Tag: thomas massie
Hegseth

Hegseth Stands Warned That Impeachment Is Coming -- And Then 'The Hague'

On Wednesday, a prominent conservative commentator revealed that the GOP is desperate to avoid the impeachment of President Donald Trump’s officials, particularly that of embattled Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. According to American Conservative senior editor Luke Nicastro – who previously served as national security advisor to MAGA-oriented Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) – if Democrats regain power, successful impeachments could put Trump administration collaborators on the path to “the Hague.”

As Nicastro explains, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) recently adjourned the House for its recess two weeks early, breaking an earlier promise to “work all the way through September and every day that’s on the calendar.” The reason was clear to everyone. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) was attempting to force a vote on Hegseth’s impeachment, and according to Nicastro, it was “obvious” that Johnson “wanted to avoid that impeachment vote. Massie’s measure had a 48-hour timer baked into it, and it was introduced on a Tuesday. Johnson sent his members home on Wednesday night, thus punting consideration of impeachment until the House gavels back in after the midterms.”

In Nicastro’s estimation, there was a good chance the impeachment would have been a success. As he writes, “Hegseth has antagonized Republican lawmakers to an unusual degree, including by summarily dismissing senior defense officials and military officers, failing to offer details on how he’ll spend the gargantuan sums for which his department is asking, and generally exhibiting what might charitably be called an indecorous manner. And more than any other administration figure — excepting only the president himself — Hegseth owns the least popular war in American history. Indeed, polling suggests a majority of Americans support Hegseth’s impeachment. It’s therefore not inconceivable this thing might have passed. And even an unsuccessful impeachment measure would be politically embarrassing, both for Johnson and the White House.”

But, notes Nicastro, there is likely another reason the GOP took such drastic action to block the vote. “Assuming a blue wave in the midterms,” he explains, “this would start next year with congressional investigations, hearings, and impeachments. If a Democrat were to win the White House in 2028, these efforts would quickly escalate to encompass the full machinery of government. Hegseth is likely to be among the highest-priority targets. His record reads like it was cooked up in a lab to enrage liberal sensibilities: He is a former Fox News host who has been accused of sexual assault, a brash and crude culture warrior who delights in what progressives call ‘punching down,’ and a combination hype man/executive agent for the president’s various military interventions. Dozens of Democratic lawmakers have openly said he is guilty of war crimes.”

And Democrats aren’t alone in suggesting Hegseth’s criminality. Massie’s impeachment attempt, argues Nicastro, “could significantly bolster such a case. For his effort isn’t hastily drawn-up hackwork; it consists of eight separate articles, each of which is specific and serious. The articles accuse Hegseth of illegally using U.S. forces for hostilities not authorized by Congress in Iran, Venezuela, and Yemen; contravening the War Powers Resolution of 1973; ordering extrajudicial killings in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific; ignoring legislation requiring the minimization of civilian casualties; and using his department to retaliate against Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) in violation of the latter’s First Amendment rights. And while most of the charges essentially amount to carrying out illegal orders from his commander-in-chief, two of them — ignoring responsibilities for protecting civilians and targeting Kelly — concern things that Hegseth seems to have done on his own.

”What’s more," asserts Nicastro, “Dems are unlikely to be content with bagging Hegseth; others further down in the Pentagon bureaucracy could be in legal jeopardy as well. Nor is the American justice system the only worry. One increasingly hears speculation that a liberal administration could manifest its enthusiasm for the ‘rules-based international order’ by working with the Hague on this.”

Nicastro believes that having these articles debated, memorialized in the public record, and voted upon — even if ultimately rejected — would “give substance to prospective future prosecutions, both domestic and international. The whole affair is also likely to spook those currently running the war, especially if the president at some point decides to make good on his perennial threats to ‘annihilate’ Iran.” And as Nicastro notes, such concerns would be justified given the UN’s recent finding that there are ‘reasonable grounds’ to believe the U.S. military has committed war crimes in Iran. Regardless of the GOP’s delays, Nicastro concludes, “impeachment will sooner or later be considered by the House. And these are unlikely to be the last charges lodged against Hegseth.”

