when it's ends, and at that point, for those detainees being held as enemy belligerents against our enemy, the taliban, unless there is an additional basis for holding them, then we would no longer have that international law basis for holding them. now it's been suggested taliban may also be candidates to be held as associates of al qaeda as the conflict with al qaeda continues. >> the point that mr. smith ma made, this conflict may not end in december just because majority of our troops are pulled out. >> that is my understanding as well, sir. >> we felt the conflict was over in iraq, but we see it is not. it continues to go on now.

the second thing i may have left the wrong impression talking to secretary, the same report that probably would have sold everything. we still have big concerns about the five, i didn't mention when we were briefed in november of '11 and january of '12 there was real concerns of members of congress that those five would be released. in fact there was real opposition to it. and that's why we are very concerned we weren't told that if we'd reentered those negotiations, you would be told and then we weren't. worked through. miss thornberry. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, i like to begin with a brief additional observation on notification issue. for the past several years this committee worked on a bipartisan

basis to establish an oversight structure for cyber operations, terrorist operations and sensitive military operation. an oversight structure that allows the department to operate in volatile, rapidly changing world and give us the ability to exercise our duties under the constitution. the basis of all three of those areas that we get timely, accurate information from the department. and this failure, even if it was ordered by the white house, undermines the ability to have that sort of oversight structure. i've been a member of the intelligence committee for 10 years. our work depend on getting accurate timely information from the intelligence community. if the president can violate the law and say, no, in this case we're not going to give you the information, it undermines the oversight process that we have with the intelligence community.

so my point to you is, it is not just about this incident. not jy having their feelings hurt. this decision undermines a lot of working relationship in all these areas of national security and i think it's important that the whole administration understands some of the ramifications of this. let me ask a specific question. press reports indicate that sergeant bergdahl was captured by haqqani network commander and was held by the haqqani network. is that true? >> what i would prefer, as i noted, in the classified session that we get into the specifics of that 15-6 commander's evaluation report that was done on the circumstances at the time of sergeant bergdahl's capture. i believe that was done in august of 2009. that has been sent up here, unredacted. sent up here yesterday.

and i just assume to get into that in a classified briefing. >> well, i'm not -- >> i would say this. he was, in that report, that the army did he was classified as missing/captive. >> yes. i wasn't really focused on, trying to verify, as i understand it, administration people have said clearly it was the haqqani network that kept him. >> well the haqqani network did have him through periods of time. this was another complication. over a five-year period he was moved around. we had difficulty finding him. and knowing where he was. different groups held him. so complication of haqqanis being part of this, that's right. >> it is also true that the

haqqani network is listed by state department as a foreign terrorist organization. >> that's right. that's right. >> let me turn -- >> we didn't negotiate with haqqani. >> okay. i think that's a subject we'll want to discuss more if we must in the classified session but i think -- >> well, i want to make sure the record is clear on that. we engaged the qataris and they engaged the taliban. now, if the haqqanis were subcontracting to the taliban or whatever that relationship is you know the pakistan taliban and the afghan taliban, there's a difference there. so we get back into definitions of who, who has responsibility for whom. i want to make sure that's clear on the record. we can go into a lot more detail. >> i think you pointed out some of the difficulty making category ral states that we

don't negotiate with terrorists orfor at least some period the haqqanis were the one who is had him. let me ask about one other thing and that is the five detainees that were released. you said that there's always some risk associated with releasing someone from guantanamo but you also said they have not been implicated in any attacks on the united states. i have some unclassified, summary of evidence before the combatant status review tribunals. for example, for mr. fazi, it said the detainee engaged in hostilities against the united states or its coalition partners. maybe there is a difference between us and our partners, for mr. wasiq, is said the detainee participated in the military operations against the coalition. at least there was some point they were involved in hostilities, military operations against the coalition, weren't there? >> yes. they were mid to high-ranking

members of the taliban government. of the tall back. so yes, they were part of planning but what my point was we have no direct evidence of any direct involvement in their direct attacks on the united states or any of our troops. they were part of the taliban at the time some were given to us. we picked two of them up, captured two, but yes they were combatants. >> your point was they didn't pull the trigger but they were senior commanders of the taliban military who directed operations against the united states and its coalition partners, would that be a better way to do it? that's right. >> okay. >> as i said in my statement, congressman, they were combatants. we were at war with the taliban. there is no getting around that and i made, i point i thought pretty clearly. >> thank you. >> just like bin laden didn't pull a trigger but we went after

him because he is the one that caused the 9/11. ms. davis. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you both for being here. mr. secretary, i do think that your presentation did provide us i think additional ways of really looking at the discussion. i do understand how people feel in terms of notice but i wanted to have an opportunity to, to just look at that issue and and whether or not the circumstances under which he was captured or the fact that, regardless whether or not his life was in danger would have made any difference in terms of the 30-day notice.

