♪ host: this is the washington journal for january 15. republicans and democrats had the chance to question president

elect trump's choice for defense secretary. yesterday's hearing, democrats question him on his past relations with women and if he has enough experience to manage the pentagon. republicans were largely supportive of the candidate. some had critical questioning presented by the democrats. it is up to the full senate to decide if he should start the program. tell us what you think if pete hegseth should become the next defense secretary. (202)-748-8000, democrats. (202)-748-8001, republicans. independents, (202)-748-8002. active and former military, your chance to give your opinion, (202)-748-8003. you can use the same number to text us or post on facebook at facebook.com/c-span and on next at guest:. here are the major -- and on x at @cspanwj.

this is "the washington times." pete hegseth deflects democratic criticism. when you go to usa today, on their lower part of the front page, senators grilled him on impropriety and mismanagement of women. turning to pages of "the new york times," gop embraces pickford offense, dissipating, pete hegseth and hot seas, questioning his job qualifications, personal conduct. you go to the washington post, they put the picture on the center of the front page, pete exit under fire at hearing, and then "the wall street journal." pete hegseth weathers fiery hearing and denies misconduct allegations. that hearing took place yesterday at the senate armed services committee. here is a portion from his

opening statement. [video clip] >> the department of defense under donald trump will achieve peace through strength, and in pursuing these america first, national security goals will remain patriotically apolitical and stridently constitutional, unlike the current administration, politics should play no part in military matters. we are not republicans, we are not democrats, we are american warriors. our standards will be high, and they will be equal, not equitable. that is a very different word. we need to make sure every warrior is fully qualified on their assigned weapon system, and every one current on the aircraft they are flying, and every general and flag officer is selected for leadership and promotion purely based on performance, readiness, and

merit. leaders at all levels will be held accountable, and we are focusing on the readiness of the troops will be our only focus. (202)-748-8000, democrats. (202)-748-8001, republicans. independent, (202)-748-8002. also, a line performer and active military. tell us if he should become the next defense secretary. some of you are posting this morning, this is from kelly saying, president trump has an agenda, and all these congress and senators that go against to me to be primary o. he got an overwhelming vote create he won the presidency, the popular vote, resulting in the senators need to look up and undersndhat. it is time to quit standing in the way of progress. richard says there's definitely

some cceing points about him like his financial responsibility. i do lik t fact he's got a decent amount of military background. definitely not your typical nominee. so yes and no. and then james hatch from facebook, no. he is totally unqualified for the position. especially considering his comments on women and others currently serving in the military. we start with john, brooklyn, democrat. caller: good morning. i'm john from new york. i would like to remind everyone, the way he is setting his administration up the way he is doing it, let him, and we cut them off at the midterm election. host: specifically, what do you think of pete hegseth as defense secretary? caller: well, i'm a veteran, and

i don't think he knows the impact of it. i'm thinking is the preface of it and what he's doing and what he doesn't do. host: as a veteran, why do you think mr. hegseth doesn't understand those? caller: because if he did, he would be qualified to be the secretary of state. there's a lot of experience and thought and policy, and you have to understand the military. host: john in brooklyn. the confirmation hearing yesterday, bob, republican line. caller: thank you for having me on. i am a supporter of the hegseth nomination. i think he may not have all the experience at that level, but he is smart enough to put in his

wheelhouse to help guide him through everything. i don't believe -- some of the questioning by the democrats, it amazes me that they had no problem with two biden appointed positions, but they are going to object and nitpick everything. i'm not saying the man is a saint. people who are asking the questions, they would not be answering them either. host: we will go to pennsylvania, robert, independent. go ahead.

caller: i think he should definitely be appointed. trump definitely won the popular vote. and they were a complete disgrace, the way they acted yesterday. it seems like when we have a democrat that is and domesticate appointed, they are a complete loon, like bidens picks last time. but they don't act like this, and this is from an independent who voted for trump, and, unfortunately, i did vote providing my sorry -- did vote.

