Speaker 1 (00:00):
Well, it's not that I can't be upset. It's just I couldn't imagine spending five months out of the year living there.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
It'd be embarrassing.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
Yeah.
(00:16)
There's something to traveling overseas.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
I hear you. I would have retired there.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
That would be a [inaudible 00:00:50].
Speaker 2 (00:49):
[inaudible 00:00:50]
Speaker 1 (00:49):
You'll be able to spend time [inaudible 00:00:50] here in Florida [inaudible 00:00:50].
Speaker 2 (00:49):
[inaudible 00:00:50].
Speaker 1 (00:49):
But it's…
Speaker 2 (00:49):
[inaudible 00:00:50].
Speaker 1 (00:50):
Yeah. It's better a path strategy than [inaudible 00:00:54]
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Yeah. You spend exactly like six months in one day in Florida, and you can spend the rest here.
(00:56)
[inaudible 00:01:18].
Speaker 3 (00:56):
Is Louis [inaudible 00:02:57] coming?
Speaker 4 (00:56):
I believe so.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
[inaudible 00:03:22] Christmas tree tomorrow [inaudible 00:03:25].
Speaker 1 (03:29):
No. [inaudible 00:03:28]. I'm not sure. They're not writing about it [inaudible 00:03:35].
Speaker 2 (03:31):
[inaudible 00:04:38].
Speaker 1 (03:31):
Maybe we go for an hour [inaudible 00:04:50].
(03:31)
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (05:06):
How are you? [inaudible 00:05:06]. Okay. Let's [inaudible 00:05:28].
Speaker 6 (05:26):
I know. [inaudible 00:05:32].
Speaker 1 (05:26):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
[inaudible 00:06:45].
Speaker 1 (09:13):
Yeah.
(09:13)
[Inaudible 00:07:39].
(09:13)
Senator.
(09:13)
[inaudible 00:08:59] the senator hear about this. [inaudible 00:09:02]. I'm going to say Scott's on it, but [inaudible 00:09:17]. Scott's open.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
Scott very sad to hear that you died.
Speaker 1 (09:21):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (09:22):
It's a pleasure working with you.
Speaker 1 (09:26):
I had a good run.
Speaker 2 (09:27):
You did. I look forward to you guys.
Speaker 1 (10:33):
Thank you.
(10:33)
Come on.
(10:33)
It's her.
(10:33)
Yeah, you can just hold those things.
Speaker 6 (10:34):
[inaudible 00:10:41].
(10:34)
I tried last time. The video wasn't…
Speaker 4 (10:34):
Check to see if she's got a photographer [inaudible 00:11:15].
Speaker 2 (10:34):
[inaudible 00:11:15] got a license for that?
Speaker 1 (10:34):
Here you go.
Speaker 5 (10:34):
Oh, thank you.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
[inaudible 00:11:22].
Speaker 5 (10:34):
[inaudible 00:11:29].
Speaker 1 (10:34):
No, no.
Speaker 5 (10:34):
[inaudible 00:11:36].
Speaker 7 (10:34):
Other door.
Speaker 8 (10:34):
[inaudible 00:15:20].
Mark Kelly (19:54):
Good afternoon, everybody. Seems like most of you guys are here. And thank you for taking the time. Let me get started. So throughout his entire career, in business, reality TV and politics, Donald Trump has had one and only one play, bullying his opponents into silence. He did it as a failed casino owner who bankrupted his properties and screwed over his contractors. He did it as a reality TV host known for firing people. And he's done it as president who tries every day to intimidate people with no regards for the rights or wellbeing of the American people.
(20:54)
I'll say this for the guy. While he's never seemed to do much else right, for most of Donald Trump's career, bullying people has worked out for him, but not now. Because I won't let it happen. The American people won't let it happen. President Trump is trying to silence me, threatening to kill me for saying what is true. And he sent his Secretary of Defense after me and it's not going to work.
(21:37)
Here's how we got here. A week and a half ago, Senator Slotkin and I, along with others who also served in the military and the intelligence communities, we released a video with a simple message to service members, that they must refuse illegal orders. Nothing was controversial about that. Everyone must follow the law. No one may break the law.