it is difficult for me to imagine that members would have included that within the language of that bill. to what extent were those situations weighing on the decision of whether or not to engage in that discussion during the imminent danger period? >> well, all of those were factors that we had to consider as we were thinking through this. his deteriorating health which was clear to us from the last proof of life video we had. the uncertainty of where he was, who exactly held him. again, i remind everybody this, this service member was held in pretty difficult circumstances for almost five years and we don't know the facts of all of that until he gets back and we're able to get the facts.

the urgency of getting him. the fleeting opportunity that was made clear to us by the qataris in our engagements, negotiations. mr. preston was there through those. all these were factors. the concern about leaks. we were warned about. everyone of these different dimensions, we had to think through. and we did believe, as i said, and we had information to support this, that this effort, might be the last real effort that we have to get him back. there were too many things floating around that we didn't control, that we didn't know enough about. so we had to factor in all of those. >> did you have any other, did you, i guess entertain other approaches to his rescue that

you were looking at at that particular time and why were any of those not followed? >> well, congresswoman, we were. as i said in my statement since the time he went missing, we were looking at different ways to get him back. our combatant commanders were always looking at plans, possibilities, on shuns, -- options, rescue missions and so on. but as i said in my remarks, we had to factor in the risks to our other forces to go get him and if he was in pakistan, we know he was moved in and out across-the-boarder, that would also affect some different dimensions. we looked at all the options. had all the possibilities. until this last time when we got

him, in our opinion, our intelligence community's opinion, our military, everyone who was involved, this was the best possibility that we had to get him out and we were concerned we might lose it. and as i gave you some dimension of the time frame, we didn't even know where we were going to pick him up. it was less than an hour -- area. >> and the detainees, was it always this five or were there others -- >> well, actually started with six. some of you may recall. >> i understand. >> one of them died. and there had been back and forth. they wanted all, taliban detainees at one point. and we said no. so, this is part of the whole engagement of what we need to do and where we do, we draw lines, saying no, we're not going to do this. so, yes, there were different

variations of that engagement over the years. >> all right. thank you. thank you, mr. secretary. >> mr. jones. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. secretary hagel, mr. president, good to see both of you. thank you for being here today. mr. secretary, on june 1 you were on "meet the press" and you expressed hope that the release of sergeant bergdahl would lead to direct u.s. talks with the taliban. mr. secretary, the taliban have stated there would be no peace with the afghan government, with the united states or any foreign presence as long as troops remained in afghanistan and prisoners are contained at guantanamo bay. they have repeated these statements time and time again and have proven they do not desire peace with the united states or its allies. with this known why did you at that point on "meet the press"

express hope, i mean we can all have ephope, the release of the sergeant would lead to some type of direct negotiations with the united states and do you today feel that is still a real possibility? maybe there is something you want to say in the classified setting that you can't say here today but this to me, your statement was received by many of the people that i represent in the third district of north carolina, that maybe there was in this negotiation about the sergeant, maybe there was some signals sent to you, sir, or to the administration there might be a opportunity for direct negotiations with the taliban. knowing the history of the taliban, knowing how they have fought the russians. alexander the great, the brits

and fighting the americans, i would hope that maybe, you do know something that you can share with us, if not in a public setting but in a private setting? can you comment, sir? >> congressman jones, thank you, good to see you again. >> thank you. >> thank you. first, as you know the position of the united states government regarding the taliban has always been, we support a reconciliation between the afghan government and the taliban. that's been a general position, as you know. as to the specific answer i gave on "meet the press," it was to a specific question. when we were talking about sergeant bergdahl's release, that i don't recall exactly the question, but, if i can piece it together enough, to respond, i think the question was set up, well, could this lead to talks with the taliban or

reconciliation? and as you quoted me, i said, well, i hope, maybe, whatever. but, no, that, that wasn't any direct hint or wink or possibility that i know something that that is going to happen but i would also remind us again too that if you recall, some of you do, because you were in some of these, these meetings, briefings, in the 2011-2012 time frame, i wasn't in this job at the time, but i have looked at files on this. i've seen it all. there was a larger scope and framework of a larger reconciliation which included bergdahl's release. but the current situation that we were in was a straight, get bergdahl. now, that hasn't dismissed, congressman, the hope that there