host: what is it specifically that stands out to you that takes you from the hearing that he's qualified for the job? caller: his answers were on point. i don't think anything he said, of course he doesn't know every single aspect of the position. who does? this is a position -- he doesn't even know what pete hegseth is being interviewed for. host: robert mentioned senator tim kaine, democrat from virginia wall street journal has a take on his side of the questioning. the closest democrats had

questioning from senator tim kaine of virginia -- and trump's team -- that is from the wall street journal. that full testimony available on our platforms. senator tim kaine, and the nominee with pete hegseth. [video clip] >> i would like to return to the incident on october 2017, at that time, you are still married to your second wife, correct? >> i believe so. >> and you had just fathered a child by a woman who would later become your third wife, correct? >> senator, i was falsely charged, fully investigated and cleared. >> so you think you were cleared because -- you had just fathered a child two month before by

woman who is not your wife. i'm shocked that you would stand here and say i'm completely cleared and you so casually cheat on a second wife, and she, the mother of a child of importance of as before, and utility were completely cleared, house at how set a complete clear? >> senator, the child's name is gwendolyn hope hegseth, she is a child of god, she is seven years old. >> and you cheated on the mother of the child less than two months after that child was born, didn't you? >> those were false charges, fully investigated and i'm completely clear. and i'm grateful to the marriage i have for the woman behind great -- behind me. >> you admitted to having sects at that hotel on october 17, he said it was consensual, didn't you and you are still married and he just had a child by another woman, how do you explain. >> those were false charges against me, fully investigated.

>> you have admitted that you had sexual you are married to wife two after you had just fathered a child by wife three. you admitted that. if it had been a sexual assault, that would be disqualified to be secretary of defense, wouldn't it? >> was a false claim then, and it is a false claim now. >> if it had been a sexual so, that would have been disqualified to be secretary of defense, wouldn't it? >> that was a false claim, so you are talking about hypothetical. >> so you cannot tell me someone who has committed a sexual assault is as qualified from being secretary of defense? >> in my instance, mine only, it was a false claim. >> do you acknowledge you cheated on your wife and that you cheated on the woman by whom you had just fathered a child, you admitted that? >> i will allow your words to speak for yourself. >> i assume that each of your weddings you pledge to be faithful to your wife, you took an oath, haven't you?

>> senator, avenue -- as i have acknowledged, not a perfect person. [end video clip] host: again, let's hear from clay clay on the democrats line, georgia, hello. caller: i have a problem with anyone who cannot answer, yes, no. they asked this man to say yes or no. he has a problem. anybody who has a problem with on answering a question like that, that is something wrong. and democrats know everything they need to know about this man. there's no problem with that.

one thing i would like to say is anyone that does not answer a question yes or no, then there is a problem. no, he should not be anywhere close to the white house. host: marcus, wisconsin, republican line. caller: hello, good morning. right away, i would like to say i strongly agree with the last caller, if you cannot say yes or no to a standard question like that in front of a congressperson, i don't think you are qualified to be in a high position like defense secretary. host: let's go to larry, illinois. we have set aside a line performer and active military, if you like to call, (202)-748-8003. larry, illinois, calling on that line. go ahead. caller: yes. i spent 24 years in the air

force. i was in vietnam and desert storm. i feel like pete will do a good job. it is not political, you should not be political. when i joined the air force, i did not vote for the whole time i was in the air force for 24 years for the president. it doesn't make any difference who is the president, you are to abide by their orders, so i do not have anything to influence my thinking, but, i think the government and the defense department should not be so much political. again, i think pete would do a very good job given the chance. thank you. host: the wall street journal highlights the fact that a lot of attention paid to senator joni ernst, a former military veteran, could make or break the

vote. the wall street journal saying that in an interview, ohio's w.h.o. radio highlighted hegseth 's pledge to support many, and said she felt it was a good hearing and asked if he had her vote, she said, yes, she would support him. joni ernst, who is up for reelection in 2026, had faced pressure from trump allies to back the nomination. the wall street journal has several republican senators to watch out for when it comes to the full senate vote that could possibly make or break whether mr. hegseth becomes the next defense secretary. the highlight joni ernst to be a part of that, by the way. the utah senator, john curtis, republican susan collins of maine, and also on the list, the former minority leader mitch mcconnell of kentucky. lisa murkowski, republican of alaska, and todd young of indiana.

