Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Happy Earthday, fellows. I hope you guys are able to
find time today to just hug a tree, you know,
maybe kiss a rose bush, roll around in a patch
of poison ivy, whatever you do. They just make a day,
make an earth day.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
I was reading a I was reading this psychology article,
and look, I believe in I very strongly believe that
(00:41):
we've isolated ourselves too much from the outdoors and that
we need to be outdoors more. You get the benefit
of fresh air as opposed to like the stale, nasty
air in this hermatically sealed studio, air conditioned air. And
so I really enjoy walking the dogs. And I'm not
(01:07):
one hundred percent perfect at this, but I try to,
uh keep my earbuds out and not listen to music,
and not listen to the news or anything else, but
just walk and enjoy the moment of you know, enjoying
the dogs, talking to the dogs, hearing the bird. You know, springtime,
(01:27):
so the year the birds chirping, and hear all that
stuff the way, you know, one of my favorite sounds
in the world. I know this sounds a little new
a ag for you, but I love listening to the
wind blowing through the aspen trees and the pine trees.
That's a wonderful sound to me. Or uh, listening to
the river in the backyard at the endisclosed location. Listen
(01:47):
to the river, you know, run across the rocks and
you know, go on down the stream.
Speaker 3 (01:52):
I say, listening to a river or stream is probably
one of the most peaceful sounds.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
Yeah, it's just it's just wonderful.
Speaker 3 (01:59):
Great, absolutely love it.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
But to the listener's point about go out and roll
around upon ground or you know whatever. In this psychological article,
it was talking about one thing that we've lost that
would help us rebalance our lives is walking barefoot twenty
(02:21):
four hours a day, seven days a week, and avoiding
sidewalks or driveways and trying to walk outside so that
your feet are literally touching the ground like in a yard.
Speaker 3 (02:35):
Socks. No, I'm not a barefoot No, I'm not a
shoes guy. But whenever I'm not here at work, I
don't have my shoes on.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
But you have socks. Socks, Now, do you wear you
know what? Because I don't look at your legs because
I don't want to like vomit, But do you wear
the little ankle socks? You wear regular like over the caff.
Speaker 3 (02:58):
No, not tube socks or anything, but yeah, they're like
the quarter ankle or whatever. So they come up above
my shoe.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
But just you know, just barely about your ten shoes.
Speaker 3 (03:06):
Barely, they're not they're the.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
One of those calls the quarter quarter where they just
they just are the same size as your shoe.
Speaker 3 (03:16):
Yeah, just to if I were to hide, if I
were to wear high tops, you probably wouldn't see them.
But if I'm wearing regular sneakers, yeah, you know, you can.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
Easily see them. All right, No, you're supposed to walk barefoot? No,
And I'm just thinking, first of all, we've worn shoes
our entire lives, so the bottoms of my feet are
not exactly calloused. I'm not sure I want to do that.
But the whole point was it gets you back in
touch with mother Earth. Okay whatever. One of the parlor
(03:46):
games of Washington, d C is like going to the
carnival and playing one of the the games where you
you know, you shoot the moving target and you win
a prize. Well, whenever you're in d C, it doesn't
(04:08):
make any difference whether you're a member of the executive
for the Legislative branch, and quite frankly, now the judicial
branch or whether you're you know, a high level, mid
level doesn't make any difference. There are people always looking
to shoot you down because that's how they make themselves
(04:28):
feel better. And it's all about politics, and it's all
about killing somebody else. I don't mean, I mean figuratively
killing off somebody. And if you can kill off a
high level cabinet official, well then you get the prize.
You get to take the big stuff Teddy Bear home
to your girlfriend or your boyfriend or maybe to keep
for yourself and cuddle up, you know. And I can
(04:49):
see Chuck Schumer, you know, cutting up because he shot
down somebody, and so he went to Teddy Bear. And
Chucky gets to go home and pretend like he's going
to really barbecue you know, Charcoala burger outside, but then
he curls up in his pajamas and his Teddy bearon,
and he talks about, you know, you know, people really
do like me, they really do like me. Well, the
(05:11):
latest that they're going after is Pete Hegsath, the Secretary
of Defense. Now I confess that I've always been skeptical
about Hegsath being the Secretary of Defense. But it's Trump's choice.
He has military experience, so go for it. But I'm
(05:35):
also a person that believes that you don't have to
be a military person to run the Department of Defense
anymore than you have to be in my opinion, and
there is no requirement that the Attorney General of the
United States be a lawyer. You need to be an administrator,
(05:57):
a manager. You need to understand organizations and organizational structure,
organizational management. You don't need to be a radio person,
in my opinion, to be able to run this company.
In fact, I think you need to be a strong
manager who understands P and L statements, who understands uh,
you know, marketing and advertising, and understands you know, content
(06:21):
and what we do here in this studio. You don't
need to be a talk show host run a radio company,
all though probably would help. So I've been skeptical of
Pete Heggs. It doesn't mean I oppose him. He doesn't
mean that I'm you know, I'm against him, But it
(06:41):
does mean I understand the game going on and the
game going on because I've been a part of that
stupid game, and I've been a victim of that game.
And so there Pete Hegsath is now in the crosshairs
because what a month or so ago we discovered, or
the Atlantic magazine discovered this signal chat in which the
(07:02):
not Pete Hagsith, but the National Security Advisor Mike Walls,
had inadvertently put a reporter from the Atlantic into the
signal chat in which they were discussing what maybe not classified,
but certainly highly sensitive information that he should not have
been on. I also blame the Atlantic for not stepping
(07:28):
up and saying, hey, I think you mistakenly added me
to the chat that I should not be on. Would
you please take me off? No, they sat and watched
because they don't care about national security. They don't care.
All they care about is the parlor game. Oh we
got somebody left the door unlocked, so we're going to
(07:51):
go in and see if we can't find somebody and
you know, cut their legs out from under them. Now,
fast forward, Pete Hegsath is now was subject to a
New York Times article that was released on Sunday. I've
read through the article and it was only when I
read the article that I discovered that this so called
(08:13):
new signal chat is actually an old signal chat that
was originated that he put together, not the National Security Advisor,
but he put together when he was being when he
was going through the confirmation process. He had his wife,
which makes sense to me. He had his brother and
(08:34):
a lawyer on this chat. Always makes perfect sense to me,
because when you're going through the confirmation process, you have
your handlers, but you also want outsiders that you trust
that can be an extra set of ears and eyes
for you. Now, I'm going to skip and not address
(08:55):
yet the content of that signal chat. She continued beyond
his date of confirmation, which is really I think part
of the problem is he does have a tendency to
discuss things and to take his spouse into meetings that
(09:16):
she should not be in. She's not an employee of
the Department of Defense. She doesn't have a clearance. Tamara
never had clearances. I never took Oh would Tamra attend dinners? Yes?
