Articles of Impeachment Introduced Against Pete Hegseth - LIVE Coverage (& Surprise Trump Briefing)

[0:54] everyone. Thomas Massey is reading the, oh, I have a typo in the headline. I'm going to fix [0:59] the headline, but Thomas Massey is reading the articles of impeachment right now. He's already [1:03] read some of them, but let's check in on Thomas Massey on the floor of the House. [1:07] Such conduct has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution [1:12] if allowed to remain in office and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties [1:18] and the rule of law, Peter Brian Hegseth thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from [1:24] office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the [1:31] United States. Article 4, ignoring laws that minimize civilian casualties. The Constitution [1:38] provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and that civil [1:44] officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, shall be removed from [1:48] office on impeachment for and in conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. [1:54] In his conduct as Secretary of Defense and in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully [2:01] execute the office of Secretary of Defense and to the best of his ability to preserve, protect, [2:08] and defend the Constitution of the United States and in violation of his constitutional duty to take [2:13] care that the laws be faithfully executed, especially during the commission of war, Peter Brian Hegseth [2:20] Hegseth has abused the powers of the Department of Defense. In that, using the powers of his office, [2:28] Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth directed the Department of Defense in a manner that resulted [2:33] in the death or injury of more than 200 civilians at the Shajaray Tayabe Elementary School in Manab, [2:42] Hormuzgan Province, Iran. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that affected the systematic [2:51] deterioration and removal of Department of Defense infrastructure that Congress had mandated by law [2:57] to limit collateral damage to civilians and non-military objects during military operations. [3:04] While doing so, Secretary Hegseth also cultivated a war-making culture at the Department of Defense, [3:11] which he boasts as being dismissive of, quote, stupid rules of engagement, unquote, with preference [3:18] for, quote, maximum lethality, not tepid legality, unquote. Such combination children rendered ineffective [3:26] components of the Department of Defense responsible for preventing, mitigating, and responding to civilian [3:33] harm. By directing the Department of Defense in a manner that foreseeably dismantled the safeguards [3:39] necessary to distinguish civilian objects from military objectives, Secretary Hegseth thereby [3:46] effectuated the murder of civilians and abused the trust of the men and women under his command [3:52] by requiring them to conduct military operations within a targeting and legal review system that [3:58] he had deliberately degraded. This undermined the integrity and diplomacy of the United States [4:04] and its armed forces. He thus ignored and injured the interests of the nation. Secretary Hegseth engaged [4:11] in this scheme or course of conduct through the following means. Secretary Hegseth willfully [4:16] disregarded and acted to defeat the requirements of Section 184 of Title 10 United States Code by [4:23] systematically dismantling civilian protection infrastructure. In that, Secretary Hegseth submitted a [4:30] legislative proposal to Congress on May 29, 2025, requesting a repeal of Section 184 of Title 10 United States Code, [4:41] the statutory requirement for civilian protection systems at the Department of Defense, even as Congress [4:47] had fully funded such systems for fiscal year 2025 and fiscal year 2026. And after Congress did not enact the [4:56] requested repeal, Army officials nevertheless confirmed that such civilian harm mitigation activities had been [5:04] halted. Secretary Hegseth intentionally stalled and reversed implementation of the Civilian Harm [5:10] Mitigation and Response Action Plan CHMRAP and rendered ineffective the Civilian Protection Center of [5:19] Excellence, CPCOE, despite it being congressionally mandated by Section 1082 of the James M. Inhofe National [5:30] Defense Authorization Act, Public Law 117-263, and Section 936 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act, [5:41] Public Law 115-232. Secretary Hegseth eliminated funding for the Army's casualty tracking database. The [5:50] the institutional system for recording and verifying civilian harm reports, so that should civilians be [5:56] harmed as a result of the United States military action, there would be no functioning system within [6:02] the Department of Defense to review, verify, and report on such harm. Secretary Hegseth willfully refused [6:10] to ensure that DOD components received adequate resources to satisfy CHMR requirements, including by removing [6:19] more than 90% of civilian harm mitigation and response staff assigned to combatant commands. Secretary Hegseth [6:28] failed by the end of fiscal year 2025 to satisfy any of the 11 objectives or complete 133 actions mandated by [6:37] Congress for the prevention and mitigation of civilian harm during armed conflict, thereby rendering every [6:44] such component of the Department of Defense's civilian harm prevention apparatus partially or totally [6:50] ineffective by the time the United States military combat operations against Iran began in early 2026. [7:00] Secretary Hegseth removed, without reason or cause, the senior-most Judge Advocates General of the Army, [7:07] Navy, and Air Force, thereby undermining independent legal oversight of combat operations and legal advice to [7:15] commanders on the law of armed conflict. Secretary Hegseth promulgated the 2026 National Defense Strategy, [7:24] with all references to civilian protection omitted, marking a deliberate and unprecedented departure from [7:31] prior defense policy that had recognized, in accordance with law, civilian harm mitigation as a strategic [7:38] priority. Secretary Hegseth, from the outset of his tenure, instigated a department culture hostile to the [7:46] law of armed conflict and the protection of civilians through his public and repeated denigration of [7:52] rules of engagement as, quote, stupid, politically incorrect, and overbearing. In that, on September 30th, [8:01] 2025, while addressing the largest assembled gathering of United States Generals and Admirals in American [8:06] history, Secretary Hegseth boasted that we, the United States military, quote, don't fight with stupid rules of [8:14] engagement, unquote. Upon lawfully renaming, upon unlawfully renaming the Department of Defense, [8:22] the Department of War, on September 5th, 2025, he poetically proclaimed, quote, maximum lethality, [8:30] not tepid legality, violent effect, not politically correct, unquote. During his confirmation hearing on [8:39] January 14th, 2025, he told the Senate Armed Services Committee he had, quote, thought very deeply about [8:46] the balance between legality and lethality, ensuring that the men and women on the front lines have the [8:52] opportunity to destroy with and close the enemy and that lawyers aren't the ones getting in the way, [8:58] unquote. Secretary Hegseth undermined effective journalistic oversight by expelling the traditional [9:05] Pentagon press corps and imposing credentialing rules that restricted journalists from soliciting [9:12] or publishing unapproved materials, thereby weakening independent reporting on civilian harm [9:18] on matters affecting the welfare and safety of the United States service members by journalists most [9:23] familiar with the Department of Defense. These actions were not isolated administrative or rhetorical [9:30] choices. Taken together, they degraded the personnel, institutional systems, independent legal review, [9:37] and civilian protection safeguards upon which the Department of Defense relies to verify the current [9:43] status of proposed targets, distinguish civilian objects from military objectives, reassess targets [9:50] as circumstances change, and prevent or mitigate civilian harm. The foreseeable consequences of Secretary [9:59] Hegseth scheme manifested in the United States strike on the Shajara Tayabe Elementary School, [10:07] which killed and injured more than 200 civilians and exposed systemic failures in the Department of [10:13] Defense targeting process. The events of that strike and the reported events leading to it are as follows. [10:21] On the morning of February 28, 2026, at approximately 9.45 a.m. local time, the United States, [10:28] in partnership with Israel, launched Operation Epic Fury, commencing the 2026 Iran war. Within the first [10:37] hour of the U.S.-Israeli offensive into southern Iran, three BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from [10:45] United States Navy warships impacted the elementary school between 10.23 and 10.45 a.m. local time. [10:55] Because the war was commenced mid-morning on a Saturday, the first day of the Iranian work week, [11:01] students were in attendance at the school. Despite an attempted evacuation of the school, [11:07] at the time of the first cruise missiles impact, between 170 and 264 students were present in the [11:14] facility, most of whom were girls between the ages of 7 and 12. Whereas it is unclear how many casualties [11:22] were inflicted by the first impact, which caused a partial destruction of the structure and the [11:27] collapse of its roof, it is reported that students were then sheltered in a prayer room deeper in the [11:33] facility, waiting for rescuers, when a second and a third missile in rapid succession impacted the [11:41] building. Reported death tolls from the strikes on the elementary school indicate that at least 156 [11:47] civilians were killed, with some reports suggesting the civilian death toll surpassed 170. Those killed [11:55] include at least 120 school children, 26 teachers, seven parents attempting to evacuate their children, [12:04] a school bus driver, a pharmacy technician from a nearby clinic, and the six-month-old unborn child of [12:11] one of the teachers also killed in the attack. An estimated 95 other individuals were wounded. [12:18] Under United States military doctrine and the law of armed conflict, which Secretary Hegseth is [12:23] obligated to uphold, the lawfulness of an attack does not depend solely upon whether civilians were [12:30] deliberately selected for the purpose of harming them. The obligations of distinction, target [12:36] verification, and feasible precaution require military decision makers to determine in good faith that [12:43] an object is a lawful military objective on the basis of information reasonably available at the time. [12:50] A failure to undertake the verification and review required by those obligations may render an attack [12:56] unlawful, a failure directly caused by Secretary Hegseth's dismantling of key infrastructure designed to [13:04] prevent such errors. With respect to the strike on the elementary school, those institutional failures [13:10] manifested in systemic noncompliance with Department of Defense targeting and doctrine and legal guidance. [13:17] The strike on the elementary school was not an isolated targeting failure divorced from the conduct of [13:23] the Secretary of Defense, nor can Secretary Hegseth's conduct be dismissed as a single targeting error [13:31] or an isolated failure in the fog of war. The elementary school was struck after Secretary Hegseth sought to [13:37] repeal congressionally mandated civilian protection requirements, dismantled the department's civilian harm [13:43] mitigation infrastructure, removed the senior-most Judge Advocates General responsible for independent [13:49] legal oversight, stripped civilian protection from the national defense strategy, and publicly denigrated [13:56] legal restraints on military force as obstacles to maximum lethality. He thereby weakened nearly every [14:04] institutional safeguard designed to minimize civilian casualties inflicted by the United States military [14:11] and then presided over a targeting process in which a functioning elementary school was struck three [14:17] times, killing and wounding more than 200 civilians, mostly children. Such conduct reflects not merely a failure of [14:25] judgment, but an extraordinary abuse of the powers entrusted to the Secretary of Defense and a profound disregard for the [14:31] civilians his department was obligated to protect and the service members he was entrusted to lead. [14:38] In all of this, Secretary Hegseth willfully and systemically refused to comply with laws and directives [14:47] mandated for the protection of civilians during the Commission of Armed Conflict, chilled and rendered ineffective [14:53] such components to prevent and mitigate harm to civilians, and therefore foreseeably affected the death and injury of over [15:01] 200 civilians to the manifest injury of the United States. Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, [15:08] by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to civilians. The lawful conduct of the United [15:16] States military operations, the integrity and credibility of the United States Armed Forces, and the Constitution, [15:23] if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law, [15:30] Peter Brian Hegseth thus warrants impeachment, trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold [15:37] and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. Article 5, extrajudicial killings. [15:46] The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment, [15:51] and that civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, shall be removed from office [15:57] on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. [16:02] In his conduct as Secretary of Defense, Peter Brian Hegseth, in violation of his oath to support and defend [16:09] the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the [16:15] laws be faithfully executed, especially with regard to the Commission of War, has abused the powers of the [16:22] Department of Defense, in that, using the powers of his office, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth directed [16:29] the Department of Defense in a manner that resulted in the extrajudicial killings of at least 243 persons [16:37] aboard seagoing vessels alleged to be smuggling narcotics in the Caribbean Sea and the Eastern Pacific Ocean, [16:48] principally in international waters. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that chilled [16:54] independent legal review within the Department of Defense, constructed a purported legal basis for [17:00] the use of military force without constitutional or statutory authorization, and displaced long-standing [17:07] precedent and codified maritime law enforcement practices that are jurisdictionally assigned to [17:16] the Coast Guard and law enforcement agencies, by substituting in such place the use of summary [17:22] lethal force by Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps elements. While doing so, Secretary Hegseth also [17:29] oversaw orders denying corridor and failing to provide rescue, including secondary strikes against shipwrecked [17:37] survivors who were ordered to combat and the abandonment of shipwrecked survivors at sea, [17:43] thereby endangering members of our own armed forces in future military engagements, by encouraging [17:50] adversaries to subject American service members to the same treatment, by subjecting persons merely [17:56] suspected of criminal conduct to lethal military force without judicial process, without congressional [18:03] authorization, and without establishing a lawful basis for treating such persons or vessels as military [18:10] targets, Secretary Hegseth arrogated to himself and the executive branch the roles of judge, jury, and [18:17] executioner, and asserted a unilateral power to determine who may live and who may die. Such a power is foreign [18:27] to the rule of law, repugnant to the legal traditions and fundamental values of the United States and the Western [18:32] world and contrary to the United States law and customary international law. This conduct undermined [18:39] the integrity and credibility of the United States and its armed forces, damaged the diplomatic standing [18:45] of the United States, and injured the interests of this nation. Secretary Hegseth engaged in this scheme [18:52] or course of conduct through the following means. Secretary Hegseth authorized strikes beginning on [18:58] September 2nd, 2025, without authorization from Congress pursuant to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of [19:05] the United States Constitution and in the absence of a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization [19:11] for the use of military force, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, [19:17] its territories, or possessions, or its armed forces, as provided in Chapter 33 of Title 50 United States Code. [19:26] Secretary Hegseth ordered and oversaw the strike campaign against seagoing vessels alleged to [19:32] be smuggling narcotics in international waters, comprising at least 69 separate attack events, 46 in the [19:40] eastern Pacific Ocean, 21 in the Caribbean Sea, and 2 in unspecified locations, which at least struck 73 [19:49] vessels and killed at least 243 individuals. In doing so, Secretary Hegseth displaced the statutory framework [19:58] established by Sections 70503 and 70504 of Title 46 United States Code, under which Congress expressly treated [20:09] maritime narcotics offenses, including conduct occurring on the high seas, as federal crimes subject to apprehension, [20:16] prosecution, and trial in an appropriate United States District Court, and instead treated such [20:22] offenses as predicates for lethal military targeting. Secretary Hegseth disregarded the statutory [20:30] restrictions in Section 274 and 275 of Title X United States Code, governing direct participation by [20:39] members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in civilian law enforcement activities, including federal [20:45] narcotics enforcement, by employing lethal military force against persons suspected of drug trafficking absent [20:52] any congressionally enacted authorization for the use of military force or other statutory authorization for [20:58] such direct military action. Secretary Hegseth disregarded the maritime law enforcement framework established by [21:06] Sections 102 and 522 of Title 14 United States Code, as well as Section 279 of Title 10 United States Code, under which [21:15] only the Coast Guard is authorized to conduct interdiction, search, seizure, and arrest. And he did so by [21:21] directing members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps to employ lethal military force in [21:28] place of the law enforcement process. Secretary Hegseth established targeting guidelines for such strikes on [21:35] August 5, 2025, by issuing an executive order, by issuing an execute order, directing the use of United States military [21:48] force against persons alleged to be members or affiliates of certain designated terrorist organizations, [21:55] as follows. Secretary Hegseth established guidelines that used designated terrorist organizations as a [22:03] targeting category. Notwithstanding, that term is not a congressionally created designation conferring [22:08] authority to use military force. Did not require positive identification of any targeted person, [22:15] but instead required only reasonable certainty that such person was a member or an affiliate of a designated [22:22] terrorist organization. A threshold lower than the near certainty standard established for drone strikes on [22:28] suspected al-Qaeda militants during the congressionally authorized global war on terror, and did not require [22:35] the presence of weapons or narcotics on targeted vehicles, sorry, vessels alleged to be smuggling narcotics [22:43] in association with a designated terrorist organization. Secretary Hegseth, in the course of such strikes, [22:50] oversaw orders resulting in the denial of quarter and the failure to provide timely rescue for shipwrecked [22:57] survivors of initial strikes, including on September 2, 2025, during the first strike of the campaign, [23:04] the United States Navy attacked a seagoing vessel carrying 11 persons between the coast of Venezuela [23:10] and the nearby Caribbean nation of Trinidad and Tobago. The strike destroyed and capsized the vessel. [23:20] Approximately 45 minutes later, while two survivors clung to the wreckage, a secondary strike was ordered, [23:26] killing both survivors. In doing so, Secretary Hegseth has endangered members of our armed forces in future military [23:33] engagements by encouraging adversaries to subject our American service members to the same treatment. [23:41] And, on December 30, 2025, United States Southern Command attacked three vessels, [23:47] 400 nautical miles southwest of Ocos Guatemala in the eastern Pacific Ocean, killing three persons and [23:55] leaving eight others shipwrecked. Although the campaign had been underway for approximately four months, [24:00] no recovery assets had been pre-positioned to rescue survivors. Rescue assets did not arrive until [24:08] approximately 45 hours after the strikes, by which time all eight shipwrecked survivors had died at sea. [24:15] In doing so, Secretary Hegseth has endangered members of our own armed forces in future military [24:21] engagements by encouraging our adversaries to subject our American service members to the same [24:28] treatment. Secretary Hegseth took actions to preempt, constrain, and overcome independent legal [24:35] objections within the Department of Defense concerning the lawfulness of such strikes, including, [24:40] Secretary Hegseth removed the senior-most Judge Advocates General of the Army, Navy, and Air Force [24:46] without stating a reason or cause, thereby foreseeably chilling the exercise of independent legal judgment [24:52] by Judge Advocates tasked with advising military commanders on the lawfulness of combat operations, [24:59] and subsequently stating at a Pentagon press conference on February 25, 2025, that he did not want military [25:07] lawyers to serve as roadblocks to orders that are given by a commander-in-chief. Secretary Hegseth employed [25:14] an interagency group of lawyers comprising four career officials and four political appointees from [25:20] the Department of Defense, the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Central Intelligence Agency, [25:25] the White House, and the Office of Legal Counsel, to develop a classified memorandum purporting to [25:32] establish a legal basis for such strikes and to address anticipated objections to their execution, [25:38] falsely asserting the following, that the United States is engaged in non-international armed conflict [25:47] with 24 Latin American-designated terrorist organizations, thereby attempting to displace the [25:54] governing law enforcement framework, as established in paragraph 2, and substitute an armed conflict [26:00] framework for the conduct of military operations against such organizations, despite the absence [26:07] of congressional authorization for such military action. Notwithstanding that, pursuant to Little v. [26:14] Barham 1804 and Utility Air Regulatory Group versus EPA 2014, an executive branch legal memorandum cannot [26:23] enlarge authority conferred by Congress or legalize conduct otherwise unauthorized by statute. The strike, [26:31] that the strikes do not constitute hostilities within the meaning of chapter 33 of Title 50 United [26:37] States Code, because they do not place United States personnel in danger, presumptively on the [26:43] basis that such vessels are incapable of self-defense, a predicate that would likewise mean that any military [26:50] action conducted by drone or any airstrike against a target lacking air defense capabilities could also not [26:56] constitute hostilities. That the designated terrorist organizations are engaged in armed violence [27:02] against the security forces of allied nations, including Mexico, and such violence is financed through [27:08] cocaine trafficking, such that the strikes may be characterized as attacks against cocaine shipments, [27:14] and the deaths of persons aboard targeted vessels as collateral damage, a rationale inconsistent with the [27:23] execute order targeting guidelines described in paragraph three, which did not require narcotics to be [27:29] present aboard a targeted vessel, and instead authorized targeting based on alleged designated terrorist [27:36] organization membership or affiliation. Secretary Hegseth abused the authority and trust vested in him as [27:42] Secretary of Defense, not only by directing the unlawful use of lethal military force resulting in the summary [27:49] execution of at least 243 persons in international waters, but also by using his office to compel members [27:56] of the armed forces to carry out such operations under false legal authorities that he caused to be constructed [28:03] and imposed upon the chain of command. In denying quarter and refusing rescue, Secretary Hegseth endangered members [28:12] of our United States Armed Forces in future military engagements by encouraging adversaries to subject [28:19] our American service members to such treatment. Secretary Hegseth further endangered United States law [28:25] enforcement personnel by substituting lethal military targeting for the established maritime law enforcement [28:32] practices of interdiction, search, seizure, arrest, and prosecution. By demonstrating that vessels merely [28:39] suspected of narcotics trafficking may be destroyed and their occupants killed rather