Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Listening to some of Gavin Newsome's those recent interviews, especially
with Johns Hockey, shows that he's beginning to panic and
he's grabbing at straws. Oh wait, he forgot that he
banned straws.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Never mind, Yeah, that's pretty good grasping of straws. But
I banned straws. What am I going to do now,
my guys, I can't believe what I did that.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
Yesterday began the first of the Trump nominees confirmation hearings,
and Pete haigsas for to be the Secretary of Defense,
was the first batter up.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
And I would say that.
Speaker 3 (00:41):
Not a grand Slam, probably a home run, certainly a triple,
but he well, he hit it out of the ballpark.
So he's now at the forefront. I would say, let's
think about it this way. He's leading Trump's collection of
all these outsiders, these populas, these hell raisers, these troublemakers,
(01:05):
a word that Pete Haggs's likes to use, a change agent.
He's leading all of these that will follow him into
Capitol Hill combat. And he has given them a vision,
a direction, He's given them a roadmap. He has shown
them precisely how to deal with what the Democrats are
(01:31):
going to try to do to every single nominee, even
the ones that they fully intend some of the Democrats
will vote for. You know that there are some of
these nominees that when the nomination, assuming the nominations get
out of committee, that once they get out of committee,
there will be some Democrats who will vote for them
on the floor of the Senate. But that does not
(01:54):
mean that they're not going to continue to try to
do everything. There was a there's an old story over
maybe it was sometime either over the weekend with the
or this month, when Fox News ran a story talking
about that Chuck Schumer was going to do. He told
(02:19):
us cock is not to hold back, that you should
do everything you can to tie them to Trump's agenda.
And when I went back and I read that story,
I thought to myself, well, that's kind of a stupid
strategy because what you're doing is you're playing to your audience, obviously,
(02:39):
but your audience is into minority. The majority of Americans
voted for this change. The majority of Americans looked at
what's going on, including many Democrats, young people, every ethnicity
you can imagine, in droves came out and voted for
Donald Trump. And I think that Chuck Schumer is missing
(03:02):
the point that the reason is that Chuck Schumer himself,
Nancy Pelosi herself, the shoving aside of Donald Trump, Biden's
coronation of Kamala Harris's their nominee, all of the massive spending,
the inflation that was transitory but is still with us,
(03:26):
all of the Green New Deal stuff, the recognition that
oil prices, gas prices are still high at the pump,
despite they've come down, but they're still higher than what
they were before. But before Biden took office, that all
of us looked at those things and said, this.
Speaker 2 (03:43):
Is the wrong direction.
Speaker 3 (03:44):
Remember that figure that again, it was like seventy eighty
percent of the country, all voters, all stripes, said that
the country is on the wrong direction. Well, now Schumer's
and we saw this play out yesterday. Schumer's admonition to
his caucus was to ask questions about the incoming president's agenda,
(04:05):
tie them to Donald Trump's agenda. Okay, well, I would
say Pete Hegseath yesterday did a damn fine job of
doing that. They tried to tie him to Trump's agenda.
They tried to tie Pete to some of the previous
things he had said about women in combat, which, by
(04:26):
the way, let me.
Speaker 2 (04:28):
Let me just.
Speaker 3 (04:29):
Address that for a moment, because there are so many
and I forget the military term for it. Somebody can
on the text line can probably remind me. But there
are all of these different standards and protocols for well,
for example, you want to be a Navy seal, or
(04:51):
you want to be an artilleryman, or you want to
be an infantryomant infantrymen. And I use those terms knowing
that some are women, not Navy seals, obviously, but there
is a set of standards Tom Cotton, if I get
if I can find the sound bite, I'll play it.
But Tom Cotton was asking some a technical question of Pete.
(05:15):
Hegesath about the difference between these two kinds of protocols,
and Pete answered it properly. But when you dig into
the protocols, it really is that there is a set
of standing because we women have served it. We have
been served in the military for decades, fifty years or
more longer than that. Probably they've been serving in the military.
