reSee.it - Related Post Feed
@ACTforAmerica - ACT For America
Impeach Biden ➡️ https://bit.ly/3BqREHG
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker highlights that the President had a significant and legitimate business, encompassing his name, buildings, wine, branding, and The Apprentice. In contrast, Joe Biden lacks a business and solely relies on his political position. The speaker emphasizes the committee's responsibility to investigate this matter and states that they will continue to do so, allowing the facts to speak for themselves.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: President actually had a business, very big business. You could say it was his name, you could say it was his buildings, you could say it was wine, you could say it was branding, you could say it was The Apprentice, but he had a very big and legitimate business, which everybody in this room clearly knows and understands and can point to and say, ah, that's the thing, that thing over there. Joe Biden has no business except his position in politics, and it is the requirement of this committee to investigate that. We're gonna continue to do that, and we're gonna let the facts speak for themselves. Thank you, mister
Impeach Biden!
Biden is intentionally failing to secure our borders and enforce immigration laws. He has broken trust with the American people over his Vaccine and Mask Mandates including the coercive ‘Jabs for Jobs’. He failed us in his catastrophic Afghanistan withdrawal and continued abandonment of US citizens and visa holders. His economic policies and destruction of our hard-earned energy independence has caused the worst inflation we’ve seen in forty years. Biden’s policies are causing irreparable harm to most working-class families, first responders, and service members who are losing their jobs, sufficient income, careers, and lives! Enough is enough! It’s time to Impeach Biden.
, full_html
actforamerica.org
@nancy_hamm1 - 🌟🇺🇸Nancy Hamm🇺🇸🌟
☄️IMPEACH BIDEN NOW☄️ https://t.co/xAjX2sCalB
Video Transcript AI Summary
I am introducing articles of impeachment against President Joe Biden for compromising national security, refusing to enforce immigration laws, and allowing illegal immigration. His administration has lost contact with 85,000 unaccompanied children and forced many into slave labor. Biden's policies, such as catch and release, have flooded our country with illegal immigrants. He has also granted mass parole to aliens, violated COVID policies, and violated his constitutional duty. Therefore, Biden is unfit to serve as president and must be impeached. Additionally, corrupt officials like Matthew Graves, Christopher Wray, Merrick Garland, and Alejandro Mayorkas should also be impeached. This concludes impeachment week.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It is with the highest amount of solemnity that I announce my intention to introduce articles of impeachment today on the head of this America at Last executive branch that has been working since January 20, 2021 to systematically destroy this country, the president of the United States, Joseph Robinette Biden. Joe Biden has deliberately compromised our national security by refusing to enforce immigration laws and secure our border, allowed approximately 6,000,000 illegals from over 170 countries to invade our country, deprive border patrol of the necessary resources and policies sufficient to protect our country. And his administration has willfully refused to maintain operational control as required by the law. He has allowed Fentanyl, the number one killer of Americans between the age of 18 and 45, to overwhelmingly flood into our country and kill around 300 Americans every single day. These aren't just Americans.
These are people's family members. These are their sons, their daughters, their brothers, their sisters, their mothers, their fathers, their cousins, aunts and uncles. These are American families. His administration has lost complete contact with approximately 85,000 unaccompanied illegal alien children. And his policies have forced tens of thousands of illegal children into slave labor.
Where are these kids? No one even knows. It's horror it's horrible. Joe Biden has reinstated catastrophic and disastrous catch and release policies, which have allowed illegals to flood to flood our country and our communities. He ended remain in Mexico and reinstated catch and release.
Under Biden's command, the secretary of homeland security, has illegally granted mass parole to aliens when US federal law only permits parole to be granted on a specific case by case basis. He endangered the lives of Americans by allowing illegal aliens who had tested positive for COVID nineteen, to enter our country and infect American citizens, yet while enforcing strict COVID policies on American citizens. His policies, directives, and statements surrounding the southern border have violated our laws and destroyed our country. Biden has blatant blatantly violated his constitutional duty, and he is a direct threat to our national security. Therefore, Joseph Robinette Biden is unfit to serve as the president of the United States and must be impeached.
Out in the real world, where American taxpayers live. Employees are fired when they are corrupt or aren't adequately serving their employer or purposely destroying a country a company. In this case, the employer is the American people because they pay the salaries they pay the salaries of everyone in the federal government. The constitution outlines a very simple process to fire the corrupt officials serving in the federal government impeachment. Matthew Graves, Christopher Wray, Merrick Garland, Alejandro Mayorkas and Joe Biden, are all corrupt and unfit to hold office, and they all must be impeached.
This concludes impeachment week. And now I can
@JoeBell - Joe Bell
🚨 BREAKING: Articles Of Impeachment To Be Filed Against President Joe Biden! https://conservativebrief.com/articles-biden-73404/
Video Transcript AI Summary
I am introducing articles of impeachment against President Joe Biden for compromising national security, refusing to enforce immigration laws, and allowing illegal immigration. His administration has lost contact with 85,000 unaccompanied illegal alien children and forced many into slave labor. Biden's policies, such as catch and release, have flooded our country with illegal immigrants. He has violated federal law by granting mass parole to aliens and endangered American lives by allowing COVID-positive illegal aliens to enter. These actions have violated our laws and destroyed our country. Biden is unfit to serve as president and must be impeached, along with corrupt officials Matthew Graves, Christopher Wray, Merrick Garland, and Alejandro Mayorkas. Impeachment is the constitutional process to remove corrupt officials.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It is with the highest amount of solemn nindy that I announce my intention to introduce articles of impeachment today on the head of this America at Last executive branch that has been working since January 20, 2021 to systematically destroy this country, the president of the United States, Joseph Robinette Biden. Joe Biden has deliberately compromised our national security by refusing to enforce immigration laws and secure our border, allowed approximately 6,000,000 illegals from over 170 countries to invade our country, deprive border patrol of the necessary resources and policies sufficient to protect our country. And his administration has willfully refused to maintain operational control as required by the law. He has allowed Fentanyl, the number one killer of Americans between the age of 18 and 45, to overwhelmingly flood into our country and kill around 300 Americans every single day. These aren't just Americans.
These are people's family members. These are their sons, their daughters, their brothers, their sisters, their mothers, their fathers, their cousins, aunts and uncles. These are American families. His administration has lost complete contact with approximately 85,000 unaccompanied illegal alien children. And his policies have forced tens of thousands of illegal children into slave labor.
Where are these kids? No one even knows. It's horror it's horrible. Joe Biden has reinstated catastrophic and disastrous catch and release policies, which have allowed illegals to flood to flood our country and our communities. He ended remain in Mexico and reinstated catch and release.
Under Biden's command, the secretary of homeland security, has illegally granted mass parole to aliens when US federal law only permits parole to be granted on a specific case by case basis. He endangered the lives of Americans by allowing illegal aliens who had tested positive for COVID nineteen to enter our country and infect American citizens, yet while enforcing strict COVID policies on American citizens. His policies, directives, and statements surrounding the southern border have violated our laws and destroyed our country. Biden has blatant blatantly violated his constitutional duty, and he is a direct threat to our national security. Therefore, Joseph Robinette Biden is unfit to serve as the president of the United States and must be impeached.
Out in the real world where American taxpayers live. Employees are fired when they are corrupt or aren't adequately serving their employer or purposely destroying a country a company. In this case, the employer is the American people because they pay the salaries they pay the salaries of everyone in the federal government. The constitution outlines a very simple process to fire the corrupt officials serving in the federal government. Impeachment.
Matthew Graves, Christopher Wray, Merrick Garland, Alejandro Mayorkas, and Joe Biden are all corrupt and unfit to hold office, and they all must be impeached. This concludes impeachment week. And now I can
BREAKING: Articles of Impeachment To Be Filed Against President Joe Biden Today After Evidence Shows He Committed Wrongdoings, MTG Claims
It is about time.
conservativebrief.com
@theamgreatness - American Greatness
On Sunday, Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) suggested that Congress could pursue an impeachment inquiry into Attorney General Merrick Garland for abuse of power. https://amgreatness.com/2023/06/26/speaker-kevin-mccarthy-hints-at-impeaching-attorney-general-merrick-garland/
Speaker Kevin McCarthy Hints at Impeaching Attorney General Merrick Garland › American Greatness
On Sunday, Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) suggested that Congress could pursue an impeachment inquiry into Attorney General Merrick Garland for…
amgreatness.com
@RepMattGaetz - Rep. Matt Gaetz
MUST WATCH: @SecMayorkas LIED to Congress again!
@simonateba - Simon Ateba
URGENT: @TheLeoTerrell says he has an urgent message for @SpeakerMcCarthy: "Impeach @JoeBiden immediately." WATCH
Video Transcript AI Summary
Leo 2.0 addresses Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy, expressing frustration over the lack of action in impeaching Joe Biden. Leo accuses McCarthy of betraying President Trump and emphasizes that McCarthy owes his position to Trump. Leo believes Biden is a criminal who has repeatedly lied to the American people. Leo warns that McCarthy will only serve one term as speaker if he fails to impeach Biden, as well as Mayorkas, Merrick Garland, and Christopher Ray. Leo urges McCarthy to take immediate action and stop delaying.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hi. Leo 2 point o here. This is a message for speaker of the house Kevin McCarthy. In in Pete Joe Biden right now, I'm sick and tired of you waiting and talking and not doing anything about impeaching Joe Biden. You have thrown president Trump under the bus, not once, but twice, and he's forgiven you.
And you would not be speaker today if it wasn't for president Donald j Trump. You have an obligation to Impeach Joe Biden. He's a criminal. He's lied to the American people over and over again. You will be a one term speaker if you don't impeach Joe Biden immediately, along with Mayorkas, Along with Merrick Garland, along with Christopher Ray, get off your butt and impeach those guys.
@RudyGiuliani - Rudy W. Giuliani
America's Mayor Live (E236): The Truth About January 6th
@GenFlynn - General Mike Flynn
The @HouseGOP needs to bring Secretary Mayorkas back in, place him under oath, for questioning immediately. @Michael_Yon @annvandersteel @laralogan @LizCrokin @BenBergquam @SunTzusWar @MaryFlynnONeil1 @realmuckraker
@DesireeAmerica4 - 🔥Desiree🔥
If you want to see our new Speaker of the House in action, check out how he catches Alejandro Mayorkas in a lie! https://t.co/M0jEMPy4om
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker accuses the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of causing harm and failing to distinguish between domestic and foreign speech. They criticize the DHS for record levels of illegal immigration, declining deportations, and drug-related incidents. The speaker also mentions the cybersecurity and infrastructure agency (CISA) colluding with social media companies to censor free speech, as stated in a court opinion. When questioned, the DHS representative claims to be unaware of the court opinion but acknowledges being briefed on the Missouri litigation. The speaker questions the representative about the existence of the misinformation and disinformation subcommittee and who determines what is false. The representative denies involvement in censorship and states that CISA focuses on identifying tactics used by foreign nations to weaponize disinformation. The speaker disputes this, referring to the court's findings. The conversation ends due to time constraints.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The weaponized No, sir. No, sir. The court found specifically, it's a finding of fact that is not disputed by the government defendants. The Biden administration, your agency, the FBI or DHS, not in the litigation. They determined you made you and all of your cohorts made no distinction between domestic speech in foreign speech.
So don't stand there and tell me under oath that you only focused on adverse, you know, adversaries around the world. I have to be honest and tell you I'm not sure exactly what you do at the Department of Homeland Security other than great harm. On your watch, the data is pretty clear. We've had record levels of illegal immigration, a rapid decline in deportations, skyrocketing fentanyl deaths across our country, and the Secret Service, which is a DHS component, can't determine who left cocaine at the White House. In the middle of all this, you created the cybersecurity and infrastructure agency, CISA, which is a division of of of your of DHS.
And it's one of the Biden administration agencies that colluded with and coerced the social media companies to censor Americans protected free speech online that's specifically detailed in a 155 page court opinion that came out of the federal court in Louisiana in the landmark litigation of Missouri v Biden. Have you read that court opinion?
Speaker 1: Congressman, no. I have not. And, the cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency does not censor Speech.
Speaker 0: Okay. Well, that's the court found otherwise, and it's really curious to me. Actually, it's quite alarming that you haven't read the opinion because your agency is listed in this opinion. The federal court looked at volumes of evidence over months of litigation, and they determined among other things that, If the allegations made by the plaintiffs, the States in this case are true, and and hold on, the preliminary injunction was granted against your agency, sir, and other Biden administration agencies, including the DOJ and FBI, the court said it involved the most massive attack against free speech in United States history. And you're telling me this opinion issued July 4th has not reached your desk.
No one's briefed you on it?
Speaker 1: Oh, I have been briefed on the Missouri litigation.
Speaker 0: Okay. But you haven't taken the time to read it yet? Congressman, no. Hold on. Have you read it or not?
I I
Speaker 1: have read parts of it, Connell.
Speaker 0: Parts of it. Did you read the parts where it said that this is Orwellian and dystopian and that your agency is involved in a massive cover up of specifically conservatives free speech online?
Speaker 1: Congressman, the cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency is not involved in such Conduct.
Speaker 0: Okay. Well, the court found otherwise, and you stand here under oath and you give us these answers that we know were not true because this is demonstrably untrue. I'm suggesting to you that you're saying things to us under oath that are proven by the record to be untrue. Let me ask you about this specifically. CISA was created to, we call it the misinformation and disinformation subcommittee of SIS.
Are you familiar with that?
Speaker 1: Congress
Speaker 0: MDM, the MDM subcommittee. You're familiar with that?
Speaker 1: Congressman, I am very well aware of the threat of disinformation emanating from adverse nation
Speaker 0: Are you familiar with the subcommittee? Just answer the question.
Speaker 1: I am.
Speaker 0: Okay. Does it still exist?
Speaker 1: Congressman, are you speaking of the
Speaker 0: Does the MDM subcommittee still exist?
Speaker 1: I would have to get back to you on that.
Speaker 0: Okay. Alright. Kind of a big deal in your agency. I'm kind of shocked that you don't know the answer to that. Can you define what misinformation is?
Speaker 1: Congressman, misinformation is false information that is disseminated, to Excellent.
Speaker 0: Who determines what is false? Congressman, our focus. No. Who determines what is false in your agency? If you're gonna pull something off the Internet and collude with this social media platform to make sure Americans don't see it, who determines what's false?
Speaker 1: Congressman, we don't do that.