But whatever would I Would I ever take Tamra into
a private meeting, say at NATO, where we're discussing the
(09:36):
involvement of Russia into NATO. Would I take her into
those negotiations? I would never even they would never even
cross my mind. Now, if I were speaking in a
public event at NATO and she wanted she never wanted to,
but if she wanted to hear me, and she wanted
to be in part of the audience in shirt, come
come on in and you can hear me speak. But
she's heard me speak once and as she said, that
(09:58):
was enough. Pete Heigsath, I happened to notice before I
knew I was going to talk about this. But what
I did not know was that Pete Heigsath was going
to address this on Fox News.
Speaker 1 (10:13):
So think they've had in twenty eight years.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
No, he's doing a great job. It's your stake. News.
Speaker 4 (10:20):
Oh.
Speaker 5 (10:20):
That was President Trump doubling down on his support for
Defense Secretary Pete Heisith twenty four hours ago, denying a
New York Times report about sharing sense of information on
another signal.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
Chat called Team Huddle.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
Here to set the.
Speaker 5 (10:32):
Record straight himself, this former secretary of the current Secretary
of State, Pete Hegseth's former host right here on Fox
and Friends. Pete, great to see him as the secretary.
Speaker 6 (10:41):
See you, So.
Speaker 5 (10:41):
Your thoughts on what's been reporting of Team Huddle and
the signal chat that the New York times says took
place between you, your wife and your brother and some others.
Speaker 7 (10:52):
So, Brian, if you remember when this all started the
first go around, because this is the second goal around, right.
Speaker 4 (10:56):
They pedal old stuff, they kick.
Speaker 2 (10:58):
It back up.
Speaker 7 (10:59):
I said repeatedly, no one's texting war plans. You know
why I said that, because I'm in the bowels of
the Pentagon every single day. Just ten minutes ago, I
was looking at actual war plans of things that were
ongoing or pending things to happen, because that's on the
regular basis, on classified systems. That's my job for the
war fighters, for the president the United States. I look
(11:19):
at war plans every single day. What was shared over
signal then and now, however you characterize it was informal,
unclassified coordinations for media coordination other things. That's what I've
said from the beginning. At the beginning, it was left
wing reporters from the Atlantic who got a hold of
it and then wanted to create a problem for the president.
(11:40):
This is what it's all about, trying to get at
President Trump and his agenda. Now here at the Defense Department,
because Brian, I want this to be very clear, we
take the classification of information very important. It's very significant
to us that we safeguarded and so when we had leaks,
which we have had here, we did a serious leak investigation,
and through that leak investigation, unfortunately, we found some folks
(12:03):
that we believe we're not holding to the protocols that
we hold dear here at the Defense Department. Through that investigation,
they have been moved on and that investigation continues. As
a result of that, everything we do here is above board,
trying to make sure that we safeguard information. In this point,
those folks who are leaking, who have been pushed out
(12:24):
of the building are now attempting to leak and sabotage
the president's agenda and what we're doing, and that's unfortunate.
It's not what I do, it's not how we operate.
And so you've got another allegation being pushed again, not
based on how we're operating around here. We're for the
war fighters, we're for the president, and none of this
is based in reality.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
So Miss Secretary, I.
Speaker 5 (12:44):
Guess I can conclude this. We know some bizarre situation
with Michael Wallt's happened with the first time, the whole
thing with the signal app came out. You believe this
came out. They said it was called team huddle because
so one of the people work for you, one of
the three who no longer are there, leak this out
as a way.
Speaker 4 (13:01):
To get back at you.
Speaker 7 (13:04):
That's right, Brian, when you dismiss people who you believe
are leaking classified information. And again, the investigation is ongoing
and that will take time, and if when the evidence.
Speaker 4 (13:13):
Produced, it will go to DOJ.
Speaker 3 (13:14):
Why would it.
Speaker 7 (13:15):
Surprise anybody, Brian, if those very same people keep leaking
to the very same reporters whatever information they think they
can have to try to sabotage the agenda of the
president or the secretary. So once a leaker, always a leaker,
often a leaker, And so we looked for leakers because
we take it very seriously and we will do the investigation.
(13:36):
And if those people are exonerated, fantastic. We don't think
based on what we understand that it's going to be
a good day for a number of those individuals because
of what was found in the investigation. So if they
want to keep leaking and pushing and pedaling things to
try to sabotage the president's agenda, that's unfortunate, but that's
how leaking works in this town. We're focused on recruiting,
(13:57):
on rooting out DEI, on securing ourselves, border on the
President's agenda, and it's going very well to Pentagon, and
I'm proud of it.
Speaker 5 (14:04):
Right So the signal app is what everyone uses. We're
all finding that out now because of the Chinese have
infected and sabotaged, got involved in almost every other communications
apparatus over the last four years. So that's where you're communicating.
You say it took place, but there was no classified
material in it. Over the last few days, you senior
Advisor Dan Caldwell, Darren Selnik, Colin Carroll, who is the
(14:27):
Chief of Staff Deputy Secretary of Defense. The other one,
Darren is now former deputy chief of staff, will let go?
Speaker 2 (14:34):
Did you let them go? Friday?
Speaker 7 (14:37):
Was a result of an investigation ongoing at the Pentagon
where we identified there was a sufficient evidence potentially again,
there's an investigation ongoing that will have to complete itself
sufficient evidence.
Speaker 4 (14:48):
To believe that they or others near.
Speaker 7 (14:50):
Them were party to leaking, and then I have a
statutory responsibility, Brian, if I believe that's the case to
ultimately ensure they're no longer have access to that and
that the investigation commences. There are a lot of ways
to communicate in this building.
Speaker 2 (15:04):
I do it every day. I was just doing it
this morning.
Speaker 7 (15:06):
Official channels by which we communicate classified information. If you
want to do it and do it the right way,
you should. If we think you are leaking to the press,
that's a very real problem. We take that very seriously
at the Pentagon. I'm here to do one job, one
job for the President and the American people, secure the country,
America first, peace through strength. I don't have time for leakers.
(15:27):
I don't have time for the hopes press that pedals
old stories from disgruntled employees. We should be talking about
the decimation of the houthis, how we're pushing back the Chinese,
how we have a new defense area at the southern border. Instead,
disgruntled former employees are peddling things to.
Speaker 4 (15:42):
Try to save their ass.
