🚨 We have a problem @theatlantic 🚨
🧵 Thread
1/Aside from the strange timestamps mixed in with the messages labeled with how many minutes since the Signal text had been sent, the timeline provided by the Atlantic does not add up. The only messages in the signal group chat without valid time stamps also just happen to be the ones held back for “national security concerns”, yet subsequently released today by the Atlantic in a follow up article.
Either @jeffreygoldberg, the Editor in Chief of @theatlantic, is so unskilled as a journalist that he cannot keep accurate records, or these messages were sent to him as screenshots and he is trying his best to piece together as if he were reading them in real time.
Let’s Dive in.
🧵 Thread
1/Aside from the strange timestamps mixed in with the messages labeled with how many minutes since the Signal text had been sent, the timeline provided by the Atlantic does not add up. The only messages in the signal group chat without valid time stamps also just happen to be the ones held back for “national security concerns”, yet subsequently released today by the Atlantic in a follow up article.
Either @jeffreygoldberg, the Editor in Chief of @theatlantic, is so unskilled as a journalist that he cannot keep accurate records, or these messages were sent to him as screenshots and he is trying his best to piece together as if he were reading them in real time.
Let’s Dive in.
2/ Goldberg initially established his timeline concerning the Signal Chat and the day of the Houthis Strike in his first article published on Monday, March 24th. This timeline was also revisited in the second article from the Atlantic today, March 26th.
archive.is/2025.03.24-164…
archive.is/2025.03.26-122…
archive.is/2025.03.24-164…
archive.is/2025.03.26-122…
3/Let’s focus specifically on the timelines established by Jeffrey Goldberg in both his March 24th and 26th articles as they relate to the specific text messages held back and then released 48 hours later. I will break this graphic down step by step throughout the thread. 
4/The first thing I noticed in the released “attack plan” text messages, was the fact that these messages were the only ones that did not include actual timestamps to validate when they were sent, yet were surrounded by and even had one message right in the middle that did have timestamps. Certainly not criminal but odd, none the less.
5/Secondly, I noticed that @CIADirector Ratcliffe’s message was missing from the second article Signal messages thread and Mike Walz’s emoji message was posted AFTER his previous message had only been sent 5 mins prior AND the first article had Mike Walz’s same Emoji message time stamped at 4:58pm?
6/At this point, I realized it would be best to start a timeline from the beginning of the messages that were initially held back and then released on March 26th.
@SecDef Hegseth helps us with this timeline establishment. For posterity purposes he includes within his “super-secret-attack-plans” that he is sending his message at exactly 11:44amEST. However, although his message does not include a valid timestamp, it does show that the person reading it is doing so 19 mins after it was sent — 12:03pm
@SecDef Hegseth helps us with this timeline establishment. For posterity purposes he includes within his “super-secret-attack-plans” that he is sending his message at exactly 11:44amEST. However, although his message does not include a valid timestamp, it does show that the person reading it is doing so 19 mins after it was sent — 12:03pm
7/But there is a problem, if @SecDef Hegseth’s message was sent at 11:44am as documented by him and Jeffrey Goldberg, yet is being read 19 minutes later at 12:03pm, how is JD Vance’s message showing a timestamp of 12:13— ten minutes later?
8/Next, Goldberg is clear in both articles that Mike Walz’s next message is sent at exactly 1:48pm. Again, although there is no timestamp it is showing as sent 17 mins prior. Therefore we can deduce that the person viewing this message is doing so at 2:05pm.
I deleted original thread #9, as I uncovered a mistake in my calculation. Here is an updated slide.
9/And this is where things begin to get very strange. In his second article, Goldberg states that JD Vance’s message comes in 6 mins later. The time under the actual message shows 5 mins later which could just be a matter of seconds, but none the less, it establishes that the person (presumably Jeffrey Goldberg) viewing this message is doing so at the same time as Mike Walz’s previous message, confirming of 2:00/2:01pm a timestamp
But then we have Mike Walz’s response that was sent 30 mins ago? If this is all being viewed at 2:05pm, Mike Walz’s reply would have a timestamp of 1:35pm?
9/And this is where things begin to get very strange. In his second article, Goldberg states that JD Vance’s message comes in 6 mins later. The time under the actual message shows 5 mins later which could just be a matter of seconds, but none the less, it establishes that the person (presumably Jeffrey Goldberg) viewing this message is doing so at the same time as Mike Walz’s previous message, confirming of 2:00/2:01pm a timestamp
But then we have Mike Walz’s response that was sent 30 mins ago? If this is all being viewed at 2:05pm, Mike Walz’s reply would have a timestamp of 1:35pm?
