Now watch Ernst do what Biden spent 4 years doing: just refuse to answer "why" to her constituents. She's protecting the swamp and the Ukraine gravy train. I'm going to assume she's preserving corrupt source of revenue for herself and other thieves in Congress since there's no obvious reason for her to fight Trump on Hegseth.

Joni, did you vote for Kamala? I bet you did. I'll encourage my Iowa relatives to bring the heat. This woman does not deserve power in this country.

War is big business.

You think this has anything to do with it maybe? pic.twitter.com/CD4PsAy3OU

— Burning Bunny (@Fedsurrection20) December 5, 2024

Pro-war, pro-trans folks in military (mentally ill). Pro insane ethanol/corn fuel subsidies. Anti-Trump (full on TDS).
I'm feeling a little lazy about looking it up, but I think she tacitly backed Nikki Haley (R-pentagon) in the primary.

🚨 FLASHBACK: Joni Ernst is a backstabbing RINO, who wanted to MOVE ON from President Trump as recently as last year

It’s no wonder she’s trying to sink nominees like Pete Hegseth now.

I can’t WAIT to join @charliekirk11, @TheLeoTerrell, and @ScottPresler in Iowa to primary her… pic.twitter.com/Og9hx6jRUk

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) December 5, 2024

The Senators opposing Pete Hegseth are pretty diverse...

But what do they have in common?

Boeing and Lockheed Martin are their biggest donors.

— John LeFevre (@JohnLeFevre) December 5, 2024

Raytheon is actually her 4th biggest contributor. Norpac, her largest benefactor, is an Israeli lobbying outfit.

So does he even get a vote?

Ernst
Collins
Murkowski


Just need one more

Pete needs to stay in and continue to fight for the job.

His detractors are relying on anonymous smears with a kernel of truth behind outrageous fabrications. Disagree, Pagerman? Then MAN UP and provide something more than leftist trash to make your case!

But here's the bigger reason. If the left is allowed another scalp in this game, then it's on to RFKj, Gabbard, and so on.

Confirmation of Trump's cabinet will take the better part of a year, and the overall objective - Hamstringing Trump - will be achieved.

Stand behind Hegseth and let's get on with it. If he falls in the job, I'll be right there with you shining the light on him. (Something the left was unwilling to do with Austin or any of the other awful Cabinet members.)

Quote:

---

Pete needs to stay in and continue to fight for the job.

---

he's going to stay in and fight as long as Trump wants him to

4 said:

---

That guy is the leader of a major European nation. You think he could at least put a coat and tie on when visiting dignitaries that he's begging money from.

---

That's been his schtick since this war began to make it look like he's fighting along his people when in fact he isn't prior to this war he was always wearing suits

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

Pete needs to stay in and continue to fight for the job.

---

he's going to stay in and fight as long as Trump wants him to

---

Agreed. That's exactly what he said when asked that very question by Megyn.

Trump needs to realize that cutting bait at this point opens the floodgates and makes confirmation of his other nominees that much harder.

Gaetz was one thing. Pulling Pete starts a trend and creates momentum for Trump's opponents.

Stay the course.

"doing very well" is what Gaetz did also.

of course, that was after he dropped out, but interesting phrasing nonetheless

Ernst needs to lose any committee she sits on.

BMX Bandit said:

---

"doing very well" is what Gaetz did also.

of course, that was after he dropped out, but interesting phrasing nonetheless

---

Yeah, but in this post, Trump explicitly states that he will be a fantastic, high-energy SecDef.

If he was considering pulling Pete, I'd think he'd have left that one sentence out.

Cruz seems to think he will be confirmed.

Logos Stick said:

---

Ernst needs to lose any committee she sits on.

---

Trump needs to chat with Grassley about gutting corn ethanol subsidies if she doesn't fall in line, and closing that Middletown ammo plant. Maybe target moving Reaper operations (132nd AR Wing) to a more consolidated location outside of Iowa, for 'efficiency.'

No more begging GOP vermin in the senate. Play offense and hit them where it hurts, full LBJ-style (see: Amarillo). Same goes for Alaska, Utah and Maine.

