Charlie Kirk Coverage Pete Hegseth hearing

Commentary on Pete Hegseth hearing

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Is it only boys can fight? I mean, you've you've
testified here today that you believe in women in combat,
but you didn't just last year.

Speaker 2 (00:11):
How do you explain your conversion, Senator? My testimony is clear.

Speaker 3 (00:15):
Writing a book is different than being Secretary Defense and
I look forward to leading the men and women of
our military. And my comment there, Senator was about the
burdensome rules of engagement that members of our of our
generation generation men and women have.

Speaker 2 (00:31):
Seen on the battlefield.

Speaker 3 (00:31):
And one thing President Trump changed in meaningful ways that
led to meaningful developments on the battlefield. When President Trump
took control in the first term, ISIS was raising across
the rock and it is someone who spent a lot
of time there with with with other men and women
who are invested in that mission. It was a very
difficult moment to see the black flag of ISIS fly.

(00:52):
And what President Trump did, I appreciate, untie the hands
of position today and change the rules of engagement, untied
the hands of war fighters and allowowed them to complete
their mission and crush ISIS. It has not just tact
tactical implications, operational and strategic implications. How you allow war
fighters to go about winning and fighting their wars. President
Trump understands that, and within the laws of war and

(01:15):
the Uniform Code of Military Justice, we are going to
unleash war fighters to win wars so that wars don't
drag on forever, as our generation has seen.

Speaker 1 (01:25):
So, are you rejecting Title eighteen and Title forty two?
I think all past provisions that incorporates the Geneva Convention
and the Laws of Armed Combat. Are you saying that
those laws should be repealed? That is the law of
the land right now, Senator.

Speaker 3 (01:42):
We have laws on the books from the Geneva Conventions
into the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and then underneath
that you have layers in which standard or temporary rules
of engagements are put into place. We fight enemies also, Senator,
as our generation understands.

Speaker 2 (02:00):
Played by no rules.

Speaker 3 (02:01):
They use civilians as human shields target rules. We follow rules,
but we don't need burdens and rules of engagement make
it impossible for us to win these wars.

Speaker 2 (02:15):
They rules, but we don't have to follow the rules
in all cases.

Speaker 3 (02:19):
Is that correct, Senator, I'm making some rules, Senator, I'm
making an important tactical distinction that warfighters will understand that
there are the rules we swear an oath to defend,
which are incredibly important. This committee understands and helps set them.
And then there are those echelons above reality, from you know,
core vision to brigade to battalion, and by the time

(02:40):
it trickles down to a company or a platoon or
a squad level, you have a rules of engagement that
nobody recognizes, and then it makes you incredibly difficult to
actually do your job on the battlefield.

Speaker 2 (02:51):
That's the kind of assessment and.

Speaker 3 (02:53):
Look that an Army major will give to this process.
If I was confirmed to be this quote is true, understanding.

Speaker 2 (03:01):
Quote in twenty twenty four.

Speaker 1 (03:02):
Our boys should not fight by rules written by dignified
men in mahogany rooms eighty years ago. That would be
the Geneva Convention. America should fight by its own rules,
and we should fight to win or not go in
at all. Are you saying that the Geneva Convention provisions,
which clearly outlawed torture of prisoners, should not apply in

(03:25):
the future, Senator.

Speaker 3 (03:26):
How we treat our wounded, how we treat our prisoners.
The applications of the Jauvina Conventions are incredibly important.

Speaker 2 (03:33):
But we'd all have to acknowledge.

Speaker 3 (03:34):
That the way we fought our wars back when the
Geneva Conventions were written are a lot different than the asymmetric,
non conventional environment of counterinsurgency that I confronted in Iraq
and Afghanistan. I was the senior counterinsurgency instructor in Afghanistan.

Speaker 2 (03:48):
My job was to understand.

Speaker 3 (03:49):
How the Taliban and al Qaida operated so that NATO
units coming in could be informed of what was happening.
They knew our rules of engagement, and when they were
more restrictive, they took advantage of them, and it put
our men and women in a more dangerous and difficult place.

Speaker 2 (04:03):
You believe the future wars.

Speaker 3 (04:04):
We fight, we need to have someone atop the pentagon, Sir,
who understands how those ripple effects. I just want to
understand your position. Your position is torture is okay? Is
that correct? Waterboarding?

Speaker 1 (04:15):
Torture is no longer prohibited given the circumstances of whatever
war we're in.

Speaker 2 (04:23):
Is that correct? Editor? That is not what I said.
I've never been party to torture.

Speaker 3 (04:28):
We are a country that fights by the rule of law,
and our men and women always do and yet we
have too many people here in air conditioned offices that
like to point fingers at the guys in dark and
dangerous places and the gals in helicopters in enemy territory
who are doing things that people in Washington, d c.
Would never dare to do or send in many cases.

Speaker 1 (04:49):
In one of your interviews, you said they're willing to
do this year, talking about Donald Trump and Trump and
Senator Cruz, They're willing to do something like waterboarding if
it's going.

Speaker 2 (04:56):
To keep us sick.

Speaker 4 (05:02):
Every day is a battle for your mind, raging information
coming from every angle.

Speaker 2 (05:07):
Put the world to the sea.

Speaker 5 (05:09):
I fear not. You found the place for truth, the
voice of.

Speaker 4 (05:12):
A generation that still has the will to believe in
the greatest country in the history of the world.

Speaker 5 (05:18):
This is the Charlie Kirk Show.

Speaker 6 (05:21):
Fuck a lot, here we go.

Speaker 3 (05:25):
You know it.

Speaker 5 (05:26):
Everybody right now, Pete Hegseth, our next Secretary of Defense
is being grilled by Angus King. In fact, it looks
like it just got thrown over to Senator Rick Scott.
Is that correct? It looks like Senator Scott. I just
kind of see it, picture and picture. A great job there, guys,
Let's see what Senator Scott has to say, and then
we'll throw back here kind of give you an update
of this historic hearing. Let's see what Senator Rick Scott

(05:47):
has to say.

Speaker 7 (05:49):
He was ashall in twenty fourteen and twenty seventeen in
ensuring the veterans had healthcare choice. The second letter is
submitted by mister Kasin Spiro, Visual Media director of CBA
from twenty fifteen to twenty seventeen, stated Pete brought incredible energy,
focused and a clear vision to the organization and showed
everything that the team pumplished together.

Speaker 8 (06:10):
And I similarly asked to submit to the record a
letter from Paul J. Roberts, Retarded Colonel as Army Special Forces,
speaking to the unwavering integrity of mister Hexath. Is there
is there objection, with objection, those three will be admitted

(06:33):
to enter.

Speaker 7 (06:34):
Scott first, congratulations on your nomination, Thank you Santa, and
thank you for being willing to serve our nation.

Speaker 2 (06:44):
I served the Navy.

Speaker 6 (06:45):
I'm really proud of my dad.

Speaker 2 (06:46):
He was crazy.

Speaker 7 (06:47):
He did awful combat jumps with the A second Airborne.
He after that survived all that and fought in a
bout of the bulge and what they went through.

Speaker 2 (06:55):
It was hell. So I have a lot of respect.

Speaker 7 (06:58):
For him and for everybody to put on the uniform
and serves in battle and has to lead people in
battle because.

Speaker 2 (07:04):
It been on a ship.

Speaker 7 (07:06):
That didn't happen to me, but I've had a lot
of friends that happened to and it clearly hepped to
my dad. I've served on this committee for six years,
two years under President Trump and the past foreigner President
Joe Biden. I've seen how the Biden Harris administration pushed
the DoD to prioritize wokeness over being the most lethal
military force in the world. It's our readiness, our national security,

(07:27):
and our ability to recruit people who are willing to
put their lives on the line for our country.

Speaker 2 (07:31):
Can you talk about some of the changes we can.

Speaker 7 (07:33):
Make to improve recruitment and rebuild our military into the
most lethal force in the world.

Speaker 2 (07:39):
First of all, Senator, thank you for the question. To
thank you for your time.

Speaker 3 (07:43):
I think the first and most important thing we could
have done is elected Donald Trump as the new commander
in chief. Because past is prologue, our warfighters understand what
kind of commander in chief they're going to get in
President Donald Trump, someone who stands behind them, someone who
gives them clear missions, someone who ends wars decisively. And

(08:03):
the issue of Ukraine was mentioned and Insuer's new wars
are not started. There was a minor incursion under Barack
Obama into Crimea, followed by nothing under President Trump, followed
by an all out assault by Vladimir Putin into Ukraine
under the Biden administration that did not happen under Donald Trump.

Speaker 2 (08:23):
Donald Trump managed the Taliban.

Speaker 3 (08:25):
The Biden administration, Afghanistan collapsed tragically, ending in the lives
of thirteen at Avigate, who we remember every single day,
and no one was held accountable for that.

Speaker 2 (08:34):
Chinese bi balloons were flying over the country.

Speaker 3 (08:38):
None of that happened under Donald Trump, and our war
fighters understand that. So there's no better recruiter in my
mind for our military than President Donald Trump. My job
is to come alongside him should I be confirmed, and
continue to emphasize his emphasis on war fighting, on getting
anything that doesn't contribute to Maritak.

Speaker 5 (09:00):
How Pete Hegseeth is just crushing it right now, and
Pete heg Seth. So this is the way it works,
is this is the Senate Armed Services Committee chaired by
Senator Roger Wicker, who's wearing a foreign flag for whatever reason.
Someone can explain that to me that the chairman of
the Senate Armed Services Committee has a foreign flag that
he's wearing, that being Ukraine. Then he also has a
co chair from Rhode Island. I remember this guy's name

(09:23):
was what was his name against Senator I don't want
to misspeak. So basically they co chair the committee Senator Reid,
and so Senator Wicker controls the gabble. He begins, so
it goes back and forth with equal time for Republicans
and Democrats. When the Republicans ask questions, it's softballs, as
it should be.

Speaker 6 (09:43):
Got to give the guy some time to.

Speaker 5 (09:45):
Regather, to take a deep breath to be able to
get his footing, and then the Democrats come all in
and forcefully. So we are going to be hosting the
show live. We're going to be going spray to the
brakes here and really arcause voice.

Speaker 6 (09:56):
I have the thumbs up.

Speaker 5 (09:58):
From mister Sigg that we're just going to go right through,
but we're going to add some color commentary throughout when
Republicans are asking questions, and then when Democrats ask questions,
We're going to go in and let that kind of
speak for itself. But let's kind of frame this up.
One of the distinctions of how our government is supposed
to be constituted is a civilian led military, the Joint

(10:22):
Chiefs of Staff.

Speaker 6 (10:23):
It's its own problem.

Speaker 5 (10:23):
Whether or not the Joint chiefs even exist or not
is a separate issue. But having a frontline fighter to
lead the Department of Defense is an extraordinary development. Most
people that have led the Department of Defense, from Lloyd
Austin to Mark Milly, they have not faced fire themselves.
They have not lost friends on the front lines of battle.

(10:47):
Pete HeiG Seth will bring that warrior, warrior ethos back
into the Department Defense. Pete HeiG Seth understands the threat
of DEI, critical race theory and the American left. He
understands that our threat is not just international, it is
also domestic. Peteig Seth will purge the United States military

(11:10):
of DEI of the lowering of standards. He will put
forward in equilibrium that if women want to serve in
the military, they must have the same physical fitness standards
as men. Petereg Seth has been morally clear on who
our enemies are. By the way, Pete heg Seth had
a great answer on Hamas on Israel. He said that

(11:31):
it's time for us to get out of Ukraine. And
you can see how Pete is under fire. He has
been in combat, so this is nothing to him. And
Pete is not connected to the military industrial complex, like
Mark Milly, like Mad Dog Matis, like all of these
failures at DoD. Pete HeiG Seth actually fought in the
front lines. And it's time that we have a warrior

(11:53):
to lead other warriors, someone that has ascended, who with
distinction and honor, Pete Hegseth serve this nation. Mark Emilly.
If you get a picture of Mark Millie, he has
all these medals. What did he ever do to get
all those medals, all this regalia? What war did Mark
Milly win to get all of that regalia. One of

(12:13):
the greatest threats to our own country is how the cancer,
the tumor of wokeism has been enveloping the United States military.
It makes us less ready to win wars. Our military
preparedness has been eroded and dulled. The morale of our
military is at all time lows are. We have a

(12:34):
recruiting crisis right now in the United States military. We
were once the finest fighting force on the planet, and
now that is being put in jeopardy. Pete Hegseth will
bring it back, bring back Warrior Culture Show fifty four.
Right there, this is Mark Milly. What on earth did
he ever do to get that many medals? What war

(12:55):
did he win? What conquest did he author? What battle
did he participate in to get that many metals? No,
simply by existing, Let's put let's take an hour to
put all those on mister white.

Speaker 6 (13:07):
Rage.

Speaker 5 (13:08):
Now contrasts that overweight, low testosterone beta mail failure of
a general with contrast that with Pete Hegseeth the man
right now who is called on for Oh, we got
to listen to this, go right now. We got to
go Elizabeth Warren. We got to listen to this. Go
to Elizabeth Warren.

Speaker 9 (13:26):
Just qualifies you from serving in this role.

