Oh no how unfortunate for the head of the Department Of Warcrimes.
More like fortunate. Imagine the level of chaos the US Army must have been thrown into with this level of incompetence at the head.
Yeah, without Hegseth they could be out there commiting war crimes more efficiently.
Any standard below imprisonment is unacceptable
The guy is responsible for bombing a school and killing 150 young girls. We execute people for less in the US.
not if the victims are brown…
He looks like a kid who’s been told “no” for the first time in their lives. I am appalled and disguested that he was toured around like he was some massive hero when this was the ‘manly’ reaction he gave for his ‘heroic’ actions
he gives piggy boy fascist
Still hope this shitheels catches a bullet.
There wasn’t a single brown victim. Get your disinformation performative bullshit out of here.
I think it’s the boats that will get him. I think they ended up killing several hundred at random. Iran was a war-not-a-war so that may give him some cover as a failure.
I’m not so sure… is the American public even aware of the boat strikes?
2/3rds of the senate is a big hill to climb, especially when many of the R’s that survived are from far right states.
The boats are hardly any less horrific, and I have no doubt there were children on more than 1.
Also he denied vets treatment or help since the Iran war is not a war.
I’ll pass on capital punishment.
He should be “executed” on live TV, but the guns just “shoot” out a flag that’s says “prison for life”.
He needs to think he’s actually being executed though: he’s fine with it.
I get where you’re coming from, but war crimes aren’t cool.
Yeah, another reply/comment made me change my mind.
Yeah, this is one of those times where the punishment is more to tell others “this is what happens when you do this BS. So don’t do this.”
Like I said, I get it. If you want to say he should be executed or sent to prison for life, I won’t argue with you. But the Geneva conventions don’t have a “we need to send a message” clause.
Agreed, punishment should fit the crime. We have lately been pardoning people and sending a message that you can get away with things if you know the right people or have celebrity privilege, though. So time to get back to people not getting away with things.
It would definitely scar him a lot. I’ve had a gun held to my head before and it really fucks you up for sure.
I hope you’ve been (and are) able to deal with that trauma in a healthy way.
Come to think of it, I’m not sure I wish that on anyone, no matter who they are.
He’s possibly barely suffered a consequence in his entire life, so probably even the thought of there being any consequences is terrifying (enough) to him.
Televised execution?
Jk, I never want that.
Televised execution?
We kinda got that last night at the polls.
Gonna be a hot take, bit I’m all for it. Some people deserve that kind of humiliation.
I personally disagree with normalization of such violence. It makes people tolerate it to the point they don’t even register it as wrong. Hence why repubs wanted to publicly execute people.
I think it was an attempt to normalise the killing of political opponents. Such violence is already normal and legitimised in America, the land of school-shootings and capital punishment.
Such murder needs to remain behind closed doors as to be polite in American society. Please enjoy the following entertainment-products:
It’s fine to disagree with it. But, that won’t change my mind that there are some people who, I believe, deserve it.
I agree. But, slight adjustment. Conservatives are not “people”.
I’d counter that almost no one deserves the trauma of watching someone being killed.
9 year old me (casually scrolling on 4chan) would agree. I still remember accidentally stumbling across my first beheading video. The early (largely unmoderated) internet was like the Wild West.
I seriously question the idea that death is inherently traumatic. History is littered with public-executions, ceremonial killings and death for entertainment. People are eager to pay for and play GTA 6: a murder- and crime-simulator. People love violence. People are unfazed by death when the victims belong to an out-group–those that are deemed not to be people.
“Oh that’s just an actor. The character died, not the actor.”
“They’re not real; it’s a video-game.”
“They’re jews.”
“He was a pedophile.”
“She’s a nazi.”
“He’s a murderer; it’s comeuppance.”
Desensitization is a type of trauma. Many people are, in fact, traumatized by seeing death.
I have seen people die and I have seen dead bodies and it’s a weight on me for over twenty years. It compounds instead of getting better.
I’ve seen people have nightmares after scrolling through Facebook and seeing Charlie Kirk die. People that were somewhat okay with him being dead but still traumatized by seeing it.
No one should see it without consent. I mean really informed consent not just “sure, I’ll watch this.” They have to know all the risks. Even then, I’d still prefer they didn’t.
I don’t like your argument about earlier public executions. I’m pretty sure none of them were okay.
What if it could be death by tickling?
Still against the state choosing who lives and dies. Definitely don’t think people should be watching.
Being executed isn’t humiliating. You wanna humiliate them put them in a public pillory and sell tomatoes and live stream it 24x7.
Gonna have to disagree with that one. I’d imagine a public execution where you have people shouting for your death, as your crimes are read out loud for everyone to hear, would, not only, be humiliating, but put the real fear of God in you as you finally realize your actions have caught up with you.