BusterAg said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

oldag941 said:

---

Look, Hegseth may turn out to be the best SECDEF our country has every known. But to have his mom involved in calling senators and doing news shows on his behalf is embarrassing. And then for him to publicly say he'd quit drinking alcohol if he gets the job..... It's the damned Secretary of Defense for the U.S. Primary advisor to the President on all things warfare, nuclear, etc. Is his mom going to join him in the senate hearings? Is his AA accountability partner going to be there? I can't believe I'm even typing this.

---

Trump is a convicted felon for paying hush money to a porn star. Is his probation officer going to meet with him in the Oval Office? Does this disqualify him from being President?

---

Does paying hush money to a port star make you ineligible to be POTUS?

---

No. Why would it?

Tom Fox said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

oldag941 said:

---

Look, Hegseth may turn out to be the best SECDEF our country has every known. But to have his mom involved in calling senators and doing news shows on his behalf is embarrassing. And then for him to publicly say he'd quit drinking alcohol if he gets the job..... It's the damned Secretary of Defense for the U.S. Primary advisor to the President on all things warfare, nuclear, etc. Is his mom going to join him in the senate hearings? Is his AA accountability partner going to be there? I can't believe I'm even typing this.

---

Trump is a convicted felon for paying hush money to a porn star. Is his probation officer going to meet with him in the Oval Office? Does this disqualify him from being President?

---

Does paying hush money to a port star make you ineligible to be POTUS?

---

No. Why would it?

---

Well, bring a plagiarizer obviously doesn't.

Logos Stick said:

---

Ernst needs to lose any committee she sits on.

---

Okay.

Tom Fox said:

---

oldag941 said:

---

Look, Hegseth may turn out to be the best SECDEF our country has every known. But to have his mom involved in calling senators and doing news shows on his behalf is embarrassing. And then for him to publicly say he'd quit drinking alcohol if he gets the job..... It's the damned Secretary of Defense for the U.S. Primary advisor to the President on all things warfare, nuclear, etc. Is his mom going to join him in the senate hearings? Is his AA accountability partner going to be there? I can't believe I'm even typing this.

---

Trump is a convicted felon for paying hush money to a porn star. Is his probation officer going to meet with him in the Oval Office? Does this disqualify him from being President?

---

The Kraken said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Ernst needs to lose any committee she sits on.

---

Okay.

---

Ok, what? Not getting the emoji.

Logos Stick said:

---

The Kraken said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Ernst needs to lose any committee she sits on.

---

Okay.

---

Ok, what? Not getting the emoji.

---

He doesn't care when dems do this. It their MO.

pagerman @ work said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

This is why you never trust Rinos. Confirm this guy already.

---

That letter doesn't say much of anything unless you desperately want it to.

Which you do.

---

It explains why he resigned. and it certainly doesn't say he lost that position 8 years ago from a drinking problem, scandal, or any sort of salacious behavior towards women. So sorry for your loss.

jrdaustin said:

---

Pete needs to stay in and continue to fight for the job.

His detractors are relying on anonymous smears with a kernel of truth behind outrageous fabrications. Disagree, Pagerman? Then MAN UP and provide something more than leftist trash to make your case!

But here's the bigger reason. If the left is allowed another scalp in this game, then it's on to RFKj, Gabbard, and so on.

Confirmation of Trump's cabinet will take the better part of a year, and the overall objective - Hamstringing Trump - will be achieved.

Stand behind Hegseth and let's get on with it. If he falls in the job, I'll be right there with you shining the light on him. (Something the left was unwilling to do with Austin or any of the other awful Cabinet members.)

---

You do realize I have said nothing at all about whether Hegseth should or should not be confirmed, or even whether or not he is qualified or not to head the DoD?

All I have done is point out that a Senator simply wanting to discuss their concerns with a nominee before promising to vote for a nominee is not some outrageous affront. Unless you're an unhinged Trump (PBUH) fanboy/acolyte, when apparently anything less than immediate acquiescence to any passing notion Trump (PBUH) may have is sacrilege.