Speaker 10 (13:29):
Now, I've been trying to get answers from you for
quite some time on this. You haven't wanted to meet
or to answer any of my questions. So we'll just
have to do it here and dive in. I want
to pick up on some of the questions to ask
by Senator Shane and Jill Brand and Verona, and I
just want to make sure we have a list of
some of the facts that I think are undisputed. I'm
not going to talk about anonymous sources. I'm just going

(13:51):
to quote you directly. We've got the video, we've got
it in print. So going back to January twenty thirteen,
you told a Fox News interview that women in the
military simply couldn't measure up to men in the military,
saying that allowing women to serve in combat roles would
force the military to lower the bar. You picked up

(14:11):
on that same theme in twenty fifteen, making remarks on
Fox News referring to women in combat as a quote
a road it would erode standards. June twenty twenty four,
you said on Ben Shapiro's podcast, quote, women shouldn't be
in combat at all. And then, of course we've talked

(14:32):
about it. In twenty twenty four you published book, and
you say on page twenty six of your book, we
need moms, but not in the military, especially in combat units.
Page forty eight of your book, you claim that women
should not.

Speaker 9 (14:48):
Be in combat roles.

Speaker 10 (14:50):
Men because men are distracted by women. And then ten
weeks ago you appeared on the Sean Ryan Show and said,
I'm straight up just saying we should not have women
in combat rules. Now, I presume you recall making all
these statements.

Speaker 3 (15:08):
Senator, I'm not familiar with arcle you're pointing to in
twenty thirteen, but it underscores my argument completely. It is
in that twenty thirteen argument I was talking about standard.

Speaker 2 (15:17):
I stand up there what it's always been about.

Speaker 9 (15:20):
I have the same site.

Speaker 2 (15:21):
Always been about, so did you directly.

Speaker 10 (15:23):
We've got the video. We're happy to show it. But
I want to be clear here. For twelve years you
were quite open about your views, and your views were
consistently the same. Women are inferiors, soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen,
and guardians.

Speaker 6 (15:39):
She is such a liar on Miss Kahamas is on
one right now.

Speaker 5 (15:43):
The physical fitness standards are so much lower for women
in the military. We're going to go through it. We
have the receipts, she has lined to the American people.
We're going to go through the break here in real
America's voice. Stay right there, keep going with Pokemonas last.

Speaker 10 (16:12):
Public comment, saying that women absolutely should not be in comment.
You declared that quote, some of our greatest warriors are women,
and you support having them serve in combat. Now, that
is a very very big about face in a.

Speaker 9 (16:33):
Very very short period of time.

Speaker 10 (16:36):
So help me understand, mister Hag said, what extraordinary event
happened in that thirty two day period that made you
change the core values you had expressed for the preceding
twelve years.

Speaker 3 (16:57):
Senator again, I very much appreciate you up my comments
from twenty thirteen, because for me, this issue has always
been about standards, and unfortunately.

Speaker 2 (17:07):
Because of some of the people that have been.

Speaker 3 (17:09):
Tasters, forced to stop, let's just less other than standeth
I'm quoting.

Speaker 10 (17:17):
You, quoting you from the podcast women shouldn't be in
combat at all? Where are the reference to standards that
they should be there if they can carry, if they
can run.

Speaker 9 (17:32):
I don't see that at all, mister Haig, sith.

Speaker 10 (17:34):
What I see is that there's a thirty two day
period in which you suddenly have another description about your
views of women in the military.

Speaker 9 (17:45):
And I just want to know what changed in.

Speaker 10 (17:48):
The thirty two days that the song you sang is
not the song you come in here today to.

Speaker 3 (17:54):
Sing, Senator, the concerns I have and the concerns of
many have had, especially in ground combat units, is that
in pursuit of certain percentages or quotas, standards have been changed,
and that makes the combat more to it.

Speaker 10 (18:08):
Let me make a suggestion about what happened in that
thirty two days you got a nomination from President Trump.
Now I've heard of deathbed conversions, but this is the
first time I've heard of the nomination conversion. And I
hope you understand that many women serving in the military
right now might think that if you can convert so

(18:31):
rapidly your long held and aggressively pursued views in just
thirty two days, that thirty two days after you get confirmed,
maybe you'll just reverse those views and go back to.

Speaker 9 (19:04):
Contractors.

Speaker 10 (19:05):
It's something I would have liked to talk to you
about if you'd come and been willing to visit with me.
But the question I have for you on this is
will you put your money where your mouth is and
agree that when you leave this job, you will not
work for the defense industry for ten years years?

Speaker 8 (19:22):
Senator.

Speaker 2 (19:22):
It's not even center.

Speaker 3 (19:23):
It's not even a question I've thought about, because it's
not right now.

Speaker 2 (19:27):
It's not one my motivation for this job.

Speaker 9 (19:30):
I understand that yes or no here time is short.
I just need a yes or no.

Speaker 2 (19:36):
I would consult with the President about what the policy.

Speaker 10 (19:38):
In other words, you're quite sure that every general who
serves should not go directly into the defense industry.

Speaker 9 (19:47):
For ten years.

Speaker 10 (19:48):
You're not willing to make that same pledge.

Speaker 2 (19:52):
I'm not a general, Senator.

Speaker 9 (19:56):
You'll be the one. Let us just be clear in
charge of the generals.

Speaker 10 (20:01):
So you're saying sauce for the goose, but certainly not
sauce for the gander.

Speaker 3 (20:06):
I would want to see what the policy.

Speaker 8 (20:09):
Thank you, Senator Warren, Senator Tobogum.

Speaker 2 (20:13):
Thank you, Miss Jeremy.

Speaker 6 (20:15):
Thanks man.

Speaker 11 (20:21):
Uh topic conduct at vets for freedom for Hexseth, I'd
like to smit that.

Speaker 8 (20:28):
For the record police without objection.

Speaker 11 (20:30):
General Heseth, I mean, mister Heseth, thank thanks for being
here today and with your family. I know this is tough.
That's what it's all about, though, h You're a tough guy.
Been here for a while. Never seen this many people
that here for a support of a nominee.

Speaker 6 (20:50):
That's the point we must realize.

Speaker 5 (20:52):
The military is slipping at such a dramatic pace that
we have lost our fighting edge, and the.

Speaker 6 (20:59):
Fighters them say else. Coming back into the military.

Speaker 5 (21:01):
Is what's missing, not more academics. We need less academics
than the military, and more fighters in the military that
know what it's like to send their best friends home
in bodybacks. We need less people that spent their lives
in air conditioning and attend rubber chicken dinners for a living.

Speaker 6 (21:19):
By the way, I'm one of those people. I get it.

Speaker 5 (21:20):
I'm not here trying to run the DoD. I'm not
here trying to run the Pentagon. Pete hegg Seth has
done the tough work serve the country with courage and
distinction and valor. Now, a big debate around Pete Hegseeth's
nomination is women in combat. Now, we've been very clear

(21:41):
on this program that we don't believe that women should
be in frontline combat roles. Have to say that women
can't serve in other roles in other capacities, and it
doesn't diminish the courage or the valor that many women
have showed. But this is why it's because of standards,
and Pete Hegseth was saying this in his confirmation but Pocahontas,
who needed a peace pipe or something. By the way,

(22:03):
she had a calm down out of control, was interrupting
him too much. Let's put this up on screen. This
is forty four, cut forty four. This is the ACFT
grating scales. Now, when we are trying to go up
against the Chinese Communist Party, when we are trying to
go up potentially against Iran, God forbid, or some other enemy,

(22:25):
wouldn't it be necessary that every single person that we
are sending in the front lines has the same capacity.
Women have different thresholds, and that's not okay. Women are
if they're going to be in frontline combat roles, should
have the same thresholds as men. You should not accommodate

(22:46):
whether or not you can carry a fellow service member
after they get shot, or whether they pass out or
they are wounded. The enemy doesn't care if you are
a male or female. Mortar shells, bullets and the enemy
come at you just the same. Here is the ACFT

(23:06):
grading scales. If you look at it back on screen,
a female has to run a fifteen to twenty nine
mile That's what it looks like. I think I'm reading
that correctly. At the lowest threshold. At the highest threshold,
a male has to run a thirteen twenty two This

(23:26):
two miles and thirteen minutes and twenty two seconds. For pushups,
a male has to do fifty seven pushups. A female
at the highest has to do fifty three push ups.
But here's what's amazing at the at the lowest rank.
Come on, I'm not sure how if I'm reading this correctly.
It's like high points. I guess you want the lowest

(23:47):
points possible. The deadlift is one of the most amazing ones. Okay,
you want one hundred points. But then why are the
points correlated. It's a very confusing graph doesn't make a
lot of sense. So the lower the less push ups
you do, the more points you get. Okay, I don't
think you guys are right. It says right here, fifty

(24:08):
six push ups gets you forty four points, but fifty
seven pushups gets you seventeen points. So explain that one
to me. Okay, Oh, it's by age at the top.
That's nice, but it says points, not age. Oh, I
see the older people have lower standards, but it's labeled
this points. Very Whoever designed this should be fired. Pete

(24:29):
heggsas should fire this person. It's very confusing because it
says points and then it goes okay anyway, doesn't even
label age, so I see how it is okay, So
it's based on age. So for example, a twenty year
old woman has to only be able to deadlift two
hundred and ten pounds, but a twenty year old man
has to be able to deadlift three hundred and forty pounds.

(24:50):
Said differently, a woman does not even need to be
able to pick up or carry a fellow man with
gear on at the very base minimum standard, so they
should have to be as strong in order for a
woman to serve in the military, if a woman can
deadlift three d and forty pounds, welcome in. If a
woman can do the push up standards and could do

(25:12):
the plank standards, which actually the plank standards are equal,
or the mile standards, So why are we lowering the
standards of the finest fighting force ever in the pursuit
of diversity? And diversity is not our strength. Equity is
not our strength, Inclusion is not our strength. Unity to
kill the enemy is our strength. There should be one standard,

(25:36):
full stop. This is not controversial. Ninety nine percent of
the country agrees. And for this, by the way, women
in frontline combat roles? Has that made our military better
or not as good? What war have we won since
we've allowed women in frontline military roles?

Speaker 6 (25:52):
Now, seriously, what war have we won?

Speaker 5 (25:53):
We got embarrassed in Iraq, we got embarrassed in Afghanistan.

Speaker 6 (25:58):
We have lost our edge.

Speaker 5 (26:00):
And Pete haeg Seths embodies the type of masculinity that
we need back into the.

Speaker 6 (26:05):
United States military. We're going to keep going through the breaks.

Speaker 5 (26:07):
As Tubberville asked Pete Haig Steth questions, stay right there.

Speaker 11 (26:31):
Secretary of Defense has nearly double from fifteen hundred to
three thousand. Civilians on joint chiefs has increased from one
hundred and ninety one to almost one thousand. Our military
instraint goes down. Our staff numbers are exploding. What are
you going to do about that, Senator? We're going to
address that. We won World War Two with seven four

(26:54):
star generals. Today we have forty four for star generals.
There's an verse relationship.

Speaker 3 (27:01):
Between the size of staffs and victory on the battlefield.
We don't need more bureaucracy at the top. We need
more war fighters.

Speaker 2 (27:11):
And power at the bottom.

Speaker 3 (27:12):
So it's going to be my job, working with those
that we hire and those inside the administration, to identify
those places where fact can be cut so it can
go toward lethality.

Speaker 8 (27:21):
Thank you, Senator Tuberville, Senator Peters, thank you, sir.

Speaker 1 (27:25):
Chairman Strike Zeff, welcome to this committee.

Speaker 2 (27:29):
Thank you.

Speaker 1 (27:30):
You know, we have far too much partisanship in our
country right now. I think it's eating away at the
fabric of what has always made this country great, about
bringing people together from all sorts of backgrounds, all sorts
of experiences. And we know that in our motto, together

(27:51):
as one, we are strong, and so we in this committee,
and certainly I speak for myself, but I think I
speak for any of my colleagues. Want to take partisanship
out of this proceeding as much as we can.

Speaker 2 (28:02):
I'm not naive.

Speaker 1 (28:03):
If it's out there, I get it. But we've got
to try to take that out. And I want you
to know that I was a member of this committee.
I have voted in a bipartisan way for secretaries of Defense.
I voted for two secretaries of Defense when Donald Trump
was previously president.

Speaker 2 (28:22):
We had those two. We had I think.

Speaker 1 (28:24):
Five total secretaries of Defense during that four year period,
So we want to keep that in mind as to
what we might see in this coming administration. But I voted,
and we voted by a big margin for those folks
as well. But part of that was the process and
having an opportunity to get to know the person and
to understand their qualifications and understand the standards. I made

(28:47):
repeated requests to meet with you prior to this meeting.
I know many of my other colleagues also wanted to
meet with you. I did that with the other nominees
that I was happy to vote for. I thought they
were highly qualified individuals and true professionals, and.

Speaker 2 (29:01):
Yet I could never get a meeting with you.

Speaker 1 (29:04):
Was there a reason you were afraid to have one
on one meetings with some of my colleagues before the hearing.

Speaker 3 (29:10):
Senator, I know there was a great deal aboutreach to multiple.

Speaker 2 (29:13):
Offices, schedules get full, There's a lot going on. I
was ready, and I welcome the opportunity. I was reading
my scheduled to have an opportunity to sit down.

Speaker 8 (29:21):
I was ready.

