The military has long had a saying that “when you only have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.” When it comes to impeachment power, Democrats have long acted as if every problem is a high crime and misdemeanor. After two impeachments against President Donald Trump (including what I labeled as an infamous “snap impeachment“), Democratic politicians and pundits are back calling for the impeachment of President Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.
Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) was the latest to prepare articles of impeachment. He is demanding the removal of Hegseth over his use of the encrypted messaging app Signal to convey battle plans and the “double tap” order on a disabled drug boat.
The Signal app controversy was a legitimate objection raised by critics. The Pentagon inspector general recently found that such use can endanger both missions and personnel, even though it did not appear to have resulted in damage in this case. Nevertheless, the Pentagon is claiming that the report is a “TOTAL exoneration of Secretary Hegseth.” That is hardly convincing. It is akin to Harris claiming that Gov. Josh Shapiro’s description of her book as “utter bulls**t” is a glowing review.
However, such a controversy does not even come close to meeting the constitutional standard for impeachment. Democrats did not call for the removal of Democratic presidents or cabinet members for such past controversies, including the use of social media and private email accounts.
The inclusion of the boat strike ignores how the war crimes story has collapsed this week. Even the New York Times and ABC News (and some Democratic members) now admit that it is not true that Hegseth gave an order to kill any survivors of these attacks or that such an order was issued by military commanders.
A finishing shot on a still floating vessel is not uncommon in war. There is a legitimate debate over the policy of striking these boats. However, in terms of the president’s inherent constitutional powers, he has the authority to strike such vessels outside the United States. Other presidents have asserted such authority. This includes President Barack Obama, who claimed in his “kill list” policy to have the right to kill even American citizens anywhere and at any time based on his unilateral decision that they represent an imminent threat to national security.
With respect to the laws of war, if the military had the authority to sink the boat, the commander could order a finishing shot or shots to complete the mission. It has long been common in war to deliver such finishing shots even when there are survivors on board or in the area of the vessel. The commander must not re-engage for the sole purpose of killing survivors. There is no evidence of any such order in this strike. The Washington Post based its sensational claim on a single anonymous source.
Throughout history (including the famed sinking of the Bismarck in World War II), there have been finishing shots delivered in sea engagements to destroy vessels.
The same is true with aerial attacks. It is common for the military to deliver multiple hits on a target if it is not completely destroyed despite the presence of wounded or survivors in the area. Once again, this does not mean the decision was correct or commendable in any given circumstance. Still, it falls within the discretion historically afforded to military commanders in achieving mission objectives.
In the end, the laws of war reflect the fluidity and uncertainty of military engagement. The “fog of war” is a reality of military conflicts, even with the added technological advances that we have today.
We still have not seen the full video and have not yet confirmed the timeline of orders. That will help establish if the successive strikes were plausibly tied to the mission objective of destroying the still floating vessel and stopping the salvaging of the drugs. It will also help establish that the boat and the drugs were indeed still viable targets. The latter recovery of survivors by the military would indicate that there was no “kill them all” policy with regard to survivors.
What is clear is that this is not even close to an impeachable offense.
Thanedar is not the only one reviving calls for impeachment.
Former CNN anchor Jim Acosta is calling for the impeachment of President Donald Trump over his “hateful comments” about the Minnesota Somali community, which he claims are grounds for impeachment:
“What needs to be said that isn’t being said enough in our press over the last 24 hours is that the President of the United States said a blatantly, obviously racist thing in the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday when he said what he said about Somali immigrants in this country. That they don’t contribute anything, that they’re not of value. In no normal world should the President of the United States of America ever, ever say something like that to the American people or even say it privately… I mean, if the President of the United States says it privately, it means he’s a bad person, and we should get rid of him.”
But to me, that was an impeachable moment. There have been so many impeachable moments since Donald Trump has come back to the White House, but to blatantly say something as racist and as hateful and as nasty and cruel and mean-spirited as what he said yesterday. The impeachment proceedings should begin right now. But of course, they won’t.”
There is a reason why they won’t . . . because this is ridiculous. Many of us have objected to the President’s comments about whole groups in this country. It is wrong to attack all Somalis in this country. I have previously written about how many of these immigrants from authoritarian nations embrace the essence of our country in seeking a free and better life.
