Watch: CIA Director Erupts on Dem Rep. Over 'Offensive Line of Questioning' About Pete Hegseth
Most people are familiar with the "two greatest lies ever told."
(That the devil doesn’t exist and that he’s actually a good guy.)
For a worthy contender as the third greatest lie, this writer puts forth Michelle Obama’s famous claim that Democrats "go high" when their opponents "go low."
Again and again, the Democratic Party has demonstrated that there’s no limit to how low they will go in pursuit of their radical and widely unpopular agenda.
The latest example of this played out on Wednesday when CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, FBI Director Kash Patel, and other top officials provided testimony on national security concerns before the House Intelligence Committee.
While such a hearing should have been a serious, fact-based discussion, a Democrat still managed to introduce a "conspiratorial character attack"—or an "offensive line of questioning," if you prefer—to the proceedings.
Democratic Representative Jimmy Gomez of California (of course, it’s California) took the opportunity to veer into the controversy surrounding the Signal messaging app, where a journalist had been added to a private text chain about military operations in Yemen. Notable figures in that conversation included national security advisor Mike Waltz, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and Vice President J.D. Vance.
Gomez took this as a chance to accuse the Trump administration of embodying "the swamp" before launching into an unhinged tirade against Hegseth, fueled by little more than speculation and baseless gossip.
In classic Democratic fashion, it became a "feelings-over-facts" moment for Gomez.
“Additionally, the main person who was involved with this thread, that a lot of people want to talk to is Secretary of Defense Hegseth,” Gomez stated. Had he stopped there, perhaps his remarks would have retained some legitimacy.
While the Signal controversy wasn’t a great look for those involved and does warrant questions, Gomez couldn't resist going further.
“And a lot of questions were brought up regarding his, uh, drinking habits in his confirmation hearing,” Gomez added. “To your knowledge, do you know whether Pete Hegseth had been drinking before he leaked classified information?”
Seriously? Even The Atlantic, known for its far-left leanings, didn’t make that claim when it published the full conversation, including Hegseth’s messages.
Gabbard responded tactfully: “I don’t have any knowledge of Secretary Hegseth’s personal habits.”
Ratcliffe, however, was not as restrained when pressed by Gomez for the same answer.
“Yes or no?” Gomez pushed.
“You know, no,” Ratcliffe shot back. “I’m going to answer that. I think that’s an offensive line of questioning.
“The answer is ‘no.'”
From there, Ratcliffe and Gomez clashed in a heated exchange, accusing each other of stepping out of line. Ratcliffe even threw in a pointed rhetorical jab: “You asked me a question. You want an answer?”
The full hearing is available to watch, with the key moment occurring around the 1-hour-and-50-minute mark.
To be clear, no one involved in the Signal matter is above scrutiny. On the contrary, public servants should be held to an even higher standard.
But what Gomez did wasn’t scrutiny—it was an unfounded personal attack. And, yes, it was indeed "offensive," especially to this writer, who has encountered more than enough alcohol-related struggles in his life. This is simply a matter of right and wrong.
Once upon a time, even Democrats seemed to understand the difference. Unfortunately, those days are long gone.