The Anchormen Show with Matt Gaetz - April 20, 2023


Episode 98 LIVE： Court Rules Against Bragg – Firebrand with Matt Gaetz

Topics
Republican plan to raise the debt limit work requirements hypersonic defense capability leak of classified information
Hosted by
Matt Gaetz
Mentioned
Hammers Bragg Alvin Bragg Donald Trump Jim Jordan Mark Pomerantz Joe Biden McConville Hillary Clinton Dave Dunwoody John Smith Speaker Austin Kevin McCarthy Newt Gingrich Joe Manchin Wormuth Barbara Milley Getter Mike and 1 more
Episode 97 LIVE： Leftist Violence Again – Firebrand with Matt Gaetz Episode 99 LIVE： Team Tucker – Firebrand with Matt Gaetz

Episode Stats


Length

39 minutes

Words per minute

158.02

Word count

6,256

Sentence count

376

Harmful content

Misogyny

7

sentences flagged

Toxicity

3

sentences flagged

Hate speech

17

sentences flagged


Summary

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

In this episode, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-GAZETTE) is back in Washington, D.C. to speak at the Armed Services Committee hearing. He is joined by his own Chief of Staff, Gen. Mark McConville, and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel.

Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
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.
00:00:01.000 The embattled Congressman Matt Gaetz.
00:00:03.000 Matt Gaetz was one of the very few members in the entire Congress
00:00:06.000 who bothered to stand up against permanent Washington on behalf of his constituents.
00:00:10.000 Matt Gaetz right now, he's a problem for the Democratic Party.
00:00:13.000 He could cause a lot of hiccups in passing applause.
00:00:16.000 So we're going to keep running those stories to keep hurting him.
00:00:20.000 If you stand for the flag and kneel in prayer,
00:00:23.000 if you want to build America up and not burn her to the ground,
00:00:27.000 then welcome, my fellow patriots. You are in the right place.
00:00:31.000 This is the movement for you.
00:00:33.000 You ever watch this guy on television?
00:00:35.000 It's like a machine. Matt Gaetz.
00:00:38.000 I'm a canceled man in some corners of the Internet.
00:00:41.000 Many days I'm a marked man in Congress, a wanted man by the deep state.
00:00:46.000 They aren't really coming for me. They're coming for you.
00:00:49.000 I'm just in the way.
00:00:51.000 Welcome back to Firebrand.
00:00:56.000 This is Congressman Matt Gaetz broadcasting live out of room 2021 of the Rayburn House Office Building
00:01:03.000 here in the Capitol Complex in Washington, D.C.
00:01:06.000 And you will not leave the program today without a full update as to what's going on in major litigation
00:01:13.000 regarding D.A., Alvin Bragg, and the House Judiciary Committee on which I serve.
00:01:19.000 Jim Jordan and I have been working hard reviewing the briefs and the rulings,
00:01:23.000 and I'm going to get you all caught up to date on that.
00:01:25.000 Also, there have been very serious negotiations ongoing regarding the debt limit.
00:01:30.000 A lot of people think we shouldn't raise the debt limit, that we should have cuts.
00:01:33.000 Some folks believing we should send a blended plan to the United States Senate that has cuts and an increase in the debt limit.
00:01:41.000 I'm going to go through where those negotiations currently stand to get something potentially off the floor of the House of Representatives next week.
00:01:49.000 Remember, they said it couldn't be done.
00:01:51.000 We'll see, and I'll show you the key deal points.
00:01:54.000 Also, there is a lot of discussion on the Hill regarding what's going on with China right now.
00:01:59.000 And that's because some of the leaked information that was put out on Discord and other social media platforms contained key analysis regarding how we view the China hypersonic capability.
00:02:13.000 I asked about that in committee, had a very interesting exchange with some of the lead uniformed military leaders in the Indo-Pacific theater.
00:02:21.000 You will want to get that update.
00:02:24.000 Work requirements, I'm going to be going over that, how that fits into the budget and the debt limit.
00:02:30.000 But first, all of you know, those of you watching today, and thank you for tuning in from New York to Arizona, Georgia, Florida, even viewers from Colorado today.
00:02:41.000 What you know about my work is that I'm not afraid to ask tough questions of the generals who come before the Armed Services Committee.
00:02:49.000 And that is because I admire and respect our military so much.
00:02:55.000 And I want the decision makers to be worthy of the patriotism reflected by our troops.
00:03:02.000 So it boils my blood when we see a Department of Defense leaning into these diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives that do nothing but divide and exclude.
00:03:14.000 And sometimes I feel like they all think I'm crazy and I think they're crazy because there is this disconnect between the recruiting challenges, the retention challenges we face and the embrace of woke ideology.
00:03:29.000 And that was on full display during my questioning of army leadership.
00:03:34.000 Now, what you're going to see in this clip is my questioning of the lead civilian, the secretary of the army and the chief of staff of the army.
00:03:42.000 So the lady is a senior Biden administration official.
00:03:45.000 The gentleman is the general who is the chief of staff of the army, General McConville.