However, past presidents have also used offensive or objectionable terms to refer to groups in the United States from Hillary Clinton’s reference to black men as “super predators” to Joe Biden’s referring to school desegregation as forcing white students to study in a “racial jungle” or claiming that any blacks who do not support him “ain’t black.”
I also do not remember these critics denouncing the attacks on figures like Elon Musk over his nationality.
The suggestion that these comments by Trump are an impeachable offense is absurd.
There is little danger that such impeachments will move forward. However, if Democrats retake the House, the impeachment impulse will be overwhelming.
lp’
One has to stand in awe at the perpetual outrage machine for whatever Trump says or does – or his underlings.
One: We are in a WORLDWIDE WAR. If you don’t understand that – because its 5th Generation/Psy Op heavy war – you won’t relate to what Trump has a daunting task to stop predators. I ain’t saying he’s going about it AT ALL right – or taking advice from the right people (Wiles, Tech bros, Jewish billionaires) – but he’s got more on his plate that say the average Congressional schlep or these media hustlers with lying as their only skill.
These sorts of people are serious seditious clowns…FDR handled that problem how? Put a lot of nat security threats in detention…but don’t you LOVE FDR?
Two: For all the exceptions you cite, Trump can do these things. It just pisses Washington off he doesn’t want to Slava Ukraini more than he wants to protect our Western Hemisphere. State/CIA are so evil they will destroy the golden goose just to prove Trump was the problem. He wasn’t – DC MADE HIM into THE PROBLEM. Like they did with how many other leaders of other countries. Notice, the pattern? “COLOR REV #110” being operated on the U.S. by its own Nat Sec/Intel/Bureaucrats.
Again, The Seditious Six are being ran by who? John Brennan? Comey? Norm Eisen? Boasberg? Any number of names that are aligned to destroy the country just because….what/who are they being incentivized by? Follow the money & their work. (Law firms, banks, Intel Agencies, Defense Contractors, International players….)
Three: The Venezuelans are just a spoke in a larger wheel. Mexico, Canada, Panama, and lets say it now: Western Europe. All the West NATO scumbags are worthless. World Economic Forum puppets and evilly destroying Western CIV…. (Did I mention BlackRock’s Fink is now in charge of the WEF?)
All the International companies, nearly 25% of world GDP and aligned to WEF – have both AI on the brain and hatred for any rules that stop them from sucking people dry – need a rethink or abolishment. Time for the East India Model to be modified.
More intrigue will be needed to downsize the worst crop of garbage leaders (trained to be that way) in like….80-90 years. Technocrats need to be dealt with one on one. If Xi Jinping makes his move, we need a plan…. (Will he do it in 2026? — For people thinking the CCP doesn’t have grander dreams, they do.) And of course, our London-based banking traitors need to be finally dealt with for the UK population. Our British Commoners need their country back. Muslims go back — that was triggered by Bush and Obama (Arab Spring). This means King Chuck & Kier Starmer need to face: judgment like some time about 400 years ago.
Dear Prof Turley,
War is hell. ‘Compared to war, all other forms of human endeavor shrink to insignificance’ ~ Gen. George S. Patton
There have not been too many impeachments (i.e. ‘impeachment mania’) .. . there have been far too few.
Bush/Cheney ‘tortured some folks’. Obama assassinated more people, including U.S. citizens, by executive order than all prior presidents combined . .. Biden, of course, has no idea what he did.
If at first you don’t succeed. .. try, try, try again.
I suspect Sec. ‘Whisky Pete’ Hegseth’s holy water is watered down .. . no one can lawfully designate him judge, jury and executioner.
*if it requires my assent . .. I do not give it.
dgsnowden slurred: I suspect Sec. ‘Whisky Pete’ Hegseth’s holy water is watered down .. .
That’s innovative… and here I thought it was just elected Democrats, their media talking heads and their trolls here that used that lie that Hegseth is a boozer. You keep great company! I suspect you started day drinking far too early today if the best you can do is copy and paste Democrat lies in your rambling complaints.
And linking to what we now know were the Washington Post’s defaming lies: that Hegseth ordered “no survivors”, that Hegseth is the one that ordered the second strike, and that Hegseth was at least in the room when that order was given. Where would you be without the Washington Post and their fake news help prop you up?
