Democratic Senators Faced Their First Test in the Trump 2.0 Era - the Hegseth Confirmation

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:00 Clip: You must never, ever give up or give in. You must keep the faith and keep your eyes on the prize. That is your calling. That is you mission. That is moral obligation. That is mandate. Get out there and do it. Get in the way. Change happens because people care. The people have the power to make this life free and beautiful. To make this live a wonderful adventure.

0:00:38 Clip: I still believe with all my heart, America can be a place where no child is left hungry, no community is left behind, and no one gets told they don't belong. Country is always worth it.

0:00:57 Thomas: Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments. This is episode 1112. I'm Thomas, and I'm going to be joined today by a few folks. Because it's Wednesday. It's T3BE Day, but it's also Fash Watch Day. It's doozy watch. And appropriately, I'm with all-star researcher. And yeah, you listen to the lot awful movies, gumshoe and amazing reporter Lydia Smith. How's it going, Lydia?

0:01:21 Lydia: Getting in everybody's business. Thank you. Doing pretty well. Excited to talk about what we watched today. I'm excited to talk about I think It's going to be really, really interesting and illuminating.

0:01:33 Thomas: Yes, that's right. Today marks, I think, the first day that the doozies have gone from theoretical hypothetical to being considered.

0:01:39 Lydia: Yes. Yes, that's 100% true. We had our very first confirmation hearing and none other than than Mr. Pete Hegseth, the nomination for the Secretary of Defense.

0:01:42 Thomas: Our first doozy confirmation.

0:01:51 Lydia: So a big one.

0:01:51 Thomas: Oh boy. Yeah. And you know, I've been thinking a lot about what we want to accomplish here on opening arguments in this coverage. And we've wanted to, first as you've done, we want We want to know who the who the fast doozies are, what they believe, who they are. We've done got a lot of that. There's there's a ton, but we've now, we know who Pete Hegseth is. When it comes to this hearing, you and I both watched it. There's so many moments that would be fun to play and talk about and joke about. Trying to think like what what would be the most helpful for us to do here on the show, I think what it boils down to is, look, is a pointless exercise. And it's long has been. I mean, a lot of these are a lot OF the judicial appointments, a ton of these confirmation hearings are pointless exercises. They are votes are predetermined. All made up and the points don't matter, as Carey would say. And it's about it's trying to make maybe make an impact. And and it's possible that if somebody has a bad enough moment that impossible that the pressures could still exist to torpedo their nomination. It's possible. It's conceivable. I don't know what that would take. It lot of people getting mad. Who knows? In this era of Trump, I think that's sort of unclear. I think we don't quite know what it would take, but it's 53 votes so it's a matter of four, 50 votes. They need 50 votes, and so whatever it would take would be about those four Republican senators. That's kind of predetermined for the most part. If somebody was that bad, I mean, we're going to see Democrats vote for nominations. And I think in some cases that's fine. I because, again, it is inevitable. It's not going to make a difference. In some places, it might be okay to put a stamp of approval on it, just so that it helps to emphasize the really bad cases and show it's not just about we're gonna vote down anyone that Trump puts up. I think I think that's worth doing even though it might make almost no difference but it's

0:03:45 Lydia: Right.

0:03:45 Thomas: Still worth doing I think if there is somebody qualified to give the seal of approval so that it's slightly more impactful maybe when you don't.

0:03:46 Lydia: Who would you say of the slate of people that

0:03:55 Thomas: Nobody that I know yet but I'm sure they're out there. So there's like hundreds of these things I'm Sure he accidentally found a normie somewhere. We'll see. But terms of what we want to do been really scared that Democrats aren't going to meet the moment here. And I think we've seen plenty of examples of Democratic leadership not meeting the moment. Baffling. It'S weird. Understand it. But after campaigning on what a threat to everything Trump is, it seems like now it's like, well, we lost. So I guess he wasn't a threat rather than shit. We lost and he is still a threat. I don't say there's a lot of people I don'T see acting accordingly. And so I think the best thing that maybe we can do is we, we watched this hearing. So you don't have to, unless you want to

0:04:00 Lydia: Four and a half hours

0:04:36 Thomas: Four and a half hours. And in addition to showing some highlights that we can't resist, we got, we got it. We got to play you some highlights. There's some, there's some really good stuff in here. I think we want to just give people an indication of our, their democratic leaders standing up for them? Are they, are they doing a good job? Are they meeting the moment? Are they, I don't want to use a corny term like resisting, but we like, not complying in advance, you know? And Pete Hegseth is not qualified for this job. Know it, I know it. They know it I think a lot of Republicans know it he's not qualified. So to do a show for our audience, that is, let's talk about how he's now qualified. Like I'm, I, I dunno how useful that is. So We know he's not qualified. We're going to play some examples maybe of some of that stuff. But more, this is about how our Democratic leaders, how are the senators in the Armed Services Committee in this instance, that's are they handling this? Are they handling thus well? Because, I mean, honestly, that is what we can control somewhat, is that we could lobby our own leaders to do better in these moments. And so I think that's kind of where we're going, especially given the limited time. I mean, if we had if we add hours to

0:04:36 Lydia: Dedicated podcast

0:05:43 Thomas: Just give you the entire breakdown of this, we almost did because it is there is some there are some great moments in this confirmation hearing. Try to do that with a limited time because we still have to answer a bar exam question. We still got to talk to Heather later.

0:05:43 Lydia: To this maybe got to do some shout outs

0:05:56 Thomas: Oh, patron shout outs. There's plenty to do. So that's on the agenda. How did Democrats do with this obviously unqualified sexist drinking just Abuser of this guy is just not qualified. And so that's that's going to be this first segment on doozy watch this week. How do they do? I can't wait. We'll make a report card, except not really. And that the is, are we going to be upset or are we going to happy with our Democratic leaders? We'll see. So after the break, we'll get to that. And then, of course, we will get to our bar question with Heather Veronini. And that's the agenda. So if you would like to avoid the ads and if you'd like to, more importantly, support the show so that you can get this kind of coverage and you don't get coverage from people pretending that this is an open question of whether or not he's qualified and normalizing a side that is not normal and should not be normalized. Coverage like this, support the show at patreon .com slash law and get the goodies, get the lot awful movies. That was so much fun. You need to hear it if you haven't already. Plenty of reasons to support on patreon. Com slash law. And after this break, we're going to get to not so much doozy watch Democrat watch, I guess, in a way. Who watches the doozy watchers? Us.

0:06:07 Lydia: Of women good

0:07:12 Thomas: So where should we begin? Do you want to do you want to give any sort of preamble? What do you think?

0:07:19 Lydia: Is not on the video that we watched but reports uh that as Hegseth walked into the hearing room and it was packed completely packed he was greeted with cheers and a standing ovation from folks in the hearingroom with chants of USA, USA, USA, USA, and someone who shouted, get him, Petey. This is a very serious process. Yeah. And this is something that was brought to pretty clear attention right away from the chairperson, new chairperson Roger Wicker, who is a senator from Mississippi. He basically said that that folks are excited for you, Mr. Hegseth, but everyone in the room, if there is any sort of outburst, talking, sign holding, standing up, anything like that, you will be promptly escorted. And that did happen three times from protesting Gaza from I think the major themes of this were really centered on Hegseth's positions with women in combat, his temperament and behavior. We've talked about all this stuff when we did our deep dive on him. In the military and the ranking member, Jack Reed, the Rhode Island senator, does a great job of kind the foundation for what should know going into this hearing with Pete Hegseth. So

0:08:41 Thomas: He's the minority ranking member. So, yeah, like you said, Chairman Wicker, who I wasn't really familiar with, Republican from Mississippi uh Reed uh good I feel like he did a great job um

0:08:51 Clip: Are powerless times, and the position of Secretary of Defense demands a leader with unparalleled experience, wisdom, and above all else, character. The Secretary is expected to be a fair, nonpartisan, and responsible leader, as well as a trustworthy advocate for the men and women that he leads. Mr. Hegseth, I do not believe that you are qualified to meet the overwhelming demands of this job. We must acknowledge the concerning public reports against you. A variety of sources, including your own writings, implicate you with disregarding the laws of war, financial mismanagement, racist and sexist remarks about men and women in uniform, alcohol abuse, sexual assault, sexual harassment, and other troubling issues.

