Wednesday, January 08, 2025

That's our report, we paid for it, release it

First up,  Isaiah's THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "The Ugly Rudy G


doggy


Now the news.  REUTERS notes:



A U.S. judge temporarily blocked Special Counsel Jack Smith from releasing a report on his investigations into President-elect Donald Trump, a court order showed on Tuesday.

U.S. District Aileen Cannon, who presided over the now-dismissed case accusing Trump of illegally holding onto classified documents, directed the Justice Department not to release the report until a federal appeals court rules on a request from Trump's two former co-defendants in the case.


We noted that last time.  She is not a judge, Cannon, she's a partisan activist.  Carl Gibson reports:


Portland, Oregon-based attorney Patrick De Klotz observed that Cannon's decision was handed down right around the same time the president-elect praised the judge as "brilliant" during a Tuesday press conference at his Mar-a-Lago estate. And civil rights lawyer Subodh Chandra condemned Cannon for "aiding and abetting suppression of the truth," adding: "Shame. Shame. Shame."

Other legal experts speculated that Cannon's move was less about the report itself and more about her jockeying for a position on the Supreme Court. Attorney Jeffrey Evan Gold, who is a legal analyst for CNN, NBC, ABC and others, responded to the news of Cannon blocking the report's release by referring to her as "Justice Cannon." Northeastern Illinois University political science professor William Adler wrote that Americans should "get used to" saying "Supreme Court nominee Aileen Cannon." And Politico magazine contributor Joshua Zeitz opined that it was "pretty easy to see how this goes."

"Alito will retire, Trump will name her to the court, and she’ll easily be confirmed with unanimous GOP support and a handful of older Democratic Senators who think it’s still 1978," Zeitz wrote.



We paid for that report, we own that report.  It needs to be released immediately.  




Special Counsel Jack Smith has turned over to Attorney General Merrick Garland the completed final report on his two investigations that resulted in felony criminal charges against President-elect Donald Trump, part of which Garland intends to make public, the Justice Department said in a filing Wednesday.

[. . .]

But the Justice Department said Wednesday there was "neither any need nor legal basis for an injunction" on the release of the report because Garland intends only to release volume one of the report — which focuses on Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election — to Congress "in furtherance of the public interest in informing a co-equal branch and the public regarding this significant matter." Garland will not, however, publicly release volume two of the report as long as the cases against Trump's codefendants Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira remain pending.


I don't trust Merrick Garland.  He's the reason Chump's not in prison.  He was a piece of garbage when Barack nominated him for the Supreme Court and he remains a piece of garbage.  He betrayed our country as AG and there's no getting around that.  In addition, he betrayed as a Supreme Court nominee.  He was a weak ass centrist, neoliberal.  He wasn't worthy.  And he had to have known that.  Had Barack nominated a real Democrat, we would have all rallied.  Instead, it was weak tea Merrick.

He's just awful.

So is Jon Favreau who came became infamous during Barack Obama's 2008 campaign for mocking Hillary Clinton and laughing as he groped a cut-out of her.  He's still just as stupid:


Jon Favreau, a host of “Pod Save America,” highlighted in a recent podcast episode that President Biden “did not return the favor” after being awarded the Presidential Medal by former President Obama. 

Favreau, alongside co-hosts and fellow former Obama aides Jon Lovett and Tommy Vietor, discussed the recipients of the nation’s highest civilian honor. While talking about the topic, with some laughter, Favreau pointed out Obama presented Biden with a Medal of Freedom in 2017, but the outgoing president did not “return the favor” during his term.

“Obama gave one to Biden, and Biden did not return the favor,” Favreau said during the podcast episode released Tuesday

“That’s interesting,” Lovett said.

“Yeah, well,” Favreau responded, while laughing.

“I guess they’re not really on speaking terms, I suppose, after all that’s happened!” Lovett added with a laugh. 


What a bunch of little bitches.