(22:10)
This is pretty basic stuff. Seeing that video, here's how any other president would have responded. They would have said two words, "Of course." But that's not how this president responded. We become so accustomed to Donald Trump's behavior that it is worth emphasizing. The President of the United States said that two US senators and four members of the House of Representatives should be arrested, hanged, executed for something we said, for something that is true. My family knows the cost of political violence. My wife, Gabby, was shot in the head and nearly died while speaking with her constituents. The president should understand this too. He has been the target of political violence himself. The Speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives, Melissa Hortman, and her husband were murdered in their home this year. The governor of Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro, had his house firebombed this year. Then Charlie Kirk was assassinated at Utah Valley University, a place I visited just a few weeks ago with Republican Senator John Curtis.
(23:47)
Faced with a wave like this, every other president we have ever had in the history of this nation would have tried to heal the country. But we all know Donald Trump. He uses every single opportunity to divide us. And that's dangerous. The president's words carry tremendous weight. People listen to him. And he knows that. And that's exactly why he does what he does.
(24:32)
He makes these threats to silence people. And if that doesn't work, he abuses his power to intimidate people. And with the consent of Republicans in the United States Senate, he has surrounded himself with people like the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, who will do whatever he says with no question, no matter what. Trump and Hegseth, they care more about publicity than they do about the rule of law.
(25:08)
That's how I ended up finding out via a tweet that the Secretary of Defense was ordering an investigation into me. The same Secretary of Defense who has, from the moment he was nominated, has been historically unqualified for this position. The same Secretary of Defense who is reported to have ordered a second strike to kill shipwreck survivors in the Caribbean. If there is anyone who needs to answer questions in public and under oath, it is Pete Hegseth.
(25:56)
It's a dangerous moment for the United States of America when the president and his loyalists use every lever of power to silence United States senators for speaking up. But we all know that this isn't about me and it's not about the others in that video. They're trying to send a message to retired service members, to government employees, to members of the military, to elected officials, and to all Americans who are thinking about speaking up, "You better keep your mouth shut or else."
(26:46)
This has been a singular focus of President Trump's second term. Not addressing costs, not creating jobs, intimidating people, and going after the people he views as his political opponents. He's done it to companies. "You better write a check to build my ballroom, or I might not approve your merger." He's done it with universities. "You better fire your president, or I'll pull your research funding." He's even done it to late night hosts. "You better not make jokes that I do not like, or I'll get you taken off the air and I'm going to take your company's broadcast license." And he does it every week with Republicans in the House and the Senate. "You better tow the party line or I'll make sure you never get reelected."
(27:47)
Folks, this comes at a cost, and not only to American companies, colleges and comedians. It damages every American's freedom of speech and the balance of powers that form the foundation of our democracy because when Republicans in Congress are too afraid to disagree with this president, it means that his bad ideas go unchallenged.
(28:18)
He has slapped reckless tariffs on countries across the globe, skyrocketing the cost of everything from groceries to school supplies. Republicans historically, well, at least a year ago, they hated tariffs, but when it comes to voting to undo them, they are too afraid of Donald Trump. So Americans pay more for just about everything because of spineless politicians.
(28:53)
It's the same with healthcare costs. There are Republicans in the House and the Senate who really want to do something to prevent these healthcare premiums from spiking for millions of Americans. The solutions are simple, but President Trump says he doesn't want to, so nothing happens. Nothing except a government shutdown. It goes on and on.
(29:22)
The president has gone too far. Everybody needs to wake up. The occupant of the Oval Office is ignorant to the Constitution and has no regard for the rule of law. Trying to silence me in proposing to court-martial me and threatening to kill me for fighting back when our democracy demands that we must fight back, President Trump has crossed the line. And this time, it's not going to work.
Mark Kelly (30:00):
I will not be intimidated by this president. I am not going to be silenced by this president or the people around him because I've given too much in service to this country to back down to this guy. In 1991, when Donald Trump was driving the Taj Mahal casino into bankruptcy, I was getting shot at over Iraq and Kuwait. In 2001, after Donald Trump said that the collapse of the Twin Towers meant he now owned the tallest skyscraper in Manhattan, I was carrying flags, honoring 9/11 victims into space on a rocket ship.
(30:51)
In 2003, when Donald Trump was writing birthday greetings to the monster, Jeffrey Epstein, I was the first on the scene to recover the bodies of my fellow astronauts who died when Space Shuttle Columbia exploded during reentry. In 2011, when Trump was hosting a reality show and peddling conspiracy theories against President Barack Obama, I was sitting next to my wife's hospital bed as she recovered from a gunshot wound to the head. My point is this, I've been through a lot worse in service to my country. The President and Pete Hegseth are not going to silence me. They aren't going to keep me from speaking out and they're not going to keep me from doing my job.