Speaker 0: That's not true. That is not true. That is not what the court has found. This is not a Republican talking point. This is what the documents show.
We've had people testify under oath that say, and you just defined the term, you're telling me that you don't know who determines what is false?
Speaker 1: Congressman, what we do at CISA, The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency is identify the tactics that adverse nation states use To weaponize disinformation.
Speaker 0: Okay. What is disinformation? What is disinformation?
Speaker 1: Disinformation is inaccurate information.
Speaker 0: Who determines what's inaccurate? Who determines what's false? Do you understand the problem here? The reason the framers of our constitution did not create an exception for quote unquote false information from the first amendment is because they didn't trust the government to determine what it is. And you have whole committees of people in your agency trying to determine what they did they determine they define as false or misinformation.
Speaker 1: That is not true.
Speaker 0: Within what is true?
Speaker 1: What we do
Speaker 0: Please enlighten us.
Speaker 1: Is what we do is we disclose the tactics That adverse nation states are utilizing to weaponize information.
Speaker 0: No, sir. The court found specifically. It's a finding of fact that is not disputed by the government defendants. The Biden administration, your agency, the FBI or DHS, not in the litigation. They determined you made you and all of your cohorts made no distinction between domestic speech and foreign speech.
So don't stand there and tell me under oath that you only focused on adverse, you know, adversaries around the world, foreign actors.
Speaker 1: That's not true. Congressman, the, the Missouri case, the litigation to which you refer, is the The subject of continuing litigation.
Speaker 0: But the facts were not disputed, and I so so regret that I'm out of time. I hope I get some more yield
reSee.it AI Summary
Breaking News: 8 Republicans, including Duarte, Bentz, Buck, Issa, McHenry, McClintock, Foxx, and Turner, joined Democrats to block the impeachment of DHS Secretary Mayorkas. This move marks a significant bipartisan stance against the measure. [Link: https://www.axios.com/2023/11/14/house-impeachment-dhs-secretary-mayorkas]
@wendyp4545 - Wendy Patterson
Breaking News: 8 Republicans join Democrats to block Mayorkas from being Impeached. Eight Republicans voted with Democrats to block the measure: Duarte and Reps. Cliff Bentz (Ore.), Ken Buck (Colo.), Darrell Issa (Calif.), Patrick McHenry (N.C.), Tom McClintock (Calif.), Virginia Foxx (N.C.) and Mike Turner (Ohio). https://www.axios.com/2023/11/14/house-impeachment-dhs-secretary-mayorkas
House votes against impeaching DHS Secretary Mayorkas
Lawmakers in both parties voted to refer the measure to the Homeland Security Committee.
axios.com
@RepMTG - Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸
8 Republicans just joined Democrats to KILL my Articles of Impeachment against Mayorkas https://t.co/DYCLubvjJH
@Ann_Lilyflower - 🕊 𝓐𝓷𝓷 𝓲𝓼 𝓡𝓲𝓰𝓱𝓽 🕊 𝐗𝐋𝐕
'2023 Rewind' Byron Donalds Lays Out 'Damning Evidence' Against The Bidens Where is Biden's Impeachment? 😕 https://t.co/vgXWis6nui
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses the Biden family's alleged web of concealment and corruption, highlighting the numerous companies and transactions involved. He emphasizes that the Biden family's only business is politics and questions the purpose of creating so many companies to conceal money. The speaker also mentions specific companies connected to Hunter Biden and the growing list of companies being investigated. He criticizes the Department of Justice for the lack of progress in investigating Hunter Biden. The speaker concludes by stating that there is no legitimate business for the Biden family except their involvement in politics, and the committee will continue to investigate and provide information to the press and the DOJ.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Thank you, chairman. Thanks for being here everybody. Look, a couple of things. First, what we're seeing here, what we're witnessing with, the Biden family, frankly, it's just a web of concealment, of deception. A lot of people would say corruption.
But let's be very clear, you have this many companies involved with this Velocity of transactions, size of transactions, like my colleagues have said, this is not how normal businesses operates. I had the ability, with Chairman Colmer and other members of the committee to go over to the Treasury Building and review documents. And having read those documents, one thing is became pretty crystal clear that there were many people who had serious questions about the transactions and about the velocity of these transactions, and they either get very, very deep into concealment, Hiding money, shifting money, and for the purpose, we don't know because one thing everybody in this room and the American people definitely know Except the Biden family doesn't really have a business. There is no business structure around this family except politics. And since Joe Biden has spent decades in the senate, served 8 years as vice president, and is now president of the United States, And the family's getting money from various countries and foreign businesses through various shell companies and this web of LLCs.
I mean, guys, you and the press. This is easy pickings. I'm giving you Pulitzer stuff here. Like, all you have to do is literally look at our memo and see the level of detail upon which They have created this, and it's very it's very, very frustrating. We have now been able to clearly see that the Biden's associates like Rob Walker, Eric Sherman has been discussed, created at least 16 companies while Joe Biden was vice president of the United States.
Sixteen companies Created while he was vice president. Now the list is 20 and as we continue our investigation, that list is growing. And like I said before, the question is to serve what purpose? And the purpose of all these companies being created is to conceal money that the Biden family has been gaining because Joe Biden has been sitting at the upper echelon of our politics For almost 5 decades, that is the entire purpose here. Here's an example of what I mean.
You have Rosemont Seneca Partners, Rosemont Seneca Advisors, Rosemont Seneca Technology Partners, RSP Holdings, RSTP two Alpha, r s t p, 2 bravo. Rosemont, Seneca, Thornton. Rosemont, Seneca, Bohai. I wanna make sure I pronounce Bohai, b o h a I, and the list goes on and on. Cycling through this many companies serves no legitimate purpose.
And as somebody who actually worked in banking, I did that long before I came here. Whenever there was, like, this many companies Just laying all over the place and you see wire transfers and cashier checks over here going to random members of the family for no apparent purpose At the size and velocity at which all of this was being conducted, the only logical conclusion of a financial professional is you are concealing money. Let me restate this. You are concealing money from either the IRS Or from credit agencies or from other people in general. That's the only reason you set up a structure like this.
Some of these companies We're connected to Hunter's personal professional company, Oswego or Skinny Atlas Scale Atlas, however you wanna pronounce it. And the list goes on and on. And mister Biggs, he talked about Hudson West 3 and some of those other issues that were going on as well. One thing I wanna make sure is that All of this has happened and Joe Biden is aware. Nobody in this room can logically sit here and say That the president of the United States had no idea that these companies were being formed while he was vice president of the United States, and I will add you, he was in probably a better mental shape then than he is today.
You know, I'll throw that out there. And so what this committee is gonna continue to do is pursue this investigation. We are gonna continue to document and we're gonna provide that information to all of you in the press. So to help you and frankly, you know, like congressman Mays said, and probably help The DOJ along with their investigation. One quick note.
It's interesting that the Department of Justice has been investigating Hunter Biden for quite some time, and we seem to just never really get anywhere. And so I think that's also interesting as well. I wonder what's going on at the Department of Justice. But that being said, the bottom line is there is no real business here. None.
And let me also say this, because I know there are many in this room Who wanted to go down all the various, schemes that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle accused the former president of? Be very clear. The former president actually had a business, very big business. You could say it was his name. You could say it was his buildings.
You could say it was wine. You could say it His branding, you could say it was The Apprentice, but he had a very big and legitimate business which everybody in this room clearly knows and understands and can point to And say, ah, that's the thing. That thing over there. Joe Biden has no business except his position in politics, and it is the requirement Requirement of this committee to investigate that. We're gonna continue to do that and we're gonna let the facts speak for themselves.
Thank you, mister chairman. Lastly, we'll have, represent
Speaker 1: The gentleman from Massachusetts Reserves and the gentleman from Texas is recognized. Thank Thank you, mister Speaker. I yield 2 minutes to my friend, mister Donalds from Florida. The gentleman is recognized.
Speaker 0: Thank you, mister Speaker. I rise today in support of HR 529. And let's be very clear. The issue that is happening at our southern border, not the name calling or talking about former president Trump, What is happening at our southern border today and for the last 2 years under president Biden has been a dereliction of duty with respect to immigration law In the United States, if you wanna speak to the actual issues at hand, it is the fact that The asylum provisions under Joe Biden are a bastardization of asylum procedure as set forth In federal law by Congress. Congress never anticipated that you would have 6,000,000 plus people Come through the asylum process in 2 years.
Congress never contemplated that you would have an asylum, procedure where you would have people on a 7 to 10 year waitlist to actually go through an asylum procedure. The president knows this is the case, And it is being done on purpose. That is a congressional purview, and that actually is a dereliction of his duty To faithfully execute the laws of the United States. So if the minority party wants to ask about why we are here, It is that because it is my belief and the belief of many members on our side of the aisle that this resolution should go to the Homeland Security Committee So they can fully debate and go to the depths upon which Joe Biden has been derelict in his duty to execute the laws with respect to immigration In the United States, which has major impacts on the American people. There are a 100000 Americans who have died from Fentanyl overdoses Because of his dereliction of duty.
We have the drug cartels on our southern border who have operational control Of the southern border because of his dereliction of duty. And if the president and congressional Democrats actually Took the time to investigate this, like, going to the southern border, they would know this too. I support this resolution. Time. Members should be in support of it as well.
Speaker 1: Time's expired.
Speaker 0: Sure. Alright. To John, Melili Cape Coral. Did I say your last name right? Yes.
Okay. What and when is Congress going to impeach, President Biden for obvious corruption? So I guess people are interested in this question. Alright.
Speaker 2: Yes. Would be a political prisoner in Washington DC in solitary confinement with this country holding Christians in
Speaker 0: Well, I would say on the last point, I would say hold on to that one for a second. So I get to I sit on oversight committee. I think a lot of everybody in the room knows this. A couple of things. Number 1, the information that is now available to the Public, that would not have come out if we weren't in control of the oversight committee.
So we were able to get to the bottom of this. With everything that has come forward now, everything from suspicious activity reports at the Treasury Department, which I've read, there's about 200 of them, I've read about 30 of them. Between the different members of the oversight committee, we've read all these reports. They are real reports. A a suspicious activity report is a report that is filed with a financial by a financial institution with the Treasury Department.
So this is not a political document. When we were reading those, it became pretty clear that many financial institutions were concerned about, Aspects of money laundering and concealing funds from the IRS. They were concerned about it then. We went from there to being able to depose certain individuals based upon what we read, and that information led us to see that they set up these LLCs which were set up, that we've had the legal filings, that multiple accounts were set up. We have those those those documents around that, and the purpose was to move money through the various accounts.
It was because of Chuck Grassley in the Senate and people who contacted Senator Grassley that we found out about the forms that the FBI have From their whistleblower. That and we when reading those forms, we found out about the whistleblower saying I'm sorry, the confidential human source saying that human source saying that well, according to the FBI, this human source is highly valuable and incredible. And they've been paying this human source. They paid it up they paid him or her more than $200,000 over the last 8 years to deliver information to the FBI. So they've documented on the FBI's form That the human source says that Hunter Biden and Joe Biden both took $5,000,000 from somebody associated with Burisma, And the purpose was to get the prosecutor in, Ukraine fired to take the heat off Burisma.
I think the thing that gets lost in the shuffle Is that the reason why Burisma wanted the prosecutor gone is because Burisma wanted to buy into A holding company in the United States in the oil and gas field to in order to raise capital in the United States. And they knew that if they were under investigation in their home country, they would never be able to raise capital in the United States. So that's why the money was conveyed according to the confidential human source. That led to the IRS whistleblowers coming forward in the Ways and Means Committee. And And the IRS, whistleblowers, one of whom is the supervisory agent on the case, has testified That their investigations were, downplayed or held back, and that came from the political brass at IRS And the Department of Justice.
So I say all that to say, that in my comments to the speaker And to my colleagues is that, in my view, we actually have a two track process for impeachment. I think the first is The first is with, Merrick Garland, the attorney general. The the second is with the president of the United States. Now, I want I wanna be I wanna be clear on this and and this is the part where This is really, concerning. With with what is going on, At the political levels of the IRS and the and the Department of Justice and the FBI, there is a complete lack of trust, with with the political brass of these agencies, I think you have a lot of men and women who work in these agencies.
They are patriots. They are good people. They are Republicans. They are Democrats. They are Independents.
They do their job. They follow the law. But what we have seen is that it is the political brass that has caused so many problems. So I think that impeachment is one thing, But wholesale reform of these agencies at the political level is another. And that must be done.
That must be done. The last thing is and even when we took the majority and we knew in oversight, We knew in oversight that we were going to look into these suspicious activity reports because we were given information about it and we really wanted to follow through. And even from the beginning, you know, people said, oh, okay. You guys are in charge. Now go to now go and impeach.
And my state my statement has always been clear. Impeachment is serious. This is a serious charge against an official of our government if we go to that level. And we shouldn't cheapen it, just because, you know, of political get backs even though what happened to the former president was wrong It should not have happened. But you got to have the evidence.
You got to have the facts. And I'll just tell you, from everything I've seen, we're close to having all the evidence we need, And I'll leave it at that.
Speaker 3: Arnold from Florida.
Speaker 0: Thank you, mister chairman. To the witnesses, thank you for being here today. I wouldn't get quite to it because we have a lot to cover. Mister Ziegler, you're the you are the agent that opened up this investigation. From your transcript, Page 17, what it says is, is that you were investigating a social media company and through the process of that investigation You found out that Hunter Biden was paying prostitutes in a potential prostitution ring.
Is that correct?
Speaker 4: That is correct.
Speaker 0: Okay. You also say that in in the beginning phases of that investigation reviewing bank reports, that there was evidence that he was living lavishly Through his corporate bank account. Is that correct? And when I say him, I mean Hunter Biden. Is that correct?
Speaker 4: That is correct. Okay.
Speaker 0: Question for you, and also for mister Shapely. Is it is it is it a clear line of potential investigation if somebody is charging a massive living expenses Through a corporate account and not doing that through their own personal accounts and not accounting for that properly on their income tax returns, is that the basis of a criminal investigation?
Speaker 4: Generally speaking, that would definitely be factors that would spur a criminal investigation, yes.
Speaker 0: Okay. Let me let me ask you this question. Let me answer this question real quick. So there was reference to the WhatsApp the WhatsApp text message referring to and everybody knows it now. Hey.