Speaker 1 (29:21):
It would have been so much better to have that
opportunity to talk beforehand. I think that's a big mistake
and it doesn't set us on a good course when
you refuse to meet with people and have a professional
conversation about the huge challenges that we face at the
Department of Defense. My colleagues, the folks who introduced you,
and others. The Chairman has mentioned about the management of

(29:43):
the DOOD as a concern, cost overruns, delays on weapons systems.
We need strong management at Parliament of Defense first and foremost.
We've got to have someone who's going to grab the
reins and give the taxpayers value for having the most
lethal fighting force in the world that defends freedoms. But
we got to do it in an efficient way. I've

(30:03):
heard about the jobs you've had in the past. Let's
just talk about qualifications. I know you had two previous positions.
How many people reported to you in those positions?

Speaker 3 (30:12):
Senator At Vets for Freedom, we were a small upstart.

Speaker 2 (30:16):
Our focus was just just the.

Speaker 3 (30:17):
Number working on Capitol Hill, going back to the battlefield.

Speaker 2 (30:20):
Just the number, of course, Slider, it's just the number place.

Speaker 3 (30:22):
We probably had eight to ten full time staff and
lots of volunteers.

Speaker 2 (30:27):
So eight.

Speaker 1 (30:28):
Has there been any other We've heard about the two
and certainly there's been a lot of talk about the mismanagement,
et cetera, et cetera. I'm just curious. I won't go
into that, just curious. So you had eight there have you.
What's the largest number of people you've ever supervised or
head in an organization in your career?

Speaker 2 (30:44):
Not three million?

Speaker 1 (30:46):
No, I don't expect that, know one, very few people
have ever had that experience.

Speaker 2 (30:49):
But how many it's a good straight up question.

Speaker 3 (30:51):
I think we had over one hundred full time staff,
a concern vets for America, roughly with thousands of volunteers.
So I was also a head quarters company commander, which
would have been here, let's find a couple one hundred coups.
Nothing remotely near the size of the defense de frontment.
I would acknowledge that, actually, not remotely near even a
medium sized company in America, let alone a big company

(31:11):
in America.

Speaker 1 (31:13):
Especially a major corporation. And you're basically, we're hiring you
to be the CEO of one of the most complex,
largest organizations in the world. We're the board of directors here.
I don't know of any corporate board of directors that
would hire a CEO for a major company if they
came and said, you know, I supervised one hundred people before,

(31:35):
they'd ask you, well, what kind of experiences you had?

Speaker 2 (31:37):
We need innovation?

Speaker 1 (31:38):
Can you give me an experience or your actual experience
of driving innovation in an organization.

Speaker 6 (31:57):
From the campus to the guard, the bullhorn to the microphone.
It's the Charlie Kirk Show.

Speaker 5 (32:03):
Okay, everybody, welcome back. It is ongoing. I got to
tell one of our partners though, really quick. Hillsdale College
Hillsdale's America's greatest college. Are you tired of scrolling through
shows on TV and finding nothing but the same mind
numbing content. Don't waste your time on that nonsense. Instead,
use that time to learn something new and inspiring. Hillsdale
College offers more than forty free online courses.

Speaker 6 (32:22):
Learn more about the works of C. S.

Speaker 5 (32:24):
Lewis, the meaning of the US Constitution, the rise and
fall of the Roman Republic, or the history of the
ancient Christian Church with Hillsdale College's free online courses. Consider
the Constitution one one course. In it, you'll explore the
design and purpose of the Constitution, the challenge that faced
during the Civil War, and how it's been undermined for
more than a century by progressivism and liberalism. Our country

(32:45):
needs more Americans to understand the Constitution and can defend
the freedom of the American people against the encroachments of
an increasingly large and unaccountable government. Start the Constitution one
one course today. Go to Charlie for Hillsdale dot com.
That is Charlie fo or hillsdalet Charlie for Hillsdale dot com.
Check it out right now, Charlie four Hillsdale dot com.
Let's resume a Pete hegsas hearing in front of the Senate.

Speaker 1 (33:09):
Organization in the world, I don't think there's a board
of directors in America that would hire you as a
CEO with the kind of experience you have on your resume.
You talk about standards, you talk about raising or we
have a problem of standards in the DoD and we
have to raise standards for the men and women who
serve Do you think that the way to raise the

(33:31):
minimum standards of the people who serve us is to
lower the standards for the Secretary of Defense that we
have someone who has never managed an organization more than
one hundred people, is going to come in and manage
this incredibly important organization and do it with the professionalism
and has no experience that they.

Speaker 2 (33:51):
Can tell us that they have actually done that. I
have real problems with that.

Speaker 1 (33:54):
This is not about other issues that are brought up.

Speaker 2 (33:57):
They're all very important.

Speaker 1 (33:58):
I'm just about trying to get things done, managing efficiently,
and having the best people who have demonstrated that in
a large organization. And I'm sorry, but I don't see
that in your background. There are a lot of other
things you can do very well. You're a capable person,
but I'm not.

Speaker 8 (34:15):
I do not.

Speaker 1 (34:16):
You have not convinced me that you're able to take
on this tremendous responsibility with a complex organization and having
little or no significant management experience.

Speaker 3 (34:27):
Senator, I'm grateful to be hired by one of the
most successful CEOs in American history.

Speaker 2 (34:31):
Should I be confirmed.

Speaker 8 (34:35):
Mister Haig said that it seems to me that you've
supervised far more people than the average United States senator
supervisors to.

Speaker 1 (34:52):
And except for except for former governors, mister Chairman.

Speaker 8 (34:55):
Senator moll And, I understand you are yielding back your
time and do not wish to ask question I was
missed formed my Senator Bullen. Okay, he.

Speaker 12 (35:07):
Got me totally off guard there. I'd like to submit
for the record signatures by thirty two members of the
House representatives who are veterans the signature's call, and the
Senate to honor the constitutional duty of advice and consent
by conducting a fair, thorough confirmation process that evaluates his
nomination solely on the substance and merits his distinguished military service,

(35:31):
academic credentials, and a bold vision for revitalizing a national
fans ice unanimous consent to enter into the record without objection.

Speaker 2 (35:40):
You know, there's a lot of talk.

Speaker 12 (35:41):
Going about talking about qualifications and then about us hiring
him if we are the board. But there's a lot
of senators here I wouldn't have on my board because
there is no qualifications except your age, and you've got
to be living in the state and you're a citizen
of the United States to be a senator.

Speaker 8 (35:58):
In fact, we've got to convince a lot of people
to vote.

Speaker 12 (36:00):
And then when we start talking about qualifications for if
you're qualified for it, could the chairman tell me what
the qualifications are for the Secretary of Defense? This chairman,
could you tell me what the qualifications are for the
Secretary of Defense.

Speaker 8 (36:17):
I'd be happy for I'll read it for you to
let me.

Speaker 2 (36:21):
Let me read it for you because I.

Speaker 8 (36:23):
Was getting some advice from a second in command.

Speaker 12 (36:27):
Yeah, but I'm just making a point because there's a
lot about qualifications, and I think it's sort of hypocritical
of senators, especially on the other side. I'll be talking
about his qualifications, not going to lead the secretary or
be the Secretary of Defense. And yet your qualifications aren't
any better. You guys aren't any more qualified to be
the senator than I'm qualified to be the center, except

(36:48):
we're lucky enough to be here. But let me read
you what the qualifications of the Secretary of Defense is,
because I googled it, and I googled it and went
through a lot of different sites, and really it's hard
to see. But in general, the US Secretary of Defense
position is filled by a civilian.

Speaker 5 (37:04):
That's it.

Speaker 12 (37:05):
If you have served in the US Army Forces, and
I've been in the service for you have to be
retired for at least seven years, and Congress can can
weigh that. And then there's questions that the senator from
from Massachusetts brought up about serving on a board inside

(37:26):
the military industry, and yet your own secretary that you
all voted for Secretary of Austin. We had to vote
on a waiver because he stepped.

Speaker 8 (37:34):
Out the border raytheon. But I guess that's okay because that's.

Speaker 12 (37:39):
A Democrat secretary of Defense. But we so quickly forget
about that. And then Senator Kane or I guess I
better use the senator from Virginia starts bringing up the
fact that what if you showed up.

Speaker 2 (37:52):
Drunk to your job?

Speaker 12 (37:54):
How many senators have showed up drunk to vote at night?
Have any of you guys asked them to step down
and resign for their job? And don't tell me you
haven't seen it, because I know you have. And then
how many senators do you know have got a divorce
before cheating on their wives?

Speaker 2 (38:13):
Did you ask them to step down?

Speaker 1 (38:15):
No?

Speaker 6 (38:17):
But it's for show, you guys.

Speaker 12 (38:19):
Make sure you make a big show and point out
the hypocrisy because a man's made a mistake and you
want to sit there and say that he's not qualified.

Speaker 2 (38:28):
Give me a joke.

Speaker 12 (38:30):
It is so ridiculous that you guys hold yourself as
this higher standard and you forget you got a big
plank in your eye.

Speaker 2 (38:36):
We've all made mistakes.

Speaker 12 (38:38):
I've made mistakes, and Jennifer, thank you for loving him
through that mistake. Because the only reason why I'm here
and not in prison is because my wife loved me too.
I have changed, but I'm not perfect, but I found
somebody that.

Speaker 5 (38:56):
Thought I was perfect.

Speaker 12 (38:58):
And for whatever reason, you love Pete and I don't
know why, but just like our Lord and Savior forgave me,
my wife's had to forgive me more than once two
and I'm sure you've had to forgive him too, And
so thank you. So before I go down this rabbit
hole again, tell me something about your wife that you love.

Speaker 3 (39:21):
She's the smartest, most capable, loving, humble, honest person I've
ever met.

Speaker 2 (39:31):
In addition to being incredibly beautiful.

Speaker 5 (39:37):
Don't forget about your kids.

Speaker 2 (39:39):
Let's talk about my kids. Well, she's also the mother,
an amazing mother of our blended family of seven brothers.
I'm trying to help you here.

Speaker 12 (39:51):
You know, do you believe that you're going to be
running the Secretary or the Department of Defense by yourself, Senator?

Speaker 2 (40:00):
Absolutely not.

Speaker 3 (40:02):
Just as President Trump is assembling his cabinet, I look
forward and already am in the process of building one
of the best possible teams you can imagine with decades
and decades of experience outside of the pentagon driving innovation
and excellence, and also inside the building knowing how to
make it happen.

Speaker 8 (40:20):
Yes, sir so.

Speaker 12 (40:23):
And your organizations that you did have the privilege of running,
did you have a board that.

Speaker 2 (40:29):
You in both organizations we had a board?

Speaker 12 (40:31):
Yes, okay, And what did you do with that board?
What kind of decisions did you make?

Speaker 2 (40:35):
Within those boards provided oversight and insight into decision making.

Speaker 12 (40:40):
They all have special unique sets that may be filled
gaps that you're not the expertise in. Yes, sir so,
do you believe you're capable of surrounding yourself with capable
individuals that you're going to be able to run those
same ideas by and surround yourself with people that are
smarter and better equipped in maybe areas that you don't

(41:02):
necessarily care it's expertise with Senator.

Speaker 3 (41:05):
The only reason I've had success in life, to include
my wonderful wife, is because of people more capable around
me and having the self confidence to empower them and say, hey,
run with the ball, run with the football, take it
down the field. We'll do this together. I don't care
who gets the credit. And in this case, that's how
the Pentagon will be run.

Speaker 12 (41:25):
Let me it's in with this, mister Chairman, about the qualifications.
You got a man who has literally put his butt
on the line. He served twenty years in service, multiple deployments,
has heard the bullets.

Speaker 2 (41:41):
Crack over the top of his.

Speaker 12 (41:42):
Head, has been willing to go into combat, been willness,
seen friends die for this country, and he swilling, is
still putting himself through this. His wife is willing to
still stand beside him. No one he wasn't perfect, knowing
that all this was going to be brought up, he

(42:03):
still will to serve the country. What other qualifications does
he needed?

Speaker 8 (42:12):
Sator Nugworth, and again we we really are going to
strictly enforce the rule about no demonstrations or noise. The
distinguished ranking Member just the point of personal privilege.

Speaker 5 (42:29):
To make a correction.

Speaker 13 (42:31):
The reason that General Auson required a waiver was not
because of his participation in a corporate enterprise. It was
because he did not have seven years of interruption between
his service and his appointment.

Speaker 14 (42:46):
The second point is that if any of us were appointed.

Speaker 13 (42:49):
As Secretary Defense we would be subject to the same
types of questions. And the case in point is Senator
John Towell was nominated for Secretary Defense. It was discovered
the bias colleagues that his behavior was not commensured with
the responsibilities despite his service, and he was voted down.

Speaker 14 (43:09):
Thank you, thank you.

Speaker 8 (43:11):
As a chairman, Central Duckworth, you're recognized.

Speaker 5 (43:14):
Thank you, it's a chairman.

Speaker 10 (43:15):
And also certainly matters had to have this waiver as well,
mister acaid.

Speaker 2 (43:21):
This hearing is about.

Speaker 10 (43:22):
Whether you qualified to be Secretary of Defense. And one
of the qualifications to answer my colleagues's question is to
actually win the votes of every member of this committee
and to be confirmed by the United States Senate. And
you need to convince us that you're worthy of that vote,
because the people of the state of Illinois voted for
me to be their senator so that I could cast
that vote. When it comes to picking who is going

(43:43):
to be the next Secretary of Defense, this hearing now
seems to be a hearing about whether or not women
are qualified to serve in combat, and not about whether
or not you are qualified to be Secretary of Defense.
And let me just say that the American people need
a sec def who's ready to lead on day one.
You are not that per Our adversaries watched closely during
times of transition, and any sense that the Department of

(44:05):
Defense that keeps us safe is being stirred by someone
who's wholly unprepared for the job puts America at risk.

