1.14.2025 -- NLS -- Pete Hegseth's Warrior Ethos: Controversy, Combat, and Confirmation Drama

 On this episode with Neal and Julie, they dive into the confirmation hearing for Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense, highlighting the heated debates, controversial statements, and complex policy questions surrounding the nominee. Neal and Julie unpack the critical issues discussed, including women in combat roles, the Pentagon's financial accountability, and the broader implications of military leadership under an "America First" agenda. They also explore the personal controversies raised during the hearing and their impact on public trust and leadership credibility. With candid observations and lively commentary, this episode offers a thought-provoking look at one of the most scrutinized nomination processes in recent history. 

Let’s talk advertising. When you want to advertise on the radio, you call the station, right? But what about Facebook, Instagram, Hulu, Disney+, Peacock, and other streaming platforms?

You could try clicking around, reading books, or taking online courses to figure it out—or you can let us handle it. At Sandhill Media Group, we’re your local experts in both radio and digital marketing.

Visit SandhillMediaGroup.com today.

Transcript

All right. Welcome. It's 807 on this Tuesday on Newstalk 107. And really quickly correct the record. It's actually going to reach a high of about 24 today with cloud cover, single digits, mid-single digits tonight, and then only about 21 tomorrow though we will see sunshine tomorrow. Julie okay, 22 and partly cloudy on Thursday, so there you go. Well, you corrected that and I just openly want to accept that.

I think I brought bad juju into this building this morning. We've had a few quirks going up. I might, it might, I might have caused it all. So. So we do have a lot to talk about. We'll talk about Wendy Harman's interview, Water Education, all of that. We have LA fire stuff to talk about, but right now Pete sits in the hot seat delivering his opening statement.

So let's join this in progress. This hearing is for you. Thank you for figuratively and literally having my back some for me, for misogynists. Not only that, you are a pussy fan and one of them are. All right, I'm going to talk over this just in case he says some, less than acceptable to the FCC words authorities for their swift reaction to that outburst and stated that, similar, interruptions will be treated in like manner.

Mr. Hegseth, you may continue. Well, as I'll say again, thank you for figuratively and literally having my back. I pledge to do the same for all of you. It's an honor to come before this committee today as President Donald Trump's nominee for the Office of Secretary of Defense, two months ago, 77 million Americans gave President Trump a powerful mandate for change to put America first at home and abroad.

I want to thank President Trump for his faith in me and his selfless leadership for our republic. The troops have no better commander in chief than Donald Trump. As I've said to many of you in private meetings, when President Trump chose me for this position, the primary charge he gave me was to bring the warrior culture back to the Department of Defense.

He, like me, once a Pentagon laser focused on lethality, meritocracy, warfighting accountability and readiness to combat. To.

You may continue, sir. Returning the Pentagon back to warfighting. That's it. That's my job again, Mr. Hicks. Suspend your remarks. Let me just say this. The Capitol Police are going to remove immediately individuals that are disrupting the hearing. I see a pattern, an attempted, to be inflicted on the committee, and we're simply not going to tolerate that.

You may proceed to bring back warfighting. If confirmed, I'm going to work with President Trump and this committee to one, restore the warrior ethos to the Pentagon and throughout our fighting force. In doing so, we will reestablish trust in our military, addressing the recruiting crisis, the retention crisis and readiness crisis in our ranks. This number of members of the Social Security force will remove members of.

MIT. Mr.. Mr.. Hesketh, you may you may the strength of our military is our unity and our shared purpose, not our differences. Number two, we're going to rebuild our military, always matching threats to capabilities. This includes reviving our defense industrial base, reforming the acquisitions process. As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, no more valley of death for new defense companies modernizing our nuclear triad, ensuring the Pentagon can pass an audit and rapidly fielding emerging technologies.

And number three, we're going to reestablish deterrence. First and foremost, we will defend our homeland, our borders and our skies. Second, we will work with our partners and allies to deter aggression in the Indo-Pacific from the Communist Chinese. And finally, we will responsibly end wars to ensure that we prioritize our resources to reorient to larger threats. We can no longer count on reputation deterrence.

We need real deterrence. The Department of Defense under Donald Trump will achieve peace through strength. And in pursuing these America first national security goals will remain patriotically apolitical and stridently constitutional. Unlike the current administration, politics should play no part in military matters. We are not Republicans. We are not Democrats. We are American warriors. Our standards will be high and they will be equal, not equitable.

That's a very different word. We need to make sure every warrior is fully qualified on their assigned weapons system. Every pilots fully qualified and current on the aircraft they are flying. And every general or flag officer is selected for leadership or promotion purely based on performance, readiness and merit. Leaders at all levels will be held accountable, and warfighting and lethality and the readiness of the troops and their families will be our only focus.

This has been my focus ever since I first put on the uniform. As a young Army ROTC cadet at Princeton University in 2001. I joined the military because I love my country and felt an obligation to defend it. I served with incredible Americans in Guantanamo Bay, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and on the streets of Washington, DC. Many of which are with me here today.

This includes enlisted soldiers. I helped to become American citizens and Muslim allies. I helped immigrate from Iraq and Afghanistan because when I took off the uniform, my mission never stopped. Now it is true, and it's been acknowledged that I don't have a similar biography to defense secretaries of the last 30 years. But as President Trump also told me, we've repeatedly placed people atop the Pentagon with supposedly the right credentials, whether they are retired generals, academics or defense contractor executives.

And where has it gotten us? He believes, and I humbly agree, that it's time to give someone with dust on his boots the helm, a change agent, someone with no vested interest in certain companies or specific programs or approved narratives. My only special interest is the warfighter deterring wars. And if called upon, winning wars, by ensuring our warriors never enter a fair fight, we let them win and we bring them home.

Like many of my generation, I've been there. I've led troops in combat. I've been on patrol for days. I've pulled the trigger down range, heard bullets whiz by, flex, cuffed insurgents, called in close air support, led medevac, dodged IEDs, pulled out dead bodies and knelt before a battlefield cross. This is not academic for me. This is my life I led.

Then and I will lead now. Ask anyone who's ever worked for me or with me. I know what I don't know my success as a leader, and I very much look forward to discussing my organization's successes at vets for freedom and Concerned Veterans for America. I'm incredibly proud of the work that we've done, but my success as a leader has always been setting a clear vision, hiring people smarter and more capable than me, empowering them to succeed, holding everyone accountable, and driving toward clear major metrics.

Build the plan, work the plan, and then work harder than everyone else around you. I've sworn an oath to the Constitution before, and if confirmed, I will proudly do it again, this time for the most important deployment of my life. I pledge to be a faithful partner to this committee, taking input and respecting oversight. We share the same goals a ready, lethal military, the health and well-being of our troops, and a strong and secure America.

Thank you for the time and I look forward to your questions. Thank you very much, Mr. Hegseth. Before we begin with member questions, I would like to remind my colleagues that consistent with the bipartisan staff agreement from December and in concert with exactly how this committee dealt with the last secretary of defense nominee, each member will be recognized for one round of seven minutes to question the nominee out of respect for the time of all members of this committee, the time limits will be tightly enforced.

And we've now been here 45 minutes, and I think we've done, very well with the time. But, at this point, I will begin, my questioning of the nominee, Mr. Headquarters. You and your family have endured criticism of your nomination since it was announced in November. Let's get into this allegation about, sexual assault, inappropriate workplace behavior, alcohol abuse, and financial mismanagement during your time as a nonprofit executive.

