Bulwark Takes - Sen. Rand Paul Slams Sen. Markwayne Mullin at DHS Confirmation Hearing

Episode Date: March 18, 2026

Sam Stein and Sonny Bunch went live to give their reactions to Trump nominee Markwayne Mullin at his DHS confirmation hearing.

All right, everybody. It's me, Sam Stein, managing out of the Bullock. I'm here with Sunny Bunch, and we are currently watching the Mark Wayne Mullen confirmation hearings to be the next Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, takeover for Christy Noem. I don't know what happens with Corey Lewandowski in this exchange. He is in front of the Homeland Security Committee in the Senate, and Sonny, I don't know about you. I came in expecting not too many fireworks. Figured he would have a sort of friendly credit. By large, he has, I would say, except among one particular person, the chairman of the committee, Republican, Senator Ram Paul. Now, before we play you the clip that we're going to talk about, a little background, I suppose, is in order here. How many years ago was it that Rand Paul was attacked by his neighbor? Oh, it must have been what now, 12, 15, 13? I should have looked this up before we start. It's been a while. We don't prepare for these things.

Yeah. Rand Paul was attacked by a neighbor, a deranged neighbor. Rand Paul was out doing yard work. He had noise-canceling headphones on. The neighbor just absolutely tackled him, broke ribs. Six ribs? Yeah, six ribs. Really heard him.

Really, really heard him. It was an assault. Rand Paul has talked about this. He said that some of the ribs, the recovery was almost hard to breathe, in fact, painful to to breathe, that he developed cases of pneumonia because of this. It was traumatic. Anyways, flash forward to somewhat recent. where Mark Wyn Mullen, Senator from Oklahoma,

I guess they were talking about like going after corruption or welfare or something like that. And Rampal just didn't say something that was particularly on the party line. And Mark Wynne Mullen said something akin to, now I understand why your neighbor did it. And that presaged this. So here we are, this morning's hearing,

where Ramp Paul, the chairman of this committee that Mark Wai Mullen has to get through in order to get a vote on the Senate floor, opens the hearing with Mark Wayne Mullen, and it just gets dramatic. Let's play the clip. Please, Senator Mullen, if you have time to listen,

you were confronted by constituents that were angry because you voted against my amendment to stop all funding for refugee welfare programs. Instead of explaining your vote to continue these welfare programs for refugees, you decided to transfer the blame. You told them, that I was a freaking snake and that you completely understood why I had been assaulted.

I was shocked that it would justify and celebrate this violent assault. That caused me so much pain and my family so much pain. I just wonder if someone who applauds violence against their political opponents is the right person to lead an agency that has struggled to accept limits to the proper use of force. Okay, so that was testy, and it got worse from there. So Mark Wayne Mullen didn't apologize. He basically said, well, you know, I forget. He was just sort of like unapologetic about it.

He's like, yeah, he was like, you go off for Republicans a lot. Yeah. So what did you make of that? I mean, it was very like shocking to me. It's interesting because as you said, Sam, I was expecting pretty straightforward Republican, a Republican senator. Like not, it's not like he's just some random Republican. He's a colleague. He's, you know, he's a guy who they deal with a lot.

and should be pretty friendly with. And Paul just comes out and says, you don't have the temperament for this job because you said I deserved to be hospitalized. And I, my ears kind of perk up at that. It's like, what? What's happening here? The wildest part of this is that Mark Wayne Mullen

simply refused to just be like, my bad, I was speaking in haste. I was, it was testy. We were, you know, there was a lot of, There's a, it's a high pressure situation. It's the United States Senate. We're trying to pass laws. We're trying to, you know, keep the country safe.

And in state, he's just like, nah, I meant it. I meant what I said. Well, yeah, and it's like, it was kind of crazy to me. Let's just keep playing you because it goes on from there. There's a second clip where Rand just, that wasn't the end of it. That was just 40 seconds, 40 or six seconds of it. Here's another part of it. He just keeps going.