than interdicted and arrested, [28:47] Secretary Hegseth foreseeably increased the likelihood that persons aboard such vessels will perceive future [28:55] encounters with United States authorities as threats to their lives and respond with lethal force rather than [29:02] surrender. In this manner, his conduct not only endangered the persons unlawfully targeted by the strike campaign, [29:10] but also made lawful enforcement of the United States narcotics laws at sea more dangerous for the Coast Guard [29:16] and other federal personnel charged with carrying them out. In all of this, Secretary Hegseth has acted in [29:23] a manner contrary to his trust as Secretary of Defense and subversive of constitutional government, [29:29] to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United [29:35] States of America. Wherefore, Secretary Hegseth, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to [29:43] civilians and the laws of war, the integrity of the United States diplomacy, and the Constitution, [29:49] if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the [29:54] rule of law, Peter Brian Hegseth thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification [30:01] to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. Article 6, Suppressing Free Speech. [30:10] The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of [30:16] impeachment, and that civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, [30:21] shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes [30:27] and misdemeanors. And his conduct while Secretary of Defense, Peter Brian Hegseth, in violation of his [30:33] oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and to faithfully discharge the duties of [30:38] his office, abused the powers entrusted to him by retaliating against a member of Congress for [30:45] constitutionally protected speech, and attempting to subject a member of a coordinate branch of [30:52] government to executive branch punishment for the exercise of his legislative and oversight [30:57] responsibilities. In that, on November 18, 2025, Senator Mark Kelly, a retired United States Navy [31:06] Captain and National Aeronautics and Space Administration astronaut who flew 39 combat missions during the [31:14] first Gulf War and who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee, [31:21] appeared in his official capacity as a senator in a video addressed to members of the United States Armed [31:27] Armed Forces stating, quote, our laws are clear, you can refuse illegal orders, unquote. Despite such a [31:36] statement being consistent with decisions in United States versus Kenan 1969 and United States versus [31:44] Kali 1973, Secretary Hegseth weaponized the Department of Defense to retaliate against and intimidate [31:53] Senator Mark Kelly for such a statement. Secretary Hegseth did so despite the fact that Senator Kelly is a [32:00] sitting United States senator who cannot fulfill his role in representative government if he fears [32:06] executive branch reprisals for expressing his views. As the Supreme Court held in Bond v. Floyd 1966, [32:16] quote, representative government requires that legislators be given the widest latitude to express their views on [32:22] issues of policy, unquote. Members of Congress, moreover, enjoy speech or debate immunity under Article 1, [32:30] Section 6, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution. And Senator Kelly, as a retired service member, [32:37] is entitled to the full breadth of First Amendment protection. Using the powers of his office, Secretary [32:44] Hegseth retaliated against and sought to intimidate United States Senator Mark Kelly for his statement [32:50] through a scheme or course of conduct intended to interfere with Congress's constitutional authority [32:56] to oversee the executive branch. Grossly expand Article 2 powers at the expense of both the legislative [33:03] and judicial branches of government and establish a precedent that would chill the protected speech [33:10] of millions of retired United States service members and inflict irreparable harm on their First Amendment [33:16] freedoms. Secretary Hegseth engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through the following means. [33:22] On November 24, 2025, the Department of Defense, through a social media post on X, threatened that Senator [33:30] Mark Kelly could be recalled to active duty for court martial proceedings or administrative measures [33:37] for his statement. On November 25, 2025, Secretary Hegseth directed the Secretary of the Navy to review [33:44] Senator Kelly. On January 5, 2026, Secretary Hegseth issued a secretarial letter of censure against [33:53] Senator Kelly for A, saying you can refuse illegal orders, B, saying he would always defend the Constitution, [34:04] C, questioning the legality of military operations as a member of the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence [34:12] committees, D, criticizing military leadership for surrounding himself with yes men, and E, [34:22] allegedly accusing Secretary Hegseth of war crimes. In the letter of censure, Secretary Hegseth also [34:29] threatened Senator Kelly with criminal prosecution or further administrative action, including the reduction [34:36] of Senator Kelly's retired military grade should the Senator continue to question the legality of military [34:43] operations or criticize Secretary Hegseth. In response to a January 12, 2026 complaint filed by Senator Mark [34:52] Kerry against Secretary Hegseth for retaliating against and intimidating the Senator for his First Amendment [34:58] protected speech, Secretary Hegseth filed a memorandum of opposition to Senator Kelly's motion for a [35:05] preliminary injunction, egregiously asserting that, A, Senator Kelly, as a retired naval officer, [35:14] has diminished First Amendment protections, B, Department of Defense actions against Senator Kelly's [35:21] constitutional rights due to his statements relating to military affairs and his being a retired naval [35:26] official officer constitute non-judiciable military personnel decisions, C, Secretary Hegseth's opinions [35:38] supersede the court's jurisdiction to determine whether the government could censure, threaten, [35:44] and financially punish Senator Kelly because of his speech, and D, Senator Kelly is required to exhaust [35:50] military administrative remedies before seeking relief in an Article III court, thereby seeking to place the [35:57] adjudication of Senator Kelly's constitutional rights within military processes controlled by the [36:03] executive branch. Thus, in addition to abusing the powers of the Office of the Secretary of Defense for [36:09] politically motivated reprisal against Senator Kelly for the Senator's criticism of conduct implicating [36:17] potential war crimes, Secretary Hegseth grossly violated or sought to violate the separation of powers by [36:24] attempting to subordinate both the legislative and judicial branches in matters concerning constitutional rights to the [36:32] authority of the Department of Defense. In the same effort Secretary Hegseth sought, without precedent, to extend to [36:39] retired service members the diminished First Amendment protections applicable to active duty service [36:46] members under Parker v. Levy in 1974, including retired service members serving in Congress and exercising [36:54] constitutional oversight over the military. He further asserted, in substance, that the military, rather than [37:02] Article III courts, possesses supremacy to determine the constitutional rights of civilians and to adjudicate whether its own [37:10] actions conform to the Constitution and the laws of the United States, at a minimum with respect to the speech of retired [37:16] service members, despite such position being in flagrant conflict with Marbury v. Madison, 1803, which holds that it is [37:26] emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is, not the military. The result of [37:34] such effort, had Secretary Hegseth been successful, would have subjected the speech and congressional oversight activities of nearly 20% of the current Congress, [37:45] Congress, and whatever proportion of future Congresses may consist of retired service members, as well as the [37:51] speech of millions of other retired service members, to the will and discretion of the Department of Defense, without any immediate [37:59] avenue of recourse outside the Department to vindicate their constitutional rights. Such a result would constitute one of the [38:09] most extraordinary expansions of executive branch power in the history of the United States. In all of this, [38:15] Secretary Hegseth abused the powers of the Department of Defense by retaliating against and attempting to [38:22] intimidate a sitting United States Senator through threats of punishment for speech protected by the First Amendment to the [38:28] United States Constitution, in an effort to deter that Senator from fulfilling his constitutional role in overseeing the [38:36] executive branch. In doing so, Secretary Hegseth weaponized the Department of Defense to chill a core function of the [38:44] legislative branch, encroach upon the constitutional role of the judicial branch by seeking to insulate [38:51] such retaliation for meaningful judicial review, and, through the precedent he sought to establish, [38:58] place the First Amendment rights of millions of United States veterans at risk of irreparable harm. [39:03] Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a [39:10] threat to the Constitution and the separation of powers, if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a [39:17] manner grossly incompatible with his duties, the rule of law, and the constitutional liberties entrusted to [39:23] his protection. Peter Brian Hegseth thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to [39:31] hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. Article 7, kidnapping of a [39:39] sovereign foreign leader. The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole [39:45] power of impeachment, and that civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, [39:51] shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes, [39:56] and misdemeanors. In his conduct of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and in violation of his [40:04] constitutional oath to faithfully execute the Office of Secretary of Defense, and to the best of his [40:10] ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his [40:16] constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, especially during the Commission of [40:22] War. Peter Brian Hegseth has abused the powers of the Department of Defense in that, using the powers [40:29] of his office, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth directed the Department of Defense to carry out an [40:35] unprecedented military operation, code named Absolute Resolve, to capture and kidnap President Nicolas [40:43] Maduro, the leader of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, and his wife Celia Flores from Venezuela, [40:52] an act of war against a sovereign country executed under the guise of narcotics law enforcement, [40:58] though in actuality intended to assert U.S. control over Venezuela's oil reserves. In doing so, [41:05] he gambled the lives of Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps personnel in order to facilitate the [41:12] illegal taking of national oil. To wit, immediately following such attack, Secretary Hegseth appeared [41:19] alongside President Donald J. Trump, during which the President announced, in reference to Venezuela, [41:26] quote, we're going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper, and judicious [41:33] transition. So we don't want to be involved with having somebody else get in, and we have the same [41:41] situation that we had. We're going to run it, essentially. And we're going to have our very large [41:49] United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in and start making money, [41:55] and we are ready to stage a second and much larger attack if we need to do so, unquote. [42:01] Thus revealing the motives behind the forcible removal of President Maduro, which extended far [42:08] beyond the narcotics law enforcement rationale on which the operation was falsely predicated. [42:13] On January 3rd, 2026, Secretary Hegseth directed United States Armed Forces into hostilities in and [42:21] around Caracas, Venezuela, employing more than 200 United States Special Operations personnel on the [42:27] ground and more than 150 aircraft and drones, including fighter aircraft, bombers, armed helicopters, [42:33] and electronic warfare aircraft supported by a substantial naval force that included the Iwo Jima [42:41] Amphibious Ready Group and the Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group, which together penetrated Venezuelan [42:48] territory, suppressed and destroyed Venezuelan air defenses, struck multiple targets in the Caracas [42:54] area, inserted an armed ground force into Caracas to seize Maduro, successfully kidnapped Maduro, [43:02] killed at least 83 people, including several civilians, and caused seven American casualties. In doing so, [43:09] Secretary Hegseth executed unlawful orders affecting the removal of the president of a sovereign nation, [43:18] placed boots on the ground, conducted preparatory bombardments, inflicted substantial casualties, [43:24] and subsequently caused regime change, each of which constitutes acts of war. Secretary Hegseth executed [43:32] unlawful orders violating Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution by ordering [43:40] United States Armed Forces to commit an act of war against Venezuela without a declaration of war by [43:45] Congress against such a nation, and by making rules concerning captures on land, a power specifically [43:53] vested in Congress, where Congress had made no rules authorizing or otherwise applicable to such [43:58] operation. Secretary Hegseth executed unlawful orders in contravention of Section 2C of the War Powers [44:05] Resolution of 1973, Section 1541C of Title 50, United States Code, by entering United States Armed Forces [44:15] into hostilities in Venezuela on January 3rd, 2026, without a declaration of war, a specific statutory [44:22] authorization, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its territories, [44:28] or possessions, or its armed forces. Through these actions, Secretary Hegseth knowingly directed United [44:35] States Armed Forces into hostilities against a sovereign foreign nation without clear constitutional [44:41] or specific statutory authority, employing military force of a nature and magnitude rising to the level [44:48] of constitutional war. In doing so, Secretary Hegseth usurped Congress's constitutional authority over war [44:55] and transformed the Department of Defense into an instrument for objectives extending far beyond the [45:01] apprehension of Nicolas Maduro for purposes of narcotics law enforcement, including regime change and [45:09] the acquisition of foreign oil. In all of this, Secretary Hegseth abused the powers of the Department of [45:16] Defense, violated the laws and treaty obligations of the United States, and subordinated the constitutional [45:22] allocation of war powers to executive objectives neither authorized nor approved by Congress. [45:30] Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain [45:36] a threat to the Constitution and to the well-being of the United States military personnel if allowed to [45:43] remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law. [45:49] Peter Brian Hegseth thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification [45:55] to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. [46:02] Article 8 Unlawful War in Yemen [46:05] The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of [46:09] impeachment, and that civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, [46:14] shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and [46:20] misdemeanors. In his conduct, while Secretary of Defense Peter Brian Hegseth, in violation of his oath [46:26] to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take [46:33] care that the laws be faithfully executed, especially with regard to the Commission of War, [46:38] has abused the powers of the Department of Defense, in that, using the powers of his office, Secretary of Defense, [46:45] Peter Hegseth directed the Department of Defense in a manner leading to the deaths of an estimated 224 [46:52] civilians, as well as approximately 500 to 600 Houthi fighters, through the initiation and direction [47:00] of Operation Rough Rider. The operation comprised more than 1,100 strikes against targets in Yemen, [47:07] over approximately 52 days. In less than eight weeks, there were nearly as many civilian deaths in Yemen [47:13] as the United States military actions had caused in that country during the preceding 23 years. [47:21] Secretary Hegseth initiated and directed these hostilities in the absence of any of the predicates [47:27] required in Section 2C of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 for the President to introduce United States [47:35] military armed forces into hostilities. Moreover, Secretary Hegseth acknowledged the absence of any [47:43] imminent threat to the United States, further undermining any assertion of Article 2 authority [47:49] to initiate such hostilities without congressional authorization. Secretary Hegseth initiated and [47:55] directed Operation Rough Rider without congressional approval pursuant to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 [48:03] of the United States Constitution, or statutory authorization, in that, Secretary Hegseth executed [48:11] unlawful orders in contravention of Section 2C of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Section 1541C of Title 50, [48:20] United States Code, by entering and sustaining United States Navy and Air Force personnel into hostilities [48:27] in Yemen between March 15 and May 6, 2025, without a declaration of war, a specific statutory authorization, [48:36] or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, [48:42] or its armed forces. Secretary Hegseth executed unlawful orders in contravention of Section 4A of the [48:49] War Powers Resolution of 1973, Section 1543A of Title 50, United States Code, by continuing to direct the [48:59] United States Armed Forces into hostilities in Yemen after March 17, 2025, despite the President of the [49:08] United States having failed to notify Congress of such hostilities within 48 hours of their commencement, [49:14] as required by Section 4A, and notwithstanding that the President did not transmit such report to Congress [49:22] until March 28, 2025, thereby further undermining any possible Article II authority for the continued [49:30] hostilities, especially during such 13-day period. Outside of the requirements to engage in hostilities [49:37] pursuant to the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Secretary Hegseth directed Operation Roughrider in the absence [49:45] of any imminent threat requiring military action without prior congressional authorization. As evidenced by a [49:52] leaked signal chat involving Secretary Hegseth concerning the potential execution of Operation Roughrider, [50:01] in which several senior United States government officials, including Secretary Hegseth, each possessing [50:08] unfettered access to military and intelligence information, advised that there was no immediate need [50:14] to enter United States Armed Forces into hostilities in Yemen, thereby asserting there was no imminent threat to [50:21] the United States, its possessions or territories, or its armed forces. As indicated through the following [50:27] communications, Vice President J.D. Vance stating, quote, there is a strong argument for delaying a month, [50:36] unquote. Then acting Chief of Staff to the National Security Advisor, Joe Kent stating, quote, there is nothing [50:44] time sensitive driving this timeline. We'll have the exact same options in a month, unquote. Central Intelligence [50:51] Agency Director, John Radcliffe, stating, quote, a delay would not negatively impact us, and an additional [50:58] time would be used to identify better starting points for coverage on Houthi leadership, unquote. And addressing the [51:09] timing of Roughrider, Operation Roughrider, Secretary Hegseth himself stated, quote, we can easily pause, unquote. Addressing the [51:20] Vice President's concerns regarding Operation Roughrider's immediate commencement, Secretary Hegseth stated, [51:26] quote, VP, I understand your concerns. Two, immediate risks on waiting. If this leaks and we look indecisive, [51:38] Israel takes action first, or Gaza ceasefire falls apart, and we don't get to start this on our own terms. [51:47] This is about the Houthis reestablishing deterrence, which Biden cratered, unquote. [51:56] Thus, Secretary Hegseth knew there was no imminent threat to the United States, [52:01] its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. As had such a threat existed, there would have been [52:07] no basis for him to state that we can easily pause. Moreover, the only immediate risks identified by [52:15] Secretary Hegseth concerned media optics and Israeli affairs, rather than the direct affairs of the [52:21] United States of America, the nation to which his oath is sworn. In all of this, Secretary Hegseth abused [52:28] the powers entrusted to him as Secretary of Defense by subordinating the constitutional limits on the use [52:35] of military force and the laws governing the conduct of hostilities to his own policy objectives, [52:41] notwithstanding his knowledge that no imminent threat to the United States existed, and demonstrated [52:47] a profound disregard for civilian life, the rule of law, the constitutional authority of Congress, [52:53] and his duty to ensure the lawful conduct of the United States Armed Forces. Wherefore, [52:59] Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to [53:05] civilians, the lawful conduct of the United States military operations, the integrity and credibility of [53:11] the United States Armed Forces and the Constitution, if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in [53:17] a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law, Peter Brian Hegseth thus warrants [53:22] impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of [53:29] honor, trust, or profit under the United States. I yield back. All right, so that was Thomas Massey. [53:38] In Rule 9, a resolution offered from the floor by a member other than the majority leader or the [53:43] minority leader as a question of the privileges of the House has immediate precedence only at a time [53:48] designated by the chair within two legislative days, after the resolution is properly noticed. [53:55] Pending that designation, the form of the resolution noticed by the gentleman from Kentucky [54:00] will appear in the record at this point. The chair will not at this point determine whether the [54:05] resolution constitutes a question of privilege. That determination will be made at the time [54:10] designated for consideration of the resolution. So a vote is expected on those impeachment articles [54:19] in the House, possibly sometime this week. I'm going to get you an update. Thomas Massey is going to [54:27] do a press conference shortly, and we're going to be carrying that live for you. Give me one quick [54:33] second here. Sorry, we didn't get the whole thing. I think we heard the last maybe five impeachment [54:43] articles. There were eight impeachment articles that he read. So we're going to have coming up [54:50] a live press conference with Thomas Massey that's supposed to start soon. And while we're waiting for [54:59] that press conference, I want to just go over what we have been talking about here. And again, we're going [55:05] to be hearing Thomas Massey press conference coming up in moments. Hey, I do want to thank our moderators [55:12] who are here right now. Actually, let me put on the screen right here coming up. Where is it here? I want it to be [55:23] hold on. Where is my coming up Massey press conference? There it is. There it is. Coming up [55:34] Massey press conference. Soon as I have the video, I'm going to put it on the screen for you. Now. Hey, [55:44] first of all, thanks to our moderators. We have moderating here, Beth mythical and Janet B over on [55:53] YouTube. Oh, hold on a second. Wait, I think I'm about to get the video. Uh, Janet B and Beth mythical [55:58] over on YouTube moderating. I think I'm about to get the video of the press conference. Oops. Hold [56:02] on a second here. Uh, also on Twitch, uh, Bastion girl to bears hearsay. I got that fire. Um, [56:09] Matthew Kohai three, Sarah flux. Aternis surly dev and tarry ag all moderating on Twitch. Thank you. [56:17] Also thanks to our Facebook moderators. Again, supposed to have that video for you in a moment. [56:23] Of this upcoming press conference. Oops. Give me a second here. Please give me a moment. Um, [56:33] Hegseth is, well, there's a Pentagon press conference tomorrow, which I'm planning on [56:39] covering. Uh, I'm not positive that Hegseth himself is giving it, but there is supposed to be a Pentagon [56:45] press conference tomorrow, maybe with Hegseth. Uh, so I would cover that too. I think it's going to be [56:50] tomorrow morning. I got to double check on that. Um, thanks. Julianna Martin, our member, [56:55] uh, our subscriber on Facebook. And, uh, thanks to our moderators on Facebook. Kayla, [57:01] everybody's moderating. Hold on a moment. I have the press conference video coming up for you. Uh, [57:07] it hasn't started yet, but look at this. Hang on folks. Look at what I have here. It is the Massey [57:14] press conference coming up. All right. I have too many things on the screen. All