I should note that the majority of these have come from anonymous sources in, liberal media publications. But I want to give you an opportunity to respond to these allegations, sir. Mr. chairman, thank, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for that opportunity. You are correct. We undertook this responsibility with an obligation to the troops to do right by them for our warfighters.

And what we came very evident to us from the beginning. There was a coordinated smear campaign orchestrated in the media against us. That was clear from moment one. And what we knew is that it wasn't about me. Most of it was about President Donald Trump, who's had to endure the very same thing for much longer amounts of time.

And he endured it in incredibly strong ways. So we in some ways knew it was coming. We didn't understand the depth of the dishonesty that would come with it. So from story after story in the media, left wing media, we saw anonymous source after anonymous source, based on second or third hand accounts. And time and time again, stories would come out and people would reach out to me and say, you know, I've read, I've spoken to this reporter about who you really are.

And I was willing to go on the record, but they didn't print my quote. They didn't print any of my quotes, or, I've worked with you for ten years, or I was your accountant, or I was your chief operating officer, or I was your board member, or I was with you on 100 different tour stops for Concerned Veterans for America.

No one called me. No one asked about your conduct on the record or off the record. Instead, a small handful of anonymous sources were allowed to drive a smear campaign and agenda about me because our left wing media in America today sadly doesn't care about the truth. All they were out to do, Mr. Chairman, was to destroy me.

And why do they want to destroy me? Because I'm a change agent and a threat to them. Because Donald Trump was willing to choose me, to empower me to bring the Defense Department back to what it really should be, which is warfighting. So I'm willing to endure these attacks. But what I will do is stand up for the truth and for my reputation.

False attacks, anonymous attacks, repeated ad nauseum, printed as an audio nauseum as facts. We have provided to the committee, Mr. Chairman, and I know you're going to share on the record statement after on the record statement from people who have served with me, worked with me at Fox News, Concerned Vets, vets for freedom, you name it, from the top of the chain to the bottom.

Who will say, I treat them with respect, with kindness, with dignity. That's men, that's women, that's black, that's white. That's every background. I have prided myself as a leader of respecting people, being professional. That is the balance of mind. I'm not a perfect person, as has been acknowledged, saved by the grace of God, by Jesus and Jenny.

I'm not a perfect person, but redemption is real. And God forged me in ways that I know I'm prepared for, and I'm honored by the people standing and sitting behind me. And I look forward to leading this Pentagon on behalf of the warfighters. Thank you, Mr. Hegseth. And, frankly, I'm sure there are millions of Americans watching who would would agree that that they've experienced that same sort of redemption.

So I do appreciate that, I realize that it involves a little baring of the soul, but thank you for that. Now, let's talk about top line defense spending. I have a plan. I think you've read it, issued another plan, for, freedom Forge, which you've also had a chance to look at. And you have noted correctly that, the current trend line of defense spending falling below 3% of our GDP is a threat to national security.

You also said building the strongest and most powerful military in the world must be done responsibly. All right. It's 822 on Newstalk 1079. We need to stay on somewhat of a schedule here, Julie. So we'll, cut away for a break, but we'll come back. We'll continue listening to, the confirmation hearing for Pete Hegseth. His first reaction or response to Senator Wicker.

Chairman Wickers question, I thought was very strong. It's very strong. He's coming off very, humble and prepared and ready for this. We did get a question wondering, you know, who are these people? Are they just random people? It is. It's just. Yeah, for lack of a better word, weirdos in the audience who are feeling like, yeah, I'm screaming, dressed in pink with peace symbol patches and berets and.

Yeah, yeah, weirdness. We'll be back. It's 823.

It's 827 on Newstalk 179. Senator Reid is now questioning Pete Hegseth and trying to get more rounds of questioning Julie and pausing it, because I didn't hear this. But you did. There's the FBI still talking to people, apparently. Well, that's what he's claiming. Okay. Who? Who? You know that that might not be accurate. Look, Hegg, Seth was named back in November.

They've had two months to prep for this, so, yeah, but they have all that time that they were trying to destroy documents to because they knew Trump was coming in. So they've been busy. They've been busy. They've been busy. It's true. Let's listen in over here, which is an organization of retired four star generals and former secretary of defense that are critical of the proposed purge panels, one from a organization for domestic violence, one for our Council on, American Relations.

And also, excuse me. And also, several letters, that, raise questions. I would ask Stacy, for the for the record. Without objection, they will be submitted. And, Mr. Reed, your time is now expired. Just kidding you. You're recognized for seven minutes. Thank you. You're very understanding, chairman, I like that. I like that, this excerpt you've written and I quote.

Oh, yeah. And fire any general who is and carried water for Obama and Biden's extra constitution. An agenda driven transformation for our military. Clean house and start over. It's come to my attention that current serving military personnel have received emails threatening them with being fired for supporting the current DoD policies. One mail that was sent to a military officer with the subject line clean House reminiscent of your specific comment, states, and I quote with the incoming administration looking to remove disloyal, corrupt, traitorous liberal office ers such as yourself, we will certainly be putting your name into the list of those personnel to be removed.

We know you support the woke Dei policies and will ensure you never again influence anyone in the future. You and redacted spouse's name will be lucky if you're able to collect your military requirement. End quote. Now, I want to remind everyone that these policies that are being referred to are paid back for decades. So the 1940s and 50s with respect to racial discrimination particularly, and administrations of both parties, including the Trump administration and their first party, caused those policies to be enforced, Mr. Hazard, heck said.

Are you aware of these emails being sent to offices? Senator, you mentioned the word accountability, which is something we have not had for the last four years. Are you aware of these messages being sent to offices? Certainly. I'm not aware of that. It's not part of my efforts. But there's been no accountability for the disaster of the withdrawal in Afghanistan.

And that's precisely why we're here today, is that leadership has been unwilling to take accountability. It's the time to restore that to our most senior ranks. You have written publicly that die policy is a distraction and have military personnel walking on eggshells. Do you believe that emails like that that are essentially threatening both, serving officer and a spouse and it's claiming that they'll lose their pension, will have a distraction and detract from the authority?

Senator, you mentioned the 40s and 50s, and you're precisely right. The military was a forerunner in courageous racial integration in ways no other institutions were willing to do. I served with men and women of all backgrounds because of the courage of people who do credibly important to me. However, the policies of today are not the same as what happened back then.

They're dividing troops inside formations, causing commanders to walk on eggshells, not putting meritocracy first. That's the indictment that's made by those serving right now. Excuse me and why we're having this conversation. All of your public comments don't talk about meritocracy. They talk about liberal democratic methods that are destroying the military, that those people are enemies. That's not meritocracy.

That's a political view. And your goal is, I see emerging is to politicize the military in favor of your particular positions, which you have outlined extensively, which would be the worst blow to the professionalism of the United States military and would undercut readiness, undercut retention, because I can see officers receiving these emails beginning to wonder very seriously if they should continue.

Let me change the subject for a moment here. You've been instrumental in securing pardons for several convicted war criminals. And at least two of these cases, the military personnel who served in combat with these convicted servicemembers, we're not supportive of the parts. They did their duty as soldiers to report war crimes. Your definition of lethality seems to embrace those people who do commit war crimes, rather than those who stand up and say, this is not right.