0:09:40 Clip: I have reviewed many of these allegations and find them extremely alarming. Indeed, the totality of your own writings and alleged conduct would disqualify any service member from holding any leadership position in the military, much less being confirmed as a Secretary of Defense. Nonetheless, I understand that you reject many of these reports as they involve whistleblowers, nondisclosure agreements, and anonymous, although numerous, sources, including those who have faced political intimidation for sharing their experiences. I hope you will address each of these allegations thoroughly and truthfully during your testimony.

0:09:39 Thomas: Great not great but

0:10:19 Clip: Just as importantly, I hope that you will pledge to prevent any repercussions for whistleblowers, both civilian and military, if confirmed. Mr. Hegseth, during our meeting last week, you said that if confirmed, your top priority would be, quote, restoring a warrior culture to the Department of Defense, because you believe the U.S. military has been weakened by political correctness. Over the years, you have made clear your opinion of the military's diversity initiatives. As you have said, quote,"Diversity is not our strength. Unity is." In a recent podcast, she said, quote, I'm straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles. .Hegstad, another reason I'm deeply concerned about your nomination is your disregard for the law of armed conflict and your support for service members who have been convicted of war crimes. You have championed the pardoning of military members who were turned in by their fellow soldiers and SEALs. And let me emphasize that. They weren't discovered by reporters. They were turned by fellow soldiers and fellow SEALS, and also pardoning military contractors convicted of killing 14 Iraqi citizens without cause.

0:10:19 Thomas: I don't hold out much up how absolute

0:11:29 Clip: You have also advocated for the restitution of interrogation methods like waterboarding that have been defined as torture, and you have belittled the advice and counsel of Judge Advocate Stringer while on deployment. In I appreciate our meeting last week, it is unacceptable that you did not meet with any other Democratic members of this committee before this hearing, as has has been a bipartisan tradition. During my time in the Senate, I have voted for and work closely with Secretary of Defense appointed by Republican Presidents. While we may disagree politically, there was always an understanding that rank partisanship should have more place when it comes to providing for the men and women who serve in uniform. And Mr. Hegseth, I am troubled by the many comments you have made both as a commentator and in your published writings. For

0:11:29 Thomas: Worst yeah

0:12:18 Lydia: That was um guess unsurprising ultimately but still shocking to hear that he met with every single republican on this committee committee and the only democrat he met with was the ranking member very weird very concerning and every democrat on this community brings it up basically like during their during questioning as well and they

0:12:32 Thomas: Weird yeah and later we'll get his his reasons it's really good reasons well we'll get it.

0:12:43 Lydia: But way that he obfuscates his responses to some of these questions is really remarkable. Set up this idea that all of the sexual assault, sexual harassment, alcohol at parties, all of those claims that were from anonymous sources in liberal media publications. Something that is laid on very, very thick and that I feel like several of the The Democrats on the committee tried to push back on, including, including folks like Reed, Tim Kaine. I do want to highlight a number of individuals that I think really, understood what was needed here. Killed it um she starts at 142 it's gonna be so hard not to play her whole thing

0:13:23 Thomas: Murdered. Yeah. I honestly, we might want to just play her the whole thing. We'll see if we can make the time. It's amazing. She did an incredible job. It's great. And you get the sense to another thing that I am on the lookout for is our leaders grandstanding for themselves or do they genuinely believe what they say? And I think think when it comes to the armed services committee, I think it's going to be more serious than a lot of them. I think most of these people, if not all of them, I have military experience and care about this. And it's about, in their minds, it's the safety of the country. And we're

0:13:30 Lydia: It's so good yeah and the safety of the service members too yeah that

0:14:04 Thomas: But it's a serious topic. And it's a seriously massive organization with a lot of responsibility. And I think that it was taken very seriously in with Kirsten Gillibrand, who nailed it.

0:14:21 Clip: To the men and women who are currently serving in the U.S. military. Harmful to morale. Harmful. Harmful, harmful to good order and discipline. If you are saying that women shouldn't be serving inthe military, and I'm going to read you your quotes, because the quotes themselves are terrible. You will have to change how you see women to do this job well, and I don't know if you are capable of that. So I want to press on these issues that my colleague, Jean Shaheen, brought up because she said it so well. So first of all, you answered your questionnaire, do you believe that any American who wants to serve their country in the military and can meet objective standards set by the military should be allowed to serve without limitation? You said yes to that question. But then in all of these other circumstances, you've denigrated active duty service members. We have hundreds, hundreds of women who are currently in the infantry. Ethel members of our military serving in the infantries. But you degrade them. You say, we're not in the military. Especially in combat units.

0:14:44 Lydia: A good burn yeah

0:14:44 Thomas: And your mom don't know if you're okay yeah

0:15:26 Clip: Would you take any action to reinstitute the combat arms exclusion for female service members? Knowing full well you have hundreds of women doing that job right now. And the standards, are the requirements today for people serving in industry. Men and women, they are gender neutral, and they are very difficult to meet. They have not been reduced in any way, and units, our infantry is lethal. So please explain, specifically, because you will be in charge of three million personnel. It is a big job, and when you make these public statements, and I get you were not Secretary of Defense then. I get, you were on TV, I get that you were helping veterans, I guess it was a different job. But most recently, you said this in November of 2024, knowing full well you might have been named as Secretary of Defense. So please explain these types of statements, because they're brutal, mean, and they disrespect men and women who are willing to die for this country. Senator, I appreciate your comments, and I would point out I've never disparaged women serving in the military. I respect every single female service member that has put on the uniform past and present. I My

0:16:44 Clip: Spent months talking to active duty service members, men and women, low ranks, high ranks, combat arms and not combat arms. And what each and every one of them told me, and which personal instances have shown me, is that in ways direct, indirect, overt, and subtle, standards have been changed inside infantry training units, ranger school, infantry battalions, to ensure that community members meet - Give me one example. Please give me an example. I get you making these generalized statements. Quotas to have a certain number

0:16:43 Thomas: Seem accurate to me. That's

0:17:17 Clip: Of female infantry officers or infantry enlisted, and that disparages those women who are capable of meeting that standard. Commanders do not have to have a quota for women in the infantry. That does not exist. It does not exist.

0:17:31 Thomas: So good.

0:17:31 Clip: And your statements are creating the impression that these exist, because they do not. They are not quotas. We want the most lethal force. But I'm telling you, having been here for 15 years listening to testimony about men and women in combat and the type of operations that were successful in Afghanistan and in Iraq, women were essential for many of those units. When ranger units went in to where the terrorists hiding in Afghanistan or in Iraq. If they had a woman in the unit, they could go in, talk to the women in a village, say where are the terrorists hiding, where are weapons hiding, and get crucial information to make sure that we can win that battle so just you cannot denigrate women in general and your statements do that a take the responsibility of standards very seriously and we will work with you I'm equally distressed you would not meet with me before this hearing we could have covered all of this before you came here so I could get to the 15 other questions that I want to get to so said in your statement you don't want politics in the dod everything you've said in these public statements is politics I don't want women. I don't want moms. What's wrong with a mom, by the way? Once you have babies, you therefore are no longer able to be lethal. I mean, you're basically saying women, after they have children, can't ever serve in the military in a combat role. It's a silly thing to say. It's beneath the

0:18:54 Clip: Position that you are aspiring to.

0:18:53 Thomas: So good. I she just absolutely nailed it yeah

0:18:58 Lydia: Really did. And, you know, honestly, everyone, Democrat on this committee, I like they showed up and they're all slightly different. Like they all have kind of different approaches. Think what it shows is that they can be effective in kind of calling out some of this stuff that's dangerous harmful um clearly lies but that we can be affected in doing that in a number of different ways a number different means um who's to say if like that's actually going to impact the likelihood he'll be nominated I don't know if it will um I will say that I as a viewer that I felt like these folks were stepping up and representing as well yeah yeah

0:19:36 Thomas: This is about the larger battle like I said this is a done deal for the most part this is a pointless exercise for themostpart in terms of the actual we know it's just the votes that's just about this the future this isabout do we have confidence in our leaders, Democratic leaders, in they are putting their money where their mouth is, that they're consistent, that talk about what the stakes are next time, that we can believe them because this time they were consistent. The biggest things I'm worried about are this guy was an existential threat to the world and to democracy, and then he won, And then it's like, well, you know, he's our president. So we got, and then all of a sudden that's different. Like the demeanor changed from a lot of people. And some amount of that might be just natural human interaction, whatever. I get it somewhat. But when it comes to where it matters, this is where it matter. Going on record. It's not about, will this change any votes? I mean, you could try, you Could, you Know, you COULD hope, but it'S about a consistent messaging for Democrats going into the next time we have an election, going intothe midterms.

