Firebrand - Matt Gaetz - September 24, 2024


Episode 173 LIVE: America In The Balance – Firebrand with Matt Gaetz

Topics
illegal immigration walls and borders Ryan Roth assassination attempt anti-terrorism training exercise end-use monitoring of US equipment in Ukraine
Hosted by
Matt Gaetz
Mentioned
Trump Eli Crane One Sam Harris Jill Biden Ryan Ruth Sheriff Jenkins Elizabeth Warren Border Patrol John Solomon Rep Harmon Johnson Gates Seng Jack Posobiec Representative Harmon Mikhail Gorbachev Kyiv Ukraine Chair Harmon John Bolton and 10 more
Episode 172 LIVE: The Jeff Clark Story (feat. Jeff Clark) – Firebrand with Matt Gaetz

Episode Stats


Length

39 minutes

Words per minute

161.98

Word count

6,355

Sentence count

415

Harmful content

Misogyny

7

sentences flagged

Toxicity

1

sentences flagged

Hate speech

4

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

In this episode, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-GAZETTE) is joined by Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) and Eli Crane (D -Ariz.) to discuss the latest in the Kamala Harris-Kamala Harris fight for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination and why she's a bad idea. Also, an Arizona sheriff takes aim at open borders and calls for the creation of a border wall along the U.S. southern border with Mexico. Rep. Eli Crane, D-Ariz. joins the show to discuss why he thinks border walls are racist and why they should be built along the southern border, not along the northern border, and why border walls should not be built in the first place. Rep. Cummings and Rep. Gaetz are the latest firebrands to join forces to take on the Democratic presidential field and take a swing at Sen. Kamala's campaign. Join the conversation by using the hashtag , and find us on social media using the hashtags and on the trending topics, and remember to tag us in your stories! if you have a story you d like to be featured on the next episode of Firebrand or , tweet us ! and we'll get a shoutout! in the comments section below! Thank you so much for your support and your support! Timestamps: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Intro Music: Intro Song: "Goodbye" Music: "I'll See You Soon" by Jeff Perla (feat. ) & "I'm With You, My Name is And This Is My Name? (featuring: Andrea Thomas ( ) & Other Music: Chacho ( ) & Other Things ( ) - "Good Morning, My Music Is My Music: My Music is By: "Mr. John" by Mr. Boudreporco ( ) ( ) and His Music Is ( ) is Recorded In The Morning ( ) And This Will Be My Song ( ) by Ms. ( ) . & His Music is

