It didn’t take long. The ink wasn’t even dry on the Signal group chat story before Hillary Rodham Clinton, two-time presidential failure and full-time national scold, decided America needed her opinion. Again.
The former secretary of state, whose own record on handling classified material is catastrophically etched into the modern history of federal misconduct, saw an opening to bash President Trump and his administration for what she described as a “dumb and dangerous” mishap involving encrypted messaging and a rogue Atlantic journalist. Never mind that no classified information was transmitted, and never mind that this “crisis” is already being exposed for what it was: a media-driven spectacle exploiting a minor operational blunder. Clinton saw the headlines—and like clockwork, leapt at the chance to re-enter the spotlight.
Let’s review what actually happened: National Security Adviser Michael Waltz used Signal—an encrypted, government-approved communications app—for a conversation about anti-Houthi operations. Due to an error, The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg was added to the chat. Goldberg, a known anti-Trump partisan, spun the narrative into something it wasn’t, claiming war plans were being leaked in real time. That was false, and even the administration’s critics know it. But the media jumped, and Clinton came running.
If you think that’s bad Hillary, you should hear what a former Sec of State did on purpose https://t.co/QnpzaWUuQI
— Fusilli Spock (@awstar11) March 30, 2025
In a painfully predictable op-ed, Clinton recycled every tired trope from the Trump Derangement Playbook. According to her, this is more proof that Trump is reckless, dangerous, unserious, blah blah blah. She even brought back her old “smart power” talking points from the Obama era—as if Americans have forgotten that “smart power” under Clinton meant abandoning red lines in Syria, letting Russia walk into Crimea, and watching ISIS expand on her watch.
What’s rich is Clinton’s claim that Trump doesn’t respect classified information. This is the same Hillary Clinton who ran an unsecured private email server out of her house, sent classified information through it, lied about it being approved by the State Department (which an inspector general later debunked), and then deleted 30,000 subpoenaed emails. Foreign hackers infiltrated her server while she was serving as Secretary of State. That’s not speculation—it’s documented. She wasn’t indicted, not because she was innocent, but because the FBI decided in advance that she was untouchable.
But now, she’s lecturing others about recklessness?
The kicker here is that Clinton’s presence does more damage to her own side than to Trump’s. Democrats know she’s politically toxic. She’s a walking reminder of a failed dynasty, of corruption cloaked in fake diplomacy, and of an establishment that underestimated the American voter. Even the progressive base turned on her. In 2016, young voters flocked to Bernie Sanders. In 2025, that same generation is increasingly leaning toward MAGA—Gen Z, in fact, is trending more conservative than any youth voter bloc since the Reagan era.
And now she’s inserting herself into a story that doesn’t involve her, trying to act like the adult in the room when most Americans remember her as the architect of Benghazi, the email scandal, and a global pay-to-play scheme disguised as the Clinton Foundation.
She wants to make Signalgate about Trump’s “dumb power.” But the truth is, Trump’s administration acted within legal norms, made a personnel error, and is now tightening protocol. No classified material was compromised. No federal subpoenas were ignored. No emails were bleached or destroyed. Compared to what Clinton did as secretary of state, Signalgate isn’t even a blip.
So why is she speaking up now? Because she’s trying to claw her way back into relevance—again. Because nothing fuels her ego like a chance to pretend she should’ve been president. And because deep down, she knows the Democrats are rudderless, with Biden flailing, Harris polling underwater, and the 2025 judicial races exposing how far the party has fallen into judicial activism.
