The Andrew Tate Ben Shapiro Problem Is Exposing A Lot, Big LA Fire Updates, & Pete Hegseth vs Dems
PDS Published 01/14/2025
-
The growing conservative infighting we have seen has a new target: Andrew Tate.
"He's an online troll and he revels in precisely the evils conservatives hate." (5:26-5:31)
Obviously Andrew Tate has been making headlines for years, and his alpha-male anti-woke persona has led him to be lumped into and often embraced in right-wing circles.
Recently, he appeared on Benny Johnson’s show alongside one of Trump’s lawyers, where we saw this interaction:
“Hi, nice to meet you, I’m a big fan…Well nice to meet you, I’m a fan, you’re the one saving Trump.” (2:35:25-2:35:32)
Also lately, Elon Musk has shared Tate’s posts and responded positively to posts about him. [][]
With this notably coming after Tate has suggested he has political ambitions, running a poll asking: “Should I enter politics and run for Prime Minister of the UK?”[]
And even though that’s not quite how electing a PM over there works, the option, “Yes, Save Britan,” spelled incorrectly, did win.
And because Tate is an online figure, his post was not taken super seriously, not covered by tons of mainstream outlets, but just today you did have The Guardian publishing an opinion piece saying that while his efforts look like a publicity stunt:
“it’s important not to write off Tate’s political ambitions as meaningless attention-seeking. It’s highly unlikely that Tate will ever be prime minister, sure, but trolls like him already have an oversized role in politics, and their influence seems only to be growing.”[]
Which brings us to people in conservative media who are taking Tate’s influence seriously, and are pushing back against the right’s decision to embrace him.
With Ben Shapiro yesterday posting a video titled “The Right Should DUMP Andrew Tate.”
There, Shapiro listed out the trafficking and assault allegations that have been made against Tate, and argued against the conservative platforming he has received thus far.
Right, saying he has no problem with conservative hosts interviewing Andrew Tate, there is nothing wrong with that in theory, but in practice, no one is asking him the right questions.
“He rips off thousands of people with his scam Hustlers University. He preaches the virtue of treating women in a way you would never ever allow anyone to treat your wife or your daughter. No one is saying you can’t have Andrew Tate on your show, it’s a free country, you should do what you want. What I’m saying is that if you say you’re conservative, and you have someone who truly is disgusting on, and you proceed to praise them, tout them, glom onto everything they say, cheer them, you’re doing more than platforming.” (3:58-4:24)
Right, saying there’s a line between having a conversation with someone, and then becoming a means to spread their propaganda.
With Shapiro further arguing that Tate’s persona does not even actually fall in line with conservative ideas.
Saying even though Tate is seen as a champion of masculinity…
“Masculinity has good iterations and it also has really really ugly iterations. And the iteration that Andrew Tate pushes is not a responsible masculinity.” (6:25-6:32)
And adding that just because someone is anti-left does not make them a sustainable conservative figurehead.
And Shapiro noted himself that he is not the only conservative to call Tate out.[]
And if you go to his comments, you have people supporting Shapiro’s takedown of Tate.
But that does not mean support for him is going anywhere, right.
We saw that today just in response to news that a Romanian court lifted the house arrest Tate has been under since August.
Now being placed under judicial control, which means he cannot leave Romania, has to check in regularly with police, and cannot contact suspects or witnesses tied to an investigation into him.
Tate obviously celebrating that news online, and then we also saw the likes of Matt Gaetz writing: [][]
These charges against [Tate] always seemed VERY suspect![]
And obviously, Tate’s case is an ongoing one and the discourse is always subject to change, but this Andrew Tate situation actually brings us to more news regarding general conservative infighting.
And most deal less with the influencer space, and more with the directly political.
Right, with just a week until the inauguration, things in TrumpWorld are tense.