Called why you believe I deserve to be assaulted from behind, have six ribs broken and a damaged lung. me to my face why you think I deserved it. And while you're at it, explain to the American public why they should trust a man with anger issues to set the proper example for ICE and border patrol agents. Explain to the American public how a man who has no regrets about brawling in a Senate committee can set a proper example for over 250,000 men and women who work at the Department of Homeland Security. And it keeps going from here. Let's play the next part and then you can jump in after this where so this is the let this clip we're about to play is rand comes back to it because

again mark way mullin does not apologize he basically says you know i stand you know i don't i didn't call you a liar in fact at one point he says i didn't say you should be assaulted he says i understood why you were assaulted like the distinction is very minimal but here's here here's rand going back to it a third time no apology today and no regrets uh Haven't heard the word apologize, haven't heard the word regret, haven't heard I misspoke, and it was heated, and I made a mistake. I haven't heard any of those words. Sir, actually, it wasn't heated, and I'm not apologizing for pointing out your character. Good, good.

So you're jolly, well, fine, and you want the American public, and the people up here to vote, that may or may not vote for you to know that you supported the felonious violent attack on me from behind. I did not say I supported it. I said I understood it. I sent a gift to the slack of Tom Haverford from Parks and Rec laughing because that is how I felt watching this. And it was wild. It was wild to watch the extent to which he simply refuses to like try to grease the skits of this nomination by just being like, ah, it's my, you know, my bad. I didn't, I didn't, I didn't mean it. He literally did mean it. And I, you know, look, we're joking about this and we're laughing and it is funny.

I'm sorry, this is objectively a very funny thing. But the truth of the matter is that Ram Paul's totally right that this is an agency that has been beset by accusations of undue force being used. This is they are, you know, people are getting shot. People are getting killed. He is being asked to come in and take over an agency that is in disarray that is not behaving in a way that is fit for American civil liberties, civil rights. And he's just saying, ah, sometimes violence is good. And I, you know, Rand Paul kind of alluded to this. I think we have a clip of this.

But, you know, Mark Wayne Mullen tried to fight a guy in the Senate and at a Senate hearing. Sean O'Brien. Not just that guy. Sean O'Brien. Sean O'Brien. Shy, like, I was, again, this is. Head of the Teamsters Union. This is, this is not a, this is not a man who has, I think, great self-control, at least in this sort of show-boaty, faux masculine way.

Yeah, I want to just pick up on that. because, you know, there's people will say, and maybe there's some truth to it that, you know, RAND's objections to Mark Wrenlinner personal, and rightfully so, right? Like the guy did say, you know, he understood why Rang got absolutely humbled. I certainly would take that personal.

But I do think there's something more to it, which RAND's own top aide, a guy named Doug Stafford tweeted about, which is that this is, Here it is. So Doug is responding to John Thune, dismissing this as just personal stuff. This is an agency that is beset by an immense amount of criticism

for roughing up Americans for taking it too far, for believing that violence is the proper approach to immigration enforcement, and for, frankly, murdering two Americans. And I think it matters to have someone with proper temperament atop the agency. And I think that's a very valid point that Rand was making.

Now it happens to be that he's making it from a personal perspective, but it absolutely is valid. I don't see how it can't be valid. And I can't fathom why Mark Wayne Mullen on the doorstep to confirmation couldn't just be like, I got a little heated in the moment. I regret that. I just don't understand it. Why wouldn't he do that?

It shows a remarkable inability to think. Look, one or two things. It either shows a remarkable inability to think on his feet, which is probably not a thing you want. in a guy who's running. So you think you think Rand sprung this on him. There's no forewarning. Oh, I think it's pretty clear that Rand sprung this on him.

I like I don't think that, well, maybe, maybe not. On the other hand, maybe it's just he actually believes this. And that is maybe worse. I honestly, it's, which Sam do you think is worse? Do you think it's worse if he meant it that he wanted, that he understood why Rand Paul got hospitalized? Or is it worse that he just couldn't think on his feet and be like, you know what, this is my bad.

I don't know. I think it's probably worse if he meant it, if he was like, yeah, I stand by what I'm saying, because that's just like, at that point, it's just being dickish, right? And inability to sort of apologize or just recognize that that is Dickish's character assessment that I don't particularly find admirable.

Now, let's play the other side of it. If it was sprung on him and he couldn't say, ah, shoot, I need to like sort of get out of this one and think on my feet and probably should just, you know, say random, I'm sorry, I said that. And, you know, I would value our relationship. And I, of course, abhorred the idea that someone would just commit random want on acts of violence on lawmakers. If you can't think of that, then you're not particularly, like, the brightest bulb.