So what's response your service members who firstly witnesses and to courageously report them to their superiors? Senator, as someone who's led men in combat directly and had to make very difficult decisions, I thought very deeply about the balance between legality and lethality, ensuring that the men and women on the front lines have the opportunity to destroy with and close the enemy, and that lawyers aren't the ones getting in the way.

I'm not talking about disavowing, the laws of war or the Geneva Conventions or the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Sir, I'm talking about restrictive rules of engagement that these men and women behind me understand they've lived with on the battlefield, which has made it more difficult to to defeat our enemies. In many of the cases you're talking about in particular, sir, there was evidence withheld.

There was prosecutorial misconduct. And as someone who looks case by case and defaults to the warfighter, to the men and women with the dust on their boots, not the second guessers an air conditioned offices in Washington, DC. Excuse me? I look at Casey's case and was proud to work with President Trump to understand those cases and ensure that our warriors are always looked out for.

Those cases were adjudicated were by adjudicated by Who? People in Washington or fellow noncommissioned officers who had also served to sacrifice and believed in the ethic of the military, who who were the, quote, who was a court martial? Senator, in multiple cases, they were actually acquitted. But charges linger regardless of where those, were. Competing authorities were.

Yes, some were, but others were convicted. And you asked that part. That's the only reason you asked for a pardon because they were convicted. But the other factor, too, is you've already disparaged in writing the Geneva Convention, the rules of law, all of these things. How will you be able to effectively lead a military in which one of the principal elements is discipline, respect for lawful authority?

You have made statements to your platoon after being briefed by a JAG officer who, by the way, would you explain what a JAG off is? I don't think I need to, sir. Why not? Because the men and women watching understand. Well, perhaps some of my colleagues don't understand. It would be a JAG officer who puts, his or her own priorities in front of the warfighters, their promotions, their medals, in front of having the backs of those who are making the tough calls on the front lines.

Thank you, Senator. Interesting. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much, Senator Fisher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome, Mr. Hegseth, to to you and your family. Thank you for the meeting that we had. We talked about a number of things. First and foremost was that nuclear weapons are foundational to our national defense. And having a safe, effective and credible nuclear deterrent underpins our alliances.

And as you know, it deters our adversaries. Nuclear deterrence has been and you and I, I believe, agreed on this. It must continue to be unequivocally the highest priority mission of the Department of Defense. But deterrence only works if our adversaries believe our nuclear forces are effective and credible. All three legs of our triad are undergoing that generational recapitalization, programs.

And we cannot afford any more delays in those programs. Sir, do you believe, and agree with President Trump's 2018 Nuclear Posture Review, that preventing adversary nuclear attacks is, quote, the highest priority of the United States? Senator, yes, I do. If confirmed, will you commit to supporting all three legs of the nuclear triad and using every tool available to deliver these systems on schedule?

Senator? Yes, I do, because ultimately, our deterrence, our survival is reliant upon the capability, the perception and the reality of the capability of our nuclear triad. We have to invest in its modernization for the defense of our nation. All right. You're listening to the confirmation hearing for Pete Hegseth for Defense secretary. And Julie, let's cutaway really quick. We'll take a break and stay on task here.

And we'll continue with this on the other side on Newstalk 179.

It's 844 on Newstalk 1079. Senator Shaheen is now questioning nominee Pete Hegseth for defense Secretary. Let's listen in. Never followed up. When we followed up with your office, you were not able to meet. Do you understand that if you're confirmed to be Secretary of Defense, that you will have a responsibility to meet with all members of this committee, not just Republicans?

Senator, I very much appreciate and understand the traditionally bipartisan nature of this committee. Their national defense is not Partizan. It should not be about Republicans or Democrats. And so I look forward to working together with you and your colleagues on on priorities facing this nation. Yes, I think we would expect that. And one reason that I wanted to meet with you was because I thought it would be really helpful to better understand your views on women in the military, because you've made a number of surprising statements about women serving in the military.

As recently as November the 7th of 2024 on The Sean Ryan Show. You said, and I quote, I'm straight up saying that we should not have women in combat roles. It hasn't made us more effective. The quote went on a little longer, but that was the gist of it. That was before you were nominated to be Secretary of Defense.

Mr.. Do you know what percentage of our military is comprised of women? I believe it's 18 to 20%. Senator. It's almost 18%. And in fact, Dodd's 2023 demographic report indicated that there are more women serving now and there are fewer separations. So they make up a critical part of our military. Wouldn't you agree? Yes, ma'am. Women in our military, as I have said publicly, have and continue to make amazing contributions across all aspects of our battlefield.

Well, you also write in your book, The War on Warriors with the chapter The Deadly Obsession with Women Warriors, that quote, not only are women comparatively less effective than men in combat roles, but they are more likely to be objectified by the enemy and their own nation and the moral realms of war. Mr. Hague, if should we take it to believe that you believe that the two women on this committee who have served honorably and with distinction, made our military less effective and less capable?

I'm incredibly grateful for the for the two women who served our military in uniform and including, in the Central Intelligence Agency. Contributions on the battlefield. Indispensable contribution. Senator, I would like to clarify, when I'm talking about that issue, it's not about the capabilities of men and women. It's about standards. And this committee has talked a lot about standards, standards that we unfortunately, over time, have seen eroded in certain certain duty positions, certain schools, certain places, which affects readiness, which is what I care about the most.

I appreciate that. And and so to my however, time and time again to standards, your statements publicly have not been to that effect. After your nomination, you did state to a group of reporters that you quote, support all women serving in our military today who do a fantastic job across the globe, including combat. So what I'm confused about, Mr. Hegseth is, which is why should women in our military, if you were the secretary of Defense, believe that they would have a fair shot and an equal opportunity to rise through the ranks?

If, on the one hand, you say that women are not competent, they make our military less effective. And on the other hand, you say, oh, no, now that I've been nominated to be the Secretary of Defense, I've changed my view on women in the military. What do you have to say to the almost 400,000 women who are serving today about your position on whether they should be capable to rise through the highest ranks of our military?

Senator, I would say I would be honored to have the opportunity to serve alongside you, shoulder to shoulder, men and women, black, white, all backgrounds with a shared purpose. Our differences are not what defines us. Our unity and our shared purpose is what define us. And you will be treated fairly and with dignity, honor and respect. Just like every man and woman in uniform.

Just like the men and women that I've worked with in my veterans organizations to include when I was a headquarters and headquarters company commander in the Minnesota National Guard. Well, I appreciate our hour conversion, but, Mr. Chairman, for the record, I would like to submit chapter five, The Deadly Obsession with Women Warriors. For the record. Mr. Heck said, without objection, will be submitted.

Are you familiar with the women, Peace and Security agenda at the Department of Defense? Yes, ma'am, I am. This is a law that was signed during president elect Trump's first term. It was legislation that I sponsored with Republican Senator, capital of West Virginia. It was co-sponsored by Marco Rubio, the nominee to be the president elect. Secretary of state.

It was led in the House of Representatives by Kristi Noem, the president elect's nominee to be the secretary of Homeland Security. It mandates that women be included in all aspects of our national security, including conflict resolution and peace negotiations. And that's the Department of Defense. It has been the law for eight years under both the Trump and Biden administration's.

The DoD has incorporated women throughout its decision making as a result. Every single combatant commander across two administrations has told this committee that this law and its implementation at the Department of Defense provides them a strategic advantage operationally. Based on your comments. It appears that the example that you would like to set, not only for women in this country, but for women across the globe, 50% of the world's population has the perspective.

