A Senate seat will open up in Michigan at the end of 2026 as Democratic Sen. <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/gary-peters" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gary Peters</a>, who has served in the upper chamber of Congress since 2015, said on Tuesday that he won&#8217;t seek re-election.
Peters told <a href="https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2025/01/28/michigan-democratic-senator-gary-peters-will-not-run-for-reelection-to-us-senate-seat-2026/77985876007/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Detroit News</a> that he&#8217;s always viewed his time in Congress as a short-term job with the goal of returning &#8220;to private life.&#8221; The 66-year-old senator also served in the House of Representatives from 2009 to 2015.
“I always thought there would be a time that I would step aside and pass the reins for the next generation. I also never saw service in Congress as something you do your whole life,&#8221; Peters said. “And that goes back to 2008 when I first won that House seat. I thought it would be for a matter of a few terms that I would serve, and then I would go back to private life.”
He added that he&#8217;s &#8220;not retiring&#8221; — he&#8217;s &#8220;just not running for re-election in the Senate.&#8221;
&#8220;I hope, God willing, I have a lot more good years ahead,&#8221; Peters said.
Throughout his career, Peters has been <a href="https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/gary_peters/412305" target="_blank" rel="noopener">portrayed</a> as a moderate Democrat. However, he <a href="https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-congress-votes/gary-c-peters/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">voted</a> with former President Joe Biden more than most Democrats in Congress, going along with Biden&#8217;s agenda 99% of the time.
The Michigan senator will follow in the footsteps of his former Democratic colleague, Sen. Debbie Stabenow, who retired from the Senate when her term ended at the start of 2025. Stabenow, 74, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/stabenows-retirement-announcement-fuels-2024-senate-election-rumors-here-are-the-names-being-floated" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> in 2023 that she wanted to &#8220;pass the torch&#8221; to a &#8220;new generation of leaders.&#8221; She had served in the Senate since 2001.
Peters narrowly won re-election in 2020, defeating current Republican Rep. John James by less than 2%. His decision to step aside instead of running for re-election in 2026 will blow the Senate race wide open as Republicans look to cement their hold on Congress in the midterm elections. The GOP currently holds a 53-47 majority in the Senate along with its slim majority in the House.
Michigan has proven to be a tough battleground for Republicans, especially in Senate races. While President Donald Trump has won the state twice — once in 2016 and again in 2024 — no Republican has won a Senate seat in Michigan since the 1994 election. The 2024 election for Stabenow&#8217;s former seat was another victory for Democrats as Sen. Elissa Slotkin defeated Republican Mike Rogers by fewer than 20,000 votes.

