Orange Duce

[ABV 8.3%]

It would have played out quietly if we didn't have someone with the iq of a teenager in the White House.

You don't tweet to our freaking military leaders like you're a 13 year old that's telling his buddies his deep thoughts about a new flavor of Doritos.


The leader of the free world is tweeting-----tweeting----orders to our military leaders.

Stop acting like this is normal. Stop acting like this is ok. And stop blaming the adults who have to figure out what his infantile tweets mean for the consequences of letting a child near his phone after beddy-bye time.

If Trumpy wants a chair at the big boy table, great. Be a man, and give your orders like a man.

I don't give my orders to my crew via social media. And I run a dinky company. What the heck is the guy who is in charge of our nuclear arsenal doing tweeting orders to our troops?

More to my point, for the love of everything holy-----it's been three years, oid salt. How many more years are you going to defend this guy?

It's NOT defending tRump.....it's defending the REASON why he's in the White House in the first place. Which is STILL lost on you all........hence the anyone but trump in 2020. How will that work out, I wonder?

[ABV 8.3%]

I understand that the Trump campaign is now asking the military men he pardoned or on whose behalf he interceded to come and campaign for the President's reelection. Nice use of the powers of the office. Today, ho hum....

The Post, on the increasing degradation of talent and ethics within the White House as the President cycles through his list of actors and understudies:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

"The Trump presidency has entered a dangerous new phase. Administration officials who had some scruples have given way to men (yes, only men) whose first priority seems to be retaining their jobs. Because the chief requirement for that is personal loyalty to the president, who has shown himself to be without scruple, decency or respect for the Constitution, the result is the progressive erosion of core institutions.

During the first years of the administration, there was considerable debate over the role of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, national security adviser H.R. McMaster, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein. Critics said these “grown-ups in the room” were giving a sheen of normalcy to a presidency that was shattering norms. Defenders said they were erecting guardrails — keeping President Trump at least in some cases from acting on his worst instincts.

We tended toward the latter view. Mr. Sessions properly recused himself from the Russia probe and refused to un-recuse, while neither he nor his deputy would fire special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. Mr. Mattis helped keep alliances on track and slow-walked some of the more outlandish demands, such as for a vanity-driven military parade. As Post columnist Michael Gerson colorfully put it, “If you are a national security official working for a malignant, infantile, impulsive, authoritarian wannabe, you need to stay in your job as long as you can to mitigate whatever damage you can — before the mad king tires of your sanity and fires you.”

The wisdom of that view is being borne out by the administration’s second act. It may be that Attorney General William P. Barr, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney also are protecting the country from Mr. Trump’s whims and grudges in ways that we cannot see.

But what we do see suggests they are playing the role of enablers of constitutional degradation: From the Justice Department, the dishonest rollout of Mr. Mueller’s report, or the politically driven threat of an antitrust lawsuit against car makers who anger the president by negotiating clear-air standards with California. At State, an abject failure to stand up for honorable Foreign Service officers slandered for doing their jobs honorably. At the White House, a willingness to encourage, and then lie about, the abuse of foreign-policy powers in service of personal political interests. At the Pentagon, a refusal to stand up to Mr. Trump’s malign interference in the military justice process. And this is not an exhaustive list.

Ultimately, of course, the president enjoys a great deal of power, and no staff person can be insubordinate. Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley recently leveled a self-serving attack on Mr. Kelly and Mr. Tillerson for supposedly “undermining” the president, but her prescription wasn’t all wrong. “It should’ve been, ‘Go tell the president what your differences are, and quit if you don’t like what he’s doing.’ ” Now, Mr. Trump seems to have found courtiers who neither look to mitigate his worst instincts nor have the courage to tell him when he is wrong. You wonder what kind of pride they will be able to take in their service once it is all over."

When it is all said and done, he is still the CiC. My opinion has been that if the Dems spent more time on winning the election and less time on the impeachment fiasco, you would not have the prospect of 4 more years of Trump. Staying with the navy theme... whatever floats your boat.

Is that the same thing as a king?

No, not at all. Go call your member of Congress and ask them to DIS-authorize all Presidential killing actions/authoritiessations.