I'm sitting here with my dad. Tell the chairman to give me my money because, I we remember and we're gonna not gonna forget because we're the Bidens and we have all these connections, yada yada yada. We all we all know that text message now. Mister Ziegler, on page 105 of your testimony, page 105, gentlemen, you state, I know we wanted to get location data because I went to the prosecutors with this and they again came back at me with, Well, how do how do we know that? He could just be lying and claiming that dad hut Joe Biden now, That dad was there and dad was not there, were you allowed to get location data dealing with the WhatsApp text message?
Speaker 4: So from from my memory of it and from the the notes that were taken, I never obtained location data regarding that, message.
Speaker 0: Did, did did miss Wolfe, the AUSA in Delaware, did she say, oh, wow. Look at this Text message, let's figure out if let's figure out the location data and see where Hunter Biden was when he sent said message. Was she, like, excited about this as a prosecutor?
Speaker 4: So, I mean, when I asked her about the location data, in in her response right here, it was her responding with, Well, how do we know that? It wasn't a, yeah, let's try and figure that out. It was like, well, how do
Speaker 0: we know that? Well, did she read the text message? Because if I read that text message as Prosecutor, I'm saying, wait a minute. Dad is sitting next to him and dad happens to be the now president, then vice president of the United States? Shouldn't we find out where Hunter was when he sent said text message?
I mean, that's I'm not a prosecutor. I'm a finance guy, but that just seems like common sense to me.
Speaker 4: Yeah. And I think with the the previous email that was referenced, 10 held by h for the big guy, now that you have those 2 things Kind of correlating with each other as a normal process or procedure that we would go through, you would wanna figure out Is that information truthful in that WhatsApp message?
Speaker 0: I totally agree with you, Mrs. Ziegler, which is why I think it is the the View of members on this committee and frankly, a lot of Americans at this point that you there are elements at the Department of Justice Who did not want this information out? Who did not wanna go down the line of pros of actually going through the evidence gathering process to deceive the depths to which this international pay for play scheme was that was actually happening around Joe Biden going through Hunter Biden, and all the money that the Biden family was occurring. That's not a question for you. That's just a statement from me.
Last question. Through your investigation, how much money did you uncover was coming from Ukraine, Romania, and China.
Speaker 4: If you hold on one second, let me reference the, 17,300,000 approximately.
Speaker 0: Okay. So 17,300,000 through your investigation. And you are you and mister Shapely, you are the guys that investigate criminal tax evasion on an international scale. Is that correct? That is correct.
Okay. Question for the chairman. Mister chairman, through the investigation of the oversight committee, about how much money have we seen come from Ukrainia, Ukraine, Romania, and China? Over oh, over 10,000,000. Okay.
So we have 2 separate investigations. One done by the investigative branch of the IRS that is charged with doing these types of investigations. These are the people you want doing them And an independent investigation by the oversight committee, and we're coming up with the same amount of money, give or take a couple million, Going through the same person and Hunter Biden, and his investigation is slow walked, and we're supposed to sit here and think that Joe Biden knows nothing. I think for the record, mister chairman, that the relevant committee needs to have questions for Leslie Wolfe, the AUSA of Delaware, for David Weiss, The the attorney general of Delaware, for Lisa Monaco, who is the deputy attorney general, and for Merrick Garland himself, the attorney general of the United States. Because if this action is allowed to occur and investigations are slow walk with this level of detail, this ain't Donald Trump, y'all.
These are facts. I yield back. Thank you. Mister Dubinsky, I'm gonna come to you quickly. A lot of talk about evidence.
On the screens in the room, we have an organizational chart from the IRS investigative team that was looking into the business practices of Hunter Biden and his associates. This org chart is from 2014. Now, mister Dubinsky, when my former life, I was in community banking, and I'm com I'm comfortable with looking at organizational charts. When I first saw this chart, the first thing I thought about was a real estate holding company or a developer, and this is not to demean developers in the Great East State of America, But developers typically have multiple companies that float with various business interests and business lines. But the funny thing is That in the business dealings of Hunter Biden, there is no real estate.
None at all. So mister Dubinsky, in your ex professional experience, Looking at this organizational chart of business structure, what do you see here?
Speaker 3: I see a very complicated structure of entities, that are interrelated and would give me concern. If I were an investigator, I would wanna know what's going on in these entities, who's behind them, how's how's the money moving between them, And what is the substance of the transactions? What's really going on here?
Speaker 0: Mister Dubinsky, do you think it's in the in the interest of this committee that is now in an inquiry phase To actually find out all of the, flow of money between these entities and what the purpose was? Absolutely. Next slide, please. For From my colleagues on the other side, we're gonna start talking evidence now. This is now a slide of the organizational chart of the Hunter Biden business Business, companies and and with associates from 2018, from the same IRS investigators who were broke down the business structure in 2014, Does this slide cause you the same concern, mister Dubinsky?
Speaker 3: Yes. It does.
Speaker 0: Okay. Now let's talk about some more actually, one point I wanna make on this. Ladies and gentlemen, if and I know it's kinda small, so I would love to submit I will submit all this for the record. I would love my colleagues on the other side to see this. In 2014, one of the key owners was Devin Archer, who did testify and who did was, was under deposition under oath by the oversight committee.
In 2018, Devin Archer is no longer listed, but his wife, Christa Archer, is now listed. Mister Dubinsky, when you see a situation where ownership interest moves from 1 spouse to the other, is that a concern of some level of Fraud, potentially.
Speaker 3: I I would call it a red flag. That's something I would look at and and again, try to get to the bottom of what happened there. Was it just transferred? Was there money behind it? What was going on?
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Next slide. This is through a text message. This is a text message, between, it's going to Naomi Biden.
That's what this one is. Hold on. Let me let me get myself back. There we go. Sorry.
This is the WhatsApp text message between Jim Biden and Hunter Biden. In this text message, it clearly says, anyway, we can talk later, but you've been drawn into something purely for the purpose of protecting dad. This is between Hunter Biden and Jim Biden. Last time I checked, the father of Jim Biden and Joe Biden has now passed away. So I'm assuming this is Hunter Biden saying to Jim Biden, the president's brother, that you've been brought in this for the sole purpose of protecting dad.
Miss O'Connor, Do you think that this text message would lead this committee to get further information about the business dealings of Hunter Biden And how that actually links to Jim Biden, the president's brother, and why they are so concerned with protecting dad, aka Joe Biden, aka The president of the United States?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next slide, please. This is a text message between, Hunter Biden and Naomi Biden. And it this one's a famous one. Everybody knows this one.
This is the famous one that says, I hope you all do what I did and pay for everything for this entire family for 30 years. It's really hard. But don't worry. Unlike pop, I won't make you I won't make you give me half your salary. Mister Dubinsky, If you saw a text message like this in a potential money laundering operation or a potential pay for play operation, Would you be looking for information related to money going from son to father?
Absolutely, without a doubt. Thank you. Next slide. Oh, this is a fun one. Ladies and gentlemen, this one is from 2018.
This is about 4 months before Joe Biden launched his campaign for president of the United States, December 2018. The highlight is This is a text message between Jim Biden and Hunter Biden. Hunter Biden was in a bad way, by the way. He was he was really strung out. He lost a bunch of money.
He needed help. Jim Biden says this can work. You need a safe harbor. I can work with your father alone. It'll probably take several months and everybody can read the text.
Miss O'Connor, mister Dubinsky, if you saw text messages like this between the president's brother and the president's son, Wouldn't you be concerned about them trying to give plausible deniability for the president of the United States to not have any knowledge of said business dealings?
Speaker 3: It's worth time's expired, but
Speaker 0: please answer the question.
Speaker 1: It's worth investigating. Mister Dubinsky?
Speaker 3: I would agree. I would I would investigate this.
Speaker 0: I yield back. Thank you, mister chairman. Gentleman yields back
@SenMikeLee - Mike Lee
The crisis at our southern border is unacceptable. Americans are demanding accountability. We must fire @SecMayorkas. https://t.co/1uTEskfYH9
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker criticizes Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas for his handling of border security and immigration issues. They argue that Mayorkas has failed to enforce the laws and has created illegal parole programs that have increased illegal immigration. They also highlight the negative consequences of this, such as human trafficking, sexual abuse, and the entry of known terrorists. The speaker mentions the increase in deadly Fentanyl entering the country and the administration's decision to end the Remain in Mexico program. They criticize Mayorkas for not taking action to address the crisis at the southern border and call for accountability.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Mister president, I come to the floor to talk about the fitness for office of secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Mister president, my remarks are not directed at mister Mayorkas' character. I don't know him other than in the context of the secretary of homeland security, nor do I direct my comments toward any other aspect of his life, his status as a husband, father, brother, son, neighbor, or anything else. But in this context, we have to evaluate the job that he's doing. And mister president, Secretary Mayorkas does not have the confidence of the United States Senate or those we represent to continue to defend our border integrity and protect our country.
It's the very job he's called to do. We have to remember that we have 3 branches within our federal government. One that makes the laws, one that enforces the laws, or is supposed to, And a third that interprets them, where people disagree as to the law's meaning. His role is narrowly focused on interpreting a narrow category of laws, including, and especially those designed to protect our border security. He simply refused to enforce the laws that he's charged with administering.
And under his watch, we've had at least 8,000,000 people coming to this country illegally. Over 8,000,000 unauthorized individuals are among those that we know came in unlawfully, and the numbers keep going up. Well, we've been breaking all kinds of records, the exact wrong records to break. We broke a record just last month where we had 302,000 Encounters with illegal immigrants just in December alone. Those are just the ones that we saw that we are aware of.
And that's the highest number we have ever seen in recorded history. Under the watch of secretary Mayorkas, this administration has incentivized parents, parents across the globe to send their young children, They're young sons and they're young daughters on a dangerous journey into the United States, where they end up in the hands of traffickers, where many of them end up as Indentured servants, and many of them subjected to the sex trade. Substantial portion of them, majority of them, according to some estimates, are subjected to sexual abuse, to rape, and other atrocities. More than 430,000 unaccompanied children have come into the United States illegally under his watch. Now, in the meantime, he's tried to paper over those, to make lawful entries out of those who have entered unlawfully.
He's created 13 separate illegal parole programs designed to increase the flow into the country by the hundreds of thousands, trying to make illegal immigration look legal when it is not, using this parole authority, parole authority that is there for a specific purpose. It's there to to serve a humanitarian or a public need purpose. And, it's always been understood to be something that is there only on a Case by case basis, not categorical. In other words, if we're aware of somebody with a humanitarian purpose, somebody's, grandmother has died, and they need to attend the funeral in the United States. They may come in for a short period of time, and then leave.
If they need a certain type of medical treatment Available only here. They can be paroled in for a short period of time, and then, they're expected to leave. The public purpose is also individualized. Somebody speaks, an obscure language. Somebody's on trial for that.
We need an interpreter. Can't be found inside this country. We bring someone in for a short period of time, then they leave. Always on an individualized basis, always on a temporary basis. And he's run afoul of those by creating at least 13 of these illegal parole programs.
So with these kinds of numbers, how on earth can he claim to have the border under operational control? He can't. He can't. And yet, somehow, he does so. And to do so, He has to accept this made up def definition of operational control.
A definition without any connection to actual statutory or operational requirements. On his watch, the CBP has decreased its vetting procedures, those designed specifically to deal with people coming from China, including military aged Chinese males who are crossing our southern border in unprecedented alarming numbers. Under his watch, we've seen a dramatic increase in the known terrorists who have entered through our southern border. 279, in fact, have been caught at our southern border since Biden took office. Now, by election day of 2024, mister president, we will have seen at least 10,000,000 illegal immigrants, will that will have crossed over our southern border.
Under his watch, the amount of deadly Fentanyl coming into this country has increased, increased dramatically. In fact, a report out in October of 2023, just a couple of months ago, indicates that there were six Billion with a b, 6,000,000,000 lethal doses of Fentanyl that entered our borders across our southern boundary. That, mister president, means that you could kill 3 fourths of the entire population of the world. You could kill every American 54 times with that. This is poisoning.
This is a weaponized tool that could kill Americans, and is killing Americans in droves. This is not free. This is not a victimless crime. There are victims littered All over the Western Hemisphere, all over the world, but especially here in America, mister president. Under his watch, the administration willfully ended.
The carefully negotiated and very effective Remain in Mexico program put in place by the previous administration, which required those seeking asylum, crossing on land through our southern border, to wait in Mexico, to await final disposition of their asylum claims during the adjudication of those claims here in the United States. They just ended it, then they litigated it, then they were told by a court to reinstitute it. And then they've been drawing that out in a rope a dope fashion. Under his watch, the administration has decreased willfully its ability to detain those required by statute to be detained even though illegal entries have increased dramatically. A recent CBS poll found that 75% of Americans say that the situation across the southern border is, a crisis, or or at least very serious.
The house judiciary committee report stated that between January 20, 2021, the day Biden took office, and March 31st last year, The Biden administration removed from the United States only 5,993 illegal aliens who were placed in removal proceedings before an immigration judge during that time. In other words, let's think about what this means. Of the at least 2,100,000 aliens released into the United States since January 20, 2021. The Biden administration has failed to remove through immigration court removal proceedings 99.7% of those illegal aliens. Mister president, it's a new day.
It's 2024. And secretary Mayorkas, just as he had all has had all along, still has the legal authority to enforce the border. But he still refuses to do so. The crisis at our southern border, mister president, make no mistake, is not the consequence of inadequate statutory text. It is not for want of legislative authority.
He has that authority just as the Previous president did, but unlike the previous administration, this administration refuses willfully to enforce it. I find it ironic and counterproductive, mister president, the United States Senate continues to negotiate with secretary Mayorkas on border security issues, Even as he refuses, as he has done from the very beginning, to enforce the border creating this humanitarian crisis, and even as he is facing as a result of that, Impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives, even as we speak. We found him not to be capable of negotiating in good faith on this. Why? Because he refuses to enforce Existing law, which if he did enforce it, would bring this crisis to an end abruptly.
The crisis at our southern border, and it is a crisis, is unacceptable. Americans are demanding accountability. We must fire Secretary
@KeithWoodsYT - Keith Woods
🇺🇸 America's Jewish Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas gets challenged on his open border policies. You'll never guess what card he plays next. https://t.co/U9g7YGkC5c
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker criticizes the Secretary's performance and accuses him of not providing answers. The Chairman allows the Secretary to respond, and he defends himself by stating that the implication made about him is despicable. He also mentions his background as the child of a Holocaust survivor and finds the senator's adversarial tone disrespectful. The Chairman interrupts and asks to move on. Senator Romney is mentioned, but no further details are provided.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Mr. Secretary, I think that your performance is despicable. And I think the fact that you are not willing to provide answers to this committee is absolutely atrocious. Mr. Chairman, may I?
