Here's what the last 9 Sec of Defense had in their background! Then there's Hegseths' background!
1, Lloyd Austin: Vice chief of staff of the Army, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, commander of CENTCOM.
2. Mark Esper: Deputy assistant SecDef, senior leader at Raytheon, secretary of the Army.
3.Jim Mattis: Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, commander of CENTCOM.
4. Ash Carter: Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, Kennedy School of Government, under SecDef for acquisition, technology, and logistics.
5. Chuck Hagel: Founder of a technology company, chair of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, U.S. senator for twelve years.
6. Leon Panetta: Member of Congress for sixteen years, White House chief of staff, director of CIA.
7. Robert Gates: Deputy national security advisor, director of CIA.
8. Donald Rumsfeld: Member of Congress for six years, head of White House Office of Economic Opportunity, ambassador to NATO, White House chief of staff.
9.William Cohen: U.S. senator for eighteen years (preceded by six years in the House of Representatives), including serving on the Senate’s Intelligence, Armed Services, and Government Affairs Committees.
Then there’s Hegseth, whose CV reads:
Served in the Army National Guard.
Briefly led a small, failing nonprofit.
Helped host a weekend show on Fox News.
Looking at all of this, you’re probably asking yourself, “How is this guy getting a confirmation hearing at all? Especially with his personal vices?”
Republicans would approve charles Manson? After all their president is a rapist, extortionist, business cheat, insurrectionist, etc. the approval is a farce. No behavior is too low for republicans
To Hegseth and others of his ilk it's Democrats who are the real enemy to the country, and Republicans will abuse their legislative, judicial, and administrative power to destroy their political rivals.
Who gives a shit if the background check is "unremarkable?" What's publicly known about Hegseth is beyond damning. And none of that should even be relevant 𝙗𝙚𝙘𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙛𝙪𝙘𝙠𝙚𝙧 𝙞𝙨𝙣'𝙩 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙧𝙚𝙢𝙤𝙩𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙦𝙪𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙛𝙞𝙚𝙙 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣.
"If confirmed by the Senate, Hegseth would have the least amount of military experience of any defense secretary in recent history, but there are several previous U.S. defense secretaries who never served in the armed forces..."
'In November, a senior Trump adviser told ABC News that the president’s message to Republican lawmakers was “If you are on the wrong side of the vote, you’re buying yourself a primary” and that “there’s a guy named Elon Musk who is going to finance it.”'
Good news for me, my friend who is crashing with me found a place to move into on the 31st. I don't mind him crashing here, but I always prefer my house be me and my pets alone.
I really would like to see an explainer as to how the Justice Department interpreted the Constitution to say it prevents prosecution while he is in office. Without intimate knowledge of the Constitution, this position just sounds like bullshit to me.
"...1. The Sept. 24, 1973, OLC Dixon Memo. This memo, signed by the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Robert Dixon, is a procedural anomaly: It was not addressed to any official and may not have been made public at the time. It was not mentioned in the submission by the solicitor general two weeks later in the In re Agnew case.
𝐃𝐢𝐱𝐨𝐧 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭. The “proper approach” he wrote, “is to find the proper balance between the normal functions of the courts and the special responsibilities … of the Presidency.” He concluded that “criminal proceedings against a President in office should not go beyond a point where they could result in so serious a physical interference with the President’s performance of his official duties that it would amount to an incapacitation.” Thus, “a necessity to defend a criminal trial and to attend court … would interfere with the President’s unique official duties.”..."
So, this makes it appear that the original justifcation for this wasa one man's opinion. As it is, the very next para is kinda funny considering today's environment:
"...Finally, Dixon addressed “a possibility not yet mentioned”: that a sitting president could be indicted but further proceedings could be deferred until he was no longer in office. Unlike placing a president on trial, this would not result in a “physical interference” with the president’s duties. 𝐍𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐦𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐩 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐚𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭: “𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐚𝐜𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐫𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞 𝐚𝐬 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐞𝐟 𝐄𝐱𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐠𝐠𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.”...
[ bolding mine ]
There's a lot more there, concerning subsequent "memos" on the subject - but part of the author's conclusiong:
Here's what the last 9 Sec of Defense had in their background! Then there's Hegseths' background!
1, Lloyd Austin: Vice chief of staff of the Army, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, commander of CENTCOM.
2. Mark Esper: Deputy assistant SecDef, senior leader at Raytheon, secretary of the Army.
3.Jim Mattis: Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, commander of CENTCOM.
4. Ash Carter: Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, Kennedy School of Government, under SecDef for acquisition, technology, and logistics.
5. Chuck Hagel: Founder of a technology company, chair of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, U.S. senator for twelve years.
6. Leon Panetta: Member of Congress for sixteen years, White House chief of staff, director of CIA.
7. Robert Gates: Deputy national security advisor, director of CIA.
8. Donald Rumsfeld: Member of Congress for six years, head of White House Office of Economic Opportunity, ambassador to NATO, White House chief of staff.
9.William Cohen: U.S. senator for eighteen years (preceded by six years in the House of Representatives), including serving on the Senate’s Intelligence, Armed Services, and Government Affairs Committees.
Then there’s Hegseth, whose CV reads:
Served in the Army National Guard.
Briefly led a small, failing nonprofit.
Helped host a weekend show on Fox News.
Looking at all of this, you’re probably asking yourself, “How is this guy getting a confirmation hearing at all? Especially with his personal vices?”
https://digbysblog.net/2025/01/14/virtue-is-for-losers/
Republicans would approve charles Manson? After all their president is a rapist, extortionist, business cheat, insurrectionist, etc. the approval is a farce. No behavior is too low for republicans
Most people are assholes. Need proof? Shout, "HEY ASSHOLE!" at a group of people. They all turn around.