this nomination ultimately would go to a full senate vote to see if mr. hegseth will bring the confirmation. mary, alabama, democrat. go ahead. mary in alabama, hello, you are on. caller: i'm sorry. i think the gentleman should not be confirmed because he does not support the constitution because it you support trump, you cannot support the constitution. host: we will hear from another mary in pennsylvania, independent. go ahead. caller: i don't think he should be confirmed, the fact he could not answer basic questions about the job that he doesn't have

basic knowledge about the job, i think the senator from hawaii was asking about countries that belonged -- i forget what he asked -- but he cannot answer basic questions. the fact he did not even do research before coming to a confirmation hearing just speaks about his lack of preparation for this position. additionally, he cannot even say that if trump were to ask them to do something illegal that was against the constitution, he refused to answer the question. that just lets you know that trump is trying to put people into power so that way he can be a dictator on day one. it is crazy that voters do not believe what he says that he is not going to do that, he's not going to do that. he's doing it now. host: mary, pennsylvania, independent. the hearing for pete hegseth took place yesterday. several other nomination hearings happen today and tomorrow. to give you a sense of what to expect over the next two days on the confirmations, for today,

berries committees, marco rubio to become the secretary of state, pam bondi to be considered as attorney general, chris wright to be energy secretary, john ratcliffe to be the next cia director, sean duffy to be the transportation secretary, and russell vote to be the office of management & budget director. you recall that kristi noem, the south dakota governor, was slated to confirmed for homeland security secretary perry that has been postponed to friday due to paperwork. when it comes to the thursday confirmation hrings, eric scott turneto be consider the next secretary of hu lee zeldin to be the epa administrator, scott bessent to be treasury secretary and doug bergman to be interior secretary.

it will be30, the start time for that hea. when that hearin starts, we will show you a little bit of it, but when the house comes in at 10:, you can continue watching on c-span two, our platform c-span now, and c-span.org. again, that is for the confirmation hearing for pam bondi, president-elect's trump to become the next attorney general. on our line performer and active military, gary, michigan. caller: hey. how are you doing, sir? host: you are on, go ahead. caller: i don't think you should be confirmed. his lack of basic knowledge about the position and his comments about women in the military. i served with a lot of women in the military, and they were fully capable of performing their duties, and the guy cannot even answer basic questions, yes or no. i have served 40 plus years in

the military, and if you cannot answer a basic question yes or no, i don't think you are qualified. i'm also concerned about his position on legal or illegal as given by the commander-in-chief, were crimes should not be in any circumstance -- how can i put this -- provided, started think you should be qualified. and he did not even know anything. as far as i'm concerned, no. host: by the way, another confirmation hearing to look out for, if you are interested when it comes to foreign policy, marco rubio, the senator from his confirmationringit is today, 10:00. if you would liketch , do that on c-span3 thether platforms available to you, as well. if you are interested in hearing

the questions he will be asked. kevin, new york, republican, should pete hegseth become the next defense secretary? go ahead. caller: good morning. i appreciate you taking the time to listen to me. i believe pete hegseth is a wise choice. i believe he has a full spectrum of others don't. you would think that we would want a more mature person with more years in the military, but i do not question someone who has interviewed people for jobs like on the television show. wanting to buy the best. not everybody is going to be a rocket scientist and not everybody is going to be the

rest, but i would say he is reachable. he would be in the top three, so as far as he is concerned, i feel he would do a good job. however, i did understand that the people -- this is an inquisition or is this a bunch of americans trying to get some work done right away? we changed it all the time if they don't work out. anyway, it is very important for us to get moving on this and all work together. i've been in the nucleus of the machine here for many, many years, witnessed it from both sides. you have to have one watchdog watching on the other. anyway, god bless america, god class -- god bless pete hegseth. host: laverne, oregon, democrat. caller: thank you for taking my