0:20:38 Lydia: Also I mean you said like like on the record this is stuff like the the hearing transcripts are part of the national archive like forever um so this is material that will be be available for you folks in the future too to look back on

0:20:51 Thomas: When he inevitably is caught drinking and abusing, so, you know, if any of the, if, uh, any ofthe Democratic senators call their shot properly or whatever, then it goes into the told you so video coverage of whatever happens, you know, and that's, and, and like that's credibility building and it's, you know, it''s important. So yeah, lots of different, I wish we had time to go through all of it lots of different tactics uh who should we go to next yeah

0:21:15 Lydia: Why don't we go to a a contender for I told you so in the feature um 30 we're gonna hear from uh elizabeth warren

0:21:24 Thomas: Know what request denied hon we're going back further we're we're playing more elizabeth warren because she was so good I think she stated uh s very convenient change of heart I think she had the best indictment of that

0:21:28 Lydia: I It's so good.

0:21:36 Clip: Changed in the 32 days, that the song you sang is not the song you come in here today to sing. Senator, the concerns I have and the concerns that many have had, especially in ground combat units, is that in pursuit of certain percentages or quotas, standards have been changed. And that makes the combat more difficult. Let me make a suggestion about what happened in that 32 days.

0:22:01 Clip: We got a nomination from President Trump. Now, I've heard of deathbed conversions, but this is the first time I've heard of a nomination conversion. And I hope you understand that many women serving in military right now might think that if you can convert so rapidly your long -held and aggressively pursued views in just 32 days, that 32 days after you get confirmed, maybe you'll just reverse those views and go back to the old guy

0:21:54 Thomas: Doesn't exist maybe this

0:22:34 Clip: Who said straight up women do not belong in combat.

0:22:38 Lydia: Up.

0:22:39 Thomas: It's his quote yeah this that was uh amazing there's more there we're trying to you know not just play tons and tons of this but she went through all the statements and he keeps doing the dance oh anonymous I don't I'm not familiar I didn't say and it's like no it's your words it's your words they all did that it's it's incredible I mean I think again he knows that this is the game now and Fox News will just show their parts of it. And for, you know, for that matter, we'll just play our parts of It, but we watched all of It. It's not like the parts that are the right wing people are like, actually, none of this is true. They just ignore It.

0:23:16 Lydia: They ask him how many pushups he can do. That's one of the questions.

0:23:18 Thomas: That was one of them.

0:23:19 Lydia: Yeah, yeah. You didn't get to that part. Yeah.

0:23:19 Thomas: I didn't get to that one. For the love of God. Could They spend so much time on the Republicans and how awful they were in this. It It is. There's the one I wanted you to play where he opens it with like a Jesus Christ thing. But again, we have to pick our lane. But Elizabeth Warren did a great job of highlighting the problem there. And then she goes to this line of questioning, which this this was unbelievable. This was so good. I got to play this whole exchange.

0:23:42 Clip: Mr. Hegseth, you have written that after they retire, generals should be banned from working for the defense industry for 10 years. You and I agree on the corrosive effects of the revolving door between the Pentagon and defense contractors. It's something I would have liked to talk to you about if you'd come and been willing to visit with me. But the question I have for you on this is, will you put your money where your mouth is and agree that when you leave this job, you will not work for the defense industry for 10 years? Senator, it's not even a question I've thought about because it's never been... Think about it right now. It's not one... My motivation for this job... I understand that. I just need a yes or no here. Time is short.

0:24:03 Thomas: Would pass up visiting with Elizabeth Warren?

0:24:05 Lydia: Know,

0:24:25 Clip: I just needed a yes. Yes or no? I would consult with the president about what the policy would be... In other words, you're quite sure that every general who serves serves should not go directly into the defense industry for 10 years, but you're not willing to make that same pledge? I'm not a general, Senator.

0:24:20 Thomas: So good. So funny.

0:24:46 Clip: You'll be the one, let us just be clear, in charge of the generals. So you're saying sauce for the goose, but certainly not sauce for the gander? I would want to see what the policy of the president is. Thank you, Senator Warren.

0:24:46 Thomas: So good, so good, so good ah sylvester so good can I just say in thinking about it as much as I think these assholes including pete hegseth have figured out the game just say yes what's gonna be the problem because think about that will this matter this will matter when he's out of the job and is hired by a defense contractor or whatever who not a political decision competition they can't be like oh you said you wouldn't nobody cares it's it's actually amazing that he wouldn't just bite that bullet he does that a few times where it's like dude just just bite that bull it's fine totally

0:25:03 Lydia: I it's it's so, good and then go ahead yeah he can't get in trouble yeah yeah yeah uh

0:25:36 Thomas: Fine anyway

0:25:37 Lydia: Want to um shift over to Gary Peters a Michigan senator um has uh I think you noted his opener a really solid 315

0:25:45 Thomas: Gosh we just need to uh I want to listen to this whole thing so hard yeah

0:25:48 Lydia: Just let's do his opener and we'll do his closer too Maisie

0:25:50 Thomas: I like this I likethis because this is a very serious approach and as we highlighted they took different approaches and that that's great not everyone is going to be uh as intense as uh duckworth was quite intense uh

0:26:04 Lydia: Hirono was really intense Intense. Yeah. Kaine actually too.

0:26:08 Thomas: Tim kaine was really good honorable mention to tim kane we don't have time he he was quite good he was he was very good um I really liked how this guy went about it because I think that as much as this is all about politics I think I I maybe for some of these these people it isn't for some of these senators they this very seriously it is very serious and I I actually find this very believable as well and I think it was very effective so let's hear uh gary peters and

0:26:33 Clip: We have far too much partisanship in our country right now. I think it's eating away at the fabric of what has always made this country great, about bringing people together from all sorts of backgrounds, all sorts of experiences, and we know that in our motto, together as one, we are strong. And so we in this committee, and certainly I speak for myself, I think I speak from many of my colleagues, want to take partisanship out of this proceeding as much as we can. I'm not naive. It's out there. I get it. But we've got to try to take that out. And I want you to know that as a member of this committee, I have voted in a bipartisan way for secretaries of defense. I voted for two secretaries of defense when Donald Trump was previously president. We had those two. We had, I think, five total secretaries of defense during that four -year period, so we want to keep that in mind as to what we might see in this coming administration.

0:27:29 Thomas: Good so good keep that in mind so good oh

0:27:36 Clip: But I voted, and we voted by a big margin for those folks as well. But part of that was the process of having an opportunity to get to know the person and understand the qualifications and understand the standards. You know, I made repeated requests to meet with you prior to this meeting. I know many of my other colleagues also wanted to meet with you I did that with the other nominees that I was happy to vote for I thought they were highly qualified individuals and true professionals and yet I could never get a meeting with you was there a reason you were afraid to have one -on -one meetings with some of my colleagues before the hearing uh senator I know there was a great deal of outreach to multiple offices and schedules get full there's a lot going on I was ready I welcomed the opportunity I was on my schedule to have an opportunity to sit down I was running it would have been so much better to have that opportunity to talk beforehand.

0:28:07 Thomas: Guys there's a reason let's see that's

0:28:23 Lydia: Pending my schedule. Yeah mm

0:28:23 Thomas: The sketch schedules get full so pathetic

0:28:29 Clip: I think that's a big mistake, and it doesn't set us on a good course when we refuse to meet with people and have a professional conversation about the huge challenges that we face at the Department of Defense. My

0:28:39 Thomas: I so good I he he pulls off a good disappointed teacher kind of look yeah

0:28:41 Lydia: Good. Oh I know. I know oh gosh I like I felt it in my bones like when he was responding there.