You had JD Vance causing a stir over the weekend for comments he made to Fox News about which Jan. 6 rioters he thinks should and should not receive pardons from Trump:
“Look, if you protested peacefully on January the sixth, and you’ve had Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice treat you like a gang member, you should be pardoned. If you committed violence on that day, obviously, you shouldn’t be pardoned, and there’s a little bit of a gray area there, but we’re very much committed to seeing the equal administration of law. And there are a lot of people, we think, in the wake of January the sixth, who were prosecuted unfairly, and we need to rectify that.” 00:08 - 00:30
And those remarks from Vance are super significant because they go much further than anything Trump has said when questioned about pardons for violent offenders.
Right, Trump has long evaded giving a direct answer about who among the 1,500 rioters charged in connection with the insurrection will receive the pardons he has long promised as one of his first acts in office.
In the past, he has said there might be some exceptions if “somebody was radical, crazy.”
But then just last week, when asked whether he was planning to pardon rioters charged with violent offenses, Trump responded:
“We'll be looking at the whole thing but I'll be making major pardons, yes.”
So Vance’s latest remarks have spurred a good deal of backlash online from Trump supporters — including insurrectionists themselves.
With an X account claiming to represent Jake Lang — who is awaiting trial on charges of beating police officers at the Capitol — making a lengthy post and sharing a video message condemning Vance’s remarks.
With that account writing:
“The J6 Hostages families have been CRUSHED by the mixed messaging coming from the White House on the J6 Pardon Process recently. WE ARE UTTERLY CONFUSED!!”
Then going on to falsely claim that all rioters charged were protesting peacefully but were set up and entrapped by the FBI and had unfair trials in a corrupt justice system, adding:
“How can some J6ers be condemned / left behind & some be deemed worthy of leaving this hellhole torture - when ALL have been railroaded in a two tiered persecution?”
And concluding by calling for everyone charged in the insurrection to be pardoned.
That was also echoed by another user who claimed to be a “January 6th survivor” and who posted:
“Telling your own supporters that the election was stolen and then not giving them a pardon or commutation after you sent them into what you call a “fedsurrection” and “trap” is a betrayal. All of the J6 defendants must be saved. JD Vance is wrong and I hope Trump will save his own supporters.”[]
And the backlash got so bad that Vance himself actually responded to a post by The Hodge Twins.
Saying that he donated to the Jan. 6 political prisoner fund and has been “defending these guys for years.”
Then claiming that there were federal informants in the crowd who shouldn’t get a pardon.
And arguing that he wasn’t walking back Trump’s claims, adding:
“I assure you, we care about people unjustly locked up. Yes, that includes people provoked and it includes people who got a garbage trial.”[]
But that wasn’t the only recent battle in Trumpworld.
We’ve also seen a lot of news coverage around recent remarks made by Steve Bannon, who of course was one of the architects of Trump’s 2016 campaign and served as a close advisor.
With Bannon absolutely tearing into Elon Musk in a recent interview with an Italian newspaper and vowing to oust him from Trump’s orbit, saying:
“He is a truly evil guy, a very bad guy. I made it my personal thing to take this guy down.”
And adding, “I will have Elon Musk run out of here by Inauguration Day.”
With Bannon even going as far as to say that Musk should go to “go back to South Africa” where he was born, and continuing:
“Why do we have South Africans, the most racist people on earth, white South Africans, we have them making any comments at all on what goes on in the United States?”
Right, and notably here, these comments come after Bannon and Musk also recently had another high-profile battle over a visa program that allows foreigners with technical skills to work in the U.S. for up to six years.
With Bannon, along with many other anti-immigrant Trump supporters, condemning Musk, Vivek (vih-veck) Ramaswamy, other “tech bros” for supporting those visas, arguing that they take jobs away from U.S. workers.
With Musk and Ramaswamy hitting back by arguing that American workers aren’t good enough for those jobs.
Right, and so with all of this, we saw some notable differences in the ways media outlets have been reporting on Bannon’s latest remarks.
On one end of the spectrum, you have more left-leaning outlets painting this as a significant moment of infighting among key Trump allies that represents a broader rift between two different factions of Trump supporters.
With outlets like The Washington Post writing:
“While previous battles were mostly between the old Republican establishment and MAGA, the new ones are largely between various sectors of the MAGA movement jostling for influence.”