Like if you'd like to have a minute to respond you are alive. I would. And I'm not sure I'll limit it to 60 seconds. That's fine. Number 1, what I found despicable is the implication, that, this language tremendously odious.
Actually it could be emblematic of the sentiments of the 260,000 men and women of the Department of Homeland Security, number 1. Number 2, senator Holly takes a adversarial approach to me in this question, and perhaps he doesn't know my own background. Perhaps he does not know that I am the child of a holocaust survivor. Perhaps he Let's not know that my mother lost almost all her family at the hands of the Nazis. And so I find his is adversarial tone to be entirely misplaced.
I find it to be disrespectful of me and my heritage, and I do not correct an apology, but I did want to say what I just articulated. Thank you. Mister Mr. Chairman, can I just respond since he has referenced me personally? Senator, we need to move on.
Senator Romney, you're
@RepMTG - Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸
All of America knows who’s to blame for the wide-open borders and more than 10 million illegal aliens that have flowed into our country: the Biden Admin. That’s why I led the effort in the House to impeach Sec. Mayorkas. Now, Chuck Schumer must hold the trial to REMOVE him. https://t.co/me0WEdWfGs
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker blames the Biden administration for the open border allowing illegal aliens in the country. They led the effort to impeach Secretary Mayorkas and are waiting for a Senate trial. President Trump visited the border, highlighting the issue. Joe Biden only visited after Trump's trip. The speaker believes illegal immigration is hurting America, citing tragic incidents like the murder of a University of Georgia student.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: All all of America knows who's to blame for the wide open border that's brought over 10,000,000 illegal aliens into our country, and that is the Biden administration. That's why I led the effort in the house to impeach secretary Mayorkas, and we're waiting to find out when senator Chuck Schumer is going to hold the senate trial for those impeachment articles. But we're so thankful that president Trump is down at the border today showing that he cares about states like Texas and their right to defend themselves against an an invasion. And that is exactly what's happening to Texas, but it's happening to every state across the country because of the Biden administration. And we also have to point out that Joe Biden did not say he would go to the border until after president Trump already announced his trip, there today, and then it was Joe Biden who followed president Trump.
This is the number one issue across America. It's hurting Democrats because all of America is hurting from the illegal invasion that has brought an onslaught of people into our country and sadly and tragically murdered people like Lake and Riley, the University of Georgia student that was murdered last week.
@RepMTG - Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸
Secretary Mayorkas worked with dark money NGOs to finance the illegal alien invasion of America. This is an act of treason. The House already impeached Mayorkas, but Chuck Schumer must hold the trial to REMOVE him from office. Mayorkas should not serve in our government. https://t.co/pJsHHUJCHp
Video Transcript AI Summary
Thank you for your time, Mr. Mayorkas. The committee is concerned about your ties to NGOs promoting illegal immigration and voter fraud. We demand proof of citizenship for elections to prevent illegal voting. Your failure to secure the border has led to countless deaths and billions for cartels. We urge Chuck Schumer to hold your impeachment trial immediately. This is a critical issue that must be addressed.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Thank you, mister chairman. Mister Mayorkas, we do not have a country without a secure border. And we cannot have a safe country. We cannot protect our own democracy without protecting our elections. That is a fact.
The open border is the number one issue across America in poll after poll, and that is exactly why this committee impeached you. Mister Secretary, the Oversight Project released a bombshell report last night on your connection to the dark money NGO industrial complex of illegal immigration. I know you saw this from one of my colleagues just earlier. They found flyers throughout the resource center Matamoros refugee camp in Mexico telling illegal aliens. Reminder to vote for President Biden when you are in the United States we need another 4 years of his term to stay open.
Eyewitnesses saw the flyers also being handed out to migrants who were using RCM for assistance in coming to the United States. In an audio recording, the founder of RCM Gabby Zavala, By the way, we maybe should subpoena her to to the committee. Agreed that they need to help as many people as possible before President Trump gets reelected. RCM is an operation that houses, functions for the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society which helps migrants enter the United States, and you're familiar with their work. We know that you served as a former board member, excuse me, former board member of this group that funds illegal immigration.
And they're very proud of you, mister secretary. They congratulated you on your nomination. You worked as a board member of an NGO that is working in conjunction with other NGOs, which are not only financing the invasion of the country, but also telling illegal aliens to vote in the United States elections. They are telling illegal aliens, non citizens to come vote for Joe Biden. That's your boss.
This is corruption at the deepest level. As a matter of fact, I would call it treason. It's treason because these people have declared war on our citizens by raping our women, our children and murdering people like Lake and Riley. You're familiar with her. Right?
Congressman, our our break Are you familiar with Lake and Riley? I am familiar with the case and You should have deported her, so that she could be alive today. Her parents would have appreciated that. And also Kayla Hamilton, who was brutally raped and murdered by a cartel member. Her mother came and spoke to us.
She didn't deport him either. You let him in the country. You, mister secretary, have allowed over 10 1,000,000 illegals probably higher than that could be closer to 15,000,000 we don't know to invade our country. You've allowed the cartels to make 1,000,000,000 and billions. As a matter of fact, you're probably the best business partner they could ever have.
They make all this money in human trafficking and drug trafficking at our border. You've allowed approximately 300 Americans to be murdered every single day from Fentanyl that comes across our border. And now you're aiding NGOs to steal our elections through your budget. I demand proof of citizenships in our elections and that is something every single member of congress should care about. We don't need illegal aliens voting in our elections.
We're supposed to be here talking about your budget, but we're talking about how money is being used to make sure people come into our country are able to get a social security number in which they can register to vote. And on that note, Mr. Mayorkas, I demand that Chuck Schumer holds your impeachment trial in the Senate Because that's exactly what we should be focused on right now. Mister chairman, I yield the remainder of my time.
@SenRickScott - Rick Scott
🚨 BREAKING: One day after Democrats blocked the Mayorkas impeachment trial, we have more proof that Biden & Mayorkas are releasing terrorists into the country. Biden’s open border is a grave threat to the safety of every American. SECURE THE BORDER NOW! https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/man-terrorist-watchlist-was-dropped-program-monitors-migrants-rcna148205
Man on terrorist watchlist was dropped from program that monitors migrants
The Afghan national was enrolled in Alternatives to Detention, which tracks migrants' locations via ankle monitor, mobile app or phone. It didn’t last long.
nbcnews.com
@catturd2 - Catturd ™
Arrest- charge - prison .., This POS traitor.
@IanJaeger29 - Ian Jaeger
BREAKING: DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas is reportedly negotiating his exit and wants to leave immune from any potential investigations from the Trump Administration. https://t.co/zaiN9ngQlj
@megynkelly - Megyn Kelly
Instant Analysis of Pete Hegseth's Hearing and Dem Absurdity, with @michaeljknowles, @Dakota_Meyer, and @mchooyah WATCH: https://t.co/yxNm40GN76
Video Transcript AI Summary
Today’s Megyn Kelly Show covers the Senate confirmation hearing for defense secretary nominee Pete Hegseth. Megyn expresses confidence in Hegseth's confirmation, noting that he faced little challenge from the committee, particularly from Joni Ernst. She criticizes some Democrat senators for their questioning style, describing it as embarrassing and ineffective. Michael Knowles joins to discuss the hearing, emphasizing that Hegseth performed well and that the Democrats failed to present strong arguments. They highlight the hypocrisy of senators attacking Hegseth’s past while ignoring their own issues. Dakota Meyer and Rob O'Neil later share their thoughts, praising Hegseth's focus on accountability and standards in the military. They agree that the confirmation process revealed more about the senators than about Hegseth himself. The show concludes with a call for support for Hegseth as he prepares for his role.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hey, everyone. I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to the Megyn Kelly Show. Coming to you today from Washington DC where we just attended the senate confirmation hearing of defense secretary nominee Pete Hegseth. We've got the whole hearing covered, gavel to gavel for you today.
We're gonna be joined in a second by Rob O'Neil and Dakota Meyer, Medal of Honor winner, in just a bit. And Michael Knowles will be here to kick things off in 2 seconds. But first, just wanna give you my my overall thoughts. No one laid a glove on him. He's good.
He's got this. I have zero doubts now that he will be confirmed. Joni Ernst was the big question mark, and she was great today. She was very nice in her questioning of him, very respectful. That's not a no vote.
No way. And, you know, this is just the Senate Armed Services Committee. He has gotta he'll get out of committee and but, like, she was the big pivotal vote even if Trump is gonna lose potentially McConnell, potentially Murkowski, and Collins, which now they're saying he he might not. I don't I don't think Pete Hegsev has trouble. I think he's going to get confirmed, and I don't think anybody touched him.
And, really, to me, the story of the day was how some of these Democrat senators embarrassed themselves trying to. I was humiliated for some why do the women always have to be so shitty? Why do the women have to be like these hysterical fools? Why can't they be more dignified? You know?
Like, you could lay gloves on him. I mean, Tim Tim Cain was the worst. I should say that upfront. The worst. The most disgusting, I should say.
But he wasn't, like, an hysteric. Maisie Hirono is so dumb. I can't believe she's a US senator. Christian Gillibrand was like, women can be in combat. You've hurt our feelings.
Speaker 1: I was like, oh my god.
Speaker 0: You are undermining the very cause that I know you so desperately want to promote right now. So I was embarrassed for them. I was embarrassed for my my sex and how they were behaving today. Then there was Slotkin, who's the newest Democrat over on, the left side. And while her background sounded impressive, she'd been with the CIA and so on, she was so annoying.
Oh, I know you've genuflected. Okay. You've done your genuflection, to to Donald Trump. Like, everyone was just there's a way of doing cross examination where you don't wind up the least likable between the person you're crossing and yourself. And obviously, these people, most of them haven't done it.
You can tell the difference. You know? Like, you see a Trey Gowdy cross examination, you think he's the he's the man. Like, that guy knows what he's doing. You see these people try to do it.
You're like, are you trying to make me hate you? Like, I'm not inclined to hate you just because you're a dem or against Pete. You're just behaving like a prick. Anyway, before I bring in Michael, just wanna say, so I went there today. I've never I've never gone to a senate confirmation hearing as, like, a regular person as opposed to as a member of the press.
I did it because, the Hegseth invited me, and I said, you know what? This would be a great experience for me for a couple of reasons. Number 1, I do support Pete Hegseth, and I'm very happy to telegraph to the world that I do and that I hope he gets through. And if my sitting there in any way telegraphs to people who needed to be telegraphed, that it would be a good thing to support him and that I think the allegations against him are bullshit, great. I'll do it.
Fine. But number 2, I did did think it would be a fascinating experience for me too having been on the other side so many times, not as a senator, but as a member of the media, just covering these things to see what it's like to be in the middle of it all. And my takeaway is it's very, very boring.
Speaker 1: It was you had to sit
Speaker 0: there from 9:30 straight. We got out at 2. There no breaks. While some kept it kind of exciting, for the most part, it was like, oh, especially these Democrat sent senators who just wanna hear themselves talk. You know, the Republicans actually asked him questions that would help us get to know him a bit.
The Dems, for the most part, just grand standard, and that was annoying. It's, like, fine. It was a freezing cold room. It doesn't really make you wanna run out and run for senate. I'll say that.
So Chris Murphy of Connecticut, you should be feeling good because I'm less inclined to take your job now, but when I decide to take it, it will be mine because you're a disaster. Anyhoo, it was just did we really learn anything, or was it all just like an exercise in preening, right, mostly on the dem side and the and the Republicans in earnest trying to search for some answers on what Pete's gonna do inside defense that would be different. I enjoyed that. Anyway, enough about me. I think he's getting through.
I think he did his job, and one top Democrat senator told me he thought that this was going to be the toughest hearing for Trump's nominees, like, worse than RFKJ, worse than Tulsi. So we'll see. If that's true, Trump should be feeling great right now because my prediction is people have no problems. Bringing in now Michael Knowles. He's host of the Michael Knowles show on the Daily Wire.
Don't miss a moment. Subscribe to this show on YouTube and follow me on Insta, Facebook, and x. Are you overwhelmed with back taxes or unfiled returns? Well, get ready because since COVID relief ended, the IRS hired 20,000 new enforcement agents proposing millions of pay up notices for 2025. If you're worried about IRS collection tactics, you don't have to face them alone.
Tax Network USA can help you. Tax Network USA is the nation's premier tax relief firm. They have negotiated over 1,000,000,000 in tax relief for clients. Their services include penalty forgiveness and hardship programs. Whether you owe 10,000 or 10,000,000, their experts are ready to assist you.
Even if you're behind on taxes, Tax Network USA can guide you through the process. Contact them for personalized support. Handling IRS matters without professional help is risky. Protect your financial security with guidance from Tax Network USA. To schedule a complimentary consultation, call 1-800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com/megan.
Don't let the IRS's aggressive tactics control your life. Empower yourself. With Tax Network USA support and takes charge of your financial future. Visit t nusa.com/megan today. Michael Knowles, did any one of these senators jump out to you more than in another?
Speaker 2: They all jumped out of the screen at me and made me turn down my earpieces because of how shrill and awful they were. But in terms of impressing me in their questioning, absolutely not. Pete did even better than I thought he would do. As you say, Megan, they didn't lay a glove on him. Pete Hegseth will be the next secretary of defense.
People had questions about Pete's qualifications for the Pentagon going in. I don't think people really have questions about that right now. I think, in fact, the the result of this hearing is that people have questions about the qualifications of these Democrat senators. It was humiliating. They went absolutely nowhere.
So Pete was the first confirmation hearing, and and many people were suggesting he would be one of the more difficult. Notice though how these hearings have been scheduled. It opened up with Pete, and then all the rest of them today, tomorrow, Thursday, were relatively easy. These are kind of shoo in people in terms of Tulsi, in terms of Bobby Kennedy, in terms of Kash Patel. Some of the more controversial nominees, you'll notice that they were pushed pushed a little bit later in the process.
I think Pete Hegseth was the canary in the coal mine. I think that the Trump team wanted to see how much pushback they would get from the US senators. Pete absolutely knocked them down. It was a complete strike down the bowling alley. Not one of them was left standing afterward.