Joe should have run in 2016 and I said that here in real time.  Hillary was not going to win.  She did end up with the popular vote -- good for her -- but Joe could have won with a bigger portion.

Why?

Because Jon Favreau and others on Barack's campaign lied repeatedly and painted as a racist. They even tried to argue that she was hoping someone would kill Barack and that was the only reason she was staying in the race.  You could not, eight years later, bounce back from that.  She ended up winning the popular vote, good for her, however, Joe would have delivered even more in November 16, 2016 and so he would have also won the electoral college.  But Barack told Joe not to run, that it wasn't his time.

I'm not slamming Hillary, I'm just noting that MSNBC and other outlets painted her as a racist (and Bill too).  Eight years later was not enough time for the scabs to heal.

So there's that.

Equally true, that's not how presidential medals work.  You gave me one, okay, I'm going to five you one also!

And there's also the matter that Barack had done nothing in the four years to earn a medal.

Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"


Wednesday, January 8, 2025. Mark Suckerberg bows to Convicted Felon Donald Chump, Senator Elizabeth Warren has questions for the Secretary of Defense nominee, a supposed leftist and "supporter of LGBTQ+" people has a lengthy and idiotic BLUESKY thread praising trransphoe, homophobe and cult member Tulsi Gabbard, Loose Lips Chaffetz and much more.



Let's start with Ari on MSNBC yesterday talking about the sad, sad, sad Mark Zuckerberg. 


First, who told Robert Reed above that Mr. Brady could get a home perm?  Is it season four?

Second, what a weak ass toady Mark Zuckerberg is for Donald Chump.  Matthew Chapman (RAW STORY) notes:

Meta tech tycoon Mark Zuckerberg was raked over the coals as a "surrender monkey" by The Bulwark's Jonathan Last on Tuesday over his new spate of changes at his company that appear directly calculated to ingratiate himself to President-elect Donald Trump.

This comes after Zuckerberg paid a visit to Trump's estate at Mar-a-Lago, and as a number of tech billionaires are under fire — even from some Trump supporters — as their companies give millions to fund Trump's inauguration festivities.

"Yesterday Zuckerberg appointed Dana White to Meta’s board of directors. What are White’s relative qualifications for such a role? He, uh, manages Ultimate Fighting Championship? LOL no, obviously White’s qualification is that he is one of Donald Trump’s closest friends and top endorsers. He was literally all over the campaign stumping for Trump," wrote Last. Then, Zuckerberg's newly-appointed public policy strategist, former George W. Bush administration official Joel Kaplan, "went onto Donald Trump’s favorite morning show, Fox & Friends, and announced that Facebook is killing its fact-checking program and making its content moderation strategy more like Elon Musk’s Twitter/X regime. Because that has been such a success I’m Ron Burgundy?"


Some reactions on BLUESKY.







Donald Trump couldn’t help but gloat Tuesday that he’d successfully bullied Mark Zuckerberg into making a spate of policy changes at Meta that will allow for the rampant spread of misinformation.

During a press conference, one reporter asked the president-elect whether he thought he had anything to do with Zuckerberg’s decision to supposedly recommit his social media platforms to free speech by demolishing its fact-checking system, as well as certain content filters and restrictions. 

“Do you think he’s directly responding to the threats that you have made to him in the past?” the  reporter asked. 

“Probably,” Trump replied.



Mark Suckerberg running scared like the little wimp he is, was and forever will be.  Kayla Gogarty (MEDIA MATTERS) adds:

On January 7 — less than two weeks before Trump takes office for the second time — Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg released a video, reportedly first shared with Fox News, announcing the changes and claiming that “the recent elections also feel like a cultural tipping point towards once again prioritizing speech.” He said the company would be replacing fact-checkers with community notes, removing most content moderation, eliminating most proactive policy enforcement to rely on user reporting, and moving the company’s content moderation teams from California to Texas, “where there’s less concern about the bias of our teams."