Or add things to the US CONstitution.

Would much prefer to have our floating NUKE boats to be moored off of Puerto Rico. They still DON'T have electricity, or did you guys all move on. Notice all the comments on the global warming thread about the awesome renewables being installed in the US occupied island

[calourie]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-love-t ... 58760.html

I love it. Fighting for the right of future Presidents to commit crimes and not be investigated. Sounds like a good idea to me.

[old salt]

So, what exactly is Admiral Green supposed to do with his command and its obvious and multiple issues with order and discipline when the CiC publicly interferes and countermands actions taken to deal with some of these overt issues by said command to enforce and maintain unit cohesion/order and discipline?

Carry on with what he's doing elsewhere.
Not use an Admin Review process for punitive purposes when the UCMJ does not deliver the result he wanted.
Chief Gallagher was on trial for the crimes he was charged with.
He shouldn't be used as a scapegoat for the entire SEAL community.
Abusing the military justice system is not the pathway to good order & discipline.

[Kismet]

I found some answers in this seeming balanced article

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/25/us/n ... e=Homepage

Thx for NOT helping, Old Salt. Cut and paste of previous diatribes does not help in the discussion, IMHO.

[old salt]

I found some answers in this seeming balanced article

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/25/us/n ... e=Homepage

Thx for NOT helping, Old Salt. Cut and paste of previous diatribes does not help in the discussion, IMHO.

So return the favor. Cut & paste yout favorite observations of the NYT for the benefit of nonsubscribers.

I'm sure the NYT is more in touch with the Fleet than Navy Times is.

[Kismet]

splurge on a digital subscription - It appears to be a fairly balanced piece (which is why I posted the link) with comments from retired and active SEALs as well as other military officers and NCOs - use one of your free articles (or clear your cache if you have used all of those up - which I suspect you haven't)

You're awfully argumentative. Hard to carry on a reasonable dialog. Too bad. I thought you might benefit from an article with people on both sides of the issue which I found enlightening and which you trashed without reading it.

[Typical Lax Dad]

splurge on a digital subscription - It appears to be a fairly balanced piece (which is why I posted the link) with comments from retired and active SEALs as well as other military officers and NCOs - use one of your free articles (or clear your cache if you have used all of those up - which I suspect you haven't)

You're awfully argumentative. Hard to carry on a reasonable dialog. Too bad. I thought you might benefit from an article with people on both sides of the issue which I found enlightening and which you trashed without reading it.

Thanks for posting that. Some good points on both sides of the issue. Hopefully this former SEAL doesn’t become a fixture on the “campaign trail”.

[old salt]

splurge on a digital subscription - It appears to be a fairly balanced piece (which is why I posted the link) - use one of your free articles (or clear your cache if you have used all of those up - which I suspect you haven't)

You're awfully argumentative. Hard to carry on a reasonable dialog. Too bad. I thought you might benefit from an article with people on both sides of the issue which I found enlightening and which you trashed without reading it.

Just logged back in after clearing my cache & reading the NYT article.
As you indicate, you can find an anecdote in that articie to support all sides.
3 NYT reporters called people they know in the military & asked what they thought.
I've been linking the Navy Times which has been covering the story, from San Diego, from the start.

Too many observers are losing sight of the fact that Chief Gallagher was acquitted of the serious charges, by a panel of his warrior peers, who heard the witnesses & examined the evidence. There was no jury selection -- in a General Court Martial, the convening authority assigns the panel. They were combat veteran SEALs & mostly Marines. I respect their finding.

If you accept their verdict, then you have to look at what Chief Gallagher was put through, for alleged crimes for which he was acquitted.
Keep in mind -- he'd been selected for promotion to E-8 & his CO submitted him for a Silver Star, he was done with his combat tours & was going to continue serving as an instructor. He was held in pre-trial confinement for 7 mos, most of it in the Brig, where he was denied medicai treatment for TBI. He has a claim against him from his original lawyer for $1 million in legal fees. Had his case not become public & attracted the support & defense he received, he'd likely be in Leavenworth now, facing a life sentence, for crimes of which he's now been acquitted.

So what if Trump intervened & he benefits politically ?
What matters to me is that he averted an abuse of the military justice system & the scapegoating of an 8 combat tour veteran.
Obviously Adm Green thought Gallagher was guilty, or he would not be referring to a "Gallagher effect."
In his overzealous quest to get a high profile conviction, he created a "Gallagher effect" he did not anticipate.
The way it played out, the Court Martial would have been best never convened, & SEAL Team 7's issues addressed, non-judicially, within the chain of command. When these cases becomes a political issue & a MSM cause, they never end well.
Let's see what the future holds for SEAL Team 7's leadership triad & Adm Green.

[Kismet]

So what if Trump intervened & he benefits politically ?

Not exactly something that should be involved in a criminal case within UCMJ don't you think? I'd have a lot more sympathy if CiC resolved it all privately (he would not have to have given up any authority to make the ultimate decision) for the benefit of both parties and not used it as a political football/propaganda item to further reelection - I do not think the military should be used in this fashion no matter the circumstance.

Certainly, things to be considered on both sides that could have been handled better but the ultimate result/circus does not appear to benefit either the Navy or SEALS.

[DMac]

Here's the big long asz article for those of us who haven't splurged.

On bases sprinkled along the East and West Coasts, Navy SEALs were trying on Monday to go about their business and not be distracted by the high-level drama over one of their own that was roiling Washington, according to six active duty SEALs on both coasts.

Members of the elite commando force were still swimming through dark bays to practice planting mines, storming the narrow steel halls of ships in training raids, and rappelling from helicopters onto the bucking decks of speedboats — in other words, they were doing the extraordinary things SEALs normally do to prepare for deployments.

The SEALs, often regarded as the most elite special operations group in the armed forces, endure grueling training to strike from the air, land, or underwater. The force attracts the “common man with uncommon desire to succeed,” as the official SEAL ethos says, and it prizes aggressiveness and ingenuity in battle.

“The SEALs are built to withstand turbulence,” said a SEAL officer who, like other serving SEALs interviewed for this article, spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly. “Someone gets hurt, someone dies, the mission goes forward,” the officer said. “They are mentally prepared to stay focused.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story

Even so, high above them in the chain of command, the imbroglio over what to do about Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher, the SEAL platoon leader at the center of a high-profile war crimes case, has widened rifts between military leaders and the White House and cost Richard V. Spencer his job as Navy secretary, after President Trump intervened in the case to protect Chief Gallagher from the Navy’s efforts to eject him from the SEALs. And the fallout is likely to be felt across the elite commando force and beyond.

Veterans across the country who have followed the events have had a range of reactions to the developments as well, some criticizing the president’s intervention in military discipline and others faulting the Navy for its handling of Chief Gallagher’s case and for pushing back against the president’s wishes.

Unlock more free articles.
Create an account or log in
Here are some of the ways that veterans and active duty service members are responding to the tumult over the Gallagher case and the president’s intervention.

Serving SEALs see the drama as a harmful distraction.
Though opinions of President Trump and of Chief Gallagher vary widely in the SEAL teams, six SEALs on active duty at various bases said there was general agreement among their comrades on one thing: The unusually public tug of war over the chief has been an embarrassment and an unwanted distraction from their broader mission.

“I’m trying to make sure all my guys are safe and successful — I can’t worry what is going on at the White House,” said one senior enlisted SEAL.

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story

They said the talk in the highbays where SEALs gather before and after missions has inevitably turned to Chief Gallagher and what should happen to his Trident.

Some said it was reassuring to see a president be willing to defend a SEAL who may have done something regrettable in the confusion of combat. Others worried that Mr. Trump’s intervention would encourage rogue operators to try to escape accountability by sidestepping the chain of command and appealing directly to the White House.

The SEALs said they had sensed opinion shifting against Chief Gallagher in recent weeks because of how he campaigned for clemency on social media and Fox News. Even those who were ambivalent about the allegations against Chief Gallagher viewed his public criticism of Rear Adm. Collin Green, the commander of the SEALs, and the chief’s insulting remarks on television about a fellow SEAL chief as way out of line.

“That’s not who we are, and no one in the teams wants to see it,” said an enlisted SEAL. “Forget the movies and the books about SEALs — most of us are silent professionals. We want to be ghosts. All this exposure keeps us from doing our job.”

[Sign up for the weekly At War newsletter to receive articles about duty, conflict and consequence.]

‘This has started the conversation we needed to have.’
An enlisted SEAL on the East Coast said there might be a silver lining in all the attention on the Gallagher case, because it was finally casting a light on problems that the SEAL teams had kept hidden. He said a rogue element in the SEALs had been operating as if rules and standards did not apply to them, and that too often, SEALs who were overly focused on loyalty have covered up for one another.

“This has started the conversation we needed to have about accountability,” the SEAL said. “It should be on all of us. We should acknowledge our own failure and have the courage to deal with it appropriately.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story

Other serving SEALs said the commando force had been feeling the indirect effects of the Gallagher case for months. In the wake of the chief’s arrest and other high-profile scandals, Admiral Green vowed to redouble enforcement of discipline and standards, right down to haircuts, grooming and uniforms.

Allowing SEALs leeway on things like beards and hair length had been seen as a signal that commanders trusted their judgment. “That they’re cracking down shows that trust isn’t there any more,” one enlisted SEAL said.

‘Most guys just want him to shut up and go away.’
Eric Deming, a former master chief petty officer who retired from the SEALs in 2016 after 19 years in the force, said on Monday that he had spoken to several active-duty SEALs in recent days, and all were dismayed over how a single discipline case had dragged the entire organization into a Washington political knife fight that, no matter the outcome, would erode trust and confidence in the force.

“No one I’ve spoken to is happy with how Eddie handled this,” Mr. Deming said of Chief Gallagher. “He could have handled it like a quiet professional. If the facts are on his side, he should trust in a board to make the right decision. Instead he chose to go make a spectacle of himself. Most guys just want him to shut up and go away.”

‘He did eight combat deployments. He deserves better.’
Ed Hiner, a retired Navy lieutenant commander who served in the SEALs, said that many serving and retired SEALs like him were celebrating Mr. Trump’s intervention on Chief Gallagher’s behalf, and posting about it in a private Facebook group called 5326.

“It’s about time,” he said. “From the beginning, Eddie was denied the presumption of innocence. And when he won at trial, the Navy tried to get back at him. He did eight combat deployments. He deserves better.”

Mr. Hiner said he visited Chief Gallagher regularly when the chief was in the brig awaiting trial.

‘If you see war crimes and you’re going to report them, watch out.’
Elliot Ackerman, a Marine veteran, novelist and journalist, said he saw a bad precedent in the way the Gallagher case has played out.

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story

“All of us have served and have gone to great pains, risked our life, risked the lives of our comrades, in order to uphold the values of this country, which include the fact that we hold ourselves to a higher standard when it comes to war and the law of war,” Mr. Ackerman said. “And the idea that none of that matters at the end of the day is a slap in the face to all of us.”

Referring to President Trump’s clemency for Chief Gallagher and pardons for two soldiers involved in other war crimes cases, Mr. Ackerman said, “That these people will be trotted out as heroes is a moral injury to every veteran.”

“When you look at the way the Gallagher case came into being, his teammates were the ones who reported him,” he added. “So the message it sends very clearly is, if you see war crimes and you’re going to report them, watch out.”

One veteran saw a double standard on clemency.
Joe Kent, who recently retired after a 20-year career in Army Special Forces and Army Special Operations, said he supported Mr. Trump’s actions in pardoning two soldiers involved in war crimes cases and protecting Chief Gallagher from sanctions by the Navy. And he contrasted the reaction to those moves with the reaction to President Obama’s decision just before he left office to commute all but four months of the remaining sentence of Chelsea Manning, the Army intelligence analyst who was convicted of leaking classified information in 2010 that revealed American military and diplomatic activities around the world.

There was “zero political grandstanding from the senior ranks of the D.O.D. or the intel community” over that move, Mr. Kent said: “I don’t remember anyone throwing a tantrum over Chelsea Manning.”

But now, he said, “if you’re a career government guy, and you virtue-signal or try to take the high ground against Trump, now you get to be the golden boy” and be showered with praise.

“Gallagher literally had his day in court and was acquitted, and for the Navy to now be like, ‘How many more pounds of flesh can we get out of this guy?’ seems really vindictive,” Mr. Kent said, adding that he was glad Mr. Trump had stepped in.

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story

Military leaders ‘are just going to hide things’ from the president.
Daniel Pannunzio, who said his 40-year Army career included service in Vietnam and the first Gulf War, worried that the president’s interventions would undermine military discipline: “People are going to say, ‘Rules of engagement? I’m just going to ignore them, because Trump will give me a pass.’”

He said he thought commanders would start trying to avoid presidential interference by staying off his radar. “It’s going to drive a lot of things underground that Trump is never going to hear about,” he said. “And I think the senior commanders within the services are just going to hide things from him. Or they may elect to not even take action.”

Before passing judgment, walk in a warrior’s boots.
Jeff Eggers, a retired Naval Special Warfare officer who served on the National Security Council during the Obama administration, said that it was important to trust the process that the military has in place for dealing with potential war crimes, and to not judge cases from a distance:

“We’re asking our forces to be extremely well behaved on the rules of engagement, and on the other hand to be extremely violent and lethal when we need it,” Mr. Eggers said. “Because it is difficult and because it is a dynamic that is always in tension, there are always going to be mistakes and the need for accountability.”

“You don’t want to judge those actions unless you’re incredibly well-informed and knowledgeable about the particulars,” he added. “Part of why we give our armed forces a significant level of respect is because they do these difficult missions, and then hold themselves accountable to a difficult and elevated standard.”

TUG OF WAR Read more about the Gallagher case and the controversy.
Who Is Edward Gallagher, the SEAL the Navy Wants to Expel?Nov. 24, 2019
What Should Happen to the Navy SEAL Chief?Nov. 25, 2019
Edward Gallagher, the SEALs and Why the Trident Pin MattersNov. 21, 2019
Navy SEAL Chief Accused of War Crimes Is Found Not Guilty of MurderJuly 2, 2019
Navy SEALs Were Warned Against Reporting Their Chief for War CrimesApril 23, 2019
Dave Philipps covers veterans and the military, and is a winner of the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting. Since joining the Times in 2014, he has covered the military community from the ground up. @David_Philipps • Facebook

Rich Oppel is a national enterprise and investigative correspondent based in New York. Since joining The Times in 1999, he has also covered business, Washington, a national presidential campaign, and for six years was a war correspondent in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.



Tim Arango is a Los Angeles correspondent. Before moving to California, he spent seven years as Baghdad bureau chief and also reported on Turkey. He joined The Times in 2007 as a media reporter. @tarangoNYT

[Typical Lax Dad]

So what if Trump intervened & he benefits politically ?

Not exactly something that should be involved in a criminal case within UCMJ don't you think? I'd have a lot more sympathy if CiC resolved it all privately (he would not have to have given up any authority to make the ultimate decision) for the benefit of both parties and not used it as a political football/propaganda item to further reelection - I do not think the military should be used in this fashion no matter the circumstance.

Certainly, things to be considered on both sides that could have been handled better but the ultimate result/circus does not appear to benefit either the Navy or SEALS.

I really don’t want to see the guy stomping for Trump on the campaign trail. Just not a good look but who cares. It’s not illegal.

[old salt]

So what if Trump intervened & he benefits politically ?

Not exactly something that should be involved in a criminal case within UCMJ don't you think? I'd have a lot more sympathy if CiC resolved it all privately (he would not have to have given up any authority to make the ultimate decision) for the benefit of both parties and not used it as a political football/propaganda item to further reelection - I do not think the military should be used in this fashion no matter the circumstance.

Certainly, things to be considered on both sides that could have been handled better but the ultimate result/circus does not appear to benefit either the Navy or SEALS.

Trump didn't interfere in the legal proceedings. His actions were all non-judicial, administrative actions.

He didn't issue a pardon. He allowed the case to proceed. He directed that an accused military member be held in less harsh & restrictive pre-trial confinement. He didn't order his release, awaiting trial.

In the post trial review process, CNO restored Gallagher from an automatic reduction to E-1 to E-6. Trump restored him to his previous rank of E-7, something reviewing authorities do all the time.

Trump finally ordered that Gallagher not be subjected to a punitive Trident Review Board before retirement, after SecNav made it a media issue. Had Adm Green accepted the Court's finding & allowed Chief Gallagher to retire without further fanfare, the whole issue would have faded away & Spencer would still be SecNav, ...until he got fired for his inability to get the Ford's weapons elevators working. His days were numbered. Bad fit. Minimal military service & no defense industry experience.

[Kismet]

That all may be true but have to believe we will all see Gallagher throughout the campaign and on FoxNews which tells me all I need top know of CiC's motives in being involved in this case so publicly.

I'll repeat that the military should not be used to advance a political agenda in this fashion. That you appear to give Trump a total pass on this is sad and disappointing. Come to think of it, you routinely excuse his bad behavior with some frequency here.

[old salt]

That all may be true but have to believe we will all see Gallagher throughout the campaign and on FoxNews which tells me all I need top know of CiC's motives in being involved in this case so publicly.

I'll repeat that the military should not be used to advance a political agenda in this fashion. That you appear to give Trump a total pass on this is sad and disappointing. Come to think of it, you routinely excuse his bad behavior with some frequency here.

In this case, I think Trump did the right thing -- Chief Gallagher's not in Leavenworth.
The Military Justice system was not abused. That's what matters most to me.
I'll leave it to you to speculate on Trump's reasons for exercising his prerogatives as CinC.

The next targets :
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-nav ... ot-canned/

[seacoaster]

DMac, thanks for posting the article. Very good.

[cradleandshoot]

I understand that the Trump campaign is now asking the military men he pardoned or on whose behalf he interceded to come and campaign for the President's reelection. Nice use of the powers of the office. Today, ho hum....

The Post, on the increasing degradation of talent and ethics within the White House as the President cycles through his list of actors and understudies:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

"The Trump presidency has entered a dangerous new phase. Administration officials who had some scruples have given way to men (yes, only men) whose first priority seems to be retaining their jobs. Because the chief requirement for that is personal loyalty to the president, who has shown himself to be without scruple, decency or respect for the Constitution, the result is the progressive erosion of core institutions.

During the first years of the administration, there was considerable debate over the role of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, national security adviser H.R. McMaster, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein. Critics said these “grown-ups in the room” were giving a sheen of normalcy to a presidency that was shattering norms. Defenders said they were erecting guardrails — keeping President Trump at least in some cases from acting on his worst instincts.

We tended toward the latter view. Mr. Sessions properly recused himself from the Russia probe and refused to un-recuse, while neither he nor his deputy would fire special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. Mr. Mattis helped keep alliances on track and slow-walked some of the more outlandish demands, such as for a vanity-driven military parade. As Post columnist Michael Gerson colorfully put it, “If you are a national security official working for a malignant, infantile, impulsive, authoritarian wannabe, you need to stay in your job as long as you can to mitigate whatever damage you can — before the mad king tires of your sanity and fires you.”

The wisdom of that view is being borne out by the administration’s second act. It may be that Attorney General William P. Barr, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney also are protecting the country from Mr. Trump’s whims and grudges in ways that we cannot see.

But what we do see suggests they are playing the role of enablers of constitutional degradation: From the Justice Department, the dishonest rollout of Mr. Mueller’s report, or the politically driven threat of an antitrust lawsuit against car makers who anger the president by negotiating clear-air standards with California. At State, an abject failure to stand up for honorable Foreign Service officers slandered for doing their jobs honorably. At the White House, a willingness to encourage, and then lie about, the abuse of foreign-policy powers in service of personal political interests. At the Pentagon, a refusal to stand up to Mr. Trump’s malign interference in the military justice process. And this is not an exhaustive list.

Ultimately, of course, the president enjoys a great deal of power, and no staff person can be insubordinate. Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley recently leveled a self-serving attack on Mr. Kelly and Mr. Tillerson for supposedly “undermining” the president, but her prescription wasn’t all wrong. “It should’ve been, ‘Go tell the president what your differences are, and quit if you don’t like what he’s doing.’ ” Now, Mr. Trump seems to have found courtiers who neither look to mitigate his worst instincts nor have the courage to tell him when he is wrong. You wonder what kind of pride they will be able to take in their service once it is all over."

When it is all said and done, he is still the CiC. My opinion has been that if the Dems spent more time on winning the election and less time on the impeachment fiasco, you would not have the prospect of 4 more years of Trump. Staying with the navy theme... whatever floats your boat.

Is that the same thing as a king?

Not exactly, if you stupid brain damaged Democrats continue to keep your eye off the ball you will lose yet another election.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I understand that the Trump campaign is now asking the military men he pardoned or on whose behalf he interceded to come and campaign for the President's reelection. Nice use of the powers of the office. Today, ho hum....

The Post, on the increasing degradation of talent and ethics within the White House as the President cycles through his list of actors and understudies:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

"The Trump presidency has entered a dangerous new phase. Administration officials who had some scruples have given way to men (yes, only men) whose first priority seems to be retaining their jobs. Because the chief requirement for that is personal loyalty to the president, who has shown himself to be without scruple, decency or respect for the Constitution, the result is the progressive erosion of core institutions.

During the first years of the administration, there was considerable debate over the role of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, national security adviser H.R. McMaster, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein. Critics said these “grown-ups in the room” were giving a sheen of normalcy to a presidency that was shattering norms. Defenders said they were erecting guardrails — keeping President Trump at least in some cases from acting on his worst instincts.

We tended toward the latter view. Mr. Sessions properly recused himself from the Russia probe and refused to un-recuse, while neither he nor his deputy would fire special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. Mr. Mattis helped keep alliances on track and slow-walked some of the more outlandish demands, such as for a vanity-driven military parade. As Post columnist Michael Gerson colorfully put it, “If you are a national security official working for a malignant, infantile, impulsive, authoritarian wannabe, you need to stay in your job as long as you can to mitigate whatever damage you can — before the mad king tires of your sanity and fires you.”

The wisdom of that view is being borne out by the administration’s second act. It may be that Attorney General William P. Barr, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney also are protecting the country from Mr. Trump’s whims and grudges in ways that we cannot see.

But what we do see suggests they are playing the role of enablers of constitutional degradation: From the Justice Department, the dishonest rollout of Mr. Mueller’s report, or the politically driven threat of an antitrust lawsuit against car makers who anger the president by negotiating clear-air standards with California. At State, an abject failure to stand up for honorable Foreign Service officers slandered for doing their jobs honorably. At the White House, a willingness to encourage, and then lie about, the abuse of foreign-policy powers in service of personal political interests. At the Pentagon, a refusal to stand up to Mr. Trump’s malign interference in the military justice process. And this is not an exhaustive list.

Ultimately, of course, the president enjoys a great deal of power, and no staff person can be insubordinate. Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley recently leveled a self-serving attack on Mr. Kelly and Mr. Tillerson for supposedly “undermining” the president, but her prescription wasn’t all wrong. “It should’ve been, ‘Go tell the president what your differences are, and quit if you don’t like what he’s doing.’ ” Now, Mr. Trump seems to have found courtiers who neither look to mitigate his worst instincts nor have the courage to tell him when he is wrong. You wonder what kind of pride they will be able to take in their service once it is all over."

When it is all said and done, he is still the CiC. My opinion has been that if the Dems spent more time on winning the election and less time on the impeachment fiasco, you would not have the prospect of 4 more years of Trump. Staying with the navy theme... whatever floats your boat.

Is that the same thing as a king?

Not exactly, if you stupid brain damaged Democrats continue to keep your eye off the ball you will lose yet another election.

The average American

[cradleandshoot]

I understand that the Trump campaign is now asking the military men he pardoned or on whose behalf he interceded to come and campaign for the President's reelection. Nice use of the powers of the office. Today, ho hum....

The Post, on the increasing degradation of talent and ethics within the White House as the President cycles through his list of actors and understudies:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

"The Trump presidency has entered a dangerous new phase. Administration officials who had some scruples have given way to men (yes, only men) whose first priority seems to be retaining their jobs. Because the chief requirement for that is personal loyalty to the president, who has shown himself to be without scruple, decency or respect for the Constitution, the result is the progressive erosion of core institutions.

During the first years of the administration, there was considerable debate over the role of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, national security adviser H.R. McMaster, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein. Critics said these “grown-ups in the room” were giving a sheen of normalcy to a presidency that was shattering norms. Defenders said they were erecting guardrails — keeping President Trump at least in some cases from acting on his worst instincts.

We tended toward the latter view. Mr. Sessions properly recused himself from the Russia probe and refused to un-recuse, while neither he nor his deputy would fire special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. Mr. Mattis helped keep alliances on track and slow-walked some of the more outlandish demands, such as for a vanity-driven military parade. As Post columnist Michael Gerson colorfully put it, “If you are a national security official working for a malignant, infantile, impulsive, authoritarian wannabe, you need to stay in your job as long as you can to mitigate whatever damage you can — before the mad king tires of your sanity and fires you.”

The wisdom of that view is being borne out by the administration’s second act. It may be that Attorney General William P. Barr, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney also are protecting the country from Mr. Trump’s whims and grudges in ways that we cannot see.

But what we do see suggests they are playing the role of enablers of constitutional degradation: From the Justice Department, the dishonest rollout of Mr. Mueller’s report, or the politically driven threat of an antitrust lawsuit against car makers who anger the president by negotiating clear-air standards with California. At State, an abject failure to stand up for honorable Foreign Service officers slandered for doing their jobs honorably. At the White House, a willingness to encourage, and then lie about, the abuse of foreign-policy powers in service of personal political interests. At the Pentagon, a refusal to stand up to Mr. Trump’s malign interference in the military justice process. And this is not an exhaustive list.

Ultimately, of course, the president enjoys a great deal of power, and no staff person can be insubordinate. Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley recently leveled a self-serving attack on Mr. Kelly and Mr. Tillerson for supposedly “undermining” the president, but her prescription wasn’t all wrong. “It should’ve been, ‘Go tell the president what your differences are, and quit if you don’t like what he’s doing.’ ” Now, Mr. Trump seems to have found courtiers who neither look to mitigate his worst instincts nor have the courage to tell him when he is wrong. You wonder what kind of pride they will be able to take in their service once it is all over."

When it is all said and done, he is still the CiC. My opinion has been that if the Dems spent more time on winning the election and less time on the impeachment fiasco, you would not have the prospect of 4 more years of Trump. Staying with the navy theme... whatever floats your boat.

Is that the same thing as a king?

Not exactly, if you stupid brain damaged Democrats continue to keep your eye off the ball you will lose yet another election.

The average American

I am not against you TLD. I would love for DJT to lose. I believe the Democrats have no clue how to defeat Trump. They are operating their 2020 election on a blind hatred for trump. If that is the plan... go for it. I am telling you that it ain't going to work. What I have been saying is that the Democrats are putting all of their eggs in the impeachment basket. The top contenders right now for the Democrat nomination for POTUS are absolutely pathetic. The Democrats do not seem to even care about that.

[old salt]

Saw this analysis of Trump's actions in the Gallagher case on another forum.

...this seems like it falls the same way as a lot of Trump's decisions, and is a reason people underestimate the hell out of him. Does it potentially harm the community it affects? Maybe so. Does it piss off his political opponents and even some of his supporters? Probably so. Is it illegal? Probably not. Will it serve as anecdotal or emotional (if not truly compelling) evidence that he is 'supporting great Americans' or 'Making America Great Again' by sticking it to the PC police? Absolutely it will. So he'll do it, knowing the only outcome is a persistent storyline where his opponents are painted as whiners that are out to get him and Great Americans like him, and he looks like he's just trying to support the troops. The second and third order effects of all this ...do not concern him at all, but doesn't mean he's not one clever dude.