right. This is [57:23] Capitol Hill. I got to fix this. Oh, here comes Thomas Massey right now. Well, we've got six minutes, [57:37] but it looks like there's enough people here to have a press conference. So we'll go ahead and [57:40] start. Won't keep you waiting, uh, in this chilly air. Um, there are eight articles of impeachment that [57:48] I've just introduced. Um, I'll be glad to take your questions on it. The one thing that I want to [57:54] point out here is, um, a lot of, a lot of people are saying, well, I think Peter Hegseth is effective. [58:02] He's, he's good at his job. Um, and so I don't want to vote for these articles of impeachment. Well, [58:07] the reality is we're not indicting him for being bad at his job. In fact, he was very effective at [58:14] killing school children in Iran. He was very effective at extrajudicial killings. There's [58:20] no argument in these impeachment articles that he's ineffective. The argument here is that he's [58:26] broken laws and he's violated the constitution. And so, um, that's the question put in front of my [58:33] colleagues. Now, I understand that some of them may want to vote for this because they just want to see [58:39] Hegseth gone. I'll welcome their vote if that's the, if that's the reason and they choose not [58:44] to read the articles of impeachment. But I would encourage people to take them very seriously. [58:49] The three, the first three articles of impeachment are centered on the 1973 war powers resolution. [58:57] And the, the White House legal counsel has tried to go around these things. I'm sure they've advised [59:03] the president and the vice president and even the secretary of defense not to use the word war [59:09] because, and you see their tortured use of the English language in the early days of this, [59:13] they tried to not call it a war, but ultimately the president calls it a war every day. He's tired [59:20] of the semantics, but what he's admitting to is that puts them in violation of 1973 war powers [59:27] resolution. They didn't meet the requirements to take action without Congress. That's the first article [59:33] of impeachment. The second article of impeachment is that they, um, there was a concurrent resolution [59:39] of Congress. Like there's no argument here. If this were in a courtroom, we wouldn't need witnesses. [59:45] Uh, we wouldn't need to provide evidence. Both sides acknowledged that there was a concurrent [59:50] resolution passed by the house and the Senate. And that that's the prescription in the 1973 war powers [59:57] act to stop a war or unauthorized, uh, activity by the president. If that's what Congress wants to [1:00:03] do. Well, that's what we did and they didn't stop. So how do you litigate this? In reality, [1:00:08] Speaker Johnson should bring a lawsuit against the executive branch. What I believe the executive [1:00:14] branch will tell you is we know that's a law in the books and we know we're violating it, [1:00:20] but we don't like that law. We believe it's constitution. It's unconstitutional [1:00:25] in, in light of Chadha versus INS, which actually had very little to do with the war powers resolution. [1:00:31] Congress could have reconvened in light of that Supreme court decision, which was on legislative [1:00:36] vetoes and they could have struck down this law, but they didn't. The law is on the books that Pete [1:00:41] Hegseth is obligated to follow the laws on the books, not the laws that he wants to follow. And so [1:00:47] that's, there's a problem there now is for the question of, do they, do they even acknowledge [1:00:54] the 1973 war powers act and that it's a law that's on the books? Well, they absolutely do because [1:01:00] another provision is, has to do with my third article of impeachment, which it says if the [1:01:07] president and the secretary of defense engage in some kind of unlawful or unauthorized military [1:01:15] activity, which would have to meet the predicates in the 1973 war powers act and they don't, but let's [1:01:20] say they did meet the predicates in the 1973 war powers act and they engaged in this unauthorized [1:01:26] activity. They've got exactly 60 days to get authorization from Congress. And in the, and [1:01:33] if Congress doesn't do anything, they have to stop. Now they can ask for a 30 day extension, [1:01:38] which they never did. And the 30 day extension only applies if you want to, if you need 30 more days [1:01:43] to get back out of the country safely with your military. Well, what, what is their legal argument [1:01:49] here? Well, on, on day 61, they announced the war was over. They didn't need congressional authorization. [1:01:58] The war is over nothing to see here, but then they commenced within a couple of weeks, the war again, [1:02:04] the war was never over. There was never a legitimate stop to the war. And this is a, [1:02:10] and even the president himself acknowledges, this is one continuous war. Yet the, the legal beagles at the [1:02:17] White House are saying when they send letters to Congress that every time they commence another [1:02:23] attack in Iran, they're effectively starting another military action that's unrelated to the [1:02:28] war that's already going on. Because if they did acknowledge that and didn't have this shaky [1:02:34] legal scaffolding, then they would have to acknowledge that they're violating the law. So [1:02:40] that's the third article of impeachment. One second here. Okay. [1:02:45] Which gets me to the fourth one. So some of you may ask, Congressman Massey, [1:02:49] why didn't you impeach president Trump? Well, it looks like a lot of this has to do with things [1:02:54] that the president directed Hegseth to do. Well, two of these articles of impeachment [1:03:01] belong to Hegseth himself. It is true that the president is culpable by asking Hegseth to carry out [1:03:08] these orders. But Hegseth should not carry out illegal orders. And that's why we're impeaching him. [1:03:15] But one of the articles that Hegseth took upon himself to create articles of impeachment is he, [1:03:22] he basically took apart the function inside of the Department of Defense that makes sure they're [1:03:30] not going to strike civilians. And the predictable and absolute result of that was they struck this, [1:03:38] all these school kids on the first day of the war. Now there's something called the fog of war. Maybe, [1:03:44] you know, you're in a battle and you don't have time to pay a lot of attention and you're shooting [1:03:48] wherever you got to shoot. There's no fog of war on the first day. You've had months to identify these [1:03:54] targets and pick them. Yet they pick a school building on a school day with school kids in it, [1:04:00] and then struck it again, and then struck it again. So that is the foreseeable and obvious [1:04:08] and unfortunate consequence of something Pete Hegseth did himself at the Department of Defense. [1:04:14] Now you've you've also got the extrajudicial killings in the Pacific and the Caribbean. [1:04:21] They're trying to say those are police actions. They're not only are they striking people without [1:04:26] identifying them. They don't know who all those people are in the boat. They're going back and [1:04:30] killing all the survivors. This puts our own military in danger in any kind of future military [1:04:36] engagement, because what will happen is we're encouraging others not to give our soldiers quarter, [1:04:42] not to rescue our shipwrecked sailors if that should happen to our military men and women. [1:04:48] Perhaps the most ironic article of impeachment in here is the one where [1:04:53] Hegseth abused his powers to go after Senator Mark Kelly. He tried to put the military and the [1:05:02] executive branch above the judicial branch. He tried to intimidate a sitting U.S. Senator in spite of [1:05:08] First Amendment protections, by the way, who's also a veteran. So this sets a bad precedent for millions [1:05:14] of veterans to say that you don't have First Amendment rights when when you leave the military. You can't [1:05:20] say what you think and that they're going to call you back in to the military and put you in front of a [1:05:24] tribunal. So in doing that, Hegseth raised above raised the military and the executive branch or tried [1:05:31] to above the judicial branch and above the legislative branch. Now the irony of it is he was attacking [1:05:38] Senator Mark Kelly for saying you don't have to carry out illegal orders. Well, that's the consequence of [1:05:45] this of Hegseth ignoring Senator Kelly's advice is six of these articles of impeachment are for him [1:05:52] carrying out illegal orders. And finally, you can go back to Yemen, where there was, before I get to [1:05:59] Yemen, which is the last one, let me talk about Venezuela. I feel sorry for the lawyers at the White [1:06:07] House. They construct, like somebody goes in there and says, twist the law, do whatever you can. We want [1:06:14] to go in and kidnap a foreign leader and take their oil and make some legal construct that would make [1:06:20] this legal. Remember, they had the DOJ involved. Pam Bondi was involved in this in the press conference [1:06:25] for this war that they say wasn't a war. Although President Trump, I think it was just yesterday, [1:06:31] said that Hegseth won two wars, Iran and Venezuela. Okay, so if it's not, so this is why I feel sorry [1:06:39] somewhat for the lawyers at the White House. They come up with this tortured language so that maybe [1:06:44] Hegseth won't get impeached. And then the president goes out and uses all the terms the lawyers told him [1:06:50] not to do. He commits candor. He just tells the truth. And he told the truth. This is a war. This [1:06:56] was not a police activity to interdict drugs or to stop a drug ring. It was to kidnap a foreign leader [1:07:03] so we could take their oil. And then he goes out like the next day, the president does with Hegseth [1:07:09] standing there with him saying, well, we did this to get the oil. And now a bunch of our big corporations [1:07:14] are going to get really rich off of this oil. So yay for for us. And then finally on Yemen, [1:07:22] we got a glimpse into something you almost never get. Because the vice president, the secretary of [1:07:31] defense, the CIA director, they're all on a signal chat, and they include a reporter. Oh my gosh, [1:07:39] wouldn't you wouldn't you love to be see some of these signal chats. But here's one you get to see [1:07:45] now. And what do we find out that unanimously, everybody on that signal chat agreed there was [1:07:51] no imminent, including Hegseth himself, who said they could pause at any time, agreed there was no [1:07:56] imminent threat that would justify the president, you know, going in front of Congress and taking [1:08:03] action without an authorization of use of military force or declaration of war. And the consequence of [1:08:09] that was civilians killed. And so I think those are the eight articles of impeachment as I just laid them [1:08:16] out there. And a few a few other things I want to say in anticipated anticipation of your questions. [1:08:22] An interesting fact and an interesting consequence of where we are in time in this lame duck session is [1:08:33] the articles of impeachment, once they leave the House, they survive into the next Senate. Like [1:08:40] every HR bill in here will die and you'll have to reintroduce it, but not these articles of impeachment. [1:08:46] If the Senate doesn't deal with this, you know, before the end of this Senate, they're turning it over [1:08:53] to a Democrat Senate who can then have the trials and deal with it. So my hope is that this will make [1:09:00] it to the Senate. I don't know if we have enough votes. I have no idea. I haven't spent time on the [1:09:05] phone calling people. I'm doing this because it's the right thing to do. Everybody gets to take this [1:09:11] vote. I suspect there, there may be members of Congress who want to put a little daylight between [1:09:16] themselves in this war or themselves in this administration at who survived their election, [1:09:21] not just what I call the retirement caucus, whose membership swelled on November 3rd. I'm talking [1:09:27] about the people who are coming back next Congress. And then in two years, they're going to have to [1:09:32] answer for a war that's gotten even worse. And if the, if God forbid, the Secretary of Defense is still in [1:09:39] charge of it, they're going to own all of his misfortune and misdeeds. And so I would encourage my [1:09:45] colleagues to read the eight articles of impeachment. If I'm wrong, tell me where I'm wrong. I would [1:09:52] encourage the speaker not to try to dismiss this with a, you know, a motion to table it or a motion [1:09:59] to refer it to committee. That's one thing I want to prepare everybody for. A motion to refer this to [1:10:04] committee is a motion to kill this impeachment. So they may try to get out of an actual vote on the [1:10:10] substance of this. We should have a vote and a rigorous debate on these eight articles of [1:10:15] impeachment. And with that, I will take questions. I will let, I was going to let [1:10:21] one of my staff, there's all right. Could you put this in some sort of historical [1:10:25] context for us? Do you think Pete Hegseth is the worst U.S. defense secretary in history? [1:10:31] He wouldn't be the only one impeached by the house. This happened in the 1800s. And I think that [1:10:37] the gentleman resigned or something happened. Maybe he went to prison. I don't know what happened, [1:10:41] but it never matriculated to an issue in the Senate. So it's not unprecedented. [1:10:47] Speaker 2 I don't have a question. Let me, let me, let me, let me take another one here. [1:10:54] You and then you. Yeah. Thank you, Congressman. Really quickly, [1:10:58] there are rumors that libertarians are trying to recruit you for 2028 to play spoiler. Will you commit [1:11:05] to supporting the GOP nominee in 2028? That's a different conversation. [1:11:11] I went to Iran, to Minab a few months ago, and they reported on the, on the terrible trauma and [1:11:15] tragedy of the families whose children were ripped apart by the Tomahawk missiles. And a lot of them [1:11:20] said they thought Pete Hegseth was a war criminal. They believed this was a war crime. And that's been [1:11:24] echoed by some very respectable American experts on the law. Would you go that far? Would you say that [1:11:29] he is a war criminal off the back of that terrible tragedy there, Minab? Um, I did not go that far [1:11:35] in these articles. You won't find a reference to war crimes. What I, what I do say though, is the, [1:11:40] because he's violated the international norms of war and violated our own conventions of war, [1:11:46] he's put our own soldiers and sailors at risk. When you, when you go back for a second kill on people [1:11:53] who are clinging to wreckage, you're encouraging our adversaries to do the same. That's why those laws, [1:11:59] those international laws are on the books, but I did not go that far, but I will say that he has [1:12:04] violated the norms of war and it's to the disadvantage and the dishonor of our country [1:12:10] and to the danger of our soldiers in future conflicts. Congressman Massey, the secretary [1:12:15] had dressed, had called you a disgruntled, defeated congressman, said that your plan will not work. [1:12:19] What's your response to that? Well, he's right about one thing. I'm a defeated [1:12:24] Congress, Congressman. Um, I'm not disgruntled and, uh, we'll see if the plan works. I mean, [1:12:30] he should look, I'm being polite here. What is an impeachment? An impeachment is just firing somebody. [1:12:36] Really? You don't go to prison. You don't go to jail. You're not, you don't pay a fine. Okay. [1:12:41] When the Democrats get in charge, they are going to be very vicious. Um, the one thing that I wasn't [1:12:48] able to compel with my articles of impeachment and which is why we don't want to refer it to a [1:12:54] committee because they won't have hearings, but the Democrats are going to have hearings. They won't [1:12:58] have just eight articles of impeachment. I suspect if Pete Hegseth doesn't leave, um, and this is the [1:13:05] answer to your question, will it work? I hope for his sake, it does work because the Democrats are [1:13:10] going to bring people in here who have served under him and with him, give them protection. [1:13:15] They'll be able to say what he's actually done, the things that he has ignored, the things that he [1:13:19] did that caused civilian casualties, the way he's, uh, you know, ignored the laws, and then there'll be [1:13:25] a full robust trial over in the Senate. And, um, it's not a certain thing that he would survive the [1:13:31] Senate, you know, even though there's, you know, they don't have a, what would you call it? An [1:13:36] impeachment proof majority in the Senate, the Democrats don't, you have Republicans who are [1:13:41] going to be compelled once there's more testimony and more hearings and more trials. And so it, [1:13:48] if, if working is getting him to leave a day earlier than he already otherwise would have, [1:13:54] I think it's probably worked. This guy's serious. He doesn't let go of that coffee for nothing. [1:14:04] You said that Hegseth was following unlawful orders. You said the president is culpable. [1:14:09] Why then, or did you consider bringing articles against the president, uh, over this war? [1:14:15] I think the president needs to see one of this is a metaphor. One of his horses shot out from under [1:14:22] him and then maybe he'll, he will see things differently. I think politically it's an, [1:14:28] it's an impossible hurdle. Uh, but also I think this is the better target. You know, sometimes you [1:14:34] apply the, the, uh, the ordinance where the best target is and the best target is Pete Hegseth. [1:14:41] What I, what, one of the things that I really want out of this is to litigate whether Congress has war [1:14:48] powers or not. Like this is, I've got Republican colleagues who know I'm right on this. They're [1:14:54] worried about the politics of it. And, um, what we, what I'm really trying to do here with some of [1:15:00] these articles is litigate three, three provisions of the war powers resolution and have other, [1:15:07] have other folks, uh, violated them as well. Yeah. Not, not as blatantly or as egregiously [1:15:13] as Pete Hegseth, but somebody has got to put their foot down and say, are we going to follow [1:15:17] the laws that are on the books? Are we going to follow the constitution? And the best way to do that [1:15:22] is to have an impeachment against Pete Hegseth. I suspect, honestly, there may be Democrats [1:15:28] who would prefer when their person is in power to not be constrained by this vote in their history [1:15:36] where, because, you know, let's imagine a scenario which is not too hard to imagine after last week's [1:15:42] shellacking where the Democrats control all three levers, the house, the Senate and the white house. [1:15:50] I suspect, you know, just like bill Clinton did and Barack Obama, I suspect they're going to want [1:15:55] to go in there and ignore Congress and use these powers. So this is the right, this is the right [1:16:01] forum to have it in the right vote. Let me keep going in this way. Yeah. Go ahead. So just in [1:16:11] conversations with fellow Republicans, like how hard is leadership whipping this, as you understand it? [1:16:18] Are they going all out, pulling out all the stops or just kind of more of a... [1:16:24] I suspect they whipped it before the recess and sent us home early. And maybe it was just because [1:16:30] people didn't want to take a vote that was closely associated with the Iran war or with this [1:16:36] administration in advance of a tough election. So, but now I don't know if they're whipping it or not. [1:16:42] I mean, if they start to whip it, it looks desperate. I saw that the secretary has scheduled a press [1:16:49] conference for tomorrow. If I, if I saw that right of my way to deliver these articles, [1:16:54] I suspect they will let the secretary give his rebuttal to these articles before they have the [1:17:02] vote. You see the leadership, as you, I'm sure you know, they can have the vote within two legislative [1:17:07] days and it could take the form of, of a motion to table or a motion to refer to committee, or they [1:17:13] could vote on the substance. But in any of those scenarios, they could do it. We could have the vote [1:17:18] tonight. We could have it tomorrow. We could have it Wednesday. But I would encourage them to have a [1:17:24] vote on the substance of it. And I suspect since we saw the secretary have scheduled his own press [1:17:29] conference, that they're going to let him deliver a rebuttal. And to that point, I hope he addresses [1:17:35] the eight articles and doesn't get up and misquote the Bible in Quentin Tarantino fashion and do some [1:17:41] pull-ups and, you know, call everybody fat and gay, like for being for this impeachment. Like, [1:17:48] I may have just given you half his speech. I don't know. But I would like to see him go through the [1:17:54] eight articles of impeachment and just make the argument from a podium. You can use notes, [1:17:59] get the lawyers to help you. Tell us why you are not guilty of each of these eight articles of [1:18:05] impeachment. I hope that's what he does. And so that's my answer to your question. When do I [1:18:10] suspect it's going to be? I suspect it's not going to be tonight or tomorrow before that, [1:18:14] uh, before the secretary speaks. Let me, let me keep going this way here. [1:18:18] Why not wait until the Democrats take over? Why do it right now? [1:18:23] Because people are dying and, uh, he's putting our own military at risk. And I, you know, I didn't, [1:18:30] by the way, I didn't wait until after the election. The speaker waited until after the election. [1:18:35] I wanted to have this vote 10 weeks ago. Um, and so, you know, [1:18:40] there's never a good time, honestly. Um, you could, you know, I, I think the Democrats would [1:18:48] do well to vote for this and it looks like they are going to vote for it. Um, so that's a question [1:18:54] for them. What are they going to do after they take the majority? But I'll tell you why I'm not [1:18:58] waiting until next Congress, because I'm not here next Congress. [1:19:01] Congress. [1:19:02] What's your reaction? [1:19:03] Have any, have any Republican House members given you their commitment that they will vote for this? [1:19:08] No. And if I have a lot of them tell me they don't like Heggs head. [1:19:15] If this does pass, it goes to the Senate. It's really not expected to pass there. Or are you [1:19:19] thinking that the board is just going to end if it passes in the House or I mean, that would take [1:19:25] full conviction? Well, I, I don't know if it's going to pass the House or not. I think I don't [1:19:30] have a crystal ball. You guys may have a better idea than I do if it's going to pass the House or not. [1:19:36] What I want to see is a vote in the Senate. I want to see them go on record. [1:19:40] They could dispose with it the way Chuck Schumer did with an impeachment resolution, I think, [1:19:45] against Mayorkas, where they don't really vote on the substance. They just try to dismiss it out of [1:19:50] hand instead of getting into the trial and having, you know, a hearing on it. Um, but I, as long as they [1:19:59] have a vote over there, I think it's good. And it's not the way I wanted. I didn't want us to be [1:20:06] in the minority in the House or the Senate, but we're still in the majority. They can still do [1:20:10] the right thing. Let me take this. Let me take this. [1:20:12] Thank you. So with, with Susie Wiles gone and with your term expiring, why would you instead, [1:20:20] you just admitted basically no Republicans are siding with you. Why don't instead, I mean, [1:20:24] it was floated back in the day that you were considered for Department of Agriculture. Why [1:20:29] not work with someone like Stephen Miller, who might be a little more aligned with you [1:20:33] to get a position somewhere there and do some good rather than this, which probably won't pass. [1:20:37] Yeah. If you followed my 14 year career, I mean, I wrote the Iran resolution. The first one we voted [1:20:47] on like this is at my core. This is something important to do. I don't want to be sitting at home [1:20:52] thinking about, well, I should have done that. And I didn't do it. Um, cause I think this needs [1:20:58] to be litigated. I'm not interested. I'm not interested in a position in the administration, [1:21:04] although that sounds like there could be a lot of them opening up. And you said that [1:21:08] nobody is siding with you with me on the Republican side. I suspect there are several [1:21:14] who will. I just haven't talked to them. I'm not whipping it. It's not, it's, you know, [1:21:19] it's going to be everybody's conscience and then they'll have to live with that vote and they're [1:21:23] going to have to live with that vote two years from now if they're not part of the retirement [1:21:26] caucus. And if they are part of the retirement caucus, what do they have to lose? [1:21:30] I'll go, I'll go this way. I'll get you. What do you make of the rumors that allegedly there's a [1:21:37] push to make the headset, the new senator from Tennessee, that Marshall Blockburn, [1:21:43] whenever she goes to be a governor, she might have put him in. What do you think about that? [1:21:47] Well, I heard a rumor that's already been promised to somebody else. And you know, [1:21:53] that's what happens. Usually those promises are made before the races happen, [1:21:57] not after the races happen. So I don't think that's going to happen. [1:22:02] On the bombing of the girls school