The New York Times also echoing that, saying Bannon’s remarks:
“reflect broader tension on the right in the United States about the direction of the movement that Mr. Trump has championed and fears that Mr. Musk [...] could use his influence to sideline powerful figures within that movement to promote his own agenda.”
But, meanwhile, we saw more right-leaning outlets painting this as more of a one-off situation between Musk and Bannon rather than a broader issue.
Some even tried to paint Bannon as a sort of lose cannon lashing out, with The New York Post publishing a headline that read:
“Steve Bannon goes berserk on Elon Musk, vows to drive him away from White House: ‘He is a truly evil guy’”
But, with all this, there is also a new front for potential Republican battles that will be VERY important to watch: Senate confirmation hearings for Trump’s cabinet appointees.
Right, this week officially kicks off the first wave of high-profile hearings on Trump’s picks — including some of his more controversial choices like Pete Hegseth.
With these early hearings widely viewed as a test of how Trump’s power among Senate Republicans and if that sway is strong enough for some of the more out-there picks to get through.
So that’ll definitely be something we keep an eye on this week.
-
Do you want to pull the plug?
It’s a question none of us ever want to be asked about one of our loved ones.
But what if you have to make the decision for someone else’s loved one, without their knowledge or consent?
Theoretically, that should never happen, but practically, hospitals make mistakes.
Which is what apparently happened in Washington State back in 2021.
Because, you see, one day two roommates in their sixties, Mike Beehler and David Wells, were having dinner in their apartment when David reportedly choked on a piece of steak. [Image, Image, Quote, find “steak”]
With Mike later recalling, “He fell over a chair. I thought he was dead then.” [Quote same link]
So an ambulance rushed David, unconscious and not breathing, to a hospital in Vancouver. [Screenshot, 00:30]
And it turned out that Mike was kind of right.
Because the staff there put David on life support, then reached out to his family to present them with the choice of taking him off it.
Except instead of calling his family, allegedly somewhere along the line, someone made a terrible mistake.
Incorrectly identifying David as Mike, his roommate.
So they reportedly called Mike’s sister, Debbie Danielson, who later recalled to KGW News: [Image]
[Clip, 01:04 - 01:16] Caption: [Debbie Danielson:] “They said, ‘he’s basically brain dead. Do you want us to keep him on life support, or do you want to pull the plug?’” [Gary (Debbie’s husband):] “So our decision was to tell them to take him off life support.”
So with the consent of Mike’s family, the hospital reportedly pulled the plug on David.
Meaning David’s family wouldn’t have known he was now dead, and Mike’s family began grieving a man who was totally fine.
And apparently nobody caught the mistake, or at least no one spoke up if they did, as the hospital reported the death to the county medical examiner, and a local paper ran a death notice for Mike. [Quote, find “death notice”]
Meanwhile, a funeral home received David’s body, reportedly believing it was Mike, then asked Mike’s family about final wishes, cremation and organ donation. [Quote, find “final wishes”]
With Mike’s brother in law telling the outlet, “When we went to the funeral director, I was like, ‘Don’t we need to identify him?’ 'No, we’ll just take it from here.’” [Quote same link]
So reportedly they’re making all these arrangements, mourning their loss and delivering the tragic news to people in their lives for a full week before Mike rose from the dead, beating Jesus’s record of three days.
With him casually calling his sister Debbie out of the blue, just concerned because his cell phone account had been shut down, according to reports. [Quote, find “shut down”]
[Clip, 01:29 - 01:35] Caption: “I said, ‘You can’t be alive. You’re dead!’ He goes, ‘no I’m not. I’m quite alive!’”
But while that discovery came as a relief, they also had to contend with the fact that they made the decision to end the life of someone they didn’t even know.
Speaking of which, David’s family was still in the dark about all this.
So when the police found out, they told the medical examiner, who notified David’s son, Shawn. [Image]
But according to him, they left out the crucial detail that his father had been misidentified and pulled off life support by someone else.
With him telling KGW, “They basically told me there was a medical emergency regarding my father. He had been pronounced dead.” [Quote]
And he claims he didn’t learn the truth for another two years, when a reporter reached out to him about the story. [Quote same link, find “two years”]
So now, Shawn, Mike and Debbie are all suing the hospital, the ambulance service, the funeral home and the medical examiner. [Quote, find “suing” and “failing”]
But personally, I took two lessons away from this entire shitshow.