Speaker 9 (44:11):
I am not willing to do that.

Speaker 2 (44:14):
With that in mind.

Speaker 10 (44:14):
As a hexcent, I want you to try to explain
to the American people this committee who have to vote
for you, and to our troops are deployed around the world,
why you are qualified to lead the.

Speaker 2 (44:24):
Department of Defense.

Speaker 10 (44:25):
We already know that you've only led the largest a
two hundred person organization. We already know that you so
badly mangled a budget that after you left they had
to bring in a forensic accountant to figure out what
went wrong.

Speaker 2 (44:39):
And at the largest budget.

Speaker 5 (44:40):
Yet, Hey, Center Duckworth, A lot of people bring in
forensic accountants.

Speaker 6 (44:44):
Okay, it's actually called an audit. You do one every year.

Speaker 5 (44:47):
Patriot Mobile, While we may have won the election, the
fight to restore our great nation is only beginning, and
now is the time to take a stand in Patriot
Mobiles leading the charge as America's only Christian conservative wireless provider,
Patriot Mobile offers a way to vote with your wallet
without compromising on quality or convenience. Patriot Mobile isn't just
about providing exceptional cell phone service. It's a call to
action defend our rights and freedoms. With Patriot Mobile, you'll

(45:10):
get outstanding nationwide coverage because they operate on all three
major networks. If you have cell phone service today, you
can get a cell phone with Patriot Mobile and a
coverage guarantee. But the difference is every dollar you spend
supports the First and the Second Amendment, the sanctity of life,
our veterans and first responders. Switching is easy, keep your number,
keep your phone, or upgrade. Their one hundred percent US
based customer service service team will help you find the

(45:31):
perfect plan right now. Go to Patriotmobile dot com slash
Charlie or call nine seven to two Patriot That is
Patriot Mobile dot com slash Charlie. Patriotmobile dot com slash Charlie.
More with Pete Hegseth. In just the second, we're going
to go through the breaks.

Speaker 9 (46:00):
What guidance that you give the auditors?

Speaker 7 (46:02):
None?

Speaker 10 (46:02):
Because you've never led an audit. No one expects you
to be an accountant, mister heck set What we expect
is for you to understand the complexity of this kindagon
budger process that is absolutely necessary to outfit our war fighters.

Speaker 9 (46:15):
Look, the Secret Defense is required to.

Speaker 10 (46:17):
Make quick taking decisions every single day that well with
high level information it's being provided for them. A secrety
defense has to have breadth and depth of knowledge. Right now,
I am concerned that you have neither, mister heck Seth.
What is the highest level of international negotiations that you
have engaged in that you have led them? Because the
Secret Defense does lead international security negotiations, there are three

(46:40):
main ones that the Secretary of Defense leads and signs.

Speaker 9 (46:42):
Can you name at least one of them?

Speaker 2 (46:45):
Could you repeat the question, sender.

Speaker 10 (46:46):
Sure, what is the highest level of international security agreement
that you have led? And can you name some that
the Secretary Defense would lead? They are three main ones.

Speaker 3 (46:57):
I have not been involved in international security arrangements because
I have not been in government other than serving in
the military, so my job has been.

Speaker 10 (47:05):
So name one of the three main ones that the
talk about pidense arrangements.

Speaker 2 (47:10):
I mean, NATO might be one of one that you're
referring to.

Speaker 9 (47:13):
Status the Forces agreement would be one of.

Speaker 2 (47:15):
Them, a force status of forces agreement.

Speaker 3 (47:17):
I've been a part of teaching about Status of Forces agreement.

Speaker 9 (47:20):
You don't remember to mention it. You're not qualifying, mister
heck Seth.

Speaker 2 (47:25):
You're not qualified.

Speaker 10 (47:26):
You talk about repairing our defense industrial complex, you're not
qualified to that. You could do the acquisition and cross
servicing agreements, which essentially are security agreements.

Speaker 9 (47:35):
You can't even mention that you've done none of those.

Speaker 10 (47:37):
You talked about the Indo Pacific a little bit, and
I'm glad that you mentioned it.

Speaker 11 (47:41):
Mention it.

Speaker 10 (47:41):
Can you name the importance of at least one of
the nations in the Ossian in Asian and what type
of agreement we have with at least one of those nations,
and how many nations are in Ossian by the way,
I couldn't.

Speaker 6 (47:54):
Tell you the exact equations.

Speaker 3 (47:55):
And we have allies in South Korea and Japan and
in all with Australia and trying to work on submarines
with them.

Speaker 9 (48:03):
Mister hecks.

Speaker 10 (48:04):
None of those countries, none of those company countries that
you mentioned, are in Asian. I suggest you do a
little homework before you prepare for these types of negotiations,
Licksons Hexa.

Speaker 9 (48:18):
This we ask our troops to go into harm's way.
All the time. We ask them to go into harm's way.
And this behind me is a.

Speaker 10 (48:29):
Copy of the Soldier's Creed, a copy that usually hangs
over my desk here in the Senate, and you should
be familiar with it. It's the same copy that hung
over my desk a well to read every single day
that I woke up and fought my way back because
I wanted to go back and serve next to my
buddies who saved my life.

Speaker 9 (48:44):
The same copy.

Speaker 10 (48:47):
These words are repeated over and over and over again
and mean read out two things to you, two sentences.
I will always place the mission first. And I am
disciplined physically and mentally, tough train and proficient in my
warrior task. Mister Hexath, our troops follow these words every
single day, and they man up, and they pack their

(49:07):
ruts acts, and they go to war. And they deserve
a leader who can lead them, not a leader.

Speaker 5 (49:12):
Who Okay, welcome back, everybody, Email us Freedom at Charlie

(49:34):
Kirk dot com. More with the hearing here, I have
so many thoughts here, but this is just too good
to miss. Senator Duckworth is one of the dumbest US
senators known her for quite a while. Let's resume he has.

Speaker 10 (49:45):
Filed for bankruptcy six times. I'm not quite sure he's
the kind of CEO you want to refer to as
a successful businessman.

Speaker 5 (49:52):
Let me make it clear.

Speaker 10 (49:55):
You can't seem to grasp that there is no US
military as we know it without the incredible women that
we serve, women who earn their place in their units.

Speaker 2 (50:04):
You have not earned your place a sectary of defense.

Speaker 10 (50:07):
You say you care about keeping our armed forces as
strong and that you like that ours meritocracy, then let's.

Speaker 9 (50:14):
Not lure the standards for you.

Speaker 2 (50:15):
You, sir, are a nogo at this station.

Speaker 8 (50:18):
Thank you, Senator Dougworts. I would like to submit for
the record a letter submitted by mister Bryan Marriott that says,
anyone who would claim that mismanaged funds, if that's Supremeum,
is ignorant of the facts. Without objection, it will be
admitted to the record, Senator.

Speaker 15 (50:37):
But thank you Chairming Wicker, and congrats on your jeership
of this committee. I want to thank you for leadership,
and you're handling of this today. I think you're doing
a great job. So I want to also submit for
the record a letter submitted by mister Daniel Catlin, the
former operations manager, if That's for Freedom. Mister Catlin's better

(51:00):
states that mister haig Seth and mister Catlan conducted weekly
meetings to meticulously review every dollar that the organization spent.

Speaker 8 (51:08):
Pete's hands on approach and.

Speaker 15 (51:09):
Dedication to financial responsibility ensured that Vets for Freedom operated
within its budget. Mister Catlin's letters also states that Pete
treated his staff with the utmost respect, regardless of race
or gender.

Speaker 8 (51:23):
So I asked unanimous consent to hear this into the
record Chairman.

Speaker 15 (51:26):
Without objection, so order. Thank you, mister heg Seth. Congratulations
on your nomination. Thanks for appearing before the committee today.

Speaker 8 (51:35):
I enjoy meeting.

Speaker 15 (51:36):
We've in my office before Christmas, and I've enjoyed our
friendship before that. You stated in your Advanced Policy Questions
that the American people need to be informed, engaged, and
inspired to join our military. I wholeheartedly agree with that,
and we also have a problem though with obesity and
falling acting standards.

Speaker 8 (51:57):
It's very concerning We've talked about that before.

Speaker 15 (52:00):
So, if confirmed, how would you approach increasing the number
of Americans eligible to serve in the military but without
lowering standards?

Speaker 3 (52:10):
Senator, I think there are already, to the credit of
I believe the Army and other services have now caught
up to that, which have piloted programs that have had
some success that have allowed young Americans who want to
serve in the military but can't necessarily pass the ASFAB
or pass the APFT to get into basic training, an
opportunity to get caught up a preparatory class. Unfortunately, yes,

(52:34):
we do have a problem of obesity in our country,
not necessarily something that if I'm confirmed Secretary Defense is
able to address.

Speaker 2 (52:42):
But I do think leading from the front matters.

Speaker 3 (52:45):
I do think having a Secretary Defense that will go
out and do pt with the troops matters that has
been out there and done that before, and hopefully that's
a motivating factor for young people. But the reality of
obesity and criminal backgrounds and medical problems have long.

Speaker 2 (53:04):
Been an issue of recruitment in America.

Speaker 3 (53:06):
Unfortunately, what changed is the perception of military service because
of the condition of the services, and frankly because in
some ways the way our schools don't teach young people
to love the country anymore. And if you don't love
the country, why do you want to serve that country.
That's a deeper problem. But all of those things need
to be addressed to revive recruiting, and obesity is certainly
a part of it.

Speaker 8 (53:27):
Thank you for that.

Speaker 15 (53:28):
So I've had multiple conversations young folks back in North Carolina,
young men, young women, and we get to meet a
lot of them. But you know, I hear from some
of these folks who I encourage to join the military,
they say that they're concerned that it's become politicized. And
if confirmed, would you commit to working with my office

(53:49):
to address the military recruiting crisis and ensuring the military
is focused on war fighting.

Speaker 3 (53:55):
Senator absolutely a number one from day one, with a
mandate from the Commander in chief who received that mandate
when Americans spoke out loudly and said we want peace
through strength, we want America first foreign policy, and we
don't want political ideology driving decisions inside our defense department.

Speaker 2 (54:17):
That was clear. It's an infection that the American people.

Speaker 3 (54:21):
Are acutely aware of which the men and women in
this room have lived firsthand. I've lived at firsthand, and
that's why it will be a priority.

Speaker 2 (54:30):
And I truly believe, and I'm.

Speaker 3 (54:31):
Humbled by this the response we've already seen from young
men and women who've decided to join the military when
they had said I wasn't going to, but seeing a
commander in chief Donald Trump reassured them. Seeing the possibility,
if confirmed, of a Secretary of Defense that would have
their back reassured them.

Speaker 5 (54:51):
And so in the first couple of months and more
with Pete Hegsas, we're going to go through the breaks here.

Speaker 6 (54:56):
And the second hour coming.

Speaker 15 (54:57):
Up maintenance and fifth generation fighters while we continue to

(55:32):
research and develop sixth generation and collaborative combat aircraft.

Speaker 3 (55:37):
Senator, that's a very important conversation, one that I've been
looking at a great deal. A lot of it, just
to be clear, involves classifications and understanding precisely cost and capabilities,
including capabilities of enemy systems, both not just fourth and
fifth but potential sixth generation, which you've already seen a

(55:58):
prototype released from the Chinese. That's a danger development considering
at least the publicly understood condition of ENDGAD, which I
look forward to the opportunity looking underneath the hood on that,
but ensuring fourth and fifth are capable and upgraded as.

Speaker 2 (56:14):
Necessary will be a part of our contingency. But when
you look at what's happening in the Indo.

Speaker 3 (56:18):
Pacific, say, operability range is going to matter because it's
such a large battle space that will all factor in
decisions that are made. And that's where I feel, frankly
a little bit liberated that I didn't work at Lockheed
or any number of pick a defense contractor. I didn't
mean to point one out in particular, pick any I haven't.

(56:41):
I don't have a special interest in any particular system,
or any particular company, or any particular narrative.

Speaker 2 (56:47):
I want to know what works.

Speaker 3 (56:49):
I want to know what defeats our enemies, what keeps
us safe, what deters them, what keeps our enemies up
at night, whatever that is, I want more of it,
and I want to invest in it. And I know
that's the view that President Trump has as well.

Speaker 8 (57:01):
Thank you.

Speaker 15 (57:01):
You know, some have commented recently about the need to
eliminate immediately a manned aircraft. So I'd say maybe one day,
but that day's not now, and certainly not before twenty
twenty seven, especially in the end of Pacific. So, if confirmed,
will you commit to work with my office in this
committee to ensure the proper mix of fighters.

Speaker 2 (57:21):
Manned and unmanned.

Speaker 3 (57:23):
I look forward to working with you on that, Senator,
because unmanned will be a very important part of the
way future wars are fought. Just the idea of survivability
for a human being drives cost and time in ways
that unmanned systems do not. But I look forward to
that conversation.

Speaker 8 (57:39):
Sended you. Thank you, Senator budd I'm now recognized, Senator
read for a unanimous consent requests.