(31:49)
Enough of the bullying, enough of the intimidation, enough of the threats, enough of your nonsense. Doesn't help anyone in our country afford their groceries, or pay their medical bills. And it erodes the rights of every American. My job is to fight for them to stand up for the Constitution and nothing, nothing is going to stop me from doing my job. Thank you. And I'll take some questions. One second. Give me that folder. Yeah. Let me just sit this down here. I know it's Manu from CNN, but for everybody, just starting with you, just say who you are, what station.
Speaker 9 (32:53):
The White House said today that Admiral Bradley gave the order for that second strike on the Venezuela boat. They also said this was a lawful strike. Yesterday you said the second strike could be a war crime. Do you think that Bradley committed a war?
Mark Kelly (33:11):
Let me just start, Manu, by saying that there needs to be an investigation. We need to pull some of these members of DOD and the military into the Armed Services Committees in the House and the Senate. That's what the White House is saying. I hope what has been reported is not accurate. I revere members of the United States Navy, especially special operators, Navy SEALs. These are the most highly trained individuals in our military. I have deep, deep respect for them. So, I hope what we are hearing is not accurate. I will say though, as somebody who has sunk two ships myself, that folks in the military need to understand the law of the sea, the Geneva Conventions, what the law says.
(34:10)
And I'm concerned that if there were in fact, as reported, survivors clinging to a damaged vessel, that that could be over a line. I hope it's not the case. I truly do.
Speaker 9 (34:28):
Should Admiral Bradley assist in that order?
Mark Kelly (34:32):
Again, I am not sure of all the facts yet. I don't want to prejudge before we have all the information. I think it's important for there to be an investigation. The inspector general, inspectors general of DOD needs to investigate this. Unfortunately, an unqualified Secretary of Defense fired a bunch of them and got rid of a bunch of lawyers. I mean, Pete Hegseth, do I have a lot of confidence in DOD? Well, hopefully we have inspectors general there that will be doing an impartial investigation. I think we should wait for the results of those investigations.
Speaker 11 (35:12):
[Inaudible 00:35:11]. Regarding this press conversation, the investigation into your house, have you spoken with DOD or DOJ or anyone? Have there been any conversations, any interviews yet?
Mark Kelly (35:26):
Like I said in my remarks, I was notified of a potential court-martial through a tweet by the Secretary of Defense. I mean, think about that for a second. How ludicrous is that? That's the only notification that we have received to date. And I think that says a lot about who Pete Hegseth is and what he cares about. He doesn't care about the law. He doesn't care about process. He doesn't care about accountability. He cares about views on his Twitter account and that's a big problem. I'm going to ask you the guys this question. Have you ever in the history of our country seen a less qualified, or less professional secretary of defense? I cannot think of one.
Speaker 10 (36:20):
Senator Kelly, [inaudible 00:36:22] News. Are you concerned about threats on your life? Have you stepped up your personal security and of course the security of your wife?
Mark Kelly (36:30):
Hey, I'm no stranger. Gabby and I are no stranger to political violence. We get a lot of threats already. She continues to get threats. She gets threats on her life more so today because what Donald Trump said about me 10 days ago, that I should be hanged, that I should be executed. The threats on us have obviously gone up. I'm not going to get into details about my personal security. We take these threats very seriously and I take the threats from this president seriously. How many times in our country's history have you heard a President of the United States say that members of the Senate and the House should be hanged and executed? I mean, I can't think of one. Those words carry a lot of weight.
(37:21)
The number of threatening calls that we get into our office have skyrocketed. And they're very graphic. I mean, some of them were put not from my office, but another member put them out there for people to hear. Ones we get are worse than that. So, I take this seriously, but again, that's why he does these things because he thinks he can shut me up. I have First Amendment rights. I'm a United States Senator. I'm doing my job. I'm on the armed service of the intelligence committee. He ain't going to shut me up. I mean, he intimidates other people. I'm not intimidated by Donald Trump or Pete Hegseth or anybody else.
Nikole Killion (38:03):
Thank you, Senator. Nikole Killion with CBS News. Just back on Venezuela, are you aware of whether or not the secretary has had and secretary had said that is if he's had any conversations with any members of the Armed Services Committee and in terms of these calls to investigate, do you believe the Secretariat Admiral Bradley should appear before the House?