One, if you think someone’s dead, just try calling them first.
And two, make sure you chew your steak really, really thoroughly.
Links:
https://nypost.com/2025/01/14/us-news/choke-victim-dies-after-hospital-asks-wrong-family-whether-to-pull-off-life-support-lawsuit/
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/investigations/peacehealth-death-mistaken-identity-vancouver-life-support-misidentification/283-910eaf65-3676-42f9-b21e-59cc2070c76e
Go to Vessi for 15% off your first order.
-
The death toll from the LA fires has risen to 25.
And that number? It’s still expected to get bigger.
With weather conditions now almost as good as they get for existing fires to spread and new ones to start.
And in fact, today, firefighters have already been battling an all new blaze (BROLL: 0:24-0:30).
Right, the “Auto fire” began burning last night near Auto Center Drive in the city of Ventura – about 60 miles from downtown LA.
And as of recording, the flames have already spread to cover 56 acres.
Right, so notably, it’s actually way smaller than the other major fires that have been burning in the area over the past week: the 23,000-acre Palisades fire and the 14,000-acre Eaton fire.
And with that, the Auto fire also thankfully isn’t expected to get much bigger.
With the Ventura County Fire Department reporting overnight that the fire’s “forward progress” had been stopped (BROLL)
And adding that “The fire was confined to the river bottom and no structures were threatened.”
But even though this specific fire isn’t so bad, it’s just been another reminder of how ripe the conditions are for sparks to fly – while also obviously using up precious and limited resources that may be needed later.
Right, with winds picking up throughout the area, officials have warned that the risk of new fires forming or existing ones spreading will be especially high for at least today and into tomorrow.
With parts of LA and Ventura counties remaining under red flag warnings for “extreme fire danger” – and two smaller areas under “particularly dangerous situation” red flag warnings.
Though, when I say “smaller” I’m still talking about areas home to roughly 13 million people. []
And when I say "particularly dangerous” I’m talking about what the National Weather Service has described as the “extreme of the extreme fire weather scenarios.”
Also saying: “In other words, this setup is about as bad as it gets.”[]
But with that, while we’re waiting to see what happens – and of course, firefighters and first responders are working to keep everyone safe – people are also asking for answers about how these fires started.
Right, because while the freak weather conditions explain why they spread so fast, something had to spark the flames in the first place.
And I wanna be clear, we don’t know for sure yet.
But regarding the Palisades Fire, one of the leading theories right now is that it was actually a flare-up of a fire that happened on New Year’s.
With there even being the suspicion that the first fire was caused by people celebrating with fireworks.
And then, for the Eaton fire?
Well, a lot of people suspect it can be traced back to some sort of issue with electric utility infrastructure –
Right, authorities have reportedly zeroed in on the site in their investigation.
But, big thing, they’ve not yet made any official determination – and experts have said it is too soon to draw any conclusions.
But despite that, four lawsuits have now reportedly been filed against the company that owns the transmission tower: Southern California Edison.
With these lawsuits accusing the power company of sparking the Eaton fire –
the deadliest of the ongoing blazes and actually one of the deadliest in California’s history.
Right, the lawsuits have been filed on behalf of homeowners, renters, business owners, and others with properties destroyed by the Fire. []
And notably, these could be just the first of hundreds, or even thousands, of legal claims we see being made in the coming days, weeks, and months. []
But in any case, besides the photos and video evidence, some of the lawsuits are also citing data from an electrical monitoring company by the name of Whisker Labs.
With the CEO telling NBC News that his company’s data shows evidence of many electrical faults in the areas near the fires, including in Eaton Canyon, likely caused by trees hitting power lines.