If monkey anus was so clean ,why was he able to skip swearing in?
Anxwer:
To aoid being held for perjury.
To Hegseth and others of his ilk it's Democrats who are the real enemy to the country, and Republicans will abuse their legislative, judicial, and administrative power to destroy their political rivals.
https://youtu.be/PkJgJbJosh4?si=gL1s4X40ryt6zXXb
"I'm not perfect" is an admission of guilt. YAY, a rapist is going to run the DOD.
"Burdensome rules of engagement." Okay, terrorists now.
He played the Jebus card!!!!
Who gives a shit if the background check is "unremarkable?" What's publicly known about Hegseth is beyond damning. And none of that should even be relevant 𝙗𝙚𝙘𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙛𝙪𝙘𝙠𝙚𝙧 𝙞𝙨𝙣'𝙩 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙧𝙚𝙢𝙤𝙩𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙦𝙪𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙛𝙞𝙚𝙙 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣.
"If confirmed by the Senate, Hegseth would have the least amount of military experience of any defense secretary in recent history, but there are several previous U.S. defense secretaries who never served in the armed forces..."
'In November, a senior Trump adviser told ABC News that the president’s message to Republican lawmakers was “If you are on the wrong side of the vote, you’re buying yourself a primary” and that “there’s a guy named Elon Musk who is going to finance it.”'
Kind of makes you miss the "Johnson treatment."
https://npg.si.edu/blog/lyndon-johnson-and-johnson-treatment
Yeah, but did the repubs PINKY swear that Hegseth is clean?
He looks like he would smell of BO which he attempted to cover up with Axe
lol. Like a boy in the 8th grade.
At my HS, we call them "Axe-Murderers."
heh
That's excellent!
Guilty pleasure time: I still actually like Axe. Of course, I'm not using it to cover up BO, so there's that, I guess.
Your nose must be atrophied XD
I'm a cigarette smoker, and was just inhaling nasal spray as I read that. I go through at least a bottle of spray a week...
You should try Aqua Velva!
Mennen Skin Bracer! <slaps face>
Good news for me, my friend who is crashing with me found a place to move into on the 31st. I don't mind him crashing here, but I always prefer my house be me and my pets alone.
ICYMI
https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_fullsize/plain/did:plc:dyq4pzcipzmy6fq7th5xpwqu/bafkreif5pnishvnhxrttlmktg3hfnatb5nuhtknt6hta3jbetru767k3s4@jpeg
The Department's view is dictated by corrupt republicans trying to protect corrupt republicans.
I really would like to see an explainer as to how the Justice Department interpreted the Constitution to say it prevents prosecution while he is in office. Without intimate knowledge of the Constitution, this position just sounds like bullshit to me.
One tends to wonder if this Constitution that they talk about all of the time is any more real than the Wizard of Oz.
"Pay no attention to the words on that legislation!"
Kind of like their bibble
Oh we know that. There was a memo or some such during Nixon. Kind of a warning to not try anything until he resigned.
But then Ford pardoned him so they could not try anything at all.
Good work, if you can get it
Lawfare has a pretty good 'splainer from 2018 - and it appears that the 1973 memo did NOT say that a sitting president has immunity:
Link: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/indicting-president-not-foreclosed-complex-history
"...1. The Sept. 24, 1973, OLC Dixon Memo. This memo, signed by the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Robert Dixon, is a procedural anomaly: It was not addressed to any official and may not have been made public at the time. It was not mentioned in the submission by the solicitor general two weeks later in the In re Agnew case.
𝐃𝐢𝐱𝐨𝐧 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭. The “proper approach” he wrote, “is to find the proper balance between the normal functions of the courts and the special responsibilities … of the Presidency.” He concluded that “criminal proceedings against a President in office should not go beyond a point where they could result in so serious a physical interference with the President’s performance of his official duties that it would amount to an incapacitation.” Thus, “a necessity to defend a criminal trial and to attend court … would interfere with the President’s unique official duties.”..."
So, this makes it appear that the original justifcation for this wasa one man's opinion. As it is, the very next para is kinda funny considering today's environment:
"...Finally, Dixon addressed “a possibility not yet mentioned”: that a sitting president could be indicted but further proceedings could be deferred until he was no longer in office. Unlike placing a president on trial, this would not result in a “physical interference” with the president’s duties. 𝐍𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐦𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐩 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐚𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭: “𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐚𝐜𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐫𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞 𝐚𝐬 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐞𝐟 𝐄𝐱𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐠𝐠𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.”...
[ bolding mine ]
There's a lot more there, concerning subsequent "memos" on the subject - but part of the author's conclusiong:
"...𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐧 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐛𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐯𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐱 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐝. 𝐅𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧, 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐫 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐫 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐨-𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐬𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧....."
Yet, here we are. I wonder how much the SCOTUS relied on this shit in their "immunity" ruling.
The memo was an opinion by a corrupt republican trying to protect a corrupt republican.
Ugh.
Here's my hot take: Hengmith would be a babe if his mind didn't dry me up.
Admit it. If he was the manager at the Applebees and gifted you and your table with a round of drinks, you would smile at him.
Appz or GTFO HAGMETH!
Brexiteers, 2016: "We want to free Britain from foreign interference!"
Brexiteers, 2025: "We want Trump and Musk to invade and take over Britain!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85krs2yThTA
Ya just gotta admire their dedication to nonsense.
White people interference.
Maybe they're hoping that Trump will give India and Pakistan back to them.