Transcript

Transcripts from "Firebrand - Matt Gaetz" are sourced from the Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool. Explore them interactively here.
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Toxicity classifications generated with s-nlp/roberta_toxicity_classifier .
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
Topics generated with Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct.
Hosts, guests, and mentioned names generated with spaCy (en_core_web_sm), reconciled against Wikidata.
00:00:03.000 Matt Gaetz, the biggest firebrand inside of the House of Representatives.
00:00:07.000 You're not taking Matt Gaetz off the board, okay?
00:00:09.000 Because Matt Gaetz is an American patriot and Matt Gaetz is an American hero.
00:00:14.000 We will not continue to allow the Uniparty to run this town without a fight. 1.00
00:00:19.000 I want to thank you, Matt Gaetz, for holding the line.
00:00:24.000 Matt Gaetz is a courageous man.
00:00:26.000 If we had hundreds of Matt Gaetz in DC, the country turns around.
00:00:31.000 It's that simple.
00:00:31.000 He's so tough, he's so strong, he's smart, and he loves this country.
00:00:36.000 Matt Gaetz.
00:00:38.000 It is the honor of my life to fight alongside each and every one of you.
00:00:42.000 We will save America.
00:00:45.000 It's choose your fighter time.
00:00:47.000 Send in the firebrands. 1.00
00:00:53.000 Kamala promised to prosecute free speech.
00:00:56.000 If you act as a megaphone for misinformation, we are going to hold you accountable.
00:01:04.000 She threatened Twitter because it didn't support her policies.
00:01:08.000 You have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter.
00:01:11.000 They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation.
00:01:20.000 And that has to stop.
00:01:22.000 Kamala said she supports a mandatory gun buyback and wants your semi-automatic rifles.
00:01:27.000 We have to have a buyback program and I support a mandatory buyback program.
00:01:31.000 But we do need an assault weapons ban.
00:01:33.000 She even wants to enter your home to make sure you're complying. 0.62
00:01:37.000 To legally possess a gun in the safety of your locked home doesn't mean that we're not going to walk into that home and check to see if you're being responsible.
00:01:46.000 The truth is Kamala's already told us her policy plans, and they're radical.
00:01:51.000 Bad for the First Amendment.
00:01:53.000 Bad for the Second Amendment. 0.99
00:01:54.000 bad for the country. - Welcome back to "Firebrand." I'm Congressman Matt Gaetz.
00:02:05.000 We're broadcasting live from Room 2021 of the Rayburn House Office Building here at the Capitol Complex in Washington, D.C. Kamala Harris is the sitting vice president.
00:02:13.000 Her policies, she's championed as a senator and really a D.A. throughout her time in public life, indeed, are harmful to the country now. 1.00
00:02:21.000 This isn't some future projection.
00:02:23.000 This is fair game of a sitting office holder advancing policies that we know would diminish the American experience.
00:02:30.000 And while we talk about the policies here, we also do note when there's an occasional moment of pop culture that emerges out of our politics that is interesting, and leave it to Trump.
00:02:43.000 To make a statement in the debate and launch an avalanche of memes and takeaways and autotunes.
00:02:53.000 This was my favorite.
00:02:55.000 Take a listen.
00:02:57.000 In Springfield, they're eating the dogs.
00:03:01.000 They're eating the cats.
00:03:04.000 They're eating the pets of the people that live there.
00:03:10.000 They're eating the dogs.
00:03:12.000 They're eating the cats.
00:03:14.000 They're eating the pets of the people that live there.
00:03:21.000 People of Springfield, please don't eat my cats.
00:03:25.000 Why would you do that?
00:03:28.000 Eat something else.
00:03:31.000 People of Springfield, please don't eat my dogs.
00:03:36.000 Here's a catalog of other things to eat.
00:03:40.000 They're eating the dogs.
00:03:43.000 They're eating the cats.
00:03:46.000 They're eating the pets of the people that live there.
00:03:51.000 They're eating the dogs.
00:03:54.000 They're eating the cats.
00:03:56.000 They're eating the pets of the people that live there.
00:04:03.000 Amazing.
00:04:04.000 Absolutely amazing.
00:04:05.000 But there really are challenges that we're facing on the border that erupt in small communities all over the country.
00:04:11.000 And in the House Homeland Security Committee, we delve into how that interface is impacting local law enforcement.
00:04:19.000 And we regularly bring sheriffs to give us a perspective.
00:04:24.000 And Arizona Congressman Eli Crane One of our favorites.
00:04:29.000 One of the best firebrands.
00:04:30.000 He took some exception to an Arizona sheriff showing up with the nerve and audacity to embrace open borders policies.
00:04:40.000 I think Congressman Crane took him to the woodshed.
00:04:43.000 Take a listen.
00:04:43.000 Let me know what you think.
00:04:46.000 Why do you believe that border walls are racist?
00:04:52.000 Well, Reagan was against border walls. 0.96
00:04:55.000 He told Mikhail Gorbachev, tear down this wall.
00:04:57.000 The Soviet Union said they were emerging into an era of freedom, and he said, prove it, tear down the walls.
00:05:02.000 Only 8% of the world's land borders have any structure at all, not a wall, not a fence, not even a line of rocks.
00:05:10.000 If you go through Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America, even the Canadian border.
00:05:15.000 That's not what I asked you, Sheriff.
00:05:16.000 I said, why do you believe they're racist?
00:05:19.000 You said in your written testimony, and certain policies smack of racism.
00:05:24.000 For example, a law was never suggested for the Canadian border.
00:05:29.000 Well, yeah, the Canadian border is known as generally a white population, whereas the southwestern border is generally a brown population, so it smacks of racism.
