Featured

Trump: Iran asked me to be Supreme Leader, but I said no thanks

Trump’s “Iran asked me to be Supreme Leader” joke at an NRCC fundraiser uses a real, deadly leadership crisis in Iran to normalize assassination-as-policy and blur what’s confirmed about the war and succession.

Mar 26, 2026

Featured

‘Men need to be perp-walked’ after Epstein files release, Massie tells BBC

A GOP lawmaker says the Epstein document releases are still falling short—because redactions and withheld material may be blocking accountability and survivor-centered justice.

Mar 25, 2026

Buried.News

The stories buried under the noise

Primary focus

Trump fires Kristi Noem as Homeland Security Secretary

A Cabinet secretary was forced out amid contracting and oversight scrutiny, signaling that executive control—not transparent accountability—can dictate leadership of the agency driving mass detention and deportation.

Mar 5, 2026

Featured

The Trump gold coin is not normal : Consider This from NPR

A federal design panel OK’d a Trump portrait for a commemorative gold coin, but the key question is whether Treasury can legally bypass long-standing limits meant to keep living politicians off U.S. money.

Mar 23, 2026

Featured

White House Confronted Over Huge Bets Made Minutes Before Trump’s Big War Move

A $580 million burst of oil-futures selling minutes before Trump’s Iran “talks” post raises a basic public-interest question: did anyone trade on advance knowledge of a market-moving national security decision?

Mar 24, 2026

Norms Impact

Vindman demands release of Trump-Mohammed bin Salman call after Khashoggi murder: ‘You will be shocked’

A former NSC reviewer says a post-assassination call transcript is being kept from the public as the president publicly clears a foreign leader U.S. intelligence linked to a killing.

Executive

Nov 19, 2025

⚖ Legal Exposure

Ethics Violation

Likely Unlawful

Potentially Criminal

Likely Criminal

The described conduct raises significant investigative concern: a purportedly “problematic” post-Khashoggi call and Trump’s later claim he protected MBS from congressional pressure suggest potential abuse of presidential influence. However, the article does not allege any thing-of-value, exchange, or concrete obstructive acts sufficient to support a prosecutable bribery or conspiracy theory on the current record. The principal exposure is a serious irregularity warranting scrutiny, contingent on what the call transcript and related actions show.

Sources

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5613961-vindman-trump-saudi-call-transcript-khashoggi/

Summary

Rep. Eugene Vindman says he reviewed a post-Khashoggi phone call between President Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and is demanding the transcript’s release, calling it “shocking.” The presidency is being used to publicly exonerate a foreign leader despite U.S. intelligence concluding he likely approved an operation to capture or kill a U.S. resident journalist. The practical consequence is a heightened risk that sensitive diplomacy and accountability mechanisms are shielded from public scrutiny when they implicate presidential conduct and foreign abuses.

Reality Check

Hiding a potentially consequential presidential communication while publicly rehabilitating a foreign leader tied by U.S. intelligence to a journalist’s killing invites a precedent where executive secrecy becomes personal protection, not national security—and that weakens our ability to hold power to account. On the facts provided, the more immediate exposure is not a clean federal charging theory, but a grave governance breach: normalization of impunity and the use of presidential voice to negate official intelligence findings. If the withheld call involved any exchange of governmental protection or congressional pressure in return for benefits, it could implicate federal bribery and honest-services corruption statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 201, 1346), but those elements are not established here. What is established is a pattern of shielding and dismissal that erodes the core anti–quid-pro-quo and transparency norms our system relies on to protect citizens’ rights.

Legal Summary

Legal Analysis

18 U.S.C. § 201(b) — Bribery of a public official (quid pro quo)

Article context alleges a “shocking” Trump–Mohammed bin Salman call after Khashoggi’s murder and includes Trump’s later statement to Bob Woodward that he “saved” the crown prince and got Congress to “leave him alone,” suggesting potential official-action advocacy benefiting a foreign leader.
However, the article provides no facts of any payment/thing-of-value to Trump or a U.S. official linked to the call or to the alleged protective actions; the transcript is not disclosed.
Gap: absent a described thing-of-value and specific official act tied to an exchange, core §201 bribery elements are not established on the provided facts.