And in fact, I will say this, there is a clip where Mark Wayne Mullen does admit that he is not the brightest bump. So we might as well just play that because this could be sort of the defining characteristics. He's just, hey, he's like, I'm not a sharp dude. I just say what I mean. And so let's play this one. Center Nome's family. And I consider them friends.

But everybody has different leadership styles. And throughout my businesses, when I would have to transfer one manager to the next or one executive to another area, and I'd bring in a different one, they all have different management styles. My management style is empowering people. And as I said in my opening statement, I want to protect the homeland. I want to bring peace of mind and I want to bring confidence back to the agency. I'm not going to be the smartest guy in any room I walk into, but I know how to get talent.

I mean, I'm not the smartest guy either, but I wouldn't say that in my confirmation here. It's a very funny way to phrase that, too. Like, I'm not going to be the smartest guy in any room I walk into. Any room I walk into, I'm going to be mid-tier at best. You know, so I would think at some rooms I walk into, I'm the smartest guy, room full of, you know, kids. I don't know. I'm probably smarter than that.

My kid's gym class. I would hope to be the smartest guy. And look, I think, and I think you can make an argument that pure intelligence is overrated as a, you know, you need to be an administrator or a bureaucrat. You need to be able to. He has not shown the ability to do that either. Like he's not. This is, this is, this hearing has really, um, it's fascinating too because as we were discussing this, you know, before the show. But it didn't feel kind of like the Democrats were just like, ah,

this guy, he's okay, whatever. We're not going to, we're not going to fight too hard on him. He's getting so much more pushback from the GOP on this that I, I, I, it, he has to be in some, some minor trouble here. Just yeah, let's summarize. Let's quickly summarize how the hearing has proceeded outside of the, um, the Rampo theatrics. So basically, um, you know, as, as expected, other than ran, most of the republic, all of the Republicans are supportive of this. And they're using their, the time during this hearing to go after the Democrats for the shutdown, the current shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security, making note of just all the agencies that are unfunded, all the employees, including the TSA employees, shout out to the people

waiting in these airport lines, who are going and working without pay. The Democrats were the more interesting part because this is a real opportunity to kind of come in on some of the more egregious and controversial DHS policies and practices under Christenom. And they've done that to a degree, But to your point, what's been really, what's really stood out is how little they're, how unaggressively they are going after Mark Wayne. Some of them I clearly like the guy. Federman is among them. Even Rue McGego, who is, you know, positioning himself as maybe a 2028 candidate. You know, they had a cordial exchange.

They pressed him on some stuff. And much of the stuff they pressed him on were, okay, you know, you said, you know, for instance, that Alex Pretti was deranged, or you, you know, agreed with Kristyneum that Renee Good was engaged in acts of terrorism. Like, how do you feel about that? They asked them about, you know, monitoring polling locations and whether HHS would be, HHS would be part of that.

They talked about judicial warrants and whether they would use those. But it wasn't the type of stuff you would see normally with respect to a Trump current Trump cabinet. Like if this was Pam Bond, or if it was Christy Noem, it would have been much more aggressive. And I have theories about it, but I'm curious for your theories. Well, I look, I think the, the, what was interesting is he did seem to back away from some of the things.

I think, you know, when talking about Peretti, he said, I, you know, I spoke. Let's play it. Let's play the pretty one. I spoke, yeah. Let's play it. Play the pretty one we can talk about it. The Hs officer shot and killed two American citizens this past January. You joined top administrative officials in publicly blaming and disparaging the victims following the killing.

of Renee Good. Secretary Nome called her a domestic terrorist. You, sir, you called Alex Prattie, quote, a deranged individual that came into cause max damage. Could we expect those kinds of quick responses if you are confirmed as secretary? Would you be basically, well, you did, you responded to Secretary Nome, or we're going to just expect that same behavior all over again? No, Senator, I have a deep amount of respect for you. We've had our differences, but I do respect you. I think I said this privately when we had a conversation. Those words probably should have been retracted.

I shouldn't have said that, and as Secretary, I wouldn't. The investigation is ongoing. And there is, like I said, there's sometimes going to make a mistake and I own it. That one, I went out there too fast. I was responding immediately without the facts. That's my fault. That won't happen as Secretary. So you regret that statement?