Meanwhile, Meta’s new chief global affairs officer, Joel Kaplan, gave an exclusive interview on Fox & Friends, claiming that there is a “new administration and a new president coming in who are big defenders of free expression."

Zuckerberg and Kaplan’s commentary echoes years of false claims about social media and censorship from Trump and MAGA media.

[. . .]


For years, conservatives — including right-wing media and politicians — have falsely claimed that they’re being censored on Facebook and other social media platforms, even as an internal audit in 2019 by former Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) found no evidence of such bias, and Media Matters and other researchers and journalists have repeatedly found no evidence of such bias.

In response, Meta has repeatedly capitulated to right-wing pressure, rolling back policies, favoring right-wing figures and content, and bending rules in ways that favor conservatives, and this week’s moderation changes are no different.

The announcement — which CNN’s Brian Stelter noted “almost seemed to be addressed directly to Trump” — comes as Meta is reportedly facing an antitrust trial in April and amid other changes that seem to reflect a rightward shift in the company’s approach. Meta recently replaced Nick Clegg as head of global policy in favor of Kaplan, who has Republican ties, added Trump ally Dana White to its board of directors, and donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration fund.


In other news of the disgusting Mark Suckerberg, Mira Lazine (LGBTQ NATION) notes:

Meta has been censoring content labeled with LGBTQ+ hashtags on Instagram, according to journalist Taylor Lorenz.

The hashtags, which include #lesbian, #bisexual, #gay, #trans, #queer, #nonbinary, #pansexual, #transwomen, #Tgirl, #Tboy, #Tgirlsarebeautiful, #bisexualpride, and #lesbianpride, were hidden under the company’s “sensitive content” policy targeting “sexually suggestive content.”

[. . .]


Lorenz reached out to Meta for comment regarding these restrictions, which prompted the company to reverse them shortly thereafter. “These search terms and hashtags were mistakenly restricted,” said a representative from Meta to Lorenz. “It’s important to us that all communities feel safe and welcome on Meta apps, and we do not consider LGBTQ+ terms to be sensitive under our policies.”


Moving on, Rebecca noted Nicholas Liu's SALON article last night ("i stand with the people who stand for democracy") and she thought I might want to see some of it, specifically this:


Fox News joined in the broadside Thursday night. Frequent network contributor and former Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told guests on a segment of Hannity he was hosting that he was "offended" by Cheney's receipt of the award.


"I don’t know how you feel, but I was offended that President Biden gave the second-highest medal of honor— it’s not called the Medal of Honor, but a medal honoring these two congressmen... Liz Cheney and Bennie Thompson. What’s your reaction to that?” he asked one of his guests, Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Florida.



I didn't see the article last week but, sure, I'll jump in. Jason Chaffetz said he was offended?  

Should he really be talking?


9/11/2012.  Does that date mean anything to him?  It's the Benghazi attack.

And he's offended by Liz getting a medal of honor?


We knew the Benghazi attack was an attack on a CIA outpost early on   And that's how we covered it here.  

We knew that how?

Because we were at the hearing Jason chaired.  We were there when he wasn't smart enough to silence his microphone -- go find it on CSPAN, I'm sure it's still there.  And he's the one who was blabbing about that in a public hearing and on mike.  He was raving like a mad man.  And he outed that secret in his mad ravings.  

So maybe the person who was so stupid that they unintentionally blew the top secret fact that a CIA outpost was attacked -- which was not what the media was telling the American people -- maybe someone that clueless and that stupid should shut his damn mouth when it comes to whether or not other people should be honored.

Now I don't work for the US government and it really doesn't matter to me whether or not the CIA outpost gets exposed.  But it did matter to Jason -- and that's why he was so mad and so loud -- and in an open public hearing, he outed the outpost.  Because he's just that careless and that stupid.

So, yeah, Liz got a medal and, yeah, Jason, you're really not in any position to pass judgment on anyone who was a member of Congress when your big flapping trap couldn't stay shut.