Speaker 7 (15:43):
Did you and ultimately it's not going to work.
Speaker 5 (15:47):
It's a secretary did you find this out? Or that
they come to you because I know you know these
guys like these are the guys you picked especially for Caldwell,
and they work for you for your previous job before
you got over to Fox, and they said that they
have not been asked for their phones, they weren't asked
about communications, they didn't go through, they didn't take a polygraph.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
So why would they be.
Speaker 5 (16:10):
Let go and not be investigated.
Speaker 7 (16:13):
Of Brian when there were a series of serious leaks
at the Pentagon which there were Panama Canal plans.
Speaker 2 (16:21):
That's enough. Do you notice the pattern? And the pattern
is don't directly address the questions. So the Washington firing
squad is out for Hexit and it's pretty dramatic, as
Brian wants to kill me was pointing out in that
(16:43):
questioning the three top aids that were placed on leave
and espported by guards from the Pentagon before ultimately being fired.
Dan Caldwell calling Carroll and Darren sell me are actually
people that Pete Hegsith chose and they're reporting that they
(17:04):
were never investigated, They never rested turn over their phones,
they didn't, they were never asked to take a polygraph
or anything else. And then John Olliot took a really
rare step in DC of taking to the pages of
Political himself to publicly denounce the current Pentagon direction as
a chaotic month from Hell and says that the Pentagon
(17:28):
currently is in total chaos.
Speaker 6 (17:33):
Now.
Speaker 2 (17:34):
I don't know whether it's true or not, but those
clashes as described as real and not motivated by personality.
A Michael, you were taking of spurs, ras and foil,
just took them in their fire.
Speaker 3 (17:57):
Trash fire taters.
Speaker 2 (17:59):
This season goes all the way through. That was Quincy. Okay,
that sounds like Quincy the truck driver.
Speaker 3 (18:13):
What do you think Quincy would have done trash firetators? Yeah,
I would argue, though it probably wouldn't have been called
because I'm sure he's just trying to have a little
fun and everything. But it's tinfoil. It's not aluminum foil.
Speaker 2 (18:31):
What do you mean? It's tinfoil?
Speaker 3 (18:33):
But if you're out in the country, it's tinfoil. It's
the same thing.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
You're trying to characterization. Should have been tinfoil and not illuminum.
Speaker 3 (18:50):
The character or whatever tweets just a touch, it's tinfoil.
Speaker 2 (18:54):
But as I listen, I was torn between listening to
the content and listening to the right because it suddenly
struck me, Ah, that's Quincy. I couldn't hear a truck
in the background but I it was Quincy. He's at
some truck stop listening to us right now, going nuts.
Speaker 3 (19:13):
Yeah, as is everybody. Not everybody's at a truck stop
right now, but everybody who's listening.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
Is Yeah, they continue to listen. I can't help they
have they have mental problems. I can't do anything about it.
So back so back to Pete Hegsath. It appears to
me that the clash is going on inside the Pentagon.
From reading different sources, conservative sources, reading sources like the
(19:44):
New York Times or Politico, it appears to me, because
there's a consistency through all of them, that there really
is some chaos and tension within the Pentagon. The tension
and the staffing issues for these roles, I think are
driven by anytime you have personal connections, they also have
(20:07):
to pass a loyalty test. But those people that he
brought with him are inexperienced in running sprawling government offices. It's,
you know, one of the most difficult things I had
to do. And in fact, his name was mentioned. Well
(20:28):
skip all of that. When I was the undersecretary, there
was an individual that I knew who was a fire
chief that I wanted to head up the Fire Academy,
and we talked to the White House about it. White
(20:49):
House signed off on it, and then they started doing
the background check, and in the course of the background check,
we found things that I said to the White House,
I can get conscious conscience continue with this nomination. And
when I told them what you know the FBI and
the investigators had found. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing criminal.
(21:11):
It wasn't criminal. It was personal stuff, but it was
personal stuff that made me question judgment. And so the
White House agreed, yes, tell him we no longer support
the nomination and he needs to withdraw his name. It
was one of the most difficult conversations I had because
it was it was someone I knew, and I had
(21:32):
to say, listen, let's just say his name was Dragon, Dragon,
I need you withdraw your name. And to my surprise,
he started arguing with me, because I mean, obviously it's
a very prestigious position and he really wanted a position,
and I had to draw in. I had to draw
the White House into it. No, so when I read
(21:56):
about these personal and by the way, I finally drew
the line and said, if you don't voluntarily withdraw your
name from consideration all have the White House do it,
and they're ready, willing and able to do so. And
so the choice was do I make this my own
(22:18):
choice or do I get forced out by the White House?
And he made the right choice, and the right choice
was he withdrew his own name from consideration. That's the
problem when you start looking at people that you know personally,
because as much as I, again using Dragon as the example,
as much as I think I know Dragon, there are
certain things that I do not know about Dragon that
(22:40):
if I put him through that kind of rigorous background check,
I might suddenly go, oh, yeah, I don't want to know. Yeah,
I don't want to know. And I think this is
what Hagsath is facing. And while all of that crap's
going on, he's also charged with leading one of the
(23:01):
largest bureaucracies in the entire world. And there is a
huge administrative burden in the Secretary Defense Office, and it's
not easily managed. It's incredibly difficult to manage it now.
Competence is key, and the Biden administration did themselves no
(23:25):
favor in that regard, but they had a compliant cabal
that would do anything to make them look the other way.
For example, when Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin just disappeared
for days on end and didn't tell anybody where he
was going, let alone his boss, the President of the
United the commander in chief. But there are also, i think,
(23:46):
going on ideological clashes. Hegesith is widely viewed as somebody
at the hinge point of the Reaganite Right and the
Maga Right, existing somewhere in between the two wings of
(24:06):
the Republican Party as it currently exists. But according to
multiple informed observers, in the wake of the signal leagues,
Hagess is now drawing the ire of the current faction
of Trump World, whose perspective on things like Iran emerged
(24:27):
from the orbit of the I would say, the COP
funded foreign policy institutions that all exists to advise and
provide white papers and such to all of the national
security apparatus, So they view Hegesa as an obstacle to
(24:47):
the deal making approach that Special Envoy Whitcoff is currently
doing with the Iranians. Now, I happen to believe that
what Trump is doing here is brilliant, but of course,
like everything that Trump does, carry certain risks. Think about
(25:10):
with the Iranians. He's given the wink in the nod
to netting Yahoo to take out their nuclear capability, but
at the same time said, but hold off, and then
he writes a letter to the Ayatola and says, you're
not going to get a nuke. I want you to
shut it down. I'm willing to negotiate with you, and then,
(25:32):
in stereotypical Trump fashion, and if you don't, there will
be hell to pay. So he's trying to avert what
could blow up in the Middle East into a much
wider conflict by drawing the line in the sand, putting
that red line out there and saying I'm willing to
sit down with you, but if you're not willing to
(25:54):
negotiate in good faith, and if you're not willing to
meet our demands, then there will be hell to pay,
which means if the Ayatola says screw you, then he's
got to go back to net and Yahoo and say, Okay,
you got to go and we'll be there to back
you when it takes place. And that does run the
(26:14):
risk of a wider conflict, which is something trumpturily trying
to avoid. And that's what Steve Whitkoff, this special envoy
for the President is currently doing in the Middle East,
with everybody in the Middle East for that matter right now.