With him also saying that homes and communities in immediate proximity to where the fires started remained powered.[]
Right, and all that’s notable because, one:
SoCal Edison and other power companies claim they followed official guidelines and preemptively turned power off during the height of the fire.[]
And two: the company claimed to have conducted an analysis showing that there were no interruptions or operational or electrical anomalies around the time the fire started. []
Though, with that, the CEO of Edison International admitting in an interview with ABC yesterday that “you can’t rule anything out” until you get your eyes on the equipment:
"That said, we have not been able to get up close to the equipment yet because firefighters have not deemed the area safe for entry. So as soon as we can get close to it, we'll inspect and we'll be transparent with the public." (BYTE: 0:56-1:09)
But with all that, one other thing worth noting?
It’s something the New York Times has published an article about, which is that many of California’s most destructive fires have been caused by power lines.
And in fact, SoCal Edison alone has reportedly paid hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements related to at least seven wildfires in recent years.
Including, for example, an $80 million dollar settlement with the federal government after the DOJ filed a lawsuit alleging that the company owned, maintained and operated power lines that ignited the 2017 Thomas Fire.
But with all that playing out, we gotta talk about one more thing connected to the LA fires that I think a lot of people wish wasn’t: politics.
And specifically, one thing that’s been getting a whole lot of attention is Republicans saying they want to put conditions on wildfire aid to California.
Right, this isn’t totally out of nowhere.
During his campaign, for example, Trump actually threatened to withhold federal aid from California unless the state changed how it approached water management.
And now, Trump has been among those blaming California Governor Gavin Newsom for an alleged water shortage that they claim has contributed to the fires’ devastation.
Water policy experts, however, have disputed claims of water shortage in Southern California.
Right, saying the fires are due to a combination of lack of rain and severe wind.[]
And others also claiming that no ‘water system in the world’ could have kept up with the demand created by the fires.
Which, to be clear, isn’t to say there’s nothing that local or state officials could have done better.
Right, the consensus of experts interviewed by CNN, for example, was that the combination of winds, unseasonably dry conditions , and multiple fires breaking out almost at once made widespread destruction inevitable.[]
But also saying inconsistent vegetation management, aging infrastructure and homes, and a lack of planning likely contributed to the destruction. []
But in any case, the idea that Democratic policies are at fault and need to be changed seems to be how the idea of conditioning aid began.
Right, on Sunday, for example, Senator John Barrasso blaming the fires’ devastating outcome on the “policies of the liberal administration out there” and supporting the idea of conditioning aid on CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday:
“I expect that there will be strings attached to money that is ultimately approved, and it has to do with being ready the next time because this was a gross failure this time” (BYTE: 1:35-1:45).
But then, that evening, nearly two dozen House Republicans attended a dinner with Trump at Mar-a-Lago and reportedly talked about tying wildfire aid to a debt ceiling increase.
You know, something that doesn’t seem to have anything to do with “being ready” next time like Barasso claimed.
But with that, yesterday, you had Speaker Mike Johnson confirming that there’s “been some discussion” of tying California wildfire aid to a debt limit increase.
With him also repeating the claim that officials in the Democratic-led state were to blame for mismanaging water resources and forests in the LA area:
"It appears to us that state and local leaders were derelict in their duty in many respects. So that's something that has to be factored in.”
“I think there should probably be conditions on that aid. That’s my personal view. We’ll see what the consensus is” (BYTE: 0:30-0:44).
And with that, a consensus may be hard to reach.
Right, for one, Democrats are pushing back hard on the idea.
Representative Robert Garcia, for example, warning that the move would set a "really dangerous precedent” and saying:
"Whether it's wildfires in CA, or hurricanes and tornadoes in Louisiana, we should never condition aid to disaster victims.” []
And then, House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar saying it would be "crazy and ridiculous" and would "completely upend Congress." []
And finally, Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (Cam-lager Dove *”lager” like the beer*) putting it the most bluntly, saying:
"People have lost their lives, homes, and livelihoods.”
"I have zero tolerance for partisan bullshit right now."[]
Plus, on top of all that, it’s not clear yet whether the idea even has full support among Republicans.
GOP Rep. Young Kim, for example, telling Axios:
"If aid is needed, we need to deliver."[]
But then, people like Republican Senator Mike Rounds trying to walk the whole thing back.