in Iran, the White House and the Pentagon have continued to [1:22:08] defer questions about that, citing an ongoing investigation. I'm wondering if you have [1:22:13] reached out to anyone or had any communication with the Pentagon about an investigation into that [1:22:19] before you introduce it in your articles. And second, just wondering if you can address [1:22:25] what we've heard from some Republicans, which is that this is very personal to you, [1:22:29] that the secretary endorsed and campaigned with your primary opponent. Could you just address [1:22:34] whether or not this is personal? Number one, it's not personal to me at all. And then the [1:22:42] question about the school war, like, who do they think bombed the school? Does the White House say [1:22:49] they think Iran bombed their own school? It's a false flag attack? I mean, obviously, [1:22:56] we hit it and you can determine what kind of missiles from the range and the kind of destruction [1:23:00] there was. I don't think they're going to get out of that article of impeachment by saying, [1:23:06] oh, we don't know who bombed that school. Although I think the president tried that for a day or two. [1:23:11] The president has indicated that he's going to keep the headset in this position. The secretary [1:23:21] is fighting this. And the Senate, as you know, is very unlikely to convict of you if this does [1:23:25] pass the house. So would you acknowledge that this is really a symbolic move that you're employing here? [1:23:31] No, it's not symbolic. How is it not symbolic? It's not symbolic because I think a lot of people, [1:23:37] first of all, read the eight articles. It's not a policy disagreement. It's not that I don't like [1:23:44] the war and Iran. It's not that I don't like his style. These are nobody has attacked any of these [1:23:53] articles yet. Nobody's gone in and said this one's wrong or that one's wrong or this one's wrong or this [1:23:57] one's poorly drafted or that one's legally wrong. So it's not that. And the other thing is the [1:24:03] the practical effect of this is where everybody's wondering when Pete Hegseth is going to leave. [1:24:10] It's not a matter of and this is a question that does need to be asked. He is not doing a good job. [1:24:17] In addition to breaking the law and violating the Constitution, he's not doing a good job. You got [1:24:22] members of the military who know that you got members of the House Armed Services who know that. [1:24:27] So as I said before, if this precipitates his departure, I'm all with the White House. Don't [1:24:34] give Massey a win. Don't let this thing pass. Let him quit or have him resign in the next day or two. [1:24:39] If he stays in power and Republicans reject this, what message do you think it sends [1:24:44] to the American public at the last week's elections? [1:24:48] Well, there's 435 congressional districts. A lot of the incumbents are going to be leaving, [1:24:55] but most of the incumbents are coming back and those those incumbents have to answer to their [1:25:02] people. Every one of them has to answer that question. I think it sends a dangerous message. [1:25:07] You've got the vice president, the president, virtually everybody, even the cheerleaders for [1:25:12] the war are now acknowledging that they lost this election because of the war. And this is the best vote [1:25:19] you can take right now to put some daylight between yourself and the failed policy of this war in [1:25:25] Iran and the and the way that it's been handled. And all the other articles of impeachment are [1:25:32] important to just to answer these constitutional questions. The answer is obvious. That's why [1:25:38] nobody wants to debate. Of the eight articles of impeachment, which one do you think has the most [1:25:44] likelihood of prevailing? I think I he he asked. Okay, sorry. He asked of the eight articles of [1:25:52] impeachment, which ones he thinks have the most chance of prevailing? I think the one that's on its [1:25:59] face, clearly a violation of the law is the concurrent resolution. And so this is this is like when you [1:26:06] have a trial, there needs to be a trial on this, the Senate needs to tell us do they think the that [1:26:13] it's either 5b or 5c of the 1973 war powers resolution? Do they think it's a bad law? Because [1:26:20] if they do, they need to take it off the books. But this is cut and dry. They're in violation of [1:26:26] the provision that says a concurrent resolution means that you have to stop. And then the other one, [1:26:32] by the way, these aren't necessarily an order of importance, but they are an order of I would [1:26:37] your question was likelihood. The other is the 60 day time limit. They've clearly gone beyond 60 days. [1:26:44] They're clearly no longer saying this isn't one continuous war. But their lawyers are still trying [1:26:49] to say that behind the scenes. And that needs to be fleshed out. I think that's obvious. Does anybody [1:26:55] here think this war has gone on less than 60 days? No, it's gone on more than 60 days. And nobody [1:27:03] unlike the provision with the concurrent resolution where they say it's been obviated, or I'm sorry, [1:27:08] it's it's been antiquated or by the Chata versus INS, the 60 day provision is still there. And nobody [1:27:15] says it's unconstitutional. And every single one of you here knows it's been more than 60 days. [1:27:21] People back home know it's been more than 60 days. So I would say on their face, those are the ones [1:27:27] that you could win by summary judgment if you had this in front of a real courtroom. [1:27:32] What's your message to the troops? Okay, I'll start back over here. [1:27:35] And to continue to perform, do you have a message for the troops? Because they're [1:27:42] going to be impacted by this. Yeah, I do. I do have a message to the troops. [1:27:48] This secretary has used our troops to go seize oil for large corporations in America. You shouldn't be [1:27:57] used like that. You signed up to pledge your life for this country if need be. And that obligation [1:28:06] shouldn't be diminished to be to stealing oil for big corporations. I would also say that there's a [1:28:14] reason we have rules of engagement. Secretary Hegseth says, okay, rules of engagement, those get in our [1:28:22] way. Those are too hard. I think most soldiers understand that this is when you get into a war, [1:28:28] as ridiculous as it sounds, that there should be laws of war when you kill each other. There's a reason [1:28:33] for it. If you capture the enemy, they shouldn't be summarily executed. I don't want our own soldiers [1:28:41] to be submitted to that. So we shouldn't be engaging that kind of activity ourselves. And [1:28:47] that's, you know, and then finally, my other message to the soldiers is active duty. One day, [1:28:54] you're going to be retired. Hopefully, you make it through with your lives intact. Do you deserve a [1:29:02] diminished First Amendment protection, like Hegseth has not just implied, but said of Senator Mark [1:29:09] Kelly, that because he served in the military before, now he can't say the same things that [1:29:15] everybody else can say? Because the military, after you've done, you know, served your years and your [1:29:21] obligation to your country, and now you're sitting at home, they can come back, you say something on [1:29:25] the internet. And this notion that the military can grab you and pull you back in and put you in [1:29:31] front of a tribunal without real judges, it's ridiculous. So there are at least three ways in here [1:29:37] where I'm looking out for members of the military. And we don't, you know, I also find it offensive [1:29:44] that Secretary Hegseth somewhere in his comments said that, oh, Massey has impugned the service of [1:29:51] these members. No, the members aren't the problem. It's their leader that is the problem. And they [1:29:57] deserve a better leader than Pete Hegseth. And so that's my message to the soldiers. [1:30:02] What about the commanders, though, sir? Let me get somebody else in charge. [1:30:05] Can I ask you about your fellow senators in Kentucky, or your senators that are from [1:30:09] Kentucky? You're going to have a new one. Congressman Andy Barr is going to be sworn in [1:30:12] in January. Rand Paul has been supportive of your effort so, well, he's been supportive of ending [1:30:17] the war in Iran so far. Have you talked to either of them or to Senator McConnell's team or Senator [1:30:22] McConnell himself about this effort and where they stand on this issue of impeaching Pete Hegseth? [1:30:28] I have not. But if it were possible to have a conversation with McConnell, [1:30:33] I would like to know why he didn't vote to confirm Hegseth. [1:30:36] So there are three senators. Like if you're going over and looking at the Senate, [1:30:40] I think it was Collins and Murkowski and McConnell who did not vote for confirmation. [1:30:47] So when you're looking at votes and could this pass the Senate or not, [1:30:50] I think there are some votes over there. And possibly I haven't talked to Senator Paul about it. [1:30:55] He did lead the charge on extrajudicial killings when Obama undertook this with drones. And so I [1:31:02] would hope he's still have the same opinion. I think he has also early on commented about [1:31:09] the illegality of bombing these boats with suspected drug traffickers in them. [1:31:21] None of it. [1:31:21] Do you agree with the vice president that the Iran war was the defining reason why Republicans lost last [1:31:30] week? Are you talking to other colleagues in the House or the field similarly? [1:31:33] I think they've diagnosed one of about six reasons they got shellacked in this election. [1:31:42] People are more opposed to the consequences of this war than they are this war. [1:31:47] I don't think they're particularly worried about the civil rights of [1:31:51] people or the civilian casualties in Iran. They're worried about the price of gasoline and diesel and in [1:31:56] Kentucky fertilizer for fields and in the supermarket and price of food. Those things have been driven [1:32:03] up not just by this failed, misguided war in Iran, but by the big, beautiful bill. That was a mistake. [1:32:11] As I said here the night they made it over the final hurdle, I said, we're not rearranging deck chairs [1:32:17] on the Titanic with the big, beautiful bill. We're setting a course for the iceberg. Like we're [1:32:22] intentionally doing things that we know will cause inflation and higher interest rates. So I don't [1:32:27] think there's been a full accounting. Also, they abandoned the Maha segment of the coalition. [1:32:35] You know, I sat over here in the Supreme Court and watched our Department of Justice argue that [1:32:40] Monsanto, it's bare now, but their product glyphosate Roundup should be immune from any, even if it does [1:32:48] cause cancer, even if it does cause cancer, they should be immune. That's our, that was our own DOJ. [1:32:54] That was Pam Bondi was the attorney general when, when that case was being tried. Uh, I suspect Susie [1:33:00] Wiles had something to do with the president. This is the accusation from Kali Means, which I don't doubt [1:33:06] at all that she was instrumental in somehow, uh, maybe mischaracterizing what he said, but I'll just say [1:33:12] it from, as if I said it myself, that her lobbying firm represents them. And so that's no mistake that [1:33:20] the president gave a degree of immunity through, uh, an executive order. So he's, he's alienated. [1:33:27] They've alienated the Maha coalition. Doge got run out of here on a rail. The, the Democrats want to, [1:33:34] they still want to vilify Republicans for using DOJ. DOJ never really happened. Go look at the bottom [1:33:40] line. We're spending more money than we did before DOJ. And so I think Elon Musk found it was easier [1:33:46] to land rockets backwards and put internet on Antarctica and get cars to drive themselves [1:33:51] than it was to get anybody in this, these two chambers to cut a penny of spending. [1:33:56] And so these are the things, these are the reasons they lost the election. It's not just the Iran war. [1:34:02] This kind of responsibility. Do you believe the vice president bears for the Iran war? [1:34:10] Um, well he whipped the big, beautiful bill, so he can't get away from that. One of the things he [1:34:15] can try to get away from is the Iran war, but that's going to be harder and harder to do if this [1:34:21] thing drags on. Uh, when he served as a Senator, he and I talked about stopping the war in Ukraine [1:34:30] and the, the futility of that. And how do you wind that down? So I do believe at his heart, [1:34:37] he's against these things. I don't know if it's just a pop populous notion or whatever, [1:34:41] and he sees which way the, the, uh, the wind is blowing. But I do have reason to believe he [1:34:46] wanted us out of Ukraine, uh, back when he was a Senator. But at some point he has to, [1:34:52] he's either with the administration or not with the administration on this. That's up for him [1:34:59] to decide. I won't. We're, we're doing one impeachment at a time here. [1:35:10] Well, we'd like to pass the next Epstein bill. Uh, you know, I stood here at this podium with [1:35:18] survivors behind me and we got 3 million files released. I'd like to see that continue forward. [1:35:24] Uh, it's not, I mean, these are by the way, these are promises that this administration made [1:35:31] that they would release these files, for instance, or that there would be no new wars. [1:35:36] Yet here we are. Uh, frankly, I'm running out of time. They took two and a half weeks off the clock [1:35:42] in advance of the elections, two weeks. So I couldn't do the Epstein stuff. And one day, [1:35:47] so we couldn't do the Hexeth. Uh, if I can think of anything else to do, I'll do it. [1:35:54] As long as I'm doing the right thing, somebody over here about doing other things. You want to make a [1:36:01] comment about Brian Cole Jr. in that case? Um, I think he's innocent, but let's keep this to [1:36:08] one. You announced before the recess that you had 218 signatures for to release the F2 files. [1:36:12] Is that still the case after the election? I think so. I mean, it's just two Democrats [1:36:16] that we needed, not, not two Republicans. All right. When you said you didn't explicitly [1:36:21] lay out that the Hexeth, you didn't charge him of committing war crimes, but you mentioned in your [1:36:25] resolution denying Porter, which is a war crime. You mentioned the double trap tap strike, [1:36:30] which is against Geneva conventions and also is widely considered to be a war crime. [1:36:33] If the house votes on this, is that an acknowledgement that the department of defense [1:36:38] under Pete Hexeth has conducted or committed some degree of war crimes in line with high [1:36:43] crimes and misdemeanor standard to meet the requirement of impeachment? [1:36:46] No, I don't think so. And the Senate would have to have a trial for that, [1:36:50] but I'm not accusing him of war crimes. Does he have blood on his hands? [1:36:54] Um, of course the civilians, because he's the one who, you know, [1:37:00] rolled back the civilian targeting protections, um, at the, at the, uh, [1:37:05] Department of Defense. Absolutely. [1:37:07] Your goal is to try to force Secretary Hexeth out before the end of your term. [1:37:13] Are you at all concerned that this could become a rallying cry for him within the administration? [1:37:19] I don't think so. I don't know how you rally around [1:37:22] eight articles of impeachment. It's not one or two. It's, it's eight times he's violated the [1:37:27] constitution or the law. And, uh, you know, the president has got away with a lot of things that [1:37:35] nobody else can get away with. And I don't think it's a, I don't, whereas the president today probably [1:37:42] wears those former impeachments as a badge of honor. I don't think Hegseth gets to wear this [1:37:48] that way. It's not the way it'll be looked at in history. All right, I'll take two more questions. [1:37:53] Yeah. You said that you weren't whipping this vote together, but has there been an effort to whip [1:37:57] this vote against you? And where has the panic been within Republicans when you brought this up? [1:38:03] Um, I don't, if there's a, if there's an effort to whip it against me, I haven't seen it. So don't know. [1:38:08] Yeah. You mentioned that if the Senate does vote on this, at least this vote would be sort of a win. [1:38:15] But if it doesn't like, what does it accomplish? How, how does it wait if the Senate shoots it down? [1:38:22] Well, I mean, a loss is a loss. It's not a win if they shoot it down. [1:38:27] Um, but I think it's important to weigh in on this issue. Like it's, you know, a few of these [1:38:34] articles of impeachment, what's at heart here is the balance of power between the executive branch [1:38:39] and Congress. And I think it's important for those senators to weigh in, particularly [1:38:45] on my first three articles of impeachment, which involve war powers. Where do those war powers [1:38:51] reside? Or in Venezuela, do we think that any ex executive branch can start their own war? [1:38:58] Obviously that the constitution wasn't written for that. And so I would love to see those folks in [1:39:05] the Senate go on record. Even, even if it's the wrong way people in order for people to elect better [1:39:12] people, they need to see where these people stand. And this is one example. You know, some, [1:39:18] somebody asked, you know, why are you doing this now? Yeah. Uh, it's just because it's the, [1:39:23] the end of your term. The reality is the time for waiting around and being polite and introducing bills, [1:39:31] uh, and waiting six years to try to get them inside of some other bill. That time is over for me. [1:39:38] I am trying to force a vote here on this issue because I think it's at the, [1:39:43] at the heart and soul of our Republic who has the war powers when, when they, they say when one door [1:39:55] closes, another door opens, I found 10 doors that have opened and my hardest problem is deciding what [1:40:01] to do next. So I don't, I don't know what I would do. I literally haven't ruled anything out except [1:40:08] coming back here. All right. Yes. And what would it mean for America and military? Well, uh, [1:40:24] it's not up to me. I mean, it's up to the president to decide. And if I, and if I named a name, [1:40:30] they would probably never put that person in there. So, but I will name a name because I suspect he [1:40:36] doesn't want the job. I think Ron DeSantis would be great at it. He's a, I don't think he would run [1:40:41] into the same problems that Hegseth has. Ron DeSantis is, is a jag log, right? Like he understands [1:40:48] the legality and constitutional boundaries between the legislative and the executive branch. [1:40:53] So he'd be great at that. Uh, but I, I'm only telling you his name because I think he probably [1:40:59] doesn't want it. Uh, and because I would have just jinxed him by saying his name. So anyways, [1:41:05] thank you all very much for covering this. See you. Very interesting. Uh, hang on a moment here. [1:41:18] So we have just been watching, uh, Republican representative house representative Thomas [1:41:23] Massey, who has introduced, we watched a bunch of that too. He has introduced eight articles of [1:41:30] impeachment against secretary of defense last secretary of war, Pete Hegseth. And it's expected [1:41:37] from what I've seen, it's expected. There could be a vote on that this week in the house, although [1:41:44] it's not guaranteed. Let me real quick, do something. I want to take comments from you guys. [1:41:50] Is he still talking? Can we still hear him? Kind of hard to hear him. Hold on. [1:41:57] I'm not, we're not really, hold on. Let's see if the camera, the camera might be approaching. [1:42:10] Give it one moment here. [1:42:20] We're not really hearing him that well. I want to, I want to take some of your comments and bring you [1:42:23] up to date here. Um, but, uh, so, so again, he has introduced these articles of impeachment and, [1:42:33] um, so, so there's some reporting that suggests that the articles could pass the house. You would [1:42:41] need a manure. You need a majority vote in the house to impeach someone. Impeachment is a procedure [1:42:48] by which, um, uh, by which Congress can remove a federal office holder and also prevent them from [1:42:58] holding another federal office. Um, if you look right here, uh, how federal impeachment works from [1:43:06] usa.gov impeachment is the process of bringing charges against a government official for wrongdoing. [1:43:13] A trial may be held and the official may be removed from office. The impeachment process. [1:43:20] The constitution gives Congress the power to impeach federal officials. An official can be impeached for [1:43:26] treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. So step one, that has already happened [1:43:34] today. The house of representatives brings articles, charges of impeachment against an official. [1:43:38] That's what's happened to if the house adopts the articles by a simple majority vote, simple majority [1:43:47] vote, the official has been impeached. If that happens, the Senate then holds an impeachment trial. [1:43:54] Um, uh, if found now you need a two thirds vote in the Senate to convict two thirds, if found guilty, [1:44:02] the officials removed from office, they may never be able to hold elected office again. They are not found [1:44:07] guilty. They may continue to serve in office. Um, and, uh, so that's how impeachment works. And, um, this vote [1:44:18] is, may happen this week. If you look at this right here, um, Hegseth faces, Hegseth faces expected [1:44:26] us house impeachment vote this week. I certainly would, would like to cover that, uh, if it happens this [1:44:33] week. Uh, by the way, uh, apparently Secretary Hegseth is going to give a press conference tomorrow, [1:44:40] maybe tomorrow morning. If that happens, I will cover that. Um, so what I want to do is take some [1:44:47] of your comments here. Um, but, uh, before I do that, let me just thank our moderators and thank [1:44:53] a couple people. And then I'll take some comments from you guys. Uh, we have moderating right now. [1:44:58] Let me just thank some of our moderators. For example, over there on Twitch, moderating [1:45:05] Bastion Girl hearsay. I got that fire. Matthew Kohai three, Sarah Fluxaturnus, [1:45:11] Surly Dev also, um, uh, Kayla, everybody on Facebook and, um, Paul Anderson. And I, I believe that, [1:45:25] I believe that Hey, that, um, Massey may have already introduced these articles right before, [1:45:33] shortly before the election. And then after that, uh, the, uh, after that, uh, the, uh, the house was [1:45:41] sent home on break. And I think that Massey said Speaker Johnson did, he believes Speaker Johnson [1:45:47] did that because he didn't want this to come to a vote. So, uh, this was something that I, if I have [1:45:53] this right, I believe that, um, this is something Massey began doing before the break that happened [1:45:59] right before the election. But he had been saying, um, during the break that he was going to do it [1:46:04] again right after the election, right after Congress came back, which he did. This is the Congress's [1:46:09] first day back after the break. Um, so, uh, um, thanks also Beth Mythical, Janet B and Deadwing for [1:46:17] moderating on YouTube. And, um, as you can see, right. Oh, and quick thanks. I'm sorry. Let me [1:46:23] just thank a couple more people here. Hang on a second here. Um, uh, thank you to NubNubBud. [1:46:30] NubNubBud thinks that Massey may become a Republican 2026 presidential candidate. Libertarians and Liberty [1:46:38] Party tried to recruit him too. Uh, thank you also Dodger Blue to you. Thank you, C Serwin. Thank you, [1:46:45] Epic GRL1. Thank you. Uh, thank you, uh, Seraphim Sting. Uh, Seraphim Sting thinks when Massey was [1:46:57] talking, he's, uh, Seraphim Sting said, I'm very impressed with Massey. This is what, this is what [1:47:03] true patriotism looks like. Some of our viewers were complaining about Massey in the chat as well. Oops, [1:47:08] hold on a second here. Um, uh, give me a moment here. I want to thank, uh, Jet Souls Forever. [1:47:14] Jet Souls Forever says if an impeachment conviction succeeded, Massey would have a lot to gain as a [1:47:22] potential party bridging presidential candidate, nothing to lose. Now, by the way, um, it is, [1:47:28] it is widely seen right now as unlikely that the Senate would have enough votes to, uh, convict Massey [1:47:36] because you, to convict Hegseth because you would need 67 votes. Um, but, uh, Thomas Massey, [1:47:43] you heard in his press conference, he thinks that there could be an, another impeachment once, [1:47:49] uh, more, another impeachment movement once Democrats take over Congress in January and [1:47:54] they will have more votes then. Although they would still be, it looks like the Democrats will [1:47:59] have maybe 56 votes in the Senate and you'd need 67 votes to convict him. Uh, but they will have a [1:48:08] majority in the house right now. The house balance of power right now until January, as you can see [1:48:15] right here is 218 Republicans and 214 Democrats, one independent and two vacancies. Um, off the top of [1:48:25] my head, the independent in the house is Kevin Kiley of California. And I don't know who, how he would vote [1:48:34] on this. But, um, if all of the Democrats voted for one or more of the articles of impeachment, [1:48:43] you would only need just probably three or so Republicans to vote. Yes. And we know Massey [1:48:51] is a Republican and he's going to vote. Yes. So really you would just, if I don't know if this would [1:48:57] happen, if all of the Democrats voted, yes, you would just maybe need like two more Republicans to [1:49:04] agree to vote. Yes. With Massey. And there would be enough votes to impeach, but I don't know how [1:49:08] this would all is all going to play out, but it is not a big majority right now for the Republicans [1:49:14] in the house. And you need a majority vote to convict. Um, and, um, just to show you this, [1:49:22] let me thank a couple more people. Thank you so much. Fred, Fred Withereau. Thank you, [1:49:27] Fred, for your support. Frank's friendly, friendly actor Gardner for being a member. Friendly [1:49:31] Ackner Gardner, actor Gardner thinks Republicans will vote. Yes. They need a scapegoat. Uh, [1:49:37] thank you, Lidwine Elizabeth, for your support. Hopefully your question got answered, Lidwine [1:49:40] Elizabeth, by what we just said. Oops. Hold on a moment. I got to thank a couple more people. [1:49:45] I haven't even had a chance to thank people. Then we'll take some more comments from you guys. [1:49:48] Hang on here. Uh, thank you to our member, Sherry 94. Thank you, Jet Soul, who says, [1:49:55] can't spell the Hague without Hegseth. Argentina, you listening? Um, thank you, [1:50:04] Cerebrus Crafts, who says, Massey is a patriot. Stop the brainwash. Thanks, Kenneth Colton for being [1:50:10] a member. Brandy 75 for being a member. Thomas Hastings for being a member. Thomas says, [1:50:14] I highly doubt 67 senators will vote to convict him, uh, if it goes to the Senate. Uh, Janet B. [1:50:20] Thanks for being a member and for moderating. Um, no, Janet B. Yeah. And for moderating, um, [1:50:25] Maren Gobra, thanks for being a member. Blues Wasted. Thanks for being a member. Blues Wasted says, [1:50:29] this will do nothing. Waste of time, sheeple. Uh, Holy Earth, thank you, who says, please understand, [1:50:35] this is a Republican doing this. Uh, now, Massey was voted, Massey lost in the primary, I believe, [1:50:42] so he is not going to be in the House come January. Um, thank you, Cerebrus Crafts, [1:50:48] who says, Massey 2028. Thank you, Scythian Horde for being a member. Barb Mack for being a member. [1:50:53] Melting Ice Forever, who says, go Massey. Someone has to be held accountable for the double tap on [1:50:59] the children's school in Iran. Thanks, Sunshine with John. Uh, thanks also, Michael McIsaac for being a [1:51:06] member, who says, is politics now just a cycle of grudge setting? Thanks, Dino Nuggies for being a [1:51:11] member, and thanks to 495-58201. And also, real quick, thanks on Twitch to Anonymous Gifter, [1:51:17] Morphogo, Douthis, Warlord Wolf, Cece, Guy from the 207, and, uh, Dirty Dirt. Okay, now, uh, a bit of [1:51:28] an update on this, which is, uh, you can see here, uh, I want to show you a clip of what Hegseth said [1:51:34] today. Uh, Hegseth faces U.S. House impeachment vote this week, says Reuters. Uh, Pete Hegseth, [1:51:40] the U.S. Defense Secretary, uh, who calls himself, uh, the Secretary of War. Um, he calls himself the [1:51:48] Secretary of War. Uh, he could, it says, Reuters says he could, um, he could soon share something [1:51:56] in common with an actual Secretary of War, I guess, legally Secretary of War. William Belknap, who was [1:52:01] the Secretary of War in 1876, became the first and only civilian leader of the U.S. military to be [1:52:07] impeached by Congress. Um, Thomas Massey, a Republican, uh, introduced articles of impeachment [1:52:14] today setting off a two-day clock for an expected House vote on charges including waging war against [1:52:23] Iran without congressional approval and other abuses of power. Congressional sources say that the [1:52:31] impeachment resolution in the House may have the simple majority needed to pass the Republican [1:52:39] controlled House before Democrats take over on January 3rd. Conviction appears unlikely in the [1:52:46] Senate, however, where a two-thirds majority is required and Republicans hold 53 of 100 seats. [1:52:53] Now, Massey was saying that there's a possibility that the House leadership could try to delay the vote, [1:53:00] and Massey said that, um, Massey said he believed that if the vote was delayed, then the impeachment [1:53:10] resolutions would not have to be passed again, and they would carry over to January when the Democrats [1:53:17] can take control of Congress. That I'm not sure about. I was looking at a post from [1:53:23] Kyle Cheney of, um, Politico, and Kyle had said that, um, I think Kyle had said that it wasn't clear if, [1:53:39] um, you would need to, if you would need to, um, to, if the impeachment resolution would need to get [1:53:50] passed, the impeachment articles would need to get introduced again, um, if they, if, if, uh, [1:53:57] if they were not voted on by the House by January. That I'm not sure about. Um, let's see here. Yeah, [1:54:06] Politico says that, um, also it's possible that if the articles of impeachment pass the House, [1:54:15] they might not reach the Senate because Speaker Johnson could, in theory, refuse to send it to [1:54:22] the Senate and then that would push it to January. So I just want to, just want to, there's, there's [1:54:29] all that stuff to be concerned about, uh, or, or a lot of some uncertainty about the timing of all [1:54:34] this. But Reuters says that, um, that there's a two day clock for an expected House vote and that [1:54:43] congressional sources say the resolution may have the simple majority needed to pass the Republican [1:54:48] controlled House. Uh, House Speaker Johnson opposes this effort saying impeachment in the middle of [1:54:54] hostilities abroad would be a terrible thing for our allies and our enemies to see. Um, Hegseth is [1:55:03] promising to stay and fight. Uh, Hegseth has mounted a social media campaign saying in a defined video [1:55:10] message last week, he would not back down. He also drew a comparison to President Trump who was impeached [1:55:16] twice saying it didn't work against President Trump and it won't work against me. Asked today if there [1:55:23] was enough, if, uh, sorry, uh, asked, asked today if he had enough Republican support to defeat the [1:55:29] impeachment push. Hegseth said, we're not worried about that. He announced a Tuesday press conference, [1:55:35] his first, the first Pentagon press conference since May. President Trump has backed Hegseth and [1:55:44] condemned the impeachment push in an interview with 60 minutes broadcast yesterday. Trump said they [1:55:50] want to impeach him. Very unfair. We had two wars. We won both. He said, um, some Republican lawmakers [1:56:00] have expressed concern that if Hegseth stays, his strained relationship with Congress will undermine [1:56:05] the Trump administration's push for a 1.5 trillion defense spending package. Also Massey, a Trump critic who [1:56:14] is leaving office in January warned, we heard him warn this just moments ago, that impeachment would [1:56:20] be much gentler than what's in store for Hegseth once Democrats can take control in January. And on [1:56:27] social media, Massey has said Democrats will hold hearings and trials. President Trump should replace [1:56:33] Secretary Hegseth now while he can still get a replacement confirmed in the Senate, Massey said. [1:56:38] Um, and Reuters says Democrats have promised to investigate Hegseth over issues, including the [1:56:45] firing of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other senior leaders. House Democratic leader [1:56:50] Hakeem Jeffries said yesterday he was a hard yes on a measure to impeach Hegseth. Uh, and, uh, [1:56:58] real quick, Massey's articles of impeachment accused Hegseth of high crimes and misdemeanors [1:57:03] arranging from waging the Iran war to alleged, uh, without congressional, proper congressional [1:57:08] approval to various alleged abuses of power, including violate this, violating this free [1:57:13] speech rights of Senator Mark Kelly, an Arizona Democrat. Um, now I want to just, before I take [1:57:19] some comments here, there's a video that Reuters posted. Can I do it? Can I, do I have the rights [1:57:24] to this video? Hold on a second. Let me see. Sometimes some of the video, let's see here. Ah, [1:57:31] yes, I can show you this. Here is a clip from Reuters from that article, uh, which shows some [1:57:38] of what Hegseth had to say today. So let me just play this for you. Then I will take your comments. [1:57:43] All right, hold on a second here. Here is this clip right here. It says Hegseth plays down the risk [1:57:51] of impeachment, says he's ready to defend his record. Uh, hold on, let me play this for you. [1:57:58] Sorry, I have to put my headphones on so I can hear it. Here's the video. [1:58:08] There's a lot of politically motivated people who may have, uh, substantial policy disagreements, [1:58:15] but their disagreements are with success. I mean, you, what you just described is getting [1:58:21] our European partners to step up is historic. Getting these countries in Central and South [1:58:26] America to come together into a counter cartel coalition and put the cartels on the run is [1:58:31] historic. The alliances we're building out in the Pacific, completely historic. The way the things that we've [1:58:36] accomplished through midnight hammering, absolute resolve and southern spear and epic fury, uh, [1:58:42] are things that will change the face of the globe, uh, for a generation. We are very proud of our, [1:58:49] of the president's America first agenda of our peace through strength posture. We know the world [1:58:54] is a better and safer place as a result. And so if we want to litigate that the success of those things, [1:58:59] I'm happy to do it all day long. Do you have enough, um, Republican support to defeat impeachment [1:59:06] articles this week? Oh, we're not worried about that. We're not worried about that. He says. [1:59:14] Okay. Um, let me take some of your comments here. Uh, iconoclism thinks Hegseth is spooked and lost [1:59:25] his swagger. Uh, one of our viewers said, Joseph Hunt says, good job, Mr. Secretary. Andy said, [1:59:35] what a psycho. Chingonism thinks he's freaking out. Maybe we're going to do a poll in a second [1:59:48] about what you guys think about whether the house, assuming there's a house vote, will the house [1:59:54] vote to impeach him with, with, with the assumption that the vote is the vote is this week. [2:00:00] Uh, um, and, uh, it's, it's, it's not, you know, January vote. My Florida said, did he resign yet? [2:00:14] No, he, he, you just heard, he's very defiant. Susan Hewitt says, Massey has never supported this [2:00:24] war. User says, Massey supported the war. I would have to go back and check Massey all of that. I [2:00:31] don't know off the top of my head, all of his statements about the war as it's happened. I mean, [2:00:49] Massey has said that, that this war was not approved by Congress as it should have been, but I don't want to [2:00:56] blanket say he never said anything positive about the war. I I'd have to go back and, uh, and check, [2:01:02] uh, everything he has said about it. Uh, let's see here. Louis Lemaine says Massey never supported [2:01:17] the war. That might be true again. I just don't want to make a pronunciation about it. And then, [2:01:22] uh, and then, and then somebody finds something from earlier this year and I'm like, oh wait, [2:01:26] I didn't know about that statement. Um, Hey, let's, let's do a quick poll about whether you think the [2:01:43] house will vote to impeach Massey will house vote to impeach Massey this week. Well, how will house [2:02:07] vote? Yes. On impeaching Massey this week. Just to be clear. I'm not saying, will there be a vote? [2:02:12] I'm saying, will they vote at least one article? Yes. All right. I'm putting the poll up right now. [2:02:20] I just posted it. I'm sorry. Oh no. Of course it's not Massey. It's Hegseth. I didn't, [2:02:26] my brain stopped working now. Now I have to stop the poll. Obviously. Okay. Thank you. Obviously [2:02:36] that was, that was my brain not working. Let's try it. Let's try this again. Shall we start a poll? [2:02:45] Will house vote yes on a peach on impeaching Hegseth this week? Oh, by the way, um, let me just change [2:02:50] our headline here too. Uh, math, uh, Massey introduces impeachment articles against, [2:03:10] against Hegseth. Okay. Now, uh, give me a second here. Let me post the poll also here on all the [2:03:38] platforms and we'll see what you guys think about it. Will the house vote yes on impeaching Massey [2:03:45] this week? Assuming the vote is this week. Let me post it on Facebook too. Please bear with me. [2:03:54] Oh no. There's a, there, I think there's a typo in the, in the, I think there's a typo in the poll. [2:04:01] Well, you, you can read the poll anyway. Sorry. Oh no. There's a typo in the headline. I can fix that. [2:04:07] Sorry. I can easily see that. Yes. That's obvious. Sorry. I was paying attention to the poll and not [2:04:12] the headline now. Okay. Um, I asked you guys, I said, let's get everything off the screen here so I can [2:04:44] show you the poll results. There we go. I said to you, um, oh, let's, let's, let's take a live shot. [2:04:51] Of live shot of you guys thinking about the poll. There it is. There's our live shot of you [2:04:58] considering the poll and deciding how to vote. Now you have decided. I said, uh, let's see, [2:05:09] will the house vote yes on impeaching Hegseth this week on YouTube? The vote is oops on YouTube. [2:05:19] The vote is 72% say yes on YouTube. Now 71%. So the large majority of you guys thinks the house will [2:05:30] vote to impeach Massey this, Hegseth this week. Again, if the house votes yes, which only requires [2:05:37] a majority vote, then it would need to go to the Senate for a trial. And it would take a two thirds vote [2:05:44] in the Senate to convict Hegseth, which would force him out of office. Um, oh no, the poll is wrong on, [2:05:55] I see what happened. I think it's wrong on Facebook and Twitch. I think I didn't somehow I did. I [2:06:01] corrected it on YouTube, but didn't correct it as intended on Facebook and Twitch. Is that what [2:06:07] happened? Yes. Uh, sorry. Uh, the poll, the, we're going to have to post it again on Facebook, [2:06:13] on Facebook and Twitch. There's too many. I got too involved with correcting everything at once. [2:06:19] My, my bad. I thought I had corrected it everywhere, but unfortunately I only corrected it on YouTube. [2:06:24] What a disaster. All right. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to now create it on Facebook [2:06:30] and I will post the correct poll right now on Facebook. All right. There you go. Um, [2:06:43] it is now posted on Facebook. Facebook has the correct poll, uh, on Twitch. Unfortunately with [2:06:51] Twitch, they don't, I don't think they let me stop the poll. Um, for what it's worth, [2:06:59] the vote on Twitch right now is 83%. Yes. I think people on Twitch are reading it as Hegseth and not Massey, [2:07:08] because that's obviously a typo. Um, so, uh, my, my guess is that that's the general Twitch feeling [2:07:16] again, right now it's 82% yes on Twitch. So it looks like, uh, you guys, uh, most of you think [2:07:26] that the house is going to vote. Yes. Uh, I will say the first couple of votes over on Facebook have [2:07:30] been no so far. And in terms of, I'm also interested in knowing this, there is supposed to be a Pentagon [2:07:53] press conference for the first time in six months tomorrow. Um, but I haven't seen it confirmed that [2:08:02] Hegseth is, is doing it. I assume he is. So that's something we'll have to see. We might be up bright [2:08:10] and early covering that tomorrow. That should be interesting. All right. Um, thank you for voting [2:08:21] in the poll. Let me, uh, I want to show you something else here and I'll, I'll do another poll on, [2:08:27] on Twitch when, when the existing one ends. Tim Apple says he likes those 8 AM press conferences. [2:08:39] Yeah. When they used to do them at the, at the Pentagon, they were early. Uh, hold on a second [2:08:44] here. Uh, I just want to mention one of our viewers. Thank you. Mentioned that Trump posted, [2:09:08] uh, on a true social about Iran a few minutes ago. Thanks to the viewer. Uh, so I want to just [2:09:14] mention this now. I mean, well, let me just show you what he said. He said, I had an excellent [2:09:21] conversation with Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdul Rahman bin Jassim Al Thani, the prime minister of Qatar, [2:09:27] wherein much was discussed with respect to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Most importantly, [2:09:31] Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAA, Bahrain, Kuwait, and others would prefer the status quo. In other words, [2:09:36] a continuation of the greatest naval blockade in history and new operation, Iron Gate, therefore, [2:09:42] land and sea. I have agreed that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. That is non-negotiable. [2:09:47] Should there be any change with respect to developments in the Middle East, the U.S. is [2:09:52] locked and loaded and ready to go. At this point, however, that seems to be quite unlikely, he says. [2:09:59] Israel and the Middle East are protected from Iranian danger and threats. We are seeing positive [2:10:05] momentum toward an end to this conflict, he says, and will ensure that America's interests are at all [2:10:12] times protected. At the conclusion of this military engagement, the American people and the world will [2:10:18] be far safer and more secure. I have no idea what to say about this. For all I know, in two weeks, [2:10:24] he'll be talking about attacking them again. So I cannot say, you know, we've seen him say both kind [2:10:29] of things in recent months. So we'll have to just see how this plays out. I don't know how it's going to [2:10:34] play out. But that is what he just said right now. Creative Capybara says, so nothing's changed. And [2:10:44] yeah, again, I mean, we've seen him before the election. He was talking about possibly attacking [2:10:49] Iran. So again, I do not know what's going to happen. NY committee says, sounds good. Unfortunately, [2:10:57] it's difficult to believe. John Doe says, never heard anything like this before. Kikoshi thinks Israel [2:11:05] will interfere. Yeah. And I think when he talks about Operation Iron Gate, this is what he's talking [2:11:35] about here. A couple days ago, CENTCOM, US military announced it was launching a task force to disrupt [2:11:45] Iranian ground transit routes, supporting illegal shipments. Task Force Iron Gate. Purpose, monitor, [2:11:58] detect, detect, and disrupt any illicit movement of advanced weapons systems, dual use technologies, [2:12:05] sanctioned materials, and illegal revenue streams. On November 7th, the commander of CENTCOM directed [2:12:13] the establishment of a task force that will support ongoing US government efforts to prevent Iran from [2:12:19] using ground routes to transport advanced weapons and other materials. Admiral Brad Cooper has directed [2:12:26] the formation of task force Iron Gate, an internal staff of approximately 20 civilian and military [2:12:34] personnel based in Tampa, Florida. The new CENTCOM team will coordinate with other US government agencies [2:12:41] on preventing the movement of advanced weapon systems, dual use technology, sanctioned materials, [2:12:48] and illegal revenue streams across Iran's land borders and the Caspian Sea. The establishment of task force [2:12:55] Iron Gate reinforces the success of our ironclad blockade against Iran at sea, said Cooper. Strengthening [2:13:02] CENTCOM's collaboration with US interagency partners will further constrain Iran's ability to finance [2:13:09] terrorism, rebuild weapons factories, and replenish their military. In recent months, Iran's naval blockade [2:13:16] has prevented Iran from exporting more than $25 billion in crude oil. Strict enforcement at sea [2:13:20] continues against all ships entering or departing Iranian ports. So that is what they said two days [2:13:27] ago, CENTCOM. Oh, hold on a second here. Give me one moment. Oh, I'm hearing about a possible White [2:13:43] House briefing. Somebody mentioned this in the chat. Is there going to be a White House briefing now? [2:13:48] Hold on. Please give me a moment. Please give me a moment. President Trump is going to give a brief... [2:14:00] Oh, President Trump is speaking. Why is President Trump speaking? Hold on a second. I got to get it [2:14:05] on the screen. Trump is speaking. Hold on. I had no idea this was going to happen. What's going on? [2:14:11] Please, please hang on a moment. Sorry. He's speaking. Trump is speaking. But it's not on the [2:14:18] White House feed. But I have it anyway from AFP. I just need a second to get it on the screen for you. [2:14:24] Please hang on a moment. I will have it in one second. Trump is speaking in the White House briefing [2:14:30] room. I have to get it on the screen. Please bear with me. I'm getting it on the screen right now. [2:14:36] I had no idea. We can see it in a second. Here is Trump. Hold on. Please hold on. Wait. There he is [2:14:45] speaking. Hold on. Operation Iron Gate, which was newly imposed, and that's land. So you have land and [2:14:52] sea, total lockdown. I've agreed that Iran cannot have, and everybody's agreeing, Iran will never have [2:15:00] a nuclear weapon. And that's a non-negotiable point. They understand that. They accept that. They don't [2:15:06] admit that they accept it. And they will tell you that they don't accept it, but they accept it 100%, [2:15:13] more than 100%. And should there be any change with respect to developments in the Middle East, [2:15:19] the United States of America is fully locked and loaded with the best equipment ever made. And we [2:15:29] don't think there's going to be any reason to use it. However, it's going very well. You know, [2:15:35] we haven't lost a soldier in six months. If you look, you know, they talk about wars, [2:15:42] Ukraine and Russia. And by the way, we're having a very good conversation about that in Abu Dhabi. [2:15:48] Ukraine and Russia are losing about 25,000 people a month, mostly soldiers. Two months ago, [2:15:57] it was 32,000 people. And compare that with us. We haven't lost a soldier in six months, [2:16:04] and nobody. Not even an injury. And yet we have the strait is closed down. And more oil has come [2:16:15] closed down to Iran. More oil has come out of the strait over the last week than at any point in the [2:16:21] history of the Hormuz Strait. So we're doing very well. But at this point, it won't be necessary. [2:16:28] Taking the military action doesn't seem to be a very necessary thing. But we're locked and loaded, [2:16:33] ready to go for any reason that changes. Israel and the entire Middle East are protected from [2:16:39] Iranian danger and threats. And we're seeing momentum toward the end of this conflict. [2:16:46] I think it's going to be ending fairly soon. We're also seeing a very strong inclination to end [2:16:52] Russia and Ukraine. We're involved in that because I want to see people stop getting killed. Again, [2:16:59] 25,000 a month on average are being killed with respect to Iran. So in Vietnam, they lost 60,000 [2:17:12] soldiers over a period of 21 years. In Afghanistan, they lost thousands over many, many years. In Korea, [2:17:24] as you know, they lost about 50,000 soldiers over a period of four years. But numerous of these wars [2:17:34] went for over 10 years. And basically, nothing was won. Nothing was all that you ended up with was [2:17:42] death. So we had two wars. We had Venezuela, which was over in 48 minutes. And we lost no soldiers. And [2:17:49] we're taking in billions and billions of dollars a day. And we paid for that war in many times over. [2:17:58] And we're getting along very well with government. We're much in charge. We're totally in charge and [2:18:03] getting along well. And the Venezuelan people love us because we're bringing the big oil companies [2:18:09] are in there now. They're taking in a lot of money. They're seeing more money now than they've ever seen [2:18:14] before. So Venezuela was 48 minutes. It was over. So let's say one day, but 48 minutes. It was done. [2:18:22] And it's been again, millions of barrels of oil are coming in every week, millions of barrels [2:18:30] and billions of dollars. So that's one. And the other is Iran and Iran militarily is effectively over. [2:18:40] We're just keeping it the status quo. And we're doing that really at the behest of countries that [2:18:47] are their neighbors. But it's a failing country. It's got 301 percent inflation. It's got problems like [2:18:56] you don't want to even think about. They're not paying their military. They're not paying their guard. [2:19:01] Their navy is gone. Their air force is gone. They have 158 ships that are underwater. They have [2:19:06] 268 planes that were scattered all over the runways of Iran. So their military is essentially gone. [2:19:14] Their manufacturing capability is reduced to about they can still make some limited numbers of missiles [2:19:21] and drones. But it's basically about 85 percent gone. And they're talking to us and they're talking very [2:19:28] politely. Then we'll see what happens. But there's a good chance that that could get [2:19:32] ended. So at the conclusion of the military engagement, the American people and the [2:19:41] people of the world will be far safer and more secure than they've been in many, [2:19:46] many years because Iran was killing many people. You know, that war was started in 1979. We didn't [2:19:53] start the war. They did. Even if you go back to the SS cold, that was there. That was their situation. And [2:20:00] a lot of people were killed. A lot of American people were killed. A lot of people throughout [2:20:04] the world were killed. And if