Rep. Jimmy Gomez, who represents California’s 34th Congressional District including multiple Los Angeles neighborhoods, just completely underestimated the Texan who now serves as President Trump’s CIA Director.
Though John Ratcliffe was born in an area we Texans might sometimes refer to as ‘not the South’ (Illinois), like so many who start life off in the same boat… we like to say that he got here as fast as he could!
And we’re sort of proud of Ratcliffe, and the fact that President Trump chose our adopted Texan for such an important role in his administration.
Apparently, Rep. Gomez doesn’t share any of that respect for CIA Director Ratcliffe.
And so, he completely underestimated what might happen if he attempted to take a low ball, underhanded, and frankly disingenuous line of questioning with President Trump’s CIA Director.
The dustup happened today during a Congressional hearing that featured Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, FBI Director Kash Patel, and CIA John Ratcliffe.
All appeared during the Congressional proceedings to answer questions regarding the compromised Signal chat that The Atlantic and Jeffrey Goldberg published.
Apparently without much else to sling at President Trump’s CIA Director, Rep. Gomez pulled out a debunked hoax (a current theme, lately) that Secretary of Defense Hegseth was caught drinking alcohol while speaking at a NATO conference in February.
It was water, and that hoax has since been debunked as baseless — but even though Rep. Gomez likely knows that, it shouldn’t come as any surprise that he used it to justify his line of questioning, anyway.
So with no regard to the articulate ferocity that CIA Director Ratcliffe could potentially muster against him, Jimmy Gomez insinuated that maybe Hegseth was drunk texting when he ‘leaked classified information’ (which is another false narrative knowingly perpetuated by Gomez and his fellow Trump-haters).
Here’s the clip of Rep. Jimmy Gomez attempting to go toe-to-toe with Ratcliffe, and quickly regretting it:
Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-CA): Was Pete Hegseth drunk while planning the Houthi attack? We need to know if his performance is compromised
Director Ratcliffe: Was his performance compromised because of a successful strike to make Americans safer???pic.twitter.com/sbXlk1uogY
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) March 26, 2025
Tulsi Gabbard took the buttoned-down and legally sensible approach to the question, simply dismissing it as unrelated to her legal purview or area of responsibility.
In other words, her job isn’t to keep tabs on the Secretary of Defense.
My guess is Rep. Gomez assumed that since Gabbard took that approach, which in effect allowed his assertion to hang in the air — that Hegseth is a drunk — he assumed that Ratcliff (also a lawyer by training) would navigate that potential minefield using the same ‘safe’ approach.
As a good Texan… Ratcliffe did not.
He appropriately threw caution to the wind, called a spade a spade, and spit fiery truth back at the California Congressman for his misstep. (And I love him for it!)
Ratcliffe also pointed out that today’s subsequent additional screenshots released by The Atlantic of the Signal conversation only proved what he had been telling Congress during hours of discussions.
In essence, there was no classified information included in the Signal conversation, and the final release of everything Jeffrey Goldberg had taken from his unauthorized inclusion in that conversation only proved it, according to Fox News:
CIA Director John Ratcliffe said the Signal chat texts published by The Atlantic Wednesday revealing the so-called “attack plans” targeting Yemen’s Houthi rebels prove he “did not transmit classified information.”
Ratcliffe, speaking during a House Intelligence Committee hearing on worldwide threats, told lawmakers “With regard to that article, I also would appreciate the opportunity to relay the fact that yesterday I spent four hours answering questions from senators as a result of that article that were intimating that I transmitted classified information because there were hidden messages.”
“Those messages were revealed today and revealed that I did not transmit classified information, and that the reporter who I don’t know, I think intentionally intended it to indicate that,” Ratcliffe continued. “That reporter also indicated that I had released the name of an undercover CIA operative in that Signal chat. In fact, I had released the name of my chief of staff who was not operating undercover. That was deliberately false and misleading.”
ADVERTISEMENT“I used an appropriate channel to communicate sensitive information. It was permissible to do so. I didn’t transfer any classified information. And at the end of the day, what is most important is that the mission was a remarkable success is what everyone should be focused on here, because that’s what did happen, not what possibly could have happened,” he also said.
Director Ratcliffe also had opportunity during today’s hearings to give his educated take on the Signal chat fiasco from a security standpoint, but also in reference to the political nature of Goldberg’s story in The Atlantic.
One specific point he outlined during his testimony before Congress included the outright lie Goldberg knowingly included in his initial story.
Goldberg claimed that Ratcliffe outed a CIA operative during the conversation in his initial story.
The additional screenshots of the conversation released today show that the person Goldberg referenced was actually Ratcliffe’s CHIEF OF STAFF, not at all an undercover CIA agent.
Goldberg would have known this when he insinuated in the first story that Ratcliffe had outed a CIA agent… which is only one aspect of Goldberg’s ‘sensationalistic reporting’, as it has been frequently described.
Here’s a clip shared by journalist Eric Daugherty on his X account of Ratcliffe’s explanation of that circumstance, and calling out Goldberg for that obvious deception:
🚨 BOOM. JEFF GOLDBERG IS ON LIFE SUPPORT.
CIA DIRECTOR RATCLIFFE: "Yesterday I spent 4 HOURS answering questions from senators as a result of that article intimating that I transmitted classified information. Those messages were revealed today – I did NOT transmit classified… pic.twitter.com/ayGh2f2zfa
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) March 26, 2025
For ease of reading, here’s the full text of Daugherty’s post:
BOOM. JEFF GOLDBERG IS ON LIFE SUPPORT.