Claiming that tying the debt limit increase to disaster aid is ‘not meant as a penalty’ and saying:
“I think it will have to be, because we simply can’t provide the assistance unless we have the ability to borrow the money to do so.”[]
So, we’ll have to wait and see where this discussion goes, but it may be one of the first real tests of what the state of play in Congress might look like over the next two years.
-
One of Trump’s most controversial picks got grilled by a Senate committee today and we gotta talk about it.
Right, the Senate Armed Services Committee held the confirmation hearing for Pete Hegseth, Trump’s pick for Secretary of Defense as we were recording.
And it was a doozy, that’s for sure.
But before we jump into some of the big moments from the hearing itself, we gotta do a little background.
If you don’t know him on sight, Pete Hegseth is a former Fox News host and decorated National Guard veteran.
He did two tours - one in Iraq and Afghanistan. []
And even from the get-go, Hegseth was what the Washington Post calls an “unconventional” pick considering his relative youth and inexperience managing people at the scale needed for the job. []
Since then, however, a whole slew of allegations have come out against him, calling his suitability for the role into question.
This including a story in The New Yorker which reported that former employees at two veterans groups Hegseth worked with had accused him of financial mismanagement, excessive drinking, and sexism. []
But then there’s also the payment of an undisclosed amount to a woman who accused him of sexual assault in a police report back in 2017. []
Which Hegseth has acknowledged, though he’s maintained his innocence, and no criminal charges were filed.
With his attorney saying that payment and the NDA that came with it were in response to the woman threatening a lawsuit. []
There’s also his comments about women in the military - having previously said that women simply shouldn’t be in combat roles. []
Though it seems like he’s walked that opinion back a bit since his nomination - saying to Sean Hannity last month that his comments about women have been, quote, “misconstrued.” []
Despite all of that, Trump has continued to back Hegseth, saying on Truth Social this morning before the hearing that Hegseth has his complete and total support.
Beyond that, there are several Senate Republicans who have also thrown their support behind Hegseth’s appointment.
However, not all were initially convinced about Hegseth, and he has reportedly spent the last several weeks attending countless meetings with Republicans on the Armed Services Committee trying to win them over. []
And it seems to have worked, at least in part - with CBS reporting that many Republicans have rallied around him. []
And Senate Majority Leader John Thune reportedly told Trump that he believes Hegseth will have enough votes to be confirmed.
Though the Washington Post reports that he’s declined to meet with any Democrats on the committee except Rhode Island’s Jack Reed. []
Who told the Post that their meeting did not go well, saying:
“Today’s meeting did not relieve my concerns about Mr. Hegseth’s lack of qualifications and raised more questions than answers.” []
And Reed immediately jumped on those concerns during the hearing today:
“A variety of sources – including your own writings – implicate you with disregarding the rules of war, financial mismanagement, racist and sexist remarks about men and women in uniform, alcohol abuse, sexual assault , sexual harassment, and other troubling issues.” 0:04-0:22,
“Indeed, the totality of your own writings and alleged conduct would disqualify any service member from holding any leadership position much less being confirmed as the Secretary of Defense.” 0:28-0:40
And another big moment questioning Hegseth’s character came from Senator Tim Kaine - who was Hillary Clinton’s running mate back in the 2016 election.
Kaine specifically pointed to allegations that Hegesth cheated on his wife - saying:
Kaine: "And you had just fathered a child by a woman who would later become your third wife, correct?”
Hegseth: “Senator, I was falsely charged. Fully investigated and completely cleared.
Kaine: “So you think you were completely cleared because you committed no crime? That’s your definition of cleared?” (0:17-0:33)
Kaine: “I am shocked that you would stand here and say you are completely cleared. Can you so casually cheat with a second wife and cheat on the mother of a child that had born two months before and you tell us you were completely cleared. How is that a complete clear?”
Hegseth: “Her child’s name is Gewndolyn Hope Hegseth and she’s a child of God and she’s 7-years-old.”
Kaine: “And you cheated on the mother of that child less than two months after that daughter was born, didn’t you?”
