>> Stephen: HEY, EVERYBODY!
WELCOME BACK TO "THE LATE SHOW."
MY FIRST GUEST SPENT 21 YEARS IN THE MILITARY AND SERVED AS THE
27TH SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.
NOW, HE'S WRITTEN A MEMOIR CALLED, "A SACRED OATH."
PLEASE WELCOME, SECRETARY MARK ESPER.
( CHEERS AND APPLAUSE ) ( BAND PLAYING )
>> Stephen: SECRETARY, THANKS FOR COMING ON.
I WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE YOU ON LAST WEEK WHEN I GOT MY SECOND
BOUT OF COVID.
THANKS FOR THE BOOMERANG.
>> YOU'RE A SUPERSPREADER, AREN'T YOU?
>> Stephen: I AM, I AM.
( LAUGHTER ) THE NEW BOOK IS CALLED "A SACRED
OATH."
I WANT TO GET INTO WHAT THE SACRED OATH IS IN A BIT BUT,
FIRST, I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE FORMER PRESIDENT YOU SERVED
UNDER, HE OFTEN SAID HE KNEW MORE ABOUT THE MILITARY THAN ANY
OF THE GENERALS, MAYBE MORE THAN ANYBODY OF ALL TIME.
( LAUGHTER ) AS A SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND A
WEST POINT GRADUATE, WHAT WAS YOUR ASSESSMENT OF THE FORMER
PRESIDENT'S MILITARY KNOWLEDGE?
>> I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO ASK HARD QUESTIONS.
( LAUGHTER ) THE ANSWER WOULD BE NO, HE DOES
NOT KNOW MORE THAN THE GENERALS AND ADMIRALS, NOR DO MOST
PRESIDENTS.
>> Stephen: DOES HE KNOW MORE THAN THE AVERAGE PERSON ON THE
STREET?
>> I DON'T KNOW.
AT THIS POINT, HE PROBABLY DOES A BECAUSE HE SERVED FOUR YEARS
IN OFFICE.
>> Stephen: OKAY.
THERE ARE MANY EXAMPLES IN THE BOOK HERE OF THE PRESIDENT
DEMANDING LOYALTY TO HIMSELF AS OPPOSED TO THE CONSTITUTION.
>> RIGHT.
>> Stephen: SAME THING JAMES COMEY TALKS ABILITY IN HIS BOOK.
>> MM-HMM.
>> Stephen: PEOPLE FEAR HE MIGHT USE THE MILITARY AS A
DISTRACTION, OR EVEN TO USE THE MILITARY TO INTERVENE WITH THE
ELECTIONS.
>> MM-HMM.
>> Stephen: WERE THOSE FEARS GROUNDED?
DID YOU SHARE THOSE FIERCE?
>> I HAD CONCERNS, CERTAINLY BEGINNING IN THE SUMMER OF 2020,
AFTER JUNE 1, THAT AT SOME POINT THERE MAY BE THAT INCLINATION TO
USE THE MILITARY TO SEIZE BALLOT BOXES.
>> Stephen: AS IF THAT INCLINATION WOULD OCCUR TO
ANYBODY.
IT'S A DIRE AND TRAITOUS INCLINATION, ISN'T IT?
>> IT WOULD BE VIOLATING THE SACRED OATH TO THE CONSTITUTION
ALL POLITICIANS TAKE, ABSOLUTELY.
>> Stephen: WHAT DID YOU DO IN RESPONSE TO THAT PERCEIVED
THREAT?
>> I REMAINED IN POSITION TO BE A CIRCUIT BREAKER IN CASE IDEAS
WITH REGARD TO DEPLOYING THE MILITARY AGAINST OTHER COUNTRIES
OR DOMESTIC DISTURBANCE, DEPLOYING TROOPS TO SEATTLE AND
PORTLAND, WHICH BECAME THE PUSH IN JULY AND AUGUST OF THAT
MONTH, BUT AS WE GOT CLOSER IN THE FINAL DAYS LEADING UP TO THE
ELECTION, I THINK LAST FRIDAY OF OCTOBER, HAD TO CALL THE
NATIONAL GUARD IN AND THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF
STAFF, HAD TO HAVE THIS PRIVATE DISCUSSION AND SAY, LISTEN, ON
THE ELECTION DAY OR DAYS FOLLOWING, IF YOU GET ANY TYPE
OF CALL FROM THE WHITE HOUSE, NOTIFY ME IMMEDIATELY SO I COULD
INTERCEDE IF THAT'S WHAT IT TOOK TO KEEP ANYTHING BAD FROM
HAPPENING.