Gary Peters

Michigan Dem Senator Gary Peters Won’t Run For Re-Election

Michigan Dem Senator Gary Peters Won't Run For Re-Election

Congress

Michigan

Politics

Senate

U.S. Senate

It now appears to be all but certain that Pete Hegseth will be confirmed as the next Secretary of Defense. Republican leaders in the Senate have said as much. And it&#8217;s not hard to see why that&#8217;s the case. After weeks of telling us that Hegseth is unqualified for the job, Democrats spent several hours trying — and utterly failing —  to land a single meaningful blow against his nomination.
Instead, Hegseth came across as a Christian who&#8217;s very aware of his own past personal failings, but he was also able to put those failings in context. Under the leadership of former Raytheon board member Lloyd Austin, the Pentagon carried out political purges in the military. It oversaw a catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan. It terminated thousands of soldiers who didn&#8217;t want to take the experimental COVID shot. Those are colossal failings that no one in the Pentagon has ever atoned for. Pete Hegseth is not a perfect man. Who is? But he is a saint compared to the people who ran the old regime. And after <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hegseth-kicks-ass-confirm-him-now" target="_blank" rel="noopener">yesterday&#8217;s hearing</a>, no reasonable person can deny that.
Throughout the hearing, Democrats discredited themselves, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/talking-points-assemble-democrat-women-launch-dishonest-but-coordinated-attack-in-hegseth-hearing" target="_blank" rel="noopener">one after another</a>, with botched gotcha-moments and non-sequiturs. And the optics could not have been worse, as women kept screaming at Hegseth, all while trying to make the argument that women are just as capable of serving in combat roles as men. If there was a way to weaponize nagging so that you could literally nag your enemies to death, they may have a point. These women could create a weapon of mass nagging destruction and kill thousands of enemy combatants at once, if that was possible.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mws-ep-1515-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
Before we get into that particular part of the hearing, it&#8217;s important to set the stage with some of the many blunders I&#8217;m referring to.
Here for example is Senator Gary Peters of Michigan, attempting to make the point that Hegseth has no business running the Defense Department, because he has never, &#8220;driven innovation&#8221; in any organization in his life. Here&#8217;s how that went:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="001 Peters gotcha" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wD_wP3ynsTM?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
Obviously, he asked a question he didn&#8217;t know the answer to. That&#8217;s the first mistake. He then made it clear that didn&#8217;t really care about the answer to his question, either. And total humiliation was the result.
Even aside from that, what&#8217;s extraordinary about his question is that Lloyd Austin had exactly the kind of experience that Gary Peters is talking about. Austin was in charge of the war effort in both Iraq and Afghanistan for many years. According to Democrats in Congress, that made Austin qualified to be Secretary of Defense — even though both of those wars ended in complete disaster. This is what &#8220;box-checking&#8221; looks like. These people cannot comprehend the idea of hiring someone who hasn&#8217;t made money in the defense industry, and who hasn&#8217;t overseen two failed wars. They see that as a mark against Hegseth, instead of the primary reason to confirm him.
Not to be outdone, there was Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, coming in hot with his own takedown. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="003 jagoff" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PrVVZnySgUg?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The implication is that Pete Hegseth is a terrible guy because he&#8217;s used the word &#8220;jagoff&#8221; in the past. I think that Hegseth throwing around insults like that does open him up to the charge of being a Boomer. I’m not sure it says anything more than that, however. Then, when Hegseth answers the question, Jack Reed looks stunned. One might even say he looked like a jagoff.
I do want to highlight one moment of substantive discussion, however, to the extent anything in this hearing could be described as &#8220;substantive.&#8221; Several senators took turns berating Hegseth over his stance on women in the military. In particular, Hegseth says he’s generally fine with women in combat roles, but at a minimum, he wants the fitness standards to be equal across genders. Effectively, as I&#8217;ll explain in a moment, that actually means he doesn&#8217;t want women to serve in combat roles. You aren’t going to say it as directly as that in a hearing like this, because the whole point is that you need to be confirmed. If Hegseth had just come out and said plainly that he doesn’t want any women in combat, that would have given squishy Republicans all the excuse they need to not confirm him. So instead he focused on the fitness requirements, which was strategically smart.