Mark Kelly (38:24):
They absolutely should appear. I've talked to the chairman of our services about it and the ranking member. They should absolutely appear. I'm not so confident they will. This is not an administration that tends to follow any norms, but we need to get to the bottom of this, of what happened. And we are not Russia and Iraq. I'm really concerned if the reporting is correct. Again, I hope the reporting about this incident is not accurate. What the White House said today actually indicated it might be, but we're going to have to see.
Speaker 12 (39:07):
Going back to the duty matter, are you considering any legal action for this risk of being court martialed or any of the previous parts of investigations?
Mark Kelly (39:15):
You mean like me suing Donald Trump for what he said? I think what he said about us is dangerous. It's ridiculous. It is a violation of our constitutional rights as Americans and our rights as senators to do our job, and he's trying to intimidate us, but I have not considered that, not at this point. Yeah.
Speaker 13 (39:47):
Thank you, Senator. [Inaudible 00:39:48]. Do you see this as fundamentally First Amendment issue for you that you want to highlight against the President despite this issue? And how do you see the whole process playing out?
Mark Kelly (39:57):
Well, again, this isn't really about me. And that's why I think people are got this a little bit off here. It's not about me. It's not about the other five members in the video. It's not about Elissa Slotkin, Chris Deluzio, Chrissy Houlahan, Jason Crow, Maggie Goodlander. It's not about us. This is about a president who doesn't want anybody to say anything that he does not like. I don't think he understands the Constitution. I'm serious about this. I think he is ignorant to the Constitution and the rule of law, and he just wants to silence us and it starts with us. And that's one of the reasons people say, "Well, why wouldn't you just back off?" Because this isn't about me.
(40:46)
This is about what he will do next. Who's he going to go after next? Which service member? Which government employee? Which citizen who decides to say something that this president doesn't like? And then he goes after them in my case with the Secretary of Defense, who knows what's next? With the attorney general? I mean, this DOJ has been just attacking people for all kinds of stuff and what's next? Our First Amendment Rights? Ain't happening. Yeah.
Noah Robertson (41:21):
Noah Robertson, Washington Post. Can you tell us anything more about the FBI's involvement in the inquiry with you and the other lawmakers who appear from the video? Have you scheduled an interview with them?
Mark Kelly (41:34):
We haven't heard all that much. We got notified. I think the better question is, what is their motivation? Did this come from the FBI? Do you guys think the FBI, they went into their meeting that morning and said, "Of all the stuff that's going on in the country right now, we got to get right on top of this. These guys said something the president didn't like, and now we've got to do something about it." Or do you think it's possible that the president told his FBI director to tell the FBI agents to reach out to these guys? So, I think this is a good question for you. All of you in here should be asking the FBI those questions. I don't have the answers to them. Yeah.
Speaker 14 (42:21):
Can you tell us anything more about the Senate Armed Services Committee's inquiry into the September 2nd strike, the nature of the request for information submitted, what information has been sent back from DOD so far in your conversations with the chairman?
Mark Kelly (42:35):
Well, we had a brief on the first three strikes, and I have said this before 10 days ago, that they're tying themselves in knots trying to explain why this entire operation is legal. And I imagine eventually, I hope you have an opportunity to see the legal argument that they made to do this. It's important for the American people to see it. We have to get folks before the committee, and that process might take a little while, but I ultimately think we're going to get to the bottom of this. And again, if what seems to happen actually happened, I'm really worried about our service members.
(43:25)
I was talking about this from the beginning of this operation, that the thing that I am most concerned about is the very difficult situations that this Secretary of Defense is going to put service members into, and it's because this guy is so unqualified for the job. I mean, think about this. He runs around on a stage talking about lethality and warrior ethos and killing people. We have the most competent, capable military this planet has ever seen by far. That's not the message that needs to come from the Secretary of Defense. The message should be about what's our mission and accountability and the rule of law and training, and let me make sure you're equipped to do really hard jobs.
(44:24)
Let me give you all the tools you need to do something that often is an impossible mission. And instead, he runs around on a stage like he's a 12-year-old playing army. And it is ridiculous. It is embarrassing. And I can't imagine what our allies think of looking at that guy in this job, one of the most important jobs in our country. In my view, after the President of the United States, it is the next most important job.
Mark Kelly (45:00):
He is in the National Command Authority for nuclear weapons. And last night he's putting out on the internet turtles with rocket propelled grenades. I mean, have you seen this? This is the secretary of defense. This is not a serious person. He should have been fired after Signalgate. And then every single day after that.