0:28:50 Thomas: Lydia went and did some homework just that she made up some exercises just because she was worried a teacher somewhere might be upset with with her I'll

0:28:56 Lydia: And then to cap it off he hear the nicest rejection I've ever heard in my life like this is so beautifully done um

0:29:05 Clip: I'm going to go back to a ceo of the most complex organization in the word I don't think there's a board of directors in america that would hire you as a ceoe with the kind of experience you have on your resume you talk about standards you talk about raising or low we have a problem of standards in the dod and we have have to raise standards for the men and women who serve. Do you think that the way to raise the minimum standards of the people who serve us is to lower the standards for the Secretary of Defense? That we have someone who has never managed an organization more than a hundred people is going to come in and manage this incredibly important organization and do it with the professionalism and has no experience that they can tell us that they have actually done that I have no problems with that this is not about other issues that are brought up they're all very important I'm just about trying to get things done managing efficiently and having the best people who have demonstrated that in a large organization and I'm sorry but I don't see that in your background there are a lot of other things you can do very well you're a capable person but I'm not I do not you have not convinced me that you're able to take on this tremendous responsibility with a complex organization and have a little or no significant management experience. Senator, I'm grateful

0:29:45 Thomas: So good so

0:30:26 Clip: That you asked

0:30:26 Lydia: Yeah um to kind of echo that earlier uh blumenthal had said you I would support you for the spokesperson of the pentagon I'm not disputing your communication skills yeah

0:30:26 Thomas: Good yeah he and yeah he is actually a good speaker I mean he he I worried about um going forward is how much more being able to speak well matters than anything else and I think that's been true you know since the 60s and the debate between nixon and jfk like Like people that sort of telegenic, you to communicate smoothly. I mean, that just for whatever reason, as humans, we're like, that means, you know what you're doing when really it means you're good at talking. And those aren't the same thing. I mean they just aren't necessarily. What I do want to say is after this, don't have time to play it, but But Republican like senators tried to pull this like Uno reverse where they're like, well, how about you, senators? How qualified are you to

0:30:37 Lydia: Skill oh

0:31:14 Thomas: Do this? And there's one I'm not sure if we were going to play where somebody asked him like, hey, would you commit to like if you're drinking on the job, you'll resign? And he wouldn't do it, of course. And then one of the Republican Senators said, how many senators do we know have come in drunk for a late night vote? It's like, yeah, man, that's a vote. Vote that's a thing where you just have to say yay or nay that's not the secretary of defense that'sa different job that'sadifferentjob secretary ofdefense is in charge of the defense for the whole nation of 300 plus million people that's what you're in chargeof there could be things at any time there couldbevery serious situations at any timese senator is incharge of saying yay or nay

0:31:25 Lydia: My gosh I think though that like like a question about is that an acceptable workplace culture that's an separate conversation and that's something for um know the senator and their their committee on ethics and all of those things to pursue. I would say as a taxpayer, as a constituent, I'm not super comfortable with that. I, I be a little concerned depending on like, if you have a beer with dinner versus like, like you're falling over drunk and still participating like at work, I ,I would have concerns with that, but that has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. As you said, they're completely different jobs, completely different responsibilities, responsibilities and it's just honestly irrelevant to

0:32:27 Thomas: And you're they're a board of directors as they said they're board of of directors, they make the comparison and why I don't like it. Cause everything in America has to be about corporations, but they're like, this is a massive 3 million person corporation. You're going to be the CEO. We're the board of directors. And they try to do this. Like I said, Uno reverse where it's like, the but board. Directors don't have to be qualified, but, Pete uh, Hegseth, we're making him bend over backwards, be qualified. It's like yet you might have a committee of people whose job it is to find the best person for a thing. They don't also have to be the best person for a thing if doesn't mean they all also would be good enough to be that job. That's just not how anything works. One more thing I want to note is that then later, uh, one of the next Republicans who, God, there are some new assholes that you all should not meet. I, there's, there's new faces in the assholery of Republicans that I was very displeased. They're all, don't worry. It's all the same generic white guy, the generic white Jesus guy. Boy, Boy, there is there's Joni Ernst and there's also Deb Fischer, I suppose. Everyone else, generic white guy, Republican old

0:33:31 Thomas: Dude.

0:33:31 Lydia: And side note really disappointed I mean johnny Ernst doesn't necessarily need to carry this herself or anything like that but really disappointed in like how um of pathetic her yeah

0:33:39 Thomas: She just folded. And go on this little tirade about how like you're qualified. He agreed to put his life on the line. And what they describe is just literally any of the members of the armed services. Like so talk about how he's actually qualified because of all this, you know, patriotism and army things or whatever. And it's like, OK, so you saying literally all of the three million people are qualified to be secretary of defense who have served and forget that who have ever served. There's probably a lot more. So that's like a significant proportion of the entire country is qualified enough to run this massive thing. It's just silly.

0:34:12 Lydia: Trump just has to know their name and then call them to service yeah yeah uh also side note another another little conservative point Schmidt um out of Missouri has some posters some visual aids for when he's going off about DEI.

0:34:13 Thomas: Just absolutely silly.

0:34:25 Lydia: And he uses a poster complaining about DEA in the military and military is misspelled. And it's in the biggest font says military. And yeah, Tim Kaine tweeted about it. I saw it too. But yeah, Tom Kane tweeted about it and he was like, Oh, wow, that's embarrassing.

0:34:24 Thomas: No my god no oh my god what

0:34:44 Lydia: Duckworth also echoes um uh comment there about you don't want us to lower the standards for service members but you want usto lower the standard for you in order to appoint you to this position um yeah great great great mark um kelly does a great job too and I do want to highlight him um out of arizona of course and man okay we won't play this whole thing but um 401 hours one minute 46 seconds if you want to get to there he um kind of sets up this approach where um asks a series of questions and asks uh to respond true or false uh

0:34:54 Thomas: Fantastic.

0:35:15 Clip: I'm going to give you an opportunity here to be as forthright as you say you want to be.

0:35:21 Clip: So while leading Concerned Veterans of America, there were very specific cases cited by individuals about your conduct. I'm gonna go through a few of them. And I just want you to tell me if these are true or false. Very simple. On Memorial Day 2014, at a CDA event in Virginia, you needed to be carried out of the event for being intoxicated. Senator, I'm not sure. True or false smears? Just true or fals? Very simple, summer of 2014 in Cleveland, drunk, in public, with the CDA team.

0:35:53 Thomas: Can't say false it's pretty notable that's

0:35:58 Clip: Anonymous smears. I'm just asking for true or false questions.

0:35:55 Lydia: Remarkable

0:36:00 Thomas: Not true or false is

0:36:02 Clip: True or false answers? An event in North Carolina, drunk in front of three young female staff members after you had instituted the no alcohol policy and then reversed it. True of false? And I'm on the smears. December of 2014 at the CVA Christmas party at the Grand Hyatt in Washington, D.C., you were noticeably intoxicated and had to be carried up to your room. Is that true or with us? Anonymous smears. Another time a CBA staffer stated that you passed out in the back of a party bus. Is that true or false? Anonymous smears in 2014 while

0:36:02 Thomas: The question such an idiot Wow I wish you would go

0:36:41 Clip: In Louisiana on official business for CBA. Did you take your staff, including young female staff members to a strip club absolutely not anonymous smears so is

0:36:41 Thomas: Go after him a little bit on that oh that one he was willing to say no about

0:36:56 Lydia: -huh and then added the anonymous at the end of it yeah oh we you you get the idea you know kelly like is you know setting these up as as questions that if they did not occur it would be very easy to say false and

0:37:08 Thomas: It's very weird that you don't just say false almost

0:37:10 Lydia: Instead he has to say anonymous smears over and over and over again.

0:37:13 Thomas: Like yeah it is almost like that is a way to avoid perjuring like yourself is

0:37:18 Lydia: And you had mentioned you know that there are some new faces on the right of this committee but there's also a brand new face on the Democrat side that I want to highlight as we close this out. Is Elissa Slotkin, senator out of Michigan and And she, I think, does a really good job something kind that Pete Hegseth tries to dismiss as a hypothetical but had actually occurred in the previous Trump administration with the previous Secretary of Defense.

