Hegseth Shuts Down Warren: ‘I’m Not a General, Senator’
Generals cannot work in the defense industry until 10 years after retirement. How can Hegseth make a pledge to do that when he’s not a general!?
Secretary of Defense nominee Pete Hegseth shut down Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) at the end of her questioning, showing she has no idea who she is questioning:
WARREN: Now, Mr. Hegseth, you have written that after they retire, generals should be banned from the defense industry for ten years. You and I agree on the corrosive effects of the revolving door between the Pentagon and defense contractors. It’s something I would have liked to talk to you about if you’d come and been willing to visit with me, but the question I have for you on this is, will you put your money where your mouth isa nd agree that when you leave this job, you will not work for the defense industry for ten years?
HEGSETH: Senator, it’s not even a question I’ve thought about, because it’s about it right now. My motivation for this job. I understand.
WARREN: Yes or no? Time is short. I just need a yes or no.
HEGSETH: I would consult with the president.
WARREN: About what?
HESETH: The policy.
WARREN: You’re quite sure that every general who serves should not go directly into the defense industry for ten years. You’re not willing to make that same pledge?
HEGSETH: I’m not a general, Senator.
*audience laughs at Warren*
WARREN: You’ll be the one, let us just be clear, in charge of the generals so you’re saying sauce for the goose, but certainly not sauce for the candor.
WARREN: You're quite sure that every general who serves should not go directly into the defense industry for 10 years, but you're not willing to make that same pledge?
HEGSETH: I'm not a general, Senator. pic.twitter.com/GwjJ8703wW
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) January 14, 2025
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
We already know Warren is an idiot .
Are we still supposed to laugh?
Naa, she’s just a Commie
Warren knows perfectly well or should know that the Secretary of Defense is a civilian, not a general.
She voted to confirm Lloyd Austin who came directly from Raytheon
She’s such an ass!
Wait, Democrats can distinguish a goose from a gander?
Boom pow!
Obviously not, if she really did say “candor.”
She is certainly not the sharpest bulb in the forest.
“Senator, I am not a general, just as you are not an American Indian.”
He should have asked her to pledge she wouldn’t patronize a casino for ten years
“Senator Warren, are you lying again?”
How every question put forth by Heap Big Chief Horse Jaw should be answered.
Looks like princess spreading bull speak with forked tongue. Get stepped on by Big Man. Good
It didn’t sound like a shutdown to me. There were other lines, namely that he’s as open to bribery from future employment offers as any general, in his defense department position. That’s the reason that you want to prevent generals from having that option – it shuts down that form of hard to prove bribery.
His correct response would have been that he’s giving up a $2.5M a year job to take this one, so apparently he’s not particularly open to that sort of bribery. It’s more patriotism.
Acknowledging that Warren is ve under him.
Acknowledging that Warren is stupid, I believe that Hegseth should abide by the rules that he is expecting those serving under him to observe.
He is abiding by them.
No, he isn’t. She asked him whether he would, and he refused to commit himself to it.
A better answer would have been that if his proposed rule were to be adopted, then he too would abide by it. If it’s not adopted for anyone else, then why should he be the only one to obey it?
He is abiding by the rules as they stand now and as he has proposed them.
1) The rules would apply to generals and admirals. He is neither. Therefore he is abiding by the proposed rules that do not apply to him.
2) Can you point to him leaving government service and taking a job as a lobbyist in the private defense sector? If you cannot, he is abiding by the current rules and rules he proposed.
Finally, there was nothing to commit to. Warren tried a “gotcha” moment and he made her look foolish and ignorant.
He was asked to pledge to follow this proposed rule after he returns to the private sector. He refused to say he would.
I think he should have said he would abide by it, if and only if it is adopted. If it isn’t then it would be stupid to voluntarily bind himself to it.
I know you are once again having an issue understanding your own writings, but Crawford said He is abiding by them. (Present tense and accurate.)
You wrote: No, he isn’t.
When called out on how he is not abiding the current rules and proposed rules, ,you change the subject and go off in a different direction.
He is abiding by the rules.
You said he isn’t.
What evidence do you have that Hegseth is not abiding by the rules as they stand or as he proposed?
You obviously didn’t pay attention to the exchange. The entire point is that Hegseth is not and never was a general. He was a boots on the ground soldier. This just shows Warren’s ignorance once again. I highly doubt Hegseth wants any Milley’s or Austin’s in positions of authority at DoD. Those 2, along with the 51 “security experts” involved in the Biden laptop scam, should have their security clearances pulled the instant Trump is sworn in. The fact that a fraud and grifter like Fauxcahontas has been elected to the US Senate twice is astounding. Her entire career in academia was predicated on her claim to be an American Indian. She also made hundreds of thousands of dollars flipping houses while she was creating her Consumer Financial Protection Bureau scam. If anyone should resign for not following rules expected of other people, it is Elizabeth Warren.
No, that is not the point at all. How is his military rank relevant? What’s relevant is that he’s about to be SecDef, which is a position more vulnerable to potential corruption than that of any general, so it makes no sense to propose a rule like this for generals and not for SecDef. All she asked was whether he would pledge to follow the rule that he would like to impose on generals.
