National News

Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) tried to pin down CIA director John Ratcliffe over his involvement in a group chat in which a journalist was privy to top-secret war plans with high-ranking officials in Donald Trump's administration.

The intelligence agency chief tried to evade questions about the conversation that included Vice President J.D. Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who disclosed top-secret plans about bombing raids in Yemen during a conversation using the encrypted Signal app in which The Atlantic's editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg had been perhaps unwittingly included by national security adviser Mike Waltz.

"Director Ratcliffe, surely you prepared for this hearing today," Ossoff said. "You were part of a group of principals, senior echelons of the U.S. government in now a widely publicized breach of sensitive information. You don't recall whether the vice president opined on the wisdom of the strikes? That's your testimony today under oath?"

Ratcliffe again insisted he didn't recall, so Ossoff read quotes from Goldberg's article, which contained quotes from the senior officials who seemingly did not know he could see their posts.

"Here's what secretary Hegseth said, quote: 'Waiting a few weeks or months does not fundamentally change the calculus, two immediate risks on waiting one, this leaks and we look indecisive,'" Ossoff read. "'Two, Israel takes an action first or Gaza ceasefire falls apart and we don't get to start this on our own terms.' Your testimony is you don't recall the secretary of defense sending that message or reading it?'"

Ratcliffe admits to recalling an exchange but claimed he did not recall the specifics, so Ossoff tried from another angle.

"Let's put it this way, Director Ratcliffe: A discussion by senior U.S. officials on the timing and risks of a proposed military campaign and disagreements between the president and the vice president about U.S. plans and intentions would be of obvious interest to foreign intelligence services, would it not?" Ossoff said, and the director conceded that would. "They were discussing the timing of sending U.S. air crews into enemy airspace, where they faced an air defense threat, correct?"

Ratcliffe said he would defer to the other principals on the group chat about the meaning and context of those discussions, and Ossoff pressed on with his questions but appeared to be frustrated when the CIA director claimed he did not know whether the conversations covered the risks from enemy air defenses to U.S. aircrews.

"You do know that," Ossoff said, and turned instead to U.S. Air Force Gen. Timothy Haugh. "You lead America's signals intelligence collection. Would the private deliberation of foreign senior officials about the wisdom and timing of potential military action be a collection priority for you and the U.S. intelligence community?"

Haugh agreed that the military and intelligence agencies attempted to learn about the plans and intentions of adversary leaders and for military commanders, and he agreed that they would also want to prevent adversaries from learning that key information.

"Director Ratcliffe, this was a huge mistake, correct?" Ossoff said, turning again to the CIA director, who disagreed and then repeatedly interrupted the senator. "A national political – no, no, you hold on. No, no, director Ratcliffe. I'm asking you a yes-or-no question, and now you hold on. A national political reporter was made privy to sensitive information about imminent military operations against a foreign terrorist organization, and that wasn't a huge mistake?"

"This is an embarrassment," Ossoff added over Ratcliffe's continued interruptions. "This is utterly unprofessional. There's been no apology, there has been no recognition of the gravity of this error, and by the way, we will get the full transcript of this chain and your testimony will be measured carefully against its content."

Watch the video below or at this link.

- YouTube youtu.be

Rep. Anna Pauling Luna (R-FL) took her fight with House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) public over whether or not proxy voting will be allowed for new parents who are members of Congress.

In a Tuesday post on the X social media platform, Luna shared images of what appeared to be proof of Johnson casting proxy votes in the past.

She said Johnson was "a kind man and his heart is in the right spot but he's wrong on proxy voting for new parents."

"Here are some documents showing him voting by proxy in the 117th Congress, as late as December 2022! He argues it's 'unconstitutional' but has done it several times," she said.

ALSO READ: 'Not much I can do': GOP senator gives up fight against Trump's tariffs

Despite using proxy voting himself, Johnson has said that he believes the practice is "unconstitutional."

"I've tried to discuss this with Anna, and she's pretty stubborn about it, so we'll see what happens," the speaker said earlier this month. "But I'm not in favor of it. I filed a brief to the United States Supreme Court explaining that proxy voting is clearly unconstitutional so, you know, I have a real concern about it."

Luna is part of a bipartisan group of lawmakers pushing for proxy voting for new parents.

Consumer confidence is once again plunging as President Donald Trump is preparing to unveil yet another round of tariffs on imported goods in just over a week.

As reported by CNN, "Consumer confidence slid 7.2 points this month to a reading of 92.9, the Conference Board said Tuesday in its latest survey, extending a decline that began in December," while emphasizing that "March’s decline was similar to February’s, underscoring the growing pessimism among US consumers."

Additionally, CNN writes that "not only are Americans expecting higher inflation this year, but more of them are also predicting that the economy will slip into a recession."

Many economics commentators on social media argued that this plunge in confidence is a direct reaction to Trump's trade wars, which have sent the stock market plunging from record highs and had significantly lowered earnings guidance for many big American corporations.

"The bigger concern is an almost-10 point drop in consumer expectations, which leaves it at a 12-year low," commented Washington Post economics columnist Catherine Rampell on BlueSky. "That's now well below threshold that usually signals a recession ahead."

ALSO READ: Trump mulls Hegseth pardon as insiders suspect he'd take fall for war plans mess: report

Former Biden administration economist Jared Bernstein said that while he almost never blamed a single president for the state of the economy, he was making an exception in the case of Trump.

"As someone who has carefully tracked noisy economic data for decades, it takes a lot to get me to say the following: Trump administration policies are clearly and sharply damaging consumer confidence," he wrote. "IOW, not a blip, not one series or one month."

MSNBC economics analyst Steve Rattner, meanwhile, said that the plunge in confidence showed that "Trump's presidency has made Americans as pessimistic as they were during a pandemic-induced economic crisis."

Peter Schiff, the chief economist at Euro Pacific Asset Management, argued that the latest data undercuts efforts to put a happy spin on the current state of the economy.

"Powell claims there is no evidence the U.S. economy is weak," he wrote on X. "March data says otherwise. Philly Fed Services crashed to -32.5, its weakest since COVID in April 2020, the Richmond Fed Mfg. Index sank to -4, and Consumer Confidence plunged to 92.9, the 4th consecutive monthly drop."

Tom Hearden, a senior trader at hedge fund Skylands Capital wrote sarcastically on BlueSky that "this is Biden's fault."

Michael Bennet got heated with John Ratcliffe at a hearing where he demanded answers on how a journalist got into a Signal chat where war plans were discussed.