Proceeds from the tomato sales go towards funding his continued imprisonment
We could cancel all taxes and balance the national budget if they set this up for Trump.
There’d be a nationwide tomato shortage
🤣 There already is, thanks to conservatives!
If I hear one fucking word about putting the past behind me and moving on together as a country, I am starting a fucking riot and burning the DNC office to the ground.
Hakeem’s already doing the rounds. Get this fucker OUT.
Jeffries and Schumer just love to roll over and show their bellies. It’s like they both have a submissive kink. Neither should be put in charge of leading Congress.
Hell neither should be trusted with greeting at walmart.
AIPAC money will do that.
I’m sure Schumer and Jeffries are writing that speech right now.
And you would only do that after you have successfully burned the RNC office to the ground.
Correct.
Ol’ Stinky Pete will be rolling in testosterone from all of those beefy, manly cellmates.
Unfortunately impeachment requires a 2/3 majority in the Senate to be meaningful, which still is very unlikely.
More likely the Trump admin will try to use Hegseth as a scapegoat and fire and replace him.
So many motherfuckers to investigate.
https://www.wonkette.com/p/well-now-we-have-to-send-elon-musk
Do we really think the shitty Dems like Jeffries and Schumer are actually gonna convict these people? They’re already walking back actually going after anyone. It’ll all be weasel words and “reconciliation.”
Most of the cabinet is looking at jail time I think
Trump would just pardon them. You’ll have to wait until Ds win in Presidential election.
The only limit the US Constitution puts on the President’s pardon power is that it cannot be used in cases of impeachment.
And as we know, the US Constitution sure has stopped them doing whatever they want.
Can jail time come from an impeachment? Or is it only removal from office if convicted?
It’s only removal from office, and optionally also disqualification from holding any future Federal office.
But, even though impeachment is meant to look like a trial, it is not a trial. And if someone is determined to have committed a crime as part of the impeachment proceedings, they can still be prosecuted. That person might be able to complain that they can’t possibly get a fair trial after a public impeachment, but that’s a separate matter.
That person might be able to complain that they can’t possibly get a fair trial after a public impeachment, but that’s a separate matter.
I(love)ANAL, but if I were the prosecuting attorney in this case and the defense were to go this route, my rebuttal would be that the impeachment process are legal proceedings that are also meant to be fair and impartial. Thus, the impeachment itself could be admitted as a piece of evidence in the case supporting prosecution for the specific crime committed and covered by the articles of impeachment.
Logically, that makes sense to me, but maybe there’s a different strategy that would be more effective.
I can see where a pardon power given to a president is beneficial to society but such a power without any checks is clearly inappropriate when a corrupt president wields it. It’s as if the founding fathers had a much more positive outlook on the future of the US than it has evidence to believe.
Yeah, it desperately needs a check. Like, even if that check is “the president has to give a reason and Congress has to approve it.” We can even allow extremely flimsy reasons since it’s not like, a trial. But just enough that the reason has to be something not “This guy helped me do crimes.” Or “Own the libs.”
How about Trump’s favorite reason “he gave me 2 million dollars in exchange for a pardon”?
How?
There is a very high chance he gets removed. Losing a rushed war with bad advice given to Trump is bad enough. There is no actual escalation of war options, because the funding requests to replenish existing depletions/losses can’t get justified to congress, and lying that escalation is affordable is not possible when the defeat so far is already unaffordable.
There is a funding request that passed the house, and is stalled in Senate, that would give Hegseth “national security” magic word authority to spend unlimited amounts. That is an even higher priority to defeat.
Send this goddamned traitor to the Hague, in the same shackled, blindfolded and gagged getup as all the Guantanamo Bay prisoners he oversaw.
That will never happen. The US policy is that if any US citizen is forcibly brought before the Hague the US would raid the Hague and reclaim their citizen. The only judicial system the us recognizes is it’s own.
So if you’re familiar with the Overton Window, can you guess which way comments like this move it?*
I’m not saying you mean ill. I’ve got a little bit of doomer in me too. Been there. But if you lose your capacity for hope and outrage you become an instrument of those that want to keep things shitty for us.
*Only microscopically, but still. The hopelessness and helplessness add up.
Comments like mine don’t move it at all boss.
It’s not doomer, its accepting reality. No one said don’t try, I said don’t hold your breath.
There’s no hopelessness, no helplessness. We don’t need the icc to reign in our own country, that’s on us to do and dreaming of a solution that’s not likely isn’t helping anything either.
Then change the goddamned policy.
Won’t happen. Politicians don’t want their feet to the flame so it’ll stay.