can be some possibility of the afghan government and taliban finding a reconciliation somehow some way but in no way did i, was i intended to imply in that answer there is something else going on out here. >> well my interest was simply that the taliban's history does not seem that they want to see a foreign presence that's going to influence of future of their country and i was hopeful that maybe, in the negotiations for the sergeant, that maybe there had been some signals sent with the mead did i airy that -- mediary, that may have been shared. if there has been, maybe you could, through your staff or maybe in the classified setting let me know that there are some possibilities because my marines down in camp lejeune are frankly

tired of going to afghanistan and getting their legs blown off. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> we will, congressman jones. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. mechanic tear and mr. president, i want to thank you for being here today with your testimony. as we reminded just yesterday, the, with the loss of five american special operating forces, afghanistan obviously remains very dangerous and battlefield for our voluntary military and i join many of my colleagues of course in expressing gratitude at the return of an american prisoner of war. the return of any u.s. service member from enemy captivity should be a priority for his or her fellow soldiers and of course for our country and sergeant bergdahl is an american soldier and we're certainly grateful that he has been freed. that said, this whole situation

raises many troubling concerns and, among them, of course, this committee has significant oversight role and there are legitimate questions regarding both congressional notification as well as long-term incentives for the taliban and al qaeda. certainly significant personnel and other resources have been expended to conduct, what could result, very in dangerous and disturbing incentives on the battlefield. as one taliban commander said, and i quote, it has encouraged our people. now everybody will work hard to capture such an important bird, end quote. so, mr. secretary, how do you anticipate this transfer will impact the incentives and behavior for the taliban and al qaeda? are we prepared to counter any new behavior? >> congressman, i would answer

this way. first, i think everyone on this committee knows some, more than others, who served in war. that war is a dangerous business and a soldier is always, always at risk. that's number one. two, you probably know that the taliban has standing orders to capture american servicemembers. and that has been a standing order for 12 years. that is nothing new where the taliban have been and where they continue to be. but i would say this also. now that we have our last prisoner back, this very much gives us more flexibility quite frankly to free up resources that every day we were thinking about our commanders on the ground in that area, how, if we have the opportunity, how can we

get bergdahl. now that he's back, that frees up that obligation. i think that actually strengthens the point. and the last point i'd make, i mentioned this in my comments and again those who have served in this committee know this, pretty basic, the military and i expressed it in different ways by quoting different senior members of our military and retired. that to have our men and women in uniform all over the world who, some are more at risk than others every day, to have them be reassured that this country will come get them or make every effort to go get them has got to be pretty significant. i was told that by all of our commanders. it could be issues on the specifics of sergeant bergdahl but that is irrelevant quite frankly.

he was a member of our armed forses and we went and got him back after five years. i think that is pretty significant and i think it also falls into the category of your question, answering that question. thank you. >> mr. secretary, thank you for that answer. as chairman and ranking member have mentioned in their opening statements, questions about sergeant bergdahl's conduct should be addressed with due process at the appropriate time and such. could you settle one conflicting report at least, in terms of regarding the number of loss of soldiers who may have been involved in searches for sergeant bergdahl? >> first, any loss of any soldier is a terrible loss to their family, to our country.

and i think we should note that first. second your question has been asked a number of times. i personally have gone back and asked that question inside the pentagon. in the army, in all of our reports. i have seen no evidence that directly links any american combat death to the rescue or finding or search of sergeant bergdahl. i have asked the question. we have all asked the question. i have seen no evidence, no facts presented to me when i asked that question. >> mr. secretary, you did say there is nothing new here, that the taliban is always out to try to capture us but isn't it true there is one thing new that we have now made a trade for a hostage? >> no. he was not a hostage. he was a prisoner of war.