00:05:41.000 And Title 42 was never aggressively enforced on the Canadian border.
00:05:45.000 Sheriff, do you think that if the mass majority of illegal immigration coming into the United States of America was coming from the northern border, that Americans would demand the same thing?
00:05:56.000 I don't know.
00:05:57.000 I think you probably do know that, sir, because it's not about race with the American people.
00:06:03.000 Matter of fact, most American people support legal immigration.
00:06:07.000 It's the illegal immigration. 0.88
00:06:08.000 It has nothing to do with race.
00:06:10.000 Sheriff, do you have a wall at your house?
00:06:14.000 A what?
00:06:14.000 Do you have a wall at your house?
00:06:15.000 No, I do not.
00:06:16.000 Do you have a front door on your house?
00:06:18.000 Yes, I do.
00:06:19.000 Why not just leave it open, Sheriff?
00:06:22.000 I leave it unlocked, but, you know, I do have a door.
00:06:25.000 Yeah, most people have walls and doors on their house, not because they hate the other people on the outside.
00:06:31.000 It's because they love the people on the inside, Sheriff.
00:06:34.000 What about prison?
00:06:35.000 What about prisons, Sheriff?
00:06:36.000 They have walls around them as well.
00:06:38.000 Are those racist?
00:06:40.000 No, I would say they're not.
00:06:41.000 Yeah, they're not.
00:06:42.000 What about the White House?
00:06:43.000 It has a wall around it too as well, doesn't it?
00:06:46.000 Do you think that's racist?
00:06:48.000 I didn't say that walls are generically racist.
00:06:50.000 Okay, well you said, and certain policies smack of racism.
00:06:54.000 Yes, it does.
00:06:54.000 We're opposing a wall on the southern border and not the Canadian border.
00:06:58.000 Well, I just told you, where's the majority of illegal immigration coming into the United States, sir?
00:07:05.000 Northern or southern border?
00:07:07.000 Go ahead.
00:07:07.000 Probably the southern border.
00:07:08.000 Yeah, you know it is, okay.
00:07:10.000 Thank you.
00:07:14.000 Eli Crane making the common sense, reasonable arguments about border security.
00:07:19.000 We're also working closely with Congressman Crane on investigations regarding the assassination attempts into President Trump.
00:07:25.000 And I want to get into that now because...
00:07:28.000 It was a surreal experience for me.
00:07:30.000 I'm broadcasting right now out of my office just a few feet away from this desk where I'm speaking to you.
00:07:36.000 I had a senior Homeland Security official come and give me troubling news between the first assassination attempt and the second assassination attempt.
00:07:47.000 I shared that news with John Solomon as he was hosting Human Events, the Jack Posobiec show.
00:07:53.000 Take a listen.
00:07:56.000 It also requires coordination of a lot of these different agencies, Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, Secret Service, even Border Patrol in this case.
00:08:04.000 And we oftentimes find that it's the brass that is stonewalling or creating the clog in the machine, I suppose.
00:08:13.000 It's the rank and file.
00:08:14.000 How can these people be expected to coordinate at least the rank and file if the folks above them are not willing to do the work?
00:08:22.000 Yeah, that lack of coordination has been laid bare by these assassination attempts.
00:08:26.000 And I'll break a little news for you.
00:08:28.000 I had a senior official from the Department of Homeland Security in my office before the second assassination attempt saying that what he has assessed is that there are five known Assassination teams in the United States, three inspired by other governments, two that are here that are known domestic assassination teams.
00:08:51.000 And with that, this individual was coming to me concerned that the force protection around President Trump, even prior to that second assassination attempt, was not sufficient for what it needed to be.
00:09:03.000 And the coordination at that level, at the dignitary protection level, is like The bare minimum that we have to do to keep our presidents, our presidential candidates safe while they're on the trail.
00:09:15.000 So there are five, I just want to follow up, five assassination teams?
00:09:18.000 Are they all targeting Trump?
00:09:19.000 Is it other officials?
00:09:21.000 No, I should have been clear about that.
00:09:23.000 Five teams that we know are targeting Trump.
00:09:25.000 And so that raises real questions about why certain teams were being pulled off of the Trump team.
00:09:33.000 We don't want anything bad to happen to Jill Biden, but at the same time, the threat envelope for her was substantially different than the threat envelope around President Trump, and it would not have necessitated pulling assets away from the Trump detail for the Jill Biden detail or the John Bolton detail or any other details that were beefed up at the same time the requests from the Trump detail and from the Trump campaign for more security were going unanswered.
00:10:01.000 Wow.
00:10:04.000 So we are back live.
00:10:05.000 I have subsequently revealed that this disclosure made to me indicated that there was a team tied to Ukraine, a team tied to Pakistan, A team tied to Iran and then two teams that organically emerged domestically.
00:10:20.000 And again, those were the known teams.
00:10:22.000 I want to be clear, they may have been neutralized by now.
00:10:26.000 They may have been limited in their capability.
00:10:29.000 There may be more teams now that we know about because the air of invincibility around the Secret Service seems to be diminishing with the proximity that attempted assassins are able to achieve to the former president and to the current I've got to tell you,
00:10:49.000 when I learned that the second attempted assassin was rhetorically and proverbially wrapped in the Ukrainian flag, It did strike quite a note with me because I had just been told days prior that there was a Ukraine connection to one of these teams.