In response to his position on fitness requirements, various senators adopted the bizarre (and clearly false) position that the standards between men and women in the military are already the same. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="008 Pete Hegseth Response" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VzQnY2jdJqM?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Before we look at Hegseth&#8217;s response to this line of question, it&#8217;s important to point out that nothing Kirsten Gillibrand just said is true. The standards of physical fitness, across every branch of the armed forces, are much lower for women than they are for men. 
Let&#8217;s start with the fitness requirements at the Navy.
<div id="attachment_859191" style="width: 798px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-859191" class="wp-image-859191 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/01/xLUFoxE-Imgur-788x576.png" alt="Navy Physical Readiness Program. Guide 5. Physical Readiness Test (PRT). January 2023." width="788" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/01/xLUFoxE-Imgur-788x576.png 788w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/01/xLUFoxE-Imgur-300x219.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/01/xLUFoxE-Imgur-768x562.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/01/xLUFoxE-Imgur.png 971w" sizes=" (max-width: 788px) 100vw, 788px" />Navy Physical Readiness Program. Guide 5. Physical Readiness Test (PRT). January 2023.</div>
As you can see, their physical readiness test <a href="https://www.mynavyhr.navy.mil/Portals/55/Support/Culture%20Resilience/Physical/Guide_5-Physical_Readiness_Test_PRT_JAN_2023.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">consists</a> of some variation of push-ups, forearm planks, a 1.5 mile run and a 500-yard swim. So let&#8217;s take the run as an example — which by the way, the Navy refers to as a &#8220;Run/walk&#8221; section, because they expect applicants won&#8217;t be able to run the full distance.
For men aged 17 to 19, a &#8220;satisfactory&#8221; time on the 1.5 mile run is 12 minutes and 15 seconds. For women in the same age group, a &#8220;satisfactory time&#8221; is 14 minutes and 45 seconds. So they get a full 2 minutes and 30 second extra to complete this run. And by the way, you can technically get even worse times than this, and still pass — because there&#8217;s a whole &#8220;probationary&#8221; level below &#8220;satisfactory.&#8221;
For push-ups, the difference is even more stark. Men aged 17 to 19 have to hit 46 pushups for a &#8220;satisfactory&#8221; rank. Women only need to hit 20. Meanwhile, the minimum &#8220;outstanding&#8221; score for men is 86 pushups, while it&#8217;s only 47 pushups for women.
If you go to the Army&#8217;s website, you&#8217;ll find similar numbers across their <a href="https://www.army.mil/acft/">physical fitness test</a>.
<div id="attachment_859193" style="width: 650px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-859193" class="wp-image-859193 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/01/tpgAQ93-Imgur-640x576.png" alt="Courtesy U.S. Army. https://www.army.mil/acft/" width="640" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/01/tpgAQ93-Imgur-640x576.png 640w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/01/tpgAQ93-Imgur-300x270.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/01/tpgAQ93-Imgur-768x691.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/01/tpgAQ93-Imgur.png 1016w" sizes=" (max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px" />Courtesy U.S. Army. https://www.army.mil/acft/</div>
This is the &#8220;Sprint, drag, carry&#8221; test, for example. It&#8217;s a test that obviously has a lot of relevance to people who want to serve in the Army, in case they need to carry a wounded soldier — and not blame them for being wounded, as they do in the Los Angeles Fire Department. As you can see, men get max points if they finish the test in one minute, 29 seconds. Women get max points if they finish it in one minute, 55 seconds. So they get an additional 26 seconds to &#8220;sprint, drag and carry&#8221; someone.
Just to underscore the real-world consequences of this kind of gender-based testing, <a href="https://x.com/thespearing/status/1879301761082782078" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here&#8217;s a post</a> from someone named Nathan Spearing:
<blockquote>In 2005, I was 22 and had one of the top PT scores in my platoon in Ranger Battalion. One night, one of my mates was shot and completely immobilized. I worked with a small group of men to get him to the casualty evacuation point, while our platoon continued the raid. Dragging him through the streets of Iraq that night I felt like I&#8217;d never worked out in my life. I was one of the most physically fit men in an elite light infantry unit and this combat related task took me well beyond my physical capacities. Women shouldn&#8217;t do these jobs ever. They can&#8217;t without endangering the mission and the men around them.</blockquote>
The military appears to be fine with that. The Air Force, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard and even the Space Force have similar arrangements. Here for example is the Coast Guard&#8217;s breakdown of <a href="https://www.dcms.uscg.mil/Portals/10/CG-1/cg133/pdf/Boat_Crew_Fitness_Test.pdf?ver=2019-08-01-083908-503">fitness standards</a>, explicitly aligned with men on top, and women on the bottom:
<div id="attachment_859195" style="width: 767px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-859195" class="wp-image-859195 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/01/wFKTyXd-Imgur-757x576.png" alt="Courtesy: U.S. Coast Guard physical fitness standards. https://www.dcms.uscg.mil/Portals/10/CG-1/cg133/pdf/Boat_Crew_Fitness_Test.pdf?ver=2019-08-01-083908-503 " width="757" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/01/wFKTyXd-Imgur-757x576.png 757w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/01/wFKTyXd-Imgur-300x228.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/01/wFKTyXd-Imgur-768x585.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/01/wFKTyXd-Imgur.png 846w" sizes=" (max-width: 757px) 100vw, 757px" />Courtesy: U.S. Coast Guard physical fitness standards.</div>
As you can see, men need to do 29 push-ups if they&#8217;re under 30 years old. Women only need to do 15. Meanwhile, over in the <a href="https://www.marines.com/become-a-marine/requirements/physical-fitness.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Marines</a>, men need to do three pull-ups or 34 push-ups in 2 minutes, while women only have to do 1 pull-up or 15 push-ups in the same time period.
<h3><a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?_gl=1*1lail3r*_gcl_aw*R0NMLjE3MzIyMDEyNDkuQ2owS0NRaUEwZnU1QmhEUUFSSXNBTVhVQk9JSkM0VnNsMFVreURxYXUxVWVEVWdOdjZkNzR2Y1pEeEZQeHVBcGl2R3BLaTdBMjVzT1p5TWFBdG1nRUFMd193Y0I.*_gcl_au*NDUxNDQ0NzYwLjE3MzY3ODI2NDY.*_ga*MTc2NzM0NDQ2NS4xNzI4OTA5Nzkx*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*MTczNjk1NzYwMy4zNDAuMS4xNzM2OTU3NzE2LjYwLjAuMA.." target="_blank" rel="noopener">CELEBRATE #47 WITH 47% OFF DAILYWIRE+ MEMBERSHIPS + A FREE $20 GIFT</a></h3>
I could go on, but you get the point. There is nothing &#8220;gender-neutral&#8221; about the fitness standards for any branch of the armed services. This is not up for debate. It can&#8217;t be disputed. It is simply a fact that standards are lowered for women, and that’s been the case for decades now. It’s also a fact that the standards for men have also been lowered. There has been an effort to get more women into the military, and also less fit men. These two goals are obviously related to each other. In truth, 46 pushups is not satisfactory for a grown man who wants to join the military. For the Coast Guard the number is 29, which is downright pathetic. We should expect a lot more of the people who are tasked with defending this country from its enemies.
But what Gillibrand was saying is that, at the urging of Congress, certain specialties — like the infantry — have adopted their own, independent &#8220;gender-neutral standards&#8221; on top of the basic requirements. But that hasn&#8217;t been going well, either.
As the Army Times <a href="https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2022/03/23/army-combat-fitness-test-debuts-with-major-changes-to-scoring-april-1/">reported</a> in 2022: 
<blockquote>The Army is moving forward with its long-awaited Army Combat Fitness Test this year, but the service has officially dropped the test’s attempt to set a gender- and age-neutral physical fitness standard &#8230; The leg tuck is no longer an event. &#8230; A 2.5-mile walk has been added as an alternate aerobic event for troops whose medical profiles prevent them from running. &#8230; A total of 48% of active duty enlisted women and 28% of active duty female officers could not pass the test.</blockquote>
In other words, they tried to make the test &#8220;gender-neutral,&#8221; and women kept failing it. So they responded by gutting the test, and making it a lot easier. And after all that, it&#8217;s still not &#8220;gender-neutral.&#8221;
In his answer to Kirsten Gillibrand, Pete Hegseth attempted to make these points. He also outlined his own first-hand observation of lowered standards in the military. And Kirsten Gillibrand responded by shrieking at him:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="004 Gillibrand" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KqsT2jlCVj0?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
This was the theme of the hearing: Democrats demand an answer, they get one they don&#8217;t like, so they start screaming.
The truth, obviously, is that if men and women were held to the same standard in the military, there wouldn&#8217;t be any women in the military. Pete Hegseth may not want to say that out loud at a confirmation hearing — which makes sense — but it&#8217;s the truth. Including women in the military necessitates, by definition, lowering the standard. That&#8217;s why I say we should raise the standard for everyone, make it the same for everyone, and then let the chips fall where they may. The inevitable result is that they&#8217;ll fall on an all-male fighting force, which is how it should be.
Of course, even aside from the fact that women can&#8217;t do the job as well, they shouldn&#8217;t be serving in combat regardless. A functional society does not send women out to die on the battlefield. They are not equipped for it, physically or psychologically. But our government has been denying this basic fact for years. 
A decade ago, when the defense secretary at the time opened up all combat roles to women, he said, &#8220;They’ll be allowed to drive tanks, fire mortars and lead infantry soldiers into combat.&#8221; He made that seem like it was a sign of great progress. But it’s a sign of decay, not progress. It’s also a sign that we’re going to lose the next major war we’re a part of, unless we turn back from this madness. And after yesterday&#8217;s confirmation hearing, finally, it seems like we&#8217;ll have a defense secretary who understands that.