I already said that. Yes, sir. Would you want to apologize to the family of Alex Prettie? Well, sir, I just said I regret those statements. It's, it's a one thing that jumps out here that we had mentioned a little bit before. Do you, do we think Rand Paul sprung that question on him at the beginning? I think we do because look, here is a situation where Peters and Mullen clearly talked about this and he had time to formulate an answer and he was like, I regret speaking so quickly. I shouldn't have done it.

You know, he doesn't he doesn't say the word, I apologize, whatever. We can get into, you know, you should. He should apologize because it's, terrible thing to say. But the, but, you know, it's clear like he had time to sit there and think about it and come up with a better answer. Um, and did not with Rand Paul. He just, it just kind of was like, whatever. You got it. Yeah. But, but, but to your point, I do think, I think the Democrats just see him as not the, somebody who they can possibly work with in the sense of like, he's not the brightest bulb. Not, not. Not. Not. sharp's tool and you know you can you can sometimes get away with things with a guy like that maybe i don't know well it's like okay look at it from this perspective okay the cabinet members and this is

just it makes obvious sense when you say it out loud but it's i think it's worth pointing it out the cabinet members who democrats have been more aligned with are favorable towards were the ones they worked with right mark or rubia they there is sort of consensus early on during his confirmation that he was a sensible choice. Mike Walls was considered a sensible choice. These are sitting members of Congress. The people who Democrats have not really jived with were the ones who came from outside of Washington.

Christy known she had been a member, but she had been in South Dakota for a while. Pam Bondi, obviously had been in Florida. Cash Patel, no one really, everyone was just dumbfounded by the appointment. Pete Hagseth had no relations whatsoever. There is a sense, and you could read it in the contemporaneous reporting around Mark Wayne Mullen, that he's an athlete. guy minus his relationship with Rand Paul but you know Sean O'Brien who you're mentioning the teamsters guy if people saw in the video we played of Mark Wayne answering Rand Paul

Sean O'Barnon's that ball bowling ball headed dude right behind him like they clearly patch things up and they like each other now I sense just from observing this and having talked to them throughout many years now that they look at this and they say okay here's a guy at least we can call in a pinch. If, for instance, DHS is doing something totally insane, like sending agents to polling locations, we at least can get Mark Wayne on the phone and say, don't do this.

Whereas, Christy Nome, that was never going to happen, ever going to happen. Now, last thing, he is making some slight concessions-ish, I think. The pretty thing was notable. I will say on the Renee Good stuff, He absolutely did not say he regretted saying it was an act of domestic terrorism. In fact, he said the investigation is ongoing. I think Maggie Hassan or some other Democrat was like, they aren't investigating. There is no investigation.

There is no investigation. I don't know what you're talking about. But let's play the judicial warrants thing because, you know, I think it's worth noting the substantive stuff that he has said. This is with Richard Blumenthal, another member of the committee. He's talking about the use of judicial warrants when ICE is involved in detainee. suspectively illumerates. Let's play that. If confirmed, will you commit to me and the chair and member, ranking member of this committee and the American people that ICE will no longer instruct agents to break into

people's homes without a judicial warrant? Sir, you're using the word break into people's houses very loosely. However, I have made it very clear to the staff and I think when you and I spoke that a judicial warrants, will be used to go into houses and a place of businesses unless we're pursuing someone that enters in that place. I have not mixed words with that, and I haven't changed my opinion about that. A whistleblower testified to our hearing that, in fact, ICE agents have been instructed as part of their training to forcibly enter. I know you don't like the word break-in, but forcibly enter is breaking into somebody's home, bashing down the door, terrorizing children.

instructed them to adopt this policy, will you commit that no longer will ICE agents or CBP agents be instructed to forcibly enter people's homes without a judicial warrant? Sir, I've already answered this question for you. I said we will not enter a home or a place of business without a judicial warrant unless we're pursuing the individual that runs into a place of business or a house. Okay, let me just pick up quickly and then kick it to you. It's remarkable that we consider this concession because it's like baseline shit, right? Get a judicial warrant, but this is where we're at, right? So the other, yesterday, the context here is that yesterday, in order to break through this log jam on DHS funding,