18 U.S.C. § 371 — Conspiracy to defraud the United States (impairing lawful government functions)

Vindman alleges the call was among the “most problematic,” and Trump’s comments indicate he intervened to reduce congressional pressure on MBS, which could be construed as impairing oversight or policy processes if done through deceptive means.
Gap: the article does not allege deception, an agreement with others, or concrete steps taken to obstruct lawful functions beyond generalized claims of intervention.

52 U.S.C. § 30121 — Foreign national contributions/solicitations (election-related thing of value)

The article analogizes to the Zelensky call (impeachment context), but does not allege Trump sought election assistance, opposition research, or any “thing of value” from MBS.
Gap: no election-related solicitation described; only foreign-policy/oversight implications tied to Khashoggi.

Ethics/abuse-of-power concerns (non-criminal on these facts)

Trump’s public defense of MBS and claim he “saved his ass” by getting Congress to back off, if accurate, raise serious concerns of improper favoritism and politicized use of presidential influence regarding accountability for Khashoggi’s killing.
But without disclosed transcript content or a transactional benefit to the U.S. official, the conduct as presented reads as potential abuse-of-power/irregular influence rather than a provable bribery scheme.

Conclusion: The article establishes a serious investigative red flag involving potential misuse of presidential influence to shield a foreign leader, but it does not provide facts showing a money/access/official-action quid pro quo or other completed criminal elements; exposure is primarily procedural/abuse-of-power pending the transcript and corroboration.

Media

View media post

Detail

Rep. Eugene Vindman (D-Va.), a former National Security Council staffer in Trump’s first administration, publicly urged President Trump to release the transcript of a phone call Vindman says occurred with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman after the 2018 assassination of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi.

Vindman said he reviewed many presidential calls and identified two as the most problematic: the 2019 call with Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky that led to Trump’s first impeachment, and a separate call with the Saudi crown prince after Khashoggi’s killing. Vindman did not provide details of the Saudi call but told CNN and stated on the House floor that the public and Khashoggi’s family “deserve to know what was said,” adding online, “You will be shocked by what you hear.”

Vindman’s demand followed Trump hosting the crown prince at the White House and defending him to reporters, including asserting the crown prince “knew nothing about it,” despite U.S. intelligence concluding the crown prince likely approved the operation.

The White House dismissed Vindman’s request in a statement from communications director Steven Cheung.

Norms Impact

The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans

Our highest national-security officials moved war planning onto an unauthorized, disappearing-message chat—and accidentally transmitted strike details to a journalist, shredding the most basic norms of secure command governance.

Executive

Mar 24, 2025

⚖ Legal Exposure

Ethics Violation

Likely Unlawful

Potentially Criminal

Likely Criminal

Senior national security officials allegedly used Signal to coordinate and transmit detailed, time-sensitive strike information, then inadvertently included a journalist—creating substantial exposure under Espionage Act mishandling/transmission theories and related classified-communications rules. The use of disappearing-message settings for principals-level official business also raises serious federal records-law exposure. Overall, the fact pattern presents a high criminal-investigative risk centered on unauthorized dissemination and reckless handling of national defense information.

Sources

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/trump-administration-accidentally-texted-me-its-war-plans/682151/?gift=kPTlqn0J1iP9IBZcsdI5IVJpB2t9BYyxpzU4sooa69M&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

Summary

Senior U.S. national-security officials used Signal to coordinate and share operational details of impending U.S. strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen, and a journalist was inadvertently added to the group chat. The Trump administration’s top national-security leadership shifted sensitive deliberation and operational coordination from government systems and secure facilities to an unauthorized commercial messaging channel with disappearing messages. The practical consequence was a live exposure of targets, timing, and weapons sequencing to an unauthorized recipient hours before the bombs fell, along with potential federal records and national-defense information violations.