Loose Lips Chaffetz -- that's what his name should be.  

(We were at the hearing and we witnessed his meltdown as he exposed that fact.  Again, I have no problem with him exposing it.  But he didn't mean to and he was just too stupid to realize what he was doing.  And that's why we didn't fall into the lies of THE NEW YORK TIMES which included the lie that the attack was motivated by a video -- one that hadn't even been seen until after the attack.  Some of you bought into that lie and you did so because NYT acted as a cut out for the CIA by printing lies that didn't even fit the timeline.  Some of you bitched and moaned in e-mails to the public account about my refusal to go along with the nonsense.  I don't whore, people.  If you need that look to the Chris Hedges of the world.) 



Speaking of security risks, let's move over to cult member Tulsi Gabbard who, trust me, does not want to be asked about those parties with coke fiend, conspiracy theorist and (forcibly) retired feature film director  Oliver Stone.  Al Weaver (THE HILL) reports:


Outgoing Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Mark Warner (D-Va.) said that his meeting with former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii) has left him with more questions as she looks to win confirmation in the coming weeks to lead the U.S. intelligence community. 

Warner sat down with Gabbard, Trump’s pick for director of national intelligence, on Wednesday, a meeting that had been highly anticipated as part of her push to win Democratic support. 

But Warner, who is expected to remain the top Democrat on the Intelligence panel, indicated that he remains concerned about her nomination, putting a dent in those hopes.

“I had questions going in. I have questions coming out,” Warner told reporters at the Capitol. 

“This is an extraordinarily important job,” he continued. “A lot of this [is] also about protecting the independence of the intelligence community and making sure we continue to have the ability to share classified information with our allies.”






On BLUESKY and Tulsi, supposed lefty Pat Haruki is blocked by me.  She's done a very long thread supporting Tulsi.  It's a 'factual' thread from a supposed LGBTQ+ "supporter."  


A thread that leaves out Tulsi's transphobia.  The fact that as late as October you can find her attacking the woman whose boxing at the Olympics was targeted by right-wing idiots.  The woman is a woman, was born a woman, but as late as October -- long after the lie had been shown to be a lie -- was still attacking the woman online and calling the woman a man.  Equally true, when she wanted to be president, Tulsi finally felt the need to disown her decades of homophobia -- and this isn't a fifty year old, this is someone who started early to have decades -- decades -- of homophobia and made statments that it was Daddy and not her.  And the military opened her eyes, she insisted, to LGBTQ+ issues and equality.  She's a liar and the proof there is in the fact that she immediately started attacking trans people as part of her shift to the right and she attacked gay people non-stop when she supported all of Ron DeSantis' Don't Say Gay nonsense.  


Pat Haruki might be the nice person she thinks she is in her BLUESKY profile but that would just make her a deeply stupid person for doing a lengthy thread pointing out all the 'goodness' of Tulsi.  Again, Pat's the one who says she herself is a supporter of the LGBTQ+ community but apparently not enough of a supporter to actually do any work to find out about Tulsi's well known history there.


I'm sorry, I actually do support LGBTQ+ rights


A number of e-mails arrived in the public account that seemed to be echoing one another -- synchronicity or astro-turf?

Gaza.

No, I'm not writing about it.  I may later, I may not.  The Palestinians suffer.  I don't deny that.  I did care what happened last year and that's why I voted for Kamala.

Gaza Freaks worked to destroy her.


If Norman Solomon gave a damn about Gaza he wouldn't have started Uncommitted and gotten Palestinian-Americans to front it for him.  Oh, I'm sorry.  Am I blowing the whistle on bulls**t yet again?  Norman, like Medea, is a sign that you run for your life and do not look back.

I am not part of their movement and I will not use my brain and my abilities to make a strong argument to help out fake asses.