0:37:45 Clip: And trump has the right to nominate his people we are going going to have, policies that we disagree with, all of that to me comes very standard. What I think I'm most concerned with is that no president has the right to use the uniform military in a way that violates the U.S. Constitution and further taints the military as that apolitical institution that we all want, right? And our founders designed the system so that, you know, we had posse he kind of taught us that we weren't going to use active duty military inside the United States and make American citizens potentially scared of their own military. We went through our own experience with that with the British. As the Secretary of Defense, you will be the one man standing in the breach should President Trump give an illegal order, right? I'm not saying he will, but if he does, you are going to be the guy that he calls to implement this order. Do you agree that there are some orders that can be given by the commander-in-chief that would violate the U .S. Constitution? Senator, thank you for your service, but I reject the premise that President Trump is going to be giving illegal orders. No, I'm not saying he will, but do you believe there is such a thing as an illegal order that Joe Biden or any other president, Donald Trump, could give? Is there anything that a commander -in -chief could ask you to do with the uniformed military that would be in violation of the U .S. Constitution? I'm saying anybody of any party could give an order that is against the Constitution or against the law. Right. Okay, so are you saying that you would stand in the breach and push back if you were given an illegal order? I start by saying I reject the premise that President Trump would be giving any illegal orders at all. This

0:39:31 Clip: Isn't a hypothetical, okay? Your predecessor in the Trump administration, Secretary Esper, was asked and did use uniformed military to clear unarmed protesters. He was given the order to potentially shoot at them. Helos flew low in Washington, D.C. as crowd control. He later apologized publicly for those actions. Was he right or wrong to apologize? Senator, I was there on the ground. I understand and I respect that. I've been there. I understand the level of threat that is involved in that moment. Was he right or wrong to apologize?

0:39:32 Thomas: People are children

0:39:33 Lydia: So good.

0:39:57 Thomas: Up answer

0:40:10 Clip: I'm not going to put words in the mouth of Secretary Esper. No, he said it himself.

0:40:10 Thomas: A question you're not just not

0:40:15 Clip: You don't have to. What are you scared of? Did he do the right thing by apologizing? I'm no scared of anything, Senator.

0:40:15 Thomas: Asking yeah

0:40:22 Clip: Then say yes or no. You can say no. I'm scared of the laws and the Constitution. Okay, so Donald Trump asked for the active duty 82nd Airborne to be deployed during that same time. Secretary Esper has written that he convinced him against that decision. If Donald Trump asks you to use the 82nd Airborne in law enforcement roles in Washington, D.C., would you also convince him otherwise? I'm not going to get ahead of conversations I would have with the president. However, there are laws and processes inside our constitution that would be foul. But President Trump said in November that he is willing to consider using the active duty military against the, quote, enemy within. Have you been personally involved in discussions of using the U.S. military active duty inside the United States? Senator, I'm glad we finally got to the topic of border security and equal national security because it's been advocated and ignored for the last four years. It wasn't my question.

0:40:22 Thomas: Really I'm not what yeah he's not in charge of border security

0:41:18 Lydia: That's not the question. Enemy within is now the southern border. I know. I know. It's right.

0:41:25 Thomas: My god yeah well done I did appreciate that

0:41:28 Lydia: She goes on to talk about, you know, the folks in the military are not law enforcement officers. And we've we've seen that when they've tried to hold that role you Know, like that they are not trained to handle situations like that. And, you what she's talking about. She was an analyst with the CIA Department of Defense official. Her questioning that she was an CIA analyst abroad and served three tours there. There yeah yeah um interesting person um brand new to the senate came over from the house of representatives um I think that she's going to be um in the space it's like really nice to see that energy um yeah I I don't know I overall I think that the democrats did a really solid job um then in comparison in is the last uh member of the armed services committee to question pete hegseth this is senator Sheehy out of um of Montana and uh if you go to 425 um you can hear why I wrote jfc in my notes right when he starts questioning Pete Hegseth.

0:42:29 Clip: Pete, I'm actually going to ask you questions because I want to hear your answer. How many genders are there? Tough one. Senator, there are two genders. I know that well. I'm a Sheehy, so I'm on board.

0:42:35 Thomas: Christ so

0:42:43 Lydia: Unbelievable.

0:42:44 Thomas: Oh my god oh sounds like he's coming out congrats they they are coming I don't know what pronouns to use but congrats I

0:42:52 Lydia: Like why in the world is that part of the conversation for the confirmation hearing? It's just it's unserious and one line

0:42:58 Thomas: Feel like this asshole probably got elected entirely because of that one line and his yeah It's like it's this, you know, younger senators, bottom of the list in terms of the seniority. Senator from Montana. That's how he did it. That's genius. Amazing. The best and brightest over there, everybody.

0:43:11 Lydia: Yep he's new. Mm hmm. Yep. Yeah Yeah, yeah,

0:43:18 Thomas: God, so unserious. Talked about how fundamentally impossible the situation is. And but I think that Democrats passed with flying colors in this particular instance. And I'm I'm interested in that question going forward. I'm interesting in keeping an eye on that because that is a serious moment and we need to meet the moment as best we can. There isn't a whole lot we can do, but it's about, for one, just standing up for what's right, you know, like not allowing a completely unqualified buffoon who's publicly drunk and sexually harassed and allegedly even assaulted, I think, people, not letting that go, at least unquestioned. And, my going forward, my tip would be for all the senators listening, can you all find a good response for when some asshole like this doesn't answer a question? There've been some, but I think just find this is the age we live in now, find a very good response to that, and uh, attack them where, where it hurts. So like I you know, when it comes to this off the top of my head, when we're talking about someone being the secretary of defense, would just do the whole, I'm sorry, you can't even answer the question. You can't answer the questions. So you, we expect you to take on all of our, the, the world's villains, biggest you know, the foes of the United States of America. You Can't Answer a Simple Question by a Senator. You Didn't Answer the Question. You know, just, just never let them go on that. Come up with something better. You're the Senator. I'm not, but like something, have that ready because that's going to happen every every single time.

0:44:44 Thomas: Yeah.

0:44:43 Lydia: Their tactic, yeah?

0:44:44 Thomas: And so like, be ready for that. Have something very good. Don't try to do some canned response that sounds fake, but something that like points point it out. Don't let them get away with it. Point it out and relate it back to a weakness of theirs in some way to provide a good soundbite for an attack. Every single one of them should be doing that.

0:45:02 Lydia: We have some other big hearings that are coming up tomorrow even. Homeland Security, so Kristi Noem, she'll have her hearing tomorrow. Also, Pam Bondi, the AG her hearing starts tomorrow. It's going to be two days.

0:45:10 Thomas: It's too much. My God. There's too too much. How are we going to do all this?

0:45:16 Lydia: Know, I know. CIA director, transportation, yeah we have a lot of stuff going on. Um is going to be I think rubio's tomorrow also um it's a lot yep

0:45:26 Thomas: Well, all right. Well, thanks for watching those doozies and got a lot of watching to do coming up this week. But I will say that for the most part, for this hearing, I'm very happy with the Democrats and they did, I think, a good job and they didn't do what they could. So well done and well done, Lydia. Thank you so much for joining us. And we will see you later for some patron shout outs that we aren't going to forget get this time uh but for now we've got to take a break and get to Thomas takes the bar exam with Heather Veronini uh Today's episode is brought to you by Quince. Folks, the new year gives you a chance to turn the page a little bit, and I'm telling you, you may want to turn the page on some of your wardrobe. I'm calling me out, and if anyone else feels called out, I can do about that. I blinked my my eyes and like a decade went by and I have too many clothes that are from a decade ago or more let's be real it's more than that but I'm is a massive help in refreshing my look a little bit modernizing it up to date into this you know millennium first off I Still think everyone needs Quince's Mongolian cashmere sweaters for $60 and speaking of New Year's resolutions there's no better workout motivation than some new activewear. Performance tees and tech shorts are perfect for any movement. If your New Years resolution has anything to do with saving money let me tell you, Quince is perfect for that because all Quince pieces are priced 50 to 80 % less than similar brands. They do that because they partner directly with top factories, cutting out the cost of the middleman and passing the savings onto me and you. Quince only works with factories that use safe, ethical, and responsible manufacturing practices. Mentioned before that I got some new towels from Quince. I am enjoying those towels. Much towel per towel. My TPT ratio has gone up astronomically. I also have bought some of their workout gear, and I love it. It's fantastic. It got some shorts I love wearing. In California, those are good for me, 11 and a half months out of the year. Love Quince, I think you will too. Upgrade your closet this year without the upgraded price tag. Go to quince .com slash OA OA for 365 day returns, plus free shipping on your order. That's Q Q -U -I -N -C -E dot com slash OA to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince .com slash OA.

0:45:48 Lydia: Yep we are not yeah

0:47:40 Clip: I just know, that you are gonna kick that bar's butt, out of here, you know, No.

0:47:46 Thomas: How's it going this week?

0:47:47 Heather: It's pretty good. I haven't been harassed by any wild animals on my trips outside the house. How are you?