Nominee to lead the most combat credible military in the entire world is that women should not have an equal opportunity in our military. So will you commit to preserving the women, Peace and Security law at DoD and including in your budget the requisite funding to continue to restore and resource these programs throughout the DoD? Senator, I will commit to reviewing that program and ensuring it aligns with America First national security priorities, meritocracy, lethality, and readiness.

And if it advances American interests, it's something we would advance if it doesn't. It's something we will do. Since former President Trump signed the law. I hope that he agrees with you. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. At this point, I would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record five letters of support from female servicemen and combat veterans who support Mr. Smith's nomination.

These women represent diverse viewpoints from a retired colonel with over 25 years of service to an active duty Navy surface warfare commander to a senior airman. They support Mr. Hegseth and, comment on his focus on merit. All right. You're listening to the nomination hearing for Pete Hegseth, defense secretary. And, Julie, how do you think he's doing so far?

I think he's doing great. I, I think that this is the kind of flavor that this whole hearing is going to have. You know, you wouldn't expect anything less. I don't think they're catching him in anything. He's not embarrassed of the book that he wrote. No. And I as soon as she quoted the chapter and submitted it for evidence, I looked right at you as a female and said, he's exactly right.

Yes. Men are stronger in combat. Like, I don't know how that's even quite like, I guess that you enter that as evidence, but it's not like evidence of what? That he said something accurate, that he wrote something accurate in his book? Yeah, right. Well, yes. And, you know, women in combat roles, that's always been controversial. It's it's all well, it's not always been controversial, but because it used to be very non-controversial women in on the battlefield frontlines, it it was it created a lot of complications.

Look, men's reflexes are quicker. Yeah. Men can can carry more weight. Men's body chemistry makes it so they can endure difficult situations longer. They have a different chemistry makeup in order to be able to do that. This is not controversial. That's science. Yeah, yeah, it is science. It is. And it's interesting because I feel like, well, we've got to take a break.

It's 853. We're going to monitor these hearings. Tom Cotton is actually, questioning him. Right now. We're probably taking breaks during the Republican questioning because probably softball questions and easy answers. So, we'll we'll continue this after the break. On Newstalk 1278.

All right. It's 857 on Newstalk 179. And, Tom cotton doing the questioning right now. We'll check in, for just a couple of minutes here before you have to break for the news administration. I want to give you a chance to respond to what they said about you. I think the first one accused you of being a Christian Zionist.

I'm not really sure why that is a bad thing. I'm a Christian. I'm a Zionist. Zionism is that the Jewish people deserve a homeland in the ancient holy Land, where they've lived since the dawn of history. Do you consider yourself a Christian Zionist? Senator, I support I'm a Christian and I robustly support the State of Israel and its existential defense.

And the way America comes alongside them is a great thank you. Because another one, another protester and I think this one was a member of CodePink, which by the way, is a Chinese communist front group these days. Said that you support Israel's war in Gaza. I support Israel's existential war in Gaza. I assume, like me and President Trump, you support that war as well, don't you, Senator?

I do. I support Israel destroying and killing every last member of Hamas. And the third protester said something about 20 years of genocide. I assume that's our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you think our troops are committing genocide in Iraq and Afghanistan? Senator, I do not. I think our senator, our troops, as you know, as so many in this committee know, did the best they could with what they have.

We're not the outcomes. And tragically, the outcome we saw in Afghanistan under the Biden administration put a stain on that. But it doesn't put a stain on what those men and women did in uniform, as you know full well, Senator. Thank you, Mr. Boxer. Thank you, Senator Cotton. At this point, I of I ask unanimous consent to offer to the record a letter submitted by Omar Abbasi, son of former city councilman.

All right. It's 859. We're going to break for the news. Will continue in the next hour right here. Democrats are not welcome in the military. Are you saying that, Senator, I volunteered to deploy to Afghanistan under Democrat President Barack Obama? I also volunteered to guard the inauguration of Joe Biden, but was denied the opportunity to serve because I was identified as an extremist by my own unit for a Christian tattoo.

Thank you very much. Senator Gillibrand, you, you held up a document, and referred to it during your questioning. Would you like that? Entered into the record one without my marks. Okay. Yeah. Okay. We will delete. Will submit a claim without objection. That will be admitted at the at the point of your question. And I would like to enter into the record at this point, a letter of support from retired Air Force Colonel Melissa Cunningham.

Colonel Cunningham supports Mr. Hegseth and mentions his warrior ethos, combat effectiveness and maintaining military training standards. So that object and or back. 907 on Newstalk 1079 it's Neal Larson along with Julie Mason getting feisty out there. Julie during the exit confirmation, most recently, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York. Listen to this. Here's a little audio from that.

Hey buddy, should be able to serve in the military if they meet the standards. Senator, as the president has stated, I don't disagree with the overturning of don't ask, don't tell. Great. Because I don't want you thinking can't serve if your mom can't serve you LGBTQ. And then last, can't serve if you're a leftist. The statements you said about people who have views differently than you that were the enemy.

Are you saying the 50% of the DoD, if they hold liberal views or leftist views, or are Democrats, are not welcome in the military? Are you saying that, Senator, I volunteered to deploy to Afghanistan under Democrat President Barack Obama? I also volunteered to guard the inauguration of Joe Biden, but was denied the opportunity to serve because I was identified as an extremist by my own unit for a Christian tattoo.

Thank you. Okay. We'll fire there, Julie. Basically. And she ended well, her time was up, but, it's fascinating. This is a fascinating. I feel like that was a great response. I will say this. I felt like her her questioning was very tight and strong. Much stronger than a couple of the previous Democrat senators.

Yeah. However, I don't feel like, it gained her any points. I don't know, I don't know what they're expecting here that that somehow they're going to have a gotcha moment with him. It doesn't exist. The other side has has, behaved the way that she's projecting that the Republicans are going to behave. So that wasn't a gotcha moment.

And I don't know how this is even, a matter of conversation. He's asking for women to meet up to a certain merit, to meet up to a certain standard in order to be in combat. That's it. Yeah, but he's asking for. Well, the the exchange between Tom Cotton and Pete Hegseth was very enlightening. And they talked about how there's certain tools, certain devices that that weigh 100 pounds.

And you got to lug this miles through a desert or through a swamp, or, and men can do this. A lot of women cannot. And so they have these gender neutral physical standards that are, that are required. Now, there was something kind of contradictory when Senator Gillibrand was talking. She said the standards have not been altered or reduced so it can allow more women.

Heck, Seth says he's seen the standards get reduced. Yes. So I'm going to tell you, I don't know how they haven't been reduced. I'm not the the strongest gal out there. There's many women who have a more mass, more muscle tone than I have, but they were referencing that, 120 pound woman cannot carry something that heavy. They can't?

Yeah, I lift weights all the time. I'm telling you, I couldn't do it in combat. I may be I might be able to lift that amount of weight two times. Three times. I'm not going to be able to endure combat with that amount of weight. Yeah, yeah, that and that I think is the big question. And it just comes down to can you do the job.

Yeah. Right. I, I think they've gotten rid of no women, but the job almost makes it exclusively available like the the direct combat on the field front lines role. So right now when I yeah yeah I, I, I don't know it's I wish we had, I didn't know what Tom cotton was going to talk about but he, he pointed it out very, very well.