Won’t happen
You’d have said the same thing yesterday about a trans woman being elected to the Alabama state house.
A year ago you’d have said the same thing about a Democrat winning a Texas Senate seat and a progressive Muslim who’s unapologetically pro trans and M4A winning one in Michigan.
Two or three years ago, you’d have laughed in the face of anyone claiming that a huge majority would be against continuing to fund the West’s favorite fascist apartheid state, let alone a Democratic Socialist anti-zionist Muslim progressive being the Mayor of New York, the most zionist city outside of said apartheid ethnostate.
Guess what: sometimes,when your attitude ISN’T automatic defeatism, things CAN change for the better.
No I wouldn’t. Don’t put words in my mouth especially if they’re wrong. Aside from that it’s a wildly different situation as no one risks prison time.
No again, I would not have.
Wrong yet again but fuck it you must know me better than me huh?
Sometimes your attitude is based solely on assuming someone’s position and then acting catty based on that flawed series of assumptions.
Not with that attitude it won’t.
Fatalism is nice and all, and I fall into myself a good deal …
… but if ever there was a moment to believe that it at least might be possible to wrest control of the ship of state from these goddamned corrupt pedophile war mongers, it’d be now.
The US is not under the jurisdiction of the ICC. A court can’t rule outside of its jurisdiction so that would be the Hague acting illegally. The US like most other large countries are not signatory to the Rome Statute
Iirc we signed but didn’t ratify like a lot of things. That said the icc doesn’t care, if you’re brought before them they will try you if need be.
A court can’t just operate where it has no jurisdiction and the US, much like Russia and China are not in their Jurisdiction. Who in the ICC will hold a nuclear armed country accountable? Latin America and Europe? Same reason Putin will never go to the ICC.
It can, the results do not need to matter in the country the person is from because they aren’t in that country.
Yeah, no duh. We already went over this and I’m not sure why you’re not aware of that fact or seem to think you’re making a point.
Because you are simply wrong. You keep insisting a court can operate where it has no jurisdiction and they “don’t care” both things are 100% completely wrong and false. This isn’t secret knowledge this is why I am telling you, but you keep insisting provably false information.
Either we change the policy, or we exterminate the nazis who insist upon it. We need action, not a defeatist attitude toward our own corruption. If it takes violence to fix the conservatism, then violence it is.
One is unlikely, the other more likely but less plausible if that makes sense.
I agree. And neither option is “impossible”. We can make these changes, with enough progressive push. It won’t be easy or quick, but it is possible. I think it’s also necessary.
I didn’t say impossible, it’s very possible. That said it will never happen.
Best we can do is a pardon
Presidential pardons have no authority over the ICC
The US isn’t a signatory to the Rome Statute so they are not under the jurisdiction of the ICC. Neither is China, Russia, India, Israel, Iran, or Pakistan
Didn’t this guy and the pedo in chief gut all the intelligent military people so the military would be more loyal? Kind of like Russia has done while under Putin?
Dems likely to get 56 senate seats. need 67 votes to impeach any rat fucker. Needs too many Rs to play “Susan Collins deliberating” role for attention that just drags out.
Well technically impeachment is just half the house, is just that impeachment doea not mean anything on its own.
Had a conversation today speculating that there is a non zero chance Republicans could decide to go with some convictions. Throwing a few of this administration under the bus might be seen as more strategically valuable to salvage the wreckage of their reputation. Patel, Hegseth, Miller, RFK Jr all seem to be ripe for some populist scapegoating. Hell maybe even the big man himself, though they might be betting on a cardiac event or similar to do it for them.
God, get rid of Miller. He’s the center of this shitstorm.
yipeee hooo * slooice *
Conviction and removal in the Senate requires a two-thirds supermajority. With a full Senate of 100 members, this means 67 votes.
The dems don’t have 67, not even close.
This article is complete bullshit
I’m not American so I’m not super well versed in American politics… but I didn’t realize until reading your comment that there isnt really a chance at seeing sweeping changes as a result of this election.
Sweeping changes are incredibly difficult because the US Constitution intentionally made change slow. It was a purposeful attempt by the founders to prevent rapid policy changes and have some degree of stability.
When passing laws, 2/3 of EACH house of Congress is required to overcome a veto. This is why passing laws is difficult when one party does not own both houses with the presidency or a super majority in both houses without. This also says nothing about the judicial and their ability to check either of the other branches, in terms of what is “constitutional” per their interpretation.
Amendments to the US Constitution are even harder. 2/3 of each house of Congress or 2/3 of state legislatures must agree to a proposal and then 3/4 of the states must agree to the change for it to pass and the Constitution be amended.