So not only does this bode very well for Pete, not only does this bode very well for the shoo in nominees that Trump has coming up, but I think even the more controversial ones are going to make it through a major, major win for the Trump transition.
Speaker 0: Okay. There wasn't an anything more disgusting today than Tim Kaine. Tim Kaine, who literally pulled out the old, how long have you been beating your wife? I mean, it was stunning. We know the allegations against Pete.
We know that Pete has been a serial cheater on his wife's. It's that is known. Okay? So that's fair game, I guess. If you wanna go there, you can go there.
You could go with the anonymous, you know, the alleged rape accuser, her story fell apart, it was telling that pretty much nobody really zeroed in too much on that one. But how long have you been beating your wife is defamatory, not literally because you can't sue senators for what they're saying in this context. But my point is that was so below the belt for Tim Cain. Let's just take a listen to some of Tim Cain today.
Speaker 3: At that time, you were still married to your second wife. Correct?
Speaker 4: I believe so.
Speaker 3: And you had just fathered a child by a woman who would later become your 3rd wife. Correct? Senator, I was falsely charged.
Speaker 5: Completely Fully investigated and completely cleared.
Speaker 3: So you think you were completely cleared because you committed no crime? That's your definition of cleared? You had just fathered a child 2 months before by a woman that was not your wife. I am shocked that you would stand here and say you're completely cleared. Senator,
Speaker 4: her child's name is Gwendolyn Hope Hegseth, and she's a child of God, and she's 7 years old.
Speaker 3: And she was and you cheated on the mother of that child less than 2 months after that daughter was born, didn't you?
Speaker 4: Those were false charges.
Speaker 5: It was fully investigated and I was completely cleared.
Speaker 4: And I am so grateful for the marriage
Speaker 3: I have to this unborn child. You've admitted that you had sex at that hotel on October 2017. Now, if it had been a sexual assault, that would be disqualifying to be secretary of defense, wouldn't it?
Speaker 4: It was a false claim then and a false claim now.
Speaker 3: If it had been a sexual assault, that would be disqualifying to be secretary of defense, wouldn't it?
Speaker 4: That was a false claim. I'm talking about a hypothetical.
Speaker 3: So you can't tell me whether someone who has committed a sexual assault is disqualified from being secretary of defense?
Speaker 4: Senator, I know in my instance, and I'm talking about my instance only, it was a false claim.
Speaker 3: But that's good. I assume that in each of your weddings, you've pledged to be faithful to your wife. You've taken an oath to do that,
Speaker 4: haven't you? Senator, as I've acknowledged to everyone in this committee, not a perfect person, not claiming to be
Speaker 3: But now I just asked a simple question. You've taken an oath like you would take an oath to be secretary of defense in all of your weddings to be faithful to your wife. Is that correct?
Speaker 4: I have failed in things in my life, and thankfully, I'm redeemed by my lord and savior Jesus Christ.
Speaker 0: Okay. I will get to the domestic violence accusation in a second because that was the wrong sound bite, but it it is an it is a relevant sound bite that we wanna get to. This guy with his holier than thou on on the the cheating allegations or what he did was Hillary Clinton's running mate.
Speaker 6: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Okay? So this this man was fine with Bill Clinton. Right? This man who wants us to believe any extramarital activity is abhorrent to him. He's disgusted by it.
That that's the same Tim Kaine. Right? We're talking about the same Bill Clinton. No problem. Fine.
But as president, right, or Hillary too, but this is a bridge too far, Pete Hegseth, even after he's admitted to being, you know, unfaithful in his marriages, and then getting on the straight and narrow. This is the guy. Look at him. Look at him with his head on Bill Clinton's shoulder. He loves Bill Clinton.
Repused by sexual assault or rape by how many women? How many affairs has he had on Hillary Clinton? And he wants to get out there and lecture us on Pete. Hegg, Seth, Michael Knowles.
Speaker 2: It was a complete joke. So it was fitting that Tim Cain looked like Jack Nicholson's Joker from the Tim Burton Batman. Someone needed to hand that man a comb before he walked into the hearings. And he goes there with that wild look on his face. And he says, you think you're cleared just because you were cleared of charges against you?
To which he thinks that's true. He didn't say anything. He just said, yeah. It's literally what it means, senator. But then he goes on, as you say, he's preening about this.
This is a man that we've only ever heard of because of his political alliance with the Clintons. This is also a man who voted in federal law to abolish the definition of marriage. So, listen, I'm gratified that Tim Cain has had this sudden change of heart, and he now takes so seriously the sanctity of marriage. And also, I'll give Tim Cain credit. His attack on Pete Hegseth's personal life was by far the strongest of any of the similar attempted attacks from the other Democrat senators.
And the fact that that Keynes was the strongest shows you just how weak it was. But the rest of them, Elizabeth Warren, Gillibrand, for goodness sakes, Maisie Hirono, they didn't even come close. So the press came out there. Tammy Duckworth, give me a break. It was really, really weak.
And so I'm actually surprised because knowing that Pete's was going to be the the first confirmation hearing, the canary in the coal mine, I expected the Democrats to make this Kavanaugh 2 point o. However, Pete Hegseth had a real advantage going into this hearing, which is that people thought because he's a good looking guy who smiles well and did a morning TV show, people thought that this guy was kind of dumb or incompetent. And they failed to look at his resume, which kept coming up today, to realize he's extremely educated. He has served his country honorably. He's he's been under fire literally on many occasions, and he was not going to be pushed around by Christine Gillibrand or Elizabeth Warren or certainly not Tim Kaine.
It it looked from the perspective of Pete, it looked like he was shooting fish in a barrel.
Speaker 0: Okay. I just wanna say one more thing about Tim Kaine. Alright. So first of all, not only was he running for office with Hillary Clinton, he he was totally fine with the Clinton's behavior. No problem whatsoever.
Pete but Pete Hegseth is a bridge too far for him. Okay? Fine. But he was campaigning with Doug Emhoff after the nanny while still married to his first wife, allegedly, well, impregnating said nanny, and then she lost the baby somehow, and abusing some other girlfriend by slamming her in the face. Tim Cain out there with Doug Emhoff.
Yeah. Let's go blue. That's no but Pete Hegseth is a disgusting dirtbag who little Tim Cain can't stand. This is like how it just oozed out of my like, you're you're watching it. You're like, disdain is oozing out of my pores.
Like, I have to tell you, Michael, it's very hard, especially for someone in my position or your position, to sit in there and not stand up and start answering the questions. Like, are you fucking kidding me, Tim Cain? Take a seat. You're like, questions. Like, are you fucking kidding me, Tim Cain?
Take a seat. You know, like, it was it was very, very hard. And then I've got to get to point number 2 on Tim Cain. I know the allegations against Pete backward and forward. Trust me.
I have researched them all. I did a comprehensive interview with the guy where we went over every single one. Beating his wife is not on the list, and the nerve of Tim Cain to come out there and throw it out there. Watch.
Speaker 3: Did you ever engage in any acts of physical violence against any of your wives? Senator, absolutely not. But you would agree with me that if someone had committed physical violence against a spouse, that would be disqualifying to serve as secretary of defense, correct?
Speaker 4: Senator, absolutely not have I ever done that.
Speaker 3: You would agree that that would be a disqualifying offense, would you not? Senator, you're talking about a hypothetical. I don't think it's a hypothetical. Violence against spouses occurs every day. And if you as a leader are not capable of saying that physical violence against a spouse should be a disqualifying fact for being secretary of the most powerful nation in the world.
You're demonstrating an astonishing lack of judgment.
Speaker 0: He he didn't seem to care about Doug Emhoff's violence against women, which actually is backed up by a whole report by an attorney who was his girlfriend, who she filed it anonymously, but she filed it in the daily mail. What is he talking about? What is this? This is just a blatant character assassination attempt.
Speaker 2: Megan, is it wrong that I'm most scandalized in that stupid question by the inability of a sitting US senator to know what a hypothetical is? Tim Kaine said, if such and such occurred, that would be disqualifying. Right? And Pete rightly said, Senator, you're asking me to engage in a hypothetical. And and Tim Cain, with this unearned haughtiness, says, I don't think that's a hypothetical.
That's literally a hypothetical. That's how the English language works. That is not up for debate, senator. The you know, this is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world. These people have a loose grasp on the English language.
We haven't even gotten to Maisie Hirono yet. No serious country would ever have Maisie Hirono as a senator. It was appalling, Meghan.
Speaker 0: No serious country would have her. And yet, we do. She was an embarrassment. Here's a little sampling of her.
Speaker 1: Have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement relating to this kind of conduct?
Speaker 4: Senator, I was falsely accused in October of 2017. It was fully investigated, and I was completely cleared.
Speaker 1: I don't think completely cleared is accurate.
Speaker 4: I've made this commitment on behalf of the women's army. Of the men and women I'm serving because this is the most important deployment
Speaker 1: of our lives. To my question. So I'm going to move you carry out in order to shoot protesters in the legs.
Speaker 4: I saw 50 service agents get injured by rioters trying to jump over the fence,
Speaker 3: set a
Speaker 4: church on fire, and destroy statues.
Speaker 1: To me that you will comply with such an order. You will shoot protesters in the in the leg. Wait. There's there's more. She she pressed him on Greenland too.
Speaker 0: She has us invading Greenland in SOD 18.
Speaker 1: Yes. Would you use our military to take over Greenland or an ally of Denmark?
Speaker 4: Senator, one of the things that President Trump is so good at is never strategically tipping his hand. And so I would never in this public forum give one way or another direct what order does the president give me in any context.
Speaker 1: It sounds to me that you would contemplate, carrying out such an order to basically invade Greenland and take over the Panama Canal.
Speaker 2: How about a trade, Megan? How about listen, I love Hawaii. It is one of my absolute favorite places on earth. I'm beginning to think we might have made a mistake in 1959. So, what if it's just a fair trade to Denmark?
Denmark gets Hawaii, they get Maisie Hirono, and we get Greenland.
Speaker 1: It's easy. So, she was terrible. She was just so
Speaker 0: she thought she was scoring points. You know, you could kinda feel that she was like, yeah. I got him again. We well, the rest of us are laughing at her. Everybody in the gallery was laughing at her.
So that was Maisie. But, I mean, honestly, I I I don't wanna choose, like, the worst woman, but the Kirsten Gillibrand
Speaker 2: was She was the worst.
Speaker 0: Like, hysterical. First of all, she looks like she's aged 30 years in the past 4. Like, I looked around, and she looked like a woman in her mid forties the last time I looked at her. And then from afar, I was like, the she looks like an elderly woman over there. I'm sorry.
I'm not trying to attack her personally. I'm just saying, like, I think the job has been a a lot for her. And it's also backed up by her hysterics. Like, people's feelings are hurt. Here's a sample.
Speaker 7: We have 100, 100 of women who are currently in the infantry, lethal members of our military serving in the infantry. But you degrade them. You say, we need moms, but not in the military, especially in combat union. Please explain these types of statements because they're brutal and they're mean.
Speaker 3: And I would point out
Speaker 4: I've never disparaged women serving in the military. I respect every single female service member that has put on the uniform past and present. My critiques, senator, recently and in the past and from personal experience have been instances where I've seen standards lowered.
Speaker 7: So just you cannot denigrate women in general, and your statements do that. We don't want women in the military, especially in combat. What a terrible statement. Everything you've said in these public statements is politics. I don't want women.
I don't want moms. What's wrong with a mom, by the way? Once you have babies, you therefore are no longer able to be lethal? Because I don't want you thinking, can't serve if you're a mom, can't serve if you're LGBTQ. And then last, can't serve if you're a leftist.
Speaker 0: Michael, thoughts?
Speaker 2: Yeah. I I think that Kirsten Gillibrand began her line of questioning, trying to persuade people that women do belong in combat. And I think by the end of it, she had people wondering if women belong in the United States Senate. That was really awful. I think I think we need senator Megyn Kelly to go restore the reputation of women in the deliberative body.
She did not persuade anybody of anything.
Speaker 0: No. I don't know why they you know, I on this show, sometimes, I I have a temper. I'll get out, whatever. If I were in the senate, trust me, I would be composed, and I would be able to make my points without getting hysterical. Yeah.
I wrote it down in my notes. It was one of the few notes I took. At at one point, she says, it your comments are so hurtful. They're so hurtful.
Speaker 2: They're so
Speaker 0: mean. To to whom? To the war fighters? You so you're saying the female war fighters' feelings are hurt? You do you see how you're undermining your own point, madam?
Like, the are they war fighters who can go in there and take, you know, bullets? Or are they like weepy little school girls who peep you know, hurt their feelings and they need a public apology? Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Even to raise this point of women who are in the military, who are mothers, that maybe it's not the best idea to go send our mothers out there to go catch bullets from jihadis. Maybe there's something a little weird about that. You know, it's so disingenuous, the objections that she's making. Because when it comes to all of these questions, until very, very recently, we didn't have women in combat. Everyone agreed.
Republicans, Democrats, Independents, women should not be in combat catching bullets from terrorists. Until very, very recently, we all agreed men who think that they're women don't belong in the military. They belong in counseling because there's something that's going wrong in their heads. Until very, very recently, we all agreed that DEI and all other forms of political correctness and and methods of promotion that are not based on lethality and merit have no place in the military. Everyone agreed with that until the Obama administration, basically.
And and so to suggest now that that to, want to rewind the clock back to those long ago days of, what, 2013 or something, that that is somehow regressive and beyond the pale. It's just absurd. I mean, this is the kind of radicalism that the American people rejected at the ballot box in November. And I don't think the mood has changed between that time and Kristin Gillibrand's shrill line of questioning.
Speaker 0: I loved how senator Wicker was the chair, and he did a great job. He's like, no. You're not getting a second round of questioning. We're gonna run this the same way we ran the last 2 when the dems were in charge. And then you've got the ranking member, Jack Reed, who was making all sorts of points, but here's what I love about it.
He he had all sorts of points he was trying to score against Pete, but this is how he would do it. Well, I would like the record to reflect that I wanna say the following terrible things about Pete. I'd have to oh, terrible things. He got so far away from the microphone.
Speaker 1: Every time he spoke, you couldn't hear
Speaker 0: him at all. His staff has put him a note in front of him saying, get in front of the microphone. We can't hear you. He listened to it one time, and for the rest of the time, he was like, and another thing about Pete
Speaker 2: Good. It was better for them. It was better for the Democrats that people not hear their ridiculous arguments. You know, on this point of rhetoric and oratory and showmanship, this was the the point I forget which Democrat senator raised it about Pete Hegseth.