00:03:50.000 So take a watch. We'll talk about it on the other side.
00:03:55.000 When Secretary Austin was here, neither he nor General Milley could defend some of the bizarre DEI activities that were going on at the DOA.
00:04:04.000 And then promptly after my questioning, they shut down the DEI entity at the DOA.
00:04:10.000 And so maybe we can make similar progress today.
00:04:12.000 Ms. Wormuth, do you acknowledge that some of the strange manifestations of this DEI embrace have put negative pressures on the army's recruiting?
00:04:22.000 Congressman, I'm not sure exactly what specifically you're referring to, but when we've done surveys...
00:04:27.000 Okay, so if you could put that slide up on the screen, I'll give you one. I thought that might be where this was going.
00:04:34.000 So this is a vignette aid. It's an army training, and it's regarding the use of showers.
00:04:40.000 The vignette reads, a soldier transition from male to female, as indicated in DEARS.
00:04:46.000 The soldier did not have sex reassignment surgery.
00:04:49.000 The transgender service member is using the female showers and has expressed privacy concerns regarding the open bay shower configuration.
00:04:57.000 Similarly, other soldiers have expressed discomfort showering with a female who has male genitalia. 0.80
00:05:04.000 And then if you look over at Subpart 3 regarding the considerations, it just says,
00:05:09.000 all soldiers will use the billeting, bathroom, and shower facilities associated with their gender marker in DEARS.
00:05:16.000 What's your reaction to that?
00:05:19.000 My reaction, Congressman, is we're focused on building cohesive teams that are trained, disciplined, and fit.
00:05:25.000 Well, General McConville, I'll give you the next chance.
00:05:27.000 Do you think that it builds cohesive teams to have biological males showering with women? 1.00
00:05:31.000 I think we need to respect the privacy of our soldiers and have an environment where everyone can thrive.
00:05:40.000 Well, of course, but that's not an answer to my question.
00:05:43.000 You and I spent a good amount of productive time yesterday talking about cohesive team building.
00:05:47.000 We did.
00:05:48.000 Does this advance cohesive team building in your best military opinion?
00:05:52.000 Well, I think the fact we're talking about this and not talking about war fighting is problematic.
00:05:59.000 Well, but that's what the Army does, General.
00:06:02.000 I'm looking here.
00:06:03.000 Army policy on transgender military service where you guys require training on this stuff.
00:06:07.000 So don't you think that when you require training on how to deal with men and women's shower stalls 1.00
00:06:14.000 and when you have these mandatory trainings on transgender service members that that takes away from our focus on war fighting?
00:06:21.000 Yeah, I think I think what, you know, again, from chief staff of the Army, my focus is very clear.
00:06:26.000 I talk to every commander, every sergeant mayor in the Army.
00:06:29.000 I do it every single month.
00:06:30.000 And what I talk about is our job is build cohesive teams that are highly trained, they're disciplined, they're fit, and they're ready to fight and win.
00:06:40.000 And that's where I'm at.
00:06:41.000 Right, but I am positing that when there is a focus on how biological men are going to shower with women and on unconscious bias training, which you require, and on mandatory gender sensitivity training, that like the call is coming from inside the house at DOD on some of these problems.
00:07:03.000 And the proof's in the pudding that there seems to be a cognitive dissonance between your recruiting nightmare that we are living through, the nation's recruiting nightmare at the Army, and this kind of stuff.
00:07:15.000 Because I don't think it's going to be a big like positive recruiting pitch to women that when someone shows up with male genitalia in their shower stall that we tell them that we're trying to build a cohesive team. 0.66
00:07:26.000 I would posit to you that that probably makes the team a little less cohesive.
00:07:31.000 Will you allow for even that possibility?
00:07:34.000 Congressman, what we've seen in our surveys is that basically women are more worried about being sexually harassed in the Army than they are about the kinds of things that you're bringing up.
00:07:44.000 Well, don't you think that someone might get sexually harassed if they're showering with a biological male?
00:07:48.000 Don't you think that that environment could potentially increase the likelihood of that?
00:07:52.000 We're all concerned about sexual harassment.
00:07:54.000 We've grappled with these challenges about how to have it in the chain of command or outside the chain of command. 0.96
00:07:59.000 It seems a little silly to sit here and have discussions about the flow chart of a sexual harassment complaint when you've got people with male genitalia showering with your female soldiers. 0.71
00:08:10.000 I want to recruit talented women into our Army, and I'm concerned that this weird stuff that you guys are doing is not going to make it more likely that those people are going to sign up.
00:08:21.000 You and I spoke yesterday about the fact that the Army has to recruit extensively men from the American South, that that makes up a wide variety of who's coming into the United States Army.
00:08:34.000 You think you're going to recruit more of them with this kind of stuff?
00:08:38.000 Probably not.