the White House offered concessions to members of Congress about what kind of reforms they would put in place. Some of them were actual concessions, I suppose, like, you know, more body cams, retaining the body cam footage, making sure that ICE doesn't wear masks in all occasions. But then some of them were just sort of like, wait a second, that's not a concession, such as a promise not to deport U.S. citizens, which they can't do. But apparently they have been doing. So anyways, that being the backdrop, I will say, I think Mullins gave them this, or at least new to give them this, because, one, ICE's positions are untenable,

but two, Democrats need to hear this if they're going to be comfortable. Yeah. And look, you're right. It's insane that we have to say, oh, well, this is a concession that they'll get a warrant. That's it's not in the Constitution or anything. That's not a thing that, you know, is a, we're going to get a warrant. We're going to arrest people the right way. That's great. I'm glad about that. That's the not deporting American citizens also very nice to hear. It's a good, good thing, good thing to hear. Look, I, the problem is at this point, there are only so many cards Democrats can play. Yeah. And whoever, if, let's say, Mullen goes down, I don't know who they would replace him with that would be better, that would be, you know, like that's, who's the alternative here? Like, so, you know, if as long as, the real question is, can we believe any of this? Like, how much of this is, how much of this would be Mullen's policies anyway? Like none. You know, it's, it's all coming from the White House. It's coming from the White House. It's coming from Stephen Miller. You know, like he's, the, you know, like he's, the, These are not people who are super interested in niceties or reducing the amount of, you know, on the ground terror that is being inflicted on some of these communities. But the, but, you know, he's saying, he's saying the right things good for him, I guess. What's the alternative? No, it's such a good point. Like, who else would you get in there?

Right. I mean, you're not going to get, I mean, I can't even think of someone Trump would nominate that would be palatable. But it's like funny to remember, but like John Kelly was Trump's first DHS secretary. He ended up being not on Trump's good side. As for the politics of this, because you referenced it, it's probably worth just talking through this for a second. So the vote on his nomination is supposed to happen tomorrow through the committee. This is just through the committee. Once it gets through the committee, if it gets through the committee, goes to the floor.

Here's how it works. Republicans have a one vote majority in this committee. let's say Rand decides, you know what, I'm not going to vote for the guy who won't apologize for me getting absolutely pummeled by my neighbor. At that point, you would think there's a tie vote and it won't get through committee. However, there's two ways forward. One is a Democrat on the committee can vote for the nomination, in which case he would get through the committee. And there is a Democrat on the committee who has hinted he would vote for him. And that's John Federman.

The second way is that you can just take it out of the committee. bring it to the floor but at that point it requires 60 votes for passage so that would probably doom the nomination all things being equal it looks like fetterman will probably vote from all these being a little bit cagey about it now and so we'll see um in terms of saying the right things the other thing you said you know saying the right things for the right audiences there was another moment where he said the right thing for the key audience which is don't trump He was asked about the 2020 elections. Asked about because, one, he was part of the effort to question the validity of the 2020 elections.

But two is because DHS, at least according to this administration, may have a role in monitoring election sites in 2008. Anyways, he was asked about the 2020 elections. And he gave the classically evasive now answer for not saying that he believes they were legit elections, but not also hinting that he still believes in the big lies. so let's play it. You have your own history. You did not certify the 2020 election. There are people at the Department of Homeland Security, three people specifically who are well-known election deniers now running election security functions. Who won the 2020 election? Ma'am, we know that President Joe Biden was sworn into office. He was the president for the last four years. But I do believe won the election. What do you make of that line? It's all they use.

Um, it's a bigger, this is a bigger red flag for me than anything else is this, this, you know, we know who was, we know who was the president for the last four years. Like, if you can't say Joe Biden won the election, I, it, it really puts me up to here. Like I, I, I, I can't, I can't abide by that sort of thing. It is so evasive and so wormy. Um, it drives, it drives me crazy. It drives me crazier than any of the immigration stuff. Or the discussion of, the bizarre discussion about the bizarre discussion about. about the secret mission we're going to get to that. We're going to get to that. That's our closing. But, uh, but like the, the election stuff is pretty straightforward. It's like if you, if you are kind of dancing around a straightforward acknowledgement that Joe Biden won the presidency, that he was rightfully elected, that there were no, there was not election fraud in the, in the amount that would overturn the election, um, then you are on a,