Rockdoc said:

---

Then let's see your hard evidence against him. Your vendetta against him is comical.

---

What's comical is your utter lack of reading comprehension skills.

Vendetta?

I defy you to find a single instance of me saying that Hegseth is not qualified to be SecDef, is guilty of any of the allegations against him, or should not be confirmed.

pagerman @ work said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Then let's see your hard evidence against him. Your vendetta against him is comical.

---

What's comical is your utter lack of reading comprehension skills.

Vendetta?

I defy you to find a single instance of me saying that Hegseth is not qualified to be SecDef, is guilty of any of the allegations against him, or should not be confirmed.

---

That's not really saying anything.

It's ok. Everybody knows.

nortex97 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Ernst needs to lose any committee she sits on.

---

Trump needs to chat with Grassley about gutting corn ethanol subsidies if she doesn't fall in line, and closing that Middletown ammo plant. Maybe target moving Reaper operations (132nd AR Wing) to a more consolidated location outside of Iowa, for 'efficiency.'

No more begging GOP vermin in the senate. Play offense and hit them where it hurts, full LBJ-style (see: Amarillo). Same goes for Alaska, Utah and Maine.

---

Nah, don't piss off Iowa republicans.

Just let Joni know that a full-fledged primary battle is in store for her if she doesn't stand down.

Then the Iowa Republicans can make an informed choice of who they want to Represent them in '26.

Well done.

Lots of pork promised to their donors is the only way. It's an age old game. Trump knows how to play it. He has to decide if the guy is worth the chips.

Build It said:

---

Lots of pork promised to their donors is the only way. It's an age old game. Trump knows how to play it. He has to decide if the guy is worth the chips.

---

Trump needs to have his guys ask the Norpac guys from Israel if this is going to be worth the consequences/squeeze. He doesn't have to talk to/threaten their controlled assets, such as Ernst, in any way. While this often descends into anti-Semitic diatribes, that's not how I see it.

Norpac and AIPAC need to be curtailed in their influence on Capitol Hill. America's "pro-Israel lobby" has had an outsized impact on Defense Secretaries for too long. It's not just the Senate, but note Massie's comments as to AIPAC's lobbying focus/commitment.

That one of AIPAC/Norpac's strongest assets/pawns, Ernst, has been viciously undermining this guy who is a…strong Zionism supporter, to say the least, is somewhat incredible to me.

🚨🇺🇸 Meet Trump’s pick for Secretary of Defense: Pete Hegseth

Hegseth is known for his staunch neocon views and deep ties to pro-Israel funding sources, including Paul Singer, the Koch brothers, and Sheldon Adelson, all with major investments in Israel. In 2024, Miriam Adelson,… pic.twitter.com/QvUc37bdzF

— Kevork Almassian🇸🇾🇦🇲 (@KevorkAlmassian) November 13, 2024

jrdaustin said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Pete needs to stay in and continue to fight for the job.

His detractors are relying on anonymous smears with a kernel of truth behind outrageous fabrications. Disagree, Pagerman? Then MAN UP and provide something more than leftist trash to make your case!

But here's the bigger reason. If the left is allowed another scalp in this game, then it's on to RFKj, Gabbard, and so on.

Confirmation of Trump's cabinet will take the better part of a year, and the overall objective - Hamstringing Trump - will be achieved.

Stand behind Hegseth and let's get on with it. If he falls in the job, I'll be right there with you shining the light on him. (Something the left was unwilling to do with Austin or any of the other awful Cabinet members.)

---

You do realize I have said nothing at all about whether Hegseth should or should not be confirmed, or even whether or not he is qualified or not to head the DoD?

All I have done is point out that a Senator simply wanting to discuss their concerns with a nominee before promising to vote for a nominee is not some outrageous affront. Unless you're an unhinged Trump (PBUH) fanboy/acolyte, when apparently anything less than immediate acquiescence to any passing notion Trump (PBUH) may have is sacrilege.

---

I would have bought that until your response regarding the letter posted by Hawg.

