Transcription
Defense Secretary Pete Hegsath continues to try to distance himself from a September strike on a boat in the Caribbean suspected of smuggling drugs. It comes amid bipartisan backlash and concerns of potential criminality to that strike. That's because the US carried out a secondary strike to kill the survivors of the initial attack as they clung to the side of a damaged ship.
Secretary Hgsith, who has spent weeks taking credit for the operations, said this during a lengthy cabinet meeting yesterday. "I watched that first strike lock. Uh, as you can imagine at the Department of War, we got a lot of things to do. So, I didn't stick around for the hour and two hours, whatever, where all the sensitive site exploitation digitally occurs. So, I moved on to my next meeting. Couple of hours later, I learned that that commander had made the which he had the complete authority to do. And by the way, Admiral Bradley made the correct decision to ultimately sink the boat and eliminate the threat. He sunk the boat. Sunk the boat and eliminated the threat. And uh he was the right call. We have his back. And the American people are safer because narot terrorists know you can't bring drugs through the water and eventually on land if necessary to the American people. We will eliminate that threat and we're proud to do it."
"So you didn't see any survivors to be clear after that first?"
"I did not personally see survivors, but I stand because the thing was on fire. It was exploded and fire and smoke. You can't see anything. You got digital there. This is called the fog of war."
But that explanation sounded a lot different from what Hegath said the day after this strike in early September. Watch. "I can tell you that was definitely not artificial intelligence. I I watched it live. We knew exactly who was in that boat. We knew exactly what they were doing and we knew exactly who they represented and that was Trenda Aragu, a narot terrorist organization designated by the United States trying to poison our country with illicit drugs."
So which one? It's worth noting that according to the Washington Post, this boat was hit a total of four times. Twice to kill the crew and twice more to sink it. That's according to four people familiar with the operation.
President Trump, meanwhile, also sought to separate himself from this strike. During that same cabinet meeting yesterday, the president said he still doesn't know much about the attack while also threatening more military action against Venezuela. "As far as the attack is concerned, I didn't, you know, I still haven't gotten uh a lot of information because I rely on Pete, but to me it was an attack. It wasn't one strike, two strikes, three strikes. Somebody asked me a question about the second strike. I didn't know about the second strike. I didn't know anything about people. I wasn't involved in it. I knew they took out a vote. But I would say this, uh, they had a strike. I hear the gentleman that was in charge of that is extraordinary. He's extraordinary person. Let Pete Pete speak about him. Uh, but Pete was satisfied. Uh, Pete didn't know about second attack having to do with two people. Uh, and uh, I guess Pete would have to speak to it. I can say this. I want those boats taken out and if we have to, we'll attack on land also, just like we attack on sea."
The reporters in the room there did a great job. But there's so many questions. Specifically, if the president doesn't know what's going on with these strikes, the defense secretary is sitting right next to him. He could ask him. He's done it at cabinet meetings before. But then also, if the defense secretary doesn't know what's going on, who does? That's what lawmakers are hoping to find out because lawmakers from both parties are continuing to press for these kinds of answers.
Admiral Frank Bradley will head to Capitol Hill tomorrow where he's expected to brief top members of the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees about these highly scrutinized strikes. The White House says Secretary Hegath authorized Bradley to conduct the initial attack, placing the responsibility for the follow-up strike squarely on the admiral's shoulders. Bradley is a decorated Navy Seal who was one of the first troops deployed to Afghanistan after 9/11. He now oversees US Special Operations Command.
As both the president and Secretary Hegsth denied ever knowing about the second strike, members of Congress are continuing to voice their concerns. They existed before. They're definitely in the spotlight now. Republican Senator Ran Paul questioning Hegsth claims yesterday. Watch. "In this sense, it looks to me like they're trying to pin the blame on somebody else and not them. There's a very distinct statement was said on Sunday. Secretary Hicks has said he had no knowledge of this and it did not happen. It was fake news. It didn't happen. And then the next day from the podium at the White House, they're saying it did happen. So either he was lying to us on Sunday or he's incompetent and didn't know it had happened. Do we think there's any chance that on Sunday the Secretary of the Defense did not know there had been a second strike?"
"It's a good question. Joining us now, independent journalist Lindseay Keith on set with me here. So Lindsay, I think the biggest question that I have is Secretary Hegsth has tried to make a big show of these strikes over time, putting out the unclassified video on social media. I had Congressman Bill Keading, who's on the House Armed Services Committee with me yesterday, and he said, 'Okay, there's a really quick way to be transparent about this. Release the video of the second strike, which he said might have audio, which I also think might clarify who was in the room and saying what, but why can't they just do that? Any sign from the White House or your sources that they will?'"
