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.

 

[Pommer]

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.

“Preserve, protect and defend” are all “YMMV” words.

 

[essentialsaltes]

DOD official calls for 'severe punishment' after report exposes Pete Hegseth security cost​

A Department of Defense official is calling for "severe punishment" for reporters who he said published sensitive "details" about Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's security detail.

The Washington Post penned a report on Wednesday talking about the significant increase in security and protection being funded by taxpayers for Hegseth, his ex-wife, and the rest of his family. The report didn't give any specific information. [So it's hard to see this as 'sensitive', but it is yet another expensive embarrassment.]

The Post explained, "The agency tasked with protecting Defense Department leaders is under significant strain, and the secretary’s atypical needs are becoming untenable, officials say."

"Historically, about 150 of the agency’s approximately 1,500 agents serve on VIP security details, according to people familiar with the matter, who said that when Hegseth took office, a call went out for many more. Now there are hundreds assigned to personal protective duty, these people said. One person characterized the figure as '400 and going up.' Another said it’s 'over 500.'"

 

[Pommer]

DOD official calls for 'severe punishment' after report exposes Pete Hegseth security cost​

A Department of Defense official is calling for "severe punishment" for reporters who he said published sensitive "details" about Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's security detail.

The Washington Post penned a report on Wednesday talking about the significant increase in security and protection being funded by taxpayers for Hegseth, his ex-wife, and the rest of his family. The report didn't give any specific information. [So it's hard to see this as 'sensitive', but it is yet another expensive embarrassment.]

The Post explained, "The agency tasked with protecting Defense Department leaders is under significant strain, and the secretary’s atypical needs are becoming untenable, officials say."

"Historically, about 150 of the agency’s approximately 1,500 agents serve on VIP security details, according to people familiar with the matter, who said that when Hegseth took office, a call went out for many more. Now there are hundreds assigned to personal protective duty, these people said. One person characterized the figure as '400 and going up.' Another said it’s 'over 500.'"

Wait, an administration dept is having a row with the press?
What about this isn’t “normal”?

A good third of “governing” is telling the media that they don’t know how to properly do their jobs*.
And while this is true for “both sides”, one side likes to think it’s “winning”; guess which!


*YMMV

 

[essentialsaltes]

See, Trump doesn't want Hegseth to be Secretary of Defense any more.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Hegseth team lashes out at Pentagon’s internal ‘Signalgate’ review​

The attack on the Defense Department inspector general appears designed to undermine the inquiry’s legitimacy — even before its findings are made public. [The (former) Defense Department IG was one of the many fired by Trump early in Trump 2.0. The office is now led by an Acting IG.]

Pentagon watchdog has completed review of Hegseth’s use of Signal, sources say​

Hegseth will now have the opportunity to comment and provide feedback on the Pentagon Inspector General’s findings, which is standard practice for such reviews, before the final report is provided to Congress in the coming days, the sources said. A version of it will likely be made public, one of the sources said.

Following that report [from the Atlantic journo], the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee requested an IG review to determine whether Hegseth violated any laws related to the handling of classified information or records retention for federal employees.

The inspector general examined whether anyone else could have physically entered the information into the Signal chat at Hegseth’s request, and asked witnesses whether others had access to his phone, CNN has reported. [Any fall guys around?]

The inspector general also received evidence that the military plans disclosed by Hegseth’s account were taken from a US Central Command document that was marked classified at the time.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Hegseth’s sprawling hunt for Charlie Kirk critics spans nearly 300 investigations​

The inquiry, resulting in a smattering of disciplinary action so far, follows an extraordinary directive aimed at silencing criticism of the slain activist and Trump supporter.

 

[Always in His Presence]

It is October 9, 2025 - 170 days later and Pete Hegseth is still in office.

I state this because it is the topic of the thread - seems to be going off topic lately...

 

[Bradskii]

It is October 9, 2025 - 170 days later and Pete Hegseth is still in office.

And we're just amazed as you are. Although I'll note that he's no longer the Secretary of Defence.

 

[Always in His Presence]

And we're just amazed as you are. Although I'll note that he's no longer the Secretary of Defence.

There is no Secretary of Defence any more, there is no department of Defence anymore.

They have been renamed to Department of War and Secretary of War.

It is a name change. Nothing more.

 

[Vambram]

There is no Secretary of Defence any more, there is no department of Defence anymore.

They have been renamed to Department of War and Secretary of War.

It is a name change. Nothing more.

I know that Pete Hegseth is a great Secretary of Defense and now a great Secretary of War.

 

[Hans Blaster]

And we're just amazed as you are. Although I'll note that he's no longer the Secretary of Defence.

He was never Secretary of Defence, but he remains Secretary of Defense. (Whatever silly thing he calls himself [Pete][Secretary of War], has not legal stading.)

 

[eclipsenow]

https://www.npr.org/2025/04/21/nx-s1-5371312/trump-white-house-pete-hegseth-defense-department

Maybe putting a TV host in charge of the military wasn't such a bright idea. Kind of like electing one with 34 felony convictions to be president. Just a smidge over 100 days. Long way to go... hold on to your butts!

That speech felt like a junior high gym teacher.

I loved the big line at the end - the 'drop the mic' moment when he thought he was going to get a big response - and there was just stone-faced silence.

Then the old man got up and started rambling and even slurring his speech a little.

I don't even know what the orange man is saying half the time. The word salads are getting worse - like Biden on debate night when he was suffering jet lag and an illness.

 

[eclipsenow]

I know that Pete Hegseth is a great Secretary of Defense and now a great Secretary of War.

Huh?
"A great Secretary of War".

By what measure?

High school gym talks?

Half the stuff he talked about was illegal under conventions of international warfare America has signed up for!
Then Trump started flapping his orange painted gums, and it just got worse!