Hegsath appeared on Fox News the day after the talks
(26:36):
began with the Iranians in Oman and said publicly and
called for a dismantling of the Iranian nuclear program. And
he told Maria Barbaronmo in that interview that Iran come
to the table and negotiate full dismantlement of your nuclear capabilities.
(26:57):
He inserted himself into something that he should not have
inserted himself, and I think that creates a conflict within
the West wing. So now the game begins to play out.
Caroline Levitt came out yesterday and said the President fully
supports the Secretary of Defense. Oftentimes that means just the opposite.
(27:22):
And then the President was asked at the Easter egg
roll yesterday and you heard him in that SoundBite from
Fox News. Yes, I've got full confidence in the Secretary
of Defense. And you know, as Trump always does, you know,
he says the things the way says things. So now
(27:43):
we get a problem. Does Trump pull him because he's
actually conflicted and intervened in an area where he should
have kept his mouth shut. Plus, you've got the signal problem,
which is not really his problem, but he was the
one on the signal chat that was actually talking about, Hey,
(28:05):
here's the target and here's the launch times, which may
not have been classified, but certainly was sensitive enough that
shouldn't have shared it with a reporter and certainly shouldn't
have been talking about it on signal. Should have been
talking about it on secure pipes from a skiff, not
putting it out. But it could have been intercepted, and
(28:28):
inadvertently was intercepted. So I think we've got the first
real kind of serious personnel issue, and it just happens
to be unfortunately the Secretary of Defense, one of the
most important components of the executive branch, and now he
comes out and he doesn't. If you watch the video
(28:53):
where Brian killed Mead, one of his former colleagues, you
can tell that Brian kill Mead is really troubled by
the fact that hesitths won't just answer the question and
keeps repeating the same talking point over and over and over.
We take leaks seriously. This isn't necessarily about leaks. This
(29:14):
is about the signal chat itself. And why you continue
to have your wife on there and although it's like
twelve minutes long, so I didn't go to the whole thing.
But also why were you discussing those things like the
Iranian negotiations with your spouse and your brother and your lawyer,
(29:38):
which your lawyer I might give the okay to that
his brother does work in the Pentagon. I'm not sure
what his position is, but his wife does not. I
just think it shows some misjudgment and I think it's
giving fodder to the cabal when the last thing we
(29:58):
need to be doing is giving fodder to the cabal. Mike,
I'm sure wish all those predictions had it come true.
I mean, I don't want to wish no harm on anybody,
but it's sure it would have been nice having thousands
of acres to myself to go deer hunting, just saying yeah,
a few more people to be fine with me too.
(30:19):
So back to Hegsas. So the other part of this
parlor game is that the Cabal will now start coming
out not only emphasizing that there's you know, rumors and
speculation about clashes about you know, there's conversations going on
in the West Wing about what we do. But you
(30:40):
know that they've targeted hegxas. When CNN comes out and
they're interviewing, I forget who this guy is, but they're
interviewing some Maybe maybe it says when I'm listening to
it again, but listen to what they.
Speaker 6 (30:58):
Do, and Hexath will be speaking shortly, so we will
hear more and that could mean even more follow up.
Then there's the issue mark of if not Hexas, who
would run the Pentagon? During his whole confirmation battle, the
name of governor from Florida were floated.
Speaker 2 (31:14):
Let me just pa, it's the Indian's Mark Preston, he's
one of their correspondents.
Speaker 6 (31:18):
Gone. During his whole confirmation battle, the name of governor
On DeSantis from Florida was floated.
Speaker 2 (31:23):
Not so sure that would happen now.
Speaker 4 (31:25):
You know, I don't think that would happen now either.
You know, as much as Ron DeSantis and Donald Trump
have made up publicly, there is a little bit of
friction there between both camps. Two people to look at though,
Tom Cotton, the Senator from Arkansas right there, uh, And
well as Chris Miller, he is the former Secretary Defense
who Donald Trump had him in that position. Let me
just tell you why Cotton might take it because he
(31:47):
might have to take it.
Speaker 2 (31:48):
He might be forced into doing.
Speaker 4 (31:49):
It because he believes that's his best path towards the presidency.
On the other hand, he is number three in the
center Republican conference.
Speaker 2 (31:56):
He's in a very good position.
Speaker 4 (31:58):
He may think that his better and running for president
is from the US Senate. Now, the other side is
Chris Miller is somebody who was very loyal to President
Trump and then during the investigation of January sixth, was critical.
Speaker 2 (32:10):
Of Donald Trump.
Speaker 4 (32:11):
He has since come out and then said that he
is he takes back his criticism of Donald Trump. And
Donald Trump has actually mentioned Miller as a possible defense secretary.
He did that about seventeen months ago. So Miller might
be at the top of the list, could be.
Speaker 2 (32:29):
And Haigesth, as a CNN pointed out, in addition to
the Fox News interview, also came out and did a
public statement carried by Fox News but not carried by
the other network.
Speaker 7 (32:43):
You remember when this all started the first go around,
Because this is the second goal around.
Speaker 4 (32:47):
Right, they pedal old stuff, they kick it back up.
Speaker 7 (32:50):
I said repeatedly, no one's texting war plans. You know
why I said that, because I'm in the bowels of
the Pentagon.
Speaker 3 (32:55):
Every single day.
Speaker 7 (32:56):
Just ten minutes ago, I was looking at actual war plan,
the things that we're ongoing or pending things to happen.
Speaker 2 (33:03):
There's just something about the demeanor that tells me someone
has said something to him from the West Wing. Could
have been Susie Wiles, the chief of staff, or anybody
else that says, don't clean up the mess. And he's
trying to clean up the mess, and I'm not convinced
he's doing it. I guess the knives are out. It's
(33:24):
the DC parlor game and we're watching it in real time.
Will he be the first victim or not?