Reprinted with permission from AlterNet

Hegseth and Johnson

House Republicans Recess Early To Escape Vote On Hegseth Impeachment

The House of Representatives has officially left Washington, D.C., for the final time before the midterms, canceling votes scheduled for Thursday to head home and campaign on their pathetic record of increasing healthcare costs, slashing taxes for the rich, and refusing to rein in President Donald Trump’s disastrous tariffs and war in Iran.

So why did they skip town so early?

Well, probably so they can avoid voting on articles of impeachment filed against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

GOP Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky filed eight articles of impeachment against Hegseth over his handling of the Iran war, accusing him of committing high crimes for ignoring the Constitution and waging war without congressional approval.

Massie also accused Hegseth of carrying out extrajudicial killings by bombing boats in the Caribbean Sea, suppressing free speech by retaliating against Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona for urging troops not to follow illegal orders, and kidnapping former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

House rules say that the speaker has to put the articles of impeachment on the floor for a vote within two legislative days. That clearly terrifies Republicans, as it would force them to either defy Trump by impeaching his favorite warmonger or tacitly vote to support the wildly unpopular war in Iran.

Both of those are bad options for Republicans, who can’t afford to anger Trump ahead of the midterms. But voting against the impeachment would essentially be signing off on how he’s handled the Iran war.

So rather than putting Republicans in that position, House Speaker Mike Johnson called a recess to stop the clock on the two-day voting rule.

“I think it shows the cowardice of the Republican Party,” Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington said. “They are canceling votes to do business for the American people because they are afraid that that impeachment resolution of Pete Hegseth would pass on a bipartisan basis.”

She concluded, “The American people deserve better than Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump.”

Johnson had already canceled two weeks of votes that were scheduled through the end of September, saying that Republicans needed to get back to their districts to campaign. But campaigning for the next 48 days is unlikely to save them anyway.

Trump’s war in Iran and capitulation to Russia in its war against Ukraine have spiked oil prices, raising the cost of fuel across the globe. And that will have downstream inflationary impacts, as diesel—which is used to transport goods and power farming machinery—is at a record high.

Oil and gas experts say that prices are not going to come down in the near future, sounding the alarm on potential fuel shortages.

And it’s all happening just as voters tune in to the general election, with early voting having already started in a handful of states, with more set to come online in the coming days.

We’re already seeing voters’ frustration impacting polls, with Democrats surging on the generic ballot and leading in critical House and Senate races in regions that Trump carried by double digits in 2024.

Since September 1, Democrats’ lead on the generic ballot has grown by 1.1 points, with Marquette University Law School releasing a poll Wednesday that shows Democrats with a 13-point lead among likely voters. If it comes to fruition, that would be an extinction-level election for the GOP.

So House Republicans can go home to campaign all they want. But when they return, many of them will be losers.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos


'Smoking Gun'? Files Contradict Trump's Version Of His Break With Epstein

'Smoking Gun'? Files Contradict Trump's Version Of His Break With Epstein

Rep. Dave Min (D-CA) said on Monday that new revelations expose some conflicts in President Donald Trump's timeline about his relationship with trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

Members of Congress have been working their way through the unredacted investigation files released by the Justice Department, which one senator said mentions Trump's name at least 38,000 times.

Speaking to CNN, Min brought up recent reports from the Miami Herald that exposed conflicting stories from Trump concerning what he knew about Epstein and when he knew it.

The report cites a conversation the Palm Beach Police chief told investigators he had with Trump in 2006.

“Thank goodness you’re stopping him. Everyone has known he’s been doing this,” Trump said to then-Chief Michael Reiter, who told the FBI in 2019. The interview documents are included in the case files released to date.

This "tells me Donald Trump was caught lying because he said that he did not know about Epstein until like 2019," said Min. "He said he'd quit affiliations with Epstein at some point. So the fact that, as early as 2005 or 2006, Donald Trump clearly and apparently knew something about what was going on with Epstein and that he was continuing to send girls from Mar-a-Lago to Epstein's employment. That tells us a lot about what Donald Trump knew and when. And I think that's a smoking gun."

