Tag: pete-hegseth

The Trump Administration’s Denial of the National Security Breach: How Stupid Do They Think We Are?

Over the weekend, news broke that a serious security breach of U.S. intelligence had taken place on March 15. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth disclosed war plans in an encrypted group chat to a group of senior members of the Trump administration. Participating in the chat were Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Vice President JD Vance, the National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, the head of the CIA John Ratcliffe, and other senior officials. The information contained “operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing”. There were numerous anomalies including the following:

  1. The conversation took place outside the secure government channels that would normally be used for classified and highly sensitive war planning.
  2. The highly respected editor in chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, affirmed in an article that he published on Monday that he was mistakenly added to the text chat on the commercial messaging app Signal by Michael Waltz.
  3. Goldberg was most cautious. He did not reveal the most sensitive information in his article, but he disclosed enough (portions of the chat text itself, including emojis) to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that he had been included in the text chat.
  4. Several Defense Department officials expressed shock that Mr. Hegseth had put American war plans into a commercial chat group. They affirmed that having this type of conversation in a Signal chat group itself could be a violation of the Espionage Act, a law covering the handling of sensitive information. The revelation of operational war plans before the planned strikes had occurred could also put American troops directly into harm’s way.
  5. In the conversation, Ratcliffe mentioned the name of an active undercover CIA officer.

Yesterday there was a Senate hearing that dealt with the presentation of the major threats in the world, according to senior U.S. intelligence officials including Tulsi Gabbard and John Ratcliffe. This hearing is an annual event, but there was something different this time. Democratic senators (Warner, Bennet, Ossoff, Kelly) took advantage of the hearing to grill Gabbard and Ratcliffe about the security breach. They repeatedly answered that the conversation in the group chat did take place but that the information provided was not “classified”. How stupid do they think we are? Detailed, sensitive information about imminent strikes on Yemen, and information regarding targets, U.S. weapons and attack sequencing should not be considered “classified”? The Dems continued the pressure. They used Gabbard’s own words against her, by quoting back her own descriptions of what information should be identified as “classified”. She and Ratcliffe were frequently asked about the weapons and targets mentioned in the conversation. And they frequently (and conveniently) answered, “I can’t remember” and “I can’t recall”.

In a press conference later in the day, President Trump repeated the official line that “this information was not classified” because if it were classified, he and his senior staff would appear to be seriously incompetent. The official party line is “Deny, Deny, Deny!”: deny that the information was classified, deny that the breach was serious, or deny that lives were put at risk.

Sooner or later, the administration will have to admit the information was (and should have been) considered “classified” OR that it was not classified and now should be made public. Either way, the administration should admit its serious mistake. Truth will win out in the end. We, the people, deserve the truth. We also deserve public officials who are mature enough to admit their errors and improve our government. We deserve accountability. In my blog postings earlier this year, I questioned the inferior qualifications of many of the Cabinet nominees. Sadly, many of these “leaders” have demonstrated their incompetence. At the very minimum, Hegseth and Waltz should be fired.

Serious Questions Regarding Trump’s Nominee Pete Hegseth

Donald Trump won the presidential election in November. His victory was decisive even though it was not the landslide that he has claimed. (In fact, his margin of victory was lower than every presidential election since 2000.) As President-elect, he has the legal right to nominate qualified candidates for his Cabinet and other top posts in his administration. The Senate has the responsibility to meet with the candidates and then to “advise and consent”, in effect, to approve or reject each one. The process involves a hearing with the appropriate Senate committee which explores whether the person is qualified (in terms of experience, integrity, judgment) for the position. This is followed by a vote of that committee. If favorable, the nomination is forwarded for a vote by the entire Senate. Many of his nominees are having their committee hearings this week.

Some of Trump’s nominees will sail through this process. For example, Senator Marco Rubio has been nominated to become the next Secretary of State. Although I disagree with some of Rubio’s policies, he is very qualified for the position and will receive bipartisan support. He will probably have more problems with Trump himself (regarding Russia’s war with Ukraine and personality issues) than with Democrats.

A more controversial nominee is Pete Hegseth. Trump named him to become the next Defense Secretary and to supervise the extensive Department of Defense (DOD). This is the largest department of the federal government with some three million employees and an $849 billion budget. His hearing before the Senate’s Armed Services Committee took place on January 14 and was seen live by millions of citizens.

I have some serious questions regarding Hegseth. There are at least three procedural anomalies:

  1. Previous presidents have fully vetted their nominees with the FBI. This has been done to reveal any “skeletons in the closet”. Trump chose to bypass this procedure regarding Hegseth and most of his other nominees. Why?
  2. Most hearings permit two or three rounds of questions by its members. During the Hegseth hearing, only one round was permitted. Why?
  3. In the past, before they have their hearing, nominees have met individually with senators of the appropriate committee, both Republicans and Democrats, to answer specific questions the senators might have. Hegseth chose not to meet with Democrat senators. Why?

In addition, the following are areas that warrant honest, thorough evaluation of Hegseth’s qualifications.

Lack of experience in administering organizations

The DOD has three million employees. Hegseth has never administered an organization with more than a few dozen paid employees. Does he have the management experience to lead the largest department in our federal government? This is not an ideological debate between conservatives and liberals. This is a technical question regarding administrative experience and preparedness.

Allegations of Sexual Misconduct

In 2017, Hegseth was accused of sexual assault. Although he denied it and affirmed that their sexual encounter was consensual, he paid the woman a confidential settlement. She is willing to meet with the Senate committee to confirm her allegation. She should be released from the confidentiality aspect of this settlement so that the truth sees the light of day.

Even his own mother, Penelope Hegseth, accused him of mistreatment of women. She wrote him in an email, “I have no respect for any man that belittles, lies, cheats, sleeps around and uses women for his own power and ego. You are that man (and have been for years) and as your mother, it pains me and embarrasses me to say that, but it is the sad, sad truth.”

In the hearing, he was repeatedly asked whether specific allegations of sexual assault (and drunkenness on the job) were true or false. He repeatedly refused to answer these questions with a simple “yes” or “no”. He claimed that these were “anonymous allegations that were part of a smear campaign”. Many of these allegations were not anonymous. Hegseth should have answered. His refusal to respond suggests that he was guilty.

Inconsistencies Regarding Women in the Military

In the recent past, Hegseth has frequently affirmed that women should “straight up” not serve in combat. In his hearing, he tried to modify these affirmations without disavowing them completely. He hid behind new affirmations of the military’s lowering of standards in order to meet quotas for women in the military. Women on the committee who have served in the military (including Senator Tammy Duckworth who defeated me in a congressional race back in 2006) refuted his affirmations about the lowering of standards.

There are many additional areas that need honest evaluation. May the nominee provide us with honest responses.