00:08:39.000 And that's the point.
00:08:40.000 And I appreciate the honesty.
00:08:42.000 And I know that in August you conclude a storied career.
00:08:45.000 And we thank you both for your service.
00:08:47.000 And we did get somewhere with this last time with Secretary Austin.
00:08:52.000 And I hope you all will reflect on the damage that this embrace of DEI is doing to the military.
00:09:00.000 We are back live.
00:09:01.000 Probably not, General McConville says, when asked whether or not the embrace of women showering with biological men would result in more women wanting to join the Army.
00:09:12.000 Can you imagine that recruiting pitch?
00:09:14.000 Can you imagine going to tell American families, well, your daughter wants to be a soldier.
00:09:19.000 She'll be showering with biological males. 1.00
00:09:21.000 And the nerve of the Secretary of the Army to suggest that the way to combat sexual harassment is with your multi-gender shower scenario.
00:09:33.000 Give me a break.
00:09:35.000 These people do not get it.
00:09:37.000 And it's why we are facing some of the recruiting challenges we are.
00:09:40.000 And it's actually why the Army is facing some of the largest deficits between their recruiting goals and what we need to be signing up and what we are, in fact, signing up.
00:09:51.000 We'll stay on them.
00:09:53.000 And we've got upcoming legislation in the National Defense Authorization Act to root out these vectors of wokeness, get them out of our military. 1.00
00:10:02.000 So now I want to talk a little bit about where we are with the debt limit and work requirements, something that I've been fighting to get in the legislation.
00:10:11.000 So here's what I'm going to do.
00:10:13.000 I've just come out of several meetings with Republicans from the cross-section of our conference.
00:10:18.000 And here is how the Republican plan to raise the debt limit is being pitched.
00:10:25.000 So I'm giving you the information the leadership's given us.
00:10:28.000 And I'll tell you at the top, I have not decided how I am voting on this plan yet because there are a few areas of detail that we still need to work out.
00:10:36.000 But initially, there is a 10-year budget window that saves $3.6 trillion by rolling back spending to pre-COVID levels and then only allowing 1% growth in that budget during that 10-year window.
00:10:55.000 So that $3.6 trillion savings is a limitation on federal spending.
00:11:01.000 Now, I wouldn't call it a cut except that the weird way Washington works, there's always these automatic escalators for inflation and the like.
00:11:10.000 And so this is not 1% on top of inflation.
00:11:14.000 This is 1% growth period.
00:11:16.000 That would be the strongest cap we've had on federal spending certainly in the last decade, maybe even before that.
00:11:23.000 So second thing is areas of savings.
00:11:26.000 First, clawing back unspent COVID funds.
00:11:30.000 The budget estimation is that that's still about $50 to $60 billion.
00:11:34.000 But frankly, it'll be less by the end of this podcast because entities know that we're interested in COVID clawbacks now that the national emergency has been ended.
00:11:43.000 And they're obligating these funds as fast as they can.
00:11:46.000 So that might not be as big a savings as we expect.
00:11:49.000 Next bullet point, defund Biden's IRS army.
00:11:52.000 You'll remember that House Republicans stood united against the 87,000 IRS agents weaponizing this government against fellow Americans.
00:12:01.000 I would suspect against conservatives.
00:12:03.000 That's what they did the last time they weaponized the IRS.
00:12:06.000 They came after Tea Party groups.
00:12:08.000 So getting rid of those 87,000 IRS agents, a condition to this deal.
00:12:13.000 Also, a repeal of all of the Green New Deal tax credits that are in the IRA.
00:12:20.000 That could range anywhere between $271 billion and $1.2 trillion over the budget window.
00:12:28.000 And that's because there's been this crazy over-utilization of some of those credits.
00:12:33.000 And even Joe Manchin has come out and said that the Inflation Reduction Act, aptly named, inaptly named, it's not being implemented in accordance with legislative intent.
00:12:45.000 So he's already saying that, so that's why there's such a big delta in the potential budgetary impact of the repealing of those Green New Deal tax credits.
00:12:55.000 We would also prohibit Joe Biden's student loan giveaway.
00:12:59.000 $465 billion savings we get a whole heck of a lot of in the first year.
00:13:07.000 And also, we're working hard on ensuring that there's another bite at the apple here.
00:13:15.000 As I've said, I have no problem using the debt limit to negotiate to get less spending.
00:13:22.000 And if the debt limit comes up again more frequently, that gives us another opportunity to create downward pressure on spending.
00:13:31.000 And so under this plan, the debt limit would not be raised $2 trillion.
00:13:36.000 It would be raised $1.5 trillion or March 31st, 2024, whichever comes sooner.
00:13:43.000 So if they do stuff like give Obamacare to illegal aliens, they're going to burn through that cash faster. 0.92
00:13:50.000 And we're going to be right back at the table demanding even deeper spending cuts.
00:13:55.000 There are also provisions here to grow the economy, lower energy costs, HR1.
00:14:00.000 We've talked about that unleashing American energy, giving America power over the rare earth materials that will define who wins the future.