0:47:53 Thomas: The ones I released have not gotten to you then yet. Okay, I'll radio in. Hey, she's, I have a series of wildlife that's on the rails around your house. No, I'm doing well. Interested in this question I think there's a chance that it was super tricky but I don't know we'll find out I have a three question streak on the line so let's off remind us about question 54 what was it and

0:48:15 Heather: Our friend, our local veterinarian, Vinny, he rescued a skunk while he was hiking. Brought the skunt back to his animal sanctuary at home. Helped nurse the skunk back to health, and then he released it back into the wild once the skunkt was fully recovered. About a week later, the skunk bit a child who was playing in front of Vinny's house, and the parents then want to sue Vinny for strict liability for the skonk bite. So we're trying to figure out whether Vinny is liable for the sconk bit of the child.

0:48:44 Thomas: So is Vinny strictly liable for the skunk bite? It was A, yes, because Vinny released the skulk on the hiking trail. So that's like, that was my second chance answer. Cause you know, strictly libel. You did the thing possibly. B, yes. Because Vinny nursed the skunks back to health. C, no, because of that one, we're on our no answers. C no, because Vinnie did not possess the skunks when it bit the child or D no, because Vinney never purchased the skunken as a pet. Those are our answers. Chose C C with second chance, A. there we have it.

0:49:12 Heather: You correctly identified this as a torts question. Part of how we know this is a tors question is because we have two folks basically in civil liability. We have kids' parents trying to sue a veterinarian, Vinny, right, for strict liability. So it places perfectly within that torts category. And we also know right away what that subcategory is. That, again, is strict liability because the call to question tells us that. So that helps us to narrow down right away, make our job a little bit easier. You were saying, you're talking a littlebit about strict liability, there's a couple of subtopics that come up in torts on the multiple choice questions. And one of them are abnormally dangerous activities, strict products liability, and strict liability as it relates to animals.

0:49:50 Thomas: Skunk rearing, abnormally dangerous.

0:49:52 Heather: That's right. It's like skunk earrings right in there. Yeah, and no surprise, this is about animals. And we typically have questions around wild animals and domesticated animals. You can see, skunk, animal, right? Of us don't keep them as pets. Thing that tends to come up on the bar is that domesticated animals tends to be things like fish, like little goldfish, like cats and dogs. And then anything outside of that tends to fall within the wild animals category. So it's when we're looking at this, a lot of times what we're Looking at is the person who possesses the animal tends to be strictly liable for the harm that's done by that animal.

0:50:17 Thomas: My kids. Well, I like the sound of that.

0:50:31 Heather: Exactly. When they're in possession and then the animal causes harm, they're liable. And it doesn't matter what your intent is. It doesn't matter if you intended for the animal to cause harm. It doesn't mind if it happens.

0:50:40 Thomas: If you're like, hey, skunky, go give that kid a kiss.

0:50:45 Thomas: I didn't mean for it to bite it.

0:50:48 Heather: Whoops. Yeah. Right. And if it's just an accident, it doesn' matter either. Right? And that's exactly what strict liability is. Right, that the circumstances and the law together give rise to our liability. Right and that's how we end up here.

0:50:59 Thomas: Very strict.

0:51:00 Heather: Is face. And so to choice B, we can start here. It says, yes, because Vinny nursed the skunk back to health. So that's a factual statement that Vinny did nurse the skunk back to house. So we know that that's true. Will that be the basis for him being on the hook for the kid's skunk? And you correctly said, no, it won't be. That he helps the animal mole alone isn't enough, right?

0:51:22 Thomas: Would hope not.

0:51:23 Heather: I mean, could you imagine?

0:51:24 Thomas: Be in a skunkless world.

0:51:26 Heather: We would be in a skunk as well. That would be terrible. Exactly. Because a lot of times what happens is also at this point, the skunk hasn't caused any harm. Only after it was released back into the wild and it was out of Vinny's possession that the skunch ends up causing harm, right. So at this this point, we know we can get rid of B. So B is an incorrect answer. We'll get rid of it.

0:51:27 Thomas: Wait a minute. All right.

0:51:49 Heather: We'll go to A. Yes, because Vinny released the skunk onto the hiking trail. Again, it's true. Vinny did release the skulk back onto the biking trail. It's true, it happened. Will that be the basis again for his liability?

0:51:59 Thomas: I like who you're doing. You're like the defense attorney. It's true. Yeah. My client did release the skunk fact in the hiking trail. No one's disputing that. It is true. It happened. Guess what? Skunks happen sometimes. Ladies and gentlemen, my client. Sorry. Go ahead.

0:52:08 Heather: But my client, the skank, Sammy the skonk, no. is that going to be enough to get our friend Vinny, this really sweet, kind veterinarian? Is that enough to get him in trouble for the kid's skunk bite? The answer here is no, right? Because he puts them back on the hiking trail isn't enough. I think you also raised a really good question about at the liability stop after that, right, and

0:52:38 Thomas: Does the stench of strict liability will come off the skank?

0:52:44 Heather: That's a good question, right. We know here that as soon as it leaves his possession, right? That's when, right, because here he's, is the time when he releases the skunk back onto the hiking trail, that's when the skunk is out of his possession. Right? The skunk hasn't caused any harm while he was been, while the skonk was in Vinny's possession. We can get rid of A and B. So you are right to say we're going to head right into the nose, right? A and b are out because they put Vinny on the hook. And so we know right now Vinny is is not on the hook, he will not be strictly liable. Is it because that he did not possess the skunk? Or is it Because he didn't purchase the skank?

0:53:16 Thomas: That's the question.

0:53:17 Heather: D, no, because when he never purchased the skink, and you hit the nail on the head here, it doesn't matter, right, whether or not he purchased the skull, right? Because then all of a sudden, to your point, it's like, Oh, well, what if it was a gift? What if he rescued it? Right. So the answer here is that can get rid of D, because it's a wrong answer choice, right. The defendant to be strictly liable in a wild animal scenario, there has to be a wild animal, no surprise. It must cause harm. Then the defendant must be in possession at the time that it causes harm. Nowhere in there is it like, oh, I want to see your gift receipt. I want to see you purchase.

0:53:48 Thomas: Yeah my skunks rs receipt yeah that's

0:53:52 Heather: Exactly. Because that would get us in a lot of trouble. We'd be in this a situation where certain types of acquiring animals, better, worse than other, all that kind of stuff. Yeah, exactly. So this was C, no, because Vinny did not possess the skunk when he bit the child.

0:54:03 Thomas: Silly hey oh ding ding ding correct answer

0:54:12 Heather: Yes. You're on a hot four question win streak.

0:54:16 Thomas: That's been a while since I've been on one of those yeah

0:54:20 Heather: Well, you did a great job. And there was no kind of surprise in this question. Did a great job sticking to your reasoning and going with... See, even though the possession was a little... I know you were talking a little bit about how the possession. It's a little strange.

0:54:33 Thomas: But the wild animal thing makes sense so I imagine that if I getting you right it's it's might have been different wording if we're talking about the pet cat or the pet fish but like because it's a wild animal it's I guess the possession word is like, yeah, if you have it for a time. It's not assuming you're like the dad of that animal, the owner.

0:54:55 Heather: Yeah. And I'll just make a quick note here. A lot of times questions around wild animals might look a little different. I've seen a lot of factual scenarios where it'll be a lion, right? Then maybe the person who has it it um knit it sweaters uh it'll take really good care of it it'll be like don't worry it's like so sweet and cuddly um it's fine it's totally fine it'S BEEN quote -unquote domesticated but then of course something happens maybe the lion gets out or somebody comes to the house and then the lion bites it

0:55:22 Thomas: It remembers it's a lion for two seconds, which is always a risk you run. I don't know why anyone would do something to have those big animals. Like one lion Vietnam flashback and then you're dead.

0:55:36 Heather: Then it's all over yeah and then those questions are like you know is the defendant liable is it are they still strictly liable because they try to of set up this scenario so that it it tends to look like it's been domesticated but doesn't it matter there's no scenario like in the in world where a wild animal somehow magically transfers over into domesticated land that's not a thing that happens but it's an easy way that they try to trick examinees is like don't worry I like knitted sweaters and it's like got fluffy ears it's not like that it's just like it doesn' t matter it's still a lion or it's still a bear or whatever um and it can never like transfer from like wild animal to like Like, cute puppy. That's just not a thing that happens.