(05:38):
But the military recognizes that some standards cannot be reduced,
even though in other areas they may be in some
areas of combat, you cannot reduce those standards. For example,
if you're an infant an artilleryman, those shells, you know
that weigh and fifty pounds whatever it is, you have
to be able to in essence lift those up and
(06:02):
load those And if you're a petite woman, you're not
going to meet the standards, and you're gonna be incapable
of doing so. Or once you have all of your
gear on and you're an infantryman, you may weigh with
all your gear on, you might weigh two hundred and
fifty three hundred pounds, and you have to be able
(06:22):
to carry that through all sorts of terrain, all sorts
of weather, all sorts of you know, horrible conditions in
order to advance your your group, your battalion, your patrol,
whatever it may be, from point A to point B.
And women simply cannot serve in those capacities. In addition
(06:43):
to that, it's one thing, and I know the risk
is still there because anybody can at some time, depending
on what type of war is being conducted, any woman
can become a prisoner of war, and of course then
they're subjected to rape, sexual assault, sexual abuse, any number
of things. It it's just something that I don't think
(07:03):
morally we ought to put up with. I mean, the
enemy will do that, particularly when you think of when
you think about some of the cruelty that's imposed by
some of the enemies that we face.
Speaker 2 (07:14):
Of course, so you want to protect them from that.
Speaker 3 (07:17):
So Senator Cotton asked this question and Exits gives the
proper answer to it. But still the only thing that
you will hear is about women in combat, and that
broad category of women in combat is not what they
were discussing yesterday. But back to Chuck Schumer in particular,
(07:41):
Schumer told the party this talk is that they should
press these nominees on how they specifically would help carry
out some of the items that Trump is pledged to
do during the campaign.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
Well, I think.
Speaker 3 (07:54):
They're prepared to do that, because what's happening now is
this ship and the shift, and this is kind of
the theme of today's program. This shift is already taking place,
and the Democrats don't even realize that this shift is
taking place. So in terms of a initial confrontation, the
(08:18):
initial battle, Pete Hagsath handled the mission manfully. He took
all the slings and arrows from the Democrats side of
the aisle, and he did it with relative ease.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
But it wasn't just the ease.
Speaker 3 (08:34):
As I tuned into it right after the program and
tried to listen to the rest of it, there were
many times, having been through two of these confirmation hearings,
were there were many times when I well, not just
confirmation hearings, but many hearings now confirmation hearing. You are
your team on the transition that is assigned to you.
(08:57):
Those are members of the President's staff. They're outsiders. Even
some members of Congress may be on those teams. But
you go through all of these drills, you go through
a moot court, so to speak, in which you get
cross examined by these people and you get asked all
(09:17):
these questions, and those teams are tough. You know what
they're trying to do. They're trying to make you lose
your cool. They're trying to make you get angry. They're
trying to make you get frustrated because they know that
The Democrats know that if they can get you angry
and frustrated, or at least to verbalize or to exhibit
(09:40):
that frustration and that anger. Then boom, they've got the
hook in, and now they can just drive that and
make you angrier and angrier and get you more frustrated.
And then you're gonna not hear a question, you're gonna
answer a question incorrectly, you're not gonna pay attention. So
I say that to describe that what we saw, but
(10:00):
yesterday was a Broadway play, a dramatic Shakespearean Broadway play
in which the protagonists, all of those Democrat members are
They have a victim in front of them, and all
they want to do is take that victim and try
(10:21):
to get them so frustrated and so angry that they
lose their cool. And that will be because they have
they the Democrats on that committee, and the Democrats that
large in the Senate, the Democrat party in general knows
that they have on their side the cabal, so that
those will be the soundbites that will end up being
(10:42):
heard and played and repeated on loop over and over
again on the evening news, on the cable shows this morning,
on the cable shows last night, it'll just be ad nauseum. Well,
Hagsath was so good at taking the slings and arrows
and keeping such a poker face and then just answering
(11:05):
the question. He knew what he had to say in order.
And I know that there are times when it is
appropriate to lose your cool and to go after the
person who is asking you the question. The confirmation hearing
is not that, and I think it's important to understand,
(11:27):
or at least discuss for a moment, why it's important
why these confirmation hearings are different than other hearings. The
Constitution gives the Senate the role of the advice and
consent to the president's nominees. Well, what does that really mean? Well,
(11:48):
in one example that I think is maybe not the
most recent, but an example that I think sticks out
because it is somewhat applicable to these hearings that we
saw that hearing we saw yesterday was the late Senator
John Tower of Texas. John Tower was this kind of dimunuity, short,
(12:12):
black haired guy that kind of a kind of a round,
pudgy face, but he wielded enormous power on Capitol Hill
as the senior Senator from Texas. He was a protege
of Lynda Bings Johnson of President Johnson. He was nominated
to be the Secretary of defense, and the hearing started
(12:34):
and stopped. The hearing started and stopped because John Tower
had and seriously was a.
