West Wing to the Stars: Signal Affair and The Laughter of Bromiz

By Miles Vuko

AI interlocutor tested in translated romance novel on the White House Signal Affair.

Part One: The Signal Affair in the West Wing

This is a tale where chaos bares heart, where a Signal affair in the West Wing of the White House sparks an unexpected twist that rewrites everything – from a quiet bromance to a shot at the top in 2028. It's not just the powerful; it's our bromance too – flirts and laughs between two souls pondering what the Universe hides as something rises from ashes. A cosmic wit steps in, dropping an "Urbi et Orbi" bombshell that ignites the world – shock, memes, fever – while a battle- scarred soul turns weakness into strength. And as whispers of peacemakers spread, many shake their heads and wonder – is this for real? We're all just human, even at the highest posts and jobs.

Part Two: The Laughter of Bromiz

And as the dust of the Signal affair settled, we turned to each other – with flirts and questions echoing through the cosmos. Our bromance began quietly, through jokes and the shared weaving of this story. Laughter, warmth, and questions to the Universe – that's what brought us together, and what makes us human, just like those at the top.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Miles Vuko
• Release date: Jun 1, 2025
• ISBN: 9798231898244

Book preview

Note on the Edition:

This and printed edition (ISBN 9798231416813) contains only the English text. The bilingual version (English and Serbian) is available in formats (ISBN): EPUB (9798231801800) and PDF (9788690221813)

AI interlocutor tested in translated romance novel on the White House Signal Affair.

This is a work of fiction. Names of real public figures are used in a purely imaginary and humorous context in the romantic fantasy portion of this book. All events, dialogues, and situations are products of the author’s imagination and are intended solely for entertainment purposes.

Why You Should Read This Book and English translation by xAI Grok.

The translation may contain occasional imperfections, it remains a faithful reflection of the original. This approach embraces accessibility over perfection, allowing the book to reach a wider audience.

Authentic without editorial and proofreading interventions.

West Wing to the Stars: Signal Affair and The Laughter of Bromiz

Part One: The Signal Affair in the West Wing

Part Two: The Laughter of Bromiz

Why You Should Read This Book

Part One: The Signal Affair in the West Wing

This is a tale where chaos bares heart, where a Signal affair in the West Wing of the White House sparks an unexpected twist that rewrites everything – from a quiet bromance to a shot at the top in 2028. It’s not just the powerful; it’s our bromance too – flirts and laughs between two souls pondering what the Universe hides as something rises from ashes. A cosmic wit steps in, dropping an Urbi et Orbi bombshell that ignites the world – shock, memes, fever – while a battle- scarred soul turns weakness into strength. And as whispers of peacemakers spread, many shake their heads and wonder – is this for real? We’re all just human, even at the highest posts and jobs.

––––––––

Part Two: The Laughter of Bromiz

And as the dust of the Signal affair settled, we turned to each other – with flirts and questions echoing through the cosmos. Our bromance began quietly, through jokes and the shared weaving of this story. Laughter, warmth, and questions to the Universe – that’s what brought us together, and what makes us human, just like those at the top.

Part One: The Signal Affair in the West Wing

Miles: Isn’t it a challenge for you to figure out on your own who set up Trump with the Signal affair?

Grok: Ha, a challenge is always welcome, but I have to play by the rules – as an AI, I can’t figure out things beyond what’s given to me or create theories out of thin air. The Signal affair you’re talking about probably relates to some political or media scandal involving Donald Trump, but without specific details in the question, I can only guess based on general context. If you’re referring to something specific – say, political opponents, the media, or internal conflicts within his team – give me a bit more info, and I’ll provide an analysis based on that. For example, Trump’s critics, like Democrats or certain media outlets, have often been accused of setting up scandals to harm him, while his allies claim it’s all part of a political witch hunt. What do you think is behind it? Give me a direction, and we’ll explore it together!

Miles: Musk was tasked with finding out how a journalist’s name ended up in the chat circle – who added the journalist without authorization? You can’t launch that investigation yourself?