10/UPDATED
The last issue brings us back to the beginning—the discrepancies between the Signal group text message thread included in the first Atlantic article on March 24th versus the text message thread included in the second Atlantic Article on March 26th.
The Ratcliffe message mentioned in the second article as coming in exactly 35 mins later matches the timestamp of 2:36pm from the Ratcliffe text of the Signal thread from the first article but the message itself, is completely missing from the Signal thread included in the second article.
The Mike Walz Emoji message shows as being viewed 30 mins after it was sent in the Signal thread from the second Atlantic article which would indicate a timestamp of 1:35pm if it were being viewed at 2:05pm as is insinuated by it being grouped with the other messages but I am not even sure 30 mins from what time because it shows up AFTER messages showing as being viewed 5 mins AFTER they were sent? However, the Signal thread from the first Atlantic article has a timestamp of 4:58?
Why are there even two completely different screenshots being used from each article?
The last issue brings us back to the beginning—the discrepancies between the Signal group text message thread included in the first Atlantic article on March 24th versus the text message thread included in the second Atlantic Article on March 26th.
The Ratcliffe message mentioned in the second article as coming in exactly 35 mins later matches the timestamp of 2:36pm from the Ratcliffe text of the Signal thread from the first article but the message itself, is completely missing from the Signal thread included in the second article.
The Mike Walz Emoji message shows as being viewed 30 mins after it was sent in the Signal thread from the second Atlantic article which would indicate a timestamp of 1:35pm if it were being viewed at 2:05pm as is insinuated by it being grouped with the other messages but I am not even sure 30 mins from what time because it shows up AFTER messages showing as being viewed 5 mins AFTER they were sent? However, the Signal thread from the first Atlantic article has a timestamp of 4:58?
Why are there even two completely different screenshots being used from each article?
11/In conclusion, there is something very odd about the timeline provided by Jeffrey Goldberg’s alleged first hand account of his “accidental” inclusion on the Signal Text Thread, but it would be remiss to not also question the timing of his being included, holding the story for publication combined with the timing of the public hearing of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which also just happened to included Intelligence officials who were also included on the Signal text thread:
March 11th - Goldberg is allegedly sent a connection request on Signal from National Security Advisor Mike Walz.
March 13th - Goldberg allegedly receives a Signal request to join the chat group “Houthi PC small group.”
March 13-14th - Goldberg lurks on Signal group chat as the highest levels of the U.S. government discuss possible strike on Houthis to open up worldwide shipping lanes.
March 15th - Goldberg continues to lurk as imminent plans to strike Houthis are revealed in real time.
March 16th - Goldberg removes himself from chat knowing it would alert the entire group to his presence and subsequent exit.
March 17th - Trump posts on Truth Social highlighting Jeffrey Goldberg and that he has declined a request for an interview.
March 19th - the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence announces a scheduled public hearing for March 25th and 26th for its 2025 Annual Worldwide Threats Assessment.
March 24th - @theatlantic publishes its first article by Jeffrey Goldberg detailing his being inadvertently added to a Super Secret Signal Group chat.
March 25th - a portion of the members testify in the Intelligence hearing.
March 26th - @theatlantic publishes a second article with additional messages from the Signal group chat that were held back for national security reasons hours before the second portion of the public testimony at the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence begins.
March 11th - Goldberg is allegedly sent a connection request on Signal from National Security Advisor Mike Walz.
March 13th - Goldberg allegedly receives a Signal request to join the chat group “Houthi PC small group.”
March 13-14th - Goldberg lurks on Signal group chat as the highest levels of the U.S. government discuss possible strike on Houthis to open up worldwide shipping lanes.
March 15th - Goldberg continues to lurk as imminent plans to strike Houthis are revealed in real time.
March 16th - Goldberg removes himself from chat knowing it would alert the entire group to his presence and subsequent exit.
March 17th - Trump posts on Truth Social highlighting Jeffrey Goldberg and that he has declined a request for an interview.
March 19th - the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence announces a scheduled public hearing for March 25th and 26th for its 2025 Annual Worldwide Threats Assessment.
March 24th - @theatlantic publishes its first article by Jeffrey Goldberg detailing his being inadvertently added to a Super Secret Signal Group chat.
March 25th - a portion of the members testify in the Intelligence hearing.
March 26th - @theatlantic publishes a second article with additional messages from the Signal group chat that were held back for national security reasons hours before the second portion of the public testimony at the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence begins.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