Norman fooled a lot of people over the years.  But he showed who he really was when Lt Ehren Watada was fighting for the powerful stand he took -- he refused to deploy to Iraq, it was an illegal war and he would be giving orders to people serving under him in an illegal war.  So Ehren is facing a court martial presided over by Judge Toilet (we dubbed him that because his name was John Head).  In the midst of this, Norman has one of those unhealthy relationships/attractions to a female reporter.  She is told she will have to testify at the trial.

OH THE HORROR!

She's now at IN THESE TIMES but I'll be kind and not name her -- search Ehren and Norman Solomon at DEMOCRACY NOW! if you need to know who she is and see what a big cry baby she is and a backstabber Norman is.

She doesn't want to testify.

So f**king what?

Seriously.

She doesn't want to testify and she and Norman then spend two weeks whining to every left outlet they can -- including TRUTH OUT -- about how Ehren can save her!  He can save her from having to testify!  He can save her by admitting to this or that in military trial!!!!

That is how disgusting Norman is.

Lt Ehren Watada stood up to the illegal war and Norman and his side piece didn't give a damn about Ehren all the sudden because it was more important to them that a reporter not be forced to take the stand.

Seriously, they should both have been pelted with rotten fruit -- Norman and his side piece.

Now Norman's an idiot which is why he didn't realize what happened but that didn't stop him from going all over and pretending he knew something.  I still don't know how Marjorie Cohen missed it.

But it was obvious to me and I noted it in that day's snapshot.

Ehren was winning.  He chose a jury of his peers.  And they were agreeing with him.  If you were present, that was obvious.  And then the prosecutors made mistakes.  And Judge Toilet tried to 'help' them.  They weren't taking the clue and made things worse for the prosecution.  This led Judge Toilet to have a hissy and insist on a do over.

And there was Norman and Marjorie telling the gathered media how awful this was and how Ehren would have to go through it again (and so would Norman's side piece).

WTF?

No. 

That was the best thing in the world.

There are no do overs.

Double jeopardy attached.  

Judge Toilet stopped the trial, the defense didn't ask for it to be stopped.

Again, I was dictating the snapshot that day noting this -- double jeopardy, it was a win for Ehren.  It would be days before Marjorie noted it.  They miss the obvious every time.


So that should tell you that Norman is a raving idiots --  he's also a liar.  Norman was willing to tank Ehren's tiny shot at freedom by insisting that Ehren do this or that to stop whiny bitch from being called to the witness stand.  She could have taken the stand and refused to testify.  She could have gone for contempt.  But she didn't have any courage or journalistic pride -- which is how she ended up with Norman to begin with and how she ended up at IN THESE TIMES.  

They were willing -- both of them -- to bury Ehren.


That's the crap ass type of people that they truly are.

And if Norman wants to dispute just how much of a lair he is, let's turn to 2008 and how he went on radio program after radio program during the Democratic Party primaries pimping Barack Obama without ever revealing that he was a pledged delegate for Barack.  Amy Goodman and other media whores knew this but they didn't disclose it either when they brought him on their programs.  Now Norman had a shoddy column that appears in freebie weeklies that waste paper but every now and then he gets a column in a real newspaper and gets money for it.  But he wasn't going to be syndicated if he lied in those columns.  That's why the bottom of those columns carried a statement (eventually) that he was a pledged delegate for Barack. 

Some are joining a long running conversation already in progress.  So let me correct something.  I do not hate Socialists.  I do not even dislike most of them.  The SEP has long been noted here.  


Most people did not study poli sci.  They don't know what a Socialist is or isn't.  More to the point, most people don't understand political stances in terms of the way people evolve politically.  In past decades, it was a given that women were more likely to become more liberal as they aged while men were more likely to become more conservative as they aged.  (I believe that is most likely still accurate but not as accurate for Gen X -- that's a belief -- and I think Millennials will completely upset that trend.  Believe, I do not know that.)  But we all evolve and no one wants to stay the same.