00:14:09.000 Also, the REINS Act, R-E-I-N-S, the REINS Act.
00:14:14.000 Now, I authored and passed the version of the REINS Act in Florida.
00:14:18.000 And what it does is it limits any regulatory action that has compliance costs over a specific threshold.
00:14:25.000 So it's really a way to rein in the bureaucrats.
00:14:28.000 If you think about the mandate of the Republican majority in Congress right now, it's really the budgets, the bureaucrats, and I think that is reflected in the REINS Act certainly.
00:14:45.000 That if you have a legislative action, regulatory action, springing out of legislative action where the bureaucrats are far exceeding the authority and it's costing taxpayers money, then there is an accelerated opportunity for someone impacted by those regulatory costs to demand a more responsive government.
00:15:05.000 So that is a key piece of legislation.
00:15:07.420 It's something Republicans in Congress have been fighting for for some time.
00:15:10.940 But as we sit here now, what is being most intensely negotiated work requirements, I am a strong believer in work requirements.
00:15:22.860 I believe they should apply in TANF, in SNAP, in certain circumstances, in Medicaid, certainly for able-bodied people who could make a contribution and choose not to.
00:15:34.100 I have been fighting for work requirements so long, even when I was first elected in 2017.
00:15:41.520 I'm going to give you a throwback clip from five years ago.
00:15:45.360 Here was my take on WUWF interviewed by Dave Dunwoody, March of 2017.
00:15:51.320 Play the clip.
00:15:53.940 On Thursday, the House gets to vote on the Obamacare replacement bill.
00:15:58.560 Talk a little bit about the bill, what you see in it.
00:16:01.420 Well, Dave, the bill is getting better every hour.
00:16:04.740 In the moments before I called you, I was on the phone with Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and I was stressing again that to make this legislation better, there need to be work requirements for able-bodied, childless adults.
00:16:18.500 There needs to be an end to Medicaid expansion. 0.89
00:16:21.540 You know, some of those states have one in every three of their citizens on Medicaid.
00:16:25.680 Florida has been more responsible, one in every six.
00:16:28.380 And we also need to make sure that we've got a tax credit system that really works for people and is going to create a competitive marketplace to drive down costs.
00:16:37.460 So I was debating for work requirements with the Obamacare universe back in 2017.
00:16:45.880 That very same universe exists right now.
00:16:48.680 And I just think if people want the rest of us to pay for their health care and they could work, that they ought to.
00:16:53.520 And you can even meet a work requirement with job training, with volunteering at a nonprofit or at one of our cities or counties or local parks.
00:17:04.280 It's something I care about so much.
00:17:06.820 We even talked about it in September of last year on Firebrand.
00:17:11.260 Take a listen.
00:17:13.780 We as Republicans have to be willing to grind this corrupt place to a halt if necessary to deliver wins for our people.
00:17:21.880 And here's one that I've been discussing with some of my colleagues, Mike.
00:17:25.240 Shutting it down over work requirements.
00:17:26.980 You want to talk about something that unites Republican, Democrat, independent business owners, people out in the workforce?
00:17:34.840 It's the notion that we shouldn't be paying people not to work if you've got a bunch of able-bodied, childless adults getting a whole lot of welfare programs.
00:17:41.640 So I actually think that we could unify a Republican caucus around the theory that we don't fund these entitlement programs anymore without work requirements for able-bodied, childless adults.
00:17:53.440 I 100% agree, and maybe we wouldn't run out of money so quickly if people were back to work in this country. 0.92
00:18:00.460 Work requirements or bust.
00:18:02.580 Work requirements or shutdowns.
00:18:04.800 A lot of support for it on the live chat.
00:18:06.860 Steep and Deep on Getter says we need a list of bureaucrats that need to be replaced. 0.98
00:18:12.040 And you know what?
00:18:13.020 The rules we fought for at the beginning of the year during the speaker contest allow us to go and defund the salaries of specific bureaucrats.
00:18:21.360 I wish we could have forced that on Fauci, but when you look at some of these people at the ATF, you look at some of these people pushing the wokeness at DOD, I believe we can take specific action against them.
00:18:34.260 And that is a power that Congress has not had and wouldn't have had had we not stood up and demanded it as a consequence of the resolution of the speaker contest.
00:18:42.240 So we will be on that very good piece of advice that you've given us on the live chat.
00:18:48.720 As to these work requirements, even my critics acknowledged that before this debt limit debate, there wasn't really a thrust for work requirements as part of the discussion, and I demanded it.
00:19:02.060 So I'm putting it up on the screen right now for those watching on Rumble, and we hope you subscribe and turn your notifications on regardless of how you're watching or listening.
00:19:10.140 This is from the New Republic, March 23rd, Matt Gaetz's brilliant idea for the debt ceiling crisis, Medicaid work requirements.
