War Crimes for Trump and Hegseth?

Not definitively. But Hegseth refuses to deny it.

The Republican led committees in the House and Senate will find out.
Oh OK. Refusal to deny is then an admission.

Deny that you were arrested and jailed for selling sexual favors to men on the street in exchange for heroin.
 
As I am aware of your affinity for twisting anything and everything to harm Trump.

Your thanks is my pleasure in seeing you twist in the wind. The air of superiority you have makes it all the sweeter.

Warms my little heart.
You can cry all you like.

Stop making stuff up out of thin air, and you won't get embarrassed.

Very simple.
 
Because it is not relevant. Sorry.

Whataboutism and fantasy won't spare the criminal SecDef.
So…. The angry, leftist moron has decided Hegseth Is a criminal.

More of the same whining and moaning from the left about their drug running heroes,
 
On one hand Hegsseth says he ordered the bombing of the boat then on the other had he says he did not order the killing of the survivors.

What kind of fool believes that?

Hegseth knows he fucked up and is now blaming others.

Typical chickenshit MAGA. Blame others for your **** ups.
Does it really matter? You guys take issue for any opportunity. We all know the drug problems in our nation. And it cost us all. The taxpayers are reamed just on this one issue. We let this fester since the boomer's made drugs for citizens the norm for a higher percentage of Americans in the late 1960's. You guys are purely pro anything foreign and illegal which is against your won domestically.
 
No, but interesting nonetheless.

"No" is so easy to say.
So say it, Say “No” you were not arrested and jailed for selling sexual favors to men on the street in exchange for heroin.

It’s an admission of guilt if you refuse to deny it, at least per twisted leftist ideology.
 
Say “No” you were not arrested and jailed for selling sexual favors to men on the street in exchange for heroin.
No.

See? So simple.

Yet Leavitt couldn't do it.

Seems obvious why.
 

Trump and Hegseth have both called for and been in favor of killing the occupants of Venezuelan boats in international waters, that they claim carries drugs headed to America. Hegseth has gone so far as to say that survivors of the attacks should not be rescued but should be killed.

It is painfully obvious that neither Trump or his "Secretary of War" or his DOJ are students of history. For if they were they would realize that in the Nuremberg Trials after WWII, Hitler's Admirable of the Nazi navy, Karl Doenitz, was charged for issuing instructions to his submarine commanders "No attempt must be made to rescue members of ships sunk, and this includes picking up persons in the water and putting them in lifeboats, righting capsized lifeboats, and handing over food and water. Rescue runs counter to the most elementary demands of warfare for the destruction of enemy ships and crews." (From "Justice at Nuremberg," by Robert E. Conot, 1983.)

I think that this action could well be included in the indictment of Trump in his Third Impeachment, after Democrats take over the Congress. And, after he resigns as Secretary of War at the end of Trump's term, Hegseth could well face war charges by a civilian court (if he is not recalled to the military to face a General Courts Martial!)

Bigly!!!
War crimes for every US president and their administration?
 
"Kill them all" is the latest phony scandal being promoted by the Democrats, but do they have any logical basis? Obviously, this applies to killing identified narco terrorists who are transporting illegal and dangerous drugs to the U.S. If the Dems oppose this policy why don't they say so and seek to change it?

Instead, they ignore this fundamental point and are focusing on obscure rules of naval engagement which pertain to sinking ships. Obviously, this does not apply when the people operating a drug boat are themselves the military targets to be eliminated. Just as a condemned criminal is not reprieved by an insufficient initial lethal injection, neither is a narco terrorist operating in international waters absolved just because his boat was sunk.
 
Last edited:
"Kill them all" is the latest phony scandal being promoted by the Democrats, but do they have any logical basis? Obviously, this applies to killing identified narco terrorists who are transporting illegal and dangerous drugs to the U.S. If the Dems oppose this policy why don't they say so and seek to change it?