you go back just over the last seven or eight months, [2:20:09] 75,000 at a minimum protesters have been killed. So it's a nasty place. But we think that it's in pretty [2:20:19] good shape. We'll see what happens. I don't guarantee anything. But if we do have to go back in, we are locked [2:20:25] and loaded and ready to go. With that being said, I was having a little fun. And I said, [2:20:31] how about Dana White being the press secretary? You know, press secretary. He's a great guy. [2:20:37] He's done an unbelievable job. Most successful. You know, we talked Don King, who's a friend of mine. [2:20:44] I got a lot of friends. But you talk about fight promoters. This is more than a fight promoter. This is a [2:20:49] man that's done the most incredible job anybody's ever seen. UFC. It's like broadcasting the NFL, [2:20:57] the numbers and what he's been able to do. And he's done a lot of press. And I said, [2:21:02] you know what? I want to elevate you. I'm going to bring you into the press room. [2:21:06] And Dana White could be our press secretary if you would only take the job. [2:21:10] There would never have been. Even Caroline would admit that Dana is really very unique. [2:21:16] The only problem is he'll talk for a little while and then he's going to beat the hell out of you. [2:21:20] So I don't know if Daniel would like that. I don't think Daniel wants to take him on. [2:21:25] But he he's built an amazing an amazing machine. He's got a big fight [2:21:30] this weekend at Madison Square Garden with the two greatest women fighters of all time, [2:21:38] as far as I'm concerned. Women's fighting. It's not a nice thing, but they are. [2:21:43] They are very tough. When I say no, no men in women's sports, that's great. I would not want to [2:21:48] fight. However, I would not. How would I do against one of them? Would I do well? I don't [2:21:52] think so. Not well, sir. [2:21:53] And he said not well. This would this would not be a good occurrence anyway. But I thought I'd bring [2:22:00] Dana here because he loves the idea. And I love the idea. The only thing is we have other things we [2:22:06] have to think about. But he's a unique, a unique person. And he was seeing me anyway, [2:22:12] unrelated. And I thought maybe he would say a few words. And I think he probably liked the job. [2:22:19] He loves the country and he would do a hell of a job. So you were here. He was here. And [2:22:24] Dana, please say a few words. Dana White. Thank you. [2:22:27] I've always wanted to do this. Who has the first question? I have zero political aspirations. [2:22:36] I was in a fight for Zufa boxing in London when he called me and [2:22:40] told me that he had done this. And the last 24 hours of my life has been insane. [2:22:46] But yeah. Good to see you. Yes, ma'am. [2:22:49] I have a question. UFC cage match between President Trump and former President Joe Biden. [2:22:56] Same age, same weight, and considering like styles make fights. Could you give us an analysis of who [2:23:01] The toughest, most resilient human being that I've ever met in my entire life. [2:23:05] Many times during the last eight, ten years, whatever it's been, I have told him, why do you keep [2:23:12] doing this? Why are you doing this? When he was going through everything that he went through. [2:23:16] And, I mean, as tough and as resilient as I thought he was after he got shot, I, yeah. [2:23:25] He is a one of one unique human being and, yeah. [2:23:28] Would it be a knockout victory for President Trump? [2:23:33] It would be, it would, it would be very bad. Yeah, I, I think it would be very bad. [2:23:37] I can't believe you actually have questions for me. Yes. [2:23:39] The President has said he might consider a pardon for Pete Rose. [2:23:44] What is your advice to the President about that pardon? [2:23:47] I don't advise the President on anything ever. Um, but yeah, I think it's fair. [2:23:52] I think it's fair to pardon Pete Rose. Yes. [2:23:54] I would do that. By the way, but why does he need a pardon? He does, he was not really convicted of a [2:23:58] criminal. It was a tax charge, sir. Oh, he did? Yes, sir. [2:24:01] I'd give Pete Rose a pardon. All right. Let's make it happen. [2:24:03] I think Pete Rose was very mistreated. He was, you know, uh, 4,200 and some odd hits [2:24:11] way ahead of anybody else. A record can never be broken. And he was caught gambling. Now it's legal, [2:24:17] right? But he was gambling on his own team, Dana. He wasn't gambling against. That's different. [2:24:22] He was gambling. He shouldn't have done it, but he went through 40 years of hell and they never, [2:24:27] and they should have given him a pardon. They should have given him into the baseball hall [2:24:31] of fame a long time ago. And I spoke to the commissioner about it and he agreed to do it. [2:24:36] And then he waited though. And Pete Rose died. So it didn't help him too much. But, uh, [2:24:42] I would give Pete Rose a pardon. I would do that. [2:24:47] Just to confirm, did you tell the president no to the press secretary job? [2:24:51] I don't tell the president no to anything. I, no, I didn't say no. I literally, everybody, [2:24:56] every media outlet was calling me and I didn't want to be disrespectful and say anything until he, [2:25:01] he, uh, he said something first. So we were having a very bad press day. [2:25:07] And I said, I don't know why I thought of his name. He's been my friend for a long time. [2:25:12] I said, you know, I think I'm going to get Dana White to be my new press secretary. [2:25:16] And I said it to a group of the press and that was it. I'm sort of kidding. [2:25:21] And then they wrote the story as though I wasn't kidding and you were inundated and I was inundated. [2:25:27] And he was here anyway with, we thought to have a little fun and we brought Dana here. [2:25:31] He would be fantastic. Go ahead. [2:25:34] First of all, were you surprised by the results of the midterms last Tuesday? [2:25:42] And Mr. President, you on the campaign trail, you had said that you had stopped Iran from [2:25:49] having a nuclear weapon. Why not just declare an end to the conflict and be done with it? [2:25:54] Because we have some great allies there and we have to make sure they're not hurt and they would [2:26:01] be hurt. They are right now a lot safer than they were six months ago because Iran's been very much [2:26:09] decapitated. But they're still the bully of the Middle East a little bit. And I see that we want [2:26:14] to make sure they're okay. We want to make sure it's a long term solution, not just a short term. [2:26:19] They'll never have a nuclear weapon, but we have to make sure that's a long term. So it's ending quickly. [2:26:24] But we want to take care of people that have been very good to us over the years. [2:26:28] Thank you, Mr. President. [2:26:33] You told 60 Minutes that you felt that your deportation policy may have gone too far, [2:26:39] but then you named the architect of that policy, Stephen Miller, to be your chief of staff. [2:26:44] Have you told him that you want changes to the deportation policy? [2:26:48] No, we have a very strong deportation policy. There's no amnesty, no anything. We keep that. [2:26:55] But we focus on the worst of the worst. We want to get the murderers out. We've gotten most of them [2:27:00] out. We've gotten most of the really bad. You know, they allowed, Joe Biden allowed 100, well, 25 million [2:27:08] people to come in. Of that, 11,888 murderers, most of whom committed more than one murder. We've gotten [2:27:17] most of them. We want to get the worst of the worst, and then we'll see what happens. But [2:27:21] they came in illegally. Many of them have good jobs now. They're productive. Some of them are even [2:27:27] paying taxes. And we're seeing what's going to happen. There won't be amnesty. Somebody suggested, [2:27:32] will there be amnesty? No. But they came in. They knew the law. And we're working with a lot of [2:27:38] different groups to see whether or not. But my policy hasn't changed. What we are doing is absolutely the [2:27:44] worst of the worst. We're getting the murderers. They allowed people to come in from prisons. [2:27:48] They emptied their prisons into our country. Many countries. And they emptied our prisons into our [2:27:54] country. The drug dealers that we have, the people from the mental institutions. Mental institutions all [2:28:01] over the world were emptied out. Prisons all over the world. The Congo were in the Congo. Their prison [2:28:09] population was emptied into our country. All over South America. All over Asia. They did that too. [2:28:17] What Biden did to this country should never, ever be forgotten. And I hope the Democrats will not [2:28:24] try and allow that to happen again. [2:28:27] Just to follow up, Mr. President. We've seen the stock market really take, you know, [2:28:32] up and down like a roller coaster the last couple of days. Today, up. Last week, it tanked. [2:28:36] Not last week. Right after the election, it went down $3 trillion. That was because of the result of [2:28:43] the election. Because the stock market does not want to see Democrats. And your 401 s have gone way down [2:28:50] because of the ridiculous result. It's not even a result. It's almost hard to believe. Now, I wasn't [2:28:58] on the ballot. I shouldn't take anything personally. But I will tell you, I thought it was ridiculous. [2:29:03] But the stock market went way down right after that event. Today, it's way up because I think they feel [2:29:10] we have things under control. Mr. President. Thank you, sir. When were you first informed [2:29:16] that there was an issue with Jensen Wang and the affair? And what was presented to you at the time? [2:29:21] What was the concern? I would say that when I heard about it, first of all, I was amazed because [2:29:29] I view him as a very high quality person. I've known him a long time. It's actually the largest, [2:29:35] I think by value, it's probably the largest or one of the largest companies in the world. He did that [2:29:40] with a chip. You know, when you think about it, he's got a chip that's 10 years advanced, [2:29:44] can't be cut because of the complexity. Can't even the black. Well, can't even be copied. [2:29:50] He's an amazing guy. I just hope it's I hope there's no problem. If there is a problem, [2:29:55] we'll let you know about it. But I hope there's no problem. I believe he's suffering greatly. [2:30:00] I read his statement and I believe he's suffering greatly more so because of his family, [2:30:06] his wife, who he loves and his family. But he is definitely suffering. [2:30:11] Mr. President, just to follow up on the, when were you first told of these potential [2:30:17] issues with Mr. Blaine? You didn't answer that question. [2:30:19] Mr. Well, I've been hearing about it and I've been reading a little bit about it over a period of time, [2:30:23] but not too long ago. And we'll look into it. I know the FBI is looking into it in terms of [2:30:30] something else. And I think that he'll be in good shape. [2:30:34] Mr. President, you say the war with Iran will be ending fairly soon, [2:30:40] but you've made this claim dozens of times over the past eight months. [2:30:43] Why should Americans think this time is any different? [2:30:45] Mr. Well, no, I made the claim that they won't have a nuclear weapon. [2:30:47] And they won't have a nuclear weapon. When we knocked them out a year ago, [2:30:51] that was, I said I was going to do that. And I kept my word on that. Now, what we're doing is [2:30:57] we're, it's really status quo territory. We're keeping it going. We have the greatest military blockade ever. [2:31:05] We have the new iron gate. Iron gate is land. So by land and by sea. And we will take care of [2:31:13] business. Look, Iran, I hope we're going to be able to make a deal with them, but nothing's going [2:31:20] to happen. And if we have to, we'll take very serious. We are so loaded. We just have another [2:31:26] aircraft carrier. It's all loaded up to the gills with brand new, beautiful stuff. We're making more [2:31:31] military equipment and munitions right now than at any time in the history of our country. We've built [2:31:37] and are building more plants. Our, our defense companies are building more plants than ever [2:31:43] at any time in the history of our country. And many of those plants are opened, [2:31:48] some opened and some are opening soon. We're building new Patriots. We're building new Tomahawks, [2:31:54] new THAAD systems. And we have more under construction now than at any time ever. And, [2:32:01] and we're taking it. And obviously we're taking it for ourselves first. What happened is, [2:32:06] and wasn't so much Iran, Joe Biden gave $350 billion worth of free equipment to Ukraine. Now, [2:32:17] that was unbelievable. Now they pay and we give it to the European Union. We have a very good [2:32:22] relationship. We took them from 2% to 5% is what they're paying now, which is pretty amazing. [2:32:29] Nobody thought that could happen, but they pay full for the equipment. Joe Biden gave free equipment, [2:32:34] $350 billion. And, uh, we are now building more military equipment and munitions than at any time [2:32:42] in the history of our country. Uh, we just had, just in case we had another aircraft carrier, we have many, [2:32:49] uh, sailing over and just arriving in the Middle East. So we have three and they're all locked and [2:32:56] loaded and hopefully we don't have to use them. Are you going to bring up the case of Jensen [2:33:05] Wong with president Xi when you visit with him next week? No, I don't think so. I mean, [2:33:09] maybe I'm sure president Xi will ask me about it. I just know Jensen very well. I just think he's a very [2:33:16] honorable man. I mean, he's a great, he built a great company, American company. And I think he's a [2:33:22] very honorable guy and I feel very confident that he'll be in good shape. [2:33:25] Mr. President, in sticking with Jensen Huang, when you went to China earlier this year in May, [2:33:31] did you know about these alleged ties with the Chinese by then or? No, I didn't hear about it then. [2:33:37] But a lot of people have heard about it and Jensen totally denies that. He had, [2:33:43] I asked him today because I did speak to him today just to see if he's feeling all right, [2:33:46] how you're doing. And I asked him about that. And he had, he said he had absolutely no idea [2:33:53] that the person in question was a spy. I asked him that question. Did you have any idea that she [2:33:58] was a spy? He said, I had no idea that she was a spy. And I really believe him. Yeah, please. [2:34:04] There's a breakthrough on Ukraine at the talks in Abu Dhabi this week. And if so, [2:34:09] I just think that Ukraine and Russia are tired of fighting. They're tired of seeing dead, [2:34:14] young soldiers, mostly soldiers. Most of the people are soldiers. Think of it. They're losing [2:34:20] 25,000. Danny, can you imagine 25,000? That's like a stadium, Madison Square Garden. You have [2:34:25] your fights, 25,000. That's what it holds. And they're losing that every single month, dead, [2:34:31] young, beautiful people. And it's got to stop. You know, it doesn't affect us, but I'm able to get [2:34:40] them together. And we're meeting now, right now, as we speak. And the meetings are going okay, [2:34:45] but we're trying to get it settled only because we want to say it doesn't affect us as a country, [2:34:51] but it affects me. 25,000 people a month are being killed. [2:34:55] Mr. President, a number of Senate GOP members are urging the conference to delay their leadership [2:35:04] votes tomorrow. We know that John Thune is running on a post in the Senate. Do you think that Mr. Thune [2:35:09] has earned the right to lead Senate Republicans? Well, look, he's a very fine man. I know him [2:35:14] very well. But that's really up to the senators. I like John Thune. I wish they could get more [2:35:22] produced. You know, we've had Save America up there. We've had, you know, voter ID and proof [2:35:28] of citizenship and many other things. It's not easy. He's got some people that, first of all, [2:35:35] you have 100% negative Democrats. They never vote yes. They always vote no. That means you have to [2:35:40] get almost 100% of the Republicans. And you have some Republicans in there, I can name them, [2:35:44] but why should I, that are very difficult. And, you know, I said, as leader, you have to get those [2:35:51] people. But John's a good man. I guess they're going to be voting tomorrow or maybe it's delayed. [2:35:56] I don't know what the status, but, you know, he's a friend of mine. I wish the Senate could get more done. [2:36:02] You spoke about Venezuela. Do you plan on having elections there before the end? [2:36:10] At some point, yeah. At some point, yeah. [2:36:11] Mr. President, earlier today you posted on social media where you questioned [2:36:16] whether the midterm election results were honest. Do you believe that the election was raved? And [2:36:21] separately, did you watch Senator Thomas Massey lay out his articles of impeachment this afternoon? [2:36:27] No, I don't watch Massey. Look, Massey's a loser. He shouldn't be taking up the time of [2:36:35] Congress or the Senate or anything that he's doing. The guy's a stone cold loser. Would always, [2:36:41] he's a Republican, always he would vote against. We could come up with the best bill. We could [2:36:47] come up with, and he would always vote against. There's something wrong with him. And I said, look, [2:36:53] I've got to challenge him. And I challenged him, and he lost in a landslide to a very good man. We [2:36:57] have a very good man, Ed Gilrain, who's great, took his place. But, you know, I went and did something [2:37:04] that is very tough to do. Now, I challenged others also. I challenged Cornyn. I challenged [2:37:10] Tillis. And I challenged, if you look at Louisiana, Cassidy, three. So that makes things a little bit [2:37:18] harder to get their votes because I wouldn't say they like me. But of all of them, I would say [2:37:23] there's something wrong with Thomas Massey. He was an automatic no vote. You could go in with the [2:37:28] greatest bill, bills where even Democrats were voting, and he'd be no. And I said, what is wrong [2:37:36] with this guy? He's a sick, sick guy. There's something wrong with him, actually. Now, he's after [2:37:40] Pete Hexth. He doesn't like Hexth. But really, what has Hexth done? He won the war. He was in charge. [2:37:47] He won the war in Venezuela. As I said, 48 minutes. It was flawless. Nobody killed. And he certainly, [2:37:56] I think he's won the war in Iran. But he's certainly winning the war. Iran would love to [2:38:00] make a deal. And they've been obliterated. The Navy, the Air Force. So he won the war in two places, [2:38:09] two big places, very important, very impactful. And they won one. They're not like Vietnam when nothing [2:38:15] was won or Afghanistan or Iraq or any of these wars when nothing was won. It was nothing won. [2:38:22] Just lots of death. And then let's leave. In one case, they're not going to have a nuclear weapon. [2:38:27] In the other, we're making hundreds of billions of dollars for this country. So I say this, [2:38:35] Pete Hexth won two wars. Oh, let's impeach him. What about impeaching the gentleman from Biden, [2:38:44] his person that disappeared for two weeks and nobody had any idea where he was? What about [2:38:50] impeaching the people that ran the Vietnam War? What about impeaching that ran Iraq and Afghanistan [2:38:58] and all of these other wars where thousands of lives have been? You know, we lost 18 people, 18. [2:39:07] They lost 65,000 in Vietnam. We're in there for seven months. They're in there for 21 years. [2:39:14] What about impeaching those people? What about impeaching the leaders of these stupid wars that [2:39:20] were done when nothing was gained? In Iran, they won't have a nuclear weapon. That's a big thing. [2:39:27] Now, short term, probably bad for me because people want to have a little bit lower energy cost. We'll get [2:39:32] it back down. I created the lowest cost. You know, it's even lower now than it was with Biden and Obama. [2:39:39] But I've done something different. They won't have a nuclear weapon. That's a big thing. [2:39:43] And with the other, we're making a fortune and we have tremendous amounts of oil. [2:39:47] We're going to have we have more oil, including Venezuela, than Saudi Arabia and Russia combined, [2:39:55] by far. In fact, by two. Yeah, please. [2:39:57] Do you believe the midterms were great? Sir, to follow up, do you believe the midterms were great? [2:40:01] Well, I think the numbers were terrible in terms of those early votes. You look at all those early votes. [2:40:08] And look at another one. I'm watching Alaska. So you have a guy named Dan Sullivan and another [2:40:14] guy named Dan Sullivan runs. And one's a J and one's an S. And the one with a J, which is the fake [2:40:20] Dan Sullivan, tries to have his initial change to S. He never ran before. He never was a political [2:40:28] person before. He was fraudulently put in the race. And then they tried to change his middle name [2:40:34] so it was a nested to confuse. So Dan Sullivan and the woman, Peltola, is they're very close. [2:40:43] He's only I guess he's four or 500 votes. But this fake Dan Sullivan, because of confusion, [2:40:49] only because they meant to vote as 2,500, almost 3,000 votes. That means he wins the election. [2:40:56] But in addition, they have a second person they put in. And they made a big issue with the second. [2:41:02] And that person has 4,000 or 5,000 votes. Those votes should go also. But even if you don't include [2:41:08] that, you have a Dan Sullivan and a Dan Sullivan. And the Democrats put him up in order to confuse [2:41:17] the voters. So anybody that voted for that second Dan Sullivan, the fake Dan Sullivan, [2:41:23] was supposed to be a vote for the real Dan Sullivan. So they stole it. And that election [2:41:30] should be called right now because Dan Sullivan won easily if you add up the numbers. Now, if you add [2:41:35] up the numbers for the second person they put in, he's leading by 6,000, 7,000 votes. [2:41:44] Go ahead, please. [2:41:48] Yeah, I'll stand by. [2:41:48] So even if he's impeached, you're going to keep him as your defense secretary? [2:41:52] He won two wars. He was in charge. We all won. [2:41:55] I had great people. [2:41:56] Massie says he's carried out a glass. [2:41:57] You what? [2:41:57] Massie says that he's carried out a glass. [2:41:59] Massie's a loser. Just like you're a loser at CNN. Just like your ratings are a loser. [2:42:06] Massie is a loser. Stone Cold loser. I did something that nobody's done. I took on a guy that was in [2:42:14] his own way sort of popular in his state. And I beat him badly. Beat him easily with a man that never [2:42:23] ran before, but a good man. Massie has a lot of hatred in his heart. I watched, [2:42:30] I heard what Massie did. I don't want to watch. I don't want to waste my time watching him. [2:42:35] We won two wars. We won two wars. And we've made the world a lot safer place. [2:42:41] And then we're supposed to impeach. Why haven't we gone after [2:42:45] all these other people that ran wars that lost? What about this? What about what about what about [2:42:51] good old Lloyd? Why didn't we go after him? Why didn't we go after the people that disappeared? [2:42:56] They're in charge of the military and they disappeared from nobody knew had any idea that [2:43:02] nothing happened to him. What about all these people that lost wars? You don't have to all I can [2:43:09] say is this. We have the highest recruit, the recruitment numbers of, you know, when I came in, [2:43:15] when I was campaigning, we had the worst recruitment people wanting to join the military in the history [2:43:22] of our country. We couldn't fill any of the spots. It was a disaster. Now we have the best numbers we've [2:43:29] ever had. More people want to be in the army, navy, air force, marines, coast guard, even the police, [2:43:36] space force, firemen, anybody with a uniform. So now we have the best numbers we've ever had. [2:43:43] And I will say this, the soldiers, the actual soldiers, the great people that do the work, [2:43:49] the great patriots, they love Pete Hexeth. So if you go back two years ago, before I got into office, [2:43:58] two years ago, we could not recruit people. And you know that better. The army was way behind everybody. [2:44:05] Now we have waiting lists of people trying to get in. He's done a very good job. [2:44:10] Mr. President, [2:44:20] Vladimir Putin, you have given Vladimir Putin multiple deadlines over the last 22 months [2:44:24] to enter into a ceasefire, but also to meet directly with Vladimir Zelensky. He has repeatedly [2:44:30] ignored your demands, yet you have provided... [2:44:32] Well, you know, you're saying he's doing that. [2:44:34] Has he been fighting us in the war? [2:44:36] You also... [2:44:37] Yeah, yeah. Let me ask you this question. [2:44:38] At what point does appeasement... [2:44:39] Who are you with? Who are you with? [2:44:41] With MSNOW. [2:44:41] At what point... [2:44:42] MSNOW, it's a fake... [2:44:43] No, but at what point does appeasement end? [2:44:45] Go ahead, go ahead. [2:44:46] Mr. President Biden, who is he wild? [2:44:48] MSNOW gets the worst ratings in their history. [2:44:50] At what point does... [2:44:51] Used to be MSDNC. It's one of the worst... [2:44:54] Uh, you're a fake network. Go ahead. [2:44:58] Jennifer, Jennifer, go ahead. Jennifer. [2:45:00] Go ahead. [2:45:00] MSNOW, what a jerk you are. [2:45:03] Why didn't you need to get violent in his face and not be very decisive in this? [2:45:07] Stephen Miller's doing a great job. [2:45:11] I just think he's going to be great. He's been with me from the