I love Wonkette, and this was a fun read:
Looks Like Pete Hegseth Is Cooked, One Way Or Another
https://www.wonkette.com/p/looks-like-pete-hegseth-is-cooked
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.
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.
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.
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.
He didn’t…
That’s on him, not me
100% a distinction that seems lost on a lot of people.
Yeah I honestly don’t think I’d be able to see that if I weren’t pacifist. I do understand their anger but I do wish people could differentiate between what’s based off their anger and what should actually be done once the anger is filtered out and processed by our analytical side.
There’s also that a lot of people conflate justice with revenge.
Distance oneself from wanting vengeance and then discussed what consequences justice requires.
Normally I’d agree. But conservative traitors who commit atrocities in public view while celebrating and bragging are my exception.
These cockroaches need to suffer the same torture they have inflicted upon their victims. If they survive CECOT for a year, then we put them in a fishing boat and take bets on how far they get before exploding.
It’s definitely conflicting. He’s committed so many atrocities and it really makes emotions flare up. I understand where you are coming from but I just don’t want to see humanity further fleeting into barbarism by doing eye for an eye. Plus, death frees him from the shame of having to live with who he is and what he’s done.
You are a kind soul. I like where you’re coming from. Conservatives are biologically unable to experience shame, though, so you’ll need to come up with a more creative punishment.
I want vengeance, but if the system actually moves forward with actual justice and real convictions and prison time, I’ll be more than satisfied.
But only if they’re poor.
Televised execution?
Jk, I never want that.
Gonna be a hot take, bit I’m all for it. Some people deserve that kind of humiliation.
I’d counter that almost no one deserves the trauma of watching someone being killed.
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.
You are obsolete!
(Agreeing with you and reference to the Twilight Zone The Obsolete Man https://youtu.be/No04AeiTKAw)
Death by snu snu?
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.
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!
Public execution of politicians and government officials… I’m kinda leaning toward maybe
Firing squad against a dude in a wheel chair
Maybe if Hegseth holds the chair. Tell him it’s the manly thing to do. And instruct the squad to aim for the convictim’s head. If he’s going to make soldiers commit cold-blooded murder he might as well have the best view.
Can we send him to Iran as a peace offering?
I would see him being handed over to the parents in Iran as fair. Then whatever happens to him is their rightful choice and it’s not the state making the decision
Live execution? It was his idea
I’m very much against the death penalty but his public execution is one I’d actually watch.
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.
Moving on as a country does include accounting for the past. You can’t just ignore it. Germany didn’t pretend nothing happened, they changed who they were as a country and made sure it could never happen again.
If you don’t do that, you’re not moving on, you’re staying where you are and risking a repeat.
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.
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.
Oh no how unfortunate for the head of the Department Of Warcrimes.
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.
yipeee hooo * slooice *
we can’t use Guillotine-kun, then he’ll just get isekai’d…
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.
Honestly the Democrats need go start looking into pathways to delegitimizing Trump’s or ideally all presidental pardons.
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”?
You cant pardon an impeachment, so theres still something.
This administration has already guaranteed its spot in history but a little more corruption will just add to that
How?
He needs to be turned over to the Hague as well. The only people who want to keep the U.S. out of the ICC are conservatives. The opinions of conservatives are valueless.
We need to turn these international criminals over to the international authorities.
So many motherfuckers to investigate.
https://www.wonkette.com/p/well-now-we-have-to-send-elon-musk
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.
Hegseth is in trouble. More than any other on your list. He can’t even show his face for budget requests to congress.
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.”
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.
How long till war crimes?
2023 around early October.
Ol’ Stinky Pete will be rolling in testosterone from all of those beefy, manly cellmates.
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
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.
One Day, Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This
I think it will happen at some point. Anyone not attached to the island could turn on him.
Not just the ones too afraid to do it, but also some straight up opportunists.
Traditional Conservatives
Those people are called Democrats my man
What matters is the base and the GOP is a cult. Might pick up some retiring end-of-career votes though, people who don’t have to worry about primaries.
The article says that Massie may bring impeachment articles as soon as next week. Given the drubbing that Republicans just took, and Vance’s statements that it is about the war, it is entirely possible that they force him out expeditiously, just so that Senate Republicans can have a say in his replacement.
If he gets impeached after the new Congress is seated, then Democrats have a much larger say in who the replacement is. (Or, even not seat a replacement at all…)
It depends how far the Republicans are willing to throw Trump, Hegseth, and this whole Iran war debacle under the bus after their humiliating defeat last night.
Hegseth is so incompetent though some Republicans may want to impeach him for not being a good enough war monger
They need 11-13 Republican senators to agree with them. That can be done for non-trump officials. It’s also worth it to have that public trial even if it fails so long as it’s not a straight party line vote.
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.
It’s just an unnecessary amount of power and independence concentrated in one man. US president can enforce laws as he wishes or not enforce or enforce his own interpretation. No consequences unless a two third majority of Senate sees it as a political advantage to do so.
Agreed. It wasn’t designed to be this way though and could only happen as it has with compliant politicians in other branches. Complete control across all 3 branches of government is not common and has only happened something like 3 times in the past 40 years.
Correct. Best case scenario, we can be obstructionists to anything Mango Mussolini wants to do. Congress could pass really great stuff and let Fuckface go on record as vetoing it. Though he’d just blame it on Biden. I HIGHLY doubt enough Republicans would defect to override one of his vetoes. It requires 2/3 of both houses. The Democrats have a simple majority but do not have a veto-proof majority.
You don’t think some R Senators who just saw their counterpart get trounced last night will be thinking about their own reelection when casting a vote?
No. I’ve lived in Kentucky, Alabama and Florida. Their senate candidates shrugged off the blue wave.
Alabama and Florida in particular are just fucking stupid.
None of those states flipped a Senate seat yesterday. Both the Carolinas, Kansas, Iowa, Maine, Ohio, and Texas all flipped a seat, with 5-20 point victories. Nevada didn’t have a Senator on the ballot but the governor’s office flipped. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think that some of the incumbents from those states will shift some of their votes in the wake of yesterday’s results.
There were no slim margins yesterday. For the most part nothing was neck and neck, and that’s after all their redistricting and ratfuckery. People are pissed.
And I’m telling you that is a delusion.
You really need to live in the south for a decade or so to realize just how nuts they are.
I’m from Texas and have lived here for 30+ years.
Texas is not Alabama. And they just proved it with a vote.
Meanwhile Alabama just proved they are not Texas by voting pure red.
Yes, continue citing a state that did not flip any statewide seats as a rebuttal to the possible future actions of statewide office holders in other states where other statewide offices were flipped. perhaps you’d also like to convince me that my friend in Arizona won’t like switching from English breakfast tea to Irish breakfast tea because you only have coffee in Louisiana.
I agree. Among the things the Rs have been good at are closing ranks and obstructing process. There’s no way 11-13 of them decide to remove someone the R President still supports. While I do think there should be some level of congressional investigation, I hope the new Congress focuses on passing legislation that will benefit the people if passed, and hurt the popularity of Rs (and especially MAGA) if vetoed.
The evidence collected (and conclusions reached) as part of congressional investigation could be handed over to the DOJ (if it is ever independent from the executive person, again) or State AGs or both. But, even a 56/44 Senate is not going to pass a vote to remove.