Happy Earthday, fellows. I hope you guys are able to
find time today to just hug a tree, you know,
maybe kiss a rose bush, roll around in a patch
of poison ivy, whatever you do. They just make a day,
make an earth day.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
I was reading a I was reading this psychology article,
and look, I believe in I very strongly believe that
(00:41):
we've isolated ourselves too much from the outdoors and that
we need to be outdoors more. You get the benefit
of fresh air as opposed to like the stale, nasty
air in this hermatically sealed studio, air conditioned air. And
so I really enjoy walking the dogs. And I'm not
(01:07):
one hundred percent perfect at this, but I try to,
uh keep my earbuds out and not listen to music,
and not listen to the news or anything else, but
just walk and enjoy the moment of you know, enjoying
the dogs, talking to the dogs, hearing the bird. You know, springtime,
(01:27):
so the year the birds chirping, and hear all that
stuff the way, you know, one of my favorite sounds
in the world. I know this sounds a little new
a ag for you, but I love listening to the
wind blowing through the aspen trees and the pine trees.
That's a wonderful sound to me. Or uh, listening to
the river in the backyard at the endisclosed location. Listen
(01:47):
to the river, you know, run across the rocks and
you know, go on down the stream.
Speaker 3 (01:52):
I say, listening to a river or stream is probably
one of the most peaceful sounds.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
Yeah, it's just it's just wonderful.
Speaker 3 (01:59):
Great, absolutely love it.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
But to the listener's point about go out and roll
around upon ground or you know whatever. In this psychological article,
it was talking about one thing that we've lost that
would help us rebalance our lives is walking barefoot twenty
(02:21):
four hours a day, seven days a week, and avoiding
sidewalks or driveways and trying to walk outside so that
your feet are literally touching the ground like in a yard.
Speaker 3 (02:35):
Socks. No, I'm not a barefoot No, I'm not a
shoes guy. But whenever I'm not here at work, I
don't have my shoes on.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
But you have socks. Socks, Now, do you wear you
know what? Because I don't look at your legs because
I don't want to like vomit, But do you wear
the little ankle socks? You wear regular like over the caff.
Speaker 3 (02:58):
No, not tube socks or anything, but yeah, they're like
the quarter ankle or whatever. So they come up above
my shoe.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
But just you know, just barely about your ten shoes.
Speaker 3 (03:06):
Barely, they're not they're the.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
One of those calls the quarter quarter where they just
they just are the same size as your shoe.
Speaker 3 (03:16):
Yeah, just to if I were to hide, if I
were to wear high tops, you probably wouldn't see them.
But if I'm wearing regular sneakers, yeah, you know, you can.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
Easily see them. All right, No, you're supposed to walk barefoot? No,
And I'm just thinking, first of all, we've worn shoes
our entire lives, so the bottoms of my feet are
not exactly calloused. I'm not sure I want to do that.
But the whole point was it gets you back in
touch with mother Earth. Okay whatever. One of the parlor
(03:46):
games of Washington, d C is like going to the
carnival and playing one of the the games where you
you know, you shoot the moving target and you win
a prize. Well, whenever you're in d C, it doesn't
(04:08):
make any difference whether you're a member of the executive
for the Legislative branch, and quite frankly, now the judicial
branch or whether you're you know, a high level, mid
level doesn't make any difference. There are people always looking
to shoot you down because that's how they make themselves
(04:28):
feel better. And it's all about politics, and it's all
about killing somebody else. I don't mean, I mean figuratively
killing off somebody. And if you can kill off a
high level cabinet official, well then you get the prize.
You get to take the big stuff Teddy Bear home
to your girlfriend or your boyfriend or maybe to keep
for yourself and cuddle up, you know. And I can
(04:49):
see Chuck Schumer, you know, cutting up because he shot
down somebody, and so he went to Teddy Bear. And
Chucky gets to go home and pretend like he's going
to really barbecue you know, Charcoala burger outside, but then
he curls up in his pajamas and his Teddy bearon,
and he talks about, you know, you know, people really
do like me, they really do like me. Well, the
(05:11):
latest that they're going after is Pete Hegsath, the Secretary
of Defense. Now I confess that I've always been skeptical
about Hegsath being the Secretary of Defense. But it's Trump's choice.
He has military experience, so go for it. But I'm
(05:35):
also a person that believes that you don't have to
be a military person to run the Department of Defense
anymore than you have to be in my opinion, and
there is no requirement that the Attorney General of the
United States be a lawyer. You need to be an administrator,
(05:57):
a manager. You need to understand organizations and organizational structure,
organizational management. You don't need to be a radio person,
in my opinion, to be able to run this company.
In fact, I think you need to be a strong
manager who understands P and L statements, who understands uh,
you know, marketing and advertising, and understands you know, content
(06:21):
and what we do here in this studio. You don't
need to be a talk show host run a radio company,
all though probably would help. So I've been skeptical of
Pete Heggs. It doesn't mean I oppose him. He doesn't
mean that I'm you know, I'm against him, But it
(06:41):
does mean I understand the game going on and the
game going on because I've been a part of that
stupid game, and I've been a victim of that game.
And so there Pete Hegsath is now in the crosshairs
because what a month or so ago we discovered, or
the Atlantic magazine discovered this signal chat in which the
(07:02):
not Pete Hagsith, but the National Security Advisor Mike Walls,
had inadvertently put a reporter from the Atlantic into the
signal chat in which they were discussing what maybe not classified,
but certainly highly sensitive information that he should not have
been on. I also blame the Atlantic for not stepping
(07:28):
up and saying, hey, I think you mistakenly added me
to the chat that I should not be on. Would
you please take me off? No, they sat and watched
because they don't care about national security. They don't care.
All they care about is the parlor game. Oh we
got somebody left the door unlocked, so we're going to
(07:51):
go in and see if we can't find somebody and
you know, cut their legs out from under them. Now,
fast forward, Pete Hegsath is now was subject to a
New York Times article that was released on Sunday. I've
read through the article and it was only when I
read the article that I discovered that this so called
(08:13):
new signal chat is actually an old signal chat that
was originated that he put together, not the National Security Advisor,
but he put together when he was being when he
was going through the confirmation process. He had his wife,
which makes sense to me. He had his brother and
(08:34):
a lawyer on this chat. Always makes perfect sense to me,
because when you're going through the confirmation process, you have
your handlers, but you also want outsiders that you trust
that can be an extra set of ears and eyes
for you. Now, I'm going to skip and not address
(08:55):
yet the content of that signal chat. She continued beyond
his date of confirmation, which is really I think part
of the problem is he does have a tendency to
discuss things and to take his spouse into meetings that
(09:16):
she should not be in. She's not an employee of
the Department of Defense. She doesn't have a clearance. Tamara
never had clearances. I never took Oh would Tamra attend dinners? Yes?