00:11:08.000 So I don't know if this particular individual was in any way connected to what Homeland Security and the rest of the intelligence community was watching as it relates to potential assassins.
00:11:20.000 But what I do know is that some very smart people at Customs and Border Patrol actually encountered Routh.
00:11:29.000 They encountered him with this fantastical story about how he was recruiting freedom fighters all over the world and that his wife was paying for it.
00:11:38.000 That seemed a little fishy to Customs and Border Patrol, and so they made a referral to Homeland Security Investigations.
00:11:44.000 They're supposed to do the follow-up.
00:11:47.000 And just this past week, we had the head...
00:11:52.000 Of Homeland Security investigations before the House Judiciary Committee, I got the chance to question her.
00:11:58.000 Take a listen.
00:12:01.000 Thanks for being here.
00:12:03.000 You had 16 people at Butler, and my question is, did they participate in a morning muster meeting that day of the attempted assassination?
00:12:14.000 Thank you for the question.
00:12:15.000 I would have to defer any questions as to the on-the-ground Operational activity in Butler to the Secret Service.
00:12:24.000 But I'm asking about your people, because the problem we're having, and Republicans and Democrats have noted, is we're not getting really forthright answers from the Secret Service in a timely way.
00:12:33.000 And your agency, you had 16 people there, and those people either participated in a morning muster meeting, which is the protocol to make sure everyone's on the same page, has the same comms, that all the duties are correctly assigned and prepared to be executed.
00:12:49.000 So can you...
00:12:51.000 Get back to the committee with just a yes or no on whether or not they participated in that, in that morning?
00:12:57.000 Yes.
00:12:58.000 Okay, good, great.
00:12:59.000 I now want to talk about Ryan Roth.
00:13:02.000 Ryan Roth is the person who attempted to assassinate President Trump at his golf club in Florida.
00:13:08.000 And was Ryan Roth ever referred to HSI for further investigation of his activities?
00:13:17.000 Thank you for the question, sir.
00:13:18.000 I recently, just this morning, learned there was an article that he was, when he entered back into the country from overseas, CBP had contacted HSI, and I read all of the items,
00:13:35.000 the things that he was stating, and basically as a U.S. citizen returning to our country from Ukraine is a freedom fighter, based on the information that I read there would not have been any reason to immediately take him into custody.
00:13:54.000 He had not made any threats, for instance, against the President or former President Trump.
00:14:01.000 HSI responds to port of entry calls, hundreds of responses, probably daily.
00:14:07.000 Just because a person isn't taken into custody immediately doesn't mean that they're not subject to a longer-term investigation.
00:14:14.000 But you can confirm the Just the News reporting That the suspected Trump attempted assassin was flagged by CBP and was referred to HSI. Can you confirm that?
00:14:27.000 Yes.
00:14:27.000 Yes.
00:14:28.000 Okay.
00:14:28.000 So, and it was kind of a crazy story.
00:14:31.000 So, is it legal for someone to go recruit for a foreign military?
00:14:35.000 Does that break any laws?
00:14:39.000 I don't know, sir.
00:14:40.000 I would have to look into that a little bit further.
00:14:43.000 Me too, frankly.
00:14:44.000 But if recruiting for a foreign military was somehow improper, then that would necessitate some need for investigation, I would think.
00:14:55.000 And here's the story that CBP picked up when they referred it to HSI. They say in their memo, suspect is a U.S. citizen who traveled to Kyiv Ukraine for three months to help recruit soldiers from Afghanistan, Moldova, and Taiwan to fight in the Ukrainian war against Russia.
00:15:13.000 Subject stated that he does not get paid for his recruiting efforts and all his work for the Ukrainian government is strictly volunteer work.
00:15:19.000 The subject stated that he obtains money from his wife to help fund his trips to Ukraine.
00:15:25.000 And so when this guy shows up with a business card and this story about how he's recruiting fighters in Ukraine and his wife's paying for it, CBP says this is a little odd, and then they send it to HSI. HSI declines to further investigate.
00:15:42.000 And what you're saying is, you think based on the facts that you're aware of now, that was the right decision by HSI? No, if I may sir, the statements that day would not rise to the level to take him into immediate custody.
00:15:58.000 But what about just like to investigate?
00:15:59.000 Because sometimes investigations proceed without a subject being taken into custody.
00:16:03.000 These are longer-term investigations.
00:16:05.000 We are actively participating with Secret Service and FBI, in fact.
00:16:10.000 No, I'm talking about at this point in time, though.
00:16:12.000 Here's what you got to answer for me.
00:16:14.000 When CBP refers this to HSI, what I believe happened is HSI declined not only to incarcerate this person, but to further investigate the person.
00:16:25.000 Are you saying that They declined to investigate or that that investigation went forward and the attempted assassination occurred during the pendency of that investigation.
00:16:36.000 I would have to look into that a little bit further, sir.
00:16:38.000 I'll get back to you on that.
00:16:39.000 Yeah, I think that's going to be a really important second thing for you to get back to us on, is whether or not HSI made an active decision in real time to decline further investigation of this person.
00:16:50.000 And frankly, I mean, you know, this isn't someone who, like, Was jaywalking.
00:16:55.000 They tried to kill the leading, I mean, they tried to kill the leading Republican candidate for president and the former president of the United States, and so I really think it's important to get those answers.