that is not new. >> have we made other trades with the taliban? >> with the taliban, i don't know. i don't think so. i don't think so. >> thank you. >> mr. forbes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, thank you for being here and mentioning the need for transparency. as you talked about our inability to prosecute the individuals that were released, this administration is not exactly had a stellar record on prosecution of people at gitmo. when you look at the fact that the lead prosecutor for the 9/11 terrorists had specifically said he would have had a guilty plea out of all of them within six months and this administration came in, shut down his prosecution, destroyed all of his pretrial work and five years still haven't brought them to trial. secondly, i don't think even you would argue that the conversations that took place in 2011 complied with the law and basically what we're trying to get across, we're a nation of

laws. you can't pick and choose because they're convenient oar not convenient which ones we're going to enforce and which ones we aren't. but the they are thing is, you said this, there are limits to trade that we would make and somewhere we draw the line. i want to talk about where we drew the line. the individuals we released were essentially equivalent to releasing a deputy secretary of defense, a deputy secretary of intelligence, a deputy secretary of interior, a governor, and a commander. and when the president was asked if there was a possibility of them returning to activities that are detrimental to the u.s. his answer was, absolutely. our deputy director of national intelligence was even harsher. he said, the latest communitywide u.s. intelligence assessment on these five terrorists said he expected four out of the five taliban leaders would return to the battlefield. and this assessment was in accord with the 2008 pentagon doier that said all five of the individuals released were considered to be a high-risk to launch attacks against the

united states and its allies if they were liberated. now you state in your testimony that if any of these detainees ever try to rejoin the fight, they would be doing so at their own peril. so my first question to you is, does this mean you would put american lives at risk to go after them? >> well, congressman, we have american lives at risk every day -- >> not individuals that we released and put back out there. so my question is, would we put american lives at risk to go after them if they rejoined the fight? >> well, depending on the threat, but also let me remind you of the other pieces that you didn't mention in our analysis of these five. intelligence community has said clearly that these five are not a threat to the homeland. >> mr. secretary, you have said it here, that if they rejoin the fight they do it at their own peril. my question is a pretty simple one. would we put american lives at

risk to go after them? >> we have american lives put at risk going after people every day. >> understand. my question is will we put american lives at risk to go after these individuals if they rejoin the fight? >> well, yes. >> if that is the case. let me ask you two other questions. >> you could use the same argument on yemen and anywhere else. >> i could do that but not because of individual we released. the second question i would ask you is two parts. in the calculus that you made for releasing these individuals, were you asked or did you make an assessment of the number of american lives that were lost or put at risk in capturing these individuals in the first place? and did you make an assessment of the number of american lives that may be put at risk if we have to go recapture them again? >> again, i saw no evidence, no facts. i asked the question about how

these five found their way to guantanamo. and i have in front of me the facts on the five. two of them were detained by u.s. forces. >> mr. secretary, i understand that. we're running out the clock i have only 50 seconds. >> the answer is no. >> so the answer you didn't make a calculus. >> i said i did. you asked if there were lives lost in capturing these. >> and you said no? >> i have no direct evidence that there was american lives -- >> did you make an assessment of how many american lives may be put at risk if they have to be recaptured? >> no. >> okay. there is risk that we have to our country, threats to our country every day, everywhere. and the other part of would make on this, we determined that there was substantial mitigation of risk for this country, for our interests, for our citizens

and our servicemembers when we made this decision. partly, and we were satisfied that we could make that determination. >> just flies in the face of all the other evidence we have. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you, very much, mr. chairman, secretary hagel and mr. preston and thank you for appearing today and providing us with your testimony. secretary hagel, i appreciate the detailed information that you had in your statement and i support your position. i, i do appreciate also your continued commitment to our men and women in uniform and your steadfast leadership during these challenging times. my first question is, for you, mr. secretary, what impact would sergeant bergdahl's continued imprisonment if we had not engaged in his exchange, have had on the security situation in afghanistan as we draw down

forces? did his continued imprisonment create a heightened security threat to our men and women in uniform? >> well, in a sense, congresswoman, that as i answer in a previous question, about putting at risk american lives to capture him, not to capture him, but to get him back and to, to do that if it would have taken another course of action or if we would have taken another option, that would have put our men and women at risk. our minute and women are at risk carrying out this one mission but fortunately it was done the right way and i don't think, again, that effort has gotten enough attention. this was all done in less than 60 seconds. not one death, not one issue, not one problem. and i have seen very little recognition of that given to our

forces by anybody. i mean, that's a, was a significant effort by our armed forces. knowing, as little as they did, but planning it as well as they did, and having the outcome as positive as it was. so thank you. >> i agree. my next question is for mr. preston. with the heightened media attention, how will you insure sergeant bergdahl receives a fair investigation? >> thank you. we will pursue our full policies and practices with respect to investigations and follow-on actions. a key element of that is avoiding what is referred to as unlawful or undue command influence. so you will see that the leadership, military and civilian at the department, have been entirely neutral in their discussion of this and focused