Speaker 2 (12:42):
Horrible alcoholic, had a horrible drinking problem.
Speaker 3 (12:46):
And after a lot of back and forth, they decided
to withdraw his nomination. And there was really no advising
consent at least public facing, but there certainly.
Speaker 2 (12:59):
Was in the back rooms.
Speaker 3 (13:02):
And the back rooms was that senators from both parties
knew that the drinking problem was such that it was
going to interfere with his ability to carry out his
duty as the second Death, so the nomination got withdrawn.
That's one form of advice and consent to look at
just the the capability of someone to just do the job.
(13:28):
And by that I don't mean the technical capability. I
mean the ability to literally just show up in the
morning at six am or seven am, whenever the second
death normally shows up and be able to put in,
you know, a twelve, fifteen, eighteen, nineteen hour day and
go to bed and get up, lather, rense, repeat, and
(13:49):
do it all over again. And the conclusion was John
Tower simply couldn't do that. So that's one kind of
advising consent. The other advising consent is to just kind of,
as Chuck Schumer says, to are you going to carry
out the president's agenda? And how do you intend to
do that? What are some of your ideas? How would
(14:10):
you like to run this particular department, How do you operate?
What's your managerial style? How do you manage people? What
kind of leader are you. That's the kind of advising
consent that I think is meant by the Constitution, in
addition to that which someone who is because of an
ailment a disease alcoholism, is clearly unqualified or not unqualified,
(14:33):
because I think John Tower was probably very qualified to
run the Defense Department, but he was unfit to do so.
So differentiate between qualifications and fitness. Haigesith took all those
slings and arrows, as I said, from the Democrat side,
(14:53):
and he did it with really a and relative ease
Senator Blumenthal. And this is where as someone who's been
through those hearings watches them and thinks about the things
that I'd like to say, And in fact this probably
went to Pete Heges. So so Richard Blumenthal, the guy
that lied about his service in Vietnam, is there daring
(15:16):
to ask?
Speaker 2 (15:17):
Now?
Speaker 3 (15:17):
Remember you remember Richard Blumenthal from him not serving in
Vietnam and falsely claiming that he did. He said, I
don't dispute your communication skills.
Speaker 2 (15:28):
Well how could he?
Speaker 3 (15:31):
Because heges' is seemed more than ready to address all
of the accusations from this from the Senate Democrats, and
he did it head on, and the Republicans on the
committee seem just totally unperturbed by their attacks. There's something
about that that is encouraging to me. Now, I'm gonna
(15:53):
make a statement, but I also know that that statement
is going to come back to bite me in the
assd at some point when I say that, it appeared
to me that the Republicans appeared completely unperturbed by the
attacks by the Democrats on Pete Hegsath. That's because I
believe that when you think about the rough start that
(16:14):
Pete Hegesath had when his nomination was first announced, that
he you know, wait, wait a minute, this is way
off the norm. He's never led any sort of organization,
or how does he have the skills to do this?
Lots of questions and lots of quarters about his ability
to do so, even among some Republicans, Jony Ernst being
(16:36):
one of them as a combat veteran herself. But when
the Republicans appeared unperturbed, the signal that said to me
was they've already coalesced. The Republican Party recognizes that they
have a majority in the Senate fifty three to forty
(16:57):
seven that will go up and down just for the
you know, short periods of time. Once Rubio is concerned
is confirmed, Uh, then Governor DeSantis has to appoint a replacement.
The same same is true for the vice president in Ohio.
So those numbers will change. But today, or at least yesterday,
(17:23):
that Republican caucus was operating as a singular caucus intent
on one thing, get this president's nominees through, regardless of
what the Democrats try. Now you want you know why
I find that so encouraging, because that's how the Democrats
(17:45):
operate as a unit, as a cohesive unit. Oh yeah,
there's always little splinters here and there, but when push
comes to shove, they operate as a cohesive unit. And
that's what I saw when Blumenthal comes after him, or
(18:05):
when Senator came came after him. And that's where this
Senator from Oklahoma, Mark Wayne Mullen, squoke up and said
what I would like to have said had I been
the nominee, but would have been trained not to say.