But whatever would I Would I ever take Tamra into
a private meeting, say at NATO, where we're discussing the
(09:36):
involvement of Russia into NATO. Would I take her into
those negotiations? I would never even they would never even
cross my mind. Now, if I were speaking in a
public event at NATO and she wanted she never wanted to,
but if she wanted to hear me, and she wanted
to be in part of the audience in shirt, come
come on in and you can hear me speak. But
she's heard me speak once and as she said, that
(09:58):
was enough. Pete Heigsath, I happened to notice before I
knew I was going to talk about this. But what
I did not know was that Pete Heigsath was going
to address this on Fox News.
Speaker 1 (10:13):
So think they've had in twenty eight years.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
No, he's doing a great job. It's your stake. News.
Speaker 4 (10:20):
Oh.
Speaker 5 (10:20):
That was President Trump doubling down on his support for
Defense Secretary Pete Heisith twenty four hours ago, denying a
New York Times report about sharing sense of information on
another signal.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
Chat called Team Huddle.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
Here to set the.
Speaker 5 (10:32):
Record straight himself, this former secretary of the current Secretary
of State, Pete Hegseth's former host right here on Fox
and Friends. Pete, great to see him as the secretary.
Speaker 6 (10:41):
See you, So.
Speaker 5 (10:41):
Your thoughts on what's been reporting of Team Huddle and
the signal chat that the New York times says took
place between you, your wife and your brother and some others.
Speaker 7 (10:52):
So, Brian, if you remember when this all started the
first go around, because this is the second goal around, right.
Speaker 4 (10:56):
They pedal old stuff, they kick.
Speaker 2 (10:58):
It back up.
Speaker 7 (10:59):
I said repeatedly, no one's texting war plans. You know
why I said that, because I'm in the bowels of
the Pentagon every single day. Just ten minutes ago, I
was looking at actual war plans of things that were
ongoing or pending things to happen, because that's on the
regular basis, on classified systems. That's my job for the
war fighters, for the president the United States. I look
(11:19):
at war plans every single day. What was shared over
signal then and now, however you characterize it was informal,
unclassified coordinations for media coordination other things. That's what I've
said from the beginning. At the beginning, it was left
wing reporters from the Atlantic who got a hold of
it and then wanted to create a problem for the president.
(11:40):
This is what it's all about, trying to get at
President Trump and his agenda. Now here at the Defense Department,
because Brian, I want this to be very clear, we
take the classification of information very important. It's very significant
to us that we safeguarded and so when we had leaks,
which we have had here, we did a serious leak investigation,
and through that leak investigation, unfortunately, we found some folks
(12:03):
that we believe we're not holding to the protocols that
we hold dear here at the Defense Department. Through that investigation,
they have been moved on and that investigation continues. As
a result of that, everything we do here is above board,
trying to make sure that we safeguard information. In this point,
those folks who are leaking, who have been pushed out
(12:24):
of the building are now attempting to leak and sabotage
the president's agenda and what we're doing, and that's unfortunate.
It's not what I do, it's not how we operate.
And so you've got another allegation being pushed again, not
based on how we're operating around here. We're for the
war fighters, we're for the president, and none of this
is based in reality.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
So Miss Secretary, I.
Speaker 5 (12:44):
Guess I can conclude this. We know some bizarre situation
with Michael Wallt's happened with the first time, the whole
thing with the signal app came out. You believe this
came out. They said it was called team huddle because
so one of the people work for you, one of
the three who no longer are there, leak this out
as a way.
Speaker 4 (13:01):
To get back at you.
Speaker 7 (13:04):
That's right, Brian, when you dismiss people who you believe
are leaking classified information. And again, the investigation is ongoing
and that will take time, and if when the evidence.
Speaker 4 (13:13):
Produced, it will go to DOJ.
Speaker 3 (13:14):
Why would it.
Speaker 7 (13:15):
Surprise anybody, Brian, if those very same people keep leaking
to the very same reporters whatever information they think they
can have to try to sabotage the agenda of the
president or the secretary. So once a leaker, always a leaker,
often a leaker, And so we looked for leakers because
we take it very seriously and we will do the investigation.
(13:36):
And if those people are exonerated, fantastic. We don't think
based on what we understand that it's going to be
a good day for a number of those individuals because
of what was found in the investigation. So if they
want to keep leaking and pushing and pedaling things to
try to sabotage the president's agenda, that's unfortunate, but that's
how leaking works in this town. We're focused on recruiting,
(13:57):
on rooting out DEI, on securing ourselves, border on the
President's agenda, and it's going very well to Pentagon, and
I'm proud of it.
Speaker 5 (14:04):
Right So the signal app is what everyone uses. We're
all finding that out now because of the Chinese have
infected and sabotaged, got involved in almost every other communications
apparatus over the last four years. So that's where you're communicating.
You say it took place, but there was no classified
material in it. Over the last few days, you senior
Advisor Dan Caldwell, Darren Selnik, Colin Carroll, who is the
(14:27):
Chief of Staff Deputy Secretary of Defense. The other one,
Darren is now former deputy chief of staff, will let go?
Speaker 2 (14:34):
Did you let them go? Friday?
Speaker 7 (14:37):
Was a result of an investigation ongoing at the Pentagon
where we identified there was a sufficient evidence potentially again,
there's an investigation ongoing that will have to complete itself
sufficient evidence.
Speaker 4 (14:48):
To believe that they or others near.
Speaker 7 (14:50):
Them were party to leaking, and then I have a
statutory responsibility, Brian, if I believe that's the case to
ultimately ensure they're no longer have access to that and
that the investigation commences. There are a lot of ways
to communicate in this building.
Speaker 2 (15:04):
I do it every day. I was just doing it
this morning.
Speaker 7 (15:06):
Official channels by which we communicate classified information. If you
want to do it and do it the right way,
you should. If we think you are leaking to the press,
that's a very real problem. We take that very seriously
at the Pentagon. I'm here to do one job, one
job for the President and the American people, secure the country,
America first, peace through strength. I don't have time for leakers.
(15:27):
I don't have time for the hopes press that pedals
old stories from disgruntled employees. We should be talking about
the decimation of the houthis, how we're pushing back the Chinese,
how we have a new defense area at the southern border. Instead,
disgruntled former employees are peddling things to.
Speaker 4 (15:42):
Try to save their ass.
