March 25, 2025
Regarding the current ongoing senate hearing on national security threats I have written the following: I will say that it is shameful that republicans used their time to help dodge the questions about the #Signal security breach. While I agree there were indeed many other relevant threat concerns that needed to be addressed, so far I haven't seen any republican senators asking the witnesses any tough questions on the signal classified data leak accusations of Goldberg and that is more than unfortunate. I applaud Senator Warner and other democrat senators for grilling the daylights out of CIA Director John Ratcliffe and DNI Tulsi Gabbard who I am very disappointed with.
First, Gabbard refused to answer direct questions about this event from Warner. Then both Gabbard and Ratcliffe boxed themselves in and stated that they had "Not participated in any group chat over signals that contained classified information". If Goldberg now should release highly sensitive information, they may choose the out that while sensitive the material had not yet been deemed classified. Is there a classification process for information or are there laws and rules that automatically deem information classified such as war planning etc.?
Yes, there are specific laws and rules that automatically deem certain types of information classified, even if they haven't gone through a formal classification marking process. Let’s break this down so you know exactly how it works:
1. What Makes Information Classified?
Under Executive Order 13526 (the current governing classification order signed by President Obama in 2009 and still in force):
Information is classified if:
-It is owned by, produced by, or under the control of the U.S. Government.
-It pertains to national defense or foreign relations.
-Its unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause damage to national security.
-An original classification authority (OCA) determines it meets the above criteria.
2. Automatically Classified Categories (Including War Plans)
Some information is so sensitive that it is considered classified from inception, even without markings, such as:
-Military operational plans (e.g., bombing schedules, target lists, weapons used)
-Foreign intelligence (e.g., assessments from CIA, NSA)
-Information shared in Presidential briefings or the Situation Room
-Signals intelligence (SIGINT), Human intelligence (HUMINT) sources and methods
According to the Espionage Act (18 U.S. Code § 793), it is a crime to communicate, deliver, or transmit national defense information to someone not entitled to receive it—even if the material is not formally marked classified.
3. The ‘Sensitive But Not Yet Classified’ Excuse
If Gabbard and Ratcliffe argue that the information wasn’t “formally classified” at the time of the Signal messages, that doesn’t necessarily shield them legally. Courts and the Espionage Act focus on “national defense information” (NDI), not whether it had a stamp or header saying “Top Secret.”
So yes — there are legal definitions and precedents that deem war planning materials as inherently classified, especially when:
-They relate to specific military operations.
-They include targeting details, weapons used, or timing.
-They are discussed before the operation is publicly disclosed.
So Yes, war planning information is automatically considered classified or protected as "national defense information" under law — regardless of whether it was formally labeled as such at the time.
So if Gabbard and Ratcliffe were in the chat and any of the info discussed pertained to operational plans, their statement could be both misleading and legally risky — especially if Goldberg’s reporting proves the info was sensitive military planning, although I am not sure they were sworn in under oath for the hearing but they would still be seen as liars and likely have lied or proven themselves extremely incompetent if the information proves to be legally classified. This would be grounds for their immediate removal or resignation. This is why Angus King, with decades of experience, re-questioned Gabbard on this information and she clearly bombed the questions as He pointed out what makes the information classified and he decided to quickly move on after he got her horrible answers because he KNEW she was COOKED and her career was likely over. This was a sad day for America. I am so sorry for @DNIGabbard, My heart grieves for her. The bible cautions democrats in this situation NOT to gloat and be happy about such a tragic downfall. "Do not gloat when your enemy falls; when they stumble, do not let your heart rejoice, or the Lord will see and disapprove..." Proverbs 24:17-18.
So you may be asking yourself now, " if it was classified, and released to the whole world is that a crime and is it a crime now that hundreds of thousands of people have shared it all over the internet?"
4. If the Info Was Classified, Was Its Initial Release a Crime?
Yes.
If the Signal messages included classified national defense information (NDI) — such as war plans, target data, timing of strikes — and it was sent to a person not authorized to receive it (like journalist Jeffrey Goldberg), then that initial disclosure is almost certainly a crime under the Espionage Act (18 U.S. Code § 793).
Even if it was accidental, the law (as applied by judges like Leonie Brinkema in the John Kiriakou case) still considers the unauthorized release of NDI to be a criminal act.
5. What About the Thousands Now Sharing It Online? Is That Illegal?
This is where the law gets nuanced. Here's the key distinction:
NOT a crime for general public / press to share already-published material:
Once classified information has been leaked and publicly published by a media outlet (like #TheAtlantic or CNN), the general public — including social media users, bloggers, activists, and journalists — is not criminally liable for sharing or discussing that material.