00:19:19.120 Now, I'll give you a little notice that they don't actually think it's a brilliant idea.
00:19:24.500 They're quite critical of the idea, but I thought it was really important not to have a discussion about the debt limit untethered from policies that do two things.
00:19:33.660 That limit cost and spending on one end, but that can increase growth and labor participation and productivity on the other end, and the right work requirements can do just that.
00:19:45.800 Now, why is this a source of negotiation at this point?
00:19:52.320 The work requirements that my Republican colleagues are currently advocating for are 20 hours a week.
00:19:58.980 I just tend to think that we can be a little more rigorous.
00:20:02.680 I would love to see a 40-hour-a-week work requirement, but certainly a 30-hour-a-week work requirement, something higher than 20.
00:20:12.400 20 hours a week to get other people to pay for your health care, your cash payments.
00:20:22.740 I just don't think that that is something that is unreasonable to ask for.
00:20:27.540 And so we're pushing for stronger work requirements than just 20 hours a week.
00:20:32.420 Some of my Republican colleagues want to keep it at 20 hours a week.
00:20:35.080 The good news is we're all talking about work requirements.
00:20:38.740 I was making the case just yesterday on the House floor.
00:20:42.380 Take a listen.
00:20:42.820 Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
00:20:46.280 I rise to vindicate the most American of values, and that is work.
00:20:52.140 When John Smith landed at Jamestown, he said, he who does not work, neither shall he eat.
00:20:58.260 And we have drifted so far away of that, creating a social safety net that has been converted into a multi-generational hammock for far too many Americans. 0.95
00:21:08.100 And so as we reach America's credit card limit, I am proud to stand with my many House Republican colleagues who believe there should be no increase in this debt limit absent rigorous work requirements.
00:21:20.760 If you could see President Clinton and Newt Gingrich coming together for work requirements in the 90s, there's no reason we cannot do that in divided government now to cut spending where it is wasteful and to grow this economy where it is necessary.
00:21:34.520 Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
00:21:35.360 I yield back.
00:21:38.100 And Suze on Rumble weighs in and says, there are a lot of seniors on this program, and that's an important clarification for me to make.
00:21:45.160 The work requirements would be for those from 18 to 55.
00:21:49.620 So seniors would largely not be impacted by these work requirements.
00:21:54.120 Hey, some thought that the work requirements should go all the way up to 65.
00:21:58.100 Initially, when this plan was drafted, I could tell you they were at 49, and so we got them raised to 55.
00:22:03.540 I think someone who's 51 or 52 or 53 can be able to work.
00:22:09.800 And we need workers in our economy.
00:22:11.820 Right now, a lot of our small businesses tell us that each and every day, and so we'll stay on it.
00:22:16.540 Also, I note that Barbara on Facebook says she wants 40-hour-a-week work requirements. 0.99
00:22:21.600 Kathy on Facebook says at least 30 hours a week.
00:22:24.740 So keep chiming in.
00:22:26.220 Love getting the feedback on that very issue.
00:22:29.300 Now we travel from the very near term and here at home and our domestic economic situation to the major pacing challenge that we face abroad, and that's China.
00:22:40.160 Through my role in the Armed Services Committee, I regularly get to ask questions to people in command of different theaters.
00:22:45.560 You saw my questioning of some of the leadership of the AFRICOM area of responsibility or Central Command, where we see a lot of the focus on the Middle East.
00:22:56.620 I got to ask questions this week of the leadership of the Indo-Pacific Theater, and I got to ask specifically about this leak that came out and what it tells us about whether or not we are ahead or behind, whether or not we can successfully deter China.
00:23:13.400 I am not one who believes we should be a nation eager to start war with anyone, but make no mistake, China seeks to dominate us, and rather than have a war with China, I prefer that we deter China. 0.77
00:23:27.540 But the only way to have effective deterrence is to have the most effective capability, hard power.
00:23:34.920 No one is going to be deterred by our economy alone or our diplomacy alone.
00:23:40.180 That's why I think we need to have the most badass military capable of delivering lethality anywhere, anytime, if necessary, to protect the American people.
00:23:51.700 Not foreign interests abroad, the American people.
00:23:54.700 And we are impacted by this pacing challenge, by this adversary China. 0.96
00:24:00.080 And we call them a near-peer adversary, but sometimes I wonder whether they're ahead or we are in some important areas.
00:24:07.920 You've seen my questioning in this on AI, where I think China's ahead. 0.89
00:24:12.960 But I've constantly grappled with some of our leaders on this issue of hypersonics, because a hypersonic delivery system that can send a nuclear warhead across continents in a matter of minutes
00:24:24.440 is something very different regarding the decisions that leaders have to make in the event of direct kinetic conflict.
00:24:32.260 Now, if global affairs isn't your thing, I think most folks would at least understand this dynamic.