call. i'm really surprised that the republicans are willing to bring an alcoholic to this very important position. and the republicans i know definitely would not stand for having this person, just because of his alcoholic behavior. that is the one main thing that would keep him from holding a responsible job at any time. thank you. host: the washington post highlights republican questioning from the hearing yesterday, saying republicans expressed outrage at democrats line of questioning is sought to put holes in the criticism, aligning the negative allegations as coming from anonymous sources and suggesting few senators on the dais have managed more people than hegseth had, yet, nobody questioned their qualifications. they offered sympathetic

accounts written by female service members and former colleagues of hegseth's to be entered into the hearings. official record, one of the people speaking up for pete hegseth yesterday with senator markwayne mullin of oklahoma, and in his comments yesterday, criticized democrats for their line of questioning. here is their portion. [video clip] >> i think it is so critical of senators to be talking about his litigations, not only to be the secretary of defense, yet, your qualifications are not any better. you guys are not anymore qualified to be senator than i am, except we are lucky enough to be here, but let me read you qualifications of the secretary of defense is because i googled it and went through a lot of sites. it is hard to see but in general, the u.s. secretary of defense position is filled by a civilian. that is it. if you have served in the u.s. army forces and have been -- you

have to be retired for at least seven years, and congress can weigh that, and then there are questions that the senator from massachusetts brought up about serving on a board inside the military industry, yet, your own secretary you voted for, we had to vote on a waiver because the stepped off the board, but i guess that is ok because that is a democrat secretary of defense. but we so quickly forget about that. and then the senator from virginia brings up the fact that what if you showed up drunk to your job? how many senators have shown up drunk to vote at night? have any of you guys asked them to step down about further job? don't tell me you have not seen it because i know you have.

how many senators do you know who have gotten a divorce for cheating on their wives? did you ask them to step down? no, but it is for show. you make sure you make a big show and point out hypocrisy because the man has made a mistake, and you would like to sit there and say he's not qualified, give me a joke. it is ridiculous to hold yourselves at a higher standard and you forget you have a big plank in your eye. you have all made mistakes. i've made mistakes, and, jennifer, thank you for loving him through that mistake because the only reason why i'm here and not in prison is because my wife loved me, too. [end video clip] host: again, that was part of the back-and-forth with pete hegseth and his confirmation hearing. you can see it on our website if you'd like to watch the whole hearing. the comments on if pete hegseth should become the next defense secretary, tell us why or why not, (202)-748-8000, democrats.

(202)-748-8001, republicans. independent, (202)-748-8002. active or former military, (202)-748-8003. skip, michigan, republican. caller: i'm glad you played that tape there, what was so interesting is that if there is any cabinet position that needs them not compromising and working together, it would be the secretary of defense. that is the number one with democrats and republicans working together. then you look at my senators, both of them on there, talking about qualifications. honest to god, they would have to google the county where i live in their state to nowhere it is at because they've never been there, and they have no idea where i'm from. so what are they qualified to be

my senator? but i wish people would stop the personal attacks. look at it was best for the position to protect our country and most importantly to protect our soldiers, that is what i wish they would do. you for taking my call and have a good day. host: stephen, kentucky, independent. caller: thank you for allowing me to speak my mind. i would like to take a moment to tell robert from pennsylvania, i think he mentioned republicans don't kick and scream. let me remind you about january 6, the biggest kicking and screening event i've ever seen. so they did do that. so the topic, i think a celebrity as polarizing as him does not need to be in platform. with defense secretary title. it is to polarizing, he has no

idea what he's doing. he may be a great speak to political situations, he is clueless. the fact that we are allowing celebrities with no experience, other than just being popular to run these departments -- host: he does have a military background. caller: he does not know everything about secretary of defense, does he speak multiple and witches? no. there are plenty of other but candidates that would fit better , there are so many other good candidates out there that could be a leading choice for republican. host: we will hear from mary, pittsburgh, democrat. hello. caller: this is mary, pittsburgh. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: i'm 97 years old, and i