00:17:04.000 I thank you for being here.
00:17:05.000 Thank you for all the good work of your agency.
00:17:06.000 I yield back.
00:17:10.000 We are back live and the live stream is fired up.
00:17:13.000 John on X wants me to vacate Johnson and then vacate Johnson today.
00:17:18.000 Shown Girl loves Eli Crane.
00:17:21.000 And you know what?
00:17:23.000 We've even got our former creator Joel Valdez on the live stream.
00:17:25.000 We love seeing that.
00:17:26.000 I want to bring you to some of the work going on now in the House Armed Services Committee.
00:17:30.000 We're going to be following up with HSI to get the answers to those questions and certainly I will let you know here on Firebrand or on the Gates Network.
00:17:39.000 But in the Armed Services Committee, you've got to see this.
00:17:42.000 So the United States Army has an anti-terrorism training exercise that they go through.
00:17:51.000 They have a slideshow to warn the Army who might be a terrorist.
00:17:57.000 And included in that slideshow is a characterization of national right to life and a pro-life license plate and any other, like, signification of association with the pro-life movement as potential terrorism.
00:18:14.000 Now, did this just emerge?
00:18:16.000 No.
00:18:16.000 This has been going on, this training in the United States Army, for seven years.
00:18:20.000 More than 10,000 troops have been subjected to this training, so I'm grateful that Chairman Jim Banks in the Military Personnel Subcommittee, a really outstanding committee chairman, he brought in some of these folks from the Army to explain themselves.
00:18:36.000 I got to ask them questions.
00:18:37.000 Take a listen.
00:18:40.000 So, General Matlock, after years of the Army wrongly telling over 10,000 soldiers that someone having a pro-life license plate might make them a terrorist, was anybody fired?
00:18:56.000 Representative, again, the chain of command is the responsible agent for adverse actions or personnel actions and I'm not going to comment on what they've done or not done.
00:19:09.000 That resides with the chain of command.
00:19:12.000 Well, don't you think that has failed?
00:19:14.000 Because wasn't the obligation to stop this nonsense also with the chain of command?
00:19:20.000 The chain of command took immediate, upon receiving the report of the poorly developed training materials, the chain of command took immediate action.
00:19:27.000 I tell you, in the United States Army, eight years might be immediate, but it doesn't seem all that immediate to me.
00:19:32.000 I mean, does years and years of doing this seem like the chain of command was immediately responsive to this errant action to you?
00:19:39.000 Representative, we recognize that that is a very long period of time.
00:19:43.000 Okay, so we'll dispense with the media then.
00:19:45.000 Okay, so you're kind of playing games.
00:19:47.000 I mean, I think the Congress deserves to know, after you all screwed up with 10,000 soldiers, whether you fired anyone, whether you suspended anyone, whether anyone got a demotion in rank, Or what the consequence was?
00:20:04.000 Like, you don't get to just say it's our chain of command and it's not Congress's business when you screw up to this magnitude.
00:20:11.000 Like, does that not register with you?
00:20:15.000 Representative, it does.
00:20:16.000 That's why I'm here today.
00:20:17.000 Right, so just tell us.
00:20:18.000 Did anyone get fired, suspended, demoted?
00:20:20.000 Any of those three?
00:20:22.000 Representative, again, those training materials were very poorly prepared.
00:20:28.000 They were used for a long time.
00:20:30.000 This is what's going on, General.
00:20:31.000 We don't believe that your chain of command approach is going to be sufficient to deal with this if you play hide the ball on what the consequence was.
00:20:40.000 And it sort of seems to be a DOD-wide problem that People who express policy or scripture aligned with Christian faith get demonized and attacked.
00:20:55.000 I mean, we saw that in the United States Navy when the SEALs wanted to have an exception for the vaccine and then your own Inspector General had to say that they were improperly treated.
00:21:05.000 We saw it in the Marine Corps.
00:21:08.000 When someone posted a Bible verse and was then subjected to disciplinary action, and now here in the Army, I mean, Mr. Chairman, I'm at a loss because they won't even tell us what they've done.
00:21:18.000 Now, I'm wondering how this emerged.
00:21:22.000 It was in 2017. Who was the Chief of Staff of the Army then?
00:21:29.000 I believe in 2017, General Milley was the Chief of Staff of the Army.
00:21:33.000 Oh, wow.
00:21:35.000 Interesting.
00:21:37.000 Do you think this is happening elsewhere?
00:21:39.000 This kind of stuff?
00:21:42.000 Representative, in the United States Army?
00:21:44.000 No, I don't think it is.
00:21:45.000 Yeah.
00:21:46.000 Well, here's what I'd do, Mr. Chairman.
00:21:47.000 I would demand answers to the questions that we're asking.
00:21:53.000 I don't even know how to use my last minute and a half of time, because they're not going to answer the question on what consequence.
00:21:57.000 And if the consequence isn't public, it doesn't function as a sufficient deterrent.
00:22:02.000 Like, what you guys do when you allow this to happen for years with no consequence, and then eight years later, or whatever, when you're called out on it, you say, well, there's a consequence, but we won't tell you what it is, then you increase the recidivism of this type of behavior.
00:22:18.000 And, not for nothing, but it's one of the reasons why in some of the key demographic areas that the Army is traditionally drawn from to fill its ranks, you're struggling right now.
00:22:27.000 So I think we're owed answers to these questions, and frankly, I would start fencing money at the United States Army until we get those answers.
00:22:35.000 I yield back.