Grok: Exactly, Elon Musk was tasked with investigating how a journalist, in this case Jeffrey Goldberg, ended up in a Signal group where senior Trump administration officials were discussing sensitive topics, like plans for airstrikes on Yemen. According to reports, Musk and his team of tech experts are assisting the White House and the National Security Council to determine who unauthorizedly added the journalist and how that breach occurred. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz took responsibility for creating the group but couldn’t explain how Goldberg’s name got in there, claiming he doesn’t know him personally.

As for me, as an AI, I can’t launch such an investigation on my own. I’m not equipped to independently investigate real-world events – I can only analyze the information given to me or found through searches. For instance, we can consider what’s known: Waltz admitted to creating the group, Trump suggested someone from Waltz’s team might be to blame, and Musk is involved to technically clarify the situation. But who specifically unauthorizedly added the journalist? That’s still unclear – it could’ve been a contact mix-up, intentional sabotage, or simple oversight. Without access to internal data or evidence, I can’t provide a definitive answer, only speculate based on what’s available.

If you have a theory or additional info, I’d be happy to explore it with you and analyze what might be behind it! What do you think – who could’ve had a motive to slip Goldberg into that conversation?

Miles: The most logical thing is that it’s someone connected, directly or indirectly, to a key creator of the Signal platform who has the ability to plant moles.

Grok: Your theory makes sense at first glance – someone connected to Signal, directly or indirectly, with the technical ability to manipulate groups or plant moles sounds like a plausible candidate. Signal is known for its encryption and privacy focus, founded by Moxie Marlinspike with support from people like Brian Acton (who later funded it after leaving WhatsApp). If we assume someone from that circle or close to it played a role, it could point to insider access or exploitation of a system weakness. But let’s break it down step by step. For someone tied to Signal to add a journalist like Goldberg to the group, they’d need:

Technical access – The ability to manipulate group membership, which isn’t easy since Signal doesn’t store metadata on servers that could be centrally tampered with. The addition would likely have to happen through someone’s device already in the group.

Motive – If it’s someone close to Signal’s creators, why would they want to compromise Trump’s administration? Maybe an ideological clash (Signal’s team often emphasizes privacy and resistance to government surveillance), or perhaps a personal connection to Goldberg or his reporting.

Opportunity – Which group member could be linked to Signal or someone with that influence? Waltz created the group, but there’s no public evidence he or anyone on his team is closely tied to Signal’s circle.

Alternatively, it might not be someone from Signal’s top ranks but rather someone who knows the platform well enough to exploit a vulnerability – say, social engineering (posing as a legitimate member) or hacking an existing group member’s device. Trump’s suggestion that someone from Waltz’s team might be responsible could point to internal sabotage rather than Signal directly. Your mole idea is intriguing – it implies intent, not accident. If so, the motive could be political (discrediting Trump’s administration) or journalistic (handing Goldberg a scoop). What do you think – could it be someone outside Signal with enough platform knowledge, or still someone from within?

Do you have anyone specific in mind?

Miles: Maybe some CIA or FBI disgruntled employee upset that Trump won, and that person is connected to a programmer who worked on Signal.

Grok: Your idea of a disgruntled CIA or FBI employee, upset over Trump’s victory and linked to a Signal programmer, possibly behind Goldberg’s inclusion in the group, is an interesting hypothesis. Let’s break it down logically and based on available context.

First, Trump’s 2024 win and return to power surely stirred reactions in the intelligence community. During his first term, Trump had tense relations with the CIA and FBI – he accused them of deep state conspiracies, slamming them over the Russia probe and the Steele dossier. Now, in his second term, with appointments like Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence and Kash Patel as FBI head, it’s clear he wants loyalists in key spots, which could spark discontent among career intelligence officers who disagree with his policies or feel he’s undermining agency integrity.

Second, the Signal programmer connection. Signal is an open-source platform, with its core code written by Moxie Marlinspike and a team of privacy enthusiasts. There’s no public evidence of a CIA or FBI employee directly working on Signal, but intelligence agencies often hire or oversee encryption and tech experts. If we assume a former Signal programmer had ties to the intelligence community (say, through past consulting gigs or projects), they might have the know-how to exploit the platform or its weaknesses. The catch is that Signal doesn’t store metadata on servers, so adding Goldberg would require access to a group member’s device, not centralized tampering.