definitely do believe this gentleman should not be made defense secretary, and the main reason why is, as far as leadership is concerned, number one, he evidently was in charge of some corporations, and [indiscernible] in this budget is so high, i would not trust them with that. also, i do not believe that he has the military background, or not only that, but the background to serve as defense secretary because he could not answer several questions about the specific. he was vague on it, and i think he must have forgotten that, but the democrats did have a bill up

that we would join the pacific coalition and the republicans voted that down. so now it becomes an issue. obviously, i do not believe he was well prepared to answer, and the most important thing, too, is honesty. i taught leadership at a college here in pittsburgh, and one of the main things about doing leadership is you have to be honest. he evaded talking about his personal problems and he also blamed everything on anonymous. i don't know -- i do not trust him. i do believe we need somebody -- and i agree with what one of the republican said, there are better republicans. i'm not against him because he's republican.

i'm against him because i do not believe he has the qualification. host: that was angela. this is angela, former military. caller: hi, can you hear me? pete hegseth, regarding pete hegseth, you guys are comparing wanted to put people like the five versus pete hegseth in charge. if you got dropped down on the ground in a war zone, which i have been to, as a female, do you want pete hegseth, do you want toxic masculinity covering your back or do you want the five covering your back? i guarantee if there was a choice if you are getting dropped down on the ground, boots on the ground in the middle east, you are going to

choose pete hegseth, toxic men like the six, toxic men being your verbiage, not mine, versus these little pansies like the five? host: ok, angela in north carolina. let's hear from republican, tom, connecticut. caller: that caller was hard to follow because she is right on, i think pete is going to do a good job. he would like to rebuild the military and it is like she's doing and remarked because there's nobody there. i don't have much to say because i'm not a senator, but i do appreciate the republican senators fighting back this time. leaning back and let the democrats tear them to pieces. i appreciate them fighting back

and i wish pete hegseth all the luck in rebuilding our military to be a fighting force and bring back that toxic, toxic whatever. host: democrat line, you are next. caller: good morning. i'm not against him being a republican, pete hegseth, my concern, and the concern that should have been his we have to get ready to hold that position and be honest to do what you are supposed to do, for the military and the country. i do not approve of him being donald trump's puppet, doing what donald trump tells them to do. he needs to think with his heart, his conscience, and his mind when it comes to making decisions. if he feels it is wrong, do not do it because donald trump says do it. do it because you feel it is

right for the country. and if he does that, i think you would hold that position with more upstanding. it is not being democrat or republican, it is just being for the country, not for donald trump. host: that was sharon in south ca, kristen, saying this aocra watching the hearing embarrassing. democrats wasted so mh time bring up his character, when we know and donald trump's michael world, morals, honorndespect for women means nothing. we are about to get a very unqualified person at the head of the military, and the democrats did not ask the appropriate questions. long response offook from paul noving when it comes to pete hegseth, easily very qualified but more importantly brings the correct mindset and principles to the position. at its core, the military is to kill those who was to the u.s. that requires a focus on the job, period, not "equity,"

"diversity." if he can meet the dards and pass the test, you can become part of the team, regardless of your race, sex, color, period. you can post on facebook.com/c-span, and you can do that at c-span wj or text us like one of the viewers, (202)-748-8003. you can use that same number if you are active or former military, and if you would like to give a direct thought on the phone, call us on the regular line, democrats, (202)-748-8000 .republicans , (202)-748-8001. s, -- independents, (202)-748-8002. washington state, independent line, david, hello. caller: thank you, pedro. i think it is a great service you guys are doing. i would like to see that the military is supposed to have much higher standards or moral turpitude than what we see

amongst those who are not uniform. hegseth pete simply does not meet those standards, but even if you wanted to put that aside, he just does not have any qualifications to run a large organization like the military. we have got to get someone there who actually knows how to do the job, and i think the soon to be once and future president, that is, is trying to beat the senate republicans into other submission with someone so unqualified as hegseth. if can ram him through, they can put anyone into any position. thank you. host: bob, pennsylvania, line for active and former military. caller: good morning.