But a Socialist attacking Democrats and constantly angry?  They are going to move to the right as they age.  That's what's going on with Socialist Cenk and Ana.  It's not just a grift.  They honestly have moved over there.  I would argue many Socialist do not move over because they're not consumed by anger.  Bill Ayers has been a Socialist all his life.  He was able to advocate for Kamala because of that.  He's not blinded by anger and he remembered the reality of 1968 (Nixon got elected).  

Cenk and Ana are hot heads -- watch the last part of the video below.




Cenk and Ana are angry and hateful.  They tried to bully and take over the Democratic Party for years with tricks and lies and now the two Socialists have moved to the right.  It's disgusting but it's understandable if you understand ideology and how  and why it can shift over time.

 

Democrats and Socialists do not agree on much and that's a reason enough that you should know the political identity of the person offering the critique.  But you also need to know it because an angry Democrat can move to Republican or Libertarian or Socialist.  An angry Socialist tends to move to the right.  This is a much bigger conversation than we have time or room for but that's why it matters.

To answer another question in e-mails -- THE VANGUARD.  I think Zac and Gavin are zygotes.  Maybe they just look very young?  I don't think they're at a fixed point in their political growth.  Based on their comments and positions, I would say they are Socialists.  Again, nothing wrong with that.  I would not accuse them of being closet Socialists because they may not know that's what they are and they're fluid at that age.  None of that's meant as an insult -- I think we all know I can deliver an insult when I feel like it.  But when we're dealing with people that young, I'm less concerned.  When we're dealing with people in their thirties and above and they are in a political closet, that's a problem.  They're in that closet because they know they won't be able to trick and mislead you if they say "I'm a Socialist" or "I'm a Communist" or whatever.  Especially if they are commenting on campaigns and trying to influence your vote, you deserve to know what they are and not be tricked into thinking that they're Democrats because they're commenting on Democratic campaigns.  


And let's wind down with this from Senator Elizabeth Warren's office:

Warren’s 33 Page Letter Contains 72 Questions; Senator Will Seek Answers at January 14 Hearing

“Your confirmation as Secretary of Defense would be detrimental to our national security and disrespect a diverse array of servicemembers who are willing to sacrifice for our country.”

Text of Letter (PDF)

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, sent Defense Secretary-Nominee Pete Hegseth a 33-page letter detailing her concerns with his nomination. She asked Hegseth 72 questions ahead of his Armed Services Committee nomination hearing, requesting a response by no later than January 10, 2025, and asked that he come prepared to answer her questions at his January 14 hearing before the Committee.

“I have serious concerns about your qualifications to serve in this role given your past history, including mismanagement of two non-profit organizations you ran, accusations of sexual assault and drinking problems, your blatant disregard for the contributions of female servicemembers, support for war crimes and torture, threats to politicize the military, advocating for ‘war’ against political enemies, threats to undermine DoD readiness and diversity, and contempt for veterans receiving benefits they earned,” wrote Senator Warren.

Senator Warren’s concerns include:

  1. Hegseth’s record of organizational mismanagement, including exhibits of wasteful spending and inappropriate behavior as head of the nonprofits, Vets for Freedom (VFF) and Concerned Veterans for America (CVA). 

    “Your record of gross mismanagement of organizations you previously led raises alarm about your ability to manage a department with a budget of almost $850 billion, which accounts for over half of discretionary federal spending,” wrote Senator Warren.

  2. Reports of Hegseth’s excessive drinking, including at least 11 separate incidents in which Hegseth has been described as drinking excessively or inappropriately, including at work.

    “At any moment the Secretary of Defense can be called upon to provide critical national security advice to the president. But you have been repeatedly accused of exhibiting a pattern of alcohol abuse,” wrote the senator. “While I believe we should support individuals with substance use disorders, we cannot have a Secretary of Defense, charged with making essential and critical national security decisions involving life and death, who is also struggling with alcohol abuse.”