0:56:08 Thomas: Right. Well, I got this one right. I'm so excited. We'd better find out who on the internet also got this one right and is our big winner got uh much participation especially on patreon man we got a ton of participation can't wait to shout out the patreon winners uh let's go in order heather do you have a winner on reddit .com slash r slash open args for us

0:56:30 Heather: And I want to take the time first to shout out Take the Bisc, who I haven't seen some participation yet. Also, I love soup. Who said, as far as I'm aware, an individual must have ownership and or possession of an animal to be strictly liable for a bite. So I'm going with C. Yes. Great job. That's it. I wanted to make a quick mention of It's Sandwich Time, who did a great job as well, who said Heather wants us to first identify the relevant area of loss. So skunk law. Yes. How'd you know? Going with C. Owners or keepers of wildlife are strictly liable for any damage caused by the animal. But I think that at the time of the bite, Vinny the vet was no longer the keeper of Scarlet the skunk since Vinny had released Scarlet back into her natural habitat. Also correct. In this case, I blame the kid. Kid, if you go around picking up wildlife, you deserve what you get. Citation, USC, law of the jungle. The kid actually got off easy. He could have also been sprayed and got rabies.

0:56:46 Thomas: Sounds like exactly it honestly I'd almost rather be bit than sprayed I'd be like all right bite me I mean you got to check for the rabies thing so that's that's rabies is no I had no idea that was actually the most horrifying thing in the world uh uh I think I'd rather take the bite that's a great answer um so congratulations you do you can have the bisque take the bisque you win one bisque uh also uh at sandwich time a perennial heather favorite we had so much participation on blue sky yay it's a part partially because I figured out to do it right this time crazy how that works when I do it correctly then people can play so so many good ones and this is of course on openargs .bsky .social of good answers, so many people got this one right, almost no one got it wrong, which makes me feel worse about my victory, which is fine, but Derek, Derek, D -E -R -E K dot B sky dot social says, I'm with Thomas, it's C, liability for the acts of wild animals or vets that help them seems crazy, even though I would have preferred E, as we all need more skunk training montages in our lives. Fantastic. But Patreon was really where everyone went to play this time, which I love. Thank you so much, patreon .com slash law. It hard to choose. Heather heard me sitting here for like 10 minutes in silence being like, I don't know how to choose. There's so many good ones. There are so many great ones. I'm so excited to be here. Good comments. Really appreciate it. Keep it coming. We read them all and enjoy it. Have have to shout out though, especially because of their name. Winner on patreon .com slash law is Dr. Butterscotch per HD.

0:58:58 Thomas: Dr .Butterscott's per HD, instead I of PhD. T3B, in the UK, a cat owner can't be held responsible for their cat's actions as cats are free spirits. Assuming that's an application of common law rather than something statutory, skunks would likewise be be free, but smelly spirits. Therefore, I'm going with C. A little bit of a different answer than we had, but I just love Dr. Butterscotch per HD giving the cat related answer. Like it's perfect. It's too on theme to not be the winner. So congrats to Dr. Butter Scotch per HD. Right. Well, let's see if I can keep the good times going. I'm on an impossible streak. After for this break. I'll get question 55. show is brought to you by Rocket Money. Folks, I've told you time and time again, and it's still true. I love Rocket Money, I used it before they were a sponsor, and I'll tell you why. It is so easy these days to subscribe to things and forget about it. Everything is a subscription. Every single thing now. That's the new age we live in. We if subscriptions have, you know, gotten out of hand for you, as they have for me, you need to try Rocket Money. Is a a personal finance app that helps find and cancel your unwanted subscriptions, monitors your spending, and helps lower your bills so you can grow your savings. Know a lot of you in the new year will want to be saving money. That's a resolution that I certainly have. Rocket Money is a great way to do that. Think about it. If you don't keep track of this, if you let, you two, three, four subscriptions that you're not using get out of hand, think adds up month to month. Because if you're anything like me, the months just fly by like minutes. It's crazy. You don't want to lose track of that. It's not just about subscriptions. Money's dashboard also gives you a clear view of your across all your accounts. Help you create a budget with custom categories. You can get alerts if your bills increase in price or if there's unusual spending activity. Has so many amazing features. Rocket Money has over 5 million users and has saved a total of 500 million in canceled subscriptions, saving members up to $740 a year when using all of the app's premium features. Your unwanted subscriptions and reach your financial goals faster with Rocket Money. Go to rocketmoney .com slash opening today. Rocketmony .com slash opening. Rocketmany .com slash opening

1:01:11 Thomas: Okay, Heather, hit us with question 55?

1:01:14 Heather: Paula sued developer David in federal court in California under diversity jurisdiction to void a contract due to mistake.

1:01:23 Thomas: Can the question hear me just go, ah, like right away? When you're sitting for the bar, do a lot of people go, no, not that.

1:01:33 Heather: Now, usually you just hear a lot of throwing up, crying, and or using the restroom.

1:01:38 Thomas: Well, I've only done a couple of those things so far.

1:01:42 Heather: The agreement was for David to create an app that would revolutionize grading by making it faster and easier for Paula.

1:01:51 Heather: David agreed to build the groundbreaking grading app in one year for $150 ,000. Few months into the project, David realized it would take two years and $300 ,000 to create the program for Paula, which was more money than her teacher's salary could afford. In the complaint, Paula alleged that David's promise to finish the app for a specific dollar amount, quote, induced plaintiff to mistakenly enter into the contract with the defendant for him to build a grading app, end quote, and is suing to cancel the contract. Has timely moved for a more definite statement of the claim. The federal district court grant David's motion for a More Definite Statement? Yes, because the circumstances constituting mistake must be pled with particularity. Yes because a complaint must show that there is a possibility that the plaintiff is entitled to relief.

1:02:39 Heather: C, no, because it is not a complaint. A, no because the complaint provides the defendant with notice of the claim. D, no. Because the complaint contains a short and plain statement of the claim.

1:02:46 Thomas: So this is interesting. So I think it wanted us to think contract law, but I think this this might be like civil procedure because it seems like it's about how this complaint was filed. So I think I'm going to go with federal civil procedure for this one. I think that's actually what we're doing here. So, I that's my answer in terms of the category that we're in. Is weird. So we got a lot of information that I'm not sure matters that much. They love to try to slow you down um david says we're gonna we're gonna change the game we're going to we're disruptors in the grading space and we're to make an app that yeah and then he totally misrepresented it so he says oh actually two years and 300 000 um create the program okay uh the complaint paula alleged that david's promise to finish the app for a specific dollar amount quote induced plaintiff to mistakenly enter into the contract with defendant for him to build a grading app. Okay. Mistakenly. And is suing to cancel the contract. David is timely moved for a more definite statement of the claim. Is she not suing for the right thing? Is that, well, this is tricky. Okay, for a non -lawyer, because this feels pretty technical. We're going to have to gather what's going on by the context clues and the answers, because I don't know. I mean, Induced plaintiff to mistakenly enter. So it feels like, yeah, okay. Maybe the problem is it needs to be like, are you saying I fraud? Are you saying like, does she need to be more specific about that? That's the issue. What are the rules here? Okay. Should the federal district court grant David's motion for a more definite statement? Definite statement of the claim. So it's like, you it's not specific enough. It doesn't okay plenty of mistake okay a yes because the circumstances constituting mistake must be pled with particularity oh is mistake a thing like a the constituding mistake must be pled with particular But mistake can't be, that can't be it. Because one hand, I could see it being like yeah, she needs to be more specific. So she didn't, there's not enough particularity. But on the other hand, the inducement is the thing. Like if we're trying to figure out what the claim is, it would be that David induced her into mistakenly entering into something, it which doesn't seem like mistake would be the thing you'd call that. Like you've committed mistake or you're, you've, I crazy? Yes, because the circumstances constituting mistake must be pled. I don't know what that is. Like, I don'T, I DON'T know if mistake is a tort or something. Seems like what the answer, am I losing my mind? I think no on A. I DONT, I DON't think that could be right. B, yes, because a complaint must show that there is a possibility that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Don't know what that means either. So if it's a more, if we need a more definite statement of the claim what David is trying to do. The federal district is going to grant it B, yes, because a complaint must show that there's a possibility that the Plaintiff is Entitled to Relief. Says she's suing to cancel the contract. Isn't the relief canceling the contract? Man, I don' t understand that. Answer either. This is a tough one. Either those are nonsense or I am not getting something. C,