at a very basic level and, uh, I, you are, you are, you are, you are, you are, not to doing your job. You are not doing your job and you're not to be trusted in a position where you will be required to monitor this sort of thing. Well, he did say he wasn't never the smartest guy in any room. So it's possible that this is just, no, he's obviously they can't say it because that would mean the end for Trump's support of them. It's nuts. I'm with you. I find it disqualifying. Because it's also sort of what it does is it erodes trust in our foundational democracy. It's basically saying I'm operating in a faulty fake system where, you know, we had four years of a phony president. And it's like, just get over it and man up,

basically, in terms that Mullen would understand. So yeah, I'm with you. I find it really obnoxious and it's sad that he couldn't do it. All right, you alluded to it. This was the weirdest part. I mean, it wasn't maybe tied for the weirdest part with the first part. I'm going to set this up because if you don't have the context here, it might not be. It might be hard to follow. There's a Washington Post piece this morning that got it. People can go and find it if they want to. But basically, throughout his career, Mark Wayne Mullen has sort of hinted that he's been tangentially involved in some sort of overseas quasi-military or mission operations.

And he doesn't ever reveal details. He did end up in Afghanistan trying to. to help people get out of the country, I believe, around the time that we were evacuating it. He's talked about how the smell of war really is grotesque, but he's never actually served. His background is that he took over his dad's plumbing business successfully, but he's never been a service member. People have been calling it like kind of quasi-stolen valor, or at least trying to, you know, hint that you were involved in these things, but you actually weren't.

So this was brought up early in the hearing by the Democratic Ranking Me. member senator peters and he was mark when mullen was really evasive about it didn't said he couldn't talk about it sort of like super secret stuff and like it dropped but then they brought it back up rampal and senator peters and they just had this insane exchange where it was really weird and cryptic we're going to play you almost a three minute long clip all right so but it's worth it and you can take your popcorn out or you know whatever but just enjoy this and we'll try to dissect it on the other side. I think it would be easy and I'm still willing to have the vote tomorrow, but I can cancel the

vote tomorrow. I'm still willing to have the vote, get this done and get it over with. But I think that just to make clear, and it doesn't sound like it's a secret you're too concerned about divulging. If you would, to spend an hour and go to this year for 30 minutes and just tell both the ranking member and the other and it would be private and it won't be revealed. I think it would get this over with and we wouldn't have a complaint about going to have the vote tomorrow. I have no issue with that if you guys get cleared on it because my understanding was is there's only four people right in it and it was a special program inside the house. Just like I wasn't on Intel at the time. I'm not saying I was. But I have no issue with that at all. I would welcome being brought up.

It's very unique and it was that would be on you. We're not going to try to figure out who the four people are and whether we can have approval to it. And if you're doing something that important, really it probably ought to be revealed and discussed. Sir, Senator, I don't, or chairman, it's not on me to, I don't have the authority to do that. This is, and this is why I said I was very clear. Sorry that I never talked specific dates or locations on this. And so I have zero issue with talking about it. But I don't have clearance to talk about this this afternoon.

I don't. It's not me to release it. This is a legislative program. This is a program that Congress assigned you to? Yes. This was within my official duties. Who assigned it to you? Sir, that's not for me to talk to you about on this.

I'm sorry. This isn't a classified. I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be ugly. You know how classified situations work. Which agency classified it? Which agency classified it? It was, it wasn't an agency.

It was, it was done here, well, in the house on the time. The house classified it. I'm assuming I don't, I wasn't on, I wasn't on Intel. We're just not really aware of how the house classifies. I have, I have no idea. I know every time we spoke about this, we had to go to the skiff and visit about it. But I mean, I know there was a, there was a paper that I had to sign before it even started. And I may be wrong, and there may be more than four, but I know there was only, it was only me and three other people that ever discussed it.

So secret that we can't know about it, I would think that there'd be some paperwork in this gift that they should show us saying, this is so top secret and this was made. I have no problem. You're welcome to go to the house. This started in 2015. It ended in mid, little late in 2016. I have, I have nothing to hide on this. This is too easy. I would really enjoy sitting there and have a conversation with you because I don't want you have a question or question my character on this.

That's very simple for me, but I can't make that authorization. You guys know that. I mean, what do you? I don't even know what to say. Well, it's so bizarre because we don't have any context here for any of it. It's just like, you went on a secret mission. He's like, yes. And he's like, and then they're like, but the house classified it.