CIA DIRECTOR RATCLIFFE: “Yesterday I spent 4 HOURS answering questions from senators as a result of that article intimating that I transmitted classified information. Those messages were revealed today – I did NOT transmit classified information.”
“The reporter, who I don’t know, intentionally intended it to indicate that. That reporter also indicated I released the name of an undercover CIA operative… in fact, I released the name of my CHIEF OF STAFF, who is not operating undercover. That was deliberately false and MISLEADING.”
ADVERTISEMENT“The mission was a remarkable success – because that’s what did happen, not what COULD have happened.”
JD Vance, also part of the Signal App conversation Goldberg inappropriately accessed, took to the X platform today in order to highlight that same clear and intentional deception.
The Vice President called out Goldberg for overselling what he had, and threw light on the attempt to blame Ratcliffe for a serious infraction that Goldberg knew wasn’t true!
It’s very clear Goldberg oversold what he had. But one thing in particular really stands out.
Remember when he was attacking Ratcliffe for blowing the cover for a CIA agent? Turns out Ratcliffe was simply naming his chief of staff. https://t.co/BUGbX6gZDZ
— JD Vance (@JDVance) March 26, 2025
While the Trump Administration has admitted that this was definitely a ‘big mistake’, they have consistently pushed back against the lynch mob intent on turning it into something that it is not: a failure.
Not only was there no classified information leaked or compromised in the chat, but no U.S. servicemembers were put in additional danger by the mishap.
And the intended targets, enemies of the United States who SHOULD have been dealt with YEARS ago by the Biden Administration… were decimated by the strikes.
It does seem to me to be far more of a witch hunt on the part of Democrats, in lieu of any real charges with which to levy against their political opponents.
After all — while Signal was deemed a ‘BEST PRACTICE’ for government officials during the Biden Administration…
Remember when Hillary Clinton ACTUALLY DID divulge state secrets as a result of her improper use of an illegal server, and then got away with it as a result of equally improper political reasons!?
I certainly do, and so does Fox News. Check this out to put things in perspective:
🚨 The FBI and the DOJ were ordered by Barack Obama not to arrest Hillary Clinton for espionage in violation of — 18 U.S. Code § 793. In fact, Barack Obama effectively served as Hillary Clinton’s personal lawyer.
CIA John Ratcliffe: “Lisa Page confirmed to me under oath that… pic.twitter.com/UHzVhAUZx5
— JOSH DUNLAP (@JDunlap1974) March 25, 2025
Considering the depth of hypocrisy the Trump Administration is facing over this mishap, I have to credit them for still acknowledging that this was actually a mistake that shouldn’t have happened.
It would be very easy to go overboard in the other direction.
While the Trump Administration has consistently pushed back against the witch hunt nature of the Democrats’ reaction… they have also appropriately acknowledged that it was a mistake.
Even today, Secretary of State Marco Rubio (also part of the Signal chat), reiterated that point, according to reporting from The Telegraph:
The US secretary of state was asked if the White House was in denial about the security breach as senior officials insisted that no classified information had been released and attacked The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, who received the information.
It is a significant admission from a senior US official as the rest of the administration closes ranks, downplaying the severity of the leak.
“Obviously, someone made a mistake, someone made a big mistake and added a journalist. Nothing against journalists, but you ain’t supposed to be on that thing,” Mr Rubio answered.
He said he had been “assured by the Pentagon” that the leaked plans, which detailed forthcoming US strikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen, did not endanger the lives of US military personnel. When asked if the information was classified, he said: “The Pentagon says it was not.”
There are still more questions than answers pertaining to exactly how a known peddler of anti-Trump hoaxes, someone who had often been at the heart of the media’s part in years of lawfare against President Trump, could have been added to such a high-level Administration conversation.
As we reported earlier as part of a wider story on the issue, there are rumblings that some sort of intrigue could have played a role in Goldberg’s inclusion in that chat:
Signal Disruption? The Atlantic Alters Story, Appears to BACKTRACK After WH Torches ‘War Plans’ Hoax
As President Trump's National Security Advisor Mike Waltz indicated today, the contact information for someone who should have been part of the discussion seems to have been intentionally crossed with Jeffrey Goldberg's contact information, leading to Goldberg's inappropriate inclusion.
According to Waltz, Goldberg wasn't simply 'added' to the chat, because his contact information wasn't SUPPOSED to have been in Waltz' phone!
So... how did it get there?
I can only think of two ways that could happen:
- Someone had inappropriate access to Mike Watlz' phone, and manually switched the contact information for Godlberg's in the hopes of allowing Goldberg some future access to an inside scoop.
- Someone hacked Mike Waltz' contact information remotely and made the switch for the same purposes.
Either of those scenarios seem possible and plausible to me, knowing how the Deep State operates.
At any rate, Goldberg's initial accusations seem to be falling more flat by the day. And with The Atlantic's backtracking from the original 'leaked war plans' narrative, it seems as though that publication recognizes the shift.
Democrats, including Rep. Gomez, seem to be a little slower on the uptake than the media.
But he is a Congressman, after all, and that lot tends to be slower on the uptake to begin with.
Which is lucky for us, otherwise we wouldn't have such fabulous fireworks to share from the halls of Congress from time to time!
Join the conversation!
Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!