So that's the big question is will that actually get released to the public ally and it's great to be with you but you know what I'm hearing from a lot of people on Capitol Hill I'm sure you are is you have people on both sides of the aisle who behind closed doors and some people publicly like you saw Ran Paul there who are very frustrated not only that the administration isn't being more forthcoming with some of this information but ultimately that they are glossing over this and you even have I've talked to uh veterans and many of them say it's really shocking to have the secretary of so-called war blaming this admiral even though in his position he should be able to take it this admiral Bradley at the same time often times you see someone in the position of Pete Haggath coming out and saying you know anything that happens under my watch is my responsibility instead of pointing blame a lot of people have been really surprised by that response and while the administration has come out and ultimately said like listen we have this guy's back they're putting him out front and center. I think one of the big questions is to your point, will we see this second video and the audio? Many people believe that the armed services committees will actually receive it, but will the public see it? I think is the question. And why haven't we seen that if they have so boldly put some of these strikes out here, so proudly put those strikes out? Um, what are they trying to hide here? I think that it will potentially get leaked. I don't know if it'll come uh as a uh something that the White House will actually put forth.
"Yeah. And it also comes as the Pentagon has utterly decimated its press corps instead installing people who are more allies in non-traditional media than actual journalists who have covered the Pentagon for decades. And so that's certainly a point that we'll get to later in the show. But I think when it comes to the Capitol Hill piece of this, yes, they're talking about doing investigations. That also takes time in a calendar that has a handful of days left. So, what do you actually think we see between now and the end of the year?"
"I don't think we're going to see much by the end of the year because to your point, this calendar for Congress is running very thin here with the holiday season. The big question is, do you have people like Senator Roger Wicker who say we have to have answers on this because the administration has been very clear. They're not stopping these strikes anytime soon. Now, you did hear in that cabinet meeting yesterday, the president saying, and Pete Haggsth ultimately that some of these uh trafficking on boats has gone down, I think they said 93%. The big question now is, are they going to actually do any land strikes on Venezuela? Will they be moving? And here's the thing, if that happens, the conversation will move. Yeah. And many people are concerned that this will go in the rearview mirror if there are not members of Congress who make sure this is brought to the forefront. And so there is concern about this getting left in the dust if there's not enough energy put towards it in in in these last few days as you mentioned."
"Yeah. Because if you start moving this to a land strike, the administration has been clear through administration lawyers on Capitol Hill. They've told members, 'We don't think we need to come to you for authorization when it comes to these boat strikes.' But a land war is very different and certainly would change the conversation as well. The other story that we're tracking that was breaking overnight is what happened on the ground in Tennessee because the Republican there, Matt Vaneps, has won that closely watched special election in Tennessee's seventh congressional district, maintaining the Republican party grip on that deep red congressional district. The thing is, Vaneps, a West Point graduate and former Army helicopter pilot, was backed by President Trump. He defeated Democrat Afton Bane by about nine points, but that's notable because Donald Trump won this district by 22 points last year. It's why DNC chair Ken Martin is calling it a flashing warning sign for GOP lawmakers heading into the midterms, pointing out that Republicans had to spend millions to hold on to this seat. Bane focused her campaign on the issue of affordability and voter frustration, echoing Democratic messaging that helped fuel winds in Virginia, New Jersey, and New York City back in November. But I think you and I were talking about this before we came onto the set. The idea that yes, Republicans won. I don't think there was ever a question in my private conversations with Democrats and Republicans that this seat was going to flip. But the fact that you're seeing in Florida, now Tennessee, margins cut in half, what does that tell you about the number of previously safe de Republican seats that could be now in play in the midterm elections?"
"Yeah, it's definitely a good sign for Democrats coming into the midterms when Republicans are already on their heels. If you're having to defend a seat in a deep red district, it's not a good sign for Republicans. And there is concern that there's going to re be a repeat of 2020 or 2018 for President Trump and he's going to lose the house once again. You know, I feel bad and we talked about this offline, but essentially I feel bad for Speaker Mike Johnson who has a very tough 11 months ahead of him when he has some infighting that looks like it's happening right now in leadership as well, but he has such a thin margin. And when you have someone like Margie Taylor Green who is out in January, he has this eb and flow of now 220 with eps winning to 213 such a thin margin. So Republicans probably won't have a lot of wins at their back going into 20 uh into the midterms into 2026. I think that's a problem for them. I think we saw the wins that Democrats had with this affordability and Republicans really haven't been able to get ahead of that message enough. And so when you see a ultimately I would say a win for Democrats last night in many ways because they feel like they have momentum. They feel like it's close enough. Yeah."
"And so I think you had even though Republicans won last night, a lot of Democrats think what else can we pick off uh in in 2026."
"Yeah. And it's all about building that momentum and seeing where and how you can capitalize on a message of affordability because it's not just the vibes as we so often track on Capitol Hill. It's also if you're within the campaign apparatuses that are in charge of keeping the house for Republicans, it's a resources question. Can you afford to spend a few million in deep red districts when you've got to play ball in places like my hometown in New York 17th congressional district, actual swing seats that Democrats have always known are purple and potentially flippable. We will leave it there for now. So much to cover. Lindseay Keith, thank you for starting us off. Great to be with you."