Speaker 13 (57:45):
That's fair, and I would ask you and sent that
two letters be submitted for the record. A one letter
signed by numerous organizations, including the Government Accountability Project, the
other signed by several organizations including the Truman National Security.

Speaker 8 (57:59):
Doctor without objection, So ordered now, Senator Kelly. Senator Rosen
got here after the gavel went down. Do you really
want to go ahead of her?

Speaker 1 (58:13):
I am going to defer to my good friend and colleague,
Senator Rosen, and as a real great State of Nevada.

Speaker 8 (58:19):
Really good decision, Senator Rosen, you were recognized, and thank you.

Speaker 16 (58:24):
Senator Kelly, I owe you one thank you German Wicker,
ranking member read for holding this hearing, and mister Hegseth,
I appreciate your service and your willingness to serve again. However,
I am deeply disappointed that you would not agree to
meet with me as other members have said on this
committee prior to this hearing, as.

Speaker 14 (58:43):
Is the president for this committee and others. So let
me tell you a.

Speaker 16 (58:47):
Little bit about what I would have talked about had
you made yourself.

Speaker 14 (58:50):
Available prior to the hearing.

Speaker 16 (58:53):
Nevada is home to the premiere aviation training ranges for
both the Air Force and the Navy, the largest ammunition
deep in the world, and the only place in the
country where we are able to verify the reliability of
our nuclear stockpile without the need for explosive testing. The
Nevada National Guard is one of the only few units
across the country with the mission.

Speaker 14 (59:14):
Of fighting wildfires.

Speaker 16 (59:15):
It's for another hearing and currently activated to fight the
devastating fires around Los Angeles in support of our neighbors.
We therefore play a critical role in our national security,
and the person who holds the position of Secretary Defense
matters greatly to Nevada service members and our military equities.
But every single person who serves in the military. We've

(59:39):
talked about my colleagues, esteem colleagues who've talked about recruitment
and retention.

Speaker 14 (59:43):
One day they will become a veteran.

Speaker 16 (59:46):
So my veterans and the folks who are due serving
active duty now are concerned about what you think. DoD
does not have jurisdiction over Nevada's two hundred thousand plus veterans,
but I am interested in your views about the service
members once they've transitioned out of the military, given the
influence you would have while they're in service.

Speaker 14 (01:00:07):
If confirmed. In twenty nineteen, on.

Speaker 16 (01:00:09):
A segment of Fox and Friends, you said that Veterans
Service Organizations vsos, I'm going to quote encourage veterans to
apply for every government benefit they can ever get after
they leave the service. You stated you don't want to quote,
be dependent on government assistance from the VA based on
injuries or illnesses that might have arisen from your military service.
So I'm just going to ask you a few yes

(01:00:30):
or no questions about veterans. Understanding you don't have jurisdiction,
but this is important to our morale is important to
our recruitment, and is important to our retention, and it
is important to how we.

Speaker 14 (01:00:41):
Respect others in this country.

Speaker 8 (01:00:44):
So yes or no?

Speaker 9 (01:00:45):
Please?

Speaker 16 (01:00:46):
Do you believe that vsos are wrong to support veterans
in obtaining the benefits that they have rightfully earned and
deserved when they signed that line like you did for
your service?

Speaker 2 (01:00:56):
Yes, or deserve the benefits they've earned.

Speaker 3 (01:00:58):
I have been in many battles with veteransizations over differences
of opinion about how to deliver those yes or no veterans.

Speaker 14 (01:01:06):
You believes are wrong.

Speaker 2 (01:01:09):
Is a very broad term. We were a vs O also, ma'am.
But some of those services.

Speaker 16 (01:01:15):
Should they be able to help them that the veterans
obtain the benefits that they have earned?

Speaker 5 (01:01:20):
Yes or no?

Speaker 14 (01:01:20):
Should anyone be.

Speaker 2 (01:01:21):
Able to help every veterans should have rapid access to
You believe that.

Speaker 16 (01:01:25):
Veterans should be ashamed for having sought and obtained the
benefits that they have earned. Do you think veterans should
be ashamed to seek out benefits?

Speaker 2 (01:01:33):
Senator, I think they're not be ashamed.

Speaker 5 (01:01:35):
As a nation.

Speaker 2 (01:01:35):
Of the amount of veterans that.

Speaker 3 (01:01:36):
Committed should hit a brick wall they hit, they commit
suicide because the Great Wall.

Speaker 5 (01:01:43):
Take that reform.

Speaker 2 (01:01:44):
You're not courage enough.

Speaker 16 (01:01:45):
How about veterans who suffer lasting of injuries or illnesses
due to their military service? Do you do you think
they deserve our support and assistance? I mean, your your
quit your answers to these they're too broad. People want
to know, are you willing to supp court our veterans
organizations that will help our veterans get every damn thing

(01:02:05):
that they deserve because they signed on the dotted line
to keep us safe, just like you did.

Speaker 14 (01:02:10):
I respect that, will.

Speaker 2 (01:02:12):
You, Senator, with all due humility.

Speaker 3 (01:02:15):
I don't know that there's anyone in this room over
the last twenty years that have worked harder to ensure
that our.

Speaker 2 (01:02:20):
Veterans are taken care of.

Speaker 3 (01:02:21):
It's been a passionate, a life alongside with so many
on this day is to make sure that veterans will
see and it is a recruiting crist veterans are prependent.

Speaker 14 (01:02:30):
On the government.

Speaker 2 (01:02:31):
They don't.

Speaker 14 (01:02:33):
On the government.

Speaker 16 (01:02:34):
Do you believe that veterans getting these benefits are dependent
on the government or do you believe it's a benefit
they've earned and deserved through their service.

Speaker 2 (01:02:41):
It's a benefit they've earned and a hand up to.

Speaker 16 (01:02:43):
These are your works, and so you have again changed
your position where you believe the veterans are dependent. Now
you believe they've earned and deserved it. I just think
it's disrespectful to change that position. These are these are
benefits that people may need throughout their life and may
not know when they need them or how they're going

(01:03:04):
to need them, and they need to be there when
they do. Thank You'll move on to my next question,
America's role in the world, our alliances, the threats in
America is facing.

Speaker 14 (01:03:18):
They're serious or wide.

Speaker 16 (01:03:19):
Ranging, from China to Russia, Tranian bacterirism. So do you
agree with the National Defense Strategy that the US cannot
compete with China, Russia and their partners alone and certainly
cannot win a war that way, And this is a
quote from the National Defense Strategy. Is your interpretation that
American first foreign policy is America alone? Does that include

(01:03:41):
abandoning our allies and partners such as NATO, Taiwan, Israel,
and others. And if we can't win alone and we
don't strengthen our strategic partnerships, I would say that position,
your position places on a strategic path to lose to
our adversaries, So maybe you're okay with.

Speaker 14 (01:03:59):
Choosing that path for America. I want to know how
you square.

Speaker 16 (01:04:03):
That position with the positions you articulated in your book
where you wrote that NATO is at relic, at best
a distraction, and should be scrapped and remade.

Speaker 14 (01:04:12):
Are you okay with sending us down a path where
we can't win?

Speaker 2 (01:04:15):
Senator?

Speaker 3 (01:04:17):
The world has had our friends in the world have
had no better ally our allies, and have had no
better friend than President Donald Trump. Who's Donald Trump I'm
talking about in every way? In ways this administration has not.
He has ensured that the NATO alliance has become far
more robust.

Speaker 2 (01:04:35):
He worked Donald Trump's.

Speaker 14 (01:04:36):
Going to the Pacific as well. Is Donald Trump going
to stand behind your.

Speaker 5 (01:05:11):
All? Right? Jackie Rosen is making a fool of herself here,
Senator from Nevada who should not be a US Senator,
as she exchanges some spicy words with Pete Hegseth, our
next Secretary of Defense.

Speaker 6 (01:05:24):
Let's listen in.

Speaker 2 (01:05:26):
Guid's Best Guidance to the President of United States on
matters like.

Speaker 16 (01:05:29):
That, Do you think that if we concede to Vladimir
Putin that that will hurt our credibility with our allies
and partners, and do you not believe that our adversaries
are watching.

Speaker 8 (01:05:38):
Some You can take that for the record, mister Jackson,
Senator Schmidt, thank you, mister Chairman.

Speaker 17 (01:05:44):
I'd like to submit for the record a letter submitted
by mister Christopher On, the former director of Operations for
Vests for Freedom mis Ron.

Speaker 8 (01:05:52):
His letter states that the suggestion quote, the suggestion.

Speaker 17 (01:05:55):
That funds were misused for personal gain, lavish parties, or
other improper purposes is categorically false. Throughout my time working
with Pete Hexep, he consistently demonstrated exceptional integrity and leadership.
I asked the unanimous consent to enter this letter into
the record without objection, so order Sat Schmid. Thank you
as chairman. Mister Hextff, good to see you here today.
Thank you for your service. Thank you saying your willingness

(01:06:16):
to serve. I also want to thank you for your
clarity in articulating the vision you have for the Department
of Defense and restoring an ethos, a warrior ethos which
is in star contrast to the ethos we've seen the
last four years, which is of weakness and wokeness. And

(01:06:38):
I want to drill down on a few things specifically
and exactly how we've gotten to where we've gotten with
recruiting and morale.

Speaker 9 (01:06:47):
DEI.

Speaker 17 (01:06:48):
There's been a little bit of discussion about this, but
for those watching at home, DEI is not about giving
everybody opportunity.

Speaker 8 (01:06:55):
It is rooted in cultural Marxism, the.

Speaker 17 (01:06:58):
Idea that you pit the room, any room with oppressor
versus oppressed. It's race essentialism and it is poison. It
has no business whatsoever in our military. I think the
American people have spoken loudly and clearly about this. They're
tired of this, they're tired of woke ideology. And to

(01:07:19):
my Democrat colleagues on the other side, if you haven't
picked up on that, you missed the plot. Because that's
what November fifth partially was about. And so let's talk
specifically about some of these DEI programs that have been
funded in our academies, specifically the Air Force Academy.

Speaker 8 (01:07:36):
It was advised.

Speaker 17 (01:07:39):
As disfavored language to refer to your mom and dad
as mom and dad.

Speaker 8 (01:07:47):
Okay, dear mom and dad, I'm right home. Don't say that.

Speaker 2 (01:07:51):
That's insane. We're all just people.

Speaker 17 (01:07:55):
You can't say that either and in an effort to
police this, and in nineteen eighty four Orwellian novel, there
was actually an eyes and ears program to rat on
your fellow students who might say mom and dad or
just say, in a tough situation, you know what, we're
all just people can't say that. This wasn't limited, by

(01:08:18):
the way, to our academies. The Secretary of the Air Force,
our current Secretary of the Air Force, and a memo
from August of twenty twenty two, thought we had too
many white officers advocated for quotas and if you crunch
the numbers, that meant that fifty eight hundred white officers

(01:08:42):
who worked really hard should be fired in the United
States of America. I don't know how we got here.
And by the way, the Air Force isn't alone here.
The Navy sort of touted a drag queen influencer. This
stuff is insane, and people wonder why recruiting is dropped off.
And let me just go through a few numbers that

(01:09:03):
I want to get your comments on how we fix this,
because it's gone completely off the rails. In twenty twenty two,
the Army missed the recruiting goal of sixty thousand soldiers
by over fifteen.

Speaker 8 (01:09:13):
Thousand in twenty twenty three.

Speaker 17 (01:09:16):
The Navy missed their recruiting goals by over seven thousand
in twenty twenty two. The Air Force couldn't only couldn't
meet their standards their numbers. Even though they lowered their standards,
they've lowered their standards to meet numbers.

Speaker 8 (01:09:31):
They still can't get to mister Heseth, we got to
fix this.

Speaker 17 (01:09:38):
I think what you've demonstrated today is that you have
the talent and the ability and the desire to fix it.

Speaker 8 (01:09:45):
How are you going to fix it?

Speaker 2 (01:09:46):
Well, Senator, thank you for the question.

Speaker 3 (01:09:49):
First and foremost, upfront, you have to tear out DEI
and CRT initiatives, root and branch out of institutions percent
and then you have to put in Army, Navy, and
Air Force secretaries and others civilian positions at the helm
who are committed to the same priorities that the President
of the United States is, and if confirmed, the Secretary

(01:10:10):
of Defense will be send a clear message that.

Speaker 2 (01:10:13):
This is not a time for equity. Equity is a
very different word than equality.

Speaker 3 (01:10:18):
Equality is the bedrock of our military men and women
duty positions in uniform, black, white, doesn't matter. We treat
you equally based on who you are in the image
of God as an individual, and we all get the
same bad haircuts. You're not an individual, you're part of
a group. Equity prescribes some sort of an outcome based

(01:10:40):
on differing attributes that we have that divide us, what
skin color are you, what gender are you, and that
infuse that into institutions, which manifest in things like quotas
formal or informal, which does what to morale, sends it
in the tubes, and it makes people feel like they're
being judged by something other than how good they are

(01:11:00):
at their job, which is poisonous inside institution.

Speaker 17 (01:11:03):
So on top of this recruiting crisis that wasn't enough
for this administration during the COVID hysteria and in their
attempt to fire one hundred thousand people who work for
bigger companies because they didn't get.

Speaker 8 (01:11:16):
The COVID shot or to mask five year olds, they.

Speaker 17 (01:11:18):
Decided also to make this a central plank in their
policy at the Pentagon, eight thousand well trained, So we
got a recruiting crisis. Eight thousand well trained men and
women were fired, were fired Will you.