  3. Allegations of sexual assault and harassment by Hegseth. This follows allegations described in a memo the Trump transition team received that Hegseth “raped a then-30-year-old conservative group staffer in his room after drinking at a hotel bar” on October 8, 2017, as well as reports that while Hegseth was president of CVA, he and other members of his management team “sexually pursued the organization’s female staffers.”

  4. Hegseth’s stated opposition to women serving in combat roles in the military, despite the fact that women are critical to our national security and comprise nearly 18 percent of active-duty servicemembers. 

    “Your rhetoric and behavior toward women would set a tone from the top of DoD that women are not welcome in the military, that their valuable contributions will not be recognized, and that sexual assault, sexual harassment, and other mistreatment of women is acceptable,” wrote Senator Warren.

  5. Hegseth’s vocal threats to politicize and undermine the military, including purging senior military leaders for civilian leaders’ policy positions.

  6. Hegseth’s support for war crimes and the use of torture, including recently saying that he “told his platoon they could ignore directives limiting when they can shoot” and arguing against the rules of war. Hegseth even went as far as to defend troops accused of war crimes for executing captives after the shooting had stopped. Additionally, Hegseth has supported the use of torture, including the use of waterboarding, despite evidence proving that torture is not an effective means of obtaining accurate information or gaining detainee cooperation.

  7. Hegseth’s threat to diversity in the military. In a book Hegseth published last year, he wrote that, when Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was repealed, he was initially “mostly ambivalent” but that he “now regrets that passive perspective.” Additionally, he has mocked and misgendered transgender servicemembers, and said that “the dumbest phrase on planet Earth in the military is ‘our diversity is our strength.’”

  8. Hegseth’s advocacy for ‘war’ against political enemies. In Hegseth’s latest book, he called “the American Left…an existential threat to freedom” and later wrote, “Our American Crusade is not about literal swords, and our fight is not with guns. Yet.” He later called upon his readers to buy a gun and train to use it.

    “Your deliberate choice to frame your differences with a political party as a war calls into question whether you would be able to lead this Department in an apolitical manner,” wrote Senator Warren.

  9. Hegseth’s opposition to working with allies, including calling for NATO to be “scrapped” and expressing “skepticism about the idea that supporting Kyiv is needed to keep Russia from moving into NATO territory.” Hegseth went as far as to call Russia’s invasion of Ukraine Putin’s “‘give me my s*** back’ war.” It is unclear how Hegseth will be able to work with Muslim leaders and Muslim-majority countries given that he was described as “drunkenly chanting ‘Kill All Muslims! Kill All Muslims!’” while he was on an official tour for Concerned Veterans for America.

  10. Hegseth’s criticism of veterans benefits, including raising complaints that veterans groups “encourage veterans to apply for every government benefit they can ever get after they leave the service,” referring to benefits that veterans have earned.

  11. Hegseth’s threats to the quality of the Defense of Defense Education Activity agency (DoDEA), given his previous comments that “almost no school — public or private — seems safe” and he has urged Americans to “Get your kids out of government school systems right now if you can.” He has also called for an educational insurgency, insisting that “classical Christian education” is the solution to “the Left having a stranglehold over American education.”

“I am deeply concerned by the many ways in which your past behavior and rhetoric indicates that you are unfit to lead the Department of Defense,” concluded the senator. “Your confirmation as Secretary of Defense would be detrimental to our national security and disrespect a diverse array of servicemembers who are willing to sacrifice for our country.”

On December 17, 2024, Senator Warren led her colleagues from the Senate Armed Services Committee, including Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), and Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), in writing to Susan Wiles, President-elect Donald Trump’s incoming Chief of Staff, about whether Pete Hegseth’s attitudes toward women, including his opposition to women in combat, and allegations of sexual assault and harassment, disqualify him to be the next Secretary of Defense.

###






The following sites updated: