Anna Paulina Luna Asked Point Blank For A Reaction To The White House Signal Chat Leak

3 days ago

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) joined "Forbes Newsroom" to discuss the White House leak of war plans through a Signal group chat.

Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:

https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript

Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com

Transcript

00:00And I just want your comment, if you could, on one final story. News broke yesterday that

00:05the Atlantic's editor-in-chief was inadvertently involved or added to a group chat with top

00:10U.S. national security leaders about the U.S. airstrikes in Yemen against the Houthis. What's

00:17your reaction to that really explosive story?

00:20Well, look, I find it interesting that this is from the same journalist that pushed a

00:24lot of fabricated stories about this administration. Also, too, interesting that they never point

00:29out that there is never any classified information shared on that single chat platform. And so

00:35I find the spin on this very interesting. But look, the Atlantic and how they've really

00:40represented themselves with this administration has not been 100% honest. Also, too, you know,

00:45if you're really thinking about it from a national security perspective and they were

00:48so concerned about it, why are they posting now group chats on the Internet? All of that

00:52should be called the question. But look, there is nothing classified sharing those conversations.

00:56Obviously, we saw very candid responses from the vice president and people involved. And

01:01frankly, I think the American people appreciated their honesty and feel the same way for many

01:05of their positions. So I back the president in this. I back what his decision is with

01:10now Security Advisor Waltz, who I know personally and has done great things as a veteran for

01:15this country. And we'll continue calling out the hypocrisy where we see it.

01:19And they said that the airstrikes were successful. But Goldberg did write this. What I will say

01:24in order to illustrate the shocking recklessness of this signal conversation is that the Hagseth

01:29post contained operational details of forthcoming strifes on Yemen, including information about

01:34targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying and attack sequencing. If the White House,

01:39if you're saying, hey, this stuff wasn't classified, is that pushing him? Do you think

01:43he should then post the entire conversation? Do you think that would compromise national

01:47security at all?

01:48Well, I find it interesting, right, that they're arguing that this stuff shouldn't be posted

01:52in a signal chat. And then the Atlantic takes it and actually puts a huge story on it, which

01:56means they and themselves were skewing the information from the get go. But, yeah, the

01:59White House said that it was not classified information. I would argue that if you asked

02:06Pete Hagseth this information in person, he might tell you exactly what he thinks on these

02:10topics. And so I, again, look, I look at things from a lens of did it hurt the American people?

02:15Was a strike successful? Was it classified information? But then also to what's the spin

02:19on this? And again, you can see this from the from the get go. Instead of leaving that

02:24group chat, this individual decided to stay in the group chat. They then collected information.

02:29They then decided to write a story on it, trying to imply there was classified information

02:33where there wasn't, and then said that it was so bad that there was a group chat. But

02:36then they took this and presented it to the world stage. So I just think the whole thing

02:39is hypocritical.

02:41And my final question, do you think signal should be used at all then for any type of

02:46national security conversations?

02:48Well, I think that there definitely needs to be encrypted messaging platforms. I would

02:52argue that we should probably work on designing one that's hardened, at least for members

02:57in Congress and then also the White House specifically, because we tend to be targets.

03:01As you know, in Eric Swalwell's case, he slept with a Chinese spy, but he didn't know, I

03:06guess, apparently at the time that she was a spy. And so, you know, we're constantly

03:09being monitored and surveillance. And there are people that will try to collect data from

03:13members of Congress. So, yeah, we need something. I actually will tell you that I don't have

03:18any issues with signal personally. So it's definitely a topic of discussion right now

03:21for sure.

03:22Well, Congresswoman, as per usual, I always appreciate our conversations. I always appreciate

03:27your candor. Thank you so, so much for joining me. You're welcome back any time.

03:30Perfect.

Anna Paulina Luna Asked Point Blank For A Reaction To The White House Signal Chat Leak

Category

Transcript

Recommended