Abby (45:27):
Hi, Abby [inaudible 00:45:28] at ABC News. Just to put a finer point on it, because you were quite vocal about the sort of flimsy legality that was being offered during these briefings. Were these sort of strikes that are now in the news what you were making reference to when you posted that video telling members of the military that they needed to feel okay to disobey orders that they felt were illegal?
Mark Kelly (45:50):
Based on who this president is and who the secretary of defense is, and specifically things that the president has said in the past and things he was talking about doing in the future. Let me give you an example. 2016, he's talking about something on a debate stage that was clearly illegal and he was reminded by Brett Baier from Fox News that that would be an illegal order. Military won't do that. You know what the president's response was to that? "The military will not refuse my orders." Implying that even if they are illegal, they will not refuse them. He's also talked about shooting protestors in the legs. Then he's talking about deploying more troops to American cities and using those cities as training grounds. Do you know what that means? That means using the American people for the military to train on. So we were looking forward to try to head something off at the pass that could have been really, really bad. So it wasn't about this specific thing. Yeah.
Jennifer Shutt (47:00):
Jennifer Shutt with States Newsroom. The NDAA conference report is set to come out later this week or over the weekend or early next week. In addition to that, you all have not yet conferenced out the defense appropriations bill for the current fiscal year. Do you see either of those as options for you and other lawmakers concerned about the defense department, the actions of Venezuela and other situations to address those legislatively in either the NDAA or defensive [inaudible 00:47:27]
Mark Kelly (47:26):
Well, I think it could be if we could get bipartisan support to do something like that. Sure. That's sometimes challenging. Because remember, my Republican colleagues, not all of them, but most of them are fearful of this president. They do not want to cross him. I mean, they see what just happened to me. I said something that he did not like and he said I will be hanged, executed, prosecuted. He doesn't even have the order right. Yeah.
Mychael Schnell (48:01):
Thank you, Senator. Mychael Schnell with MS NOW. You mentioned earlier that the video was meant to tell service members [inaudible 00:48:07] law that they're not required to act on illegal orders. Since it already is the law and persuasively service members are aware of the law, why did the six of you guys feel it was necessary to make the video in the first place?
Mark Kelly (48:19):
Well, I think it's good for people to get a reminder and we wanted to show that we had their back and we understood the situation they were in. Pretty simple. And we said something that is in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, according to the law of armed combat. We stated something pretty simple. Every service member doesn't hear these reminders as frequently as other service members, so we felt it was important to say under the circumstances. Right there. I'll come to you next. Yeah. Yeah.
Joe Cappelletti (48:45):
Thank you, Senator. Joe Cappelletti with the Associated Press. When you participated in the video, did you expect that the president would respond? Was that part of your expectation?
Mark Kelly (48:59):
We did a video before that he did not respond to. I was really surprised that he responded at all. And I thought if he was going to respond, so what I just said when I gave my remarks, I thought he would have said, "Of course members of the military shouldn't follow illegal orders." So when he said … I was sitting in the skiff next to Elissa Slotkin, by the way, when somebody comes in with a little piece of paper and it says, I could see what it said on it as it was handed to her, "President just called for your execution." She leaves the room. Five minutes later, she comes back. She says to me, "He's called for your execution too." That was not the response we expected.
Lisa (49:47):
Thanks, Senator. Lisa from PBS. Two questions. As you say, you're still gathering the facts, still not clear exactly what happened here, but if the secretary of defense did issue an order to kill people on the second strike like this, is that an impeachable offense? Taking apart the numbers in the House, but in theory, is that a potentially impeachable offense to you? And then second, a shift, healthcare. Short time here to figure out what's going to happen in healthcare. Just what's your involvement right now it talks and where does that stand?
Mark Kelly (50:20):
Well, on the first question, I think that's a question for attorneys. I am not an attorney. I don't pretend to be one.
Lisa (50:26):
But only senators and House members [inaudible 00:50:30]
Mark Kelly (50:30):
That is true. Of course. I do not know the specifics on that part of the law about impeachment. And, again, let me remind folks that we're in the early days of this, and I think it's important to get all the facts for we to understand exactly what happened. Again, I hope what is being reported is not the case, but there needs to be an investigation and we are a country of laws. Despite the apparent situation we're in with a President of the United States, whom in my opinion does not respect the law. We're a country of laws. We got to hold people accountable. On the healthcare situation, we've got some time. I'd like to see a bipartisan solution because millions of my constituents, the people I represent in Arizona, and millions of more people across the country are not going to be able to afford their healthcare, and they're one accident or illness away from bankruptcy.
