Jeffrey Goldberg was discovered when he left the chat

Journalist Jeffrey Goldberg was invited to a secret chat with US defense peaks.

His participation was discovered when he left – which he may have done for fear of being prosecuted for espionage.

“I don’t think he risks it,” says Michael Ahn Paarlberg, associate professor of political science at the University of Virginia.

The Atlantic editor -in -chief Jeffrey Goldberg was invited to a top secret chat in the Signal app.

In the conversation, Defense Minister Pete Hegseth shared his war plans with Vice President JD Vance and Foreign Minister Marco Rubio as well as several other heights in Trump’s administration.

A couple of hours before the US attack on the Huthi rebels in Yemen, Goldberg was able to read about goals and about which weapons to use.

This is because Defense Minister Pete Hegseth shared the details of the chat group.

Risk of being prosecuted

The one who added Jeffrey Goldberg was Trump’s national security adviser Mike Waltz.

Not until Goldberg left the chat was it discovered that he had been.

But why did he leave himself?

One task is that he did so for fear of being prosecuted for espionage or other similar crimes.

– But I don’t think so. Rather, it would be the one who invited him into the group that risks prosecution, says Michael Ahn Paarlberg, associate professor of political science at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia.

Compare with Wikileaks

However, when it comes to publication, other rules apply.

– If, in theory, he would have published sensitive information, he would risk being held responsible, as in the case of Wikileaks. But it would also depend on the type of information it was about, says Michael Ahn Paarlberg.

The US Department of Justice could prosecute him, Ahn Paarlberg believes. But it would primarily be about whether the information in question made other people put in direct danger.

In Sweden, with Swedish legislation, it would probably have become more difficult.

– Would a Swedish prosecutor have charged him for taking part in the information? It is probably doubtful, says Jörgen Holmlund, teacher in intelligence service at the Swedish Defense College.

Holmlund continues:

– The fact that journalists conduct an examination of the system’s weaknesses and the like is in my world a good journalistic act.

The authority is responsible

Jörgen Holmlund compares with the tours around the former security adviser Henrik Landerholm.

– It is rather the person who has the responsibility of the authority that has failed in its responsibility. In a similar Swedish context, one would probably prosecute the person who invited the journalist into the group.

According to Michael Ahn Paarlberg, it would probably also have become Goldberg’s defense in the event of a trial – that he was invited.

But that the defense might have become more difficult to maintain the longer he stayed in the group, after it was clear to him what was dealt with.

“Shocking carelessness”

A total of 18 people must have been part of the group in question, including Trump’s peacekeeper Steve Witkoff.

“I will do everything to maintain 100% operating confidentiality,” Hegseth must have written in the chat.

Goldberg was not impressed with his promise.

“Shocking carelessness” of sensitive information, Goldberg writes about his experience.

Don’t think so much about security

Michael Ahn Paarlberg is not surprised that the 18 people must have had a group call. He is more surprised that they used an app on their phones.

– It’s a little surprising. But I’m not surprised that they don’t seem to think about safety anymore. It’s like when President Trump held meetings at MAR-A-LAGO on national security issues completely openly.

– These discussions occur, but the typical thing is that they occur in a locked room with only those directly involved. However, this administration has shown that it does not really apply to them. They do not have that regulations in the same way.

What do you think will happen now? What will be the aftermath?

– Probably not so much. The Democrats are likely to hold some hearings but not much more than that. No one will get rid of the job I think.