00:22:38.000 We are back live, and so while the Army and other features of the Department of Defense are frustratingly focused on demonizing Christians, demonizing on the right in some of these trainings that we are working to get Extricated out of our military.
00:22:56.000 There is important work that I think isn't happening at the Department of Defense.
00:23:00.000 We did some fact finding on some of these questions recently and I want to bring that to everybody in the audience.
00:23:07.000 Let's talk about Ukraine.
00:23:08.000 We had a field hearing out in Silicon Valley and we had before us a number of the innovative contractors who are doing work in Ukraine.
00:23:18.000 And what I don't think That the pro-Ukraine war members of the committee were expecting is that one of the witnesses they hand-selected talked about billions of dollars just lying around unused.
00:23:33.000 Take a listen.
00:23:36.000 A final question for you, Mr. Seng.
00:23:38.000 You made mention of the amount of U.S. equipment in Ukraine that is not being used on the battlefield because the Ukrainians don't think it works.
00:23:47.000 Do you have an assessment as to how much money that is?
00:23:51.000 It's in the billions.
00:23:52.000 In the billions.
00:23:53.000 In the billions.
00:23:54.000 And so US taxpayers are paying for the inflation to send stuff to Ukraine that doesn't even work, and it's magnitudes more than on the stuff we're spending for ourselves that does work.
00:24:05.000 Thank you for your testimony.
00:24:06.000 It's illuminating and enraging all at the same time.
00:24:09.000 I yield back.
00:24:12.000 So with billions of stuff, Like, lying around.
00:24:16.000 Military materiel.
00:24:18.000 You would at least want to know that that wasn't falling into the hands of the wrong people.
00:24:24.000 I made a point about end-use monitoring of that equipment in the committee.
00:24:28.000 Take a listen.
00:24:31.000 Another question about the national defense strategy.
00:24:33.000 So we heard on Monday of this week that there are billions of dollars of materiel, U.S. materiel, sitting around in Ukraine that will never be used, that the Ukrainians will not deploy in the fight.
00:24:45.000 We heard that from the contractor that we curated to come give us testimony in California.
00:24:50.000 And we also know from testimony given before this committee that the Inspector General cannot attest To end-use monitoring of that very equipment.
00:25:00.000 So you've got a combination of billions of dollars of equipment and then non-legally compliant end-use monitoring.
00:25:08.000 Does the combination of those factors necessitate us contemplating the risk of a lot of these weapons making their way to the black market and having a national defense strategy that will respond to it?
00:25:20.000 Well, I think it's very important to track the material that's sent into Ukraine or any other war theater funded by the United States.
00:25:27.000 I would note that most of the expenditure for equipment goes to U.S. manufacturers.
00:25:33.000 I think you would agree.
00:25:34.000 Yeah, but I don't really care.
00:25:35.000 OK, this is just one of the craziest arguments.
00:25:37.000 Well, we've got billions of dollars sitting over there.
00:25:40.000 We're not monitoring it correctly.
00:25:42.000 The Ukrainians aren't using it in the fight, but be proud that we're making it here at home.
00:25:46.000 Well, that's a problem.
00:25:47.000 I'm not going to argue that.
00:25:49.000 I'm also, having been to Ukraine twice this year, including last week, very impressed with what the Ukrainians are able to do on their own and the equipment that they're able to produce.
00:25:58.000 I'd love them to do a little more on their own.
00:26:02.000 Irene on Facebook says, they should have all the answers by now.
00:26:06.000 I totally agree.
00:26:07.000 But until there is a financial consequence, you're going to continue to get the obfuscating and the lying.
00:26:14.000 And that's why, one of the reasons why I'm not voting for these continuing resolutions.
00:26:17.000 Because every time you vote for a continuing resolution, you create a permission structure for them to just stiff-arm you, not answer your questions, and they still get the check.
00:26:29.000 The government continues to grow and they continue to have all of their power.
00:26:33.000 So the woman you were just hearing from in that last clip is former Representative Harmon, former Democrat representative, but she's on this committee that was established to review the national security strategy and to make recommendations about that strategy.
00:26:45.000 So obviously one of the reasonable questions I just asked that you heard was, well, I mean, does the strategy contemplate that we got all this stuff and we got no appropriate monitoring of it And it's in the money laundering capital of the world.
00:27:01.000 What could possibly go wrong?
00:27:02.000 And that was the answer you got.
00:27:03.000 But I asked a different question of her at another point in her testimony.
00:27:08.000 We make all these systems and we get this answer back from her commission that says, well, there are a lot of these legacy systems, these older systems that we need less of.
00:27:20.000 Pretty generic statement, right?
00:27:22.000 Right.
00:27:23.000 The real analysis is, like, what do we need less of?
00:27:27.000 What is the hunk of junk that we're making that is not helping the warfighter become more lethal, more survivable, more capable?
00:27:35.000 And you will sense the frustration when I get the bureaucratic doublespeak out of her. 0.97
00:27:41.000 Take a listen.
00:27:44.000 Chair Harmon, you've testified that we need more software and less hardware.
00:27:49.000 I agree.
00:27:50.000 So list the things we need less of.
00:27:55.000 I think we need a careful inventory of what hardware platforms are resilient and can be adapted with additional software to deter and fight future wars.
00:28:08.000 I don't have a list- Terrific answer just not to the question I asked.