(51:33)
People lose their healthcare, they die. We can fix this. We have time to fix this. We know what to do. But again, doesn't seem the President of the United States wants to do anything on this. If he wants to help the American people, he should engage with the United States Congress on fixing this spiking of premiums, fixing this issue. Yeah.
Liz Ruskin (51:57):
Oh, Liz Ruskin, Alaska Public Media. Will ask the public media. Have you received messages of support, public or private, from your Republican colleagues?
Mark Kelly (52:06):
Yes. And some of it's public.
Liz Ruskin (52:09):
Can you tell us a bit about those?
Mark Kelly (52:11):
Well, I mean, some people put out statements and I got some private calls, which I will not get into, but there are some… You could Google it. There are some positive… But we're in an unfortunate period here where we have a president that does not like to be crossed and, I mean, if he's going to say to a US Senator that you should be executed for what you say, that sends a very chilling message, not only through the United States Senate and the House to Republicans, but across the entire nation.
Ryan Schmelz (52:53):
Thank you, Senator. Ryan Schmelz with Fox News Radio. I wanted to see whether it's the FBI or the Department of War. A lot of them are requested hearings or investigations with you. Are you planning to cooperate if that is the case?
Mark Kelly (53:05):
I will follow the law. Yeah.
Jim Puzzanghera (53:09):
Thanks, Senator. Jim Puzzanghera with the Boston Globe. You mentioned that some of your Republican colleagues have been bullied by the president. With regards to the boat strikes in the Caribbean, what's your level of confidence that this investigation in the Senate Armed Services Committee will go forward and get to the truth out of this?
Mark Kelly (53:26):
I have tremendous confidence in the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Roger Wicker, senator from Mississippi, and the ranking member, Jack Reed. And I've spoken to him about this and I know he's going to try to do a thorough job. Where I don't have a lot of confidence is in the secretary of defense and what he has done to this department: firing JAG officers, firing inspectors general, he's decimated it. I mean, firing people in the leadership of DOD just because of the color of their skin or if they're a woman. So I have about zero confidence in the secretary of defense. I have tremendous confidence in the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Yeah.
Connor O'Brien (54:15):
Connor O'Brien, Politico. Senator Schatz tweeted this afternoon, said "Pete Hegseth needs to testify in the month of December before we pass a defense authorization." And I'm just curious as a member of armed services, do you agree with that approach? Should Democrats be open to potentially holding up NVA to leverage testimony, information, whatever in this process?
Mark Kelly (54:41):
I spent 25 years in the United States Navy. I understand the importance of the defense bill and the programs that we authorize and the changes we make to policy through that piece of legislation. I've talked to Senator Schatz and we'll continue to talk about this, but in general, my view on this is we've got to be very thoughtful about how we handle the process of the defense bill. Yes.
Speaker 16 (55:09):
Last question.
Speaker 15 (55:12):
[inaudible 00:55:12] Just to clarify, you were not briefed on the double tap of the first strike. None of your briefings have included that. If Hegseth will not testify, will you call on Admiral Holsey of SOUTHCOM to come in and testify? And then lastly, on Venezuela, should the United States strike inside Venezuela territory, do you think that is legal?
Mark Kelly (55:32):
So I'm going to have a conversation with the chairman and the ranking member about who specifically we bring in to testify. Whether we do it in public or not. I would generally prefer public hearing. We should probably do both. One in a classified state, one publicly so the American people could see. I'm still trying to figure out the justification that Donald Trump has if he was to conduct kinetic strikes into Venezuelan. What's the goal? Why hasn't he communicated this to the American people? That's the job of the president, to lay out a case before we go to war. And if it is about removing Maduro, I mean, how do you square that with pardoning Juan Hernandez, who is basically the same guy from a different country, who got sentenced to 45 years in prison and he's barely been there. He probably hasn't even gotten settled in yet and the president's going to release him. Doesn't make any sense.
(56:38)
And I'll tell you what, regime change as a policy of the United States, generally in our history has not worked out well. Think of South Vietnam, think of the Bay of Pigs, Iraq and Afghanistan. It results in the deaths of US service members without the intended outcome. And in this case, I don't even think we know the intended outcome. President needs to make a case to the American people when he is about to put thousands of American men and women in harm's way. This is not the way to manage the US Military. Hey, I want to thank all of you for spending the time here today. I'm sorry the room is so warm in here, but we'll cool it down next time. Thank you. Appreciate it.