*Your trannying to being a functional Democrat apparatchik is proceeding nicely.
This includes President Barack Obama, who claimed in his “kill list” policy to have the right to kill even American citizens anywhere and at any time based on his unilateral decision that they represent an imminent threat to national security.
Those strikes were on enemy combatants. Enemy soldiers, in wartime, waging war on the USA. In the USA’s entire history it has never been the case that the US military either inquires into what passports enemy soldiers have before shooting them, or that it cares.
Me thinks the correct “Big D” adjective for a politician is Democrat, instead of Democratic.
Turley Parrots Bernie Bros
“However, past presidents have also used offensive or objectionable terms to refer to groups in the United States from Hillary Clinton’s reference to black men as “super predators”–
…………………………………………
https://youtu.be/j0uCrA7ePno?si=YIqlTcaGL34xGqm_
…………………………………………….
The YouTube video above shows us exactly what Hillary Clinton said, on the campaign trail in 1996. At no point does she refer directly to Black males.
Hillary describes “gangsters and drug dealers” as “super predators”.
That shouldn’t be controversial. But it was to Bernie Bros! So Bernie Bros, in 2016, spun this speech as a racist attack on Black males.
One must realize that in 1996, when Hillary made these remarks, the crack epidemic was very recent history. It was an epidemic of violence that exceeded the Capone era in terms of gun violence. And Black children, more than anyone, were victims of gun violence.
Teenage gangsters were firing guns on public playgrounds, residential streets and fast food restaurants. Shooting at other teenagers for reasons so trivial the headlines made no sense. And half the time innocent bystanders were caught in the fire.
Super Predators indeed. Hillary called it right. But the Bernie Bros sought to damage her with Black voters. So it became this dark, racist scandal in ‘Progressive’ Facebook memes.
And here Johnathan Turley parrots the lie as a cheap, talking point. In a column suggesting Trump’s war on drug traffickers is more proper than not. Like blowing boats out of the water isn’t as bad as calling drug dealers ‘super predators’.
Turley Parrots Bernie Bros
One of “Hills” dozen or so groupie Metrosexual Males from the “I’M WITH HER!” crowd is trying (and failing) to rewrite the history of how the unindicted felon, Killary, lost the 2016 election. And they’ll lie about their own fellow corrupt Democrats as they will lie about Trump and Republicans.
Beginning with trying to claim Killary was the victim of Bernie the Commie and his Bernie Bros. The opposite is true: Sanders was leading Killary in the primary when Killary conspired with DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to take him out and make Killary the DNC nominee instead. That isn’t controversial – it’s a fact. Straight out of court and the DNC itself:
Court Concedes DNC Had the Right to Rig Primaries Against Sanders
https://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wasserman-schulz-rigged-primaries-against-sanders/
How Hillary Clinton Rigged The Democratic Primary — And May Have Broken The Law
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/how-hillary-clinton-rigged-the-democratic-primary-and-may-have-broken-the-law/
Numerous things caused American voters to kick Killary and the “I’M WITH HER! Metrosexual Males back into the gutters they had slithered out of.
1. The corruption of her and her foundations – voters saw she wasn’t charged for her five years of income tax fraud prior to the election, but allowed to simply rewrite those tax returns and pay taxes on the charity monies in her foundation that she had stolen and spent on herself instead. Thank you Barack!
2. Voters learned how Killary had left Americans she had sent to Benghazi to be murdered by al-Qaeda terrorists; she went to bed to peaceful sleep while knowing the terrorist attack and murders of Americans were still going on. She then dispatched professional Obama/Clinton liars to the media in a blitzkreig of lies claiming it wasn’t a terrorist attack – just a protest against a horribly offensive YouTube video that had unfortunately gone wrong.
3. When Killary appeared before Congress to perjure herself and then add her famously indifferent statement about the Americans she left to be murdered, “What difference does it make?”, her perjury quickly lead to the discovery of her insecure and felonious private cellphones and mail servers. And then watched her destroy all of that criminal evidence after it had been secured.
And while there are many other reasons as well, unlike the Metrosexual Males that worshipped “Hills” and still wear their “I’M WITH HER!” buttons proudly, the majority of Americans including women (who she assumed would vote for her simply because she had a vagina) loathed and mistrusted her as a deeply corrupt, cold, and despicable human being.