00:24:39.940 If you're in a race with someone, it's really important to understand during that race whether or not you are ahead or behind.
00:24:47.900 You run the race differently if you're ahead than if you know you have to catch up.
00:24:53.600 I think on the area of hypersonics, we need to catch up.
00:24:58.960 And I think our leaders need to stop trying to mislead and obfuscate that fact.
00:25:04.900 You'll see it on full display here.
00:25:07.080 Indo-Pacific questioning House Armed Services Committee this week.
00:25:10.800 Play the clip.
00:25:13.460 Days ago in the Washington Post, and Washington military planners are realizing that China has surpassed the United States in hypersonic military technology.
00:25:23.600 Does anyone seated at the table disagree with that assessment?
00:25:29.360 Congressman, I think in terms of assessments, we should probably take that to a classified discussion.
00:25:34.660 Well, it's been sort of unclassified without our consent.
00:25:38.240 We had this leak that showed that China could launch one of these hypersonic glide capabilities, 2,100 kilometers, that it could get there in 12 minutes.
00:25:49.000 And I actually don't think it's that.
00:25:51.320 It can't be too classified because it was a year ago, Admiral, that you were before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
00:25:57.560 And you seem to be giving the warning at that time that we saw manifest in this leak.
00:26:03.460 You said, quote, the hypersonic glide vehicle threat poses a serious threat to the U.S. and allied forces in the region, and we require a near-term initial defense capability to meet this challenge.
00:26:16.240 I read in between the lines of that to say you require the capability in the near term because you didn't have the capability when you gave this testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, not in a classified setting, but in open hearing.
00:26:30.340 So I guess my question to you, because I sense you are the truth teller on a lot of these things, have you acquired the capability since this testimony?
00:26:39.900 The department is working on the ability to do hypersonic defense, Congressman.
00:26:46.500 Again, I stand by what I said.
00:26:48.100 I am concerned about it.
00:26:49.540 And it's still true today.
00:26:50.860 That statement that you made to the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2021, you wouldn't revise that or change that.
00:26:56.040 That is true as we sit here today.
00:26:57.720 It is.
00:26:58.120 And so what I observe about our posture in Indo-PACOM is that for the last 30 years, the United States has been building aircraft carriers that will never get into the fight.
00:27:10.700 And we've spent years building littoral combat ships, Mr. Smith, that will never get into the fight.
00:27:18.060 And while you have been giving us the accurate information, you gave it to us now, you gave it to the Senate a year ago,
00:27:24.220 the truth is we have not made a sufficient investment in hypersonic defense in order to ensure that we have this credible deterrent threat.
00:27:32.140 Isn't that right, Admiral?
00:27:35.300 Sir, if you look at the report as it applies to our Guam defense system, we have identified the need for that capability.
00:27:42.940 Right.
00:27:43.180 And so I guess, how do our littoral combat ships ever get into the fight in a China-Taiwan scenario?
00:27:48.880 Well, again, I think that'd be better in a classified setting.
00:27:53.440 I don't think it's not going to happen.
00:27:55.020 I think it's whether it's classified or not classified.
00:27:58.280 Can we hit a moving target with our hypersonic offense?
00:28:03.960 Again, sir, I think we ought to take those capabilities discussion into a close setting.
00:28:06.820 Well, okay.
00:28:07.340 So if I represent to you that China can hit a moving target and we can't hit a moving target, 0.94
00:28:12.100 do you have any basis in this setting that you can share with me to rebut that assertion?
00:28:18.960 I disagree that we can't hit a moving target.
00:28:21.160 Oh, you think with our hypersonic capability?
00:28:24.640 I didn't say with a hypersonic capability.
00:28:26.480 Okay, but that's what I'm talking about because, of course, we can hit moving targets,
00:28:29.940 but with a hypersonic capability, it changes the deterrence analysis
00:28:33.760 because the time window shortens considerably,
00:28:36.580 as this leak of classified information tells us, kind of as you told us a year ago.
00:28:42.540 And so I know that there'll be great bloodlust to go after the leaker of this information.
00:28:48.800 It is never okay to leak classified information,
00:28:51.540 especially when it could potentially put people at risk.
00:28:55.600 Like, what I wonder is, who's going to be punished more?
00:28:58.660 The knucklehead who leaked this information or the generals and admirals and so-called experts 0.82
00:29:06.520 who have sat before this committee and the Senate for decades
00:29:11.020 saying that these capabilities that we were funding with gajillions of dollars
00:29:16.500 were going to sufficiently deter China.
00:29:19.160 And what you said last year, what you've confirmed now,
00:29:22.220 is that we need a capability in the near term that we do not have.
00:29:26.480 What this leak shows is that China has it, and we don't. 0.99
00:29:31.160 And yet, we continue to build ships that'll never get in the fight.
00:29:35.820 We continue to support these endeavors that don't enhance deterrence,