Instead, they ignore this fundamental point and are focusing on obscure rules of naval engagement which pertain to sinking ships. Obviously, this does not apply when the people operating a drug boat are themselves the military targets to be eliminated. Just as a condemned criminal is not reprieved by an insufficient initial lethal injection, neither is a narco terrorist operating in international waters reprieved just because his boat was sunk.
Trump is breaking the law what he is doing. You are assuming they are drug boats. I ******* thought the USA had the best stuff. We can't catch them and prove they are smuggling drugs?

And, once you blow up their boat and two guys are swimming, you do not drop another bomb on those two men. It's just not done. It's murder. This is the USA not Iran. Not Saudi Arabia.
 
Trump is breaking the law what he is doing. You are assuming they are drug boats. I ******* thought the USA had the best stuff. We can't catch them and prove they are smuggling drugs?
Trump can't break the law dumbass. The supreme Court said so.
And, once you blow up their boat and two guys are swimming, you do not drop another bomb on those two men. It's just not done. It's murder. This is the USA not Iran. Not Saudi Arabia.
The 2nd missile was not at the men, it was on the boat and the drugs.
 
What's a "narco terrorist" OP?

Another made up bullshit term to scare the rubes of the American right?

And why is the ************ now running from his own words?

Is he a ******* chicken or what?

Stop being little piss aunts and man up!
 
"Kill them all" is the latest phony scandal being promoted by the Democrats, but do they have any logical basis? Obviously, this applies to killing identified narco terrorists who are transporting illegal and dangerous drugs to the U.S. If the Dems oppose this policy why don't they say so and seek to change it?

Instead, they ignore this fundamental point and are focusing on obscure rules of naval engagement which pertain to sinking ships. Obviously, this does not apply when the people operating a drug boat are themselves the military targets to be eliminated. Just as a condemned criminal is not reprieved by an insufficient initial lethal injection, neither is a narco terrorist operating in international waters absolved just because his boat was sunk.
How far does the new doctrine go? It is reported, $10.3 Million Dollars of Meth we seized at our southern border in Texas, in a fresh lettuce shipment, crossing border at point of entry. None of the boats attacked by missiles appeared capable of transporting a 1100 pound cargo. Would it be alright, to simply hit the lettuce trucks with air to ground missiles, while still south of the border. After all, if done out in the desert, they could avoid witnesses with multiple strikes, right? Is this next on the trump military hit parade?
 
15th post
Trump is breaking the law what he is doing. You are assuming they are drug boats. I ******* thought the USA had the best stuff. We can't catch them and prove they are smuggling drugs?

And, once you blow up their boat and two guys are swimming, you do not drop another bomb on those two men. It's just not done. It's murder. This is the USA not Iran. Not Saudi Arabia.
This is not the communist block which infuriates democrats.
 
Trump is breaking the law what he is doing. You are assuming they are drug boats. I ******* thought the USA had the best stuff. We can't catch them and prove they are smuggling drugs?

And, once you blow up their boat and two guys are swimming, you do not drop another bomb on those two men. It's just not done. It's murder. This is the USA not Iran. Not Saudi Arabia.
So it’s OK to bomb them but if any of them survive the bombing, it’s not OK to kill them?

That makes no sense to me at all.
 
Last edited:
How far does the new doctrine go? It is reported, $10.3 Million Dollars of Meth we seized at our southern border in Texas, in a fresh lettuce shipment, crossing border at point of entry. None of the boats attacked by missiles appeared capable of transporting a 1100 pound cargo. Would it be alright, to simply hit the lettuce trucks with air to ground missiles, while still south of the border. After all, if done out in the desert, they could avoid witnesses with multiple strikes, right? Is this next on the trump military hit parade?
None of the boats attacked by missiles appeared capable of a 1100 pound cargo.

Where did you get that number from?

I suspect the boats I saw might be capable of carrying that much

But who says it has to be that much or nothing?
 
Last edited:
Trump is breaking the law what he is doing. You are assuming they are drug boats. I ******* thought the USA had the best stuff. We can't catch them and prove they are smuggling drugs?

And, once you blow up their boat and two guys are swimming, you do not drop another bomb on those two men. It's just not done. It's murder. This is the USA not Iran. Not Saudi Arabia.
I do love that your cult's newest heroes are narco-terrorists. ******* awesome!
 
Back
Top Bottom