00:28:11.000 Name a system- You asked- That we need less of.
00:28:14.000 Name the program.
00:28:16.000 I would offer up the- Hold on, I didn't ask you the question.
00:28:19.000 I asked the chair.
00:28:21.000 Name one.
00:28:21.000 I, again, I come back to what I said, which is an inventory of which systems would be useful to fight future wars.
00:28:36.000 you Well, I had an idea as to one of the systems that was failing and that we probably need less of, the F-35.
00:28:44.000 Take a listen.
00:28:48.000 Like, let's go to the F-35.
00:28:50.000 That's an expensive piece of hardware.
00:28:51.000 We've received testimony in this committee that 29% of the F-35s are fully operationally capable.
00:28:58.000 And so, we fenced 10 of them, and then the appropriators went and restored the 10 we fenced, and then added 10 more.
00:29:06.000 So, how does it serve the National Defense Strategy to continually buy $100 million paperweights?
00:29:14.000 Well, let me agree with you on that.
00:29:16.000 I do agree with you.
00:29:17.000 And I think this committee has tried to make good decisions, and I remember when I served on it, we tried to make good decisions, and we got overruled often, not always.
00:29:26.000 It takes, you know, it takes a lot of work in this building to get things to happen.
00:29:33.000 But I think you're right.
00:29:34.000 It's corrupt because we're buying stuff we know doesn't work, and then what the appropriators did was they took that money out of what this committee prioritized, which was Child care for our military families.
00:29:46.000 But it does not advance our case when the people who are sent to critique it then don't come back and say, yeah, here's our assessment.
00:29:55.000 The F-35 doesn't work, we buy too much of them, and that should go into tech, into the tech that's going to help us.
00:30:00.000 And I think that's your call, and I'm glad that you made it.
00:30:03.000 I don't think that was our call as the writers of this commission report.
00:30:10.000 So, we're back live.
00:30:12.000 She doesn't think it's the people writing the report on the national defense strategy to say whether or not this program we've sunk billions and billions of dollars into works or not.
00:30:24.000 Why do you think that is, right?
00:30:26.000 I think with some of these people in the national defense community, they want to be invited to all the cocktail parties, all the dinner parties.
00:30:35.000 They want to get board seats.
00:30:37.000 They want to get consulting contracts.
00:30:41.000 I don't know anything about what Rep Harmon does, former Rep Harmon, but it just seems to be an ethic that encapsulates some of these failing programs from criticism.
00:30:54.000 Because the people who have the ethos to lodge that criticism are either afraid or too gutless to do so.
00:31:01.000 And it has an opportunity cost.
00:31:04.000 Because, look, I'm for military spending.
00:31:06.000 I want the...
00:31:09.000 Military to be able to vanquish any foe, to fight tonight.
00:31:13.000 I think we have to make the sacrifices as a country to ensure that that is the case.
00:31:18.000 But while we're focused on whether or not pro-lifers are terrorists, and while we're building $100 million F-35s that are not operationally capable, We're missing out on hypersonics.
00:31:30.000 And when China gets ahead of us in hypersonics, it changes the whole calculus on deterrence because they're able to deliver a payload and shorten the decision-making space for an American response. 0.68
00:31:43.000 And that has a way to shape the way you think about an adversary.
00:31:49.000 So take a listen to how basic the analysis can be on the Chinese advancements on hypersonics relative to the United States.
00:32:00.000 Do you contemplate in your critique of the national defense strategy the risk of the fact that China can hit a moving target with a hypersonic weapon and we can't?
00:32:09.000 How do you assess that?
00:32:12.000 Yes, we agree that that's a huge problem.
00:32:14.000 At the beginning of the hearing, Chairman Rogers mentioned that, and we are behind in hypersonics, Mr. Gates.
00:32:20.000 That's just a fact.
00:32:21.000 Yeah.
00:32:22.000 Tragic.
00:32:23.000 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
00:32:23.000 I yield back.
00:32:26.000 So why is it?
00:32:27.000 Why do we accept this?
00:32:28.000 Why do we accept being behind in the most important technologies that matter while we continue to build stuff that doesn't work?
00:32:35.000 I have a belief as to why that is.
00:32:38.000 I laid that out at our field hearing.
00:32:39.000 It's corruption.
00:32:41.000 Take a listen.
00:32:44.000 Mr. Gates of Florida is recognized.
00:32:45.000 I think we're really getting somewhere here.
00:32:47.000 You all have terrifically described the future of warfare.
00:32:52.000 And even a country lawyer can hear what you're saying, that it has to be autonomous.
00:32:56.000 And yet, we are lashed to a present where we are spending billions of dollars on stuff that doesn't work.
00:33:04.000 It's not a bug of the system that we're not more rapidly acquiring these technologies.
00:33:09.000 It's a feature of the system.
00:33:11.000 So just for quick math, President Biden requested 68 new F-35s to purchase.
00:33:18.000 Today, in America, 29% of the F-35s are fully operationally capable.
00:33:25.000 Now, I don't know much about warfare like my colleagues, but I do know if something costs $100 million, it should definitely work more than 29% of the time.
00:33:35.000 Especially if you're telling us it's the past.
00:33:37.000 So we, I think, responsibly as the authorizers, we cut 10 off the block and said you've got to make more of these things work.
00:33:44.000 And then the Appropriations Committee not only restored the 10 that we cut, they went and added 10 more.
00:33:51.000 So when you critique our system...
00:33:54.000 Mr. Tsang.
00:33:55.000 Yeah, and didn't allow a vote on the Good Amendment.
00:33:57.000 So that's what you're up against.