Go guzzle some cheap stolen wine in a gesture of fealty your “I’M WITH HER!” goddess, “Hills”. She and you both should be smugly satisfied that after 40 years of crime beginning with her genius stock trading investments while in the Governor’s mansion with her husband BJ, she has managed to escape being indicted for any of it, whether that stock trading, influence peddling while SecState, income tax evasion, espionage act felonies, or hiring foreign spies to write the felonious Trump-Russia Dossier
Killary by herself is a far greater corrupt political crime wave than her closest competitor (who you also voted for), The Oval Office House Plant, senior partner in Biden White House Crime LLC.
Well, tbh, Obama was no shrinking violet.
*in retrospect, always thought Bernie Bro should have run as an ‘Independent’ in 2016 .. . ‘Killary’ didn’t stand a chance against a carnival barker like Trump.
“2. Voters learned how Killary had left Americans she had sent to Benghazi to be murdered by al-Qaeda terrorists; she went to bed to peaceful sleep while knowing the terrorist attack and murders of Americans were still going on.”
Just because a Faux Noose entertainer makes an allegation doesn’t make it true. Prior to the attack Republican lawmakers had cut the funding for security at US diplomatic installations. Perhaps you missed the hours of testimony and accusations Hillary sat through and ultimately concluded with no finding of culpability on Hillary’s part.
Utter rubbish by Turley, demonstrating his ignorance of LOAC and targeting procedures, plus an appalling distortion of history. The 2 September attacks – and note, the term double-tap is used wrongly, as there were two double-tap attacks, the double-tap referring to two weapons being rippled in each of the attacks, not the decision to launch a second strike 41 minutes after the first – are a prima facie breach of LOAC, since of the three principles, distinction is very dubious, and proportionality and necessity clearly not justified.
Distinction – this is a bigger question, but the Administration has wholly failed to demonstrate that those aboard were the “narco-terrorists” they claim. Even if they are, there is no evidence that they were armed, and posed no threat to life, given that their alleged cargo could and should have been stopped from reaching any shore by conventional law enforcement means.
Proportionality – the go-fast seems to have been struck by a double-tap of two guided weapons, likely Hellfires or similar. Nobody contests that it was capsized, and in no condition to make way even if righted. A second double-tap 41 minutes later, of two more guided weapons, against a section of wreckage with survivors atop it, fails completely any rational measure of proportionality.
Necessity – the USCG and other allied maritime forces, including the Royal Navy, has long exercised effective interceptions of vessels identified as potential drug smuggling. However, note that, on interception, a notable proportion of these vessels have been found to be innocent. Therefore, not only is there no necessity to employ lethal force against such vessels, it is well established that the intelligence identifying such vessels is, understandably, imperfect. Guided missile strikes are not only expensive, but fail to meet the necessity requirement.
One might also note that Turley’s comparison with the sinking of Bismarck is fatuous in the extreme; she was engaged in a gun battle with Royal Navy battleships, and the RN made every effort to rescue the survivors when she sank. A better comparison would be with the machine-gunning of survivors in the water, for which Japanese submarine commanders were hanged as war criminals, and for which the notorious Lt Cdr Morton USN should have been prosecuted – note that in his case, it was even worse as most of the “Japanese” survivors he murdered were in fact allied prisoners of war.
Also, it is not proven that Hegseth did not instruct anyone as to not leaving survivors – we only have the word of the Admiral. Note that if he admitted receiving such an order, he would be offering a prima facie case for having knowingly enacted an illegal order; his only defence at present is the fatuous idea that if the two survivors had somehow righted the wrecked craft, they might still have delivered the drugs before the USN or USCG could reach the scene.
ATS – the Madoru govenment in Venezuella has been designated as a Terrorist organization making use of and benefitting from Drug Cartels in order to destabilize the US.
You can argue against that if you wish – but the evidence is certainly stronger than that involving Noriega and the Honduran that you left wing nuts constantly rant about.
Venezuela is at this time a hostile nation state. While the US is not in a declared war against Venezeulla we are in a position similar to other times in which US presidents have used military lethal force against other nations – including non-military combatants.
In the US the president is the Commander in Chief of the military – while left wing nuts democrats recently ranted about the military not having to follow illegal orders – this would NOT be true in this case.