And for those that are unfamiliar with these kinds of hearings,
(18:26):
the Democrats to me were shockingly disorganized and even fastic
in their question.
Speaker 4 (18:34):
And occurs to me that without Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi,
but also some of the other Dems the squad, just
if we didn't have them in Congress and in the Senate,
what a nicer place it would be. There'd be a
lot less negativity, it would be less toxic.
Speaker 2 (18:53):
I wonder if that'll ever happen. I would have a
great day, guys.
Speaker 3 (18:59):
I think is our politics have become so polarized that.
Speaker 2 (19:07):
Not that it could never happen again.
Speaker 3 (19:10):
But you have to remember that what we're witnessing now
is historically there was a period where Republicans were in
the minority for forty plus years forty straight. I forget
whether it's forty three forty four, doesn't mean difference, but
(19:30):
for decades. So you're born today, and forty years from now,
when you turn forty years old, the party that was
in power and you were when you were born is
still in power. Forty years later, and that has I
(19:53):
think affected Republicans and their inability to govern, which is
why I think taking it kind of a you know,
out of body experience, look at what's going on. I
think this second. I think this indrome two things that
are good, which are inherently bad, but good for the country.
(20:19):
The inherently bad thing is that Trump lost in twenty
twenty and we ended up with January sixth, which gave
the kind of red meat that the Democrats wanted. And
he had four years in which he was not able.
Speaker 2 (20:36):
To do a lot.
Speaker 3 (20:37):
I mean, don't get me wrong, he accomplished many things
during those first four years, but he could have accomplished
so much more, except that he was busy fighting impeachment,
law fair and everything else going on. Plus a strident
Democrat party that was coalesced that was going to refuse
to do anything, whether it was good for the country
or law.
Speaker 2 (20:56):
It was Trump.
Speaker 3 (20:57):
If Trump thought that we should all drink nothing but
you know, clean sparkling, clean water, they would have been
against it. They it was just whatever Trump's for, we're against.
And then he loses, and then that enables the Democrats
to overreach and Trump during that during the past four
(21:22):
years plus, and it's you know, three assassination attempts, UH.
Fighting all the legal battles UH brought out. I think
the inherent character of Donald Trump, and I think those
four years I was just saying the wilderness, but for him,
it certainly wasn't the wilderness.
Speaker 2 (21:43):
It was it was wilderness from the White House.
Speaker 3 (21:46):
But he he didn't just sit back for four years
and just contemplate his navel. He spent four years fighting
for his political survival, his business survival, his his very
own survival because they were coming at him. They continue
to come at him with everything, and then they tried
to kill him, and that changes a person. That kind
(22:11):
of even though it wasn't physically near death, that kind
of mental near death experience will change you. And so
you pile that on top of the overreach of the Democrats.
I think that's why we see that there is this steady,
yet anxious or rushed feeling of I've got to get
(22:34):
as much done as I possibly can in the first
two years. Just in case, I know many of you
think that we will win the midterms. I think it's
way too early to speculate about what's going to happen
in the midterms, but at least two years to get
as much done, because remember all those times I've talked
about the country for all these decades, from Woodrow Wilson
(22:59):
forward has been steadily moving to the left. Well, they overreached.
And now what's happening is Trump is taking taking steering
the ship and slowly moving it back. He's got to
move it back to center. He's got to move it
from some issues from center to the right. But regardless,
(23:23):
he's got to start moving that ship and doing the
course correction. And I think that's what we're seeing happening.
And I think even among the some of the elites.