>> Stephen: SO YOU SAID WE'RE NOT GOING TO SEND CROPS IN TO
SEIZE THE BALLOTS.
>> NO.
>> Stephen: THE PRESIDENT MIGHT HAVE ORDERED THAT.
WE LEARNED FROM YOUR BOOK, THAT WAS A CONSIDERATION.
>> THAT'S WHY THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE
ONLY TWO PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES THAT CAN DEPLOY TROOPS IS
THE PRESIDENT AND THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.
IT WAS CRITICAL FOR ME TO BE THE CIRCUMSTANCE BREAKER IN CASE TE
PRESIDENT WANTED TO DEPLOY TROOPS.
WE LEARNED PEOPLE WOULD COME TO THE WHITE HOUSE AND PROPOSE THIS
IN LATE DECEMBER OF 2020, AND THIS IS THE REASON MYSELF AND
NINE OTHERS SECRETARIES OF DEFENSE WRITE THIS NOTE ON
JANUARY 23rd TO THE PENTAGON, FOLLOW YOUR OATH, DO NOT GET
INVOLVED IN THE ELECTION.
>> Stephen: DID YOU RESIGN OR GET FIRED.
>> I GOT FIRED ON THE NINTH.
>> Stephen: WHAT DID YOU DO.
FOLLOWED MY OATH.
I GOT THE CALL FROM CHIEF OF STAFF MARK MEADOWS WHO SAID YOU
HAVE BEEN REPLACED, YOU HAVEN'T BEEN SUFFICIENTLY LOYAL TO THE
PRESIDENT.
I RESPONDED THAT'S HIS PREROGATIVE, BUT MY OATH IS TO
THE CONSTITUTION, NOT TO HIM.
( CHEERS AND APPLAUSE ) >> Stephen: SO IT'S A WEIRD
POSITION TO BE IN, AND I WANT TO GET TO IT IN JUST A LITTLE
WHILE, AND PEOPLE CRITICIZE YOU FOR NOT TELLING US BEFORE, AND
I'VE HEARD SOME OF YOUR ANSWERS ON THAT AND UNDERSTAND SOME OF
THE RATIONALE.
BEFORE WE GET TO THAT, I WANT TO ASK WHAT IS IT LIKE FOR YOU AS A
MILITARY MAN, A WEST POINT GRADUATE, IS THERE A CLASS THEY
TEACH AT WO PROTECT THE COUNTRY FROM THE
COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF AND IF NOT DO YOU THINK THERE SHOULD BE A
CLASS THIS POINT FORWARD?
>> I TOOK MY BOTH JULY 1982 WHEN I BECAME A CADET AT WEST POINT,
MY FIRST OF A DOZEN OATHS.
I SERVED ON ACTIVE DUTY AND WAR AND ALL THAT, AND I NEVER HAD TO
CONSIDER THE OATH AND WHAT IT MEANS AND I NEVER HAD TO
CONSIDER DUTY, OATH, COUNTRY, UNTIL THIS JOB AND IT REACHED
THE POINT I WAS ASKING MYSELF WHAT'S MY DUTY, MY OATH, WHAT
DOES IT MANE TO PUT THE COUNTRY FIRST?
THE CONUNDRUM IS WHEN YOU SWEAR THAT OATH TO THE CONSTITUTION,
THE CONSTITUTION ALSO SAYS, BY THE WAY, THERE'S THIS THING
CALLED ARTICLE 2, THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, AND I HAVE
TO OBEY HIS ORDERS.
AND PRESIDENT TRUMP RARELY GAVE DIRECT ORSD.
>> Stephen: WHAT WOULD WE DO?
UGGESTS, MUSES, RAMPS, AND HOPES PEOPLE WILL PICK UP ON IT
AND RUN WITH IT.
>> Stephen: LIKE A MAFIA DON GOING, I'D HATE TO SEE SOMETHING
TERRIBLE HAPPEN TO THAT GUY?
( APPLAUSE ) >> IT GIVES ME A CHANCE TO THINK
ABOUT MY OATH AND WHAT'S RIGHT FOR THE COUNTRY.
THE OATH IS NOT TO THE PRESIDENT, PARTY, PHILOSOPHY,
IT'S TO THE CONSTITUTION AND BY EXTENSION THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
>> Stephen: WE HAVE TO TAKE A QUICK BREAK.
WHEN WE COME BACK, I WILL ASK THE FORMER SECRETARY WHY HE FELT
HE COULDN'T TELL US WHAT WAS GOING ON INSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE.
STICK AROUND.