beginning. [2:45:14] He's smart. He's tough. He's fair. [2:45:18] And he actually will get along, I think, very well with the Democrats. [2:45:20] Would he like to put a deal with Democrats on immigration? [2:45:25] I want to put a finer point on... [2:45:27] They're going to try and, you know, I'm open to it. [2:45:30] We're not going to have amnesty or anything. We're going to, you know, [2:45:32] people are going to do it the right way. You have to do it. It's unfair to other people, [2:45:36] but certainly I'm open to it. [2:45:38] But he's okay with the Stephen Miller on the issue? [2:45:40] No, no, not you. Not you. Go ahead. [2:45:42] I wanted you to put a finer point on what exactly you were made aware of the intelligence around Jensen Wang. [2:45:48] Oh, I'd have to check. [2:45:49] But there are reports that Secretary Rubio put an intelligence bill on that last year. [2:45:53] Did you read that? [2:45:54] Well, I'd certainly check with the intelligence people. [2:45:57] They could have been mentioned. Certainly it didn't make much of an impact on me. [2:46:00] Yes. [2:46:01] What are your first tests for bipartisanship in this new era [2:46:05] is going to be working with Democrats on this permitting bill, [2:46:08] which was expected to get a vote. [2:46:09] The permitting bill is a great bill that's supposed to be bipartisan. [2:46:13] We are behind it 100%. [2:46:14] Are you going to whip that in the House? [2:46:16] Well, we may see, but the Democrats want that. [2:46:19] I mean, maybe they've changed, but they want it as much as the Republicans. [2:46:22] And you're going to approve wind turbines in the future being very critical of this. [2:46:24] No, I will not approve wind turbines. [2:46:26] Well, that's part of the bill, sir. [2:46:27] I know, but I won't approve it. [2:46:29] Well, the bill hasn't been fully negotiated. [2:46:32] I will not approve wind turbines, because wind turbines are immediately. [2:46:35] As you said before, it was going to be your pleasure to take Cuba in your mandate. [2:46:39] Do you still plan on taking Cuba or — [2:46:42] Well, Cuba's falling. [2:46:43] It's a failing nation. [2:46:44] It's got an ideology very similar to what the Democrat ideology is. [2:46:49] And it's a failing nation. [2:46:51] It's a communist nation, socialist nation, sort of everything all wrapped into one. [2:46:57] We have tremendous people who were treated very badly, Cuban Americans. [2:47:03] And they voted for me, 94 percent. [2:47:06] And we take care of those people. [2:47:08] But Cuba is a failing nation. [2:47:10] We will help them on a humanitarian basis. [2:47:13] We are helping them, actually. [2:47:15] But we'll see what happens. [2:47:17] Cuba is going to be interesting. [2:47:18] I would imagine it will fall fairly soon. [2:47:23] I can't keep this man waiting. [2:47:24] He's a very, very powerful man. [2:47:26] So let me ask — wait, wait, wait. [2:47:28] So let me ask you the big question. [2:47:31] Dana, would you like to be press secretary of the United States of America? [2:47:36] Look at the sign. [2:47:37] You'd have this behind you all the time. [2:47:38] The White House Washington. [2:47:40] Would you like that? [2:47:41] Or do you just want to stay with this ridiculous UFC? [2:47:44] Huh? [2:47:45] Thank you for the offer, sir. [2:47:46] For the offer, I have no — no — I do not want to be in politics now. [2:47:51] I am devastated to hear this. [2:47:52] Goodbye, everybody. [2:47:53] Thank you. [2:47:59] Thank you. [2:48:05] Thank you, everybody. [2:48:07] Just to conclude, our country is doing really well. [2:48:11] Can you get — [2:48:11] We're respected by everybody in the world, something that was not true two years ago. [2:48:16] Our country is doing better than it's ever done before. [2:48:19] Thank you very much. [2:48:26] Okay, that was an unplanned appearance, an unscheduled appearance by President Trump, [2:48:32] where he came out, and he talked about Iran, and he talked about a bunch of things, and he brought Dana [2:48:41] White with him, and he took questions, and he, at the end, asked Dana White if he was going to be [2:48:49] press secretary, and Dana White said he didn't want to be in politics. [2:48:52] But that President Trump already claimed that it was a — he was joking when he mentioned it on his true [2:48:58] social a couple days ago. [2:49:00] So we got a bonus — we got a bonus press conference from President Trump. [2:49:07] A bonus press conference. [2:49:09] He did say that — I think he said he talked to Jensen Huang today because he wanted to see how [2:49:18] he was doing, and Jensen Huang of NVIDIA said he didn't know that the woman was a spy. [2:49:26] President Trump also claimed that he did not know about the claims that Jensen Huang was in a relationship [2:49:33] with a Chinese spy when Trump went to China. There's reporting, I believe, from some news outlets [2:49:42] that claimed that he was told that by U.S. intelligence before then, but he said that he [2:49:52] didn't know it then. I would have to check the specific reporting. I believe there's some reporting [2:49:59] that claims he did know that he was told that then. We covered that a bunch on our — we did a whole [2:50:05] stream on the Jensen Huang thing last night if you want to watch that. And let's see here. [2:50:19] I think with the Iran stuff, we didn't catch the first couple of minutes, but he was — he seemed to [2:50:23] be going over the stuff he had said on his true social. If you missed it, shortly before that appearance, [2:50:32] he had posted this on Truth Social. And he said he had an excellent conversation with the Prime [2:50:37] Minister of Qatar. He said, wherein much was discussed with respect to Iran, most importantly, [2:50:43] Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, and others would prefer the status quo. In other words, [2:50:48] a continuation of the greatest naval blockade in history and the new operation Iron Gate, therefore, [2:50:53] land and sea, all have agreed that Iran can not have a nuclear weapon that is non-negotiable. [2:50:58] Should there be any change with respect to developments in the Middle East, [2:51:01] the U.S. is locked and loaded and ready to go. At this point, however, Trump said, [2:51:07] that seems to be quite unlikely. Israel and the entire Middle East are protected from Iranian [2:51:12] danger and threats. We are seeing positive momentum toward an end to this conflict and will ensure [2:51:17] that America's interests are at all times protected. At the conclusion of this military engagement, [2:51:21] the American people and the world will be far safer and more secure. He posted that shortly [2:51:25] before making this appearance today. Just a few minutes before the appearance. [2:51:33] Okay. But yeah, that was interesting. You know, there's no press secretary still. [2:51:40] So that was kind of like a press briefing. It was in the press briefing room. He took questions, [2:51:44] but there's no one to, there's no one else to official to do that at the moment. [2:51:50] Uh, let's see here. Um, PC4SH says, why is Trump doing all of these interviews? This was interesting [2:52:02] today. This, this was not planned. Um, and it was, it was quite interesting because, um, [2:52:08] when it started, thanks. Somebody in the chat mentioned when it started. So thank you to that [2:52:11] person because I had no idea this was happening. So we rushed to put it on the air, but when it [2:52:17] started, the white house wasn't even live when it started. I, cause I'm assuming they hadn't planned [2:52:23] on streaming it. So we were able to get it up there and then eventually the white house feed [2:52:27] went live, but the white house wasn't even live when it started there on the, on their YouTube. [2:52:33] Um, so that was very interesting. That was quite interesting. We had been covering, [2:52:39] you can go back and watch it. We, we, I have, it says Hegseth impeachment because, uh, because [2:52:45] that's what we were covering before. So you can go back and watch our coverage of that. Uh, [2:52:51] Thomas Massey introduced articles of impeachment against Pete Hegseth today. And, uh, there may be [2:52:56] a vote this week in the house on impeachment. Um, anyways, I'm going to take a few more comments here, [2:53:04] but that was interesting. Then I'm going to eat something. Uh, Zocoy thought that was weird. [2:53:12] The random ear says, I'm glad Dana White was like, hell no, LOL. Ivy June Burroughs says, [2:53:22] well, wasn't that special? Also, he was very critical of President Trump to both, [2:53:28] of both CNN and MSNOW during the press conference, press briefing, impromptu press briefing. He was [2:53:35] asked a question about Putin by an MSNOW reporter and he, he went back and forth and then he said, [2:53:40] who are you with? And the guy said MSNOW and then he just didn't answer the question and called on [2:53:44] somebody else. I also told Caitlin Collins. What did he say to Caitlin Collins of CNN? Uh, [2:53:56] I thought I had written it down. I can't remember, but he was critical of Caitlin Collins and also of [2:54:03] CNN. I can't remember the exact wording. Oh, I, President Trump said he thinks that he thinks [2:54:19] Jensen Huang will be in good shape. He said that the FBI was looking into it, but he thinks he said, [2:54:25] I think he'll be in good shape. Let's see here. Hold on a moment now. Um, if you missed it, you [2:54:52] can read, just rewind and watch it. We, we caught pretty much, almost all of it. So you can rewind [2:54:58] and check out if you want our coverage of that. Fallen said, he said, you're a horrible person. [2:55:11] I can't write, I don't have it written down, so I don't remember exactly what it was, but feel free. [2:55:15] You can go back and, uh, you can go back and watch it if you'd like. Robert Kennedy says, [2:55:22] just another manic Monday. Infected Pie says, he hates her so much. Insomnia Drebble said, [2:55:33] he said, you are a loser. I can't remember exactly what he said. Uh, hey, Eddie thinks [2:55:38] nobody wants the press secretary job. Uncle Fester says, what a day. Johnny V says, Trump, [2:55:51] the most interesting transparent president in my lifetime. Wow. Hey, thanks to melting ice forever. [2:55:58] Melting ice forever says, rumor is that Susie Wiles suggested Dana White from DOD and Trump [2:56:04] thought she meant UFC. Dana White announced it. Um, I've seen that rumor, some rumor like that, [2:56:09] that floating around the internet. I know nothing really about it myself. I have no idea if there's [2:56:14] any truth to it. There's some rumor floating. There was a rumor floating around in some social [2:56:18] media circles that claim that Trump was told that another Dana White was offered. It's a little [2:56:24] confusing because wouldn't he still approve the offer of the job? Would somebody offer a job to [2:56:29] somebody without Trump knowing? Anyways, I don't know. I don't know if there was any confusion [2:56:33] with that Dana White and another Dana White. I have no idea. Thank you so much. Melting ice forever. [2:56:38] Also Diet Ginger Dale and Jiggle Jess and Sober Papa Grunt, Sober Papa Grunt and Ronald Kame and [2:56:45] User QZ4 and App L3. And hold on. I'm behind on thanking a couple other people. Neera 39, [2:56:55] Machiavellian Philosophy, Michael McIsaac, Bent Fork, Rene, Rene E.C., I think it is, [2:57:07] or Rene C., Dodger Blue to you, Nub Nub Bud, and also on Twitch, uh, Kendra Fox, who shot J.R.? [2:57:16] Don Diego, thank you. I was not, we were not expecting that today. It's a bonus. We saw a bonus [2:57:25] press conference, guys. Bonus press conference coverage. Christian Pont thought the presser was a [2:57:33] disaster. President Trump did say there's no amnesty. He said maybe they'll do a deal, [2:57:44] immigration deal with the Democrats, but no amnesty. Yeah, Trump had made some remarks, [2:58:05] I think on 60 Minutes about immigration. I saw some of the remarks. I'm trying to, [2:58:10] I don't want to misrepresent it though, what he said. Yeah, so here's, here's a little just [2:58:21] background. When he said no amnesty today in the press conference, here's a little background, [2:58:26] AP story from today. Uh, Trump opened to talking to Democrats on immigration after midterms, [2:58:32] but Mullen stresses no amnesty. Uh, yesterday, the Homeland Security Secretary, Mark Wayne Mullen, [2:58:37] said he and President Trump had not yet discussed any concrete immigration policy changes, uh, [2:58:43] after, as the president shifts his tone on deportations and says he's open to working with [2:58:48] Democrats on the issue. Um, President Trump said during an interview with 60 Minutes [2:58:55] that he could work with Democrats on immigration and also that his deportation policy was too [2:59:02] aggressive for voters. Here, there's some, here's something else about what Trump said from AP right [2:59:25] here. Uh, President Trump on 60 Minutes said he thinks his administration was too aggressive on [2:59:34] deportations and thinks he can work with Democrats in the new Congress on some kind of immigration deal. [2:59:40] Trump said his deportation policy was part of the reason Republicans lost telling 60 Minutes in an [2:59:45] interview on Sunday, I think it might be too tough. Yeah. Trump did not give specifics about what the deal [2:59:54] would look like. And shortly after taping that interview on Friday, he named the key architect of [3:00:00] his hardline immigration agenda, Stephen Miller as his new chief of staff. Trump said he believes that [3:00:12] killers and drug dealers in the country illegally should be deported, but suggested he was open to [3:00:16] the idea of a deal that would let others stay if they're good people working in landscaping company [3:00:21] in a landscaping company or working in a hotel or doing something right. And in some cases paying taxes, [3:00:26] I believe there have been some points. If my memory serves me correctly, [3:00:32] I believe, I believe there have periodically been other points where he said similar things about [3:00:39] immigration, not overly frequently, but I believe that there have been points if I remember correctly, [3:00:45] where he said something like that about possibly allowing certain people to stay in the country [3:00:51] who were already here, who were doing these jobs. Uh, I don't remember exactly though. Uh, [3:01:00] Jane Burke says, Stephen Miller will be fun. Uh, stream the meme says, [3:01:06] and the fix for too aggressive appoint Stephen Miller. Surely that will help write LOL mountain [3:01:17] energy says Democrats want vengeance, no deals. Okay. So we got to see a bonus appearance by [3:01:32] president Trump. Jason Santoro messaged me earlier, by the way, I just saw this and I think he's talking [3:01:48] about the Iran school. Jason says justice must be served for all those kids. That's what Jason wrote [3:01:55] to me. Oh, by the way, I do want to mention this. Um, thanks to, I hadn't seen this, a viewer mentioned [3:02:26] this to me. Who was the viewer who said this? One of our viewers mentioned me about it. Hold on. It was, [3:02:34] the viewer was trying to find who sent it to me. Lynn Legion. Uh, so this about five hours ago, [3:03:00] Vanderbilt university said, I just saw this myself. Sorry. I hadn't seen it before. Vanderbilt university [3:03:07] about five hours ago said we are currently responding to an active cyber security incident [3:03:13] that may impact university devices, systems, and cloud-based services. Our information technology [3:03:18] team is actually actively investigating and working to contain the situation. They said, we are asking [3:03:23] all members of the university community to shut down university devices, disconnect from university [3:03:29] wifi and remain extremely vigilant. Take immediate action. If you notice any specific unusual or [3:03:37] suspicious activity on your devices, they also said examples of, of suspicious activity include [3:03:44] things like unexpected pop-ups, unusual changes to files, et cetera, et cetera. You can read about this [3:03:50] on their social media. Do not click on any links, pop-ups, attachments, or unfamiliar prompts. [3:03:57] If you experience any unusual or suspicious activity, shut down your device immediately to [3:04:04] help prevent potential further security risks. It is interesting that they said they wanted everybody [3:04:11] at Vanderbilt. We are asking all members of the university community to shut down university devices, [3:04:18] disconnect from university wifi, and remain extremely vigilant. So I'm not sure if there's more about that. [3:04:26] But thanks to the viewer for mentioning that. Oh, hold on a second. I can show you something about [3:04:39] that, or I can tell you something about it. The Washington Post says that, do they have any updates? [3:04:53] They said Vanderbilt, no, they said, oh, Washington Post says a website claiming to be that of the BYOD [3:05:04] ransomware group posted a message online to Vanderbilt. If you could not tell already your databases are [3:05:12] locked, we have your entire estate and research data, over 1 million social security numbers, [3:05:17] full names, email addresses, phone numbers, student and employee records, full takeover of your DC, [3:05:23] whatever was on your network we possess. A spokesman for Vanderbilt spokesperson said the school had not [3:05:30] confirmed those numbers. It was unclear this afternoon whether the hackers had demanded a ransom. [3:05:48] Okay. I hadn't heard that before. So I don't, I don't know if, if that was a [3:05:59] legit message or whatever. The Washington Post said that was posted. Give me, give me, give me one moment [3:06:04] here. Um, so just to, uh, clarify this, a website claiming, according to the Washington Post, [3:07:12] the message post to, uh, let me just, let me just get this posted and I'll read it to you again. [3:07:19] I'm just trying to get this posted. Where did I put it? There it is. Thanks for your patience [3:07:40] here while I get this posted. Okay. So again, the Washington Post says that they just, they just [3:08:04] reported this 15 minutes ago. The Washington Post says, as I mentioned, uh, Vanderbilt University, [3:08:11] we saw told people to, uh, the university itself about five hours ago, literally told people, [3:08:21] everyone, we are asking all members of the university community to shut down university devices, [3:08:28] disconnect from university wifi, which I'm sure many, many people use on the campus and remain [3:08:33] extremely vigilant. Um, and, uh, the Washington Post says that a website claiming to be that of the [3:08:42] the BYOD ransomware group posted a message online to Vanderbilt saying, if you could not tell already, [3:08:49] your databases are locked. We have your entire estate and research data over 1 million social [3:08:56] security numbers, full names, email addresses, phone numbers, student and employee records, [3:09:02] full takeover of your DC, whatever was on your network we possess. And then the post says a [3:09:08] spokesperson for Vanderbilt said the school had not confirmed those numbers. It was unclear this [3:09:14] afternoon, whether the hackers had demanded a ransom. So just wanted to update you on that. [3:09:23] Pretty serious matter. If a college, this is during the school year on a, on a school day, [3:09:44] tells the entire community to shut down their university devices and, uh, disconnect from university [3:09:52] wifi. Uh, but I don't know that. I mean, I don't have a lot of specifics about what's going on. [3:09:58] Anyways, I want to let you know about that. Billy Joe thinks they do a lot of research at Vanderbilt. [3:10:10] So it's going to be more than just student data that they got. I don't know if that post is a [3:10:14] legit post that has this making legit claims or not about what these purported hackers say they have. [3:10:21] So it's a good question. Let's check a couple of things here. Okay. Is it only Vanderbilt says CC? [3:10:57] I haven't heard about other schools. I've heard about Vanderbilt. I haven't heard about anything, [3:11:01] but, but, uh, I'm not, again, I haven't heard about other schools. Okay. Um, let me just see [3:11:14] if there's any other big updates I missed. So just to be clear, we were on the air. We did, we did a [3:11:21] whole coverage of, we did a bunch of coverage on, um, on, uh, the impeachment. We showed a bunch of [3:11:32] Thomas. Oh, I wanted to mention something. We showed a bunch of Thomas Massey reading the articles [3:11:38] of impeachment in, um, in the house. And then we showed, it was quite interesting, Thomas Massey's [3:11:45] press conference after he read the articles of impeachment. And we talked about the impeachment [3:11:50] story where Pete Hegseth, the house is he, Thomas Massey has introduced articles of impeachment against [3:11:57] secretary of defense, Hegseth in the house. And it is seen as, I guess, likely from what I understand [3:12:06] that they'll vote on it sometime this week. Although I don't know that that's guaranteed. [3:12:10] Um, and if they vote yes, then it would go to a Senate for the Senate for a trial. But, um, if you [3:12:15] missed that, you can rewind and, uh, and check that out. Um, because we had a whole bunch of coverage [3:12:24] on that. Then we showed president Trump made an impromptu, unplanned appearance, um, where he [3:12:28] took a bunch of questions. He made comments and took a bunch of questions. We showed that. So you [3:12:32] can rewind and watch that. And then the other thing I want to show you, which I'd forgotten to show you [3:12:38] before here. Oh, there's a new press release here. Okay. So look, I'm not going to go over this all now, [3:12:46] uh, because we, we, we did a whole thing on the impeachment and Thomas Massey talked about [3:12:51] what the articles were impeachment about and everything. Um, but there is a new press release [3:12:57] on Thomas Massey's, uh, website where it talks about the impeachment and what the impeachment [3:13:04] articles are. It explains the eight, it summarizes the eight impeachment articles, having to do things [3:13:09] like conducting war without in Iran, without the proper approval of Congress, um, extrajudicial killings [3:13:16] in the killings of suspected drug traffic, traffickers on boats, um, ignoring laws that minimize civilian [3:13:23] casualties, um, suppressing free speech in his response to, uh, Mark remarks by Senator Mark Kelly, [3:13:33] uh, kidnapping of a sovereign foreign leader, um, regarding, uh, the U S is, uh, capturing of Nicholas [3:13:40] Maduro, um, unlawful war in Yemen. So you can, I'm going to give you a link to this and you can read [3:13:45] that press release, but also there's a link to the new, to the actual, this is what he was reading. [3:13:53] This is the 34 pages. This is the text of the, uh, resolution of the, of the articles of impeachment. [3:14:01] I assume it. Yeah. I believe this is the updated text right here. And you can find this, um, at that, [3:14:08] I'm going to put this link in the chat to this press release. And if you go down here, [3:14:12] you can find the link to the text of the charges, uh, this is, he just, it's what we heard him [3:14:18] reading. He read the articles in, in the house. So I'm posting the, the press release. I'm posting [3:14:25] the link to that. Now I just posted that and I'll actually post a link to the articles of impeachment. [3:14:32] If you want to go through those, uh, maybe start with the press release. It's a little more simple, [3:14:37] uh, to get an idea of what's going on. All right. So the articles of impeachment, it's pretty dense, [3:14:41] 34 pages. Um, and it's kind of technical. It's interesting, but it's technical. Um, [3:14:47] all right. So if you want to, you can go, if you're looking for a summary of what, [3:14:52] of what the, what the articles of impeachments are about, I would start with this [3:14:56] press release here. If you didn't see our coverage before, um, you can see among his charges, [3:15:03] representative Massey asserts that secretary Hegseth is violating three specific provisions [3:15:08] of the war powers resolution of 1973. Uh, Massey said by engaging in hostilities in Iran for more [3:15:14] than 90 days without congressional authorization, secretary Hegseth is breaking the law and must [3:15:18] be held accountable. His constitutional violations extend beyond the illegal war in Iran. He is abusing [3:15:23] the power of his office to ignore, ignore congressional war powers resolutions to kidnap foreign leaders [3:15:28] and to intimidate critics of the Trump administration by retaliating against them for exercising free [3:15:32] speech. If we are to remain true to our oath to support and defend the constitution of the US, [3:15:37] the house of representatives much must act. And he also said, Thomas Massey, my effort to impeach [3:15:43] secretary Hegseth is a much gentler version of what's coming when the Democrats assume control of [3:15:48] the house and Senate next year, they will hold hearings and trials. President Trump should replace [3:15:53] secretary Hegseth now while he can still get a replacement confirmed in the Senate. That is what Massey [3:16:00] said. Oh, now hold on a second here. One of our viewers mentioned something. One of the viewers [3:16:51] claimed there was a report about Republican senators saying they would report the impeachment. [3:16:55] They would support the impeachment. I have not seen that yet myself. [3:17:02] Massey to now Massey was just talking about house members today. He wasn't talking about senators. [3:17:07] He said that he had not confirmed that any House members would join him. You would only need a couple, [3:17:12] I believe, if all the Democrats voted for impeachment in the House, because the current [3:17:16] balance of