00:29:40.260 but if the right senator or congressman or lobbyist is for them, we do them.
00:29:45.700 And I think that's, while it is never okay to leak classified information,
00:29:49.860 I think that's what animates the concern among some of our even youngest
00:29:56.180 and most inexperienced service members that we are not really positioning to win this fight.
00:30:01.780 We've got too many grifters who roll in and out of the Pentagon, 0.91
00:30:05.300 two defense contractors,
00:30:07.240 and some of them even become Secretary of Defense thereafter.
00:30:10.380 And I think it is disgraceful,
00:30:11.800 and it's not worthy of a true Pacific power like the United States.
00:30:15.180 We are back live,
00:30:20.260 and I want to give you important updates regarding the litigation ongoing
00:30:24.660 between Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg
00:30:27.560 and the United States House of Representatives,
00:30:30.220 specifically the House Judiciary Committee on which I serve,
00:30:32.900 and Chairman Jim Jordan.
00:30:34.380 So let me start by updating you regarding the procedural posture.
00:30:37.740 As you know, Alvin Bragg indicts President Donald Trump.
00:30:41.320 That ignites from the House Judiciary Committee an investigation into Alvin Bragg
00:30:46.860 regarding his use of federal funds and potential misuse of those federal funds
00:30:52.120 in an illegal effort to try to disrupt the 2024 presidential election
00:30:57.180 because Donald Trump is a leading candidate and Joe Biden is running again.
00:31:02.740 And Alvin Bragg would probably prefer that Donald Trump lose and Joe Biden win.
00:31:07.880 And we know that Bragg has this anti-Trump bias
00:31:11.160 because he said so to get elected to the position of Manhattan District Attorney.
00:31:16.220 So, Jordan announces that investigation.
00:31:19.360 And one element of that investigation
00:31:21.140 is that we would like to take the deposition of a man named Mark Pomerantz.
00:31:27.260 Now, Mark Pomerantz was one of these super impressive, glitzy New York lawyers.
00:31:33.800 Strong relationship with Hillary Clinton.
00:31:36.720 Strong relationship with the political left.
00:31:40.540 Wildly against Donald Trump.
00:31:43.360 And this guy leaves tremendous opportunity,
00:31:46.520 tremendous earning capability in the private sector
00:31:50.020 to volunteer to go and help the Manhattan DA
00:31:54.340 develop evidence against President Trump
00:31:56.880 and to try to create a case against President Trump.
00:32:00.740 And it's the classic circumstance
00:32:02.880 that we try to avoid with a constitutional system of jurisprudence.
00:32:06.960 This is, show me the man and I'll show you the crime.
00:32:11.600 It is not what we are promised with Lady Justice blind, 0.98
00:32:16.180 weighing the scales equally for everyone.
00:32:19.700 So, Pomerantz goes and volunteers to do this for free.
00:32:22.260 Then, he leaves the DA's office,
00:32:26.580 writes a book about his work investigating Donald Trump,
00:32:30.940 and we'd like to take his deposition.
00:32:33.280 We'd like to ask him questions.
00:32:34.600 And so, we served him a subpoena.
00:32:36.600 Now, Pomerantz did not object to that subpoena.
00:32:40.460 Instead, Alvin Bragg, in his role as the Manhattan DA,
00:32:46.480 went into a federal court and sued for a temporary injunction
00:32:50.360 to stop Jim Jordan and me and the House Judiciary Committee
00:32:54.880 from taking this deposition of Mark Pomerantz,
00:32:58.400 who had already written a book
00:33:00.120 about many of the things we want to be able to ask him about.
00:33:03.200 And we have serious concerns about the use of these federal funds
00:33:06.440 in such an improper and political way.
00:33:08.660 So, Bragg files this lawsuit,
00:33:15.100 and we get a ruling that just absolutely hammers him.
00:33:20.420 Hammers Bragg, demands that Pomerantz show up.
00:33:23.980 Thereafter, Bragg files some appeal.
00:33:27.280 I think it was like 280-some-odd pages.
00:33:30.780 And the Second Circuit, which sits over this Article III district court,
00:33:34.780 issued a temporary stay of the requirement
00:33:38.660 that Pomerantz show up for a deposition while they take appellate review.
00:33:42.320 So, right now, what governs is a stay,
00:33:45.040 but all of the legal determinations and legal calculus
00:33:48.600 laid forth by this U.S. district judge
00:33:51.460 is the first time a judge has really laid claim
00:33:55.060 to this historic event where you've got a DA,
00:34:00.200 a local DA, pursuing a former president
00:34:03.640 under a novel theory,
00:34:06.080 lashing a business records misdemeanor
00:34:08.700 to a federal election felony,
00:34:11.500 and then on top of that,
00:34:13.360 a congressional committee investigating that very DA.
00:34:16.760 Okay, so the opinion starts,
00:34:19.400 Mr. Pomerantz,
00:34:20.720 this was the guy who volunteered,
00:34:22.500 got out, wrote the book,
00:34:23.960 must appear for the congressional deposition.
00:34:26.960 And trust me, I'll be there to take it.
00:34:29.600 No one is above the law.
00:34:31.800 I love, I love the judge
00:34:34.740 ever so delicately putting that in there.
00:34:38.300 No one is above the law.
00:34:39.320 Because, see, they use that,
00:34:40.900 they misuse that saying,
00:34:42.380 always to target President Trump,
00:34:43.720 but here the judge throws it right back in their face,