1:06:03 Thomas: Notice of the claim. Okay. That's like the no nonsense, like this is enough. Claim is he induced plaintiff to mistakenly enter into the contract. D, no because the complainant contains a short and and plain statement of the claim? Well, think of the no answers, I think I'd go with D, because if the question is asking for a more definite statement of a claim, C is like, well, no, because you've gotten notice. Notice, I could see that being it, but D is more about that definiteness, where that definition or whatever. D. No, because the complaint contains a short and plain statement of the claim. That makes more sense to me as like, no, because you basically know what she's saying. It's short and plane, but she's Saying you induced me to mistakenly enter the contract. Contract. That A and B, I just, I can't make sense of, and of the C and D, I like D better. I'm probably going with D, but I better just try one more time to make sure I'm not missing something. Is the kind of stuff that I usually get stuck on that ends up not being the way that I need to look at the the answer, but we only have one quote from the complaint. We have the circumstances based on the question. And if all those are in the complaint, that seems like particularity to me. It's yet another reason that I don't like A. So plenty of reason not to like it. I think I'm eliminating A for yes, because a complaint must show that there's a possibility that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. You got to cite the legal standard and And be like, I don't know what that means. The entitled to show glad I always do this double check because while I do make an effort to only focus on what I think usually matters in this instance, I totally blew it by missing the very first sentence of the question, because she, it does say professor Paula sued developer David in federal court in California under diversity jurisdiction to void a contract due to mistake. I missed that. I don't know why. My brain just did not treat that as information. I think I've tried to filter it out. That changes how I'm going to look at this due I don'T know what it takes to, win on this. I don' t know. Void a contract due to mistake. Imagine just going based on what it would sound like, seem like not something anyone did to you. It'd be more like whoopsie daisy, I think. This is like void due to whoopsies daisies, which doesn't really match what this is. I mean, this feels more like, hey, deceptive you in getting me to sign this contract. Contract it's saying that the promise to finish the app for a specific dollar amount induced plaintiff to mistakenly enter into the contract. So does feel kind of wrong. Know. I It feels like she should be suing for something different, going back to the David has timely move for a more definite statement of the claim. It makes a more plausible, obviously, because if she's specifically suing to void the contract due to mistake, then yes, because the circumstances constituting mistake must be pled with particularity is more plausible. But I feel like she's plenty particular here. It says that she alleged that his promise to finish it for a specific dollar amount induced plaintiff to mistakenly enter into the contract. So I don't know, it feels like there's least at that particularity unless it's saying no it needs to be that you like read the wrong thing or sign the wrong paper that is mistake some paperworky thing like or just some misunderstanding thing but I still don't really like a and I don't really like b because I don' t know that the relief part like voiding the contract I think is relief but so that seems weird to me um right I think I'm between and D. I think that it's possible that, that which is, you because the circumstances constituting mistake must be pled with particular It's possible that's true. While I feel like she did, I feel Like there's plenty of particularity here. I don't, but maybe there's something weird about that particular way of getting out of something where it's gotta be like more specific in a way that I don't know. Cause I'm not a lawyer. So I'll leave A as plausible. I think I'm just going to go with D, no, because the complaint contains a short and plain statement of the claim. Like, If this is a procedure question, which it seems like it is, unless it's about, hey, give me a more move for a definite statement of a claim, feels to me like David has enough. If David were sued for this, I feel like he's got enough to work with. It just seems like there's enough here, like be able to respond. So I, I, a weird one. It's nothing I've ever dealt with before, but I'm going to go between A and D and I'll go D final answer. Get And if you'd like to play along, you know how to do it. Go to reddit .com slash r slash hoban args. That's a great place to play, interact with others, keep track of not only your score, but even my score, I think is on there I don't know uh it's really cool how they do that there on the subreddit go to blue sky follow open args follow heather veronini just for fun and quote skeet quote skeeted find the place where I put the question because I definitely will do it every time correctly now forever and quote skate that with your answer but best of all go to patreon .com slash law that's where everybody was playing this week and uh that's how you play along so So I am going to be on pins and needles for a week wondering what in the world this question is. I think my streak might be coming to an end. We'll see. Or did I luck out on this one? We'll find out next time with Heather. Thanks, Heather.

1:11:17 Heather: I'm looking forward to it too.

1:11:21 Clip: Thank you for being, say we started from the bottom, now we're here, girl.

1:11:31 Thomas: Now it's time to thank our patrons at patreon .com slash law thank you so much for supporting the show you make it happen truly we couldn't watch Watch doozies like this without your support. And I to say, hun, since we forgot, and because I think a lot of people have joined up for the Lot Awful Movies, we've got a lot of new patrons to read. Yay. So why don't you start us off?

1:11:51 Lydia: Meeks tracy hearts warts flickalus cage cassandra adams justin siegel mike machicoro ted ross hopefully future law student frankie oh cool nice helen mckinley wild witch olivia moses and will vogel

1:12:11 Thomas: Thank you to Ryan Deschamps. Oh, man. How do you pronounce that? Deschamp? Deshamps. I know there's some like French pronunciation of that, I think. It's probably Deschants. I don't know. Knowles, Hedgeberg, Chelsea Schutz, Chonkat, Alex Beasley, Sam Runner, The Void Demands Knowledge, and Kelsey Jorgensen and Prof KFH. Thank you so much, new patrons. You're the best. And now it's time for the Hall of Famers, the best of the best of the Best, sir, with honors. The all -time greats that pledge at that $5 level and above, they get a shout out each and every week as asterisk when we don't accidentally forget to do it why don't you start us off and do the honors thanking our hall of fame patrons oh

1:12:56 Lydia: Democracy cannot survive unregulated capitalism james h emotional lemonade what chandner mitch mitchel that's mitchella

1:13:05 Thomas: Michelle chandler I don't know without the vowel they've lost their vowels someone get their them their vowels back I

1:13:07 Lydia: Chandlar a vehicular man's laughter slipping on icy roads but as dad's listeners know you just steer into the slide and grip into it between skunks childless cat ladies local 47 chapter is she talking about me I identify as a woman not a female not until after the vaginoplasty of adventure still rooting for the hamburgers to deliver more timely justice than the current system unfrozen caveman lawyer nick fish the world's most reluctant ray of sunshine cavalry a negative phenomenon quick update ovechkin is 21 away from the record updates

1:13:20 Thomas: Think

1:13:52 Lydia: That accurate all

1:13:52 Thomas: That's right I can't I haven't I don't remember the number but yeah he scored another empty netter the other day yeah it's It's crazy.

1:13:58 Lydia: Right you gotta fight for your right to ex parte jay sink putting it all on red at the Pigeon Casino. Test E's interpreter. Oh, great. Now I have to go back to changing my name every month. Et, or E -T. We're still not sure. Thomas Freeman and Cajun Killa.

1:14:16 Thomas: And thank you to Fraud Fishy Hates Everything. Chris Simpson. Love the extra episodes. Check out the Queer and Cryptography Conference at cryptography.lgbt. Liberal Zone Guns 2. Support root cause mitigation, not ineffective gun control. Gun control works. See Australia. Nice. I give up on funny names. I'm just Leo G for now. This isn't a Patreon name and I'm not reading anything right now. I just personally think Legal Eagle is so handsome. Mark Schultz. The Cincinnati Kid. Bob Blah Blah's Law Podcast.

1:14:50 Thomas: Ugh, I'm still writing Project 2024 on my blueprints for autocracy.

1:14:58 Thomas: I think that's the winner this week. Month, The 501st and Rebel Legion want you, cosplayers doing good. A string of unpronounceable characters. Milo Meadsong is on to the post-conviction process. Now this cert petition was denied. Eyed, Malaika Chandler, Xakir The Dragon, the Precious Variant, Big Easy Blasphemy, RhondaTheDork.com, FRED R GROOTHUIS, Chris Waltrip, and major news, breaking news, Classic Libtard, number two, and the top patron is now Mitchell. Major news there. Is truly the passing Wayne Gretzky on the all -time goals. I mean, mean, that really is it right there. You know, Mitchell did it. So well

1:15:00 Lydia: Amazing. Yeah.

1:15:38 Thomas: Done. Thank you so much patrons. Thank you so much, Lydia. Thank You so much Heather, of course. And thank you listeners. We'll see you on Friday for a rapid response. I know there's going to be plenty to talk about.

1:15:48 Clip: This podcast is a production of Opening Arguments Media, LLC, All Rights Reserved. It is produced and edited by Thomas Smith, who also provided the fabulous intro and outro music used with permission.