Reality Check

This conduct endangers our troops and our rights by normalizing off-the-books national-security decision-making where classified safeguards and accountability mechanisms are bypassed with a swipe. On these facts, mishandling and unlawful transmission of national defense information is plausibly criminal under the Espionage Act, including 18 U.S.C. § 793, because operational strike details were shared over an unapproved channel and sent to an unauthorized recipient, even if inadvertent. The use of disappearing messages also collides with federal records obligations described here, raising exposure under record-preservation requirements for official communications. When leaders treat secure systems and durable records as optional, we inherit a government that can wage war and then erase the trail.

Legal Summary

Legal Analysis

18 U.S.C. § 793 (Espionage Act) — Willful retention/transmission of National Defense Information (NDI)

Alleged facts describe senior officials using Signal (an unapproved system) to share highly sensitive operational details (targets, weapons packages, timing, sequencing) for imminent strikes—information plausibly qualifying as NDI.
The Signal group inadvertently included a journalist (unauthorized recipient), creating a classic “transmission” risk even absent intent to leak; structural inference: grossly reckless dissemination via commercial devices and an unmanaged recipient list.
Gaps: article does not state classification markings or intent; however, Espionage Act exposure can turn on NDI character and unauthorized transmission/retention on insecure systems, not solely formal classification stamps.

18 U.S.C. § 641 — Theft/Conversion of government records or things of value (potential theory)

The operational plans/messages constitute government information; sending them to a non-government device/app and to an unauthorized recipient can support a “conversion” theory depending on proof of knowing misuse.
Gaps: conversion/theft theories are fact-dependent and less direct than §793 absent evidence of appropriation or intent.

Presidential Records Act / Federal Records Act (and implementing rules) — Unlawful failure to preserve official records (administrative + potential criminal adjacency depending on facts)

Messages were set to disappear in one week or four weeks, while discussing official acts (principals-level deliberations and execution of military strikes), raising records-preservation violations.
If disappearance settings were used knowingly to avoid retention, that materially aggravates exposure; article notes that intentional violations can trigger discipline and implicate broader enforcement.

DoD/IC classified communications rules (policy/regulatory violations with criminal spillover risk)

Using non-approved channels for sensitive military operations is described as contrary to agency restrictions; if any content was classified/SCI-equivalent, using personal phones outside secure facilities heightens prosecutorial inference of reckless mishandling.
Gaps: article does not confirm whether the information was formally declassified; however, the lawyers quoted note that “declassification” would not cure use of an unauthorized venue for extraordinarily sensitive operational detail.

Conclusion: This is not a mere procedural irregularity; the alleged facts support a prosecutable mishandling/transmission of national defense information theory driven by reckless use of Signal for imminent strike details and inadvertent disclosure to an unauthorized journalist, plus significant records-retention risk via disappearing messages.

Detail

On March 11, a Signal user identified as “Michael Waltz” sent a connection request to the editor in chief of The Atlantic, who accepted. On March 13, the journalist was added to a Signal group titled “Houthi PC small group,” where accounts identified as senior officials (including “MAR,” “JD Vance,” “TG,” “Scott B,” “Pete Hegseth,” “John Ratcliffe,” and others) designated staff points of contact and discussed planned action against the Houthis.

On March 14, the group exchanged policy views and referenced “high side” classified inboxes; a message from “John Ratcliffe” contained information potentially related to current intelligence operations. On March 15 at 11:44 a.m., the “Pete Hegseth” account posted a “TEAM UPDATE” containing operational details for strikes on Yemen, including targets, weapons packages, timing, and sequencing; the first detonations were described as expected about two hours later. Around 1:55 p.m. eastern time, explosions were reported in Sanaa. After the strikes began, the group exchanged after-action messages and assessments. The National Security Council later confirmed the message chain was authentic and said it was reviewing how an inadvertent number was added.