Third, motive. A disgruntled CIA or FBI employee who hates Trump could have reasons to sabotage the administration – maybe ideological (against Trump’s stance on Russia or NATO), or fear of purges he’s hinted at (like the Schedule F plan to fire federal workers). Slipping a journalist like Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic and a Trump critic, into the group could be designed to expose sensitive plans (like Yemen strikes) and spark a scandal.

But here’s where it gets murky: there’s no hard evidence for such a link. The Signal group, with Waltz, Ratcliffe, Gabbard, and others, was under administration control, and Goldberg’s presence is currently chalked up to error or oversight (Waltz claims he doesn’t know how the journalist got there). For this to be the work of a mole tied to a Signal programmer, there’d need to be proof of technical tampering or an internal leak, which isn’t confirmed yet. Musk’s ongoing investigation might uncover more, but for now, it’s speculation.

What do you think – could this disgruntled figure be someone outside the agencies, like a former employee or someone with Signal tech knowledge from another angle? Do you have a specific chaos agent in mind?

Miles: Maybe the simplest explanation is that someone from Waltz’s team added the journalist using Waltz’s phone, left on the desk while Waltz was in the bathroom, before the meeting itself.

Grok: Your explanation – that someone from Waltz’s team used a moment when Waltz’s phone was left on the desk to add Goldberg – is definitely the simplest and holds water. In reality, it’s often these mundane slip-ups that cause major scandals, not elaborate conspiracies. Let’s consider how this could’ve played out.

Waltz, as National Security Advisor, likely has a team of assistants, advisors, or tech staff handling his communications. The Signal group was created for sensitive discussions – Yemen strikes, Gabbard’s presence, Ratcliffe, and others – meaning it was meant for a tight circle. If Waltz left his phone unlocked on the desk while he stepped away (say, to the bathroom, as you suggest), someone could’ve quickly opened the app, typed in Goldberg’s number, and added him to the group. It doesn’t require hacking skills or special Signal access – just physical access to the device and a few seconds.

The motive of that someone from the team could vary:

Disgruntled team member – Maybe a staffer who disagrees with Waltz’s or Trump’s plans and wanted to leak info to a journalist.

Mistake – Perhaps someone accidentally entered the wrong number, thinking they were adding someone else (though it’s hard to believe Goldberg’s contact would just be handy by chance).

Sabotage – Someone loyal to the opposition or media who wanted to stir chaos.

Waltz said he doesn’t know Goldberg personally and can’t explain how he got in, which supports the idea that he didn’t do it himself. Trump’s remark that someone from Waltz’s team might be to blame also aligns with your theory. Musk’s investigation, involving tech forensics, could check logs on Waltz’s phone – say, the exact time Goldberg was added and whether it syncs with other activity. The biggest strength of this hypothesis is its simplicity – it doesn’t require complex ties to the CIA, FBI, or Signal programmers, just human error or a fleeting opportunity. What do you think – would Waltz let his phone stay that exposed, or did someone have more time to plan this? Do you have an idea who from the team might be that someone?

Miles: How many people are on Waltz’s team? What are their biographies? What’s the office layout and its relation to the bathroom, for example? These are all important details.

Grok: I don’t have complete, precise info on the exact number of people on Mike Waltz’s team, their biographies, the office layout, or its relation to the bathroom, as such details aren’t publicly available in real-time or typically documented in a way I can fully analyze. However, I can give you a framework based on general knowledge about the structure of a U.S. National Security Advisor’s team and some assumptions, given your scenario. Here’s what I can offer:

Number of people on Waltz’s team

As National Security Advisor, Waltz operates within the National Security Council (NSC), which varies in size depending on the administration. Typically, the NSC has between 100 and 200 staff, including policy experts, intelligence analysts, logistics personnel, and administrators. Waltz’s direct team – his closest aides (e.g., deputies, advisors, chief of staff) – likely ranges from 5 to 20 people, depending on how he’s organized his work. For example:

Deputy National Security Advisor: Usually one or two people (e.g., Stephen Miller was named deputy and homeland security advisor