Speaker 7 (15:43):
Did you and ultimately it's not going to work.
Speaker 5 (15:47):
It's a secretary did you find this out? Or that
they come to you because I know you know these
guys like these are the guys you picked especially for Caldwell,
and they work for you for your previous job before
you got over to Fox, and they said that they
have not been asked for their phones, they weren't asked
about communications, they didn't go through, they didn't take a polygraph.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
So why would they be.
Speaker 5 (16:10):
Let go and not be investigated.
Speaker 7 (16:13):
Of Brian when there were a series of serious leaks
at the Pentagon which there were Panama Canal plans.
Speaker 2 (16:21):
That's enough. Do you notice the pattern? And the pattern
is don't directly address the questions. So the Washington firing
squad is out for Hexit and it's pretty dramatic, as
Brian wants to kill me was pointing out in that
(16:43):
questioning the three top aids that were placed on leave
and espported by guards from the Pentagon before ultimately being fired.
Dan Caldwell calling Carroll and Darren sell me are actually
people that Pete Hegsith chose and they're reporting that they
(17:04):
were never investigated, They never rested turn over their phones,
they didn't, they were never asked to take a polygraph
or anything else. And then John Olliot took a really
rare step in DC of taking to the pages of
Political himself to publicly denounce the current Pentagon direction as
a chaotic month from Hell and says that the Pentagon
(17:28):
currently is in total chaos.
Speaker 6 (17:33):
Now.
Speaker 2 (17:34):
I don't know whether it's true or not, but those
clashes as described as real and not motivated by personality.
A Michael, you were taking of spurs, ras and foil,
just took them in their fire.
Speaker 3 (17:57):
Trash fire taters.
Speaker 2 (17:59):
This season goes all the way through. That was Quincy. Okay,
that sounds like Quincy the truck driver.
Speaker 3 (18:13):
What do you think Quincy would have done trash firetators? Yeah,
I would argue, though it probably wouldn't have been called
because I'm sure he's just trying to have a little
fun and everything. But it's tinfoil. It's not aluminum foil.
Speaker 2 (18:31):
What do you mean? It's tinfoil?
Speaker 3 (18:33):
But if you're out in the country, it's tinfoil. It's
the same thing.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
You're trying to characterization. Should have been tinfoil and not illuminum.
Speaker 3 (18:50):
The character or whatever tweets just a touch, it's tinfoil.
Speaker 2 (18:54):
But as I listen, I was torn between listening to
the content and listening to the right because it suddenly
struck me, Ah, that's Quincy. I couldn't hear a truck
in the background but I it was Quincy. He's at
some truck stop listening to us right now, going nuts.
Speaker 3 (19:13):
Yeah, as is everybody. Not everybody's at a truck stop
right now, but everybody who's listening.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
Is Yeah, they continue to listen. I can't help they
have they have mental problems. I can't do anything about it.
So back so back to Pete Hegsath. It appears to
me that the clash is going on inside the Pentagon.
From reading different sources, conservative sources, reading sources like the
(19:44):
New York Times or Politico, it appears to me, because
there's a consistency through all of them, that there really
is some chaos and tension within the Pentagon. The tension
and the staffing issues for these roles, I think are
driven by anytime you have personal connections, they also have
(20:07):
to pass a loyalty test. But those people that he
brought with him are inexperienced in running sprawling government offices. It's,
you know, one of the most difficult things I had
to do. And in fact, his name was mentioned. Well
(20:28):
skip all of that. When I was the undersecretary, there
was an individual that I knew who was a fire
chief that I wanted to head up the Fire Academy,
and we talked to the White House about it. White
(20:49):
House signed off on it, and then they started doing
the background check, and in the course of the background check,
we found things that I said to the White House,
I can get conscious conscience continue with this nomination. And
when I told them what you know the FBI and
the investigators had found. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing criminal.
(21:11):
It wasn't criminal. It was personal stuff, but it was
personal stuff that made me question judgment. And so the
White House agreed, yes, tell him we no longer support
the nomination and he needs to withdraw his name. It
was one of the most difficult conversations I had because
it was it was someone I knew, and I had
(21:32):
to say, listen, let's just say his name was Dragon, Dragon,
I need you withdraw your name. And to my surprise,
he started arguing with me, because I mean, obviously it's
a very prestigious position and he really wanted a position,
and I had to draw in. I had to draw
the White House into it. No, so when I read
(21:56):
about these personal and by the way, I finally drew
the line and said, if you don't voluntarily withdraw your
name from consideration all have the White House do it,
and they're ready, willing and able to do so. And
so the choice was do I make this my own
(22:18):
choice or do I get forced out by the White House?
And he made the right choice, and the right choice
was he withdrew his own name from consideration. That's the
problem when you start looking at people that you know personally,
because as much as I, again using Dragon as the example,
as much as I think I know Dragon, there are
certain things that I do not know about Dragon that
(22:40):
if I put him through that kind of rigorous background check,
I might suddenly go, oh, yeah, I don't want to know. Yeah,
I don't want to know. And I think this is
what Hagsath is facing. And while all of that crap's
going on, he's also charged with leading one of the
(23:01):
largest bureaucracies in the entire world. And there is a
huge administrative burden in the Secretary Defense Office, and it's
not easily managed. It's incredibly difficult to manage it now.
Competence is key, and the Biden administration did themselves no
(23:25):
favor in that regard, but they had a compliant cabal
that would do anything to make them look the other way.
For example, when Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin just disappeared
for days on end and didn't tell anybody where he
was going, let alone his boss, the President of the
United the commander in chief. But there are also, i think,
(23:46):
going on ideological clashes. Hegesith is widely viewed as somebody
at the hinge point of the Reaganite Right and the
Maga Right, existing somewhere in between the two wings of
(24:06):
the Republican Party as it currently exists. But according to
multiple informed observers, in the wake of the signal leagues,
Hagess is now drawing the ire of the current faction
of Trump World, whose perspective on things like Iran emerged
(24:27):
from the orbit of the I would say, the COP
funded foreign policy institutions that all exists to advise and
provide white papers and such to all of the national
security apparatus, So they view Hegesa as an obstacle to
(24:47):
the deal making approach that Special Envoy Whitcoff is currently
doing with the Iranians. Now, I happen to believe that
what Trump is doing here is brilliant, but of course,
like everything that Trump does, carry certain risks. Think about
(25:10):
with the Iranians. He's given the wink in the nod
to netting Yahoo to take out their nuclear capability, but
at the same time said, but hold off, and then
he writes a letter to the Ayatola and says, you're
not going to get a nuke. I want you to
shut it down. I'm willing to negotiate with you, and then,
(25:32):
in stereotypical Trump fashion, and if you don't, there will
be hell to pay. So he's trying to avert what
could blow up in the Middle East into a much
wider conflict by drawing the line in the sand, putting
that red line out there and saying I'm willing to
sit down with you, but if you're not willing to
(25:54):
negotiate in good faith, and if you're not willing to
meet our demands, then there will be hell to pay,
which means if the Ayatola says screw you, then he's
got to go back to net and Yahoo and say, Okay,
you got to go and we'll be there to back
you when it takes place. And that does run the
(26:14):
risk of a wider conflict, which is something trumpturily trying
to avoid. And that's what Steve Whitkoff, this special envoy
for the President is currently doing in the Middle East,
with everybody in the Middle East for that matter right now.
