Top Trump Official Collapses at Hearing on War

For €1.99, you have to do the Instent Lekker.

“And for €9.50, you are your newest bookstitch.”

By the Nordfindestool immer das passende. Cool, then try the Asia Green Garden or Nude Bowel fertig. For €2.99, you have €9.99. Or Mesa Nisanike, for €2.50, for €9.50. That's good for all the prizes.

Now you have a lot of money. Alrighty, who just for all that? Donald Trump's new acting Navy Secretary hung cow collapsed under cross-examination before the armed services committee. He made a number of stunning admissions.

He admitted that all of his talk about woke this woke that shut down Harvard, all BS. He went to Harvard and he was cross-examined brilliantly by Democratic Congress member Milton, but another stunning admission, perhaps the most stunning admission, is he said in his opening statement and then he was questioned about this by a lot of the members who were on this armed services committee.

He said that, you know, there are still all of these ballistic missiles that are being shot at American ships and that there's currently a very, very, very kind of tense war that's still ongoing in the straight of Hormuz. So as Donald Trump has said, there's no war, everything's fine, we're in the ceasefire.

He let it slip on cow, Donald Trump's acting Navy Secretary, and basically said in his opening

statement, then he was cross-examined on this a lot, that no, there's actually an active war that's going on right now, that's being covered up by the press that's being covered up by the military. First, let me show you what went down in Democratic Congress member Milton, cross-examined on cow, the acting Navy Secretary, he replaced the private equity guy who was forced out

because he wouldn't build the Trump ships, the Trump battleships with Trump's name on it like that Donald Trump likes from like the, you know, early 20th century, like those ships. Anyway, here's on cow cross-examined by Democratic Congress member Milton, let's play it. Well, he might help us in the straight of Hormuz today.

Absolutely, sir, again, when I say the five, we're talking large ones, and we are investing a lot of the small ones, and I will turn that over to Admiral Codel, who can tell you more about the requirements for small, I mean, I'm just wondering, I mean, you're requesting

$17 billion for a single battleship hall that won't be delivered until 2036.

“Do you know how many, 250,000 drones you could buy for that one Trump class battleship?”

Yes, sir, but those drones cannot carry the conventional prom strike or have 200, okay? Just to put this in perspective, it's 68,000 drones. I think 68,000 drones, when Ukraine is producing 50 to 100, actually, it's several hundred a month might help us today in the straight of Hormuz. I just don't, doesn't not feel like a good investment.

Again, sir, the drones can't get there by themselves. It's like the little turtle that sits on your fence post, you know, someone's got to put it. You know, it's funny. The Ukrainians managed to get him there.

They barely even have a Navy. Yeah, 55 times the coastline of Ukraine. They can figure it out, Mr. Secretary. I'd like to think American figure out too. Yeah.

And I thought this was another really good line of questioning by Democrat and Congress member Molten. Let's play it.

Acting Secretary, you told a powerful and very American story of how your family immigrated

from Vietnam a few years after the war. I'm proud that our country supported you and your family. Do you think we should do the same for our Afghan allies who are being hunted down by the Taliban right now, as we speak? Sir, before I, I came to this job, actually, right after the fall off Afghanistan, I mean,

which broke my heart. I mean, the watching mothers hand babies to Marines just reminding me of what happened to Vietnam. I understand it. I felt the same way, but I'm just asking.

Do you think we should give the same privileges and opportunities to our Afghan allies that our country gave to you and your family and your friends? Sir, I mean, anybody who comes here in legal nation should be given the opportunity to come here. Well, I'll tell you what.

You and I will disagree on a lot of things. You might even say we're political adversaries, but I'm very proud that President Ford, President Carter, President Reagan, did not deport you or your family while you were working on becoming citizens. Now, Mr. Arctic Secretary, you have publicly supported Secretary Higgs since proposal

to ban active duty military members from attending Harvard. Both your official bio and your bio for the Senate campaign proudly lists your Harvard affiliation as a Harvard fellow yourself. You believe the education and credentials that you received compromised your ability to serve or lead effectively.

So, we are looking at the best education for our military members.

“I mean, that's why Naval, but in Harvard, make you too woke.”