Hegseth: “Those were false charges. It was fully investigated and I was fully cleared.” (0:38-1:12)
As for his comments about women in the military, they didn’t go unchallenged - with Senators Kristin Gillibrand, Jeanne Shaheen, and Elizabeth Warren hammering him and asking about his choice to walk back his previous stance. [B Roll 0:01-0:32]
With Gillibrand telling him that in order to be an effective Secretary of Defense, he’s going to have to change the way he views women.
It isn’t just women in the military that he has backpedaled on either - during the hearing, Hegseth has maintained that he doesn’t disagree with the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. []
And that’s despite previously saying that allowing gay people to serve in the military is, quote, "social engineering” and “Marxist.” []
But the questions went beyond just Hegseth’s controversial decisions and past opinions - he was also asked about the war in Gaza by Senator Tom Cotton:
Tom Cotton: “I support Israel’s existential war in Gaza. I assume like me and President Trump, you support that war as well, don’t you?”
Hegseth: "I support Israel destroying and killing every last member of Hamas." (0:54-1:06)
As well as whether or not he would use military force to takeover Greenland where he notably didn’t give a straight answer - instead saying:
Hegseth: “One of the things that President Trump is so good at is never strategically typing his hand, and so I would never in this public forum give one way or another direct what orders the president would give me in any context.”
Sen. Mazie Hirono: “That sounds to me like you would contemplate such an order to basically invade Greenland.” ( 0:12-0:28)
But other Democratic senators went more broad with their concern regarding Hegseth’s qualifications - like Senator Tammy Duckworth, who’s also an Army combat veteran, repeatedly questioning Hegseth, saying:
Duckworth: What is the highest level of international negotiations that you engaged in, that you’ve led in? Because the secretary of defense does lead international security negotiations. There are three main ones that the secretary of defense leads and signs — can you name at least one of them?” (BYTE: 0:01-0:17)
Hegseth: “Could you repeat the question Senator?”
And when she does, Hegseth responds with this:
Hegesth: “I have not been involved in international security arrangements because I have not been in government other than serving in the military, so my job has been to – “
Duckworth: “So, no. Can you name one of the three main ones? That the secretary of defense signs?”
Hegseth: “If you’re talking about defense arrangements, NATO might be one that you’re referring to.” (BYTE: 0:28-0:43)
Duckworth then quizzed Hegseth on knowledge of ASEAN (Oss-e-on), which stands for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which is an organization the US works closely with on security and defense issues in the area.
Duckworth: “Can you name the importance of at least one of the nations in ASEAN and what type of agreement we have with at least one of those nations, and how many nations are in ASEAN by the way?”
Hegseth: “I couldn’t tell you the exact number –”
Duckworth: “No you couldn’t because you’ve not even bothered to –
Hegseth: But I know that we have allies in South Korea, in Japan, and in AUKUS with Australia in trying to work on submarines with them — ”
Duckworth: “Mr. Hegseth, none of those countries are in ASEAN. None of those three countries that you’ve mentioned are in ASEAN. I suggest you do a little homework before you prepare for these types of negotiations.” (0:00-0:37)
Though there were those that came to Hegseth’s defense here, if you’ll pardon the pun.
Including Republican Senator Markwayne Mullin who said Democrats were being hypocritical - saying,
“How many senators have showed up drunk to vote at night? Have any of you guys asked them to resign from 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 that have gotten a divorce for 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 the man’s made a mistake. And you wanna sit there and say that he’s not qualified? Give me a joke.” (2:45-3:20)
Now, these are just a couple moments from an hours-long hearing.
And you can see just how deep the division runs when it comes to his potential appointment from the headlines covering the hearing alone.
With outlets like Fox News focusing on Hegseth’s accomplishments and the Sun accusing Democrats of “raking Hegseth over the coals.” [] []
While others are highlighting his allegations of misconduct - including the AP and Reuters. [] []
And this is far from over - today was just the beginning.
Because even if the committee approves him, the full Senate still has to vote to confirm him.
So we’re just going to have to keep our eyes on this.
In the meantime, I’d love to hear your thoughts about this in those comments down below.
Get an exclusive deal at NordVPN. It's risk-free with Nord's 30-day money-back guarantee!