Speaker 8 (01:11:34):
Commit today, mister hext hexth.

Speaker 2 (01:11:37):
To recruit these folks back, to.

Speaker 17 (01:11:40):
Give them back pay and give them an apology from
the United States government for how they were disrespected.

Speaker 3 (01:11:47):
Senator, I will commit to this, because the Commander in
Chief has committed to this, that not only will they
be reinstated, they will receive an apology, back pay, and
rank that they lost because they were forced out due
to an experimental vaccine.

Speaker 8 (01:12:02):
And thank you.

Speaker 17 (01:12:03):
And I'm a limited time, but I just want to say,
for all the talk of experience and not coming from
the same cocktail parties that Permanent Washington is used to,
you are.

Speaker 8 (01:12:16):
A breath of fresh air. And again, if you weren't
paying attention to.

Speaker 17 (01:12:20):
What this election was all about, it was about the
disruptors versus the establishment, and the American people have had
enough of business as usual for the same people that
we line up for these same.

Speaker 8 (01:12:31):
Jobs who give us the same results.

Speaker 17 (01:12:34):
We need somebody who's going to go in there and
fight for innovation, fight for change. I think you're that person,
and I appreciate your willingness to sit here and listen
to some of these undignified attacks.

Speaker 8 (01:12:46):
It's ridiculous. Thank you, Captain Mark Kelly, you're right.

Speaker 2 (01:12:50):
Thank you, mister chairman.

Speaker 1 (01:12:51):
Congratulations on your chairmanship. I want to make a request
of the Committee that we have a second round of questions.

Speaker 8 (01:13:00):
Pursue it to the bipartis of the staff agreement that
we reached late last year. This will be one round
of seven minute questions.

Speaker 2 (01:13:14):
Thank you, thank you, mister Chairman.

Speaker 8 (01:13:15):
I'll be happy to recognize my colleague, mister Reid.

Speaker 13 (01:13:19):
I think it's important to note for the record that
when Secary Hegel was here, we had three rounds of questioning,
and Secretary Carter was here, we had two rounds of questioning.
And I cannot recall any time where I have denied,
as a chairman a member to ask for a second

(01:13:39):
round and receive the second round. So we are, I think,
violating the.

Speaker 8 (01:13:44):
Principals of the Committee and I just want to record
and your comment is noted.

Speaker 1 (01:13:51):
You, mister Hexa, thank you for being here today. Thank
you for your service to this country.

Speaker 2 (01:13:58):
Thank you, Senator.

Speaker 1 (01:13:59):
A few nominee come into this room with all the
necessary experience to do this job, to be Secretary of Defense.
We get that it's a reflection onjust how big of
a job this is. What I want to understand is
whether or not you bring any of the necessary experience
that this job requires. And here's where I'm concerned, Senator

(01:14:22):
Coleman and introducing you. And this is a quote he
said he has struggled. And okay, let's go back a
great personal challenge, all.

Speaker 5 (01:14:33):
Right, everybody a Z Factor will go back to Mark Kelly.

Speaker 6 (01:14:35):
Who should not be a senator. It's a separate, the
deeper issue for.

Speaker 5 (01:14:39):
Et me talk about Relief Factor, the daily something that
has helped so many people find naturally from pain. Relief
Factor has one hundred percent drug free product for sleep.

Speaker 6 (01:14:47):
Take Judith.

Speaker 5 (01:14:47):
She says, quote, I love this product. It needs me
to sleep and I can wake without being groggy. Frank
who writes quote, I work odd hours and sometimes having
trouble getting to sleep. This stuff works like a charm
with a formula four natural ingredients. Z Factor relaxes your
mind so you drift off quicker, and once you're asleep,
it helps you stay asleep. No morning grogginess either. So
if you're ready for better sleep, give Z Factor a try.

(01:15:09):
Call one hundred four relief. That is one eight hundred
four relief. So check it out right now. One eight
hundred four relief sleep better, feel better, and do it
with one hundred percent drug free with Z factor from
relief Factor. So check it out right now. Z that
is relief Factor dot com. Relief Factor dot com. So
check it out right now, relieffactor dot com. Okay, everybody

(01:15:31):
subscribe to our podcast.

Speaker 6 (01:15:32):
The podcast is doing very well right now. We're very
appreciative of that.

Speaker 5 (01:15:36):
Let's go back to Senator Mark Kelly, who is asking
our next Secretary of Defense, Pete hegg Seth, questions.

Speaker 6 (01:15:41):
We're going to go right to the break.

Speaker 2 (01:16:00):
As a party at the Grand Hyatt at Washington, d C.

Speaker 1 (01:16:03):
You were noticeably intoxicated and had to be carried up
to your room.

Speaker 2 (01:16:09):
Is that true or false? Anonymous smears.

Speaker 1 (01:16:12):
Another time, a CBA staffer stated that you passed out
in the back of a party bus.

Speaker 2 (01:16:18):
Is that true or false? Anonymous smears.

Speaker 1 (01:16:21):
In twenty fourteen, while in Louisiana on official business for CBA,
did you take your staff, including young female staff members,
to a strip club?

Speaker 2 (01:16:33):
Absolutely not, Anonymous smears.

Speaker 1 (01:16:37):
So is it accurate that the organization reached a financial
settlement with a female staffer who claimed to be at
a strip club with you, and there was a colleague
who attempted to sexually assault her.

Speaker 3 (01:16:59):
Was there a financial settlement? Senator, I was not involved
in that. I don't know the nature of how that
played out, but.

Speaker 1 (01:17:08):
You understand there was a financial settlement for a young
female staffer who accused another member of the organization, not you,
of sexual assault in a strip club.

Speaker 2 (01:17:21):
We have multiple statements on the record referring to that.
But you claim you were not there when that occurred.
Absolutely not.

Speaker 1 (01:17:32):
Now the behavior I cited if true, do you think
that this behavior of intoxication going into these type of establishments,
women on your staff being so uncomfortable that they have
to file these sort of harassment claims.

Speaker 2 (01:17:48):
Do you think this is appropriate behavior for a leader?

Speaker 3 (01:17:54):
Senator welm with Senator, the overwhelming majority of anyone who's
worked for me, including the on the record statements that
have been submitted to this with their name on it,
on the record, men and women who worked with me
every day, are the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that testify
to my leadership and professionalism in leading that's for freedom
and concerned.

Speaker 2 (01:18:14):
Veterans for America.

Speaker 3 (01:18:15):
My leadership has been completely impugned on these veterans organizations
that did fantastic work.

Speaker 2 (01:18:22):
Mister Hesh, I'm not even going to got the I'm
not even going.

Speaker 3 (01:18:25):
To go into the activation our financial books with integrity
across the board. How many people everybody who I have campaign, I.

Speaker 2 (01:18:31):
Have limited time.

Speaker 1 (01:18:32):
I'm not going to get into the accusations that come
from Fox News. You have some of your Fox News
colleagues here. There are multiple instances of accusations against you
about drinking on the job, anymous, all false, all refuted
by my colleagues who I worked with for ten years
at six am to nine pm, and everything. Challenge here

(01:18:53):
for me, mister Hesse only seed it is when there
is discussional about personal challenges and you admittedly had issues
with heavy drinking, it's hard to kind of square this
to square the circle here, it's kind of.

Speaker 2 (01:19:09):
A difficult thing to do.

Speaker 1 (01:19:10):
Let me ask you, if I have about a ninety
seconds left here, if you had to answer these questions
about sexual assault against you and your drinking and your
personal conduct, would it have been different if this if
you were.

Speaker 2 (01:19:25):
Under oath, Senator. All I'm pointing out is the false
claims against me. Okay, take it. You do not want
to answer that question.

Speaker 1 (01:19:35):
Walked into this here in this morning concern that you
haven't demonstrated adequate leadership in your civilian roles. And this
is a dangerous world we're living in here, and America
cannot afford a Secretary of Defense who is unprepared for
that mission. I'm going to leave with concerns about your transparency.

(01:19:55):
You say you've had personal issues in your past, yet
when asked about those very issues, you blame an anonymous
smear campaign, even when many of these claims are not anonymous.

Speaker 5 (01:20:08):
Which is it.

Speaker 2 (01:20:09):
Have you overcome personal issues or are you the target.

Speaker 3 (01:20:13):
Of a.

Speaker 6 (01:20:28):
Okay everybody.

Speaker 5 (01:20:29):
Senator Mark Kelly is wrapping up with Pete hegg Seth.
I want to actually hear from someone who's been in
the room to fight for Pete Hegseeth. It is caught
Cash Larson, who is running seals for Pete Hegseeth.

Speaker 8 (01:20:41):
Cash.

Speaker 6 (01:20:42):
Welcome to the program. Cash.

Speaker 5 (01:20:43):
Tell us what you are seeing up close and personal
in the room here and how your friend Pete Hegseth
is doing.

Speaker 3 (01:20:50):
Yeah.

Speaker 5 (01:20:50):
Absolutely, And Charlie, it's honored Yon.

Speaker 18 (01:20:52):
I actually just stepped out of the hearing room to
speak with you and your audience right now. As you've seen,
it's followed back and forth between being contagrius with some
of the senators and others senators appreciating the support for
Pete's nomination. I think the most important thing to take
away from actually inside the hearing room is that they

(01:21:14):
are about fifty Special Operations veterans inside the room there
to support Pete, a couple MMA professional MMA fighters. That's
probably the most lethal room in America right now. And
what that means beyond being a badass room, is that
in the Special operations community, when we go through selection process,
we use peer review as a really critical essential tool

(01:21:37):
to select the best of the best. Essentially, you see
Pete Haigseth being peer reviewed by the actual war fighters
in the room right now, and.

Speaker 5 (01:21:46):
People who have served with Pete, people who.

Speaker 18 (01:21:49):
Have gone through arduous experiences with Pete, are there to
support them.

Speaker 5 (01:21:53):
And I think that's being reflected in the cuestomer. So
let's talk about the military standards and how they have
been relaxed and how they're different for males and females.
And this has been a big issue made in this
committee hearing. What is the truth regarding this? Yeah?

Speaker 18 (01:22:13):
Absolutely, I think that it's been a sticking point in
several of the q and as back and forth with
the different senators. I think the important thing to emphasize
is that Pete wants to return military culture to a
culture that's front sight focused on war fighting, and in
order to do that, he believes that we have to
maintain extraordinarily high standards.

Speaker 5 (01:22:33):
There's been a lot of discussion.

Speaker 18 (01:22:34):
About this, but sitting in the back of the room,
in my opinion, is actually not that much webspace. There's
a unanimous consent agreement that there should be really high
standards for our war fighters, and they should be vigorously enforced.

Speaker 5 (01:22:49):
And both centers on both sides of.

Speaker 18 (01:22:52):
The aisles and the perspective nominee Pepe except seem to
be incongruence about that.

Speaker 5 (01:23:00):
It seems to be breaking down.

Speaker 18 (01:23:01):
There's a sort of series of kind of like ad
hominin or sort of personal attacks, But that neglects the
bigger issues that everybody both on the dais up there
and then Pete sitting in the hot seat, everybody there
actually cares about national security really deeply. You know, from
the back of the room, I wish they'd spend a
lot more time focusing on the big stuff that everybody's

(01:23:22):
concerned about rather than the small stuff.

Speaker 5 (01:23:25):
In closing here, hush because I know I got to
get back in. What do you think Pete hegsats will
do for military recruitment and morale? Yeah, I think the
truth is Pete's already done it.

Speaker 18 (01:23:36):
Look, we're as the hearing started off, you saw the
Senate Committee chair say that we're living in a moment
of consequence. We're at one of the most volatile periods
in global history Africa Special Operations Command Africa, so clearly
we're serves at the most volatile time on the continent
in the last many decades. So these are dangerous times

(01:23:58):
requires transformation leadership, and it's going to require new generational
war fighters. There's no better testament to the ability to
inspire and move people towards a mission than all of
these former warfighters who spent the last twenty years fighting
the global War on Terror. Mobilized to be motivated for Pete,
come out for Pete. So I think that votes pretty

(01:24:19):
well for recruitment and.

Speaker 5 (01:24:21):
The next generation of war fighters.

Speaker 18 (01:24:24):
I think empirically there's already been a spike in recruitment
and I think that's because a lot of the American
public is aligned with the values that Petus shows us.

Speaker 6 (01:24:35):
Tech.

Speaker 5 (01:24:35):
Thank you so much for your time. Get back in
the room and keep on supporting Pete.

Speaker 6 (01:24:39):
Thank you so much.

Speaker 5 (01:24:40):
Thanks Charle. Email us as always Freedom at charliekirk dot
com and subscribe to our podcast. Open up your podcast
application and type in Charlie Kirk's show. We are going
to continue with the Pete hegseth hearing. He is dialoguing
right now with Senator Jim Banks, which, by the way,
is going to be one of the best senators in

(01:25:02):
the United States Senate. We lost Jade Vance, which we're
not obviously thrilled out in the signup, but it's BVP,
which is amazing, and then we gain Senator Jim Banks.
He's just going to be terrific. I want to encourage
you guys to become a member. It's members dot Charliekirk
dot com. That is members dot Charliekirk dot com. I

(01:25:24):
know many of you are going to see you inaugurationweek.
We actually have the winners of the sweepstakes the giveaway
need to figure out who actually ended up winning that.
We have to announce it. I think we have it internally.
I don't know if we have announced it to the
world yet. Again, when you subscribe to the Charlie Kirkshow
podcast page, you can listen to all of our episodes
advertiser free and on demand. Open up the podcast app

(01:25:46):
and type in Charlie Kirkshow and hit subscribe. That is
Charlie Kirkshow and hit subscribe. Email us is always freedom
at Charliekirk dot com. That is freedom at Charliekirk dot com.
More with Pete Hagk's We're going to go right through
the breaks today and says shoot us an email Freedam
at Charliekirk dot com.