Confirmation Hearing Held For Secretary Of Defense Nominee Pete Hegseth

Nagging Democrats Shriek At Pete Hegseth During Confirmation Hearing

Democrats

Department of Defense

Donald Trump

Kirsten Gillibrand

Opinion

Pete Hegseth

U.S. Army

U.S. Military

U.S. Navy

After Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) tried to consistently denigrate and mock Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, by suggesting in a snide voice that he lacked the experience to run the Pentagon, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker (R-MS) torched Peters with a withering reply.
Peters, who petulantly sneered at Hegseth for not meeting with him prior to the hearings, consistently harped on Hegseth’s alleged lack of experience with remarks such as, “We need strong management at the Department of Defense, first and foremost. We need someone who’s gonna grab the reins and give the taxpayers value &#8230; I know you had two previous positions. How many people reported to you in those positions? &#8230; What’s the largest number of people that you’ve ever supervised or had at an organization in your career?”
“We’re the board of directors here,” he boasted. “I don’t know of any corporate board of directors that would hire a CEO for a major company if they came and said, ‘Y’know, I supervised 100 people before.’”
“You talk about standards; I’m gonna go back to the CEO of the most complex organization in the world,” Peters taunted. “I don’t think there’s a board of directors in America that would hire you as a CEO with the kind of experience you have on your resume. &#8230; 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 (here he started smirking) never managed an organization more than a hundred people is gonna come in and manage this incredibly important organization and do it with a professionalism and has no experience that they can tell us that they have actually done?”
“You have not convinced me that you’ll be able to take on this tremendous responsibility with a complex organization and having little or no significant management experience,” he concluded.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/">JOIN THE MOVEMENT IN ’25 WITH 25% OFF DAILYWIRE+ ANNUAL MEMBERSHIPS WITH CODE DW25</a>
“Senator, I’m grateful to be hired by one of the most successful CEOs in American history, should I be confirmed,” Hegseth responded.
&#8220;Mr. Hegseth, it seems to me that you&#8217;ve supervised far more people than the average United States senator supervises,” Wicker dryly chimed in, prompting laughter throughout the room.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) criticizes Pete Hegseth for having never managed an organization of more than 100 people.<a href="https://twitter.com/SenatorWicker?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SenatorWicker</a>: &quot;Mr. Hegseth, it seems to me that you&#39;ve supervised far more people than the average United States Senator supervises.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/X9zi3xTZjv">pic.twitter.com/X9zi3xTZjv</a>
&mdash; CSPAN (@cspan) <a href="https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1879223729986682970?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 14, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

MixCollage-14-Jan-2025-02-14-PM-1431

Michigan Dem Senator Sneers At Hegseth’s Experience. GOP Senator Crushes Him, Crowd Erupts Laughing