Did Harvard make you too woke to be Secretary of the Navy? No, sir, but Naval Postgraduate School, so you don't need to have you survive Harvard

But you don't trust your officers who get in there, who want to go there, who apply there

to be able to go there themselves and not be indoctrinated. Congressman, we need to invest into where they would best fit for the Navy again, go in the Naval Postgraduate School. I actually got it. But you think it was a big mistake for you to go to Harvard, because you talk about it

a lot in your bio. I should have mentioned it once, I mean, it's just that I think it was a mistake. So, I would love my education and Naval Postgraduate School, because it allowed me to learn but I'm asking you about Harvard.

“If you can't answer the question, don't take the job, that's what you're saying.”

Now, here, I thought was a very important part of the cross-examination, where you had Democratic Congress women, Jacob's from San Diego, and here she exposes what I said at the outset, and on cow admitted that there's active ongoing war that's taking place right now. The war's not over.

The war's going on. There are ballistic missiles being shot at American ships by Iran. This is what he says, here, play this clip. Can you commit to deliver to this committee the Department's current assessment of commercial shipping transit through the straight under US escort, Iranian acquiescence, or neither, along

with the Navy's forced generation plan for sustaining the presence required through FY27? Congress, we will provide whatever information you need. Again, this is still ongoing operation. As of yesterday, they're still launching over 100 one-man, one-way attack drones, and more than three dozen, three or four dozen cruise missiles at us.

So, the operations are still going on, even though there's a ceasefire, they're still firing at us, man. Sure, I mean, but the President said it was over, and now you're saying it's ongoing. So you can understand why we as the committee that's trying to figure out what you're actually going to need, need the more information from you all.

Yes, ma'am. Absolutely. Our operations are kinetic operations have finished.

“We're just protecting other people, and that's what we're doing with that.”

The Iranians are still shooting an allied shipping, and just being the legit, man. Okay, well, we would like to know what you all in the Navy are going to need to sustain either this US, escort presence, or this blockade, or whatever we're doing, so please get that to us. And then you have more from Hongkau about this.

Let's play this clip. We've heard from the administration that the Iranian ability to project force has been decimated. They can't fire any missiles, they are 9% attributed, they're flattened their back. I heard you say, and you remarks, that, and you might have missed spoken. And so I want clarification, have the Iranians been firing at American assets, or are

they firing at other countries in the region, or both, because it comes to this question of whether MN, Congress is going to speak on this war, as Congress's authority to declare war. And so I'm just curious whether or not the Iranians are firing at US assets in that region. Congressman, we have to stop the hostilities, and we're talking to them for a few negotiations.

Again, they have a lot lack of command control right now. No one really knows who's in charge of it there. And so you have these ones, these intues, these go out, and they're launching, they dug out from their rebels, and they pulled out a couple of missiles, and they shoot at these

“merchant ships that are coming by, and that's why our ships are protecting those ships, as”

well.

I mean, there's always, so I mean, I'm sorry, sir.

Are they firing at American? They're firing at Americans, because that sounds very much like a war-like activity. And the Congress has yet to speak to the American people on the question of whether or not we ought to be at war. So I'm just curious what's happening with respect to our assets in the region of operate.

They're shooting at merchant ships, sir. Okay. Next, you have Democratic Congress member Smith, who's also the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, meaning Democrats take control, he'll become the chair of the committee.

Here's what he had to say. Let's play. Building off the theme of the opening statement, in terms of, you know, how can we get to more cost-effective solutions have been very impressed by the fact that when it comes like shooting down drones, we've invented some new systems.

We were shooting them down with two, three million dollar missiles.

Elfrey Harris has come up with the vampire system. This $30,000 or shot very effective. Another private company came up with murrops. By the way, I think vampire is a much better name than murrops. If you're going to name a system, just for those paying attention to those things, $15,000

or shot. You know, it was all about figuring out, okay, we have our needs. How do we meet them in a very cost-effective way?

meeting your needs in a more cost-effective way? And that's one of the many things that troubles me again about the battleship. We look at new technology, new ways to deal things, all these demands, asymmetric advantages

and we come up with, you know what, we're going to go with a massive $22 billion solution.