Speaker 6: I think I think it might
Speaker 2: have been Mark Kelly who said, look. I'd vote for you for Pentagon spokesman, but I'm not voting for you to be the head of the Pentagon, because, you know, you're just a smooth talker, basically. And that manifestly was not true. He just also happens to be a good communicator. He's a guy who has multiple degrees from very prestigious institutions, who has served in combat, who has led troops, who has fought for veterans, who has gotten legislation advanced.
He is a really serious and accomplished guy. Oh, and he also happens to be a good communicator. Maybe that would be a nice thing, you know. The US senators don't even know how to use a microphone. Maybe it would be good in an era when the American people so distrust our institutions to have a guy who is competent, intelligent, educated, right minded, and also able to speak to people in a persuasive way as he did during his confirmation hearings.
Speaker 0: One more for you. How great was it when senator Mullen of Oklahoma took the mic and got up there and just unleashed on everybody on the other side? Like, you're a bunch of drunks. You think he's a drunks? You're drunks.
You you show here. Watch. Watch this.
Speaker 8: There's a lot about qualifications. Hypocritical of senators, especially on the other side of the aisle, be talking about his qualifications not gonna lead the secretary or be the secretary of defense, and yet your qualifications aren't any better. Your own secretary that you all voted for, secretary of Austin, we had to vote on a waiver because he stepped off the board of Raytheon. But I guess that's okay because that's a democrat secretary of defense. The senator for Virginia starts bringing up the fact that what if you showed up drunk to your job?
How many senators have showed up drunk to vote at night?
Speaker 9: Oh, boy. Have any
Speaker 8: of you guys asked them to step down and resign for their job? And don't tell me you haven't seen it because I know you have. And then how many senators do you know have got a divorce before cheating on their wives? Did you ask them to step down? No.
But it's for show. You guys make sure you make a big show and point out the hypocrisy because a man's made a mistake.
Speaker 0: Great.
Speaker 2: Look at Tim Kaine. Tim Kaine doesn't say boo because everything that senator Mullen said was obviously true. This is not even the sort of thing that only the senators know about. This is widely known in Washington DC. Anybody who's ever spent any time around Capitol Hill knows this.
The percentage of senators who sleep with staff members or lobbyists or or members of the media is pretty, significant. And and the number of senators who show up to vote a rama, maybe they've had a few drinks, It's a lot. And that's why all of those Democrat senators were dead silent. You know? He he was great because they were puffing themselves up so much as these arbiters of morality.
These are the kinds of people who support murdering babies and little children. But all of a sudden, they have such moral authority. They're going to castigate Pete Hegseth, a man who has quite clearly turned his life around. They're going to to attack him for past misdeeds. And then you get Mullen in there.
He says, hey, guys. I'd like to enter into the record this giant mirror. Do you remember who you are? Yeah. I'd say, great.
Please usher along our secretary of defense.
Speaker 0: Here's the other thing. One other thing. They were like, how many people did you manage at Concerned Veterans for America? How many people did you manage at Vets For Freedom? And he was like, you know, maybe 8 to 10.
8 to 10. 8 to 10. That's all. And you're you're gonna manage all these pea people at the Department of Defense. Let me and he finally said, you know, I'm gonna work for a CEO who's extremely successful.
Yeah. How many people had Barack Obama managed before they made him president? Okay. He was a community organizer. He didn't do anything managing people.
I mean, literally nothing. He was, he went to Harvard Law School. He worked like a summer, as as at Sidley in Austin, I think. And then he decided to be a community organizer, becoming an activist. He managed no one.
Pete Hegseth on the battlefield as a major commanded far more people in advance of this role than Barack Obama ever did, and their party made him commander in chief. The nerve of these people, Michael Knowles, I'll give you the last word.
Speaker 2: I loved the correction when the chairman said, I'd just like to point out that Pete Hegseth has managed many more many more people than the average United States senator. These people who sat in judgment of Pete today were had absolutely no credibility to attack him. They didn't bring the goods. Pete Hegseth is going to be the secretary of defense, and the rest of Trump's nominees are gonna have a much easier time because of it.
Speaker 0: Yes. Totally agree. Thank you, Michael Knowles. Great to see you.
Speaker 2: Great to be with you. Thanks, Megan.
Speaker 0: Alright. Coming up next, Dakota Meyer and Rob O'Neil, those war fighters that we were hearing so much about today from Pete and others, they'll respond to what they saw. These days, personal safety is not something that can be left to chance. Whether at home, on the road, or just living everyday life, having a reliable way to protect yourself and your family is crucial. This is why is the choice for many.
I'm excited to tell you about. Burna is a game changing, less lethal self defense tool. It's compact, it's powerful, and it's easy to use. It provides the confidence to act in any situation, whether you are a gun owner who would like a nonlethal option before you get to the actual firearm, or you are someone who is uncomfortable with guns and you want something to protect yourself, but something that is not lethal. Birna uses nonlethal rounds, tear gas, pepper, kinetic projectiles, to effectively stop a threat from a safe distance.
And the best part, BERNA can be shipped directly to your door, and it's legal in all 50 states. BERNA is proudly American with products hand assembled in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Sometimes a firearm is not the right option. What if you have terrible aim? With Berna, you actually don't have to hit the perpetrator.
If he's hiding behind a chair, you can hit this the wall right behind him or all around him. And the it's basically chemical pellets will take him out for a time, not take them out, take them out. Burnout is a powerful alternative, and a lot of gun owners love it. A lot of non gun owners love it. It's just a very clever, thoughtful alternative or addition to your firearm.
Protect what matters most with Birna. Visitbyrna.com. That's byrna.com/megan to receive a 10% discount and learn why thousands of people in law enforcement agencies are making the switch to BRNA's less lethal protection. BRNA, nonlethal self defense, always ready. I wanna get more reaction now to Pete Hegseth's confirmation hearing from 2 men who know exactly what we need in a secretary of defense.
Dakota Meyer, an Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran who became the 1st living marine in over 40 years to receive the medal of honor in 2011, along with Rob O'Neil, a US Navy SEAL veteran who participated in over 400 combat operations, including the raid that killed Bin Laden. He's the man who did it. He's now the host of The Operator podcast. Guys, great to see you again. How are you doing?
Speaker 10: Good. Doing well, Megan. Thanks for having us.
Speaker 0: Oh my gosh. I'm dying to hear your reaction to what we saw today. Rob, let me start with you because it really was, like, these senators who most of whom, they don't like, they're happy to send you 2 into war, while while they sit in these air conditioned offices. But when they get an actual war fighter in front of them, they treat him like he's the gum on the bottom of their shoe.
Speaker 10: Yeah, Meghan. It's, crazy. The my my initial reaction was senator Blumenthal, who I can't believe shows his face in that committee because he lied about Vietnam the entire time. He's been lying about Vietnam since he didn't fight there. And then he finally got busted, had to come out and say, you know, I apologize for miss speaking.
There's a huge difference between fighting in Vietnam with real marines and misspeaking and lying. And no. So he's up there doing that. We didn't mention that that I love how high and mighty they all get. They're not mentioning, senator Ben Cardin had a staffer who had gay sex in, the judiciary committee room.
Filmed it. No big deal. And then even as the far as, I I love how, how, senator Mullen from Oklahoma said, you know they come in drunk. I've seen you come in drunk. It's almost like there's some senator like, the the Democrats are playing their their cards they play and their, you know, their their sentences that they don't their questions they don't want answered.
But now all of a sudden, you you turn the light on and the roaches just scatter. It's I mean, it was it was Pete did a great job. But and, I think Democrats looked horrible.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Here's Dick Blumenthal of Connecticut trying to get trying to get it was a gotcha against Pete on exactly what numbers are in which branches of the military watch.
Speaker 11: Mister Hegseth, I'm asking you a very simple question. How many men and women currently serve in the United States Army?
Speaker 4: Senator, in the United States Army, 450,000 on active duty, sir.
Speaker 11: And how many in the Navy?
Speaker 4: In the Navy is 425, sir.
Speaker 11: Well, it's 337 this year. How many in the marine corps?
Speaker 4: 175,000, sir. A 172,300.
Speaker 11: Those numbers dwarf any experience you had by many multiples, I don't believe that you can tell this committee or the people of America that you are qualified to lead them. I would support you as the spokesperson of Pentagon.
Speaker 0: So rude, Dakota. What did you make of that?
Speaker 9: I mean, look. I I think that I mean, I watched the whole thing, and and it just it blew my mind. First off, the the the the the leaders of the policymakers, lawmakers of this country, that these were the priorities that they were focused on, on someone who is about to go and and be in charge of the force that not only maintains and secures the United States national security, but but also really is is is the the the the stabilization of the globe. And, right, and these were the the questions that they wanted to ask, the gotcha. They use these these moments right now in this confirmation hearing to sit here and and focus on, you know, the same thing over and over about just trying to I got you.
And, you know, the thing when I watch Pete there, it's like, you know, one side of it, I'm sitting back and I'm like, well, say this, say this, you know, from my point. But it's like, he knows the game. Right? He's sitting there. He knows that no matter what he says, he's got to get through this and he's got to limit exposure.
Right? And that's the problem with all of this is like, there is no accountability for them sitting up there in that position. There's no accountability for the lawmakers. There's no accountability for any of them up there, but they wanna turn around. They want to critique this man, over and over, which was rightfully so.
Look, I think we have to sit here and vet, and we have to make sure that that, you know, these people are going to uphold the policies and they're going to support the constitution of the United States. And I, you know, we we want to hear his views on what he's going to do about, you know, the issues that are truly, you know, threatening the United States of America. But, like, to sit here and make this out, it just shows you that the priority of the security of the United States of America is not the priority of the left right now.
Speaker 0: Mhmm. It was pretty remarkable. When Pete got there, he had the support of the crowd. In fact, some Democrats were saying they'd never seen a hearing room like this, that they were stunned at the number of people who showed up to support Pete. And when Pete walked in, they start they broke out in chants of USA.
Here's a little bit of that in SOT 1.
Speaker 11: USA. USA. USA. USA. USA.
USA. USA. USA. USA. USA.
USA.
Speaker 9: And one
Speaker 0: of the most interesting things, Rob, was when they were trying to cross examine him, a couple did, but Jack Reed, the ranking dem in in particular, on whether he thinks we should follow the Geneva Convention. And Pete was trying to say, look, my criticisms have been, you've got these people in, you know, another land who come up with these rules, but war fighters on the ground get conflicting messages, especially in today's modern military where they're fighting against insurgents, and they need better guidance on exactly what they're allowed to do, what they're not allowed to do. Here's something akin to that exchange in SOT 13.
Speaker 6: Your definition of lethality seems to embrace those people who do commit law crimes rather than those who stand up and say this is not right. So what's the response to your service members who personally witnessed these and took courageously reported them to their superiors?
Speaker 4: Senator, as someone who's led men in combat directly and had to make very difficult decisions, I've thought very deeply about the balance between legality and lethality. Sir, I'm talking about restrictive rules of engagement that these men and women behind me understand they've lived with on the battlefield, which has made it more difficult to defeat our enemies. In many of the cases you're talking about in particular, sir, there was evidence withheld, There was prosecutorial misconduct. And as someone who looks case by case and defaults to the war fighter, to the men and women with dust on their boots, not the second guessers in air conditioned offices in Washington, D. C.
Speaker 3: Excuse me. I look
Speaker 4: case by case and was proud to work with President Trump to understand those cases and ensure that our warriors are always looked out for.
Speaker 0: Go ahead, Rob.
Speaker 10: Well, I think that the rules of engagement have a tendency to get way too strict, especially the longer we make a war last. And, you know, the Geneva Convention was one thing, but things change. And then every I mean, I've seen everything from NCIS, which, by the way, the worst thing that ever happened is they made a TV show making those guys look cool. They're gonna get promoted the the more people they can prosecute and play the play the, the good guy then to the bad guy. And they get, you know, whatever credit when they put someone in jail.
What I've noticed with especially with my unit in Iraq and Afghanistan, the the fewer rules we had, the better we were because we had the latitude and were more precise. And like it or not, we we on the ground are the good guys. And the Monday morning quarterbacks that sit in Washington DC and and, put people in Leavenworth for murder in war, I remember even on the Bin Laden raid when we before we even got in the house, one of my friends shot one of the couriers, and then his wife jumped on top. He shot her. He looked at me outside the house.
This is outside Bin Laden's house, and he said, I just shot one of the women. She just jumped in front. Am I gonna be okay? It's like, stop worrying about that. That should not be in your mind.
And when a Marine is in a gunfight, they should be worried about, Well, is some dude in a nice suit that's never been in mud going to prosecute me for this? It's nonsense and this is the bureaucracy that happens with the further you go, the bigger the government agencies get, and it's then it turns into the self licking ice cream cone, personal power. Can I put an American in jail so I can get a Navy achievement medal? And that's that's what Pete's getting at. And the reason there's so much blowback is because what needs to happen is the fat needs to get trimmed.
What needs to happen at the at the Pentagon is exactly what Elon Musk did at Twitter. Get rid of everybody, almost change the name, and they'd be more efficient. And that's you're you're just you're seeing the the death throes of of of dying policies, and that's what these senators were doing today. And Pete nailed it.
Speaker 0: So, Dakota, he you heard there that a little suggestion that that's where Blumenthal was going. Like, you don't you can't manage these numbers in the army and the navy. You're you've never managed anything. It's too big. You've done nothing.
It's totally ignoring as I pointed out before you guys came on. Barack Obama managed absolutely nothing before he became president of the United States. He was a community organizer. That's it. And then you finally have the last person to question Pete of anybody up there who was the newly elected Republican senator from the great state of Montana.
That's Rob O'Neil's home state, Butte, Montana, who gets up there, Sheehy, and starts who's an actual veteran, and he decides to go a different way with Pete. Watch.
Speaker 5: How many genders are there?
Speaker 4: Tough one. Senator, there are 2 genders.
Speaker 5: I know that well. I'm a Sheehy, so I'm on board What is the diameter of the rifle round fired out of an m4 a1 rifle?
Speaker 4: That's a 5 56
Speaker 5: How many push ups can you do?
Speaker 4: I did 5 sets of 47 this morning.
Speaker 3: What do you think
Speaker 5: our most important strategic base is in the Pacific?
Speaker 4: In the Pacific, Guam is pretty strategically significant.
