CIA caseworker, and you were this sloppy and careless with this classified information, you would be fired, no doubt about it.”
Warner on Bondi’s response
Attorney General Pam Bondi told Fox News that she believes Signal is a secure way to communicate and cannot be hacked by foreign adversaries.
Raddatz: “Is that true?”
Warner: “Signal is safer than your normal cell phones. It is encrypted. But if Ms. Bondi had looked at any of the guidance from the intelligence community which states explicitly do not use Signal for classified information.”
Raddatz: “Do you use Signal?”
Warner: “I use Signal to talk to someone because it is safer. I actually encourage people to use Signal, but that still doesn’t mean because it’s safer, you can put classified information. Matter of fact, again, if Ms. Bondi knew anything about her job, she would know that we have reports of China and Russia both trying to break in to Signal.”
Turner on whether the information in the chat was classified
Raddatz: “So let me ask you specifically what I asked Senator Warner. Do you think this — that some of those messages, particularly ones Pete Hegseth sent, were classified?”
Turner: “Well, clearly, the subject matter that’s being discussed, the status of ongoing military operations, should be and considered classified information. And the — and it’s surprising to find it in an unclassified manner, to find it in this way is — is surprising. It is not however war plans and at The Atlantic and — and Goldberg certainly –“
Raddatz: “But, is that sort of a word game in a way? They were attack plans. I mean, they said when the — he said when the F-18s would launch, so is that, you know, war plans, attack plans?”
Turner: “They weren’t really attack plans. You know they were — they were on discussions of ongoing military operations. But in that, The Atlantic and Goldberg really did oversell. They really did lose some — some credibility. But beyond that, it does go to the issue of whether or not, you know, the White House has said that there was no, classified information being discussed. And I think it is surprising, people are struggling with the information that’s there because this information really has at its roots, you know, classified content.”
Raddatz: “So you say that’s possible — so you’re saying it is possible that Pete Hegseth says, when he wrote those messages, it was classified, and then since he said, ‘Oh, it’s not classified,’ and everyone else, it had been declassified?”
Turner: “It — he would have been within his authority. It’s something the inspector general will look at.”
Turner on Hegseth’s ability to declassify information
Raddatz: “So — so you would say it is classified? Or not?”
Turner: “I would say that the White House perhaps it is being legalistic and that the — the individuals that are discussing this information, certainly, have the ability to declassify the information. And as they made the decision to enter into a declassified conversation, it was perhaps declassified. And that’s something I think that goes to –“
Raddatz: “By — by Hegseth?”
Turner: “Perhaps. And that goes to the issue of the — of perhaps what we’re going to see in this inspector general investigation that the Senate Armed Services Committee has requested. They’ve actually asked both the — to look into the — the use of Signal across agencies, but also the source of this information. Was this information, when it was given to the individuals, classified in its — in its nature? How was it given to them? And then what decisions were made? Because it also goes to the issue of judgment. Was it classified when it was given to them? Did they declassify it? But also, what decisions were made, should it have been used in the Signal?”
Turner on Mike Waltz and Pete Hegseth
Raddatz: “Do you think there should be some accountability? And do you have confidence in Secretary Hegseth and Mike Waltz going forward?”
Turner: “Absolutely. Absolutely. I think they’re doing an excellent job. They’re incredibly important to our — our national security. And certainly, there were no — there was no impact on this operation. It was a great operation and I think they’re doing an — an excellent job.”
Stavridis on foreign implications on Signal app
Raddatz: “Admiral, you’ve had so many important jobs over the years, including senior military assistant to [former Secretary of Defense] Donald Rumsfeld. So, when you look at what happened with that Signal app, do you think that could have put lives at risk?”
Stavridis: “I have no doubt that it could have. Anytime you reveal tactical information, you don’t know where it ends up. Potentially, Russia, China, could they talk to Iran, which could talk to the Houthis — absolutely, it would put lives at risk.”
Raddatz: “Do you think there should be accountability?”
Stavridis: “I believe that’s up to the commander in chief himself, the president. I think what there should be immediately is a thorough public and transparent investigation. Where are those cell phones now? What other information, what other conversations were conducted upon them?”
ABC News: Top Stories
Read the full article .