Roger Wicker

On Wednesday at a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing led by chairman Ron Johnson (R-WI), Johnson tore into Indiana Democrat Senator Gary Peters, saying he had lied repeatedly that Johnson had spread Russian disinformation.
Before that exchange occurred, Johnson noted numerous instances where Peters and other Democrats had warned well before the 2020 election of danger to the election process. He quoted a letter on March 26, 2019, in which Democratic Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), John Warner (D-VA), John Reed (D-RI), and Peters wrote, “The integrity of our elections remain under serious threat. Our nation’s intelligence agencies continue to raise the alarm that foreign adversaries are actively trying to undermine our system and democracy and will target the 2020 elections as they did in 2016 and 2018 elections. A combination of older legacy machines and newer systems vulnerabilities in each present a problem for the security of our democracy and they must be addressed.”
Another letter Johnson quoted from December 6, 2019, written by Senators Elizabeth Warren, (D-MA) Klobuchar, Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Congressman Ron Pocan (D-WI), stated:
<blockquote>We are particularly concerned that secretive and trouble-plagued companies owned by private equity firms and responsible for manufacturing and maintaining voting machines and other election ministration equipment, quote, have long skimped on security in favor of convenience, leading voting systems across the country prone to security problems. …
Moreover, when state and local officials work on replacing antiquated machines, many continued to run on old software that will soon be outdated and more vulnerable to hackers. … In 2018 alone, voters in South Carolina were reporting machines that switched their votes after they’d inputted them. Scanners were rejecting paper ballots in Missouri and busted machines were causing long lines in Indiana. … Researchers recently uncovered previously undisclosed vulnerabilities in nearly three dozen back-end election systems in 10 States.</blockquote>
Later in the hearing, precipitating Johnson&#8217;s anger, Peters stated:
<blockquote>During the 2016 Election, we saw foreign disinformation campaigns trying to sow doubt about the integrity of our election. We’ve seen that before and very clearly in 2016, and certainly all the intelligence community in this country back that up. In fact, CySA’s rumor control page was actually created within your agency, you mentioned it in your testimony, to address foreign disinformation having an impact on the election. Yet rather than creating fake news, it seems as if Russia has simply used state-controlled news outlets to basically push President Trump’s own statements and lies about a rigged election. Our adversaries don’t have to be technologically-advanced. Our adversaries don’t have to be creative to sow that doubt, all they have to do is air the words of American-elected officials on their state-owned news networks.
As Clint Watts said, he’s a former FBI agent and a disinformation expert, put it, which I think is very strong, and he said, “Nothing that Russia or Iran or China could say, is anywhere near as wild as what the President is saying.” My question is, how are our foreign adversaries taking advantage of false claims of broad election fraud by the President and his supporters, or hearings, like we’re hearing here, we’re hearing these statements again that are broadly claiming systemic irregularities where none exist. How damaging is that?</blockquote>
After former Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Chris Krebs offered some testimony, Johnson addressed Peters directly:
<blockquote>I just have to talk about Russian disinformation because the people pedaling it are not on my side of the aisle. Senior Democrat leaders, including ranking member Peters, were involved in a process of creating a false intelligence product that was mostly classified. They leaked to the media, that accused Senator Grassley, the President pro tem of the Senate, and myself, of accepting and disseminating Russian disinformation from Andrii Derkach, I’d never heard of the person till they brought it up. Senator Peters introduced that false information, Russian disinformation, into our investigation record. 50 people associated with the intelligence community after our Hunter Biden investigation and the revelations of the Hunter Biden computer said, “Oh, this is Russian disinformation.”
Now we find out, no, it’s a real investigation by the Justice Department. So it’s just galling, and I just have to point out, that the purveyors of Russian disinformation, Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the DNC, the Steele dossier, the ranking member Peters, accusing Senator Grassley and I of disseminating Russian disinformation, that’s where the disinformation is coming, that’s where the false information, the lies, the false allegations. I can’t sit by here and listen to this and say that this is not disinformation, this hearing today, this is getting information we have to take a look at to restore confidence in our election integrity. We’re not going to be able to just move on without bringing up these irregularities, examining them, and providing an explanation, and see where there really are problems so we can correct it moving forward. Senator Paul.</blockquote>
Peters jumped in, &#8220;Mr. Chairman, I got to respond to that. You’re saying I’m putting out information.&#8221;
Johnson, bluntly, “Try.” Then this exchange followed:
<blockquote>Peters: Well, one, I had nothing to do with this report you’re talking about.
Johnson: You lied repeatedly.
Peters: I did not …
Johnson: You lied repeatedly in the press that I was spreading Russian disinformation, and that was an outright lie. And I told you to stop lying and you continued to do it.</blockquote>
Peters, as Johnson repeatedly called for Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) to speak: “Mr. Chairman, this is not about airing your grievances. I don’t know what rabbit hole you’re running down …This is simply not what we’re dealing with. … But Mr. Chairman, you can’t make these false allegations and then drop it at there. That is why this — needs to return back to a … This is terrible what you’re doing to this committee and all the great work that you talked about.&#8221;
Johnson, succinctly, &#8220;It is what you have done to this committee.&#8221;
Peters, protesting, &#8220;It is not the case.&#8221;
Johnson, concluding, &#8220;Falsely accusing the Chairman of spreading disinformation, nothing could have been further from the truth and you’re spouting it again, which is why I had to respond.&#8221;
Peters, complaining, &#8220;Oh, come on. Mr. Chairman, this is outrageous, this is outrageous.&#8221;
<iframe loading="lazy" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GksgZlDkbqw" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>

