It’s cute that you think the law matters…
2 Likes
Law may not matter today, but once Hegseth gets the boot and Trump is gone, it opens the people involved to criminal prosecutions for their actions. Trump many have immunity, but the rest of them (Hegseth specially) do not.
I don’t think these guys are thinking all that far ahead.
Hegseth is prepping the military to keep Trump in office indefinitely though…
1 Like
Two thoughts:
First - in the US, the law says whatever SCOTUS decides it says. With this SCOTUS…
Second - our Glorious Leader has the power to pardon, and he’s not been shy about using it.
Sure. But I am referring to when Trump leaves the Oval office.
He will have immunity but his flunkies will not.
They have a rather faustian bargain going on where they take all the risks for Trump (for the power of the role they could never get without Trump), while Trump himself is covered by the SC. Once Trump is gone, the next President (assuming it is a D) might choose to go after Trump’s flunkies due to their criminal actions, so they are all very much exposed there.
On some level, they must realise just how expendable they are to Trump, and that bad behavior stemming from Trump orders will come back on them (and not Trump).
Trump will just pardon anyone convicted
He could do a general pardon on his departure.
His what??? 
He’s gotta die sometime…
Right, but he won’t be pardoning anybody after that happens. Maybe in his will I guess?
Well, looks like you guys will be at war with Venezuela soon.
The Orange cheeto is about to launch land-based strikes even though the US population is very much against this.
A majority is against his every move. Doesn’t stop him. Doesn’t cause anyone close to him to stop him. This is no longer a metric to be used when deciding what to do.
Some voices at Fox / Newsmax are calling a war crime a war crime.
Judge Andrew Napolitano, who spent nearly a decade working alongside Hegseth at Fox, didn’t mince words Tuesday over Hegseth’s alleged actions. “This is an act of a war crime, ordering survivors who the law requires be rescued instead to be murdered,” Napolitano said on Newsmax. “There’s absolutely no legal basis for it.”
At the same time, the right-wing legal analyst declared that the entire chain of command that was involved in the follow-up strike “should be prosecuted for a war crime,” adding that it “doesn’t make any sense” for the White House to justify the double-tap as an act of “self-defense.”
Another one-time cohort of Hegseth’s, Fox News analyst and National Review writer Andrew McCarthy, also took the defense secretary to task over the Washington Post’s story.
“If this happened as described in the Post report, it was, at best, a war crime under federal law,” McCarthy wrote over the weekend. “I say ‘at best’ because, as regular readers know, I believe the attacks on these suspected drug boats — without congressional authorization, under circumstances in which the boat operators pose no military threat to the United States, and given that narcotics trafficking is defined in federal law as a crime rather than as terrorist activity, much less an act of war — are lawless and therefore that the killings are not legitimate under the law or armed conflict.”
Not sure if this gift link will work again:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/09/us/politics/pentagon-boat-strike-survivors.html?smid=nytcore-android-share
Apparently Venezuala considers it thier airspace, but the US considers it international water.