Yeah. So yeah I, I really feel like he's going to be okay. I feel like Pete Hegseth is holding this really strong. I don't think he should go toe to toe with a female when they're talking female stuff. So when the senator just now was kind of given it to him. Yeah. I think it's fine that he sits there.

Just let her let her speak her mind. She's talking about women. Let her do that. I felt like his response was short and honest and good. Yeah. Move on. She only gets seven minutes. Yeah, that. Yeah. That's true. You don't need to engage every point. No. And quite frankly, I think she was more interested in talking than hearing any answer that she had which benefits him.

Actually it does. What I also noticed is that she never gave a direct quote, she characterized things that he said or, or said in his book. But if you give the direct quote, it usually comes with a rationale for why he's saying what he's saying. And they they never give any kind of a nod to the rationale for why women, you know, you have to look at the role of women in combat roles, etc..

Yeah. Well, we we mentioned that they keep saying a vague he doesn't want women in the military that's inaccurate. And he's pointed it out several times. But that's the phraseology they keep doing. What he doesn't want them in is lethal combat. He's clarified that multiple times. Yes. Senator Gillibrand was the one who got to the that the most and, and kind of drilled into it.

But I, I think I think he's good. I'm not I'm not worried. Yeah. So far I haven't, I haven't felt like anybody's landed a fatal blow on him. No. You know, they've, they've thrown stuff at him, but he's apparently he, he chose not to meet with some of those Democrat Democrat senators, probably because he knew I'm not getting their vote anyway.

Like they're there because they're Democrats. They're going to vote against me. I'm not going to go spend 45 minutes in their office just so they can nit pick or try to get info and and hear what I have to say. So then they can later pick it apart during a hearing so I can understand why he wouldn't want to want to meet with them.

And I totally get it. I think he's better off, you know, preparing than spending that time. Well, I think it's also emblematic of how toxic and broken things are in Washington. Yeah. So, okay, we'd love to hear from you. (208) 542-1079 it's Neal Larsen along with Julie Mason. And we are we are watching the Seth's confirmation hearings. All the networks are carrying this wall to wall.

We're we're carrying much of it. But, we'd we'd love to hear your thoughts. So you can send us a text on the stones out our group. Collin. Text line (208) 542-1079. Multiple other things going on, Julie. And right now you have California. Of course, it although I had I had a thought and I thought this was very apropos reads dairy has an ice cream called Gavin's.

Yes. And I think Gavin's message is very relevant and apropos in the wake of what's happened. Yeah, but one Gavin's messages yummy and comforting, and in the other, Gavin's messages squeaky and right and deadly. Yes, it's true. All right, let's go back here. Blumenthal is now questioning, Pete Hegseth. Let's listen in. Thanks to all the veterans who are here today.

And thank you for your service as the ranking member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, I hope we can focus on doing better for our veterans and doing better in management of the Department of Defense. There's always room for improvement. I think what we need in that position is not just better, but the best in financial management, because those decisions are life and death decisions affecting the 3.4 million Americans who served our national security and our national defense and put their lives on the line.

I want to talk about financial mismanagement at the two organizations that you headed, which are the only test of your financial management that we have before this committee. The veterans for Freedom and Concerned Veterans for America. You took over the veterans for freedom in 2007. In 2008, you raised $8.7 million but spent more than 9 million, creating a deficit.

By January 2009, you told donors that the organization had less than $1,000 in the bank and debts of $434,000. By 2010, revenue at the veterans for freedom had dropped to about $265,000. In the next year. Okay, I don't mean to interrupt here, but here you have Senator Blumenthal, a member of Congress, lecturing Pete Hegseth about going into debt.

Yep. Does anyone else see the irony? Well, you know what, Neal? This hearing isn't about the Democrats. Yeah, it's about what a horrible dude he is. And his bad tattoos. Yes. Yeah. See, if if I were Hegseth, I'd be like. It's refreshing to hear, Democrat member of Congress get worried about debt. Yeah. So that's I want to that's what I have, which is supporting the warfighters.

Exactly why we're here today. The warfighters in the Iraq surge. There was a campaign in 2008, Senator, it was Barack Obama. If I can ask you, and I believe John McCain would be the right person to win. And so we spent earnings from that organization. I'm glad there. For the record, I'm going to ask to be entered into the record, Mr. Chairman.

Without objection, these tax returns are yours. They have your signature. And I'm going to ask that members of the committee review them, because they're the only documents I've asked for others. I've asked for the FBI report that would presumably document it should have documented this kind of financial mismanagement. And, these are the nine 90s from that organization by the year of 2011, donors had become so dissatisfied with that mismanagement, they, in effect, ousted you.

They merged that organization with Military Families United. And thereafter, you joined a second organization as executive director. Between Senator, I went to Harvard. I want to ask you and and I want to ask you questions about concerned veterans for America. Again, another set of tax returns, the nine 90s, from that organization, I asked they'd be made part of the record, Mr. Chairman, without objection, both of those returns are now part of the record 2011 to 2016.

At the end of 2013, shortfall of $130,000 at the end of 2014, shortfall of $428,000. You had a surplus the following year, but then another deficit of $437,000. By the time you left that organization at deep debts, including credit card transaction debts of about $75,000, that isn't the kind of fiscal management we want at the Department of Defense.

We can't tolerate it at the Department of Defense. That's an organization with a budget of $850 billion, not 10 or 15 million, which was the case that those two organizations and it hasn't it been an ongoing problem at the Pentagon that they can't figure out where all the money goes? Yeah, we were missing money. They can't pass an audit.

I don't I don't, but it's deeply important to him. Is Senator Blumenthal trying to suggest that the Department of Defense's finance is her pristine? Yeah, it's. No, it's deeply important. That's the words he use. Okay. Deeply important. This is fascinating concerning that. I'm sure you're on the VA committee, sir, and I appreciate your service there. The the VA Accountability Act and the Michigan Act were all brainchild of Concerned Veterans for America.

We used our donor money very intentionally in focus to create policy that better the lives of veterans. That I'm asking you a very simple question. How many men and women currently serve in the United States Army Center? The United States Army, 450,000 on active duty, sir. And how many in the Navy and the Navy? It's 425, sir. Well, it's 337 this year.

How many in the Marine Corps? 175. 175,000, sir. 172,003 hundred. Those wrong numbers dwarf any experience you had by many multiples. I don't believe that you can tell this committee, or the people of America that you are qualified to lead them. I would support you. When he became a senator, how many people had he let? Yeah, that's that's the next question.

Yeah. What is is there this benchmark for how many people he's arguing you have to be a defense secretary before you can become a defense secretary, whom you'd be willing to submit to an expanded FBI background check that interviews your colleagues, accountants, ex-wives, former spouses, sexual assault survivors, and others, and enable them to come forward. Well, well, well, well, he can't say that I'm not in charge.

You cannot say that. Yeah. There is been no sexual assault survivor that he has credibly been accused of, that he was just slandered. Yes. You cannot say that. At this point, when I submit a letter from captain Wade, circle, the founder. Okay, I yeah, that's I don't think senators can be sued for what they say in a hearing or on the floor.

I think they're immune from it. But that was slanderous. And I would hope that either a future Republican senator or Hegseth himself will will address that. Because you're right. You're right. I mean, what's his cover here? Oh, we're just going to pick random women who survive sexual assault and let them give testimony. Yeah. Like that. That was horrible.

That that. Yes. Terrible inference there. We'll be back after this. On Newstalk 107 nine.