Yes. They can't do that. I don't know. And it's really interesting too because I like I almost imagine somebody pulling a prank on him Because again, it's not the brightest guy in any room he walks into. They're just like, look at this paper. See where we got to talk about it down on the skiff. Then they hop on their bat poles and slide down to the fake skiff and they're

Reddit. But it's one of these things where I have no idea really what Peters and Paul are getting at. They seem to think there's something here that hurts him. But since we don't have any context for any of it, it's just like, what are you guys talking about? Just go, you know, just talk us out. Yeah, sort of it. It's so weird. I can't recall ever seeing something quite like that at a confirmation hearing.

It's possibly just totally benign, right? It's like he went to Afghanistan with some committee, but because they were like working with, I don't know, CIA agents or people on the ground there and they were doing sensitive work like they classified it. And that's that. But like, why can't they just say, let's, I mean, I would have just been like. He doesn't have the authority to say, Sam, he doesn't have, he can't do it. He's going to go to prison if he talks about it in this hearing.

Yeah, exactly. This goes to how rushed, though, I mean, I guess if there is something to take from this, this is an incredibly rushed nomination. I mean, this is only weeks in the making. This is the only hearing. They're supposed to vote on this tomorrow. The paperwork, I have to imagine, barely any of it got done. I mean, I think people are just sort of relieved that Christiana is getting out.

But this is not typical. would guess that this is not typically how quickly these things usually get done. And in a normal situation, I think the ranking member and the chairman would have been like, hey, before we go into this hearing, let's talk in the skiff about what these trips were because we want to ask you about it. And all this would have been handled in advance. But this is what happens when you don't do that homework. Again, it's just such, it's such a weird thing because I can't imagine any trip he would have been on in the house would be disqualifying for this role in DHS. Like, I don't, But it clearly seems like they think they have him on some sort of gotcha.

Well, I would just guess if you're playing out what you're, if I'm just going to pick up what you're putting out there, maybe they think that he has wildly overstated the type of work he was doing abroad. Or that he just manufactured some sort of trip. And it was like, you know, he was in like Thailand. I don't know. Like, I don't know. What was he doing in Thailand?

Sam? Oh, maybe not Tyler. Wrong country. You get my point. So it's possible that they think they've just caught him in a real whopper, but I don't even know if that would be disqualified. I don't know.

Maybe the trip just never happened. Maybe it is, maybe it's his girlfriend in Niagara Falls. I don't know. Like, it's, it is certainly, it's certainly a possibility,

I guess. But it, but it just is such, it's such a weird thing. It's such a weird thing. It was so weird. I was watching. I was like, what is going on here?

And then I just left wanting to know, I was like, I actually now really want to know what this trip is about. Like I'm like really invested in figuring out what this trip was about at this point. Yeah. I wish I could be in the skiff. I wish I could hop down the bat pole and get down the wind. Yeah, do you have the bat pole down to the skiff? All right.

Well, we'll keep monitoring it. I don't know if they're still in session right now. They're supposed to be out. I think they're probably out by now. We probably will get, yeah, they're out. We'll probably get a vote tomorrow, depending on how this skiff session goes between Rand and Senator Peters and Mark Wayne Mullen. But my predictions, you heard of here first, is that this thing passes. Sveterman gets him the vote.

He goes to the floor. He only needs 50 when he gets to the floor in that case, and he will be confirmed, and he will be our next DHS secretary. You heard it here first, bold predictions by me. Sonny, thanks for doing this, man. I appreciate it. Always a pleasure to yapping, my man. Oh, you're in a live show? soon, right? Yeah, we're doing it. We're in Dallas. Come say hi. If you're going to be in Dallas.

I'll be in Austin. That show sold out, though. That show is sold out. I'll also be in Austin. We still have some tickets there, but I'm not, I'm not on, I don't think I'm on the stage here. I'm just glad handing in the background. If you want to come, you want to come, we can discuss what happens in Thailand with Mark Wayne Mullen. I don't know. You don't know where the trip was. It could have been. We just don't know. He's got to, he's got to reveal this stuff. All right. Take care, buddy. Have a good one. For those who are watching, thanks for watching. If you're in Dallas, you're in Austin. mainly Austin, try to get tickets. We only have a few left. If you're not, we're sorry.

We're hopefully doing more live shows, but also we can get these live broadcasts like this. Thank you for subscribing to the book, and we'll be in touch. Later.