The presidential finding with respect to Madoru,. Venezuella and the drug cartels is sufficient to justify the use of lethal military force.
In fact the argument is much stronger than Obama using drones to kill a US Citizen in Yemen.
Anwar al-Awlaki and his son were killed on orders from Obama at a time in which they were NOT a direct threat to US citizens in the US.
The drug smugglers from Venezuella are targeting the US – not some civil war elsewhere in the world where they have picked a different side that the US.
The president has given an order. The order was justified, and contra your claims legal.
BTW it has been confirmed that a JAG officer was present and signed off on the 2nd strike.
It is going to be very hard to claim that the military was acting on an illegal order when JAG signed off on the order.
It has also been subsequently confirmed that neither Trump nor Hegseth and probably not even the admiral involved directly ordered the 2nd strike. It is NOT impossible that the above were involved – Obama was directly involved in individual drone strikes,
it is NOT normal for most of the chain of command to be involved in the details of specific strikes.
But it would not matter.
With respect to your nonsense.
Yes LOAC does require the elements you claimed – but the standards are NOT those of a criminal court of law.
The presidential finding is sufficient to meet the requirement for necessity. Venezuellan drug dealers have been found to be terrorists intent on destabilizing the US and killing non-combatants in the US.
Proportionality – again is trivially met – this is a relatively SMALL action, with a potentially enormous impact.
The US has killed Terrorists as well as dozens of innocent family and friends and even unrelated people in past attacks.
The responsibility to limit innocent casualties is NOT a requirement to completely preclude them.
Regardless, the people on the boats were drug traffickers. They are not innocent, The fact that MAYBE they were not carrying a gun does not make them non-combatants anymore than the national guardsmen driving Military Transport in Iraq.
If you are part of a terrorist orgainzation – you are a combatant.
as to Distinction – given as you failed to address it IS legal to kill completely innocent civilians in war so long as they are not the target – though that does not explain the firebombing of dresden or Tokyo or the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Regardless, unless you are prepared to Try Churchill and Roosevelt and Truman for War crimes – your arguments here are DOA.
It is sufficient that these people were traviling in a boat typically used to transport Drugs, on a rout typically used to transport drugs as sufficient to identify them as narco-terrorists. That is ALL the demonstration necescary.
Again this is a military conflict NOT a criminal trial in the US. These people do not have constitutional rights.
However if as you demand they are interdicted inside of US teritorial waters – they would.
So yes the evidece they are narco terrorists is sufficient. Maybe not for you. Maybe not for a criminal trial in the US,
But sufficent to comply with LOAC.
Were they armed ? Does not matter. Soldiers transporting mail in an armed conflict are legitimate targets – whether they are armed or not.
Did they pose an immediate through to life ? Does not matter – again soldiers transporting mail are legitimate targets – whether they are an imminent threat. And they certainly were a trheat to the lives of Americans. There were 77K drug overdose death in the last year. Mostly from Fentayl mostly supplied by China through contries like Venezuelan.
There is no law of armed conflict requirement that the military allow dangerous threat to reach our shore – much less be dealth with by US law enforcement.
Sen. Paul noted that the USCG misidentified 27% of those transporting Drugs INTO the US.
That is because that is actually HARDER. There are far more reasons for boats like this to be traveling at high speed INTO the united states.
Than into the Caribean or Pacific oceans.
But even if that were not the case – again – the LOAC does NOT require proof beyond a reasonable doubt before the use of force.
You keep trying to pretend that this is merely a US criminal matter.
First the US is not required to provide US constitutional rights protections to alleged criminals who are not US citizens outside the US.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is NOT the standard. NONE of the claims you have made apply.
Soldiers do not debate whether the coast guard or the police should take out criminals.
And even the FBI and CIA is permitted to use methods against non-use citizens outside the US.
You aparently were asleep when the debate over the FISA court took place.
FISA Warrants are required ONLY to protect the rights of US persons. Neither the CIA nor the FBI require permission from US courts to take actions that would violate the rights of US citizens if they are dealing with non-us persons outside the US.
WE did not use conventional law enforcement to fight terrorists in Yemen or Somalia or Iraq – we used the US military.
“Necessity” does not mean task law enforcement or the coast guard rather than the millitary with fighting terrorists.
