Exclusive: The White House is looking to replace Pete Hegseth as defense secretary

[Bradskii]

Oh goody. Verifying information from an unsubstantiated source

Here's a handy tip for you to use. When there's a statement by an unnamed source, rather than handwave it away as something inconvenient, put these few words in front of it and then you can address the message without having to dig up reasons to reject the messenger:

'IF that statement is correct, then...'

In this case you could show how you are not simply arguing the politics of the matter by saying something along the lines of '...then Hegseth should at least be reprimanded'. I'll show you how it works from my position:

'IF that statement is incorrect, then...Hegseth has very little to worry about and his position should be secure'.

That's how a discussion works. But, as per my post 158, it appears that there may be some things that he'd rather were not investigated. His comments (paraphrased for effect, but essentially correct) gives me pause for thought:

'It's witch hunt! It's a political attempt to discredit me! Biden is behind all this! It's fake news!'

 

[wing2000]

Hegseth has denied the information he shared was classified, but it was given to him on a system for sensitive and classified information, sources told NBC News.

Just because the information was given on a secure system, does not make it classified. Do we really need to rehash this again?

No, we don't need to rehash your denial.

It's basic commmen sense: Operational information should only be shared on secure systems. A personal mobile phone is not a secure system.

 

[Always in His Presence]

No, we don't need to rehash your denial.

Are you referring to the linked facts already presented?

It's basic commmen sense: Operational information should only be shared on secure systems. A personal mobile phone is not a secure system.

Thanks for your opinion -

 

[Bradskii]

Thanks for your opinion -

Here's another one. I think Hegseth should remain in his position for now so we can see what people have voted for. From here: Pete Hegseth reposts video that says women shouldn’t be allowed to vote

'The US defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, recently shared a video in which several pastors say women should no longer be allowed to vote...'

I wonder what effect that will have. From here: Donald Trump's approval rating with women reverses course

President Donald Trump's approval rating with women has declined since June, according to Fox News polling.

'According to polls conducted by the broadcaster, the proportion of women who approve of the job Trump is doing as president has declined from net -16 in June to net -21 in July.

Political analyst Craig Agranoff, previously told Newsweek that losing female voters was "a significant concern for his administration, given women's substantial influence as a voting bloc." Agranoff continued: "This low figure likely reflects dissatisfaction with his rhetoric and policies on issues like reproductive rights & economic equity, which resonate deeply with many women. It's not quite a crisis, but it's a warning sign, especially in a polarized electorate. To make an immediate pivot, Trump could soften his messaging, perhaps by highlighting policies that directly address women's economic or health care concerns, like child care support or workforce protections.'

As opposed to his Sec of Defence promoting views that say that they shouldn't even be allowed to vote.