Trump officials shrugging off Signal leak are the same ones who raged over Clinton server

Ah, the sweet, sweet sound of hypocrisy. The Trump administration, once the self-proclaimed guardians of national security, have now downplayed a Signal group chat security mishap involving military strike plans — because, obviously, this is totally different from Hillary Clinton’s email scandal.

This time around, the outrage isn’t directed at the actual security blunder, oh no. Instead, the administration’s collective fury has been laser-focused on — wait for it — the journalist who was mistakenly included in the chat and had the audacity to report on it. That journalist? None other than Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic. The same folks who foamed at the mouth over Clinton’s emails have suddenly developed an allergy to public statements about security lapses.

For those keeping score at home, Clinton’s private email server was deemed insecure because, theoretically, classified information could have been accessed by the wrong people. The FBI, after a thorough investigation, found no evidence that her emails had actually been hacked by hostile actors. But let’s not let facts get in the way of a good political narrative.

Meanwhile, Trump, ever the bastion of consistency, swears up and down that no classified information was spilled in the Signal fiasco. This despite Goldberg reporting that messages contained “precise information about weapons packages, targets, and timing” for strikes in Yemen. But hey, who are you going to believe — Trump or your lying eyes?

And then there’s Hillary, who reacted with the appropriate level of exasperation, posting on X: “You have got to be kidding me,” with an eyes emoji, because sometimes, words just aren’t enough.

Greatest Hits of Hypocrisy

Donald Trump: “The main thing was nothing happened. The attack (on Houthis) was totally successful,” Trump reassured his ambassadors, brushing off concerns like crumbs off his suit. He also made sure to defend his national security adviser Michael Waltz, describing him as a “very good man” who is being unfairly targeted, while taking a moment to call Goldberg a “total sleazebag”.

Later, he claimed in a Newsmax interview that a Waltz aide had Goldberg’s number and —whoopsie!— that’s how he ended up in the chat. But don’t worry, he still “feels very comfortable” about it all. Well, that’s a relief.

Back in 2016, however, Trump had a different take. “Hillary is the one who sent and received classified information on an insecure server, putting the safety of the American people under threat,” he ranted in righteous fury.

Oh, and let’s not forget when he gleefully encouraged Russian hackers to dig up Clinton’s emails: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.” Good times.

Mike Waltz: Waltz went on a full defensive tour, whining about how journalists make up lies about Trump. Then, in a Fox News appearance, he took “full responsibility” but contradicted Trump by saying no staffer was at fault.

And this is what Waltz said in 2023: “How is it Hillary Clinton can delete 33,000 government emails on a private server, yet President Trump gets indicted for having documents he could declassify?” Great question, Mike. If only we had a similar situation involving sensitive information to compare it to. Oh, wait.

Defense secretary Pete Hegseth: “Nobody was texting war plans,” Hegseth claimed, adding that Goldberg is a “deceitful and highly discredited so-called journalist”.

Again back in 2016, Hegseth insisted that anyone reckless enough to mishandle classified information should be “fired on the spot and criminally prosecuted”. But sure, let’s pretend this situation doesn’t fit the bill.

Secretary of state Marco Rubio: Crickets. Rubio has nothing to say. Must be too busy not commenting.

In 2016, though, Rubio was very vocal: “Nobody is above the law, not even Hillary Clinton — even though she thinks she is.” Amazing how quickly that principle vanishes when the problem is inside your own tent.

White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller: Silence, again. Perhaps waiting for the next time he can rage-tweet about Clinton’s emails, because in 2022, Miller declared Clinton’s unsecured server was “illegally used to conduct state business” and a ripe target for foreign hackers. But a Signal chat including a journalist? That’s apparently just an innocent mistake.

CIA director John Ratcliffe: “My communications… were entirely permissible and lawful and did not include classified information.” Ah yes, the standard issue denial.

Back in 2018, the same man had a different stance: “It’s always a good thing that we see that there is investigation and prosecution of folks if they’re not handling that information appropriately.” Well, that’s awkward.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard: “There’s a difference between inadvertent release versus careless and sloppy, malicious leaks of classified information.” Convenient distinction, Tulsi.

Because only earlier this month, she declared, “Any unauthorised release of classified information is a violation of the law and will be treated as such.” Unless, of course, it’s a ‘whoopsie’ from her own side.

If you ever need a masterclass in double standards, therefore, look no further. When Clinton used a private server, it was the scandal of the century. When Trump’s team accidentally adds a journalist to a Signal chat discussing military operations? It’s just an unfortunate mix-up. Nothing to see here, folks!

With agency inputs