Good thing there are screenshots by the reporter.

But the guy in the chat with them immediately informed them that he'd been in there, which gave them time to act

"those boys done fucked up but"

Yes, this is ANAL

As time goes on and I read the comments I have the nagging sense that this is a set up. When a show like this pops up from DC jorunalists, its usually a set up, or the journalists get shut down before the messaging goes out. They make games for us to play to keep us busy while inserting their messaging on the side.

• A right leaning journalist invited to a meeting he shouldnt be in? Who then outs the people who invited him to the meeting and endangers his future access to such an unusual privelage? That sure smells off. Thats not how these things work at all. We're suposed to conclude that an unusually blessed journalist had a bout of journalistic integrity and endangered his future to make a forgiveable security point that is easy for th e public to ignore as a one time "typo" type error? No journalist covering DC is that stupid, or that self destructively principled. This isnt a watergate level event worth burning your career down over.
• All the comments of the text.. they are concise and on point. They make it appear that these morons are well meaning professionals acting on philosophical grounds when we know theres a lot more going on than that.
• And their overarching idea is Europe paying its fair share? The houthis say they are attacking over outrage over Israels actions and thats not mentioned, just downplayed as "sending a message". That seems to be a lede being buried. Nothing happens at that level and in that region without Israel being mentioned, unless they dont want to be mentioned.
• Why was the rightwing journalist sitting in the meeting but key points were being made... with context included... on signal, not verbally? Thats makes no sense. Why do it on signal and why include context like that.

So who wins here?

• The officials mentioned all end up looking capable and acting on principle and in the American peoples interests. All above board. Even trump is painted to look well meaning and acting on political principle, not acting out of angry and childish idealogy, like every single policy expert who analyzes Trump concludes, and as all of us can see with our own eyes when he speaks. He sounds like a sane statesman according to these texts.
• Vance wins-- he is painted as powerful and influential, which is what right winger publications are taking from this. A worthy successor to lead (so is Trump sick then?) is how this tries to make it look. He even offers to silence himself if the group decides they want to pursue it. He's clearly a considerate leader who believes in democracy and has no trouble navigating conflict with deft diplomatic technique. I mean ...Come on. Thats not Vance and it doesnt match his history or the way he practices politics.
• Putin wins as usual. Dividing Europe is a Russian goal. Killing NATO is a Russian goal. Putin wants NATO gone so he can nibble away at European territory, and he's been open about that. He wants America destroyed economically and militarily. Thats exactly whats going on now.
• Israel wins. They'd rather not be mentioned and they prefer the thing the Houthis say they are attacking about is redirected and the military action handled by the US for them as their bag man. The Houthi attacks are suddenly all about the Houthis hurting European countries. Israel is just.. not involved at all, no sir.
• Trump Republicans win. When Hegeth says "the other side of the ledger" he paints America as strong (right wingers love that strut) and frames the US as in direct and categorical opposition to some purposely vague 'other' powers-- on a page to itself, definitely not on a page with Russia. Its hard to be more categorical than listing us as a different page as undicslosed bad guys, which the reader is intended to immediately fills in as Russia and China. and.. maybe our own allies? Who else is on our side of the ledger, its not mentioned.

who loses?

• Europe loses (western alliance only) is painted as a problem for the US, and impoverished freeloaders of bad character. You cant help but evaluate if this whole problem is about Europe, when you first read this. Yu ask yourself, does the speaker have any point here? The benefits America has accrued from that partnership are not mentioned or evaluated. Its just painted as the US propping up a freeloader-- thats a culture war favorite of the far right. They think that the world is either business titans and those worthy of power, and then theres the disgusting freeloading poor who grift from YOU. Did you ponder if Europe is freeloading when you read the texts? Thats exactly what the traitor MAGATS want. And they dont mention that the whole reason American military might is strong now is because of our bases and alliances.
• Palestinians and their cause as usual, lose.

So its very possible this is a clumsy false flag, fake leak.