Speaker 6 (01:26:04):
Stay right there.

Speaker 3 (01:26:28):
It comes back to strong, clear leadership, patriotic, pro American
leadership that says we're not going to focus on all
the other political prerogatives.

Speaker 2 (01:26:40):
That's why we all have political perspectives.

Speaker 5 (01:26:44):
I said this.

Speaker 2 (01:26:44):
Before and I'll say it again. In uniform, none of
that matters.

Speaker 3 (01:26:47):
You wear green, you wear blue, you bleed red, that's it.
Who you vote for it doesn't matter. But when the
perception of that changes, then you don't want people deciding
whether to serve based on a political party in power.

Speaker 2 (01:26:59):
That's the thing for.

Speaker 3 (01:27:00):
Continuity inside your military, and it's fragile right now, President Trump,
and if I'm confirmed, with my leadership, we're going to
restore the continuity of an a political military that acts
decisively and only based on merit.

Speaker 10 (01:27:14):
You and I.

Speaker 2 (01:27:15):
It's not basic, but they're fundamental. You and I agree
that wokeness is weakness.

Speaker 8 (01:27:20):
Mister Hegseth.

Speaker 19 (01:27:20):
Do you support racial quotas in recruitment or promotions in
the United States military?

Speaker 2 (01:27:26):
Senator, I do not support any form of racial quota.

Speaker 19 (01:27:30):
Do you support affirmative action in our nation's military academies?

Speaker 3 (01:27:34):
Senator, I only support hiring and promoting and admitting the
best and brightest, whatever their background is.

Speaker 19 (01:27:40):
I think that's very important, mister Hegseth. Lloyd Austin, the Secretary,
later went a wall. He disappeared for days and never
told the president, didn't even inform the President's chief of
staff that he was going into the hospital.

Speaker 2 (01:27:53):
Will that ever occur on your watch?

Speaker 3 (01:27:57):
No, Senator, I know in any one of my jobs,
if I had decided to go a wall for even
a day or two in uniform around that that would
have been a concern.

Speaker 19 (01:28:06):
I believe accountability matters. No one to this day has ever,
as you've said, been held accountable for what happened in Afghanistan.
It was embarrassing to this country. It's impacted this country greatly,
and I applaud you and President Trump for being accountability
back to our Pentagon.

Speaker 2 (01:28:20):
With that, I yelled back.

Speaker 8 (01:28:23):
Chair recognizes the distinguished ranking Member for unanimous consent. Request.

Speaker 13 (01:28:28):
Mister Chairman, I would like to submit an article discussing
some of the issues of readiness and DEI. There has
been a comment that five point nine million man hours
have been used for DEI. General Maya clarified that that
is an estimate out of more than two million man

(01:28:52):
hours after depopt offence.

Speaker 8 (01:28:56):
Invested during the time period. Where's this published, sir?

Speaker 13 (01:28:59):
This is published by Megan marsh and I will get
the also okay.

Speaker 2 (01:29:08):
Military dot Com.

Speaker 8 (01:29:09):
I'm sorry, without objection, it will be admitted to the
rec and Senator Slutkin, welcome to the committee.

Speaker 5 (01:29:19):
Thank Yourek, Thank.

Speaker 20 (01:29:20):
You, Senator, and thank you for referencing the great Carl
Levin as you introduced me.

Speaker 14 (01:29:24):
We miss him in Michigan.

Speaker 20 (01:29:27):
For those of who I haven't met in my one
week that I've been sworn into the Senate. I'm a
CIA officer, recruited after nine to eleven. I did three
tours armed in I rock alongside the military, and have
worked for four different secretaries of Defense, both Democrat and Republican,
proudly and watch them make decisions that literally determine the

(01:29:48):
life and death of Americans in the dark of night.
I'm also a Democrat representing a state that Trump won, right,
we both went on the same ballot, So I understand
that President Trump has the right to nominate his people.
We are going to have policies that we disagree with.
All of that to me comes very standard. What I
think I'm most concerned with is that no president has

(01:30:10):
the right to use the uniform military in a way
that violates the US Constitution and further taints the military
as that a political institution that we all want right.
And our founders designed the system so that we had
posse commentatis that we weren't going to use active duty
military inside the United States and make American citizens potentially

(01:30:34):
scared of their own military.

Speaker 14 (01:30:36):
We went through our own.

Speaker 9 (01:30:37):
Experience with that with the British.

Speaker 20 (01:30:40):
As the Secretary of Defense, you will be the one
man standing in the breach.

Speaker 9 (01:30:44):
Should President Trump give an.

Speaker 20 (01:30:46):
A legal order, right, I'm not saying you will, but
if he does, you are going to be the guy
that he calls to implement this order. Do you agree
that there are some orders that can be given by
the commander in chief that would violate the US Constitution?

Speaker 3 (01:31:02):
Senator, thank you for your service, But I reject the
premise that President Trump is going to be giving illegal order.

Speaker 14 (01:31:08):
No, I'm not saying you will.

Speaker 20 (01:31:09):
But if do you believe there is such a thing
as an illegal order that Joe Biden or any other
president Donald Trump could give? Is there anything that a
commander in chief could ask you to do with the
uniform military that would be in violation of the US Constitution?

Speaker 3 (01:31:23):
Sending anybody of any party could give an order that
is against the constitution or against the law.

Speaker 9 (01:31:29):
Right, okay?

Speaker 5 (01:31:30):
So and are you so?

Speaker 20 (01:31:31):
Are you saying that you would stand in the breach
and push back if you were given an illegal order?

Speaker 3 (01:31:36):
I start by saying I reject the premise that President
I understands.

Speaker 6 (01:31:57):
The great reset stops to Charlie kirkfect show.

Speaker 5 (01:32:04):
Okay, everybody, welcome back email us as always, Freedom at
Charliekirk dot com. Let me tell you about one of
our partners here by way, this is wrapping up. It
should be Slotkin than Shihi, and then it's done. No
round two, no round three. That is what my people
are telling me. Let's go to Patriot Mobile Patriot mob
dot com slash Charlie. When we have won this election,
to fight to restore our great nation is only beginning.

(01:32:24):
As America's only Christian conservative wireless provider, Patriot Mobile offers
a way to vote with your wallet without compromising on
quality or convenience. Patriot Mobile isn't just about providing exceptional
cell phone service. It's a call to action to defend
our rights and freedoms. With Patriot Mobile, you'll get outstanding
nationwide coverage because they operate on all three major networks.
If you have a cell phone service today, you can

(01:32:46):
get a cell phone service with Patriot Mobile with a
coverage guarantee. But the difference is every dollar you support
spends the First and Second Amendments, safety of life, our
veterans and first responders. Switching is easy, keep your number,
keep your phone, or upgrade. Go to Patriotmobile dot com
side Charlie or call nine seven to Patriot switch to
Patriot Mobile or defend and defend freedom that is Patriotmobile
dot com slash Charlie Patriotmobile dot com slash Charlie.

Speaker 4 (01:33:10):
Uh.

Speaker 5 (01:33:10):
The dialogue between a Miss Slotkin, Senator Slotkin very tight
senate race there in Michigan and Pete Hegseth is continuing.
But now I want to invite a fan favorite of
the program, Mark Halpern, political reporter Mark Helprin's Wide World
of News, but also two Way TV, which I am
going to join at some point. Mark, welcome back to

(01:33:31):
the program. Well, thanks for having me back, but I
need to say I'm a bit angry. Tell me why
read to you from my wristband.

Speaker 21 (01:33:42):
My video podcast host went to Greenland and all I
got was a slazy wristband.

Speaker 5 (01:33:48):
Dude, you brought me nothing. You brought me literally, I
that is so funny explaining I.

Speaker 6 (01:33:53):
Gotta tell you was.

Speaker 5 (01:33:56):
Now.

Speaker 6 (01:33:56):
I no, it's very interesting, I I do. You might
be in the running. Mark.

Speaker 5 (01:34:02):
I bought a bunch of tourist trap stuff, including like
seal fur and you know, very like local delicacy, so
you might be in the running for some reindeer sausage. Okay,
that'd be better than this frummy wristband at the inauguration.
If we run into each other, I'll give you some
reindeer sausage. Not a joke, by the way, Yeah, that's right.

(01:34:28):
Uh No, it's one. That's that's a separate top of
another time. One of the most fun I've ever had. Mark,
I see that you or meant not being an airport,
which I've actually done many hits from an airport, so
uh that or it's a very green screen. I've done
many hits from airports, so uh, I want to.

Speaker 6 (01:34:46):
Totally get it.

Speaker 5 (01:34:46):
Which one?

Speaker 21 (01:34:47):
But it's it's named after a very prominent conservative Republican
brands today, I think you're if I was support I.

Speaker 5 (01:34:54):
Was gonna say, I, Well, I I thought it was.
If I'm not just based on the background than the esthetic.
I've spent many a time in Reagan. So Mark, I
know you've been catching some of the hearing here. What
is your analysis and do you think Pete Hegseeth is
likely to become the Secretary of Defense. I think he
will unless there's a bunch of Republicans who secretly have

(01:35:18):
said they're going to vote know and they're just being
encouraging at the hearings to avoid conflict with mega.

Speaker 21 (01:35:27):
Democrats. I think have done a pretty good job, better
than the opposition party typically dies of having the topics
organized and focusing pretty well on the things they wanted
to bring out. But there's no bombshell as far as
we know, there's no startlingness. The chairman's holding firm if
you just reported, no additional rounds of questioning and nothing

(01:35:47):
the Democrats did because the witness was very well prepared.
He didn't lose his temper, he didn't say things he
should have said, he didn't create damaging soundbites. He was
a case study, just as his team was a case
study in November and December to get him to this point.
He was a case study and had to handle tough questions,

(01:36:07):
and none of the Republicans seeing the least bit concerned
on the committee now. The Senator talks from Utah said
this morning that he's undecided and if people's suspicion that
Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins might vote to Know means
the committee may be amit misleading. The committee is pretty
supportive in the main and the candidates to vote KNOW

(01:36:29):
are largely not on the committee, So I don't think
he's out of the woods yet, but I do think
it appears he'll get a favorable vote in the committee,
and then once he's on the floor, I think President
Trump can can put down a fair amount of pressure
if there is any effort.

Speaker 5 (01:36:44):
To stop them. So let me ask you mark the
kind of whole slate. It seemed as if things were
not going great for Pete, but then of course there
was this threat of primary challenging that we or may
may or may not have been involved in. Do you
think that changed the direction of the future of the

(01:37:04):
whole slate being confirmed?

Speaker 21 (01:37:08):
I think three things happened that changed the direction of
the slate. First of all, you and your colleagues made
it clear, and people try to cast us.

Speaker 5 (01:37:16):
To something evil and dark.

Speaker 21 (01:37:18):
It just made it clear that there'd be accountability for
those who didn't support the President's nominees. And I think
some of the senators got that message. They're not interested
in going against the energy of the party. Number Two,
I think the team's geared up.

Speaker 10 (01:37:32):
Right.

Speaker 21 (01:37:33):
When you're nominated for something, you get a shirpa, you
get a press age, you get a small team of
folks usually a former center to help guide you through
the process and interact with the Senate options.

Speaker 5 (01:37:44):
And I think those teams weren't necessarily up.

Speaker 21 (01:37:46):
And running in every case, and now they are, and
I think they've they've fired really good people for that. Finally,
you know, if you look at the sum total, besides
Pete hegsen there haven't been vague revelations about Tulci gabber,
about Bobby Kennedy, about I'm blanking on his name, the

(01:38:06):
FBI nominee Cash Pattel. There just haven't been revelations. And
so it's easy for the Senators and for folks like
you to say these are old stories. You know, we're
moving on, We're focused on the positive. So I think
those three things have combined to create a very positive situation.

Speaker 5 (01:38:24):
And last, I'll just say, and.

Speaker 21 (01:38:27):
I've reported this before, and I know you know, the
level of communication between mar Lago folks like you, the
Senators who are the most supportive senator, it's remarkable the
text change and the constant communication to be right on
top of any weak points. Since it's just a model
for how this stuff works, and the Democrats really are
not in a position to match that then, So, yeah,

(01:38:51):
this is really kind of the first online administration when
you think about it, and it's real time and it's interactive.
Can you comment on that mark, it's a little bit
of kind of next genl to coal warfare.

Speaker 2 (01:39:02):
Yeah.

Speaker 21 (01:39:02):
I mean, you know, in the olden days when I
was your age, we had war rooms, right, and people
sat in there with analog telephones and no email, and
you know, you were rapid responses. You wrote and sent
out a blast facts within half an hour. You all
are twenty four to seven online on phones, primarily able

(01:39:24):
to and.

Speaker 5 (01:39:25):
Consuming a lot of incoming.