on assuring due process without prejudging what the outcome should be one way or the other. those dealing with sergeant bergdahl more directly and the army more generally are, i believe, sensitive to insuring that, in the process of bringing him home, restoring him to health, debriefing him for intelligence purposes, and then ultimately reviewing the circumstances of his, of his capture, that fairness be preserved and his rights be preserved. >> thank you. thank you. my final question is for secretary hagel, prior to securing the recovery of sergeant bergdahl, had you received correspondence from members of congress that you take action to obtain sergeant bergdahl's release? >> yes. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr. miller.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you mr. secretary for being here. i'm looking at your testimony, and on the first, third page, excuse me it says, that we complied with the national defense authorization act of 2014. did you or did you not notify congress within the 30 day-time frame, yes or no. >> no. >> no, sir, yes or no. >> all right, no. >> does the administration tend to violate the notice requirements of section 1035 of the mdaa and section 881.11 of dod appropriation act in future transfers. >> not unless there, not unless there's an extraordinary set of circumstances like this one would we have, would we be in a position -- >> will you assure this committee that the department will not proceed with future detainee transfers without notifying congress consistent with the law? >> we have i believe and before my time, in every circumstance except this one.

and we, we intend to continue to that. >> you were a part of the legislative branch as a member of the united states senate. we make the laws. you're part of the executive branch now, which, the responsibility is to enforce the law. who is responsibility is it to interpret the law? is it the president's responsibility or is it the courts? >> the courts. >> then why did the president make the decision or you, make the decision, not to notify congress? >> we believed and justice department office of legal counsel -- >> part of the executive branch. >> told the president that he had the constitutional authority to do that. he had under his constitutional powers the authority to make the decision that he did. >> you said that you would put american lives at risk if the taliban prisoners that were swapped in the secret deal would rejoin the fight if they rejoined the fight in afghanistan. what if they rejoined it from somewhere else?

they don't have to necessarily be on the battlefield in afghanistan? certainly we would pursue them wherever they are. >> we would do everything we needed to do to, as we have said, to deal with that threat as we are doing today. >> you, your testimony is, we're doing everything that we can -- >> to deal with the threats to the united states of america, whether they are in afghanistan or they're in yemen or in homeland defense. it isn't just limited to afghanistan, the threats that face this country. >> mr. secretary, you keep saying we can't get the facts from sergeant bergdahl until he returns home. have you ever thought about going to landstuhl and talking to him there? >> well, i don't know how much medical training you had, congressman. i haven't had much. what we're doing is we are allowing -- >> tell you what, mr. secretary, no, mr. secretary, wait a

minute, wait a minute. why has he been returned to the united states? we have seriously wounded soldiers that are returned to the united states almost immediately after they are stablized. how long did jessica lynch wait before she was returned to the united states? you're trying to tell me that he is being held at landstuhl, germany because of his medical condition? >> congressman, i hope you're not implying anything other than that. >> i'm just asking the question, mr. secretary. you won't answer. >> i will give an answer. >> answer night i don't like the implication of question. >> answer it. answer it. >> he is being held there because our medical professionals don't believe he is ready. until they belief he is ready to take the next step of rehabilitation -- >> have you ever seen a traumatically injured service member brought to the united states immediately upon being stablized at landstuhl? we do it all the time. >> this isn't just about a physical situation, congressman. this guy was held for almost

five years in god knows what kind of conditions. we do know some of the conditions from our intelligence community. not from, by the way bergdahl. this is not just about can he get on his feet and walk and get to a plane. >> so you're telling me can not be questioned because of his condition. >> i'm telling you that the medical professionals who we rely on their judgment for his health, which i assume everybody respects have made the determination and will make the determination that when he is ready to move and move to the next step, which will most likely be in san antonio, then we can proceed. that is what i'm saying. >> one other question. why is the army just now reviewing the circumstances of sergeant bergdahl's capture? >> they're not. i said in my testimony, and i said in my comments they did it back after he went missing. in 2009. that 15-6 report was filed, completed, by general