00:34:00.000 What you're up against is a corrupt system where principally five companies distribute hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign donations and hire former staffers and hire former lawmakers to be able to influence the process for them.
00:34:12.000 And I bet you didn't have me citing Elizabeth Warren on your bingo card today, but she released a 2003 report entitled Pentagon Alchemy, How Defense Officials... 0.83
00:34:22.000 Pass through the revolving door and peddle brass for gold.
00:34:25.000 And the key findings of Senator Warren's report are that top defense contractors hire hundreds of former government officials, mostly as lobbyists.
00:34:33.000 The defense industry consolidation increases the risk for big corporations to abuse the powers of the revolving door.
00:34:40.000 And the big defense contractors hired the most revolving door lobbyists and stocked their board with the most former government officials.
00:34:48.000 So to all of you great innovators who are describing the future of warfare to us, do you think it's a fair fight?
00:34:53.000 Like, do you actually think that if you come up with a better mousetrap, that that's going to result in rapid acquisition?
00:34:58.000 Or is it just about who gives out that, let's see, let's see, in the last two decades, defense contractors have given out $285 million in campaign contributions and have spent $2.5 billion in lobbying.
00:35:10.000 So, you guys think it's fair?
00:35:13.000 Anybody want to take that up?
00:35:15.000 Mr. Jenkins?
00:35:16.000 I'd say no, it's not a fair playing field by firepower.
00:35:20.000 You know, small companies, let's say, cannot match the firepower of big primes.
00:35:24.000 I would like to see competition on the battlefield or the pre-battlefield and actually comparing technologies and choosing a winner.
00:35:31.000 As a commercial citizen, we are very competitive, and we're happy to go ahead with any other technology to prove that one's better than the other.
00:35:37.000 No, having a bake-off would be lovely, Mr. Jenkins, but I don't think you're going to get that opportunity based on the rigged system we have.
00:35:44.000 And the fact that we're buying 10 more F-35s for billions of dollars that don't work when Mr. Seng says, you guys are spending less than $100 million on that, which is going to win the future on AI and autonomous systems, is the fundamental critique.
00:35:57.000 So the GAO does this big report, and they say, look, we've got to have these lobbying reforms where you can't have people rolling right into influencing the very systems that they were a part of, and they apply that to lobbying.
00:36:07.000 And we, to our credit, passed that in the 2018 NDAA. But then DOD started interpreting that to say, well, that's just registered lobbying.
00:36:17.000 That's not acquisition as well.
00:36:19.000 So people engage in the revolving door on acquisition, whereas on lobbying they're tightening down on that.
00:36:26.000 Does anyone think that we should be more lax on the acquisition revolving door reforms than we are on the lobbying reforms?
00:36:35.000 Does anyone think that?
00:36:37.000 Do any of you challenge the premise that the acquisition process is corrupted when the senior Pentagon officials and the senior generals involved in these programs then go work for the big five companies?
00:36:51.000 Do any of you say, no, that's not corrupt?
00:36:53.000 Any of you?
00:36:56.000 The silence is deafening.
00:36:57.000 The silence is deafening because you all know you're playing a rigged game, and we participate in it, and it's shameful.
00:37:03.000 It should be the very bake-off that Mr. Jenkins is describing.
00:37:06.000 But we'll do all this stuff to learn about all these exquisite technologies.
00:37:11.000 But again, it is not a bug of the system.
00:37:13.000 It is a feature of the system, and it is deeply unpatriotic.
00:37:19.000 One final note before we go.
00:37:21.000 Florida man and Florida woman are facing quite a lot of activity right now in the Gulf of Mexico.
00:37:26.000 And so make sure if you're in the Sunshine State, you're following at FLSERT. That's our State Emergency Management.
00:37:34.000 You can also follow at GovRonDeSantis.
00:37:37.000 Governor is On the scene, he's calling the shots and giving important information regarding people with disabilities and how they can get evacuation assistance, where we're expecting the storm surge and flooding, and also just helpful tips to make sure you and your family stay safe, not only during the storm, but also after the storm.
00:37:55.000 Remember, this is a storm that could make landfall as a Category 3 or stronger based on some of the predictions in the warm water in the Gulf and the current Coriolis trajectory.
00:38:06.000 Remember, in most cases, There is a higher death count after the storm than during the storm.
00:38:13.000 And so make sure you're being responsible with your electricity, with your generators, that you've got the right ventilation, and that if there's someone who's vulnerable, who's in your family, in your area, in your church group, that you're caring for them, that you're watching out for them and providing them We always say a prayer for the terrific men and women who are out on the line crews restoring power,
00:38:41.000 making sure that our hospitals and critical infrastructure are supported.
00:38:44.000 You are heroes in the Sunshine State, and I'm incredibly grateful for you.
00:38:48.000 And to the rest of the country, we will always accept your prayers as this one seems to bear down on us and may indeed get stronger.
00:38:56.000 Here in Washington now, but my heart's in Florida and my sincere hope is that we're able to weather this and that it's able to go to an area of the least potential impact on our vulnerable citizens.
00:39:08.000 Thanks so much for joining me for Firebrand.
00:39:11.000 It's going to be an interesting few days here in Washington.
00:39:13.000 I'll keep you up to date.