I think the correct answer should have been that if his proposal is implemented during his tenure as SecDef then he will follow it as well, but not otherwise.
It’s also not true that “her entire career in academia was predicated on her claim to be an American Indian”. She did dishonestly make such a claim, and despite her denials she did it for the purpose of career advancement, but there’s no evidence that it ever actually helped her get a job, it was never mentioned in connection with any job she got, and it certainly was never the primary reason she got a job. The big boost to her career was the since-discredited “research” she published on medical bankruptcies.
“it was never mentioned in connection with any job she got”
Oh well then, case closed.
Universities filling secret illegal quotas to satisfy Affirmative Action Karens always ‘fess up to it.
“How is his military rank relevant?”
Military rank is relevant because Hegseth’s proposed rule applies only to general and flag officers leaving US military service. The rule doesn’t apply to him because he was only a major.
“What’s relevant is that he’s about to be SecDef, which is a position more vulnerable to potential corruption than that of any general, so it makes no sense to propose a rule like this for generals and not for SecDef.”
This is irrelevant (even if true) because the proposed rule that was under discussion isn’t about persons who are or were SecDef (no matter how much sense a rule like this might make and no matter how little sense Hegseth’s proposal might make for not including former SecsDef). Warren was twisting Hegseth’s proposed rule to hold him to it, but Hegseth never proposed banning former SecsDef (or officers below general/flag rank) from defense industry positions after their terms in office (or service).
Warren didn’t ask him if he thought former SecsDef should be held to the same proposal. She simply wanted him to commit to abiding by a rule that 1.) doesn’t exist; and 2.) doesn’t/won’t apply to Hegseth even if it’s adopted.
” I’m not a General, the Sec of Def is a civilian. I’m as much a General as you are a Cherokee. I support the immediate removal of security clearances for all former government officials and employees. I also support a policy that no government official of any capacity serve as a lobbyist for 10 years”
And/or on the board as an employee or consultant for any entity Public or Private, for profit, Non profit, NGO, Charity that had business with, sought/seeks contracts, grants or anything that benefit the entity for a period of ten years. IOW depart govt service for a quiet retirement unaffiliated with your prior govt service.
More infantile, obnoxious and spiteful grandstanding from a dumb-as-rocks narcissist and poser; the insufferable and mendacious demagogue and harridan, squaw spreading bull Fauxcahontas Liawatha.
👍👍👍
Yes they can. Hegseth wants to make a new rule that they can’t.
Easily. How can he make such a demand of generals and not of himself? What argument can be made that generals should be subject to such a rule, but not secretaries of defense, who command generals and have even more influence over defense policy? Either the rule is a good idea for both or a bad one for both.
The argument would be that while the Secretary of Defense deals with policies, generals and admirals would argue that they know what the troops need.
A general could be hired by a contractor to promote a certain weapon’s system and argue that based on his experience, the military needs that weapons system.
Former Secretaries of Defense cannot make that same claim and level of expertise unless they have served.
It is the akin to a CEO of a private corporation who knows how to direct people and money, but doesn’t know how to make anything on the factory floor. The people making the items know what they need. The CEO doesn’t unless he listens to them.
What if that former defense secretary is also a former colonel and could argue based on experience as both an important officer and as secretary of defense?
Colonel<General
Colonel who was also Secretary…….it is easy to see why he is pledging to abide by the rule he set for generals.
Hegseth came across very well throughout the hearing I just thought it was worth mentioning Hegseth wasn’t a captain or a major he did achieve an important position that actually does make him prime even if not perfect material for the defense industry.
That said the critics got very decisively proven wrong on the F35 with the strike on Iran so I would be careful in the assumption that when a retired flag officer advertises a particular piece of equipment that it isn’t genuine.
And? What’s the problem with that? If they’re in a position to know, then what they’re saying might very well be true. That’s an argument in favor of allowing them to take such positions.
The argument against retired generals taking such positions, as I understand it, is the potential for corruption during the later years of their service, in anticipation of such rewards after retirement. The same must be true for cabinet secretaries as well.
That certainly seems to happen a lot in the State Department, where it’s generally known that officials who make the Saudis particularly happy are likely to get a cushy sinecure after retirement.
If a general is hired by a defense contractor, Congress is much more likely to listen to that person based on their experience. That is where the corruption can come in. You may have retired generals who may be “selling” systems that are not needed, but Congress will listen because of their experience.
A SecDef may not have that same “on the field” experience and would be dismissed more easily than someone who has been in a battle or dealing with people who have.
If you can’t see the difference, then there really isn’t much to talk about.
Generals get a generous pension upon retirement. Sec Defs serve for 4 years (if lucky) and get noting else.
Warren is seeking to treat Hegseth as a general when he will be a government official. For Hegseth to be bound there would need to be a rule that government officials are banned from working for the defence industry for 10 years.
But why apply this only to the military? Why not apply it to all government officials and major industries?
Fauxcahontas appears to be after a scalp but not interested in policy that might negatively impact Leftists.
Leave a Comment