scaparetti, who is now our commanding general in korea in august of 2009. that 15-6 report, review, complete, not redacted, was sent up to the hill yesterday, to the committees. >> thank you, mr. secretary. >> you're welcome to read it. >> thank you. >> and that will be made available to all the members in the proper setting to review. mr. courtney. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the witnesses for being here today and secretary hagel, for your powerful testimony, which again laid out the fact that this is, not every choice in your position is always black and white. you've got to weigh a lot of factors. one of the factors which i just want to kind of maybe re-emphasize, in terms of when you were deciding this back on may 27th, i mean, it wasn't like you had a lot of other options. i mean there was no plan b or plan c that was sitting on your desk in terms of how to get this

american soldier back in our jurisdiction, isn't that correct? >> that is exactly correct. there was no option. >> there are members who have been on some of the shows saying, well we should have sent special forces in to get him. well were not totally clear where he was? >> that's right. >> so there really wasn't even a place to send special forces to recover him. you also, again, this has been alluded to earlier, is that, in terms o mitigation of the five transferees, taliban transferees, if they do get back into the conflict, they do so at their own peril. secretary kerry, i think in some public setting also made the comement that -- comment, it is not like we're totally without options to, you know, raise their risks in terms of getting back involved in the fight. again they don't always involve the use of military personnel.

i mean we have all been on the kodels over to afghanistan, most of us. we have seen the availability of unmanned assets that we have to take out targets that, again have been identified through the chain of command, isn't that correct. >> that's correct. >> and certainly that would be available to us, again, if a situation arose that would not put soldiers or airmen or anyone necessarily at risk? >> that's right. >> mr. preston, we have been sort of talking about the legal, sort of consultation that was going on with your office and the department of justice during that five or six-day period when the decisions were being made. did doj address in terms of the legal opinions that you were given the question of consultation with congress, the 30-day requirement? >> yes, sir.

the, pardon me, the administration sought the guidance from the department of justice on the applicability and, impact of the 30-day notice requirement under these circumstances and received guidance from the department of justice. >> and was that in writing? >> it was not by means of a formal memorandum opinion but, rather by email exchange principally. >> i know that the chairman mentioned that he is, got requests from the committee for documents which it sounds like are going to be forthcoming. i assume that is one of the requests in terms of making any sort of legal analysis, that you requested and received or offered from doj that would be one of the documents that you would share with us, i hope you would. >> we'll certainly take that back. i'm sure we appreciate there is interest and we certainly want

to make sure that interested members fully understand the legal basis on which the administration acted as to the disposition of the document, we'll take that back. >> thank you. again, and i will follow-up with the chairman. i think it is important that if the department was claiming a constitutional authorities which the secretary mentioned in terms of that issue, i think we would like to see that analysis. and, with that i would yield back, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. preston, when did you consult the doj on the 30-day notification? on what date was that? >> mr. chairman, i don't remember -- jenna: defense secretary chuck hagel testifying before congress on the bergdahl prisoner swap. as you can tell feisty exchange of questions from some of the

law makers who do have a lot of questions from the defense secretary about the terms of this so-called prisoner swap. and also what's to come as well from it as we look ahead into the future. eric? eric: jenna, as you heard the defense secretary strongly defending this decision. he was defiant saying it was legal. the administration in his view didn't break any laws. they had a fleeting opportunity to get bergdahl. and he also said he wasn't a hostage. for more reaction what we've been hearing from the secretary of defense, bret stevens joins us. the foreign affairs columnist at "wall street journal." bret, your review? >> well, look, let's start with the most important point. ultimately this is not about sergeant bergdahl. this is about the the administration, it is about the president, it is about the reasons he sought this trade. i don't think they have been really clarified. it is about the way he treated the bergdahl trade, not as an agonizing moral choice, but as an opportunity to take a political victory and it is

about the consequences that the united states and afghanistan faces for the release of extremely hardened men in exchange for, for the sergeant. so i don't think we really need to have a conversation about whether bergdahl deserted or circumstances of his captivity. that is conversation lots of people will have. eric: what do you think the consequences of this decision will be? >> i mean i think, they're terrible for afghanistan because afghanistan, an afghan government trying to stand on its feet is now going to face a taliban that has its old commanders back, that has been given a great lease on life after a defeat for it, effectively a defeat in recent, in recent elections but it is consequences will be much greater for the united states because, we have shown that under certain circumstances we will release some of the worst people in, for the sake of, for the sake of a prisoner.