Min said that Trump is desperately trying to distract from the Epstein files. He said that it appears the Justice Department made a lot of " unnecessary redaction of names, including, it looks like, Donald Trump's name quite a lot." Trump, the administration and Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell all maintain that Trump did nothing wrong throughout his relationship with the convicted trafficker.

The other problem Min sees is that 15 percent of the Epstein files still remain hidden by the Justice Department.

"We don't have any good reason for that. I'll take Rep. [Tom] Massie (R-KY) on his word that he saw some documents, and that fits in with the larger narrative that they're covering this up," Min said.

He recalled this time last year, Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel were saying publicly that they would do whatever it took to release all of the files and get to the bottom of the trafficking ring.

"And yet, sometime in May, reportedly, Pam Bondi told President Trump he was in the Epstein files. That launched this whole cover-up. We saw them then deny that the Epstein files existed. Ghislaine Maxwell had a weird visit, a private visit from Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who used to be Donald Trump's personal attorney," Min recalled.

It wasn't long after that that Maxwell was sent to a minimum security prison camp that typically doesn't allow sex offenders. Maxwell told the House Oversight and Reform Committee on Monday that she would reveal everything if she were granted a pardon.

"So this all reeks of a cover-up right now. And we need to release the entire Epstein files. The DOJ needs to explain why they seem to be redacting certain names of people who were implicated in the Epstein files," Min added.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

Bondi's Delay In Epstein Files Disclosure Irritates Bipartisan Congressional Group

Bondi's Delay In Epstein Files Disclosure Irritates Bipartisan Congressional Group

A bipartisan group of congressional leaders has asked Attorney General Pam Bondi for a briefing on when, exactly, she’s going to get around to releasing the Epstein files.

They picked a good day to send a letter to Bondi, as the House Oversight Committee Democrats just released a trove of pictures and videos from Jeffrey Epstein’s private island, including an incredibly creepy photo of a room with what appears to be a dentist’s chair and multiple deeply weird wall hangings.

They also reportedly plan to release records from J.P. Morgan and Deutsche Bank soon.

The administration is no doubt incandescent with rage that two Republicans—Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky— signed onto this letter. But it’s not surprising, given that they were two lead sponsors of the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

The letter was also signed by several Democrats—including Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Sen. Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, and Rep. Ro Khanna of California—who might be particularly interested in a new investigation focused solely on Democrats.

All of these Democrats need to be investigated, you see, because of “information [that] has come forward, new information, additional information,” according to Bondi.

But it’s far more likely that this so-called investigation is just Bondi doing President Donald Trump’s bidding.

Trump very much wants to target Democrats, but he also very, very, very much wants to hide any potential mention of him in the Epstein files. After being battered with bad headlines, Trump went on Truth Social to demand Bondi investigate Epstein’s connections to “Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, Reid Hoffman, J.P. Morgan, Chase, and many other people and institutions, to determine what was going on with them, and him.”

Still, Bondi claims that she’s not doing this at the behest of Trump, but because of all that new information. That’s basically an invitation for members of Congress to say, “Well, do tell!” But since it’s highly likely that Bondi doesn’t actually have anything, she’ll probably refuse to respond by December 5, as the letter requests.

It’s also quite possible that this brand-new investigation is just an attempt to stall. The law mandating the release of the Epstein files has a giant loophole, allowing the DOJ to withhold anything that might jeopardize an active federal investigation. So it’s pretty convenient that there’s suddenly an active federal investigation.

It was never a question of whether the administration would try to dodge the 30-day deadline to release the files, but rather a question of how it would go about it. Looks like we’ve found out.

However, with both parties keeping the pressure on and Democrats’ steady drip, drip, drip of files, Bondi is going to have to work really hard to protect her boss—and she can’t keep “investigating” forever.

It’s clear she knows that a reckoning is coming. She can delay it, but she can’t stop it.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Trending

World