Tag: investigations
Pete Hegseth

Why The Hegseth Debacle Was Inevitable

President Donald Trump’s second administration hasn’t yet hit the 100-day mark, but Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is already being routinely described as “embattled.” On Friday, Hegseth fired three of the top aides he had brought with him to the Pentagon amid an investigation into unauthorized leaks. Sunday brought two new body blows: News that Hegseth had shared details about U.S. strikes in Yemen in a second unsecured Signal chat — this one including his wife, brother, and personal lawyer — and a scathing op-ed from a former top Pentagon spokesperson who accused Hegseth of creating “total chaos” at the department.

It’s unnerving to see the management of the world’s most powerful military described as “a run of chaos that is unmatched in the recent history of the Defense Department,” or to read reports about how the internal dysfunction is leading some officials “to wonder how the Pentagon would function in a national security crisis.” Trump, however, is standing by Hegseth — apparently the only reporting that can get high-level figures removed in this administration is that of conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer.

Hegseth’s disastrous run at the Pentagon is entirely predictable, the natural result of elevating a co-host of Fox & Friends’ weekend edition to sixth in the line of succession because the president liked his Fox News hits.

Hegseth lacked anything resembling the traditional qualifications to lead the Defense Department. Other recent picks have leaned on their experience at the top levels of the military, the Pentagon bureaucracy, or congressional oversight of the department, but Hegseth had none of these — he led a platoon in the Army National Guard and oversaw small right-wing veterans organizations before joining Fox as a contributor in 2014. His elevation might nonetheless be explicable if he had unique personal virtues or strong outside-the-box ideas for how to manage the Pentagon, but he’s been dogged by reports of public drunkenness, sexual assault, and financial mismanagement, while his vision for the military seems to begin and end with the notion that it had become excessively “woke.”

What Hegseth had in spades was the one attribute Trump seems to value above all others — years of expressing sycophantic public support for the president on Fox. For Trump, a Fox obsessive who stocked both of his administrations with familiar faces from the network’s green rooms, that was enough.

Trump reportedly considered Hegseth to lead the Department of Veterans Affairs in his first term but ultimately retained him as an outside adviser — one whose counsel he took in offering clemency to several accused and convicted war criminals the Fox host boosted. But for his second time in the Oval Office, Trump tapped Hegseth to run the DOD.

Asking a Fox & Friends weekend host to oversee a massive bureaucracy with millions of military and civilian employees and a budget in the hundreds of billions is obviously stupid, and Hegseth’s nomination appeared to be in jeopardy amid a series of damning reports. But Trump’s MAGA media supporters decided to lay down a marker, threatening Republican senators with primary challenges if they did not support Hegseth’s confirmation, and he ultimately squeaked through as Vice President JD Vance voted to break the Senate’s 50-50 tie.

Hegseth’s actions in office quickly vindicated his critics and forced his defenders to scramble on his behalf. March’s revelation that Hegseth had shared detailed information about imminent U.S. military strikes over a commercial messaging app led to days of strained explanations from his former Fox colleagues and others in the MAGA media.

The response has been somewhat different following Sunday’s revelation of the second such set of messages. Some on Fox have offered defenses for Hegseth, while a Media Matters review found the network’s popular panel show The Five and evening hosts Laura Ingraham, Jesse Watters, and Sean Hannity have ignored the story on their programs. Other MAGA media figures have blamed the report on the “deep state,” with some suggesting that Hegseth has been targeted as part of a struggle within the Trump administration over Iran policy.

The defense secretary, meanwhile, has responded to the string of damning reports by leaning into what got him the job in the first place: He has publicly lashed out at his critics and lavished praise on the president.

“They've come after me from day one, just like they've come after President Trump,” Hegseth said in a Tuesday appearance on Fox & Friends. “I've gotten a fraction of what President Trump got in that first term. What he has endured is superhuman.”

Hegseth isn’t the only right-wing media star turned top Trump appointee to struggle in the administration’s early days, and we should expect more such stories in the days to come. The president has prioritized hiring people who are adept at throwing red meat to the MAGA base. While that may help them weather scandals that would doom a member of a normal political movement, it is not a skill that translates to overseeing complicated bureaucracies.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

'We Will Not Stand Silent': An Open Letter Against Retaliatory Investigations

'We Will Not Stand Silent': An Open Letter Against Retaliatory Investigations

I'm devoting today's column to words that other people have written. They are very important words—words of the moment and words for the ages.

I don't generally sign onto letters, even those I agree with. My chief concern is avoiding any compromise to my credibility as a journalist. It's not as if it would surprise anyone to know I have views, and even to guess what they might be. (I do think people sometimes guess wrong; I identify as a rule-of-law Democrat, which sometimes leads me to take positions at odds with friends on the left.) But I don't want to give the impression that I have a personal stake in any issue, at least one that I haven't disclosed. I want readers to have complete confidence that I'm giving them my best objective read.

But I did sign a letter that was published over the weekend, and I am proud of it. The letter, which was published in The New York Times, expresses grave concern about Trump’s presidential memoranda disparaging two of his many enemies, Chris Krebs and Miles Taylor—revoking their security clearances and ordering investigations of them by the Department of Justice. All of this was for the essential sin—the newly minted egregious felony—of contradicting the maximum leader.

We have watched as norm after norm, law after law, has been bulldozed by a power-mad would-be tyrant. Many of these actions have harmed millions of Americans. But singling out Krebs and Taylor for investigation and punishment represents a breathtaking descent into the very worst of authoritarian rule. As the letter expresses, “these actions, if carried out, will leave a permanent stain on our institutions and erode our democracy.”

I am honored to be in the company of the signatories, who include legal luminaries and good friends of all political stripes. We say this a lot, but it is both true and urgent, that the existential challenges Trump is posing to the democratic experiment transcend party and policy.