The laws of armed conflict do NOT require that you use only the lefts prefered means to fight terrorists.
Nor do they require perfection.
“Guided missile strikes are not only expensive”
Correct, but interestingly LESS expensive than protracted criminal trials and appeals.
“but fail to meet the necessity requirement.”
No you are trying to convert the necescity requirement into a lever to apply US constitutional rights.
It is not.
“One might also note that Turley’s comparison with the sinking of Bismarck is fatuous in the extreme; she was engaged in a gun battle with Royal Navy battleships,”
FALSE – you clearly are completely ignorant of the sinking of the bismark. There are many books written on it and movies – you would read or watch one. REGARDLESS. The Bismark was completely disabled, Her guns destroyed and she was unable to continue the fight when she was finally sunk. She was pounded relentlessly after she was no longer able to put up a fight, and eventually sunk by Torpedoes from a destory that was able to close easily within her gun range – because the guns had all been knocked out. Though there is also an argument that the Germans scuttled here.
“the RN made every effort to rescue the survivors when she sank”
False. There was an effort to recover German sailors but that was quickly abandoned as she was too close to France and German Submarines.
Hundreds of german sailors from the bismark were left to die.
Nor is this the only incident like this.
Further – both the Germans japanese and the US sunk unarmed cargo ships and rarely stopped to rescue crews.
“A better comparison would be”
Something stupid and entirely unrelated.
“Also, it is not proven that”
Your the one making war crimes allegations – which DO have a beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof.
It is YOU that has NOT proven your argument – and it is YOU that has the far higher burden of proof.
“we only have the word of the Admiral.”
Not quite as good as the pope – but close.
You do understand that the Honor code forbids a US admiral from lying under most circumstances even if they are not under oath.
“Note that if he admitted receiving such an order, he would be offering a prima facie case for having knowingly enacted an illegal order;”
Correct – which is prima fascia evidence that he was not given an illegal order and that he did not give an illegal order.
Again YOU ASSUME – because you do not like the Trump administration or Hegseth that outrageous and unsupported claims are true.
If this was the Biden Administration – even the Same General and similar facts – you would be defending the Admiral and Sec Def.
Unfortunately Biden was unwilling to protect americans.
“his only defence at present”
Nope – back to the bismark – The UK sank it – with some crew in the water and others on board long after it was no longer an immediate threat.
That is not the standard.
Again you keep trying to transform the LOAC into US criminal law.
They are not the same.
You can not fight an armed military conflict on the high seas the same way you do a crime in the country.
For pity’s sake, you cannot even spell Venezuela. Or Bismarck. Or Caribbean. Or preferred.
Bismarck was a battleship, which still had secondary armament in play. Turley’s comparison and yours to a wrecked motorboat is moronic. Furthermore, the only reason ONE RN ship ceased rescue efforts was because a periscope was thought to have been seen. At least one British officer risked his life diving into the sea, in bad conditions, to attempt to rescue a German.
Your entire screed is just pathetic, because you cannot stand the idea that your country has possibly committed capital crimes, on the say so of a deranged President and his equally deranged Secretary of Defense.
You would not pass any targeting or LOAC course in the military. Those of us who have, and have practised such decision making for real, hold the actions of 2 September in horror. By any rational standard of decency, they would be subject to a full judicial investigation.
People accuse you of being an AI bot. Bollocks. AI bots at least know how to spell, rather than just spew deranged pseudo-intellectual nonsense.
Your entire screed is just pathetic, because you cannot stand the idea that your country has possibly committed capital crimes, on the say so of a deranged President and his equally deranged Secretary of Defense.
Ah, there it is, the key word: “possibly”! Our resident deranged raging communist British wanker has been reduced to living his life in a Midol Moment! The liar who has been claiming the UK system of justice that won’t prosecute Muslim rape gangs – but prosecutes people for silently praying – is superior to ours, is now here to cosplay that he also knows better on narco-terrorism.
This is his deflection from recent UK news that his vaunted British justice system and it’s police hid those rape gangs and they’re still active. The police this British wanker claims are better than America’s were instrumental in allowing the widespread rape to continue. Yes, a few days ago he claimed his police, deliberately allowing widespread child rape to continue, is superior to our American police arresting and deporting criminal Illegal Aliens… particularly targeting those abusing children.