All right. We on Facebook life, Okay I'm going to there is a really urgent report upfront. I've got to go talk and my mug's empty. So, Joni Ernst is now, grilling him. I say that she's Republican, but, I was perusing a Wall Street Journal article this morning listing who are the six potential no votes Republican, no votes for Pete Hegseth in the Senate.

Joni Ernst was listed as one of them. Ironically, so was John Curtis from Utah on both Joni Ernst and John Curtis, the Wall Street Journal said they've given us no indication that they would be voting no, but we think they are swing votes. So take that for what it's worth to, I don't know, Joni Ernst looks like the mean teacher you wouldn't have wanted in fourth grade.

How are you guys, by the way? Facebook was being very bizarre when I started. I had to re do the whole set up three times to make it work. So that's why it was late. You know, Zuckerberg, how's everyone doing? We're good. You good. I said Joni Ernst looks like the the fourth grade the mean fourth grade teacher that nobody wanted.

Oh she kind of does like she would scare you. Yeah. She was also listed along John Curtis as a potential no vote for Pete Hanks. Should we listen to. Yeah. So there's significant room for greater efficiency and cost cutting within the department. And the DoD is the only federal agency, that has never passed an audit, as the Senate caucus chair and founder, that's unacceptable to me.

And it should be unacceptable to you as well.

926 On Newstalk 179, it's Neal Larsen along with Julie Mason on this Tuesday morning, which is I think you could call this historic Pete Hegseth is sitting in the hot seat in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee, taking questions from US senators about his nomination. Right now, Joni Ernst, of course, is a Republican. But she was getting headlines right after Haig's sets naming by Trump as she might not be able to support him.

So should we listen in, Julie? Yeah, we discovered a 2013 op ed I wrote about the need for a Pentagon audit because an audit is an issue of national security and and frankly, respect to American taxpayers who give $850 billion over to the Defense Department and expect that we know where that money goes. And if that money is going somewhere that doesn't add to truth and instead goes to fat or tail, we need to know that.

Or if it's wasted, we need to know that. So I think previous secretaries of defense, with all due respect, haven't necessarily emphasized the strategic prerogative of an audit. And myself, my deputy. Secdef. And others already know that a Pentagon audit will be the comptroller, others central to ensuring we find those dollars that can be used elsewhere, legally under the law inside the Pentagon.

So you have my word. It will be a priority. Okay. Thank you. Okay, moving on to women in combat. And I had the privilege of serving in uniform for over 23 years. Between our Army reserves and our Iowa Army National Guard. Did serve in Kuwait and missions in Iraq. And so it is incredibly important, that I stress and I hope that if confirmed, you continue to stress that every man and woman has opportune nity to serve their country in uniform and do so at any level, as long as they are meeting the standards that are set forward.

And we we talked about that. And in my office, I do believe in high standards. Now, I was denied the opportunity to serve in any combat role, because I have a lot of gray hair and the policy has changed since then. Okay. So I've been around for quite a while, but for the young women that are out there now and can meet those standards, and again, I'll emphasize they should be very, very high standards.

They must physically be able to achieve those standards so that they can complete their mission. But I want to know, again, let's make it very clear for everyone here today as Secretary of Defense, will you support women continuing to have the opportunity to serve in combat roles? Senator, first of all, thank you for your service. As we discussed extensively as well, my privilege and my answer is yes, exactly the way that you caveated it.

Yes, women will have access to ground combat roles, combat roles, given the standards remain high and will have a review to ensure the standards have not been eroded. In any one of these cases, that'll be part of one of the first things we do at the Pentagon is reviewing that in a gender neutral way. The standards ensuring readiness, and meritocracy is front and center.

But absolutely, it would be the privilege of a lifetime, to, if confirmed, to be the secretary of defense for all men and women in uniform who fight so heroic, they have so many other options. They decide to put their right hand up, for our country. And it would be an honor to have a chance to lead them.

Thank you. And just very briefly, we only have less than a minute left, but, we have also discussed this in my office. A priority, a priority of mine has been combating sexual assault in the military and making sure that all of our service members are treated with dignity and respect. This has been so important. Senator Gillibrand and I have worked on this, and we were able to get changes made to the Uniform Code of Military Justice to make sure that we have improvements and on how we address the tragic and life altering, issues of rape, sexual assault.

It will demand time and attention from the Pentagon under your watch. If you are confirmed. So, as Secretary of Defense, will you appoint a senior level official dedicated to sexual assault prevention and response? Senator, as we have discussed, yes, I will. Okay. My time has expired. Thank you for your answers there, Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Oh, Mr. Executive, well.

Oh, this is always a show with Mazie Hirono. The intelligence level just went down in the room a little bit. Character and temperament. And your overall qualifications to do the job. And I do appreciate the comments. Ranking Member Reed, with his concerns regarding your nomination, because I share those concerns as part of my responsibility as a member of this committee to ensure the fitness of all nominees to come before any of the committees on which I sit, I ask the following two initial questions.

First, since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature? No. Senator. Have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement relating to this kind of conduct? Senator, I was falsely accused in October of 2017. It was fully investigated and I was completely cleared.

I don't think, completely cleared is accurate, but the, the fact is that your own lawyer said that you entered into an NDA. Paid a person who accused you of raping her a sum of money to make sure that she did not file a complaint. Moving on. As secretary, you will be in charge of maintaining good order and discipline by enforcing the Uniform Code of Military Justice, UCMJ.

In addition to the sexual assault allegations and by the way, the answer to my second question should have been yes. I have read multiple reports of your regularly. What was that serial? You get to just decide for people what they're supposed to say. Do you know that being drunk at work is prohibited for servicemembers under the UCMJ? Senator, those are multiple false anonymous reports peddled by NBC.

You know, they run directly contrary to the dozens of men and women at Fox. I'm frustrated, and it's who I work with. I'm not hearing their record. My question and said in your opening statement, Mr. Hicks says you commit to holding leaders accountable at all levels. That includes you, of course. And, frankly, as secretary, you will be on the job 24 seven.

You recently promised some of my Republican colleagues that you stopped drinking and won't drink if confirmed. Correct? Absolutely. Will you resign as secretary of defense if you drink on the job, which is a 24 over seven position? I've made this commitment on behalf of. Will you resign as secretary of Defense? I've made this commitment on behalf of the men and women I'm serving.

I'm not the most important deployment. An answer to my question. So I'm going to move on. While you have made that commitment, you will not commit to resigning if you drink on the job. As Secretary of Defense, you will swear an oath to the Constitution and not an oath to any man, woman or president. Correct? Senator. On multiple occasions, including as a young second lieutenant, I have sworn an oath to the Constitution, and I'm proud to do so.

Yes, ma'am. And June of 2020, then President Trump directed former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper to shoot protesters in the legs in downtown D.C., an order Secretary Esper refused to comply with. Would you carry out such an order from President Trump? Senator, I was in the Washington, DC National Guard unit that was in Lafayette Square. During those, would you carry out an order to shoot a protest entry in the leg?

I saw 50 Secret Service agents to get injured by rioters trying to jump over the fence to church on fire and destroyed it. That sounds to me that you will comply with such an order. You will shoot protesters in the in the leg, moron. President Bullock has attacked our allies in recent weeks, refusing to rule out using military force to take over Greenland and the Panama Canal and threatening to take to make Canada the 51st state, which you carry out in order from President Trump to seize Greenland, a territory of our NATO ally Denmark, by force.