An Open Letter Opposing White House Retaliatory Investigations

We write with grave concern about the two presidential memoranda dated April 9, 2025, targeting Chris Krebs and Miles Taylor, respectively — two former national security officials who served the people of the United States. These executive actions represent a dangerous escalation in the abuse of presidential power: weaponizing federal agencies to carry out personalized retribution against named individuals.

Presidents of both parties have long respected the independence of federal law enforcement and refrained from using the power at their disposal to punish perceived enemies. Indeed, presidents have gone out of their way to avoid even the appearance of impropriety or influence. President Trump’s statements are a profoundly unconstitutional break with this tradition. He is explicitly targeting two Americans because they exercised their First Amendment rights and criticized him. That is a miscarriage of justice which these individuals, and other people and institutions vindictively singled out by him, will be unfairly forced to endure. The president of the United States must not direct federal authorities to investigate people with whom he disagrees.

This is not democratic governance. It is baseless retaliation — and it has no place in the United States of America. Across our history, there have been dark chapters where state power has been weaponized and dissent suppressed, including the crackdown during and after World War I, the Red Scare of the 1950s, and President Richard Nixon’s “enemies list.” These episodes are now seen as shameful deviations from the fundamental American principles of free expression and impartial justice. The April 9 presidential memoranda are an appalling rejection of those bedrock democratic values.

Indeed, the President’s actions not only evoke some of the worst moments in our history; they go even further. For a president to personally and publicly direct the levers of the federal government against publicly named citizens for political reasons sets a new and perilous precedent in our republic. It brings to mind the abuses of power that characterize authoritarian nations, not the United States. No matter one’s party or politics, every American should reject the notion that the awesome power of the presidency can be used to pursue individual vendettas. Behavior of this kind is more to be expected from a royal despot than the elected leader of a constitutional republic. This is the path of autocracy, not democracy.

For these reasons, we urge that the President immediately rescind these memoranda and that agency heads repudiate any order that undermines their oaths, politicizes their missions, or betrays the constitutional principles they are sworn to uphold.

These actions, if carried out, will leave a permanent stain on our institutions and erode our democracy. History will not forget who stood silent. We will not stand silent.

Reprinted with permission from Substack.

Cassidy Hutchinson

Johnson Fears Disclosure Of Salacious GOP Texts To Hutchinson

Former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson was a key witness for the January 6 Select Committee in 2022, and in 2024, she was among the conservative Republicans who said she would be voting for Democratic nominee Kamala Harris for president.

Hutchinson told NBC News, "I have known for quite a long time, number one, that I would never in my life vote for Donald Trump ever again."

Now, with President Trump back in the White House, Hutchinson's name is back in the headlines — and she is being mentioned as a possible witness by a pro-Trump U.S. House subcommittee.

But according to the Washington Post, House Speaker Mike Johnson's (R-LA) staff is warning aides to Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) that subpoenaing Hutchinson could bring to light "embarrassing information" and sexually explicit texts she allegedly received when she was working in the White House during Trump's first presidency.

The Daily Beast's Josh Fiallo reports, "Trump's return to power has Republicans clamoring to seek retribution against political foes who probed Trump, his advisers, and his supporters about the infamous day. Sordid texts supposedly sent to Hutchinson appear to have thrown a wrench in at least a portion of those plans, however."

Fiallo adds, "Rep. Barry Loudermilk, a Republican from Georgia, floated the idea of issuing a subpoena to Hutchinson seeking digital communications that might implicate Trump rivals like former Rep. Liz Cheney in wrongdoing."

Fiallo notes, however, that the "supposed texts are not stopping Loudermilk from pushing forward with an investigation — or, reinvestigation, as it’s been called — entirely."

"Johnson has still asked Loudermilk to chair a new select subcommittee to scrutinize those who probed the Capitol attack," the Daily Beast reporter explains. "Joe Biden issued [former Rep. Liz] Cheney a blanket preemptive pardon to protect her from criminal prosecutions. Hutchinson, a witness called to testify by Cheney, did not receive such a pardon."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Judge Aileen Cannon

Judge Cannon Allows Release Of Special Counsel Report On Trump Coup

On Monday, January 13 — a week before Donald Trump's second inauguration — the news broke that Judge Aileen Cannon had OK'd the release of part of former special counsel Jack Smith's final report on his two criminal cases against the president-elect.

Smith's final report contains two volumes: one dealing with Smith's Mar-a-Lago documents case (which Cannon dismissed), the other dealing with Smith's election interference case (which Judge Tanya Chutkan dismissed without prejudice at Smith's request after Trump won the 2024 election). And Cannon gave the go-ahead for the release of the election interference portion of the report, while setting a January 17 hearing for the classified documents part.

After the news broke, CNN's Dana Bash brought on legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid for analysis.

Reid told Bash, "What we were looking for today is whether she would try to block (the full release) of Jack Smith's reports. As a special counsel, he is required by regulation to submit reports detailing his investigative decisions to the attorney general. He has submitted two reports to Attorney General Merrick Garland…. The classified documents report is not expected to be released anytime soon, because that case is still active."

Reid added, "Trump had co-defendants in that case. Their cases are still active even though Trump's has been dismissed. So, all eyes are on the January 6 report. And…. Judge Cannon cleared the way for this report to possibly be released. "

Reid noted, however, that based on conversations with sources, she "wouldn't be surprised" if Trump's lawyers "appealed" Cannon's ruling and went "higher up the legal food chain to try to block this release."

Reid told Bash, "Even though sources on both sides tell me there's not a lot of news in this report….. the Trump team had made it clear: They are going to fight Jack Smith and the Justice Department every step of the way."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World