Courts have repeatedly held that the First Amendment protects the republication of material already made public — even if it was originally leaked unlawfully.
BUT...
If someone in possession of classified clearance (e.g., government employees, military, contractors) shares or confirms the classified nature of the leaked content — that’s still illegal. Even after it’s public.
Think of It Like This:
-Leaking classified info = potential Espionage Act crime
-Publishing it (as a journalist) = usually protected by the First Amendment
-Reading or sharing public articles = not a crime for citizens
-Government employees confirming or spreading leaked classified data = may still be criminal
Example:
When Edward Snowden leaked NSA secrets, the media published them.
→ Snowden = criminal liability under Espionage Act
→ Journalists = protected
→ Citizens sharing articles = not prosecuted
So, likely No, the average American sharing the Signal messages or writing about them is not committing a crime, assuming:
You're not bound by a security clearance
You're not confirming or expanding on the info using inside knowledge
But the original leakers, anyone with clearances who confirms it, or those who helped distribute it knowingly while still inside the system — could face criminal liability.
You may be asking yourself another question: "Now that Gabbard and @CIADirector are saying there was nothing classified, can Goldberg release the war planning, weapons packages and strike locations to disprove them?":
Short Answer:
Yes — but I WOULDN'T because it carries serious legal and ethical risks.
Even though #Gabbard and #Ratcliffe now claim there was “nothing classified” in the Signal chat, Goldberg cannot just take their word for it and assume full legal protection.
Here’s why:
1. Classification Is Determined by Content, Not Just Labels
Even if the message wasn’t marked classified, that does not mean it wasn’t legally classified.
Under Executive Order 13526 and the Espionage Act (18 U.S. Code § 793):
Information about military operations, strategy, or capabilities is automatically considered classified unless officially declassified.
So if the messages contained war planning, weapons systems, targets, and timing, they may still be considered “national defense information” (NDI) — and releasing that is a potential felony.
The lack of a classification label doesn't shield anyone from legal risk if the content is inherently sensitive.
2. Goldberg's Legal Risk Would Depend on Several Factors:
Was he officially told that the information is no longer classified?
Is there written declassification by the Department of Defense, NSC, or other authority?
Could he argue that the public interest outweighs the classification (Pentagon Papers–style defense)?
Without that formal declassification, publishing strike details could still open Goldberg to prosecution — even if it’s politically unlikely.
3. Catch-22: He’d Be Proving They Lied — By Committing a Crime
If Gabbard and Ratcliffe are lying, and Goldberg wants to expose that, he’d have to release the very material they claim isn’t classified — which might be classified in fact.
That’s a trap — because:
If the government later confirms it was still classified, Goldberg could be charged.
Even if they say it wasn’t classified, he still risks being investigated or targeted for political reasons.
This is why whistleblowers and journalists often redact or paraphrase sensitive details — to avoid crossing that legal line while still exposing wrongdoing.
4. There’s a Safer Path: Force the Government to Release It
Goldberg could:
-Pressure Congress to subpoena the full Signal chat
-Petition under FOIA (Freedom of Information Act)
-Give the data to an oversight lawyer or court for safe review
That would allow him to prove the lie without risking prosecution.
Summary:
-Gabbard and Ratcliffe saying “nothing was classified” doesn’t make it true.
-Goldberg could technically release the messages, but he risks violating the Espionage Act if the content is still deemed NDI.
-Without official declassification, publishing detailed strike plans remains legally dangerous.
-A better path would be using oversight or legal review to verify and expose the truth safely.
Ultimately, @MikeWaltz47 and @SecDef should resign or be fired. Furthermore, Now that Gabbard and Ratcliffe made those devastating denials before congress I am sure the democrats smell blood in the water and will subpoena the full transcripts from Goldberg and if it is found and determined to be classified information Gabbard and Ratcliffe have just effectively destroyed their careers. Almost makes you wonder if the whole thing was a setup from the addition of Goldberg to the group in the first place. It is a complete take down of the core members of president Trump's National Security team and may have some blessings in disguise inherent therein allowing Trump to put the people God almighty and the Lord Jesus Christ would rather have in the cabinet such as DougAMacgregor and Jeffrey Sachs.
May the Grace, Mercy, And Peace Of The Lord Jesus Christ Be With You All.
In HIs Love,
~WLBJ~