UK Inquiry Reveals Pakistani Muslim Rape Gangs Active in 85 Areas, Exposing Decades of Negligence
https://tfipost.com/2025/08/uk-inquiry-reveals-pakistani-muslim-rape-gangs-active-in-85-areas-exposing-decades-of-negligence/
One of the most shocking findings is the complicity of prosecutors and police, who, out of fear of being labeled racist or Islamophobic, ignored thousands of complaints and allowed sexual abuse and rape to continue unchecked for decades. In Rotherham alone, an estimated 1,400 children were abused between 1997 and 2013 by gangs primarily of Pakistani descent. Similar horrors unfolded in Telford, where around 1,000 girls were exploited in a town of just 170,000 people, with reports of rape houses and even child murders. In Rochdale, at least 47 young girls were groomed and raped from 2002 onward.
Next, we’ll get an Appeal To Authority – he’ll claim once upon a time he wore a uniform in some capacity or other, mess steward, naval boatswain or other, while actually meeting an American or two while doing so. Therefore, we must accept any emotional screed he presents as authoratative.
And with the superiority he would crown himself King Of Knowledge with, he knows far about narco-terrorist interdiction than all of the US military personnel involved (as they were with other presidents), and the many layers of lawyers who approved of these both before and afterwards.
Whatever… he DOES win at claiming he’s great at making his argument as a spelling and grammar Nazi. The Russian judge gives you a 9.5.
You have reduced your military to being a toothless tiger – BATUS at Suffield is a ghost town where just a few short years ago it was the largest and most active British training base in the entire UK and Commonwealth. There were over 70 Challenger tanks along with assorted other armoured fighting and support vehicles; now it’s got two Land Rovers and the best the UK has left is wankers like you cosplaying on this blog that you are somehow or other superior whether your justice system or addressing narco-terrorism. Narco-terrorism your government does exactly nothing about.
We forcibly kicked your pretentious British asses out of this country one time.
This time we’ll just politely ask you to take your gaslighting ass home to the UK and clean up your corrupt justice system that allows these hajji child rape and murder, and maybe try rebuilding something that looks like an effective military.
Sod off, you pretentious and useless British cull and your pathetic BBBBUUUTTTT…. MUH TRUMP!!!!
Admirals do not lie, you say. Hmmm. Funny how the deeply respected Admiral commanding SOUTHCOM resigned rather than be part of Hegseth and Trump’s murderous shenanigans… Whilst the Admiral who carried out deeply questionable orders – and was promoted for so doing – now realises that his career could end in disgrace if competent authorities ever scrutinise his actions.
Bottom line – at least one Admiral realised that you do not fight a claimed “armed military conflict on the high seas”, in place of properly conducting basic, non-lethal law enforcement operations which fully recognise that intelligence is very imperfect and that some suspect vessels are in fact entirely innocent.
Now, scurry off and join the ICE blackshirts, old fruit. They would love your deep legal expertise.
Jhon Asy, diarrhea in written form. Possibly the result of an overeating brain worm or advanced syphilis.
“the US sunk unarmed cargo ships and rarely stopped to rescue crews.” is a far cry from machine gunning survivors.
They deserve a trial.
Also, the US -sank-, not “sunk” . Such an example of the uneducated.
Utter rubbish by Turley, demonstrating his ignorance of LOAC and targeting procedures… Also, it is not proven that Hegseth did not instruct anyone as to not leaving survivors
Utter rubbish to wildly claim you have any knowledge whatsoever about what you’re barking and yapping about – if you had ever worked in any of that you’d have eagerly been quoting chapter and verse from them rather than making wild claims you’re an expert on those matters. You have not proven that you have any such knowledge.
What IS proven is that the Washington Post’s lies about Hegseth are now as dead in the water as that narco-terrorist shipment of drugs. But you’re desperately trying to breath life back into them, without any proof at all.
To summarize the Washington Post’s lies that are as exposed as their earlier “Trump-Russia Dossier” lies.
1. They lied that Hegseth had given an order “no survivors”. He did not.
2. They then lied that Hegseth had personally given the order for additional strikes. He did not.
3. They then lied that Hegseth was at least in the room and watching those orders being issued. He wasn’t.
Yet here you are – trying to breathe life back into sleazy Democrat lies.