Or would you comply with an order to take over the Panama Canal? Senator, I will emphasize that President Trump received 77 million votes to be the lawful commander. We're not talking about the election. My question is, would you use our military to take over Greenland or an ally, of Denmark? Senator, one of the things that President Trump is so good at is never strategically tipping his hand.

And so I would never in this public forum give one way or another for the president to me, in any context, that sounds to me that you would contemplate, carrying out such an order to basically invade Greenland and take over the Panama Canal. Current policy allows servicemembers and eligible dependents to be reimbursed for travel associated with non covered reproductive health care, including abortions.

Will you maintain this common sense policy? Senator, I've always been personally pro-life. I know President Trump has as well, and we will review all policies, but our our standard is whatever the president wants on this particular issue. So my advice I will take the president tells you that I don't believe the policy will not be maintained. You will not enable our servicemembers to seek reproductive care.

So I don't believe the federal government is hearing answers to my question. Chairman. Well, it doesn't matter if he gives answers. She just says what they are. I thought it was of serious concern to me. Is President Trump saying that he wants to use the military to help with mass deportations, which would cost billions of dollars. And what that will do to us is, very, very concerning.

This year I have noticed a disturbing pattern. You previously have made a series of inflammatory statements about women and combat LGBTQ servicemembers, Muslim Americans and Democrats. Since your nomination, however, you have walked those back on TV and a said most recently in your opening statements, you are no longer on Fox and Friends. Mr. heck said, if confirmed, your words, actions and decisions will have real impacts on national security and our servicemembers lives.

There are close to 3 million personnel in the Department of Defense, a $900 billion budget. I hardly think you are prepared to do the job. Thank you Senator. Thank you, thank you. That wasn't a question, Mr. Harrison. Thank you. So, Sharon up, Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr.. So I have to make my point before we move on here.

She is lecturing him about if he gets this appointment, he will be on the job 24 over seven. I want to remind everyone, the previous man who had this job left for a surgery, and we had no idea where he was at for two days. We didn't know where Lloyd Austin was. He didn't tell people that he was going to be gone.

And then he had complications and had to go back to the hospital. Yeah, well, and the whole issue two about drinking on the job, does that apply to the vice presidency? I guess not, because she's a heartbeat away from being the commander in chief. I'm just curious. I believe he was talking about the great state of Alaska. He was talking about the great state of Alaska.

Great answer. If confirmed, will you commit to come with me to the great state of Alaska and meet our warriors who are on the front lines every day? Senator, I have and as I mentioned to you in the past, I did a brief training exercise up at Fort Wainwright. In a previous part of my military life. I look forward to returning.

Great. And I will say we are on the front lines with this new era of authoritarian aggression in Alaska. The last two years, we've had Chinese and Russian naval task force. We are going to cut away here. We're getting pushed on our time just a little bit. Mazie Hirono is always a barrel of monkeys. Like she don't even know what's going to happen.

So entertaining. She's infuriating, but she's entertaining. We'll be right back. Keep it.

Yeah, and that, boys and girls, is the finest example that anyone can become a senator. Yeah. Hawaii. Can you not do better than Mazie Hirono?

Seriously, I don't even know. How did this woman become a U.S. senator? I have no idea. It's not the first time she's done like this. Oh, I know, it's all. Like I said, she's always, Oh, goodness. Fascinating. Goodness, goodness, goodness, that was fun. Yeah. You know what? He needed to just not just let her go. Don't even answer her.

This is the first confirmation hearing of any of Trump's picks, right? Yeah, yeah, there's two more happening today, and one might be happening simultaneously. I, Doug Burgum, was supposed to happen today, but I think they bumped him. So there might only be one other happening today. And initially there was three. They might have bumped Doug Burgum, but it's all week like they're getting him done.

Guess what you guys Neal turns 52 tomorrow. That's true. How's it feel to be so old? To finish a text in the next minute and a half. So you see that look he just gave me? I have changed the gift that I was giving Neal. Oh, yeah. Jeff, we noticed what they were saying about Hegseth on the ABC news.

We get it. Where? There. We heard it. I've changed the gift. I was getting him multiple times. I decided on a totally new, completely different gift on Saturday. So I had five clients yesterday. Got those all done, jumped in the car because I knew exactly where I was going to get the new gift that I decided.

On. It all turned out great. They actually knew who Neal was and really? Yeah. Well, now I can't wait for this. I have the gift. Are you deliberately not disclosing where you went? Oh, no. I'll give it away. I can't do that. I guess I'll find out tomorrow. I should have bought him a stockpile of. Depends.

Okay. That's gift number five. No, no no, no. Well, he's the one that's leaving every two minutes to go visit Catherine at the front desk. Because somebody forces me to drink 40oz of water in three minutes. So, yeah.

All right, I replied. By the way, I knew what you were doing. Yeah. We have someone not happy that we're carrying this today, even though it's been very entertaining and quite spirited, so. All right, hold up. Let me. I do have a second. Let me get them in an assignment. Okay. Neal has promised me that he'll get breakfast tomorrow.

Where are their breakfast burritos available? Besides the gas station at 625 in the morning, if any of you know in Facebook, type it. Okay.

It's 945 on Newstalk 107. I would just say to the throng of listeners in Hawaii who are tuning in right now to us, can you not do better? Can you not do better than Mazie Hirono? We'll give you a shout out every day. We'll say, aloha. Give us a new senator. You. Although I will say we enjoy the entertainment value of your US senator.

She offers a lot. She does not lack in entertainment value. Yep. She offers a lot what she offers in entertainment value. She lacks in gravitas and seriousness that you would expect from a U.S. senator. But she's entertaining. She is. Okay let's do A00. This is the crazy guy. Should we like side and more crazy and cheat on Tim Kaine?

The child had been born two months before and you tell us you were completely cleared. So how was that a complete, clear Senator? Her child's name is Gwendolyn Hope Hegseth, and she's a child of God, and she's seven years old. And she was like me. And you cheated on the mother of that child. Less than two months after that daughter was born, didn't you?

Those were false charges. Well, no. Fully investigated. And I was completely cleared. And I am so grateful for the marriage. I have to know you the minute you've admitted that you had sex at that hotel in October 2017, you said it was consensual. Isn't that correct? Anything? Yes. You've admitted that it was consensual and you were still married and you just had a child by another woman.

Again, how do you explain your child's false charges against me? You know, I investigated, and it's completely clear you have admitted that you had sex while you were married to wife two, after you just had fathered a child by wife three you've admitted that now, if it had been a sexual assault that would be disqualifying to be Secretary of Defense, wouldn't it?

It was a false claim then, and a false claim now. If it had been a sexual assault, that would be disqualifying to be a secretary of defense, wouldn't it? That was a false claim. So you're talking about a hypothetical, so you can't tell me whether someone who has committed a sexual assault is disqualified from being secretary of defense?

Senator, I know in my instance, and I'm talking about my instance only it was a false claim, but you acknowledged it, but you allege that you cheated on your wife and that you cheated on the woman who by whom you had just fathered a child. You have been met at that. I will allow your words to speak for them.

You're not retracting that today. That's good. I assume that in each of your weddings you've pledged to be faithful to your wife. You've taken an oath to do that, haven't you, Senator? As I've acknowledged to everyone in this committee, not a perfect person not claiming. But now I just ask the simple question. You've taken an oath like you would take an oath to be Secretary of Defense and all of your weddings, to be faithful to your wife, is that correct?