Speaker 21 (01:39:27):
So if you know, Elizabeth Warren writes an eighty page
letter saying, here are all my questions, It's not like
the next afternoon you all are up and running and
figuring out what.

Speaker 5 (01:39:37):
If anything, do we need to do about this.

Speaker 21 (01:39:38):
It's instantaneous analysis, communications, decision making, execution, and it's with
a group of people who are all very very online
and who have a metabolism. And not everybody metabolism is
quite as great as yours for this stuff, but most
everybody is.

Speaker 5 (01:39:55):
And I think people like you and Elon Musk and
Steve Bannon.

Speaker 21 (01:39:59):
Kind of set the pace for others and cause others
who might have more children or need more sleep, or
interested in spending three hours with a football game to say, hey,
you know, I can't do that right now. It's a
critical period for the revolution, so we need to be
up and running and keeping pace with the guys and
gals who set the pace, which is again, very online,

(01:40:21):
very twenty four seven. I'm pretty online. I'm pretty twenty
four to seven. But you all are doing it in
a very tribal coordinated way. That is, you know again,
the Democrats just start matching that right now. And that's
an advantage because things things move quickly.

Speaker 6 (01:40:39):
And I take that as a great compliment, thank you.
And you're right.

Speaker 5 (01:40:42):
The sleep is not always abundant. Sometimes you know, you're
up at one or two am because you just have
all this incoming. And I do have to say that
is one of the great superpowers of being on the
West coast right now in Palm Beach, but being on
the West coast, you can kind of stay up very
late and you can kind of set the news cycle
for the next day while everyone else is asleep.

Speaker 6 (01:41:01):
So Mark, I want to shift.

Speaker 21 (01:41:03):
It's almost like I thought, it's almost like please, but
It's almost like them on those text change with you, Isn't.

Speaker 5 (01:41:07):
It almost like exactly? I want to shift gears slightly
on this program. We've said that if twenty seventeen was
marked by the resistance, it seems as if that twenty
twenty four and twenty twenty five is marked by the acquiescence.
Breaking news here while we were on air, to be
on the DAIS, which is where President Trump is getting

(01:41:29):
sworn in, is a big deal. It's cabinet officials, it's family,
you know, It's people that are very close and organizers
that have been around. The DAIS will now include Mark Zuckerberg,
Jeff Bezos, and Elon Musk. Elon's not a surprise, but
Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg will be on the DAIS.

(01:41:50):
What is your reaction going from twenty seventeen full out resistance.
We're almost to the day, four years from the day
of January sixth. You have Bezos, Zuckerberg, Musk bending the knee.
Help me understand this. You know, I'm working on an
article now.

Speaker 21 (01:42:08):
I hope I can finish it soon about Donald Trump's
second term is the greatest mulligan of all time. If
the conditions under which he will enter office is so
different than eight years ago. And you're citing one example
that's so fascinating because it involves human beings. Donald Trump
loves well, he loves success, he loves trophies, human trophies,

(01:42:31):
and he loves having a relationship with powerful people. And
you're right, Elon's not a surprise at this point. But
Elan hasn't always been supportive of Donald Trump. The other
go it would have been shocking.

Speaker 5 (01:42:45):
Yeah.

Speaker 21 (01:42:46):
Yeah, So we've eased into that one, right. The other
two we've eased into as well.

Speaker 18 (01:42:51):
Right.

Speaker 5 (01:42:52):
Zuckerberg has been tomor a lago at least twice we know.
Have he brought gifts.

Speaker 21 (01:42:56):
Was reported today he's trying to settle for cash potentially
suit Donald Trump has against Facebook and Bezos a few
months ago, maybe a few weeks ago, I guess months
ago now, made some had a New York Times event,
made some publicly supportive comment.

Speaker 5 (01:43:13):
Look, part of it is purely cynical.

Speaker 21 (01:43:16):
They don't want the federal government to come after them,
and being close to Donald Trump is the best way
to protect their interests.

Speaker 5 (01:43:24):
But part of it is patriotism.

Speaker 21 (01:43:26):
Part of it is respect for what he's accomplished not
just surviving being shot, but the greatest comeback in modern
American political history.

Speaker 5 (01:43:35):
And part of it is Trump's.

Speaker 21 (01:43:40):
Desire to really rely on a private sector for a
lot of the successes that he wants to have. And
he's welcomed these folks tomorrow Algos, He's met.

Speaker 5 (01:43:52):
With them, and they're not the only ones. They're obviously prominent.

Speaker 21 (01:43:55):
They're most the richest people in the world and run
businesses that are unparalleled and you in history. But but
but there are lots of CEOs who've been to mar
A Lago and who who welcome the opportunity to be
at the table. And as you know, well, Donald Trump
is not a big Texter and a big email or
you want to be in his presence. The more you're
in his presence, the more you influence you have, the

(01:44:16):
more you're involved in decisions and consultations and conversations.

Speaker 5 (01:44:19):
And these guys get the joke.

Speaker 21 (01:44:21):
They want to be near him, to quote the great
political philosophers, the Carpenters, just like me, They long to
be close to him.

Speaker 6 (01:44:33):
Mark, we have to dash. But I just.

Speaker 5 (01:44:36):
I think it's just going to be incredibly delicious to
watch the picture of you know the typical people, Jared Evanka,
don Eric Zuckerberg, Bezos. It's not like they're just donating
the token one million dollars. They want to be on
the dais that that's that's a big big It's like
big deal.

Speaker 21 (01:44:57):
It's like dogs playing poker. It's like a collige she
can't believe actually exists. And I will expect you to
drag me everywhere Saturday through Monday night.

Speaker 5 (01:45:08):
I want to be wherever you are. We will cut
a deal. You're welcome with the turning point ball I
will give you. I'll give you one of the exclusive
insights into the village people. So okay, I think I'll
be a full report or whatever I need to be.

Speaker 21 (01:45:24):
I just I want to experience those seventy two hours
exactly as you do.

Speaker 5 (01:45:30):
Mark, You're the best. Come back anytime. Thanks so much,
Safe Trump, Welcome home to America.

Speaker 6 (01:45:36):
Thank you.

Speaker 8 (01:45:38):
Well.

Speaker 5 (01:45:39):
Maybe nuke will be part of America. Soon the hearing
has adjourned. I believe that is over. For now, we
will see email us Freedom at Charlie Kirk dot com.
Be right back, okay, everybody, welcome back. Email US as always,

(01:46:02):
Freedom at Charliekirk dot com and make sure you guys
subscribe to the Charlie Kirkshow podcast. The podcast is doing
very well right now. We have we're top ten in
Apple News. Very appreciative of that. When you guys subscribe
to the Charlie Kirkshow podcast, you can listen to all
of our interviews online in real time, including all the
interviews from America Fest who are just amazing. And that

(01:46:24):
is just another reason to become a member. If you
want to listen to the Charlie Kirkshow advertiser free. It
is members dot Charliekirk dot com. That is, members dot
Charliekirk dot com to become a member of the Charlie Kirkshow.
Let's continue the picture and picture if we can. Phoenix
of Pete Hegseth, who is embracing the people around him. So,

(01:46:44):
from an understand a word of my sources, which I
think my sources are pretty pretty good, this is it.

Speaker 2 (01:46:49):
There is.

Speaker 6 (01:46:53):
There is no other hearings besides us.

Speaker 5 (01:46:56):
That's it. From what I can understand, and from from
all the research that has been gathered and all the sourcing,
I do not believe that there is going to be
round too there will be a committee vote and then
a floor vote and that's it. I believe this is
the end of questioning. And so Pete Haigseth did wonderful.
Stay right there. Okay, everybody, welcome back. Email us Freedom

(01:47:31):
at charliekirk dot com and make sure you subscribe to
the Charlie Kirkshaw Podcast. If you guys are in the
car on the road in transit, Charlie Kirkshaw Podcast is
the place for you, and we have exclusive analysis, in
depth commentary. Yeah, let's go full screen on that if
we can. I'd like to narrate along as Pete hegg Seth.
He's been through helen back these last couple of months,

(01:47:53):
lied about, slandered, criticized.

Speaker 6 (01:47:57):
Let's go.

Speaker 5 (01:47:58):
Can we go full screen and keep my mic because
I'm having this, thank you very much. So that is
Pete around friends and family.

Speaker 1 (01:48:04):
I know.

Speaker 6 (01:48:05):
There's Arthur Schwartz, I know him.

Speaker 5 (01:48:08):
There is Mike Walls there, Pete taking pictures kind of
like a celebrity, if you will. And Pete just got
done with one of the hardest things that you can do.
So this is what Pete is doing right now. Pete
is saying hello, and thanking all the veterans that were
there in support of him. Today, by the way, what

(01:48:29):
a sigh of relief Pete can have right now? It
is very difficult because the Democrats on that committee were
intentionally provoking him. It was an intentional provocation campaign, intentional
and Pete handled it beautifully. It was a masterclass by Pete.
Hegseth attacking his marital life, his personal decisions. Well, now

(01:48:51):
he has a drinking problem, and like, hold on a second.
First of all, the military is not exactly the place
of sobriety. I don't drink, not a fan of it,
but it's not a moral issue. However, it's all in
the past. Nobody is, No person is ever above rising
above what the demons of their past are. That is

(01:49:12):
completely and totally unfair. He was measured, he didn't take
the bait. He's a true patriot. And there is the
Senate hearing room where this all took place and from
according to all sources that I have, it's now going
to go to a committee vote which will probably pass
on pure partisan lines. We're watching you, Jony Ernst. By

(01:49:33):
the way, did you notice how boring Jony Ernst's questions were.

Speaker 6 (01:49:38):
Do you notice how.

Speaker 5 (01:49:41):
How non dramatic, how tempered Jony Ernst's questions were.

Speaker 6 (01:49:49):
She flew a little bit too close to the sun.
She didn't want to get rond. And now Jony Ernst
is Pete Hegseth's biggest fan.

Speaker 5 (01:49:57):
And honestly, I got to give credit for the foreign
flag where Roger Wicker, I mean, it was just ridiculous
wearing the Ukrainian flag. He handled the committee really well.
I got to give him credit for that. The whole
Ukrainian flag thing is just ridiculous, but I got to
give him credit. He handled it like a gentleman. He
stood up against the left, that ridiculous co chair that
he has in the Democrats with the Cooper or whatever.

Speaker 6 (01:50:17):
His name is.

Speaker 5 (01:50:18):
He can never remember that guy's name, and so forgettable.
Jack Reid, Jack read it sounds like he's like a
federal agent. Jack Reid just feels made up. Senator Reid,
he just says, yeah, yeah, thanks so much, thanks for coming.
He didn't want to turn this into a long standing melodrama,
long standing, unnecessarily unnecessary.

Speaker 6 (01:50:38):
Issue, so he just said, okay, thanks so much.

Speaker 5 (01:50:40):
That's it.

Speaker 6 (01:50:41):
Pete hegg Seth's hearing is over.

Speaker 5 (01:50:43):
It's going to now go to a committee vote and
then the floor vote, which means Pete Hegseth can assume
the duties as the Secretary Defense, likely as soon as
Monday or Tuesday.

Speaker 6 (01:50:54):
Let me repeat that.

Speaker 5 (01:50:55):
Pete HeiG Seth can assume the duties of becoming the
Secretary Defense on Monday afternoon or Tuesday afternoon.

Speaker 6 (01:51:02):
So here's what happens.

Speaker 5 (01:51:03):
They did their advice and consent, They're going to do
a committee vote, and then they have to hold I think,
the floor vote. So President Trump gets sworn in and
he says, so help me God. In five hours, five
days and twenty two hours. In five minutes, five days,
twenty two hours, President Donald Trump goes to the outer
room of the Capitol, it's called the signing room, and
he signs the nominations Pete hegg Seth, Scott Bessentt, Doug Burnham,

(01:51:26):
Cash Patel. He signs all these nominations and then the
Senate will pick it up that afternoon. And that afternoon,
Pete Heggseeth can then get in a motorcade and ride
right into the Pengagon and Pete Hegseth can then that
evening around seven or eight at night, get to his
desk as the head of the Secretary of Defense and
start signing executive orders. Not executive orders, but memorandums. Only

(01:51:46):
the president senda give orders.

Speaker 8 (01:51:48):
No more.

Speaker 6 (01:51:48):
Woke is none of this nonsense CRT.

Speaker 1 (01:51:51):
So by.

Speaker 5 (01:51:53):
Eight thirty or nine pm on this coming Monday evening,
wokeism will be on its way out of the mill. Deep.
Of course, is can be a lot of excommunication of
these demons that have to happen, But the military should
not be a sociological experiment. The focus should be should
be on lethality and meritocracy. Pete Hegseth understands the mission
statement of the military should be to protect our national

(01:52:16):
interests and kill the enemy without apology.

Speaker 6 (01:52:19):
Do so quickly.

Speaker 5 (01:52:20):
We are not a nation building operation. We are not
an infrastructure organization. We are not a sociological experiment operation.
It is about protecting the homeland and killing the enemies. Lethality, meritocracy,
integrity and fidelity to the nation. Well done, Pete hegg Seth.

(01:52:41):
We're behind you one hundred percent. We have been in
the trenches fighting for you and looks as if, according
to all reporting, you are now on a glide path
to become the Secretary of Defense, and if anybody votes
against you, there will be a primary challenge visiting your
state soon. Mark that down and take into the bank,
so vote accordingly. Talk to you guys soon