Speaker 0: And then he went on, Dakota. That that continued for another 5 well, I mean, maybe 3 minutes. And Pete knew all those answers, and and he was trying to make a point there.
Speaker 9: Yeah. Look. I mean, I I think that that all of us sitting back, and trying to figure out or to decide how Pete's gonna if he how he's gonna do or how he's not gonna do. I mean, that's all a 100% on Pete's shoulders, and we're about to find out. Right?
I think, you know, questioning Pete about what he said on Fox News I mean, he was in the he was in a role of a reporter. Now he's about to go into the role of, you know, the secretary of defense, which all of us should be coming and rallying around and trusting. Look. I'll I'll say upfront. Like, let me let me just go ahead and and own this upfront, Megan.
Is, like, in the beginning of this, I was not an advocate for this. I was a 100% against it. Right? I was I was emotionally tied to it. I I had a lot of questions, and all that.
And and and, you know, I I had to get sit down and and and really spoken to by another veteran who's who's in all of it. But, you know, she looked at me and she said, hey. Look. You know, he's gonna be carrying out not his personal views. This isn't about the personal Pete.
This is about the person who's going to go out and carry out what the president of United States wants him to do and and what's on behalf in the best interest of other people. And and when it comes down to that, like, I a 100% believe that we all have got to stand behind and and hope and support that that, you know, Pete on this, that he's gonna go out and do the right thing. I mean, like, I think Pete's got a a huge learning curve, like every single one of us or anybody that steps into that role is gonna do. What I can tell you is is that historically, the the the last few people who have been in there, have not have not been doing or making a great difference, nor have they been, you know, doing what what we need to get our military focused on doing. Our military is made and the focus for our military is two things, lethality, war fighting, and people.
War fighting, and people. That is the business and that is the only two focuses that that aspect should be focused on. And that's what we've got to get back to. And I trust that Pete's going to do that. I trust that Pete loves America.
I trust that Pete puts America first. I trust that that that Pete loves troops, and I trust that he is going to be loyal to the president of the United States, the constitution, and that he's going to carry out the orders that he needs to in the best interest of the United States of America. And that is what I know about Pete Hedseth, and that is what I care about right now is that somebody goes up there. Look. None of us none of us have a clean record that, you know, on our worst times that none of us would wanna trade Pete's seat and sit up there with all these people trying to go and find the skeletons in our closet.
I can tell you nobody watching this, nobody watching that confirmation hearing today would have traded seats with Pete if anybody would have knew about a tenth of what people have been going and digging on him for the last couple months. Right? So I just think that, like, this hypocrisy of all of us sitting back and throwing rocks at the man in the arena right now is something that that is is not helpful nor is it, you know, we all should sit back here and we should hope that and and get behind Pete. And we should try to to sit here and hope that he goes and that he can handle this job. And and if he can't, then we'll see pretty quick.
But none of this is on any of us to figure out. It's on Pete Hetseff now, and I trust that all of us should come around him, and we should sit here and help him become successful. Because if Pete's successful, the president's successful, the United States of America's successful. And not only that, the globe is successful. So that I think that that is the point that we've all got to rally around right now.
Speaker 0: I love your honesty. I I I know that you were at best lukewarm on Pete, which is one
Speaker 9: of the
Speaker 0: reasons we wanted you to be here. We we don't not just looking for uniformity and thought. Rob, one of the things or a couple of things that Pete said today, I know are right up your alley. I mean, we've talked about it many times. And one of them of course, we heard over and over how he wants to get woke out of the military, and that's been a big priority for Trump.
But the other one speaks to the total lack of accountability for the people who have lost our wars, who have endangered guys like you, in in many cases, unnecessarily, without any accountability for it, like the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal. And Pete spoke to that a bit, at the end. Take a listen to Assad 17.
Speaker 4: The wokeness comes not from the uniform ranked, senator, from but from the political class. On day 1, on January 20th, when president Trump is sworn in, he will issue a new set of lawful orders, and the leadership of our services will have an opportunity to follow those lawful orders or not. Those lawful orders will not be based on politics. They will be based on readiness, accountability standards, and lethality. That is the process by which leaders will be judged.
And accountability is coming because everybody in this room knows, if you're a rifleman and you lose your rifle, they're throwing the book at you. Mhmm. But if you're a general who loses a war, you get a promotion. That's not gonna happen in Donald Trump's Pentagon. There will be real standards, for success.
Speaker 0: Matt, never heard a message like that from anybody nominated to this post before.
Speaker 10: Yeah. That was the best quote of the day. I remember when he said that, and that's exactly what he's bringing to it. He's trying to simplify it. He's not trying to spin anything.
We're we're gonna fight the war and we're gonna win it. And accountability is huge. And every veteran there's a lot of special forces, a lot of, infantry and marines behind him. You could you could almost hear him hear them agreeing with him because that's what they want, his accountability. They wanna be able to have a alliance solidarity.
They want a forward defense and deterrence. They're not worried about the political class like Pete was just saying brilliantly that that that's where all this stuff comes from. And you could even hear it spun today. I think it was, Mazzie Hirono from Hawaii who said something like, it doesn't matter who you love if you fight an award. It's like, well, it's not quite that.
Pete's saying if you live up to the standards, you can work. And it's not to worry about the l b g LGBTQ stuff. It's the are you gonna get an operation that requires you to recover for 18 months and you're not operationally ready? That's all he's saying. But the problem is a lot of times, especially even dealing with politicians, you really got to be careful telling the truth because you might just offend stupid people.
And that's all that's happening here, but Pete nailed it. And that's and that's right too. The only person who's been held accountable for the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan was a colonel who's who spoke up and just and he didn't even say anything disparaging. He's like, hey. Where's the accountability?
Boom. Fired. And that's the way they handle it because you get to a certain level in the military. You stop being military, and you start being political because you wanna get the job at Raytheon. You wanna be a contractor.
You wanna run for politicians. And I've talked to so many I've been saying for a long time, we need a mid level officer with experience on the ground to take the Pentagon. I've talked to so many good officers at the major level, lieutenant commander level, to get out of the Navy, get out of the Army because they're tired of dealing with the bureaucracy. I have a simple plan too if you want to keep it simple. The second you stop carrying your own bags, you need to get out of the military, and that's it.
So we need a major in there, a lieutenant colonel, to run the I think it's a perfect choice. And you know what? If we're wrong, we're wrong, but we're gonna find out. Pete just cruise today. He's gonna get nominate I mean, he's gonna get, he's gonna get the job.
Speaker 0: Confirmed. It's funny because I realized sitting there today that everything I know about military ranks, I learned from MASH. Am I alone in that? Am I like you're you're like, wait a minute. Wait.
Who is above? Clinger? And then there was anyway, Hawkeye. I know.
Speaker 9: And I would like to go on that. Like, you know, you look at at my instance. Right? Like, there we do have an officer problem. Like, we got a lot of we've got a lot of great officers.
We have a lot of great officers. I wanna say it upfront. Mhmm. You know, there there are some generals that are by far some of the best human beings that I know that that wear the stars on their chairs. But what I also wanna say is we've got a lot of bad ones too.
And I'll you know, you look at you look at my instance. You know, you take Afghanistan, my situation, where we've got 2 investigations, direct loss of life due to leadership. These officers got letters of reprimand. They got promoted. Then they got out and retired.
And then as this other general got out, he ripped up those letters of reprimand and nobody was held accountable. Now let me tell you this, if I had made the decision and got somebody killed or done the same thing that they had done, I would have been hammered. Anybody enlisted would have made or planned that mission that they could have pinned it on. The enlisted would have been hammered. And so like seeing Pete come in and hopefully recognize that and fixing it, I just think that, like, I I said it a long time ago, the the there has got to be some level of accountability.
The accountability has got to be equal, and it can't be this good old boy club that everybody is is overlooking in the aspect of it. Like, I'm in. I'm in. Let's just hold them accountable. Like like, if you mess up at the same level that you're gonna hold this private who goes out and and and does something wrong or loses their rifle.
Like, I just don't understand why a general, like, you know, a general isn't held to the same standard as, you know, a a a Lance corporator who
Speaker 0: gets out
Speaker 9: and gets in trouble. And it's just there's no way that anybody in the military will say that that is not the case.
Speaker 0: Okay. Let's spend a minute on the on the sort of main lines of attack against him. We covered a couple, like, you you don't have the experience or you haven't managed enough. They or you you allegedly beat your wife. Okay.
Thanks, Tim Cain. Sure. Great. But then there was the Mark Kelly, senator Mark Kelly of Arizona. He brought up some of the allegations that we've seen in the anonymous, press you know, the press citing anonymous sources.
Here's a little bit of that in SOT 16.
Speaker 12: An event in North Carolina, drunk in front of 3 young female staff members after you had instituted a no alcohol policy and then reversed it. True or false?
Speaker 4: Anonymous smears.
Speaker 12: December of 2014 at the CVA Christmas party at the Grand Hyatt at Washington, DC, You were noticeably intoxicated and had to be carried up to your room. Is that true or false? Anonymous smears. Another time, a CBA staffer stated that you passed out in the back of a party bus. Is that true or false?
Anonymous smears. In 2014, while in Louisiana on official business for CVA, did you take your staff, including young female staff members, to a strip club? Absolutely not anonymous smears.
Speaker 0: Okay. I'll just say the audience heard me talk about this kind of thing before. That that wasn't great by Pete because choose one or the other. Either you're gonna say no, no, no, no, or you're gonna say, no, no, no, no, no, no, or you're gonna say, no, no, no, no, no, no, or you're gonna say, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, or So anyway Yeah. What did you make of it, Rob?
Was it effective?
Speaker 10: Well, yeah. I mean, be well, because when he's when he's talking to senator Kelly, who, by the way, is just ramping up for a run-in 2028, that's all he's doing. But at one point, he was saying it's anonymous, and he all he said was, well, they're not anonymous with no proof. Like, oh, well, then show who's the who is it?
Speaker 0: Well, they're not anonymous.
Speaker 10: Well, they are. But I I think that the beat your wife thing was so egregious that Pete had to say absolutely not because that's just I mean, the the it's to the point where well, if you did Well,
Speaker 0: then, no. He said or not on did you go to a strip club? But by the way, it's already all over the press Right.
Speaker 9: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 0: By people who actually did go to the strip club that Pete wasn't there. Like, that's already actually been out there. I that didn't make it in anybody's questioning that a third party independent witness has said, I was there, and he was not there.
Speaker 10: Well, I there. He was saying it was addressed, and he wasn't there. If he if he wasn't there, that's not really on him, I don't think. I don't think the chain of command in the civilian sector works like it does in the military. It's not it would be on the, you know, probably on the XO or the CEO if if a bunch of his guys went to the to the bar on a, you know, on a weekend on on a trip and then got in trouble.
That would be on them, but I don't think it is there.
Speaker 0: And you can't control them. This is this is where, like, all the anonymous press allegations did their job. Right? They made their way into the hands of a US senator who then got to list them off like they were all real and verified, and, you know, it's like just the assumption that he was guilty of them all was built in, which is why I think anonymous mirrors was actually a good answer for all of them, and he probably just should have stuck with that straight through, strippers or no strippers.
Speaker 10: Okay. I mean, you put it that way, yes. I agree with you. I was just thinking it was the the the strip club or the beating your wife thing, he's gonna answer it that way because, I mean, gotta consider with all the stuff being thrown at him, he really handled his emotions very, very well. This is one of the major reasons I'm not running for office or trying to get confirmed into anything, but he he handled it like a pro and he did get a little upset.
But, I I mean, he he did a really good job know knowing the Democrats are he did such a good job today, and the Democrats were so bad. Yeah. I think it's gonna make the next confirmation hearings, go a lot smoother because this they're gonna they're gonna shoot their shot like they always do. We we've seen in landslide elections where the American public wants it. Even the media's, you know, taking a knee to what's gonna happen.
This is this is you know, whether they got 6 days left, they're just doing what they can, and then they're gearing up for the next election, which is what politicians do.
Speaker 0: The other big thing was women and the military. I mean, they they just beat that horse until it was absolutely dead and dead again. Today, he made so clear that what he's absolutely dead and dead again. Today, he made so clear that what he's been talking about is, like, yes. Women can serve in combat if they can meet the standards.
It's like what I've been saying all week on the firefighters out in LA and what most normal Americans feel. They can serve if they can do the job. Although, I have to say, you know, there are other arguments for women not serving in combat, like the distraction of it. Like, I actually I don't know how Pete truly feels, but I think I'm I might be further to the right than he is on it. But, Dakota, do you think that that's going to be an ongoing issue?
Because all the women up there seem to be, you know, indignant about that Pete would ever say that there's a question about whether women should be serving certain combat roles.
Speaker 9: Look, I I think that, I mean, look. I I think it doesn't matter what Pete said today. I don't think I don't think it was gonna matter. Right? I don't think if he had said one way or the other.
I I don't think any of it really mattered. Like, it was just all about it was all about them getting their talking points out and their show out. So, I mean, the women in combat thing, like, me and Pete I told Pete on the phone that I you know, my what he what he is, I think he clarified today. For me, he clarified today. Initially, what I'd heard, like, small snippets, right, of, you know, which talking points or whatever has been spun out is, you know, no women in combat or I don't support women in combat.
Right? But what you heard him today is clarify is, like, no. Look. I think it I I add an opportunity, but, like, the standard has got to be the standard. We cannot change up the physical demands.
You can't sit here, and you can't mitigate. You can't overlook those, nor can you tailor those, the physical demands that boots on the ground, are going to require. And it's not it's not gender based. It is it is the job based. And so I think when he clarified that up today, I a 100% agree with that aspect of it.
Right? I, you know, I a 100% agree with that because to be honest with you, Meaghan, like, I have seen women that could outperform the some of the men that go to combat next to me. Right? And so when it comes to that aspect of it, I have watched I have watched women who deserve to be in combat more than some of the guys that I've been in gunfights with, and then I'd rather take them anyways. Right?
So I just don't I don't get wrapped up into that aspect of it. Like, meet the standard. Like, go meet the standard. Can you lead people? Can you meet the standard?
Can you go out and perform, and can you be professional about it? Right? Because that is that is what it's about. And I think that that's what Pete portrayed today. I'm so glad he got to clarify that, and he got to to to to, you know, to really elaborate on some of his prior statements or or what was spun or whatever.