I have failed in things in my life, and thankfully I'm redeemed by my Lord and Savior Jesus. In finalizing divorces from your first and second wives, were there nondisclosure agreements in connection with those divorces? Senator? Not that I'm aware of. If there were, would you agree to release, those first and second wives from any confidentiality agreement? Senator, it's not something I'm aware of, but.

But if there were, you would agree to release them from a confidentiality. Senator, that's not my responsibility. Did you ever engage in any acts of physical violence against any of your wives, Senator? Absolutely not. But you would agree with me that if someone had committed physical violence against the spouse, that would be disqualifying to serve as secretary of defense, correct, Senator?

Absolutely not. Have I ever done that? You would agree that that would be a disqualifying offense, would you not? Senator, you're talking about a hypothetical. I don't think it's a hypothetical that violence against spouses occurs every day. And if you, as a leader, are not capable of saying that physical violence against a spouse should be a disqualifying fact for being secretary of the most powerful nation in the world, you're demonstrating an astonishing lack of judgment.

The incident in Monterey led to a criminal charge, a criminal investigation, a private settlement and a cash payment to the woman who filed the complaint. And there was also a nondisclosure agreement, correct. It was a confidential, confidential settlement agreement off of a nuisance lawsuit. Right. During an interview, you claim that you settle the matter because you were worried that if it became public, it might hurt your career.

Do you maintain that you were blackmailed? Senator? I maintain that false claims were made against me. And ultimately, your attorney leaves. You have the opportunity to a test my innocence in those false claims. But you didn't reveal any of this to President Trump or the transition team as they were considering you to be nominated for secretary of defense.

You didn't. You didn't reveal the the action. You didn't reveal the criminal complaint. You didn't reveal the criminal investigation. You didn't reveal the settlement. You didn't reveal the cash payment. Why didn't you inform the commander in chief of the transition team of this very relevant event? Senator, I have appreciated every part of the process with the transition team.

They have been open and honest with me. We've had great conversations between the two of us and, I appreciate the opportunity that president elect did. You but you you chose not to reveal this, right? Because you knew it would hurt your chances. So you chose not to reveal this really important thing to the commander in chief of the transition team, because you were worried about your chances, rather than trying to be candid with the future president of the United States, are there any other important facts that you chose not to reveal to the president elect and his team, as they were considering you to be Secretary of Defense?

Senator, I sit here before you, an open book, as everyone who's watched this process with with multiple nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements tying the hands of many people who would like to comment to us, much, much has been made, of your workplace behavior as a leader of nonprofit veterans organizations and as a Fox News contributor. Were you fired from either of the leadership positions with the nonprofits?

I was the leader. I was the CEO. Of course, I know which of those two. Director. You fired him. Were you fired from me? And I was never fired from it. Do you have you have nondisclosure agreements with either of those organizations? Not that I'm aware of. Senator McCain has NDAs. Everyone has such a stupid question. But you would agree with me, right?

That if that was the case, that would be disqualify for somebody to be secretary of defense. Senator, those are all anonymous false claims. And the totality, they're not they're not anonymous letters on the record. They're not a not on the record. We've seen records with names attached. Freedom Concern, vets for America and Fox News. Want to me, one of your colleagues working hard every day one on behalf one of your colleagues said that you got drunk at an event at a bar and chanted kill all Muslims.

Another colleague, not anonymous. We have this said that you took coworkers to a strip club. You were drunk, you tried to dance with strippers, you had to be held off the stage and one of your employees in that event filed a sexual harassment charge as a result of it. Now, I know you denied these things, but isn't that the kind of behavior that, if true, would be disqualifying for somebody to be secretary of defense?

Senator? Anonymous false charges, they're not anonymous. And I'll just conclude and say this to the chairman. You claim that this was all anonymous. We have seen records with names attached to all of these, including the name of your own mother. So don't make this into some anonymous press thing. We have seen multiple names of colleagues consistently throughout your career that have talked about your abusive actions, and I think he's over this time.

He's way over. I now yield, wow. Okay. I want to point something out. You know, Senator Ted Kennedy got to serve forever. And he allegedly left a woman to die in a car, you know, in a in a river. Yeah. And also, most of those men in that room are privately in their minds going, wow, this guy sounds like a good time.

Yeah. Yeah, right. That's true. But there are certain things you can't you couldn't answer the way you'd want to answer. If you're a nominee. I would say back to him, if it's disqualifying for a member of Congress, then we can have that conversation. So we'll be right back. It's 954.

There's people sitting in there that are probably have their names on the Epstein list. You're probably right about it. And they're you're asking a question like that. Yeah. You're not wrong about it. Oh, these people. Okay. 48 seconds. I don't think I'll have time to do another, Apple endorsement. That's okay. So it looks like what I was going to say earlier, but he was questioning, so we went to it.

They did bump Doug Burgum to Thursday. Okay. And I it says right here there is only one today Pete Hegseth I think he took up all the oxygen in the room. Yeah. Wednesday it is loaded. So tomorrow they're doing Kristi Noem Pam Bondi Senator Duffy or no, Sean Duffy, John Ratcliffe, Marco Rubio, Chris Wright and Russell Voight.

Okay. All of that's happening tomorrow. And then Thursday is Doug Burgum. He got bumped. Like I said. Also Scott Turner, Lee Zeldin, you know what all this means truly that the life span of Pete Hegseth in the news cycle is going to be that long. Yep. And that maybe that's why they scheduled it like this. They knew this would be the most controversial one.

Let's do him first. And then we quickly move on to the others and yeah, yeah, I, I bet those the ones that were scheduled for today because I'm 100% sure there used to be three. I bet the two that got bumped. They were told we're moving this because we need to get as much. We're going to squeeze this, turn up as much as we can.

Yeah, yeah. That's. Yeah. But also a member of the military had orders to come to Washington, DC to guard that inauguration. And at the last minute, those orders were revoked. I never had orders revoked before. I'd been on orders to a lot of places to do a lot of difficult and dangerous things. They were revoked and I was not told why.

Later, when I wrote my book, I was able to get information that was because I had been identified, sorry, someone who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, in Guantanamo Bay, holding a riot shield outside the white House. I'd been identified as an extremist, someone unworthy of guarding the inauguration of an incoming American president. And if that's happening to me.

Okay, so I gotta go back to Tim Kaine for just a moment. I had completely forgotten that he's the guy that Hillary Clinton picked as a running mate in 2016. He had I don't I didn't remember that either. So forgettable. What? And I will say this as I watch it, I'm like, he could be Tim Walz, his older brother.

They they look dopey together. Have definitely look doofy. Yeah, yeah. Maybe they have a template for vice presidential candidates we didn't know about. Maybe to pick a doofy looking older white guy.

I might be a candidate for that. So I shouldn't speak to. Yeah. Stop it. All right, here we go. Okay.

All right. 958 I think Mazie Hirono was the most entertaining. Yeah, Tim Cain's probably was the hardest hitting, but I don't think he laid any fatal, fatal blows on eggs. It's pretty hard to lay lay a fatal blow when half of of everyone who's serving in DC, you know, has done nearly the same thing. That is absolutely true.

Tim Kaine, chosen as Hillary Clinton's running mate back in 2016, who was Hillary's husband. That's the show today. We'll see you all tomorrow.