host: good morning, you are on. caller: alright, i'm actually in massachusetts. i'm concerned with people saying that mr. hegseth is not qualified. the secretary of defense we have now had a medical issue and disappeared, and, boy, with the chain of command with all the things going on right now, that is pretty insane. so pete hegseth is a qualified is insane. at least he is not going to be going places and not telling anybody he's in the hospital getting care. have a nice day. host: elizabeth warren, the senator from massachusetts, part of the questioning yesterday. in her line of questioning, talking to mr. hegseth, asking and questioning him about public comments on women's service in the military. here's part of the exchange. [video clip] >> for me, this issue has always

been about standards. unfortunately, because of some of that -- >> excuse me, let's just stop right there. mr. hegseth, i'm quoting you from the podcast, "women should not be in combat at all. the -- combat at all." where is the reference to combat that they should be there if they can run. what i see is a 32 day time in which you suddenly have another description about your views of women in the military, and i would just like to know, what changed in the 32 days that the song you sang is not the song you come in here today to sing. >> the concerns i've had and many have had, especially in ground combat units, is that in pursuit of certain percentages or quotas, standards have been changed, and that next combat --

>> so what do you think is the question about what happened in the 32 days? you have got a nomination for president trump, have you ever heard of -- i've heard of deathbed conversions, but this is a first time i've heard of denomination conversion, and i hope you understand that many women serving in the military right now might think that if you can convert so rapidly your long-held and aggressively pursued views in just 32 days, that 32 days after you get confirmed, may you will just reverse those views and go back to the old guy who said straight up "women do not long and combat boots." [end video clip] host: again, a lot of questions yesterday. that video available on our website and app, if you would like to see that exchange from senators participating. the associated press and university of chicago conducted

a poll specifically on hegseth, asking do you approve, or disapprove of him? 19% of those responded from the pole saying approve of mr. hegseth becoming the secretary of defense. 12% said neither. 30 -- 35% disapprove and 33% say they don't know enough. amongst republicans, 41% approval, versus 10% of disapprove of. independent, 11% support, 33% disapproval. democrats, 6% support, 54% disapproval. there is more there, not only on mr. hegseth but other nominees, today, the focus on pete hegseth , as far as you telling us if you think you should be the defense secretary. stay close to our website and are up to follow along when the

hearings, including pam bondi to be the next attorney general, senator rubio to be the next secretary of state. gregory in minnesota, independent line, high. caller: good morning. i voted for some democrats and republicans, but pete hag seth grew up in the town i live in, and he is a fine, fine person. he without sin is who should cast the first stone, is what jesus said in the bible, so pete will be the finest person. he lives and breathes for military activity, he was a fine soldier, decorated, he did a

great job. there isn't anything about him or his family that you could criticize at all. anybody that has any moral compass at all would recognize that when he got out of the military, he saw some really awful things, saw soldiers dying, he reduced some ds, i mean, he had to transition back into regular life with not being in the military. my goodness -- [indiscernible] host: ok, gregory, we are starting to lose your signal, but thank you. marianna, georgia, democrat. caller: thank you for taking my call. oh my goodness, the last caller,

do you not realize that he seemed to be more partying with women and cheating on women. i'm not sure if that is the upstanding moral guy you think he is, but my concerns, and i listened to the entire hearing because i really did not know much about him until i watched it, my first concern was that he did not go to the democrats -- you know how he went and spoke to all the republicans beforehand, went to their office, but he did not go to any of the democrats, so that shows that he is very partisan, which is a concern. one of the things that people have not spoken about, it is the little things to me that means something, they speak volumes. they asked him about the generals, hegseth said if all

the generals should not be allowed to lobby after they get out of being a general or retire , and she said she agreed with him, and she asked him, would you also agree not to be a lobbyist or go back to washington after you retire? and he refused, and she said, well, would you please answer the question, would you also do the same thing that you're asking them to do? and he said, i'm a general. to me, that spoke volumes about his character. that is all i have to say. host: mary, georgia. retired military next, mark from pennsylvania. caller: part of my time in the marine corps i spent in hawaii at camp smith, and i will tell you, the representative from hawaii was absolutely disrespectful yesterday.