That seems to be the exact opposite of taking advantage of modern technology to meet your needs in a more cost-effective way. So how are you all thinking about options equivalent to instead of 2 million, we're going to do 30,000 and she's the same objective and using new technology to get there? >> Right, you remember, you're absolutely right, sir.

I mean, we're launching an SM2 missile that cost $2 and a quarter million dollars per

“shot to take down a $1,000 drone, it's ridiculous and that's why electronic warfare is so”

important. I mean, we need to cover everything from authority megahertz to egg gigahertz with no band breaks in between, but also we need static radar to look at it, but also gimbals because a lot of their cross-section, the radar cross-section of these drones look very similar to our aircrafts as well.

So there's many options out there and you mentioned like a large ship, well, as far as I was in the Navy, even all the way back to 2011 when I worked in Obnav and 96, the Surface Warfare Division, we have a requirement for large combat and it's called CGX at the time. >> Because there's a lot of requirements, Mr. Secretary, one of the things that I would suggest that we're going to need to do is get out of the requirements-based approach.

I mean, so much that goes on at the Pentagon and I think the chairman degree is we all sit around and come up with requirements, okay, and there's tons of thousands, hundreds of thousands of pages of them. Let's focus on what actually needs to be done instead of, well, we got a requirement for it.

We got to think through it a little bit and one that's sorry, tender up, just have to make that point. Go ahead. >> Thank you for that. Go ahead.

Again, I pay bills at home and there's, you know, the kids need braces, they need everything

“and that's what we have to balance all those things.”

But again, with the battleship, the problem is that your DDGs are so decked out right

now. The pink knee, USS Pink knee is the only ship in our fleet that has a slick 32-victor 7 for electronic warfare. I mean, I told you yesterday, I mean, it looks like a big chipmunk with a mouthful of nuts right now because it's so over burdened and that's why we need a large combatant that has

all electronic warfare, as well as 200 VLS cells, including conventional prop strike. Imagine a nestle that can go from here to the west coast in 16 minutes that the enemy can't stop. This is what's going to deter the enemy. Meanwhile, we need to also invest into our shipyards.

We need to invest into our electronic warfare and as well as our sailors and Marines as well. And the job of balancing the budget is so difficult and I want to -- I'm sorry, sorry. One of the question on that, there are a lot of different companies now making autonomous ships.

They're really -- and yes, the autonomous aspect of it is important, but they're also looking at new ways to do shipbuilding in general.

“How can we do it more rapidly, more cost-effectively?”

They seem to have made a lot of progress. What are the principal lessons that have been learned from that that regardless of what we're building, whether it's a battleship and aircraft carrier, or something smaller, that we could do it more quickly and more cost-effectively? Do you -- and I spoke Admiral and Mr. Secretary of Union.

Well, again, I'll turn to Admiral Calderwell in a second, but it's just about using AI so

we can streamline our processes, as well as any manufacturing, but Admiral Calderwell. You know, so, I would say when we were upside down, as the Secretary is talking about on kills, you know, Colsport kill with SM2SM6, we've filled it and rallied very quickly during Red Sea operations, rough rider to actually get on board our strike groups, roadrunner, coyote, and Hellfire, and Stanchations of that to really turn that very quickly.

That's a collaboration from our Surface Warfare and Mind Development Center, from surfland, from Dolgrin, and of course now of war to get those TTPs, bake that in, get it certified, and every striker has deployed with that, it's much more effective in that learning happen very quickly, directed energy, of course, as part of that electronic warfare. Some of the things that, you know, in the end I'm at a time.

My apologies for that, I think I don't want to take too much time, but those are exactly the types of answers that I think we need more of. And this was the part of the opening statement where Hongkhao admitted that you have these missiles that are being shot at U.S. ships, U.S. Navy ships are being shot at, which is being covered up here, he let it slip, let's play it.

America's sailors and Marines are currently on the front lines of freedom in operations to protect our republic. Lincoln and Bush carrier strike groups in Tripoli and Fibia's ready group with the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit are the Arabian Sea, protecting merchant ships and stopping illicit shipping by terrorist regime.

in Mediterranean against cruise missile attacks from Iran.