Senate Homeland Security Hearing On 2020 Election

WATCH: Fiery Senator Exchange: GOP’s Ron Johnson Calls Dem Gary Peters A Liar

Ron Johnson

Russia

Republican businessman John James is running to represent Michigan in the U.S. Senate for the second time in two years, and this time, he’s running against one of the least known senators in the entire country, literally.  
Around the time James&#8217; opponent Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) announced his plan to seek re-election, a poll conducted by the Michigan-based Glengariff Group found that nearly 4 in 10 of his own constituents had never even heard of him, according to <a href="https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/29/peters-name-recognition-senate-reelection-campaign/2704862002/">Detroit News</a>.
James, on the other hand, had just lost a 2018 senate bid to long-time Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) by nearly 6.5%. That same midterm election also sent Democratic gubernatorial candidate Gretchen Whitmer to the Michigan governor’s office by nearly 10 points, where she replaced outgoing Republican Governor Rick Snyder in a state that previously helped send 2016 Republican nominee Donald Trump to the White House. 
So what do the polls say about the state of the Michigan senate race? James is the clear underdog in the race. 
According to the RealClearPolitics polling average, the most recent Michigan senate race polling shows Peters leading James by about 5.4 points, slightly higher than Democratic nominee Joe Biden’s 4.2 polling lead over President Donald Trump in the state. 
Two polls conducted by Emerson and Mitchell Research late last week show Peters leading James by five points, and a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted over five days and ending on November 1 shows Peters leading James by seven points. 
Recent “A” or “B” rating polls compiled by FiveThirtyEight show Peters with anything from a 5 point lead to a 15 point lead over James. But when only the “A+” rating results are analyzed, Peters is found to be leading James by either four, six, or eight points. 
Furthermore, FiveThirtyEight <a href="https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/senate/michigan/">reports</a> James has about a 17% chance of winning the election against Peters, which is still far greater than the chances it gives Trump of winning the state, which it estimates are about 1 in 20. 
So, if the Michigan polls are right, James has about the same chance of winning his senate race, and ousting Peters from a seat Democrats have held since 1979, as the chances of rolling a “1” on a six-sided die. 
According to <a href="https://cookpolitical.com/ratings/senate-race-ratings">Cook Political Report</a>, Peters is the second-most vulnerable Democratic senator up for re-election at a time when Republicans have been tasked with defending nearly twice as many senate seats as them (a factor of the GOP&#8217;s 2014 senate victories). Only one other seat is more likely to flip Republican than Michigan&#8217;s senate seat — the Alabama senate seat currently held by Doug Jones (D-AL).
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-vs-biden-all-the-latest-polls">ELECTION DAY: Will Trump Pull It Off Again? All The Final Polls</a>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-michigan-gop-senate-candidate-john-james-responds-to-joe-biden-calling-him-a-disaster">WATCH: Michigan GOP Senate Candidate John James Responds To Joe Biden Calling Him A ‘Disaster’</a>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/john-james-bashes-dem-party-leadership-cares-more-about-the-black-vote-than-the-black-people">John James Bashes Dem Party Leadership: ‘Cares More About The Black Vote Than The Black People’</a>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/schumer-pours-huge-funds-into-michigan-to-save-democratic-senate-seat-defeat-john-james-report-says">Schumer Pours Huge Funds Into Michigan To Save Democratic Senate Seat, Defeat John James, Report Says</a>

