See this article for context:
Resolves YES if Michael Waltz, one of his staff members, or anyone else implicated in the war plans breach described by Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic, is fired or resigns by the end of June for this reason.
Resolves YES if someone is fired and it's not explicitly stated why, or an excuse is given that is different than this one, but the consensus of trustworthy/media sources are at least fairly confident that it is because of this breach.
Must happen by the end of June.
Update 2025-03-27 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Important Update on Resolution Criteria:
Resignations linked to perjury: A resignation that occurs because an individual perjures themselves in relation to the breach described in the article will count.
Connection to the breach is required: The resignation must clearly be tied to the war plans breach as discussed, even if the stated reason (perjury) is not the exact wording used in the market description.
1,000People are also trading
@LiamZ I think the two signal group chats were very likely simultaneous; I’m fairly sure there wasn’t a second group chat AFTER the blowback from the first one.
But ya, this market refers only if someone is fired for /this/ group chat, although I find it hard to imagine a world where someone is fired for a different, unrelated signal group chat but NOT for this one as well.
@MaxA Thanks for the tip. For other people looking for it, here's your link.
As for how this should be resolved, it depends on how technical we'd like to be.
The previously unreported existence of a second Signal chat in which Mr. Hegseth shared highly sensitive military information is the latest in a series of developments that have put his management and judgment under scrutiny.
-From the article
Based on that, we need to figure out how we interpret this:
Resolves YES if Michael Waltz, one of his staff members, or anyone else implicated in the war plans breach described by Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic, is fired or resigns by the end of June for this reason.
-From market description
@AnT I see! If I'm reading this right, this market is heavily pricing in the chance that the firings were specifically for the original chat leak (or possibly the 2nd one)?
Scoop: Multiple firings on Trump's National Security Council after Loomer visit
Note: “Axios has not confirmed whether any of the individuals let go were in any way connected to the separate controversy about the use of Signal and private email accounts by national security adviser Michael Waltz and NSC staff to discuss sensitive information.”
https://www.axios.com/2025/04/03/trump-laura-loomer-fire-national-security-council
@ChadCotty @JaimeSantaCruz that is sadder and so much more pathetic than anything else. The sycophants won't tell him what he needs to hear and he distrusts anyone in the government that tells him the truth so he has to look for advice from outgroup loyalist nutjobs. The man is out of his depth.
@ChadCotty "Sources said those fired include Brian Walsh, senior director for intelligence; Thomas Boodry, senior director for legislative affairs; and David Feith, another senior director."
Were any of these staffers implicated in any way in the Signal incident? To my eyes, none were.
An official even speculated to CNN that Alex Wong, who was involved with the group chat more directly, was perhaps not fired despite Loomer wanting him out — because of his group chat involvement!
https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/03/politics/nsc-firings-trump-laura-loomer-meeting/index.html