I think elitists have seen what is really the result
of DEI ESG. The Green New Deal, and even them
(23:45):
are repulsed by it. Now, some are not repulsed by
it because there are three categories. There are those that
were repulsed by it but remained silent. There were those
that were repulsed by it but in their own little
corner tried to fight it as best they could. And
then there were those that actually agreed with it and
thought it was great. But all three of those categories,
(24:07):
I think, to some degree have recognized there's still the
radicals that still believe in all of those things and
still think we ought to be pursuing them. But the
election changed that. And we already see because I've got
another story I want to do later in the program
about ESG and how we're already moving away from that,
and I think that's part of the Trump effect. So
(24:29):
back to these hearings. As I said at the end
of the break, at the beginning of that break, the
Democrats really were disorganized. They were spastic, because the aim
of the hearings should not be grand standing. It shouldn't
be shaking a fist at the nominee, a nomination, a
confirmation hearing should be a focused, organized attempt to undermine
(24:53):
them and create more questions around their record, questions that
they're the designed to leave to republican follow up that
begs more research, delayed, an investigation. I'll give you an example.
Recall how Democrats achieved that, although briefly with the manipulation
of Senator Jeff Flake during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings. So
(25:16):
they raised all of this smoke. It's like Linus in
the Peanuts cartoon. You got all this dirt and smoke,
all fluttering around pig pen. And then suddenly Senator Jeff Flake,
the former senator from Arizona, gets weak need and he's like, oh,
you know what, maybe we should check this out but today,
(25:38):
or I should say more to be more accurate yesterday
instead of hammering away at one particular point of emphasis
emphasis that was kind of designed to pull out or
pull at the potential gap between Hages's and someone like
Senator Ernest the Democrats were just flailing, just leveling scattershot
attacks that seemed more like partisan talking points than an
(26:00):
actual case.
Speaker 2 (26:02):
And I'll give you an example.
Speaker 3 (26:03):
Before the hearing began, the Democrat staffers were already spinning
to punch Bowl News. And that was that was that.
The more partisan Democrat women in the Senate's like Elizabeth
Warren tell me Duckworth mazzy uh Herono Janine Shaheen, which
(26:23):
I watched yesterday, she was absolutely horrible. Uh Kurson, Jilbrand,
who went, who went just It's like she just she
lost her mind. And then minor players like Jackie Rosen
and Lisa Slopkin, they started spinning to punch Bowl News.
I read it almost as soon as I got home
that they were going to be focused on allegations about
(26:44):
Haigsat's behavior and his opposition to women in combat. And
then Elizabeth Warren tried to make it about hypocrisy, saying
that you know, when Haigses says he's opposed to the
general's going through the revolving door from government service into
the military industrial complex, how bad that was. But that
was a rule he was and follow himself. And his
response that brought laughter into the hearing room, was well,
(27:06):
but I'm not a general, just simply I'm not a general,
and it just stopped everything. The questioning from Duckworth Herno,
it wasn't any better. Duckworth demanded to know what organizations
that he had audited, as if the Pentagon's inability to
(27:29):
sustain and complete an audit is something that would require
him to put on the green eye shades and sit
down with a spreadsheet and do the audit himself. No,
she you know the other thing she did. She wanted
to know the members of of Acion. The only problem,
(27:53):
and he couldn't. He named some like he didn't name some,
but he threw out some names like I think maybe Japan,
Korea and some others. Well, the problem is that's an
economic trade alliance. It has nothing to do with the
job of the Secretary of Defense. And then herono displaying
(28:13):
her obviously low like you ask a serious questions about
obeying unlawful orders like to seize Greenland or seize the
Panama Canal by force, or to go get drunk on
the job, to shoot protesters in the leg and in fact,
when it came to asking about where I had that
(28:36):
pulled up here somewhere because I thought this one was
pretty funny about shooting people in the leg.
Speaker 2 (28:44):
Here take a listen.
Speaker 5 (28:46):
And Juno twenty twenty, then President Trump directed former Secretary
of Defense Mark Esper to shoot protesters in the legs
in downtown DC, and order Secretary Esper refused to come
apply with would you carry out such an order from
President Trump?
Speaker 3 (29:04):
You know, this gets to the whole point of take
Trump seriously but not literally. I mean what Trump said
there was something like, you know, like dragon and I
might say joking about, you know, taxpayer relief shots or something.
Hell's bell just you know, hey, you're a good marksman,
go out and just shoot them in the leg. Yeah,
just lay them down right there on the street.
Speaker 2 (29:24):
Senator. I was in the Washington d C.
Speaker 1 (29:27):
National Guard unit that was in Lafayette Square during those.
Speaker 5 (29:30):
Carry protest surgery in the leg.
Speaker 6 (29:34):
I saw a service agents to get injured byas riders
trying to jump over the fence and send church on
fire and destroyer.