No Pulitizers for the Washington Post on this one as their latest attack of the Democrat-Marxist Mainstream Media Propaganda Complex.
And no cookie for you, you pathetic Lyin’ Like A Biden’ Democrat Marxist Useless Idiot apparatchik.
OT: SCOTUS opinion on Texas redistricting map is to let it stand. California is mentioned in the opinion. 40% of California population are registered Republicans and have 9 reps in the House while democrats have a whopping 45 reps. The new map takes down 5 more republican reps giving Republicans at 40% of the population 4 reps in the House.
So much for justice.
30 States plus DC track voter party. 20 States do not so data is unavailable in those nontracking States.
^^^*. Additionally the western hemisphere has become a mafia-state or narco-state as a form of political system. You’ll need tobread about it. It’s when the drug cartels are an integral part of government. They use the government to further enrich themselves. It leads to anarchy as you see now.
DJT is waging war against the narco-state. Unfortunately the congress is controlled by the cartels. That’s who’s behind it. That’s Biden’s team. That’s Obama’s I can kill anyone anywhere at any time.
FYI
*. These twerp judges and such are controlled by narco money that corrupt all institutions within a narco-state.
SCOTUS should stay out of political questions – whether the issue is TX or CA.
While I think both states are being stupid – though democrats are more so.
It is not the job of the courts to fix this – this is purely a political question – there is no objectively correct way to redistrict.
The decision as to whether the legislature has overstepped belongs to the voters of the state – not the courts.
I would separately note that redistricting to increase the number of representatives of one party or another is a dangerous gamble.
In order to redistrict a state to get a 50-4 majority in a state where 40% of voters are in the minority party, you are going to have to create a very large number of 1% majority districts. All you need is a slight shift in the voting and CA could find itself with 30 Republicans in congress.
The same is true of TX.
Gerrymandering is a dangerous fools game but it is not unconstitutional, and not the business of the courts.
Something the left does not seem to grasp.
Everything you do not like is not something that requires govenrment or the courts to fix.
Contra the left the constitution does NO guarantee Fairness – nor can it. If you ask 10 people what is fair – you will get 12 opinions.
Fair does not exist. Violations of actual rights do – that is an objective standard and in the jurisdiction fo the courts.
Fairness is not, and people who talk about tairness as a requirement are dangerous. They always mean what THEY think is fair, not what everyone thinks is fair.
They won’t make 1% margin districts. What trash reasoning. California only needs to move two districts to flip.
“there is no objectively correct way to redistrict”
There are plenty of incorrect ones and Texas chose one of them.
Fairness was that the party percentages in the state should match the party percentages in the House of Representatives. Texas is trying for all-or-nothing, but they need to move 6 districts out of a total of 38 to get a 30:8 ratio.
Here’s Texas:
PARTY REGISTRATION STATISTICS
Total Registered Voters: 17,485,702
Democrats: 8,133,683 (46.52%)
Republicans: 6,601,189 (37.75%)
Unaffiliated: 2,750,830 (15.73%)
In 2024 only 54% of the votes went to Trump; this is in keeping with Republican + Unaffiliated, rather than the nearly 4:1 ratio of gerrymandered Republican majority districts.
How about an impeachable offense for killing people on the high seas because you suspect they are running drugs.
If missiles, bombs, bullets, fly from U.S. into Venezuela, that is an impeachable offense. Unless Congress declares war ahead of time.
350, 000 to 400, 000 deaths in Mexico alone in approx 10 years. Quite a war eh?
Government by drug cartel isn’t a recognized political system. Try letting CECOT loose , buddy.
^^^ Now we know what it is. Americans, you’d better have a border made of iron henceforth, land, air, sea, space. Just imagine El Salvador. If not leave the western hemisphere.
Nope. It is not. Past presidents have had action on land and no issue raised.
Anonymous, how about at first you said they were just innocent fisherman. You are so easy.
Did you tell “Crazy Abe” Lincoln that?
Ano
Unless Congress declares war ahead of time.
********************
But not for Korea or Nam.
OOPS
MAHHA – Make America Have Hepatitus Again
Very LOW percentage of babies need the shot(that has risks) ANON!! Up to the patients doctor!