Donald Trump Ends Presidential Campaign With Three Rallies In Michigan

Michigan Senate Race: Can John James Win? Here Are The Final Polls

2020 Election

John James

Senate Republicans have released their first attack ad against Sen. Gary Peters as the GOP tries to oust the vulnerable Democrat.
The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) unveiled its ad against Peters on Monday, hitting the Michigan senator over his investments and personal finances. The ad strings together images of manufacturing workers and military members before cutting to Peters and accuses him of profiting at the expense of U.S. workers.
&#8220;Attention: if you or someone in your family worked in a Michigan manufacturing facility, or you prefer to buy &#8216;American made,&#8217; then this unfortunate message is for you,&#8221; the ad says. &#8220;Sen. Gary Peters and his family invested in companies that outsourced nearly 1,000 Michigan jobs to foreign countries, jobs that may be gone forever. But there is some good news, if you’re Gary Peters. Peters personal financial wealth has doubled since getting elected. How nice … for him.&#8221;
https://twitter.com/NathanBrandWA/status/1267468435036033027
Peters’ office did not respond to a request for comment.
Peters invests in a wide variety of companies in sectors such as insurance, communications, and transportation. He holds stock in dozens of companies that operate in Michigan including AT&amp;T, McDonald’s, and Humana, according to reports on <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances/assets/Gary-Peters?cid=N00029277&amp;year=2018">Open Secrets</a>. It is unclear whether he or an independent third party controls his investments.
Late last month, <a href="https://freebeacon.com/democrats/dem-senator-wants-bailout-for-his-own-pension/">The Washington Free Beacon</a> uncovered that Peters, who had an estimated net worth of over $4 million in 2018, has been accepting payments of $50,000 a year from the Michigan state pension fund, earned after serving eight years in the Michigan state legislature. At the same time, Peters and other Democrats have pushed for a federal bailout of the system while hundreds of thousands of Michigan workers lost their jobs during the coronavirus pandemic. The annual payment from the pension fund alone is nearly equal Michigan’s median income.
Peters is running for reelection against Republican challenger John James. James lost his initial bid for Senate against Democratic incumbent Sen. Debbie Stabenow in 2018, but his campaign won him national attention and ample favor among party officials and influential conservatives in Michigan and across the country.
On May 14, National Review published a <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2020/06/01/john-james-the-michigan-gops-rising-star/">profile</a> of James titled “John James, the Michigan GOP’s Rising Star.”
Michigan Republicans see James’ candidacy as a chance to send a member of the GOP to the U.S. Senate for the first time in a quarter century. In Washington, James’ candidacy could prove key to holding Michigan for President Donald Trump against former Vice President Joe Biden, as well as fending off a Democratic effort to flip the Senate.
James&#8217; campaign has built an impressive fundraising machine with plenty of support, pushing him to <a href="https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2020/04/07/michigan-us-senate-race-john-james-outraises-gary-peters/2960325001/">outraise</a> the incumbent Peters for three quarters in a row. James’ total campaign finances still trail Peters’ by about $2.6 million, however, according to campaign finance <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary?cycle=2020&amp;id=MIS1">reports</a> from the first quarter of 2020.
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Senate GOP Take First Shot At Vulnerable Michigan Democrat