you can make an argument this was maybe, maybe a tough call but i suspect we will, in future americans will be held at risk, precisely because we made this trade. eric: in fact last week you wrote a column called, the bergdahl dishonor. what do you mean by that. >> the dishonor was not circumstances of bergdahl leaving although i spoke with a special forces operator by the way who contradicts, the secretary's hagel testimony and does say that american lives were lost and put at risk. that is something reported by many major, major news outlets. so there is partly the issue of circumstances of how he left but mainly it is about an administration that looks at every trade like this as opportunity to play politics with american national security and american lives. i think that is really where the dishonor, where the dishonor lies. eric: now, as secretary hagel would dispute your conclusions

on that, saying that they sent a message, that wherever you are, america will not forget you and come back and grab you. on that one point, several times he said, quote, there was no direct evidence that there were any deaths in that search for bergdahl. bottom line, how could he say that in light of these claims? >> bottom line, that was something contradicted by a special forces operator who was involved, who i spoke with, involved in the early attempts to get bergdahl. maybe the secretary is right but there is no question a lot of americans were put in harm's way searching for the sergeant. so i think that is a very easy assertion for him to make. it is our job in the media to really follow that up quite closely because, let's even assume that no american lives were lost. how many american assets were moved for, in order to search for the sergeant? how many people were put at additional risk, especially the early days looking for his, looking for sergeant bergdahl's whereabouts? that is very cavalier comment. i think it is extraordinarily

cavalier for them to say we'll find these guys. we know very well finding taliban commanders, like head of taliban himself, mullah omar something eluded us for 12 years. so the confidence that he displays i don't think is in keeping with reality and circumstances that we explored, either in afghanistan or pakistan, especially when all american forces get out under president obama's direction by 2016. eric: bret stephens, thank you so much for your analysis. of course this is not going away anytime soon. good to see you. >> see you. jenna: a big national debate over what happened with sergeant bergdahl. we're continuing to follow what happens in washington, d.c. meantime though, in neighboring virginia, a big story over the last 24 hours. eric cantor loses his primary race to a little-known candidate. we have a new name on the national stage. more on that coming up next. mayo? corn dogs? you are so outta here!

aah! [ female announcer ] the complete balanced nutrition of great-tasting ensure. 24 vitamins and minerals, antioxidants, and 9 grams of protein. [ bottle ] ensure®. nutrition inharge™. how much money do you think you'll need when you retire? then we gave each person a ribbon to show how many years that amount might last. i was trying to, like, pull it a little further. [ woman ] got me to 70 years old. i'm going have to rethink this thing. it's hard to imagin how much we'll need for a retirement that could last 3years or mor so maybe we need to approach things dferently, if we want to be ready for a longer retirement. ♪

i don't have to leave myesk and get up and go to the post office anymore. [ male announcer ] th stamps.com you can print real u.s. postage for all your letters and packages. i have exactly the amount of postage i need, the instant i need it. can you print only stamps? no... first class. priority mail. certified. international. d the mail man picks it up. i don't leave the shop anymore. [ male announcer ] get a 4 week trial plus $100 in extras including postage and a digital scale. go to stamps.com/fox and never go to the post office again.

jenna: eric cantor making history last night but not the kind of history he wanted to make, becoming the first house majority leader to lose his primary, ever. the seven-term incumbent conceding defeat to college economics professor david brat. the little-known candidate focused on the nation's finances as well as the hot issue of immigration as well as of late. he raised a fraction of the money cantor did but still managed to beat him handily. look at margin here, 55-44%. chief political correspondent carl cameron is live with more on this. carl? >> reporter: immigration certainly played a role but david brat made history and ripple effect could last for months of the he won last night walking away with it. there was argument perhaps there was low turnout and insurgents helped him out. in fact there was larger than

normal turnout. it was up by about 50%. mr. brat was able to exceed all polling expectations. in fact eric cantor's pollsters underestimated numbers so badly they thought cantor was up 27% higher than he was and mr. brat was 17% lower. there were discussion ways brat was able to campaign against mr. cantor as part of the washington establishment. cantor himself in recent weeks and months had been putting pressure on the virginia state party committee, actually trying to out of a few members of the state party committee and they did not appreciate that. some of them working actively against him in his district for this reelection. cantor also tried to have way which virginia nominates at state part convention altered into a primary. that didn't go over very well. these may seem like inside issues. what the truth of matter was brat was able to do was organize and bring out a huge grassroots group of support, largely only with the help of conservative talk radio and banging on doors.