00:34:46.440 and she notes right away in the decision
00:34:48.700 that this book, written by Pomerantz,
00:34:51.800 is noteworthy to the investigation
00:34:54.460 that Jim Jordan and I are working on,
00:34:56.580 even citing, quote,
00:34:57.560 the Trump investigation
00:34:58.760 should have been handled
00:35:00.480 by the U.S. Department of Justice
00:35:02.320 rather than the Manhattan District Attorney's Office
00:35:05.380 as one of the arguments made in the book.
00:35:09.540 So in the book, Pomerantz is saying,
00:35:11.480 you know what,
00:35:12.060 it really shouldn't even be the Manhattan DA,
00:35:13.940 it should be the U.S. Department of Justice.
00:35:16.660 And so that seems to be directly relevant
00:35:19.360 to the separation of powers questions we have
00:35:21.780 and the resource utilization questions we have
00:35:24.400 regarding our investigation.
00:35:27.100 The judge blasts Alvin Bragg.
00:35:31.040 Quote,
00:35:31.360 For Alvin Bragg to catch that much shade,
00:35:51.940 for a federal judge to be calling his pleadings,
00:35:55.100 the first 35 pages,
00:35:57.080 nothing more than a public relations tirade
00:35:59.500 is quite something.
00:36:00.740 You don't see decisions like this often.
00:36:02.980 She continues,
00:36:03.660 The reality is that as framed,
00:36:07.000 this action, the Bragg action,
00:36:09.220 is merely a motion to quash a subpoena
00:36:12.000 dressed up as a lawsuit.
00:36:15.740 We argued in our memo
00:36:17.560 that Alvin Bragg can't establish
00:36:19.880 a substantial likelihood of success on the merits,
00:36:22.200 which is one of the elements
00:36:23.180 to obtain temporary injunctive relief.
00:36:24.940 And we argued that the permissibility
00:36:29.600 of investigating these federal forfeiture funds
00:36:32.260 that were used to investigate Trump
00:36:34.280 is a logical step.
00:36:37.260 Pomerantz, interestingly,
00:36:39.620 is just allowing Bragg to speak for him.
00:36:42.700 Here's more shade that the judge threw
00:36:44.780 at Alvin Bragg's reply brief.
00:36:46.840 Quote,
00:36:47.120 The reply brief was accompanied
00:36:49.800 by a supplemental declaration
00:36:51.960 attaching 16 largely irrelevant exhibits
00:36:56.120 consisting of a hodgepodge
00:36:58.600 of social media posts,
00:37:00.800 news articles,
00:37:02.120 television interviews,
00:37:03.500 pleadings from unrelated lawsuits,
00:37:05.980 and a transcript from the arraignment
00:37:07.380 in the Trump prosecution.
00:37:09.560 The judge doesn't even have to opine
00:37:12.240 as to the effectiveness
00:37:13.940 or persuasiveness of these exhibits,
00:37:16.900 but she goes out of her way 1.00
00:37:18.580 to call them irrelevant,
00:37:20.660 a hodgepodge,
00:37:22.440 and unrelated.
00:37:24.740 Unbelievable.
00:37:26.360 Want to get to some other
00:37:27.840 quotes from the opinion?
00:37:30.140 Quote,
00:37:30.800 The court is further unmoved
00:37:32.980 by Bragg's purported concern
00:37:35.180 for the prospect of, quote,
00:37:37.140 injecting partisan passions
00:37:38.980 into a forum where they do not belong.
00:37:41.980 This is what the judge says.
00:37:43.180 By bringing this action,
00:37:45.880 Bragg is engaged
00:37:47.000 in precisely the type
00:37:48.680 of political theater
00:37:49.780 he claims to fear. 0.88
00:37:51.980 That is a call out for hypocrisy
00:37:55.160 unlike I've probably ever seen
00:37:57.740 in a federal order like this.
00:38:00.160 Quote,
00:38:01.180 Bragg's throw-everything-at-the-wall
00:38:03.780 approach to privilege
00:38:05.120 is unpersuasive.
00:38:07.180 Man.
00:38:08.640 A law professor
00:38:10.580 would not write
00:38:11.360 such a scathing review
00:38:12.540 of a law student's essay,
00:38:14.420 much less getting this
00:38:15.460 from a federal court
00:38:16.420 for a duly elected
00:38:17.900 DA in Manhattan.
00:38:20.280 She continues,
00:38:21.140 quote,
00:38:22.660 Bragg cannot seriously claim
00:38:24.480 that any information
00:38:25.800 already published
00:38:26.700 in Pomerantz's book
00:38:27.780 and discussed
00:38:28.280 on primetime television
00:38:29.620 in front of millions of people
00:38:31.000 is protected from disclosure
00:38:33.100 as attorney-client work product
00:38:35.200 or otherwise.
00:38:36.300 So bottom line is
00:38:38.120 she retains jurisdiction.
00:38:39.940 She requires a status report
00:38:42.540 from the parties
00:38:43.140 within 30 days.
00:38:44.180 I think that is a signal
00:38:45.920 to Bragg and Pomerantz
00:38:47.660 that this deposition
00:38:48.560 better occur
00:38:49.620 within the next 30 days.
00:38:51.300 Second Circuit
00:38:51.800 has review of this decision.
00:38:53.700 They ought to affirm it 0.99
00:38:55.100 as fast as possible.
00:38:57.380 It really is a classic
00:38:59.060 for all ages.
00:39:00.800 Thanks so much
00:39:01.320 for joining us
00:39:01.960 on this episode of Firebrand.
00:39:03.340 And do me a favor
00:39:04.060 and share it
00:39:05.620 with someone
00:39:06.380 who might not be
00:39:07.140 as engaged in politics
00:39:08.200 or someone
00:39:08.680 who might prefer
00:39:10.000 an in-depth,
00:39:11.380 behind-the-scenes review
00:39:12.620 of what's going on
00:39:13.520 in the courtroom
00:39:14.400 and in the halls of Congress.
00:39:16.460 Subscribe,
00:39:17.260 turn the notifications on,
00:39:18.580 write us a review,
00:39:19.920 and join us next time
00:39:20.740 for Firebrand.
00:39:21.720 Roll the credits.
00:39:33.340 Firebrand.