What happened last night is one step on the road to permanent change, since historically red states have shifted (for now), and those states are required for long term policy to be put into place. It’s an important step, but tempered expectations are crucial. There is still a lot of good/harm reduction that can be done as a result.
Except president it seems. Super unstable.
Are you able to clarify what you mean?
Presidents don’t have the power to make laws according to the Constitution, only the authority to enforce them. The executive branch controls the DOJ and other executive departments and over time, the legislative branch has ceded power to the executive. A president changing those departments as they see fit is unfortunately without meaningful guardrails and where most of the damage has been done. Sweeping changes here are only possible with compliance from other bodies of government. This current version of the executive branch was not intended by the Constitution.
Unlawful executive orders (not laws) have mostly been deemed unconstitutional by the judicial, excluding when the supreme court becomes involved and chooses to make partisan decisions that disregard years of precedent. A compliant congressional majority has failed to curb overreach by the executive, especially regarding actions that would usually be considered acts of war. Compliant branches failing to provide checks and balances as intended allowed the damages to occur within areas governed not by laws but by traditions.
It’s incredibly easy to tear down components of the executive branch when the other two branches offer no resistance. Many things that were “understood” as the norm should have been codified into law and were not. There is now resistance in place with the power to resist, since one party no longer controls all 3 branches. Whether they will or won’t is a different story.
Even the Republicans hate what is happening in Iran. Bring in some sailors from the Lincoln to really hammer the point for those conservatives who don’t care about foreigner deaths.
It’s worth pursuing regardless if only to point at the complicit GOP.
I think there’s going to be a surprising amount of Republicans who will come out as anti-Trump but were too afraid to do so while MAGA was in power. There are most definitely traditional conservatives who hate him.
I’m not gonna get my hopes up for too much, we’re not gonna fix this in two years. But you never know.
Traditional Conservatives
Those people are called Democrats my man
Haha, yes!
Need 2/3 in Senate to convict still, unfortunately. If House impeaches but never get convictions in these cases, then Dems will get blamed rather than maga for not removing. They need to be smart about what they do and if possible to explain the process clearly and often, strategy and why they can’t pass whatever they want and maga is the blockage to progress as usual.
I think they’ll get a 2/3 on some things. Republicans will start breaking rank now that Trump is a lame duck.
And I think I’ll be elected as the next Pope.
Just look who is up for reelection in 2 and 4 years. Apply the current mood to the vote and there’s a dozen of them on the way out.
In 2 years, the Republicans will be voted back in because the Democrats “didn’t do anything”. Then the cycle will just repeat.
Yeah I can’t wait for the bullshit two years from now when people bitch about how “dems didn’t do anything for the past two years” when they don’t have a veto proof majority, nor the numbers required to impeach.
There’s a legislative strategy that could work, but we’ll see if leaders of the new congress can execute.
Impeachment proceedings are not a large part of that. Denying executive appointments or being part of a government shutdown over budget issues is also not going to be seen as action.
Then what can they do? Anything actually helpful that they pass will just get vetoed and people will bitch about the “Do nothing Democrats”.
I believe they can (and should) pass legislation that will: if passed, benefit the people and attract voters to Ds; and if vetoed, provide campaign fodder to detract voters from Rs. In particular, I’d like to see something that benefits the working class broadly, but benefits the MAGA base rapidly and significantly, maybe some Medicare/Medicaid/ACA changes that save people $$$? Maybe a one-time corporate tax and distribution to consumers as a “tarrif rebate”? Maybe some sort of temporary jobs program to repair/replace infrastructure, with an allocation that mirrors existing federal->state/district grants (to benefit rural areas a bit more)?
They should also deny executive appointments to prevent further corruption, but that’s not going to be seen as action. I think some time can be spend on congressional investigations, maybe even turning evidence and conclusions over to state AGs, but going for impeachment or involving the Trump DOJ is an absolute waste of time.
If they go for a government shutdown, they better have a strategy for really winning something significant for the people. If there is a shutdown and there’s no or little concession from the executive, it’s not going to be seen as positive action, but mere obstructionism.
I agree it might actually be impossible to satisfy the expectations I’ve been seeing on social media today. I think many people are overestimating the power of Congress v. “Mr. Veto”, the DOJ, and SCOTUS.
I’m still mad about Schumer caving in exchange for nothing during the shutdown last year or whenever it was. He needs to be kept far away from leadership.
I don’t disagree about that. Schumer and Jeffries have had their chance(s). If they really want to help the party, they can assist the new leadership behind the scenes – strategizing and whipping. Or do you think it might have been about being on camera for them?
I think they just genuinely dgaf. They work for Israel, and Schumer has stated as much, which sounds a lot like he is acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign power…