power is 218 to 214 with one independent. Give me one moment here. Just give me one moment. [3:18:05] Oh, Sahil Kapoor did say from NBC News that Tom Tillis, who is an outgoing Republican senator, [3:18:13] said that he would most likely vote yes in the Senate on impeaching Hegseth if the House passed it. [3:18:21] Right now, I believe it's 53 Republicans in the Senate and 47 Democrats. So if they were to have [3:18:29] a vote in the Senate, a trial before January, you and all the Democratic senators voted to convict [3:18:37] Hegseth, you would need 20 Republicans to go along with the Democrats. [3:18:48] That will change in January, because it looks right now that the Democrats are going to have [3:18:54] 55 or 56 senators. You would need 67 to convict. All right, I need to, hold on. Oh, by the way, [3:19:37] thanks to Kerry Poteet, who gave 10 people memberships in the YouTube chat. That's very [3:19:41] nice of Kerry. Thank you, Kerry Poteet. I appreciate that. Also, PVC Sweet, thank you. Also, Alan [3:19:49] Zeitlin Music says, if Hegseth takes orders from Trump, why is there an attempt [3:19:53] to impeach Hegseth rather than Trump? It's a fair question. We have talked about that before [3:19:57] during our coverage. And actually, if you go back to the Massey press conference during this broadcast, [3:20:03] he was asked about it directly. One thing he said is that he thought it was not a politically, [3:20:10] he didn't think politically it was, it stood, it was, he thought politically it was going to be, [3:20:19] it would be difficult to do to get support for that. But another thing he said is he seemed to say [3:20:26] something like that he thought that maybe by impeaching Hegseth, it could cause Trump to change [3:20:34] his behavior and modify his behavior in this realm. So he, I, you know, it's sort of like, [3:20:42] I don't know that it was like a super direct answer, but you can go back. He did talk about [3:20:47] that during the press conference. That's a couple of things I remember. So you can go back and watch [3:20:52] it on the press conference if you want to rewind because he was asked about that. But those are a [3:20:55] couple of things I remember him saying. Thank you, Alan Zeitlin Music. And certainly, [3:21:02] I understand the question. And he understands the question too. He mentioned it. I think he [3:21:07] mentioned it before he was asked and then he was asked it. Thanks, Alan. Thanks also, [3:21:15] Democracy R3N and Diet Ginger Dale. Thank you, Doddle on Twitch. And who, and Kindra Fox and who shot JR. [3:21:45] Okay. I think what we're going to do is this. It's been a busy stream. It's been a busy stream. [3:21:52] Um, I am going to, uh, start wrapping this up and I'm going to eat something. That's what I'm [3:22:00] going to do. I need to eat something. Um, but, uh, I will keep an eye out. Our viewer Keckery says [3:22:06] there are two still two, still two years of Trump presidency left. Um, I will keep an eye out, uh, [3:22:13] for news. If there's some kind of big news tonight, we can come back on the air and do another stream. [3:22:17] But this was kind of, this was sort of two streams because we covered the impeachment stuff in the [3:22:25] first part of the stream. Then in the second part of the stream, we covered Trump's appearance. So [3:22:28] if you missed any of that, uh, you can, including the Thomas Massey press conference, you can go back [3:22:35] and rewind. Um, so, uh, so, um, I will keep it again. I'll keep an eye out. And if there's something [3:22:45] big, we can, you can do another stream. I really appreciate you guys being here for our live coverage [3:22:52] today. Things ended up being very busy. And also, um, I appreciate you guys all being here. [3:23:05] Uh, we've got to read a bunch of comments today, so I appreciate people making comments in the chat, [3:23:09] letting me read your comments and questions, asking questions. Also, thanks. A bunch of [3:23:12] people have been giving me updates. I found out a couple of things today were happening, [3:23:16] for example, about Trump. The first I heard of that was somebody in the chat mentioned it. So thanks for, [3:23:20] um, for helping me by sending updates. Um, and, uh, I'll have to keep an eye on that Vanderbilt [3:23:31] cyber security situation as well. Um, if you'd like, subscribe, follow Agenda Free TV. We cover [3:23:38] all kinds of live breaking news without an agenda. Agenda Free TV. And, um, also, I would suggest [3:23:46] turning on our notifications, because I never know when big news is going to happen, and I'm going to [3:23:49] jump on the air to cover it. But if you want to get a notification before we go live every time, [3:23:53] so you know, so you don't miss a stream. Um, and you know, when we're covering breaking news, [3:23:57] the notifications are free that we've set up ourselves. They work really well. The mods will [3:24:01] post a link to the notifications in the chat. And you can also, excuse me, find that sign up link [3:24:07] for the free notifications on YouTube and Facebook in the description of this video. [3:24:12] So I would, I'd recommend signing up for those. Uh, let's see here. Give me a moment. [3:24:32] It's interesting. Um, the, at one point, I didn't even see this until now. At one point, [3:24:37] the White House press pool sent out an email and the subject was briefing, exclamation, [3:24:43] exclamation point, exclamation point, two minutes. They didn't know it was happening. And they just [3:24:49] found out. They, and they, they sent out that email. That's interesting. It was not planned. [3:24:55] Um, hey, uh, thanks so much to our moderators who have been here today. They're amazing. They're the [3:25:02] reason that we can have chat rooms. We couldn't have chat rooms without our moderators. They're [3:25:06] keeping it civil and respectful in the chat. Uh, Beth mythical, Ruth and dead wing over on YouTube [3:25:12] and all of our other moderators. They're, uh, greatly appreciate it. Uh, also on Twitch, [3:25:18] all of our moderators there like Bastion, girl, I got that fire. Matthew, co high three, Sarah [3:25:23] flux, a turnus and certainly div. Oh, um, thank you to all of them and all of our other Twitch [3:25:28] moderators. I remembered something else I have to remind you about. Um, oh, and I never, I never [3:25:34] ended the poll on Facebook. Oops. Well, um, I, uh, uh, I said, well, the house vote yes on impeaching [3:25:41] Hegseth next week, this week. And on YouTube, I think it was like 70% yes. And on Twitch, even though [3:25:48] there was a typo and it said Massey instead of Hegseth, I think people understood it. And it was around [3:25:53] 80% on Twitch. Um, it ended up 58% yes on Facebook for will the house vote yes on impeaching Hegseth [3:26:02] this week. Um, uh, sorry, I never ended the, uh, I never, I just ended the poll. I hadn't ended it [3:26:08] before. Thanks to our moderators over on Facebook. Uh, Kayla, everybody's been over there. Darren [3:26:13] Charlo. Oops. What's happening here? What's happening here? Paul Anderson, I think. And, uh, [3:26:22] all of our other Facebook moderators. Thank you. And a reminder, there is supposed to be [3:26:30] a Pentagon press conference tomorrow morning, the first one in around six months, possibly [3:26:37] Secretary Hegseth is going to be giving the press conference. So if that's happening, I'm going to [3:26:43] cover it. I may be half asleep covering it if they're having it at 8am, which they sometimes do. [3:26:48] I have not seen an official official announcement on their social media about this, but Hegseth said [3:26:56] it was happening. This is interesting. I didn't even know they had posted video. I might give you a [3:27:07] little bonus coverage right now, guys. I did not know this was posted. Did they post this? Is this [3:27:13] their video? They posted an interview. They put the, the Department of War posted on their social media, [3:27:19] a clip of Hegseth speaking to the press, which I didn't know they had done. So in the interest of [3:27:33] complete coverage, I think I'm going to show you that. Although I got to make sure it's their footage. [3:27:41] It is their footage. It's their footage. No, it's not. I don't know if it is. Now I'm confused. I do not [3:27:48] know if this is their footage. No, it says Pentagon. It has, this is confusing. It says it has a Pentagon [3:27:55] logo on it. So I do believe that this is their footage because it has the Pentagon logo, which [3:28:03] means they're not just taking it from somebody else. Okay. Now let me, let me, uh, I'm going to, [3:28:13] I'm going to show you this. I'll show you this. Then I'll finish saying goodbye to everybody. [3:28:19] But just for the people who happen to be here, because I would have showed it before. Here is [3:28:28] what Pete Hegseth had to say. For those of you who are still here, I had no idea this was there. [3:28:37] It's not even on their YouTube page, but it's on their ex account. So let's, let's look at this [3:28:48] bonus coverage. Yeah. I, I, this is their video. Hang on a moment. I don't know how the audio, [3:29:03] the audio might be bad too. We might be, he might be drowned out by the plane noise. [3:29:10] Bones, stable, scrapes, banged up, but going to be just fine. So I passed our gratitude to the team. [3:29:16] We'll talk to them later as well. Just, I said it to the audience and I meant it. You see it. I get, [3:29:21] I get to see it firsthand every day on the military side, but on the law enforcement side, [3:29:25] what these incredible Americans do to protect the convoy, to protect American citizens, whatever [3:29:30] it is, they don't ask for any accolades. They take risks, put their own life on the line, their own [3:29:35] health on the line. So this guy was just doing his job, hit a tough spot. We got, we got support to [3:29:41] him right away, but he's going to be, he's going to be well taken care of, thankfully. And it just makes [3:29:46] me think of, which I think of every day in this job, are the guys out there in the Strait of Hormuz [3:29:52] or down in the WEM, down in, you know, working with our partners. They're taking risks in places that [3:29:58] American people will never know to defend our country and keep our people safe and secure. [3:30:04] That's what the president has charged me with. Peace through strength. He's projecting power to ensure [3:30:09] that Americans at home are safe and our sovereignty is protected. And I just hope we want to do everything [3:30:14] we can to shine a light on incredible work Americans do all the time. And then today here, [3:30:19] thanks for coming to the speech. It was a long time coming. We've been working on senior service [3:30:24] college reform for almost 18 months now, sending some of our best people to all these institutions [3:30:30] to understand what works and what doesn't, and to drive the warrior ethos into our service colleges. [3:30:37] Because it's, yes, it's, it's about, you know, military academies and it's about basic training, [3:30:42] but at every single echelon, we want to be driving a relentless focus on warfighting, [3:30:47] deterring conflict and winning it if you have to fight it. It's just a new, there were a lot of bad [3:30:52] ideas that made their way into even our military institutions that you heard me talk about. [3:30:57] You can't just strip those away. That's not enough. It's rebuild the foundation on a warfighting focus. [3:31:03] And so I'm proud of our team for what they put into this. This speech is actually more of a starting [3:31:07] gun after doing the evaluation of all the changes that are to come, uh, which are substantial. [3:31:13] So at every level, we're putting the water pack, war department back on sound footing. [3:31:17] And thank you for coming to see this. I'll take a couple of quick questions. [3:31:20] Mr. Secretary, um, you said your goal was to win wars today. You realigned NATO, [3:31:27] you've got the counter cartel coalition, 90% of Latin America joined you recruiting goals met [3:31:32] five months early this year, right? Um, how was that going to stack up against the people who are [3:31:38] under efforts to remove you from office? Well, there's a lot of politically motivated people [3:31:44] who may have, uh, substantial policy disagreements, but their disagreements are with success. I mean, [3:31:51] you, what you just described is getting our European partners to step up. It's historic, [3:31:56] getting these countries in central and South America to come together and do a counter cartel [3:32:00] coalition and put the cartels on the run is historic. The alliances we're building out in [3:32:05] the Pacific, completely historic. The way the things that we've accomplished through midnight [3:32:09] hammer and absolute resolve and Southern spear and epic fury, uh, are things that will change the [3:32:16] face of the globe, uh, for a generation. We are very proud of our, of the president's America first [3:32:23] agenda of our peace through strength posture. We know the world is a better and safer place as a [3:32:27] result. And so if we want to litigate that the success of those things, I'm happy to do it all [3:32:33] day long. I couldn't be more proud of what our president has done, the decisions that he's made, [3:32:38] the courageous calls that he's made, the bold nature of our leadership, military leadership, [3:32:44] the skill and courage of the troops on the ground. So if you want to take issue with what we did in [3:32:49] epic fury or rough rider or nabbing Nicholas Maduro, you're taking issue with the troops and what they [3:32:55] accomplished, which is historic. Everybody in the military knows that anybody paying attention [3:33:00] knows that these are the kind of partisan political games. Uh, Democrats have been playing [3:33:04] for a very long time against the president. Yes. What's your reaction to that tweet? [3:33:21] And did you talk to the vice president? Well, I appreciate the vice president very much, [3:33:25] very much, and I'm not going to get in the middle of a finger pointing exercise. [3:33:29] He's been a incredibly, uh, substantive member of the team from the very beginning. [3:33:33] We all give earnest feedback on everything. Uh, and ultimately what the president says, [3:33:37] he'd do it again. I agree. This was a, it doesn't have to be necessarily popular, [3:33:43] but it can be necessary. And that's, I think where I, where I land on that. [3:33:49] Someone had to confront the Iranian regime's pursuit of a nuclear weapon. And for 47 years, [3:33:54] no president was willing to do it. And then president Trump said, stood up and said, [3:33:59] not on my watch. And it's going to be difficult because they're building a conventional missile [3:34:04] shield. The world, the likes of which the world hasn't seen, they were pursuing the North Korea [3:34:09] strategy, build up so many capabilities that you can't stop us from getting a nuclear weapon. [3:34:14] And as the president points out so clearly, you can't let crazy Islamists have a nuclear bomb. [3:34:20] And so the choice was don't act and wish it away or take a bold move, which the president did with [3:34:25] Midnight Hammer, which we've done with Epic Fury. Uh, and I think it was the right step. History [3:34:30] will judge him very kindly. Uh, and the military delivered indeed. Real quick. [3:34:35] Do you have enough Republican support to defeat in that article? [3:34:39] Oh, we're not worried about that. I'll tell you this. Actually, I hope all of you will join us. [3:34:44] We're going to do a press conference tomorrow morning at the Pentagon on that very topic. So [3:34:47] I'll save my remarks there. I hope you'll all come, uh, loaded for bear with your questions. [3:34:51] Can I ask once it happened for the war to officially be over? And then just really quickly, [3:35:00] is there anything Republicans need to accomplish for you and for the department of war before [3:35:04] Democrats take over? Well, Iran is devastated. Iran is in the weakest position it's been in a very, [3:35:10] very long time. The president has the upper hand on any path that he chooses to take to include, [3:35:16] to include saying, Hey, we're done and we're going to watch your nuclear material and you better not [3:35:19] move it. Whatever he wants to do is his prerogative. And the war department is prepared to give him the [3:35:23] tools to execute on that. What was your second question? What Republicans need to do for you and for [3:35:29] the war department before Democrats come up and take over? Well, I think that's maybe your [3:35:33] question on funding as well. The funding our department needs is the most important component [3:35:39] of the next two months. And my call to Republicans is let's come together through a reconciliation bill [3:35:45] to fund president Trump's war department with a historic generational investment that'll ensure [3:35:50] I, you heard me talk today about sub sea to, to space. We need to have dominance at every echelon. [3:35:57] And that reconciliation bill from super intelligence to space, to iron dome, to munitions, to ship [3:36:04] building, you name it. It's going to ensure that our department not just stays toe to toe, [3:36:10] but dominates into the future, which is what the president expects. So my team, we're not worried [3:36:15] about the noise, which is what I told the troops too. Don't worry about the noise. There's partisan noise [3:36:19] all over our town. We're focused on delivering the president's agenda, which is the kind of funding our [3:36:24] department needs in order to dominate the future, which will, which will deliver. So we'll see you [3:36:28] tomorrow morning at the Pentagon. How about that? Thank you very much. All right. He said, [3:36:34] see you tomorrow morning at the Pentagon. So I guess we're going to see him tomorrow morning at the [3:36:37] Pentagon. Um, I was in the middle before when I, uh, when I noticed that that video was available, [3:36:43] I was in the middle of wrapping up the stream. I had just thanked our moderators. [3:36:47] So let me just continue. I got, I'm going to wrap this up and I got to eat something. [3:36:51] Um, but, uh, I really, so thanks again to our, all of our moderators. Let me just thank them one [3:36:55] more time because they are great. Um, over there, uh, Beth mythical dead wing, Ruth over on YouTube, [3:37:03] uh, Kay Lowry body, Paul Anderson, uh, Darren Charlo on Facebook and, uh, Bash and girl. I got that [3:37:12] fire. Matthew Kohai flux eternus, uh, Matthew Kohai three flux eternus and surly dev on Twitch and all of [3:37:17] our other moderators as well. Hey, thanks also to everybody who for supporting the channel. [3:37:22] Uh, I really appreciate it. Um, really nice to kind of you. Uh, I hopefully I, did I get everybody [3:37:29] earlier? Did I thank everybody during the stream? I think I did. Did I thank Doddle and Kendra Fox? [3:37:34] I think I did. So thank you so much for supporting the channel. That's what allows the channel to be [3:37:38] on the air. Really, really appreciate all of your generous support for the channel. Thank you. [3:37:42] Um, uh, I will post updates when I am off the air about various stories on my X account, [3:37:48] which is at Lookner on X. If you'd like, you can follow me over there. Let me just show you [3:37:55] what that looks like there at Lookner on X for, uh, breaking news updates when I am not on the air. [3:38:05] And also if you want to, uh, if you want to get another way to find out when we're going live, [3:38:11] if you're on X, follow the channel at agenda free TV. I always post, uh, there when we're going [3:38:16] live, I post updates about the channel there, uh, as well. Um, streaming has been broken on the [3:38:25] channel for a couple of weeks on X. They say they're fixing it. I'm sorry about that, but [3:38:28] hopefully they fix it soon, but, uh, you can follow over there for heads up when we're going live [3:38:33] at agenda free TV. Um, we do have a, uh, chat on discord where you can chat with other viewers. [3:38:40] When we're not on the air, a bunch of our viewers really like doing that. It's the discord chat. [3:38:43] It's the same link as the link to the free notifications, um, that we talked about earlier. [3:38:49] Uh, so, uh, check out, uh, the mods. We'll put it in the chat. I think now, thank you, [3:38:54] moderators. Uh, but check out the discord chat if you'd like. And, um, uh, thanks to our discord [3:39:00] mods who moderate our discord chat. Thank you, discord mods. Also for all of you who are on YouTube, [3:39:05] I would suggest turning on the YouTube notifications. Make sure you have those on another way to find out [3:39:10] when we're live. Uh, if you want to turn on the YouTube notifications, what you can do is subscribe [3:39:16] to the channel and then click the bell and choose all notifications. If you're already subscribed, [3:39:20] make sure you click the bell and choose all notifications. Uh, thanks by the way to, [3:39:27] to one moment, to our Facebook subscribers who support the channel, Julianna Martin, Diane, [3:39:37] all Diane Allworth, uh, Kristen McConnell Gates, and all of our other Facebook subscribers, [3:39:42] Dolly Clark and others. Thank you. Uh, our viewer on Facebook, Meredith work Angulo says, [3:39:47] glad I stayed. Yeah, I'm glad I was able. I'm sorry. I didn't find that Hegseth video before. I did not [3:39:52] know that they had posted that video of him answering a few questions today. So I'm glad I found it at the [3:39:57] end of the stream. Uh, thanks also to our, uh, Twitch subscribers. Sorry, I didn't get to you earlier. I mean, [3:40:04] it's been so busy today. Uh, Uncle Fester, Seed Music. Thanks for supporting the channel and [3:40:09] subscribing on Twitch. Stream the memes, Wall Street, um, and, uh, Dilge Warren, Strong One, [3:40:19] um, Cece, Boba J. Fett, Jimbo Slice. Jimbo Slice is watching. Thanks, Jimbo Slice, for watching. [3:40:27] Thanks for subscribing, Boba J. Fett. Um, and let's see, uh, who else did I not get? Matthew Kohai, [3:40:36] Three, Sarah, all of our other subscribers over there on Twitch. Big thanks. And also our YouTube [3:40:45] members. Big thanks to our YouTube members. Uh, people like Betty Westbrook, Confidence in God, [3:40:50] Tanks a Lot, Catgate13, Ben Van, uh, Dr. McRib, Red Girl, Patricia Grace, uh, all of our other, [3:41:02] Betty Westbrook, all of our other YouTube members. And all, Justin D. Winters, thanks for subscribing. [3:41:07] Douthis, thanks for subscribing. Jax Haku, thanks for subscribing on Twitch. Thanks to all of our [3:41:11] other viewers as well. Really appreciate people tuning in. Ken Lance, our member, thank you. [3:41:17] Praise for watching over on YouTube. Raycat, Buddy Love, Lolly Lolly Pop, thank you. Uh, [3:41:25] and Kendra Fox, thanks for subscribing over on Twitch. Uh, Robe3UK, thanks for watching. Hey, [3:41:30] it's JV Ant-Nem, thanks. Petulant Steven. Um, nuts for you. Yeah, I am planning on carrying the press [3:41:40] conference tomorrow. I think it's going to be in the morning, although I haven't seen an exact [3:41:43] and an official announcement from the Pentagon yet. Um, uh, also, um, RJ, RLJ Slick2 Skydance, [3:41:56] everybody else watching over there on Twitch and our Facebook viewers, thanks for watching over there [3:42:00] as well. Um, Christy Claft, Robert Kennedy and others. Uh, all right, I am wrapping this up. Buckeye, [3:42:08] boys, uh, Mo90X. Uh, it could be 8am Eastern, but I, I, I don't have a fixed, uh, firm time on the [3:42:17] press conference yet of the Pentagon, so we'll have to wait and see what happens with that. [3:42:21] He said it's going to be in the morning. Uh, thank you, Lara Zaaf for Trump for watching, [3:42:26] Jeff Buddington for being a member, CAC for being a member, and if you want, you can rewind and [3:42:32] watch our coverage, uh, including the Thomas Massey press conference and the Donald Trump, [3:42:36] uh, unannounced press conference. Okay. Um, all right, I'm wrapping it up right now. [3:42:55] And so anything I want to, I saw one other thing that I might want to say something about for two [3:43:00] seconds. Um, I'm not going to get into this now. A couple of people had messaged me about this on X. [3:43:09] Uh, I haven't really even read it, read about it at all. Uh, but the FBI is investigating a possible [3:43:14] killing on a cruise ship out of Texas. FBI is investigating a suspected homicide aboard a [3:43:19] cruise ship that returned to port after departing from Galveston. They said, this is from AP. Um, [3:43:29] and I don't know there, I think there might be some other reporting about this. [3:43:36] Well, I'll have to look into it after I thought I saw something about it online, but I don't know [3:43:58] what the sourcing for that was anyways. I'll have to keep an eye on that, but I'm going to go eat [3:44:03] something now that that's not good though. I'll keep an eye on it. All right. I'll keep an eye on [3:44:15] Nvidia news too. So that's, I have condolences to the person who was killed. I don't have really [3:44:19] have details on that right now, but I will keep an eye out. I don't know where the FBI Houston, [3:44:41] did they post about it? Yes, here it is right here. FBI's Texas city is responding to a suspected [3:44:58] homicide aboard the MSC seascape cruise ship that docked in Galveston on November 9th. [3:45:03] Since this is an ongoing investigation, no additional details will be provided. They said, [3:45:11] so I'll keep an eye on that too. Trump presser means Trump press conference in the headline. [3:45:17] All right, that is it. I am wrapping up this stream. I do really appreciate you watching. [3:45:22] Um, and I'll keep an eye out for other news and, uh, we will see you soon [3:45:27] with more live breaking news coverage right here at agenda free TV.