Tell it to my face. If that's what you believe, tell it to me today. Tell the world why you believe I deserve to be assaulted from behind, have six ribs broken and a damaged lung. Tell me to my face why you think I deserved it. And while you're at it, explain to the American public why they should trust a man with anger issues to set the proper example for ICE and Border Patrol agents.

You have spent millions of dollars in my campaigns against me because we just don't get along.

However, sir, that doesn't keep me at all from doing my job.

Hi, again, everybody. It's five o'clock in New York. So that's how it started, quote,

tell it to my face for Mark Wayne Mullen. Mark Wayne Mullen is Donald Trump's chosen successor

for soon to be former DHS secretary, the self-described shooter killer of puppies, Christy Knoem.

The new guy was today on the receiving end of some difficult questions from his fellow

Republicans in the Senate. The Homeland Security Committee, at least some members of the Homeland

Security Committee, pressed him on a number of issues associated with that agency, the conduct of ICE officers,

the role of sanctuary cities, and the changes he would make at DHS. In large part,

Mullins' responses were a departure from his more combative style of talking and lawmaking.

But his answers, or in some cases his non-answers, were illuminating as well. For instance,

in response to factual questions about who won the 2020 election, posed by Senator Alyssa Slotkin,

Mullen spat back, what we've come to understand is the boilerplate, things happened. The MAGA-approved

answer. President Joe Biden was sworn into office.

But Senator Slotkin didn't let him off the hook. She followed up with what is an increasingly valid concern on the part of the American people. Watch.

If you are Secretary of Homeland Security, do you feel you have the authority to put uniformed officers at polling locations in 2026?

Ma'am, we said this in your office.

The only reason why my officers would be there if there was a specific threat for them to be there, not for intimidation.

And I said we would be able to share that.

So even though we didn't need it during World War II, we didn't need it during Vietnam or the war on terror, we never had to put put uniform military there. Now, you feel that there's going to be a reason that there's going to be an armed threat to the United States that you need to potentially be there? I said, I can't sit there and guarantee hypothetically what threat would be not. I'm not put in military. That's not within my uniformed, sorry, uniformed officers. But if there is a threat, a specific

threat, say it's in a Jewish community, and there is a threat that specific to that, to that polling

...