Gertrude Stein’s Preparations for the Afterlife
2 hours ago
Thursday, December 04, 2025
The Snapshot
Thursday, December 4, 2025. Kristi Noem took time out from lying and from her apparent extra-martial affair to kidnap a second grader in Vermont and now detain him in Texas, a MEIDASTOUCH NEWS video exposes one of her threads of lies, Pete Hegseth is found to have endangered the troops -- put their lives at risk -- by an inspector general in a newly released report, he continues to lie about the War Crime where he killed survivors of a strike, the family of one the murdered has filed legal charges against him, and much more.
"“I strongly condemn the abduction of one of our 2nd
graders and his mother by ICE while traveling during the school
vacation. This is yet another example of the terror our families face
simply by doing things other people take for granted-going to school,
shopping for groceries, or just visiting family. I call for their
immediate release and for the US government to bring basic humanity and
due process back. Our 2nd grader should be in his classroom, not in a
detention cell." That's Wilmer Chavarria, Superintendent at JFK Elementary School in Winooski, Vermont. Chavarria is quoted in Billal Rahman's NEWSWEEK report:
A
7-year-old student in Vermont and his mother were detained by
immigration authorities while traveling over the Thanksgiving break,
according to the superintendent of Vermont’s Winooski school district.
The
boy, who attends JFK Elementary School in Winooski, failed to show up
for classes on Monday after the holidays, according to the school.
School officials contacted his home, and his father reported that he had
been unable to reach his wife and son since Thursday, according to
Superintendent Wilmer Chavarria.
[. . .]
The
pair are being held at the Dilley Immigration Processing Center in
Texas, pending a hearing before an immigration judge, who will decide
whether they may remain in the United States.
To
support the boy and his mother, the district located the detainees,
helped connect them with legal assistance, and provided their father in
Winooski with US$1,000 from a private emergency fund, according to
VTDigger.
Earlier this year, the Winooski
School District became the first in Vermont to pass a “sanctuary
schools” policy aimed at protecting immigrant students and families from
federal immigration enforcement actions, according to the school.
The
family has a court date scheduled for early January, but will be
staying in the Texas detention facility until then. Chavarria says their
primary goal is to get the student back in Vermont until the court
date, so they can go to school while they wait. “Being in a detention
center is less than ideal. I don’t think any child, any second grader
should be held in detention, basically in jail for weeks,” he said.
Chavarria, a U.S. citizen, was also detained and held for hours just a few months ago. He said he worries for families that may not know their personal rights as he did.
Eric
Paquette, a Winooski native, said he was saddened by the news and is
worried for the child’s mental health. “It’s just not right,” Paquette
said. “People need to recognize this is going to create trauma for the
child to overcome, and then to trust people? He’s really going to need
everybody’s support.”
Paquette said he’s proud
of how the community is trying to help. “I expect that out of Winooski, I
expect that out of Vermont,” Paquette said.
I
need to note that I'm lucky. Senators Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff
would raise this issue if it happened to a 7-year-old in California.
ICE is very lucky it happened in Vermont where Senator Bernie Sanders
tends to give ICE a pass -- on its actions in Vermont and on its
property in Vermont. In fact, the last time Sanders issued a press
release to call out ICE was April 23rd when 8 farm worked in Vermont
were detained by ICE. April 23rd. I didn't realize that Gaza had been
annexed by the state of Vermont. I see over ten press releases since
April 23rd on Gaza. But none on ICE. Someone might want to let Bernie
know that ICE has national headquarters and local offices in Vermont.
Might want to pass on that The Vermont Asylum Assistance Program maintains this page to keep track of ICE activity in the state.
Looking at their info, I'm seeing over 800 people detained by ICE in
Vermont. That's a significant number especially when the population of
the state isn't even 650,000.
In fact, let's note a November 20th press release from Senator Padilla's office:
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senators Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, and Cory Booker (D-N.J.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, demanded answers from Department of Homeland Security (DHS) leadership on the hiring standards and training protocols for newly hired ICE agents. The Senators argued that by significantly lowering hiring and training standards for new federal agents, the Administration has already compromised the integrity, professionalism, or operational readiness of the federal immigration law enforcement workforce.
In their letter to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, Acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director Todd Lyons, and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Commissioner Rodney Scott, the Senators pushed for answers on DHS’ changes to its hiring and training policies to rebuild the public’s trust and ensure integrity in law enforcement.
“The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) bears full responsibility for ensuring that every individual placed in a position of federal authority has undergone thorough vetting, comprehensive training, and is subject to robust oversight. The authority to detain and use force, including, in extreme circumstances, deadly force, is not a game, and it is not a performance,” wrote the Senators. “Deploying personnel who lack the qualifications and training long required of federal officers all but guarantees breaches of constitutional, statutory, and regulatory obligations, threatens public safety and civil rights, endangers officers, risks repeating historical abuses of federal power, and undermines the legitimacy of law enforcement and democracy.”
“In addition to lowering hiring standards, public reports of misconduct among current officers call into question the Department’s ability to adequately train thousands of new hires on an accelerated timeline. American citizens and noncitizens alike are already experiencing the consequences of DHS’s undermining of accountability and failure to maintain even basic professional standards,” continued the Senators.
Reporting last month indicated that ICE dismissed more than 200 newly hired recruits after they failed to meet even the newly lowered hiring requirements. Many of these issues arose during training after many of the recruits admitted that they had not been fingerprinted or drug tested. This revelation raises concerns that other recruits already on the job were not properly vetted, threatening public safety.
Senators Booker and Padilla demanded answers to a series of questions regarding the Department’s vetting, training, and supervision protocols for all current, newly hired, and reassigned personnel so that Congress can assess whether DHS is meeting its constitutional obligations.
“DHS has a duty to ensure that all officers — both new and currently in service — are properly trained, effectively supervised, and held accountable for their actions. In only months, DHS’s failure to meet its obligations has tarnished the reputation of federal law enforcement, endangered and victimized the public, and eroded public trust in the rule of law. This is unacceptable, and DHS must act swiftly to correct these failures, uphold the rule of law, and respect the Constitutional rights of all people in America,” concluded the Senators.
Senator Padilla has been a leading voice in opposition to President Trump’s cruel and indiscriminate mass deportation agenda, including against his unprecedented, illegal militarization of Los Angeles and other American cities. Yesterday, Padilla walked out of Senate Republicans’ unserious subcommittee hearing entitled “ICE Under Fire: The Radical Left’s Crusade Against Immigration Enforcement,” in protest of the Trump Administration’s violent immigration enforcement actions across the country. In July, Padilla and Senator Booker introduced the VISIBLE Act to require immigration enforcement officers to display clearly visible identification during public-facing enforcement actions.
Full text of the letter is available here and below:
Dear Secretary Noem, Acting Director Lyons, and Commissioner Scott,
We write regarding the surge in hiring of thousands of new Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers by the end of 2025. Given the magnitude and pace of this expansion of federal law enforcement forces, we are seeking information on the hiring standards and training protocols in place to ensure that this rapid expansion does not compromise the integrity, professionalism, or readiness of the federal immigration law enforcement workforce. Of particular concern is the potential deployment of inadequately trained or insufficiently vetted enforcement officers in cities across the country.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) bears full responsibility for ensuring that every individual placed in a position of federal authority has undergone thorough vetting, comprehensive training, and is subject to robust oversight. The authority to detain and use force, including, in extreme circumstances, deadly force, is not a game, and it is not a performance.
Deploying personnel who lack the qualifications and training long required of federal officers all but guarantees breaches of constitutional, statutory, and regulatory obligations, threatens public safety and civil rights, endangers officers, risks repeating historical abuses of federal power, and undermines the legitimacy of law enforcement and democracy.
For decades, federal law enforcement officers have been held to the highest eligibility standards, often exceeding those of state and local agencies, and have undergone a stringent vetting process. Once hired, they have received extensive training to ensure they meet baseline performance standards required for law enforcement. By all accounts, since the beginning of this year, DHS, ICE, and CBP have dropped the eligibility criteria and training requirements to dangerously low levels, creating the potential for a poorly trained force consisting of thousands of new officers, deployed in communities across America, with the legal authority to use deadly force. Last month, reports indicated that more than 200 newly hired recruits were dismissed after failing to meet ICE’s own hiring requirements. Many of the issues surfaced during training only after the recruits admitted during training that they had not been fingerprinted or drug tested, raising the alarming possibility that individuals who did not disclose such lapses may already be on the job. This amounts to government malpractice that endangers public safety.
Since January, the Administration has significantly expanded ICE and CBP operations, deploying officers to communities nationwide to locate and deport noncitizens. More than 70 percent of detained noncitizens have no criminal record, and many were actively engaged in the process to legalize their status. ICE and CBP personnel have been further supplemented by agents diverted from other federal agencies that do not conduct immigration enforcement. However, the Administration’s quota of 3,000 arrests per day – in addition to fueling indiscriminate arrests of immigrants – has created a demand for thousands more officers. To fulfill this “mission,” ICE has received $170.1 billion for immigration enforcement and the hiring of 10,000 officers under the Republican spending bill deceptively titled the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” making it the highest funded federal law enforcement agency in history. This infusion of funds has seemingly triggered a hiring frenzy that raises serious concerns about DHS’s recruitment standards and training protocols. In August, Secretary Noem announced that ICE planned to end all age restrictions by changing the minimum age for ICE agents from 21 years old to just 18 years old, a move widely criticized as reckless and politically motivated.
In addition to lowering hiring standards, public reports of misconduct among current officers call into question the Department’s ability to adequately train thousands of new hires on an accelerated timeline. American citizens and noncitizens alike are already experiencing the consequences of DHS’s undermining of accountability and failure to maintain even basic professional standards. In September, an ICE officer violently threw a woman to the ground at a New York immigration court. Although he was placed on administrative leave pending investigation, he was back in the field within days and faced no disciplinary action. Just weeks later, ICE officers grabbed and shoved journalists reporting from a hallway outside a New York City immigration court, hospitalizing one of the journalists. Poor training has also jeopardized federal law enforcement officers. In October, an ICE officer discharged their firearm, injuring two people including a United States Marshal. These incidents reveal systemic deficiencies that necessitate immediate and comprehensive review and reform to prevent endangering the public. They also raise questions about the effectiveness of supervisory structure, training of supervisors themselves, and the robustness of accountability systems to address misconduct. It is imperative to ensure that officers, particularly those hired under diminishing standards, are not granted unchecked authority to use unnecessary and excessive force or physical aggression.
Rather than prioritizing comprehensive training and effective supervision, the Department reportedly is cutting corners and loosening its training requirements. In August, ICE ended its five-week mandatory in-person Spanish language course in favor of unspecified translation technologies. On August 8, Secretary Noem suggested DHS plans to open new training centers in cities across the country to meet the demand created by the unprecedented influx of new recruits that cannot, despite DHS’s claims to the contrary, be met by the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. ICE leadership has also suggested that the agency is exploring additional ways to streamline training in its rush to deploy new recruits into the field. Alarmingly, while ICE officers previously received nearly five months of training, reports indicate they now receive just 47 days, a number chosen for its symbolic connection to President Trump being the 47th President, not any legitimate law enforcement metric to assess. This failure to adequately train officers strongly suggests that the Department is demonstrating deliberate indifference to the rights and safety of the individuals with whom ICE officers interact.
The credibility of ICE and CBP as law enforcement agencies depends on the quality and professionalism of their officers. Strong recruitment standards and rigorous training are essential not only to prepare officers for the challenges of the job but also to foster public confidence in the agency’s mission. We urge your agencies to commit to the highest possible standards for all officers, both newly hired and already in the field, and particularly for officer recruitment and training. Accordingly, we request detailed responses to the questions below regarding the Department’s vetting, training, and supervision protocols for all newly hired or reassigned personnel within 14 days, so that Congress can assess whether DHS is meeting its constitutional obligations. For each question, please provide information for recruit training and in-service training.
1. What specific changes have been made to the eligibility requirements for new ICE and CBP officers, and what is the rationale for those changes?
2. Have minimum educational or prior law enforcement experience requirements been altered, and if so, how? What is the rationale for those changes?
3. Have drug testing standards been modified, and if so, how? What is the rationale for those changes?
4. Have ICE or CBP changed the social media screening practices for applicants? Do social media screening practices include looking for and excluding applicants who hold any extremist views? Please describe the screening process and factors that may disqualify an applicant.
5. What modifications have been made to the training curriculum, and how do they differ from prior standards? Please specify the topics covered, changes to the training modules, including method of delivery, and the total duration of the training prior to and after the hiring surge.
6. What on-the-job training with a field officer did new recruits receive prior to the hiring surge? Under the hiring surge, do new recruits still receive this training?
7. What training or other resources have replaced the formerly mandatory five-week Spanish language course to ensure effective communication between officers and individuals who speak Spanish?
8. Please describe the existing training program for any ICE contractors who directly interact with detained people. Include details on the topics covered, training modules, including method of delivery, and the total duration of the training.
9. Are there proposals to streamline the training for these contractors? If so, please describe those proposals and provide the rationale for the changes proposed.
10. What specific changes have been made to metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of ICE and CBP officer training, and what is the rationale for these changes?
11. How will you ensure that any recent changes to performance and training metrics do not compromise officer preparedness or public safety?
12. What training do ICE and CBP provide to employees from other federal agencies reassigned to immigration enforcement operations? When are these employees required to complete such training? Include details on the topics covered, training modules, including method of delivery, and the total duration of the training.
13. For each of the following topics, (i) confirm whether officers from other federal law enforcement agencies assigned or reassigned to immigration enforcement receive training related to that topic; (ii) provide the number of hours of required training; and (iii) identify the platform on which these trainings will be delivered (e.g., classroom, scenario-based, virtual):
1. Constitutional law
2. Immigration law
3. Criminal law
4. Investigations
5. Witness interviews
6. Interactions with youth
7. Report writing
8. First aid and safety training
9. Crisis intervention
10. Firearms
11. Use of force
12. Deescalation
13. First amendment protected activity
14. Stops, searches, and arrests
15. Misconduct reporting
This Administration has been actively flaunting an aggressive, militarized approach to immigration enforcement, sending the message that it can use federal force against communities with impunity. At the center of this effort are thousands of officers who appear to lack the professionalism, tactical skill, and judgment required of federal law enforcement, yet have been given broad authority to operate unchecked, while the Department ramps up recruitment and hiring of an unprecedented number of new officers. DHS has a duty to ensure that all officers – both new and currently in service –are properly trained, effectively supervised, and held accountable for their actions. In only months, DHS’s failure to meet its obligations has tarnished the reputation of federal law enforcement, endangered and victimized the public, and eroded public trust in the rule of law. This is unacceptable, and DHS must act swiftly to correct these failures, uphold the rule of law, and respect the Constitutional rights of all people in America.
Sincerely,
###
Some Americans are standing up against ICE's attacks on immigrants and US citizens. More need to be. And while Noem stonewalls Congress, yesterday, Shawn Cohen (DAILY MAIL) reported:
The Trump administration's frantic push to hire 10,000 new deportation officers by year's end has spiraled into what insiders describe as a national embarrassment - with lax vetting and a signing bonus of up to $50,000 luring in a wave of woefully unfit recruits.
An exhaustive Daily Mail investigation has exposed how Immigration and Customs Enforcement has lowered standards so dramatically that the new cohort now includes recent high school graduates and applicants who can 'barely read or write' as well as those who lack basic physical fitness and even have pending criminal charges.
Most of the new hires in the $30 billion initiative are retired law enforcement who are receiving virtual training and being repurposed for desk duty.
Meanwhile, total novices are being fast-tracked into the Federal Law Enforcement Training Academy in Georgia, where instructors have been left astounded at the levels of incompetence.
'We have people failing open-book tests and we have folks that can barely read or write English,' one Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official told the Daily Mail.
'We even had a 469-lb man sent to the academy whose own doctor certified him not at all fit for any physical activity.'
Insiders say the vetting process has been so rushed that officials didn't even wait for drug test results to come back before hiring recruits and flying them off to Georgia, only to discover afterward that tests came back positive.
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem told President Trump on Tuesday that the department will hire its 10,000th ICE officer within ten days. The department had no further comment to the Daily Mail on the story.
In one shocking incident, staff were left shaking their heads when one student asked to be excused from class so he could attend a court date on a gun charge.
Other recruits were even discovered to have tattoos associated with gangs and white supremacists when they stripped off their shirts during workouts.
Reports from FLETC include incidents of violence, disruptive behavior, and allegations of sexual misconduct on campus, most handled internally.
Not a good time for Kristi who turned fifty-four last Sunday. We didn't forget to wish her happy birthday -- we just didn't want to. Which means we're a lot like her husband who also ignored the opportunity to wish her a public happy birthday. Diksha (INQUISITR) reports:
Kristi
Noem just turned 54 on November 30, and it was a perfect occasion to
celebrate with family and friends. But her husband may not have been as
excited as he did not wish her on social media. Many popular couples
ensure that they wish each other on social media, and not doing so may
send a bigger message.
It may
signal trouble in marriage and possible conversations about divorce that
the couple may be having in private. Although it’s not a rule to wish
one’s partner on social media, doing it most years and suddenly skipping
it can be a warning sign.
The Secretary of
Homeland Security and her husband, Bryon Noem, have taken a step back
from posting for each other on social media. Although they have been
married since 1992, there have been rumors about their marriage
crumbling.
When someone’s popular, such
speculations are inevitable. Bryon did post about their 32nd anniversary
last year on Instagram, but he did not post a birthday wish last year
or this year. The last time he wished Noem on her birthday was in 2023,
posting, “She is a sweetheart and so talented and a pleasure to be
with.”
We have all heard about Kristi Noem’s alleged affair rumors with Corey Lewandowski
since 2021. The news made it to the New York Magazine’s gossip column
in September 2025. Skipping a birthday post may add more fuel to the
rumors, showing there may be some truth.
A
Marine veteran said he felt “betrayed” after U.S. Immigrations and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents detained his wife, Chanidaphon Sopimpa
of Thailand, during a green card meeting last month.
Sopimpa’s
attorney Derek Poulsen told Newsweek that she overstayed her visa but
had no other criminal record. Her arrest comes as a growing number of
immigrants have been detained during green card meetings in San Diego
over the past month.
Sopimpa
met Samuel Shasteen, a Marine veteran, in 2022, months after Shasteen
lost his wife to cancer, reported San Diego-based news station KNSD. The
couple has since got married and began Sopimpa’s green card process.
She
was detained last month while attending a green card interview with the
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Poulsen told
Newsweek. While she did enter on a visitor visa and overstay, it is rare
for the spouses of American citizens to be detained by ICE agents, he
said. She had no further criminal record, he said.
The
H*A*R*L*O*T of Homeland Security is being mocked for claiming -- in
Tuesday's Cabinet meeting -- that her lord and personal savior Donald
Chump -- who's apparently also the patron saint of adultery -- kept the
hurricanes away over the last months. I think she should be mocked even
harder for going after a 7-year-old boy. The child? Guess he should
be glad he was a child and not a dog or Kristi would have shot him.
Kristi's an idiot and a liar which MEIDASTOUCH NEWS makes clear -- with the videos to back it up -- below.
Chump's
Cabinet is a wealth of unworthies. There's Pete Hegseth. On Pete, I
have frequently noted here when people wonder why his wife is attached
at his hip that it's because she's no dummy. She knows what happened
before. But apparently some people don't because they question about
Pete leaving the two previous wives. So let's note Jennifer Tisdale's report for the INQUISITR so we're all on the same page:
In
his 2016 book, In the Arena, Hegseth wrote about how the conservative
party should focus on the sanctity of marriage in terms of lowering
divorce rates. At the time, he was divorced and married to his second
wife, whom he would also divorce the following year.
Hegseth's
first two marriages ended when he had extramarital affairs with
colleagues. In fact, the Secretary of [Defense] and the woman who would
become his third wife were welcoming their first child together before
the ink was dry on Hegseth's divorce papers.
Again, that is why Jennifer Hegseth travels with him on every business trip. As ATLANTA BLACK STAR NEWS explains, she's not the only one in that marriage living in fear:
President
Donald Trump and his administration are still in scramble mode as
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth unveils yet another revision of his
story.
After days of brutal headlines over a
Sept. 2 boat strike that left two survivors “blown apart in the water,”
Hegseth rolled out a brand-new version of events — one that flatly
contradicts his own on-camera boast that he had “watched it live.”
Standing
beside a groggy-looking President Donald Trump during a Cabinet Room
appearance on Tuesday, Hegseth insisted he never actually saw the
survivors and wasn’t aware a second strike had taken place until “a
couple hours later.”
“I did not personally see
survivors … that thing was on fire and was exploded,” he told reporters.
“You got fire, smoke, you can’t see anything. This is called the fog of
war.”
But that explanation detonated instantly
across social media — because Hegseth himself had earlier boasted on Fox
& Friends, “I watched it live. We knew exactly who was in that
boat. We knew exactly what they were doing.”
Within minutes, viewers were replaying that old clip and shredding his new version to pieces.
Loose
Lips Hegseth gave away classified information in a nonsecure chat. The
country's been waiting for the conclusion to the investigation into
that. It's finally arrived. Lara Seligman and Lindsay Wise (WALL STREET JOURNAL) report:
A
Pentagon watchdog has found Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth violated
some of the department’s regulations when he shared sensitive
information from his cellphone on Signal earlier this year, according to
Sen. Mark Kelly (D., Ariz).
However, the
Defense Department Inspector General also concluded that as Pentagon
chief, Hegseth has the authority to declassify Defense Department
information, Kelly said Wednesday after viewing the watchdog report the
department sent to Congress. That suggests the defense secretary didn’t
break the law.
[. . .]
The
watchdog report states that Hegseth declined to sit for an interview
with the inspector general, instead sending a written statement,
according to a person with knowledge of the document. In that statement,
Hegseth claimed that he intentionally declassified information that
wouldn’t pose a threat to servicemembers or the mission, the person
said.
However, the report found that the
operational details he shared on Signal would have posed a risk to
troops and the mission if it had been intercepted, according to the
person and another person briefed on the report.
The
report outlines the findings of a more than eight-month investigation
into Hegseth’s use of Signal, an encrypted but unclassified messaging
app, to share details of the planned U.S. strikes in March before they
had begun.
It found that the information could
have imperiled American troops had it been intercepted by a foreign
adversary, the two people who have read the report said. The evaluation
by the Defense Department Inspector General also concluded that Hegseth
violated military regulations by using his personal phone for official
business, according to those people.
Hegseth
has maintained that he shared no classified information on the group
chat. The inspector general did not address whether Hegseth took the
proper steps to declassify the information shared in the chat.
David Gardner and Sarah Ewall-Wice (THE DAILY BEAST) break it down to a single, important point, "Pete
Hegseth put U.S. troops in danger by sharing sensitive war plans on the
Signal group chat app, according to an inspector general’s report on
the Signalgate scandal." For those who still don't get it, Shane Harris (THE ATLANTIC):
Now the Pentagon’s top watchdog has concluded that the information Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth shared in the chat
could have put the mission, U.S. personnel, and national security at
risk had it fallen into the wrong hands. The information Hegseth shared included the precise times that fighter pilots would attack their targets,
the sort of information ordinarily shared only on secure platforms. If
Houthi militants had learned those details in advance, they might have
been able to shoot down American planes or better defend their
positions.
The Defense Department inspector
general found that while the mission ultimately was not jeopardized,
Hegseth violated his department’s own policies when he used Signal, a
commercial messaging app that is not approved for sharing classified
information. The IG’s report, scheduled to be published on Thursday, was
described to us by numerous U.S. officials familiar with its findings.
Can it get worse for Pete Hegseth? You know it can. And it has. Frank Yemi (INQUISITR) reports:
The
family of a Colombian fisherman killed in a U.S. strike in the
Caribbean is accusing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth of murder, pulling
the Trump administration’s “drug boat” campaign into an international
human rights showdown.
Alejandro Andres
Carranza Medina, a 42 year old fisherman from Colombia, was killed on
Sept. 15 when a U.S. military aircraft bombed the small boat he was
working on, according to The Guardian. His wife and four children have
now filed a formal complaint with the Washington, DC based Inter
American Commission on Human Rights, alleging the United States carried
out an “extra judicial killing” and violated his most basic rights.
The
petition, filed Tuesday, names Hegseth personally. It argues that the
defense secretary bears direct responsibility for Carranza’s death as
part of the Trump administration’s air campaign against suspected narco
boats operating in waters off Colombia and Venezuela.
“From
numerous news reports, we know that Pete Hegseth, U.S. Secretary of
Defense, was responsible for ordering the bombing of boats like those of
Alejandro Carranza Medina and the murder of all those on such boats,”
the filing states. “Secretary Hegseth has admitted that he gave such
orders despite the fact that he did not know the identity of those being
targeted for these bombings and extra judicial killings.”
The
complaint also argues that “U.S. President Donald Trump has ratified
the conduct of Secretary Hegseth described herein,” directly tying
Carranza’s death to the president’s push for kinetic military strikes
against alleged trafficking vessels.
Human Rights attorney Dan Kovalik is representing the family. Aram Roston (GUARDIAN) notes:
The
complaint was filed by Pittsburgh-based human rights lawyer Dan
Kovalik. “On September 15, 2025, the United States military bombed the
boat of Alejandro Andres Carranza Medina,” the filing says, “which Mr
Carranza was sailing in the Caribbean off the coast of Colombia. Mr
Carranza was killed in the process of this bombing.”
Kovalik
identified Pete Hegseth, the US defense secretary, as the perpetrator,
based on Hegseth’s own statements. “From numerous news reports, we know
that Pete Hegseth, US Secretary of Defense, was responsible for ordering
the bombing of boats like those of Alejandro Carranza Medina and the
murder of all those on such boats. Secretary Hegseth has admitted that
he gave such orders despite the fact that he did not know the identity
of those being targeted for these bombings and extra-judicial killings,”
the filing goes on.
The complaint adds: “US President Donald Trump has ratified the conduct of Secretary Hegseth described herein.”
Kovalik
said: “We think this is a viable way to challenge the killing of
Alejandro. We are going to seek redress for the family. We want the US
to be ordered to stop doing these boat attacks. It may be a first step
but we think it it’s a good first step.”
Pete
Hegseth is a fundamentally unserious person who has no business serving
as our Secretary of Defense. He has shirked responsibility in a
position of extraordinary public trust and importance. The job of
Secretary of Defense is one of the most important jobs in the world. He
lacks the experience, and he's shown again and again that he lacks the
judgment to be at the helm of the Pentagon, which is such an important
part of American public life.
Secretary
Hegseth said he had no knowledge of this, and it did not happen. It was
fake news. It didn’t happen. And then the next day, from the podium at
the White House are saying it did happen. So, either he was lying to us
… or he’s incompetent and didn’t know it had happened. Do we
think there’s any chance that … the secretary of the defense did not
know there had been a second strike? So as a country, we’re just going
to let people lie to us, to our face?
Senator Thom Tillis: I
didn’t give a damn who it was … whoever knowingly violated — that was a
violation of ethical, moral and legal code," said Sen. Thom Tillis
(R-N.C.) about the second strike. “If the facts play out the way they’re
currently being reported, then somebody needs to get the hell out of
Washington.
Senator Richard Blumenthal: Let's
be clear that making Admiral Bradley the fall guy sends a signal to our
professional military that they will be blamed for mistakes made by
political leaders and that there'll be no protection for them when they
follow those orders,
Senator Mark Kelly: Think
about it: He runs around on stage discussing lethality, warrior ethos,
and killing people. We have the most skilled and capable military this
world has ever known. That's not the message that should come from the
Secretary of Defence. He behaves like a 12-year-old pretending to be in
the army. It’s ludicrous, it’s embarrassing, and I can’t imagine what
our allies think when they see that guy in such a crucial position in
our country.
What Chump is doing to these boats is illegal. That's all the attacks. There's no justification for any of it. Ellsworth Toohey (BOING BOING) explains:
The DOJ's secret memo authorizing missile strikes on boats in the Caribbean isn't a legal analysis - it's legal laundering.
According
to leaks reported by The Guardian, the Office of Legal Counsel memo
claims the strikes constitute "collective self-defense" on behalf of
allies like Mexico and Colombia, who supposedly need us to blow up
cocaine shipments because cartels are waging "armed violence" against
their governments.
Small
problems with this theory: No ally has publicly asked us to bomb boats.
There's no evidence that cartels are engaged in "armed conflict" with
any sovereign state. There's no evidence that cocaine sales finance a
war rather than just enrich criminals. And there's zero evidence these
strikes were "self-defense" against any imminent threat.
Yesterday,
we just focused on Pete Hegseth as he continued his public transition
from FOX "NEWS" personality to War Criminal. I understand he's
contemplating top surgery. But a number of you thought I'd share
something on the Tennessee election that took place Tuesday. A lot of
times when you expect me to comment and I don't, I'm trying to be kind.
Several
of you asked, so here goes. Matt Van Epps (MAGA) won against Aftyn
Behn (Democrat). Some people were convinced Behn was going to pull it
off. We didn't waste time on her, she was a loser. She shouldn't run
again. What does the race mean?
Republicans
should worry. Even against one of the worst candidates in years, Van
Epps had to spend millions -- they flooded that district with money.
And he almost lost.
Republicans need to worry.
You won't face many as ditzy as Aftyn Behn.
When
Chump insulted her as not a Christian, her response was weak. When he
attacked her claiming she didn't like country music, her response was
weak.
She was an idiot over and over.
Chump says you don't like country music? You step up to the mike a press
conference and start singing Patsy Cline's "Crazy." Not the whole song
if you don't want to. Then you say, "Heard somebody lying on me and
saying I didn't like country music. Can you be born in Tennessee and
not like country music? Well, what's a New Yorker like Donald know
about country music anyway? This is the fool who dances publicly over and over to the disco song 'YMCA'." That's what she should have done (and what she
was advised to do, by the way) but didn't.
Again, not very smart. Neither is the DSA chapter in Knoxville. This was always going to be a loss for Behn.
So
to recap: A ditz, a very poor campaigner and a Democratic Socialist
running in that district and yet she managed to get 45% of the vote?
Republicans across the country should be in a panic. Most of them will
face Democratic Party candidates with a functioning brain.
Tomorrow, the plan is to note Jeffrey and Ghislaine developments. For now, let's note Lawrence addressing some of them on MS NOW last night.
Let's wind down with this from Senator Patty Murray's office:
Washington, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, joined Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA) to introduce the Temporary Immigration Judge Integrity Act, legislation to prevent inexperienced temporary immigration judge appointments in light of the Trump administration’s abuse of loopholes in current regulations. U.S. Representative Juan Vargas (D, CA-52) is introducing companion legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Following the Trump administration’s mass firing of immigration judges and authorizing of up to 600 military lawyers to serve as temporary immigration judges, the bill aims to close the loopholes the administration has been utilizing to speed up their mass deportation agenda – such as the lack of due process protections for individuals in immigration court proceedings.
“The Trump administration has already fired or forced out over 100 immigration judges across the country as part of their callous anti-immigrant crusade, and now they are allowing attorneys with zero prior immigration law experience to serve as temporary judges in immigration cases, making hugely consequential decisions about families’ futures,” said Senator Murray. “Every person deserves a fair hearing. The Temporary Immigration Judge Integrity Act is about making sure anyone serving as a judge in an immigration hearing has the basic qualifications to do the job, and that the Trump administration can’t keep unqualified temporary judges in place indefinitely.”
The bill would:
- Cap temporary immigration judge appointments at four consecutive six-month terms: 2-year maximum service limit with at least a 3-year break in between services;
- Prevent military attorneys and Judge Advocate Generals (JAGs) from being appointed as temporary immigration judges;
- Authorize appointments of attorneys at the Department of Justice (DOJ) who meet the eligibility requirements;
- Establish basic training requirements.
In addition to Senators Murray and Schiff, the bill is co-sponsored by Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Peter Welch (D-VT), and Ron Wyden (D-OR).
The full text of the bill can be found HERE.
###
The following sites updated:
-
-
Eggs, Lies and Gasoline2 hours ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Megyn Kelly is the uber Karen5 hours ago
-
-
-
Wednesday, December 03, 2025
The Snapshot
Wednesday, December 3, 2025. Pete Hegseth was never qualified to become the Secretary of Defense but he appears to have earned the title War Criminal.
File it under "Goes to pattern," Jason Wilson (GUARDIAN) reports:
Pete Hegseth, the US defense secretary, told soldiers under his command in Iraq to ignore legal advice about when they were permitted to kill enemy combatants under their rules of engagement.
The anecdote is contained in a book Hegseth wrote last year in which he also repeatedly railed against the constraints placed on “American warfighters” by the laws of war and the Geneva conventions.
Hegseth is currently under scrutiny for a 2 September attack on a boat purportedly carrying drugs in the Caribbean, where survivors of a first strike on the vessel were reportedly killed in a second strike following a verbal order from Hegseth to “kill everybody”.
Hegseth is a known liar and we've seen he can't take accountability. When he brought classified information into a non-secure chat, he just lied. War plan? That's not top secret! He's just a liar. He never grew up and became a man, he's just a little liar who thinks he can lie his way out of anything.
Alex Nguyen (MOTHER JONES) notes:
The apparent, coordinated effort to distance Hegseth from the September 2 boat strikes stems from an exclusive report from the Washington Post last week alleging that Hegseth ordered a follow-up strike on two people who had survived the initial bombing of their boat on September 2. The attack kicked off what has since exploded into an extended campaign of lethal hits on suspected drug boats from Venezuela, despite mounting evidence that casts doubt on the assertion that those killed were even trafficking drugs into the United States. According to tracking work from the New York Times, at least 80 people have been killed in 21 strikes.
Hegseth has since blasted the allegations as “fake news.” He also responded with his version of an apparent joke: a fake image of a Franklin the Turtle children’s book titled Franklin Targets Narco Terrorists, with the titular character shown in military gear, firing at targets in the sea from a helicopter.
Kids Can Press, which has published many of the Franklin the Turtle books, condemned Hegseth’s post on Monday night, saying it contradicted its values of “kindness, empathy, and inclusivity.”
Lawmakers, including at least one top Republican, have indicated targeting shipwrecked survivors may constitute a war crime. (The Department of Defense’s own “Law of War Manual” prohibits “no quarter” declarations, which includes “conduct[ing] hostilities on the basis that there shall be no survivors.”) Republican-led committees in the House and Senate have since announced investigations into the report.
The the thing about liars? They tend to lie after they lie and that's why Hegseth has a story that keeps changing. Back in September, for example, he was on FOX "NEWS" breathlessly detailing what he saw happen in real time. Now he's a little foggy on the events.
"There was no fog of war the morning after this happened," Joe Scarborough noted this morning on MS NOW's MORNING JOE.
That was then. Now? Pete, like his anus, is getting a little explosive which tends to happen when you talk out your ass. Edith Olmsted (THE NEW REPUBLIC) explains:
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth absolutely lost it Tuesday as he scrambled to shirk responsibility for reportedly murdering the survivors of a September 2 drone strike on an alleged drug trafficking vessel in the Caribbean.
Sitting beside a drowsy Donald Trump during a lengthy Cabinet meeting, Hegseth claimed that while he had been perfectly happy to take responsibility for the dozen extrajudicial executions of people who the government couldn’t prove were drug traffickers, he wouldn’t dare claim credit for that one Pentagon decision.
Instead, the war chief continued to redirect responsibility for the strike onto Commander Frank “Mitch” Bradley, and even the president himself.
“I watched that first strike live. As you can imagine at the Department of War we got a lot of things to do, so I didn’t stick around for the hour and two hours, whatever, where all the sensitive site exploitation digitally occurs, so I moved on to my next meeting,” Hegseth said.
“A couple of hours later I learned that that commander had made the—which he had the complete authority to do—and by the way Admiral Bradley made the correct decision to ultimately sink the boat and eliminate the threat.”
Let's break away from Hegseth for a moment to note Donald at that cabinet meeting and his press conference. MEIDASTOUCH NEWS' Ben explains Chump
When the documents were unsealed, who was president? That's right: Donald Chump.
Why did he pardon the convicted drug trafficker? He'd rather lie about Joe Biden instead of answering that question. He keeps blaming Joe for everything and thinks we are all too stupid to notice.
They always need a fall guy, a scapegoat, because they never take accountability for their actions. It appears they are trying to frame Adm Frank M. Bradley for Pete Hegseth's War Crimes. Helene Cooper and John Ismay (NEW YORK TIMES) note:
On Thursday, he will head to Capitol Hill for closed-door sessions with lawmakers, as Republicans and Democrats express concerns about the Trump administration’s campaign.
At the time of the Sept. 2 attack, Admiral Bradley was beginning the last month of his tour as head of the Joint Special Operations Command, which conducts some of the military’s most secret missions, and preparing to assume the command of U.S. Special Operations Command, a job he took in October.
But now he has become a public example of the potential legal peril that the American military faces as it carries out the orders of President Trump and his defense secretary.
The president said that he “wouldn’t have wanted” a second strike on the boat survivors, and that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told him he did not order one.
Mr. Hegseth had previously said that he watched the operation live on video. But on Tuesday, Mr. Hegseth said he “didn’t stick around” to see the second strike.
They're throwing the admiral under the bus. It's what they do to avoid accountability.
It seems like a lifetime ago but it was just last month that Senator Mark Kelly and five other Democrats did a PSA reminding that the law states you do not have to obey and illegal order (Uniform Code of Military Justice states that explicitly). And the response from Chump and his minions was to attack Kelly and the other five. To talk of putting Kelly to death. To insist he be brought back into the military to try to court-martial him.
In a fundraising appeal for the Democratic Party yesterday, Kelly noted:
If you can believe it, things didn’t stop when Trump called for my hanging. It didn’t stop with the threat of a court-martial from Pete Hegseth, either. Because now, the FBI has asked to question me and other members of Congress.
All for saying things the president didn’t like to hear.
If you’re feeling like this isn’t the country you grew up in, I don’t blame you. But I hope you aren’t giving up on it.
I certainly haven’t. This country has given me too much, and I’ll never be able to repay that debt. I still believe in our democracy, our values, and our Constitution.
There’s no chance in hell that somebody like Donald Trump is going to stop me from serving the people of this nation. None.
If he thought all of this was going to shut me up, he’s got another thing coming.
The topic's not going away. Last night, Rachel Maddow discussed it with Stephen Colbert on his CBS late night program.
That's just one program.
The White House appears to think this is going to die out and just fade away but that's not the case. Daniel Hampton (RAW STORY) reports:
Sen.
Thom Tillis (R-NC) delivered a sharp rebuke on Monday following reports
on the Pentagon's controversial boat strike, in which Defense Secretary
Pete Hegseth was reported to have authorized a second attack on
survivors of an initial strike.
If the
allegations prove true, Tillis told reporters that the person
responsible needs "to get the hell out of Washington," according to
Newsweek.
Tillis, a thorn in
Trump's side who has said he'll leave Congress, emphasized the need to
fully investigate the incident, but insisted that a follow-up strike
would constitute "a violation of an ethical, moral or legal code" if
confirmed. The comments come amid increasing scrutiny on the Trump
administration's three-month U.S. military campaign targeting suspected
drug-trafficking boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific.
It's getting more difficult for Hegseth with each passing day. Andrew Solender (AXIOS) reports:
Rep.
Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) told Axios he is considering introducing
articles of impeachment against Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth over
reports he authorized a second strike on a purported drug boat in the
Caribbean.
Why it matters: Thanedar could once
again find himself in conflict with House Minority Leader Hakeem
Jeffries (D-N.Y.), who dismissed the prospect of impeachment during a
press conference on Monday.
The
Michigan congressman has repeatedly roused the anger of his Democratic
colleagues this year by pushing rogue impeachment efforts against
President Trump.
He briefly forced a Trump impeachment vote in
May — as any individual House member can do with or without support
from their leadership — but pulled it under intense pressure from party
leaders.
Impeachment? That's really not a hard case to make against Pete Hegseth. Tom Nichols (THE ATLANTIC) notes:
Pete Hegseth, a Trump sycophant who served in the military, topped out at the mid-level rank of major, and left full of bitterness and resentment toward a military establishment that clearly didn’t value his brilliance and fortitude.
The halls of the Pentagon are apparently strewn with rakes these days, and Hegseth has managed to step on almost all of them, including security blunders, needless fights with the press, and envious, unmanly whining about the medals on the uniform of Senator Mark Kelly, a veteran of higher rank and far greater achievement than Hegseth himself. Like Trump, Hegseth thinks his job is to get even with people he views as enemies: When Hegseth pulled more than 800 senior officers into an auditorium to give them a long and pointless harangue, it was not only disrespectful; it was cringe-inducing, like watching the angriest kid in your high school come back 20 years later as the principal and unload his adolescent gripes on all the teachers in the staff lounge.
Now, however, Hegseth is in new and far more dangerous territory. The Washington Post reported last Friday that, back in September, Hegseth ordered the killing of the survivors of the first strike against what the administration says are terrorist-controlled drug boats. If this report is accurate, it means that Hegseth issued what is called a “no quarter” order, a crime in both American and international law.
So far, the president and the secretary have not disputed the facts, instead fumbling about with classic Beltway-style “non-denial denials.” Today, the White House admitted that the second strike did in fact take place, but on the orders of the Special Operations Command chief, Admiral Frank Bradley, which seems to be setting Bradley up as a scapegoat. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said today that “Hegseth authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes,” adding that Bradley “worked well within his authority and the law directing the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated.”
Let's wind down with this from Senator Adam Schiff's office:
Schiff on Trump abusing power to go after his enemies: “This is a broad societal effort to silence, intimidate the opposition. It’s what dictators do.”
Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) joined MS NOW’s Lawrence O’Donnell to discuss the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests that he submitted alongside Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) to the Department of Justice seeking records of potential executive branch misconduct or corruption, including on information related to White House Border Czar Tom Homan reportedly accepting $50,000 in cash from undercover FBI agents as a bribe for government contracts.
Schiff also blasted the Trump administration’s investigation into his colleagues, Senators Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin, highlighting that Trump is once again abusing the power of his office to go after his critics and to silence and intimidate them.
View the full interview here.
Key excerpts:
On Trump admin refusal to answer questions on Tom Homan investigation, the need to submit FOIA requests for answers:
[…] Here where the Justice Department dismissed the case for reasons it’s never made clear, the question is, did they ever get the money back, or did he just get this $50,000 bribe gift from the FBI? And we should be able to get answers from the Attorney General on that or the Director of the FBI, but that requires that Republicans join us in doing serious oversight. That requires the Judiciary Committee demand, on a bipartisan basis, answers to those very basic questions. They haven’t been willing to do that. So, Senator Whitehouse, Senator Blumenthal myself, have now made these FOIA requests. My experience in the first Trump administration, when they likewise stonewalled oversight is sometimes FOIA is a quicker process to get answers, because you can go to court to enforce them — than even congressional oversight — particularly here where Republicans aren’t willing to do it.
On Trump admin investigation and intimidation tactics into members of Congress for simply reciting the law:
[…] This is plainly intended to try to intimidate them. We have the astonishing situation where the president, the Pentagon are saying that if you state the law, if you state what the Constitution provides, that that’s how somehow going to subject you to investigation, prosecution for sedition, court martialing. It’s absurd, but the whole point of it is also a dangerous effort to try to silence and intimidate. And I can tell you knowing all of these six who made that video, they are not about to be silenced or intimidated. They have faced far greater in their careers than these idle threats from the president or the Pentagon. But nevertheless, it’s part of the abuse of the Justice Department to go after the president’s enemies. He’s now abusing the Pentagon to go after his enemies. He’s abusing the FCC to go after his critics in late night comedy. He’s using the Department of Education to go after his critics at universities. This is a broad societal effort to silence, intimidate the opposition. It’s what dictators do. And I’m just so proud of the patriotism of my colleagues, Mark Kelly, Elissa Slotkin, two of our most respected colleagues, I think all of us in the Democratic caucus are feeling enormous sense of pride in them and support for them.
[…] It’s not a serious investigation. There’s no court or court martial in the world that would find fault, I think, with my colleagues restating the obvious restating of the law. But you know, it’s designed to set a chilling effect. It’s designed not only to chill these particular members, but to send a message to other members of Congress, House or Senate, that you got to watch what you say, because you will be investigated. You can be threatened with prosecution. You might have to retain counsel. We will essentially put you through the ringer if you dare stand up to this President. But you know, I can tell you, my colleagues and I feel this only stiffens our resolve to stand prouder, stand stronger, push back harder against this lawless administration.
###
The following sites updated:
-
Trump to Disaster Victims: Drop Dead2 hours ago
-
Brandi Carlile: Tiny Desk Concert3 hours ago
-
-
-
-
-
Tom Hanks7 hours ago
-
Madonna, Billy Idol7 hours ago
-
Epstein and Chump7 hours ago
-
-
-
-
-
Chump and the pit bull7 hours ago
-
-
Con man Musk7 hours ago
-
-
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)