Yes, you have said that you weren't taking a stance on Hegseth, indeed you said that he should answer the questions raised...

"I don't think it is too much to ask for Mr. Hegseth to answer the legitimate concerns from Senators regarding someone who has been appointed to run the largest department in the federal government,"

But then added the following bit of analysis...

"So being a fall down drunk is not relevant to his ability to do his job heading the Department of Defense?"

One anonymous person makes an allegation. Numerous people refute it and put their names behind their refutations. Who do you believe? Apparently, the one anonymous person.

Strike One.

Indeed, when it was pointed out that ALL the allegations against Pete were ALL made by anonymous sources, and published by known leftists with an axe to grind, you asked...

"So surely you have evidence to back up your assertion that the allegations against Hegseth are "made up sh/t", and that the Senators in question only have stopping Trump as their goal?"
and stated unequivocally..
The allegations of Hegseth being an unruly drunk don't come from "the media". They come from a report to the management of the organization he was president of for 3 years.

Yet again, when Hawg posts a direct refutation SIGNED by a member of said management of the organization, you dismiss it with..

That letter doesn't say much of anything unless you desperately want it to. Which you do.

Strike Two.

I don't need a third strike to realize that your veneer of disinterested party to this debate has worn through.

Questions have been asked, and answered. Did you even listen to the Kelly/Hegseth podcast? Does that even matter to you? Or are you content with continuing to run with the smear campaign that comes straight from the Kavanaugh playbook?

---

I don't know what to tell you if you think that letter is a refutation of anything beyond the notion that Hegseth was fired. It addresses no specific allegations beyond that (and as I stated I was unaware there was any allegation he had been fired in the first place). Ask Hawg herself what that letter states from a legal perspective.

The allegations of Hegseth being a drunk are not mine, and I don't necessarily believe them. My characterization of him as such are what the allegations say, not what I say and I said that as a counter to the idea that a potential SecDef (any potential SecDef) being a drunk is somehow not pertinent to their desired job.

And again, it is not a "campaign" in any way to say that it is not out of line for a republican Senator to want to a nominee to address any issues they see fit prior to deciding to vote for a nominee.

Again, I don't really have an opinion on what Hegseth has done or not done. I don't have an opinion on whether or not Hegseth should be SecDef. I do think that it is perfectly reasonable for a Senator to want a nominee to answer any questions they may have prior to deciding whether or not to support that nominee, even if the Senator is from the same party as the person making the nomination (which is what the OP was outraged about).

Basically Pete is not helping himself when he says he won't drink if given pentagon job, that alone is so daming!

Quote:

---

don't know what to tell you if you think that letter is a refutation of anything beyond the notion that Hegseth was fired. It addresses no specific allegations beyond that (and as I stated I was unaware there was any allegation he had been fired in the first place). Ask Hawg herself what that letter states from a legal perspective.

The allegations of Hegseth being a drunk are not mine, and I don't necessarily believe them. My characterization of him as such are what the allegations say, not what I say and I said that as a counter to the idea that a potential SecDef (any potential SecDef) being a drunk is somehow not pertinent to their desired job.

And again, it is not a "campaign" in any way to say that it is not out of line for a republican Senator to want to a nominee to address any issues they see fit prior to deciding to vote for a nominee.

Again, I don't really have an opinion on what Hegseth has done or not done. I don't have an opinion on whether or not Hegseth should be SecDef. I do think that it is perfectly reasonable for a Senator to want a nominee to answer any questions they may have prior to deciding whether or not to support that nominee, even if the Senator is from the same party as the person making the nomination (which is what the OP was outraged about).

---

Cliff notes version:

I'm just asking questions.

Quote:

---

Ask Hawg herself what that letter states from a legal perspective.

---

The general rule in employment law is to only confirm dates of employment, position, salary range when asked about former employees. Giving a negative review can lead to legal issues.

So in this situation, the better course would have been to remain silent but obviously that executive felt strongly enough to speak out and support Hegseth.

So take that anyway you wish but to me, it appears the story of Hegseth being fired for misconduct is inaccurate.