besides tourism, a large amount of income and jobs they have in hawaii are due to military bases a military family that live off base. and i don't believe her constituents would agree with her line of questioning. your last caller talked about making the comment that he said he was in a general. one thing she has to realize is when generals leave office after retiring, they are getting a good pension, and they still go work for contractors. this gentleman does not have the pension of a general, so his expertise would be a benefit after his time with the government services. also, the gentleman who was disrespectful about mentioning his child, and i'm glad he spoke up to himself and mentioned the name of the child. anybody who has to attack someone by going after the child of anyone, it doesn't matter if

you are in the military or not, but to attack and bring something up so hurtful, that was not for any reason as far as the requirements with his job, it was more to insult him, insult his family, and, sadly, insult a child, and her name was mentioned all across the country, on the news, in the newspaper, and did that gentleman think about the embarrassment that could bring that girl -- host: ok, that is mark, pennsylvania. he mentioned the senator from hawaii, daisy hirano, part of the questions she had for mr. hegseth concerned possible operations against panama or greenland. here's part of the exchange. [video clip] >> refusing to use military force to take over greenland, and the panama canal, and

threatening to take canada, the 51st state, would you carry out an order from president trump to seize greenland, a territory of our ally denmark by force? or would you comply with in order to take over the panama canal? >> senator, i will emphasize that president trump received 77 million votes -- >> we are not talking about the election, my question is, would you use our military to take over greenland or an ally of denmark? >> senator, one of the things president trump is so good at is never strategically tipping his hand, so i would never in this public forum, one way or another -- >> that sounds to me that you would contemplate carrying out such an order to basically invade greenland to take over -- or take over the panama canal. [end video clip] host: that was from yesterday.

we told you about the confirmation hearing set for this week, some delay due to issues of paperwork. that is a story in goverent executive, some trump nominees face confirmation delays with ethics an background checks schedules -- with ethicss and background checks schedules. watchdogs and democrats continue to press leadership, not to move forward without first considering the finances and other parts of would be cabinet member backgrounds. lawmakers are hurrying to get some of trump's nominees in place by inauguration day next week, although some senate committee chairs have said they are awaiting background checks from the fbi or reviews from the office of government ethics. some of those steps were delayed after mr. trump's team spent months holding off on the transition process. adding that many of the president-elect's intended cabinet picks were scheduled for the hearings this week, some

postponed, as well as committees background, information on secretary designates, and that likely means mr. trump has fewer pix confirmed on his first day of office. let's hear from tom, new jersey, independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. i view his nomination from management qualification perspective, and pete hegseth had no experience managing major organizations. from that perspective, thank you. host: angus, maryland, democrat. caller: look, i would like to ask the american people to put the head of the army, navy, air force, marines the same thing

you are doing for that particular man, and that means the president-elect of the united states, he should be able to sit there and go through that same thing. host: so when it comes to mr. hegseth himself, what do you think of him becoming the next defense secretary? caller: the man that appoints him should be the one up there going through that instead of him. host: craig, ohio, republican. caller: hi. host: go ahead. caller: i love listening to these local democrats. they lost and they just cannot get over it. you would like to fix california, let's start -- host: we are not doing that topic, we are doing mr. hegseth becoming the next event secretary, what do you think of that possibility? caller: first of all, mr.