he was grossly overspent as you said. now comes, jenna, a huge, huge, game of musical chairs on capitol hill with the assumption that eric cantor will no longer be a viable majority leader lost his election. lame duck majority leader puts at risk the republican conference's ability to unite behind bills. conservatives will demand a piece of leadership action. a big question whether mr. cantor will decide to give up his majority leader's seat. that will cause tremendous election battle. if he were to choose to keep that seat and stay in the majority leadership, one of immediate consequences is about a dozen republicans looking to get into the leadership will then spend the rest of this session campaigning for that seat internally on the hill, blocking legislation they don't like, supporting legislation they do. otherwise distracting republican caucus dramatically. democrats are laughing about this today. and, the republican party itself needs to recognize there was some talk about whether or not the democrats had crossed over

and perhaps tried to help mr. brat win in order to out of cantor. there is no evidence of that in the polls. jenna: we're pointing out, carl, that republicans and democrats can vote in the primary race in virginia. so a dem can can show up and vote for a republican if they want to? >> sure. if you look at actual votes and where they came from throughout the district and counties there was no indication of increase in the democratic vote in democratic precincts. where there was a significant increase in very republican areas of that district. it looks like the big vote that came in were new voters, motivated by frustration with washington and cantor has been accused, just this morning at a luncheon of republican operatives of frankly taking the race for granted. yesterday he was seen on the house floor, on election day, another person said they saw him at a starbucks with lobbyists. he didn't take the battle that he was facing seriously of the campaign itself, eric cantor's pollster said they blew it. they didn't see it coming

because they underestimated turnout. they argue maybe democrats crossed over. but that doesn't appear to be the case. if immigration were totally dispositive issue in this race, then has to be reconciled with some polls that suggest in eric cantor's district what will soon be dave brat's district, most folks actually support comprehensive immigration reform. while he was out of step with the core conservative base of the party it is quite something different. people called this tea party versus establishment race. when you ask professor dave brat, he will be the first to say, actually, he appreciated the support but it wasn't from the out-of-state super pacs from washington. it was a few grassroots supporter groups, talk radio and banging on doors and what he was talking about not tea party firebrand rhetoric but boilerplate, not boilerplate, excuse me, conservative principles that have been the foundation of the republican party really forever. jenna: he said as much to sean hannity last night. we were going to run the sound for our viewers but unfortunately we're out of time. we'll try to get to that during

the 1:00 hour. carl, thank you. eric: from breather dahl and cantor and brat it is a big news day but the next hour of "happening now" we'll bring you another new story. this is about two young girls accused of the horrible stabbing of their friend. they will head back to court for a hearing to decide if they will be tried as adults but they are 12 years old. how that decision could dramatically change the disturbing case. and should they be tried as adults. we'll take a look in one hour. care what age you are. take it on the way you always have. live healthy and take one a day women's 50+. a complete multivitamin with 7 antioxidants to support cell health. age? who cares. captain obvious: this is a creepy room. man: oh hey, captain obvious. captain obvious: you should have used hotels.com. their genuine guest reviews are written by guests who have genuinely stayed there. instead of people who lie on the internet.

captain: here's a review, it's worse in person.

humans. we are beautifully imperfect creatures living in an imperfect world. that's why liberty mutual insurance has your back, offering exclusive products like optional better car replacement, where if your car is totaled, we give you the money to buy one a model year newer. call... and ask an insurance expert about all our benefits today, like our 24/7 support and service, because at liberty mutual insurance, we believe our customers do their best out there in the world, so we do everything we can to be there for them when they need us. plus, you could save hundreds when you switch, up to $423. call... today. liberty mutual insurance -- responsibility.

what's your policy? eric: defense secretary chuck hagel is still testifying on the hill about the controversial bergdahl decision. in one hour we have a lot more on that. we'll break it all down here on "happening now." jenna: more politics as well. eric: of course. jenna: a big night. not even 24 hours old, out of virginia. what does it mean on the national stage if anything. that is one of the debates we'll be having. we'll see you back in an hour.

eric: "outnumbered" starts right now. ♪ >> this is "outnumbered i'm kimberly gill file, here, anna kooiman, jedediah bila and #oneluckyguy, o'reilly reporter jessie waters. looking fabulous. >> i have twin girls at home. usually "outnumbered." shouldn't be too much after problem hopefully. >> handle the quad here. >> we'll see. >> watch out. jessie will do a quick change later. >> don't give it away. >> lots of surprises here, right? >> great to have you on board, anna. >> thank you for having me. so good to have you. a little burst of sunshine on the sofa. we're liking it and feeling it. right now defense secretary chuck hagel, he is on the hot seat, testifying in public for the first time on