Right? But I just think that, like, I don't think anything that he like, what he said today was not changing any of their minds. It was all about
Speaker 0: I think you're right. Sort of. I think you're right. No. No.
He's not gonna get a single damn vote from the look of it. Last question. How many push ups did you guys do this morning?
Speaker 10: Dakota, I'll defer to you first because I think I outrank you.
Speaker 9: Well, I worked out with, I worked with Lance Armstrong this morning. So I don't know. I think we we did I think we did have some push ups in the workout, but I can't remember.
Speaker 10: Nice. I had I had leg day because I'm still I had leg day. I'm still moving out of my house. Lot of lot of stuff a lot of furniture to carry.
Speaker 0: Okay. Well, I think it's unanimous. I did 0 too. You guys, it's awesome to see you. Thank you as always for being here.
Thank you for your service. God bless. And, to be continued once he gets confirmed.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Megan.
Speaker 9: Awesome. Thanks.
Speaker 0: All the best, guys. Wow. Okay. Great show. We gotta go.
I gotta get, on my on route back to where do I live again? Up in Connecticut. And, thank you so much for being with us and for, for bearing with us as we drop the show a little late today given where I was all morning. We are back tomorrow with VDH. See you then.
@DineshDSouza - Dinesh D'Souza
Ilhan Omar facing calls to be deported after her latest stunt. Do you agree with this? https://conservativebrief.com/gops-for-89260/?utm_source=CB&utm_medium=DJD
@WallStreetMav - Wall Street Mav
Massive fraud exposed in our immigration programs. 🔊 https://t.co/OjZs6Lxg0t
Video Transcript AI Summary
I presented evidence of widespread fraud within the CHNV program, citing DHS reports. The same social security number appeared on at least 20 different CHNV supporter applications, occurring over 3,200 times. Additionally, the same phone number was used on at least 20 applications, happening at least 3,300 times. The same email address was used on at least 20 different supporter applications nearly 2,000 times. Moreover, an identical 184-word text response was found on over 1,800 applications from nearly 190 different supporters, and over 460 nonexistent zip codes were used on applications for more than 2,800 CHNV aliens. Despite these issues, over 80,000 CHNV supporters in the U.S. have been approved on a temporary basis as of August 6, 2024.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Asked questions you couldn't answer, so that's why I gave a statement. Do you agree that the same social security number was used on at least 20 different CHNV supporter applications?
Speaker 1: So first, let me start by saying
Speaker 0: So these are yes, no questions. So yes or no?
Speaker 1: I I just wanna make clear that that the role that USCIS plays is on the supporters.
Speaker 0: And I'm asking about supporter applications.
Speaker 1: Okay. I'm sorry. Can you repeat that question then? I I heard it as a parole the parolee.
Speaker 0: No. The same social security number was used on at least 20 different CHNV supporter applications. That's the question I Sorry. You're aware of that?
Speaker 1: So, yes, I am very aware
Speaker 0: of That happened at least 3,200 times.
Speaker 1: I don't have the exact number.
Speaker 0: That's according to DHS's report. Okay. I don't have it. Dispute DHS's report.
Speaker 1: No. I absolutely will not
Speaker 0: And also the same phone number was used on at least 20 different supporter applications. At least 3,300 times. That's according to the report. Do you agree that that report's accurate?
Speaker 1: I don't have that report in front of me, but
Speaker 0: I'm reading from
Speaker 1: it. Dispute. Yes. But I don't have it in front of me, and I would
Speaker 0: So you would dispute it?
Speaker 1: No. I'm not disputing what I am
Speaker 0: deflect and ram ramble around. You don't disagree with that number. You don't think I'm deliberately cherry picking number and just saying, oh, I'm just throwing this stuff out. I'm giving you the numbers from the report. Do you trust me on that?
Do you at least trust me that far?
Speaker 1: Yes. I
Speaker 0: I I that number. The same email address was used on at least 20 different supporter applications nearly 2,000 times. You agree with that?
Speaker 1: Sir, if if there is a situation where we have Okay. Here. Concerns of fraud and integrity
Speaker 0: Look.
Speaker 1: We take action in the CIS. And that is exactly what we have done with regard to CHNV. Where
Speaker 0: we Okay. So let's let's let's let's clarify here. So I'm laying foundation, and and you don't really wanna admit that these there's this much rampant fraud here. You're trying to tell me that when you find fraud, we cure it. And yet nearly 2,000 times yet an the same email address used on 20 different supporter applications.
The same exact 184 word text response to a question on the supporter application was used on more than 1,800 such applications by nearly 190 different CHNV supporters. More than four sixty nonexistent zip codes were used on supporter applications on behalf of more than 2,800 CHNV aliens. So you see, you can dance around and say you don't have the report in front of you and whatnot, but but these are the facts. This program is rife with fraud. As of 08/06/2024, DHS had approved more than 80,000 CHNV supporters who were in The US on a temporary basis.
Temporary basis. I'm going to give you some numbers.
@DOGE__news - (news) DOGE
When Josh Hawley exposed Attorney General Merrick Garland for raiding Trump’s home https://t.co/0N1rypQxMK
Video Transcript AI Summary
Senator Cotton pressed Attorney General Garland, citing a Washington Post report that 'senior FBI officials who would be in charge of leading the search resisted doing so as too combative' and that 'these field agents wanted to shutter the criminal investigation altogether, but they were overruled by Maine DOJ.' Garland said, 'I've skimmed that article. It is not that's not an accurate reflection of what the article says, and I'm not able to comment on the investigation,' and added, 'What I said was I approved the decision.' Cotton asked if he talked to the White House; Garland replied, 'Washington Post article does not say what you're saying.' The record was entered. Cotton asserted, 'FBI field agents did not wanna conduct the raid and they were overruled by DOJ,' and they discussed leaks, with Garland noting, 'they're leaking left, right, and center and saying it wasn't us.'
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Attorney General Garland, you said in our last exchange that it's your practice to defer to FBI agents in the field. I was interested, given your answer, to read in this morning's Washington Post that the FBI is saying that you overruled them when it came to raiding ex President Trump's personal residence. Washington Post reports this morning showdown before the raid that senior FBI officials who would be in charge of leading the search resisted doing so as too combative. These field agents wanted to shutter the criminal investigation altogether, but they were overruled by Maine DOJ.
Speaker 1: I've skimmed that article. It is not that's not an accurate reflection of what the article says, and I'm not able to comment on the investigation. I've My comment earlier was about tactics on on the ground in particular cases.
Speaker 0: Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait.
You said it's not an I'm I'm reading to you from the article. Quote, senior FBI officials who would be in charge of leading the search resisted the plan as two combatives and proposed instead to seek Trump's permission to seek his property according to four people.
Speaker 1: End quote. There is often a robust discussion and in the end and it's encouraged among investigators and prosecutors.
Speaker 0: Yes. And you made the decision. I did. That's Right? You said you did.
Speaker 1: No. I'm sorry. What I said was I approved the decision.
Speaker 0: So you didn't make the decision? Approved
Speaker 1: the decision to seek a search warrant after probable cause with
Speaker 0: overruling the FBI agents who did not want to do so. Did you talk about this with the White House does not
Speaker 1: Washington Post article does not say what you're saying. I'm sorry. And I'm not able to describe this in any further
Speaker 0: Mister chairman, I'll just ask that this entire article be entered into the record.
Speaker 1: Without objection.
Speaker 0: And we can read for ourselves. I invite people to go and look. It says exactly that FBI field agents did not wanna conduct the raid and they were overruled by DOJ. So it doesn't seem to me, Attorney General, that the FBI has a lot of confidence in you. Because what they're doing clearly is trying to distance themselves from your decisions.
They're out there leaking left, right, and center and saying it wasn't us. We didn't want to do it. He made us do it. What's that say about their confidence in your leadership?
Speaker 1: You know, the previous senator said that they're leaking all in favor of the left. Now you're saying they're leaking all in favor of
Speaker 0: I'm asking you my question. Answer my question based on this evidence. Don't disassemble, attorney general. Expired. Answer my question.
Speaker 1: Time has expired. Senator Cotton?
reSee.it AI Summary
I came across a claim by journalist Laura Loomer regarding Chief Judge Boasberg, who recently blocked deportation flights for gang members. Loomer points out that Boasberg's daughter works for Partners For Justice, a nonprofit that aids criminal defendants and receives a significant portion of its funding from government grants. This raises concerns about a potential conflict of interest that might necessitate the judge's recusal based on judicial conduct codes.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇺🇸JUDGE WHO BLOCKED DEPORTATIONS HAS DAUGHTER WORKING FOR CRIMINAL DEFENSE GROUP Journalist Laura Loomer claims Chief Judge Boasberg, who halted deportation flights of gang members, failed to disclose his daughter works for Partners For Justice—a nonprofit supporting criminal defendants. The organization reportedly receives 76% of its funding from government grants and opposes mass deportations. This allegation potentially creates a conflict requiring recusal under judicial conduct codes. Source: @LauraLoomer
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇺🇸HOUSE REPUBLICAN MOVES TO IMPEACH JUDGE WHO BLOCKED DEPORTATION OF 'FOREIGN TERRORISTS' Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX) has announced he will file impeachment articles against Judge James Boasberg after the Obama-appointed judge blocked Trump’s deportation of Tren de Aragua gang members and ordered flights mid-air to return to the U.S. Boasberg’s ruling, which temporarily halts deportations under Trump’s Alien Enemies Act order, has been slammed as a massive judicial overreach. Attorney General Pam Bondi has already filed an emergency motion to overturn the decision, while Republicans warn that activist judges are undermining national security. With impeachment proceedings now on the table, Boasberg may soon face consequences for his shocking intervention. Source: Townhall
@MAGAVoice - MAGA Voice
HOLY SH*T 🚨 Stephen Miller just ended Senator Chris Van Hollen and the Democrat Party for going to El Salvador to give comfort to an Illegal Alien IT IS TIME TO IMPEACH CHRIS VAN HOLLEN GET IT DONE NOW https://t.co/aryPfzdXmX
Video Transcript AI Summary
Brigadier Garcia stated Senator Van Hollen is providing aid to an MS-13 member deported to El Salvador, documented by authorities as involved in human smuggling, human trafficking, and the vicious assault of a woman.
The speaker contrasts this with Senator Van Hollen's lack of sympathy for the Moran family, whose daughter Rachel was brutally raped and murdered, and Kayla Hamilton, murdered by an illegal alien released by Joe Biden. The speaker questions Van Hollen's empathy for constituents killed by fentanyl or children lacking education and healthcare due to mass migration. The speaker claims Van Hollen reserves his concern for an illegal alien who is a member of a foreign terrorist organization.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Conversation with Brigadier Garcia was her response. I'm almost I'm almost at a loss for words for how outrageous it is. Here's an individual, the, the man who has been deported to his home country of El Salvador, who has been repeatedly documented by multiple federal and state authorities to be a member of MS thirteen, one of the most violent and ruthless criminal organizations on planet Earth, which is now a designated foreign terrorist organization. And an individual who has been incredibly implicated in human smuggling and human trafficking. An individual.
Who is a documented. Woman beater, somebody who is viciously assaulted. A woman in ways that that that shocked the human conscious, that is who the Democrat party is going to provide aid, solace, and comfort to, not to Senator Van Hollen's own constituents like the Moran family. Rachel Moran was viciously beaten, brutally raped, and murdered, and her mother never even got a phone call from senator Van Holland or Kayla Hamilton, a young girl who was attacked in a public restaurant, raped in the bathroom, and beaten to death and murdered by an illegal alien that Joe Biden set free into the country. None of those people elicit human sympathy from senator Van Hollen.
How broken is that man's heart? How broken is his conscience that he doesn't have even an ounce of empathy or time or concern to share with those families? Or how many of his citizen constituents have been killed by fentanyl that Joe Biden allowed into this country by the cartels that made a fortune off of human trafficking and smuggling into this country or the the children in his state that cannot even get a good education or good health care because of the mass migration that has occurred into his state. None of concerns him in the least. You know, his heart is reserved for an illegal alien who's a member of a foreign terrorist organization.
I'm I'm the
@Breaking911 - Breaking911
Meanwhile in the United States Congress... https://t.co/qh0ELoYeeB
Video Transcript AI Summary
Mister president, this is a photograph of the alien from the movie Alien. In late August, the FDA found that raw frozen shrimp from Indonesia was being sold in Walmart. It was being sold under the Walmart label called the great value label. the shrimp was radioactive. cesium one thirty seven. It'll kill you. Even if it doesn't turn you into the alien if you eat this stuff, I guarantee you will grow an extra year. The FDA issued a recall. A few days later, it happened again. The FDA and NOAH, which I'll talk about in a second, found that there were 26,460 packages of shrimp cocktail and 18,000 bags of frozen cooked shrimp being sold again. It's not being inspected. It's supposed to be inspected by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The United Kingdom inspects 50% of the foreign seafood coming into its nation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Mister president, this is a photograph of the alien from the movie Alien. This is what you could end up looking like if you eat some of the raw frozen shrimp being sent to The United States by other countries. Now, let me tell you what I'm talking about. In late August, the FDA found that raw frozen shrimp from Indonesia was being sold in Walmart. Specifically in Walmart stores in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, and West Virginia.
It was being sold under the Walmart label called the great value label. If you eat it, why could you end up looking like the alien in the alien? Because the shrimp was radioactive. I kid you not. It had a radioactive isotope in it called cesium one thirty seven.
It'll kill you. Even if it doesn't turn you into the alien if you eat this stuff, I guarantee you will grow an extra year. That was bad enough. Obviously, the FDA issued a recall. A few days later, it happened again.
The FDA and Noah, which I'll talk about in a second, found that there were 26,460 packages of shrimp cocktail and 18,000 bags of frozen cooked shrimp being sold once again at Walmart and at Kroger's throughout The United States containing the same radioactive isotope. How could this happen in America? This is unconscionable. I'll tell you how. Because that shrimp that that shrimp from other countries which don't abide by the same rules that we abide by in America, which if you eat it will turn you, it may turn you into the alien, and at a minimum will you, will cause you to grow an extra ear.
It's not being inspected. It's supposed to be. It's supposed to be inspected by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. We call it NOAA. It's part of the Department of Commerce.
And yes, they're they're inspecting some of it, about 1%. On a good day, 2%. The United Kingdom inspects 50% of the foreign seafood coming into its nation. Even China does a better job than The United States Of America. This is unconscionable, mister president.
There is no excuse for it.