In the Caribbean, I would even argue stopping narco terrorist from poising our Americans with illegal drugs. Now, while we watch all of that, I want to remind you, of course, of the questioning that took place right around that same time in the United States Senate, where Admiral Cooper, Commander of Seneca, was cross-examined by Senator Blumenthal, just to remind

you, here, play this clip. Regardless of what the numbers are, Iran continues to pose a significant threat to shipping because it has missiles and fast boats and other assets that are available to attack shipping in the area. Correct.

Senator, in each of those cases, there are capability have been significantly degraded.

If I just use my own professional experience and 100 transit through the Strait of Hormuz, you would typically see 20 to 40 fast boats and lately we've seen two or three. So the degradation means it's been super significant, but some residual capability does exist. With respect to the threat that remains, your forces were successful in project freedom in enabling ships to go through the Strait, that's correct, and project freedom was stopped

for what reason.

“I think I'll look back a couple of days ago on the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs' testimony”

before the Senate appropriations committee, I think he characterized it well. The situation in the Strait of Hormuz is rather complex these days, and I would offer just just these quick points.

First and foremost, the United States controls via our blockade, which I'd be happy to

talk about, the overall flow of commerce going into and out of Iran. The Iranian capability to stop commerce has been dramatically degraded through the Strait, but their voice is very loud, and those threats are clearly heard by the merchant industry and the insurance industry. Those are factors.

There's certainly factors in energy, and I think of all of that. Project, and I apologize for interrupting, but I'm going to run out of time as you understand.

“I think the point that I want to make here is that project freedom could be started again.”

And the voices of the Iranians' largest they are could be contradicted or reduced in the impact if project freedom were ongoing, and the world could see that shipping was going through the Strait. Am I off base in that view? Senator, there's a wide range of contingencies that we are prepared to execute, and I would

defer to the policy makers on anything, having to do specific moods, Strait normals, particularly during this time of sensitive negotiations, where it's front and center in the negotiations. And have you seen any progress in those negotiations? Senator, I'd refer to the diplomats in the team engaged in the negotiations. Let me ask you in the time that I have left one of the objectives that President Trump

articulated at the beginning of this war, which in my view could not be accomplished with bombing, was to secure the enriched uranium. Would you agree that taking possession of that uranium would require boots on the ground

“and significant casualties for the United States forces?”

Senator, in this particular form, I think it would be highly inappropriate, given the classified nature of any contingencies to talk about the nuclear program. And then I thought this line of questioning from Senator Shaheen was very important, where she makes it clear how helpful Ukraine has been to our NATO allies in helping our allies train, get the types of anti-drone interceptors and drone technology that's needed to fight

in modern warfare. Let's play it. One of the things that's gotten a fair amount of tension in recent weeks has been President Zelensky's working with some of our allies and partners in the Middle East and response to the war in Iran on their expertise that the Ukrainians have developed to address counter-drone

responses. Can you talk a little bit about what you're seeing with respect to that and whether our allies and partners find that kind of support helpful from the Ukrainians? Senator, I think most significantly we adopted a large number of tactics, techniques and procedures of the Ukrainians have passed us that have helped us defend Americans and all of

I'd really defer to them, but I'll talk about it.

“But are they more effective as a result?”

Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Then there was this line of questioning here from Senator King, let's play it.

“General Anderson, talked to me about the loss of soft power in Africa, our abandonment of”

USAID and what's happened with the Chinese and the Russians that my understanding is are now filling that gap in addition to the other aggressive actions that they're taking. Senator, I would say that we look at all facets of national power and how to bring those to bear in the continent in order to provide security outcomes, oftentimes taking one

“facet of our national power off the table, you know, laterally, for no apparent reason.”

So, the whim of Elon Musk, Senator, we work very closely with state, with commerce and energy in order to look at the security requirements on the continent. I have a foreign service commercial officer joining my staff this summer along with a liaison from Department of Energy in order to look at economic opportunities. We have essentially left all of the role that USAID played on the continent, that's gone.

Isn't that, that's a yes or no question. Senator, there are still a programs that are active on the continent. They are much reduced from what they were before. Much reduced. That's a fair way of stating it.

Well, there you have a folks, let me know what you think about all of this.

Subscribe, let's get to seven million subscribers, thanks everybody for watching.