hegseth is a big criminal. that is all the democrats talk about, that they are criminals. host: you heard the comments and back and forth with senator warren of mr. hegseth when it comes to women and things he said about women in the military. a same type of exchange from joni ernst, republican of iowa, she said in an interview yesterday that she would support mr. hegseth. this is about questioning him on women in combat, fighting sexual salt in the military, she, herself, a veteran and sexual sole survivor. here's part of the exchange with joni ernst. [video clip] >> for the young women who are out there now and can meet those standards, and i will emphasize they should be very, very high standards, they must physically be able to achieve those standards so they can complete their mission, but i would like

to know, let's make it clear for everyone here today, as secretary of defense, will you support women continuing to have the opportunity to serve in combat roles? >> senator, first of all, thank you for your service, as we discussed -- >> it is my privilege. >> my answer is, yes, exactly the way you copy audited, women will have access to ground combat roles given the standards remain high and we will have a review to ensure the standards have not been eroded. in any one of these cases. one of the persons we do at the pentagon is reviewing that in a gender-neutral way, the standards, ensuring readiness and meritocracy is front and center, but, absolutely, it would be the privilege of a lifetime, if confirmed, to be the secretary of defense for all men and women in uniform who fight so heroic -- they have so many other options and they decide to put their right hand up for our country, and it would

be an honor. >> thank you. very briefly, we have less than one minute left, but we have also discussed this, a priority of mine has been combating sexual assault in the military and making sure that all of our service members are treated with dignity and respect. this has been so important, senator gillibrand and i have worked on this, and we were able to get changes made to the military code of justice to make sure we have improvements on how we address the tragic and life altering issues of rape, sexual assaults, it will demand time and attention from the pentagon under your watch if you are confirmed. as secretary of defense, will you appoint a senior-level official dedicated to sexual

assault prevention and response? >> senator, as discussed, yes, i will. >> my time has expired, thank you. [end video clip] host: let's hear from mike, louisiana, retired military, good morning. caller: i say certainly not due to article 134, it required all acts redirected and disciplined, and it is saying to me that pete hegseth has no discipline, but i think he will be confirmed by those who also have no order or discipline, so certainly not in my opinion. host: kristin, california, democrat. caller: hi, pedro. longtime listener, first time caller. this will be real quick. this is not apples to apples, this is apples to hammers,

senators are voted in by constituents. they spend a lot of money to run, a lot of time running, for democrats and republicans, work for all americans, democrats or republicans in their state. defense secretary is voted in by the senators. they spend no money to be voted in by the senators, so, no, he's not qualified and less all-american people voted him in. senators work for the defense secretary who runs the whole entire military, so, no, -- host: but if the senators have an advising consent role, why not let the senators make these decisions regarding mr. hegseth? caller: unless all the constituents -- they don't raise money, he has a billion-dollar

budget. senators don't have that. that is all i have to say. thank you. host: ben, florida, independent. caller: good morning. i'm a little confused with these callers saying that cost overruns are acceptable. not getting an audit that actually would fail. what we are talking about, the last 16 years, 12 of them, we followed the democrat rule, where we put in high-ranking officials, and they feel that their jobs. it is time to try something different. we have got a young man with military experience, who would like to try and get in there, and change what is going on in

the military. enrollment in the military is down. we need to get that up. we have four countries worldwide lined up against us, and we've got a military that is weaker today than it has ever been. we honestly need a change. as an independent, i choose the best line. right now, it is not lie with the status quo. the status quo has failed us. host: one more call, bill, arizona, independent. caller: hi, pedro, how are you doing? pete hegseth would be perfect for the job because the last time trump did this, the general stabbed him in the back, and

only interested in embroidery. host: that is bill in arizona. last call on the topic, people all of you who participated. 9:38 the start of the hearing with pam bondi, the president-elect's choic become the next attorney general, 10:00 for marco rubio, the president-elect choice to become the secretary of state. a lot of other hearings, too. stay close to our website and the app for more information on the confirmation hearings. coming up and joining us next, we will talk to aidan smith of nebraska, the top member of the ways and means committee, discussing the incoming administration trade and tariffs agenda and the and the prospect of extending those trump era tax cuts. later on a conversation with peter montgomery from the group people for the american way about why he and his organization oppose pam bondi's nomination for attorney general.