Hegsath appeared on Fox News the day after the talks
(26:36):
began with the Iranians in Oman and said publicly and
called for a dismantling of the Iranian nuclear program. And
he told Maria Barbaronmo in that interview that Iran come
to the table and negotiate full dismantlement of your nuclear capabilities.
(26:57):
He inserted himself into something that he should not have
inserted himself, and I think that creates a conflict within
the West wing. So now the game begins to play out.
Caroline Levitt came out yesterday and said the President fully
supports the Secretary of Defense. Oftentimes that means just the opposite.
(27:22):
And then the President was asked at the Easter egg
roll yesterday and you heard him in that SoundBite from
Fox News. Yes, I've got full confidence in the Secretary
of Defense. And you know, as Trump always does, you know,
he says the things the way says things. So now
(27:43):
we get a problem. Does Trump pull him because he's
actually conflicted and intervened in an area where he should
have kept his mouth shut. Plus, you've got the signal problem,
which is not really his problem, but he was the
one on the signal chat that was actually talking about, Hey,
(28:05):
here's the target and here's the launch times, which may
not have been classified, but certainly was sensitive enough that
shouldn't have shared it with a reporter and certainly shouldn't
have been talking about it on signal. Should have been
talking about it on secure pipes from a skiff, not
putting it out. But it could have been intercepted, and
(28:28):
inadvertently was intercepted. So I think we've got the first
real kind of serious personnel issue, and it just happens
to be unfortunately the Secretary of Defense, one of the
most important components of the executive branch, and now he
comes out and he doesn't. If you watch the video
(28:53):
where Brian killed Mead, one of his former colleagues, you
can tell that Brian kill Mead is really troubled by
the fact that hesitths won't just answer the question and
keeps repeating the same talking point over and over and over.
We take leaks seriously. This isn't necessarily about leaks. This
(29:14):
is about the signal chat itself. And why you continue
to have your wife on there and although it's like
twelve minutes long, so I didn't go to the whole thing.
But also why were you discussing those things like the
Iranian negotiations with your spouse and your brother and your lawyer,
(29:38):
which your lawyer I might give the okay to that
his brother does work in the Pentagon. I'm not sure
what his position is, but his wife does not. I
just think it shows some misjudgment and I think it's
giving fodder to the cabal when the last thing we
(29:58):
need to be doing is giving fodder to the cabal. Mike,
I'm sure wish all those predictions had it come true.
I mean, I don't want to wish no harm on anybody,
but it's sure it would have been nice having thousands
of acres to myself to go deer hunting, just saying yeah,
a few more people to be fine with me too.
(30:19):
So back to Hegsas. So the other part of this
parlor game is that the Cabal will now start coming
out not only emphasizing that there's you know, rumors and
speculation about clashes about you know, there's conversations going on
in the West Wing about what we do. But you
(30:40):
know that they've targeted hegxas. When CNN comes out and
they're interviewing, I forget who this guy is, but they're
interviewing some Maybe maybe it says when I'm listening to
it again, but listen to what they.
Speaker 6 (30:58):
Do, and Hexath will be speaking shortly, so we will
hear more and that could mean even more follow up.
Then there's the issue mark of if not Hexas, who
would run the Pentagon? During his whole confirmation battle, the
name of governor from Florida were floated.
Speaker 2 (31:14):
Let me just pa, it's the Indian's Mark Preston, he's
one of their correspondents.
Speaker 6 (31:18):
Gone. During his whole confirmation battle, the name of governor
On DeSantis from Florida was floated.
Speaker 2 (31:23):
Not so sure that would happen now.
Speaker 4 (31:25):
You know, I don't think that would happen now either.
You know, as much as Ron DeSantis and Donald Trump
have made up publicly, there is a little bit of
friction there between both camps. Two people to look at though,
Tom Cotton, the Senator from Arkansas right there, uh, And
well as Chris Miller, he is the former Secretary Defense
who Donald Trump had him in that position. Let me
just tell you why Cotton might take it because he
(31:47):
might have to take it.
Speaker 2 (31:48):
He might be forced into doing.
Speaker 4 (31:49):
It because he believes that's his best path towards the presidency.
On the other hand, he is number three in the
center Republican conference.
Speaker 2 (31:56):
He's in a very good position.
Speaker 4 (31:58):
He may think that his better and running for president
is from the US Senate. Now, the other side is
Chris Miller is somebody who was very loyal to President
Trump and then during the investigation of January sixth, was critical.
Speaker 2 (32:10):
Of Donald Trump.
Speaker 4 (32:11):
He has since come out and then said that he
is he takes back his criticism of Donald Trump. And
Donald Trump has actually mentioned Miller as a possible defense secretary.
He did that about seventeen months ago. So Miller might
be at the top of the list, could be.
Speaker 2 (32:29):
And Haigesth, as a CNN pointed out, in addition to
the Fox News interview, also came out and did a
public statement carried by Fox News but not carried by
the other network.
Speaker 7 (32:43):
You remember when this all started the first go around,
Because this is the second goal around.
Speaker 4 (32:47):
Right, they pedal old stuff, they kick it back up.
Speaker 7 (32:50):
I said repeatedly, no one's texting war plans. You know
why I said that, because I'm in the bowels of
the Pentagon.
Speaker 3 (32:55):
Every single day.
Speaker 7 (32:56):
Just ten minutes ago, I was looking at actual war plan,
the things that we're ongoing or pending things to happen.
Speaker 2 (33:03):
There's just something about the demeanor that tells me someone
has said something to him from the West Wing. Could
have been Susie Wiles, the chief of staff, or anybody
else that says, don't clean up the mess. And he's
trying to clean up the mess, and I'm not convinced
he's doing it. I guess the knives are out. It's
(33:24):
the DC parlor game and we're watching it in real time.
Will he be the first victim or not?
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.