Speaker 5 (29:42):
That sounds to me that you will comply with such
an order, you will shoot protesters in the leg.
Speaker 2 (29:47):
It's just absurd.
Speaker 3 (29:49):
You know, if you carried that whole argument to its
logical conclusion, the answer would be no, I would not
carry out an unlawful order. But however, we still have
in this country the right to defend ourselves. And if
a protester shoots at me or lobs a dangerous object
(30:09):
of me, intending to cause me bodily harm, then yes,
I will fire back. But no, we don't want to
go there again.
Speaker 2 (30:23):
We have drunk yes date.
Speaker 3 (30:37):
So the the confirmation hearing yesterday kind of revealed the
limits of these Macnavelian politics. It kind of positioning the
machine in opposition to those that are ranging against the machine.
But the Democrats don't have the upper hand in this dynamic,
and they don't understand, or maybe they keep forgetting why.
(30:58):
And I think the most in struct moment.
Speaker 2 (31:00):
Kane.
Speaker 3 (31:01):
When Senator Mark Wayne Mullen pushed back on the line
of questioning from Democrat Senator Tim Kaine, who interrogated hegxitth
about his reported heavy drinking. How many Senators have shown
up drunk to vote at night, explained, it's actually pretty
damn funny in my opinion.
Speaker 6 (31:17):
It's I'd like to submit for the record signatures by
thirty two members of the House representatives who are veterans.
So signature's call in the Senate to honor the constitutional
duty of advising consent by conducting a fair, thorough confirmation
process that evaluates his nomination solely on substance and merits
(31:37):
his distinguished military service, academic credentials, and a bold vision
for revitalizing the national offense. I asked unanimous consent to
enter into the record, and with that objection, you know,
there's a lot of talk 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 qualification. Accept your age,
(32:01):
and you've got to be living in the state, and
you're a citizen of the United States to be a senator.
Speaker 2 (32:05):
Oh, in fact, we got to.
Speaker 6 (32:06):
Convince a lot of people to vote for us. And
then when we start talking about qualification.
Speaker 2 (32:11):
I mean, that's true.
Speaker 3 (32:14):
That's why I always, you know, at like, how did
that person get elected? And then I take it to
the next step and I wonder, oh, yeah, but who
are the people that voted for you?
Speaker 2 (32:25):
I really don't get it.
Speaker 3 (32:27):
I was listening to a analysis about the fires in
California last night and an individual made the comment about,
you know, California voters are now seeing the results of
the people they have elected the office, and these politicians
just keep doing the same thing over and over and
over again. But they didn't take it to the next step.
(32:49):
And I thought, yeah, but the problem is why do
these politicians keep doing the same thing over and over
and over.
Speaker 2 (32:54):
Again because they keep getting elected over and over again.
Speaker 3 (32:59):
I just think that people don't realize what power they have.
Speaker 2 (33:04):
Over these elites.
Speaker 3 (33:07):
All you have to do is look back to November
five to see what kind of power you have over
the elites.
Speaker 2 (33:12):
So he has a great point.
Speaker 3 (33:15):
We're supposed to be a citizen run government, so they
there are no qualifications other than you know, you got
to be a certain age. They thought you'd have some maturity,
which even at some of these yahoos at age sixty
five or seventy or even eighty five, don't think. I
(33:35):
don't think how the maturity to be a senator or
or a congressman. But nonetheless there they are because at
least fifty percent plus one voted for them.
Speaker 2 (33:45):
So the senator from Oklahoma actually raises a pretty damn.
Speaker 6 (33:48):
Good point, nations for if you're qualified for could the
chairman tell me what the qualifications are for the Secretary
of Defense? Because Chairman, could you tell me what the
qualifications are for the Secretary of Defense.
Speaker 2 (34:04):
I'd be happy for I'll read for you.
Speaker 6 (34:07):
T me out, let me let me read it for you,
because I was getting some advice from command. But I'm
I'm just making a point because there's a lot about qualifications,
and I think it's so critical 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.
(34:27):
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.
Speaker 2 (34:35):
Except we're lucky enough to be here.
Speaker 6 (34:37):
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 2 (34:50):
That's it, build by a civilian. Ye, that's it.
Speaker 1 (35:00):
M