LaxPower Back-Up Stick

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 4:05 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:59 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:54 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:12 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 8:51 am Or, there really isn't conflict. I think that was the case with Kelly in the instance of the policy to separate parents and children at the border. If I recall correctly, he made statements at the time denying there was such a policy, statements which were later proven to be flat untrue.

But we don't actually know enough about what went down when Kelly was CoS to really have the full story, so I'm willing to make some positive assumptions about that period. But after he left, knowing what he knew, and watching the further actions of Trump, an act of "integrity", in service of his country, not the man, would have been to have spoken up. It would have mattered. It would now as well.

It was AG Sessions policy via his WH protege S Miller. It blindsided CoS Kelly & the new DHS.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na- ... story.html
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... ion-policy
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/nation ... story.html

There were numerous reported shouting matches between Trump & Kelly, on several issues.

But did Kelly actually disagree with the policy?...I seem to recall early denials that there was even such a policy, despite our later learning of the memo far earlier.

Again, I'd be very interested in what actually went down, where he objected (or had shouting matches) and most importantly his view of Trump's fitness for the position. But not to sell books. I have no issue with folks making a buck selling books, but there's a time when country over self is what really matters. Step up now, General.

The early denials were because CoS Kelly & DHS were blindsided. Sessions just did it & secured Trump's approval via S Miller.
Kelly & DHS recommended against it but couldn't block it.

And we know that because Kelly himself has told us or better yet told Congress under oath?

Or is that just speculating based on 'anonymous sources'?
Not saying it's incorrect, but would it not be helpful to hear from the horses' mouth?

And why the denial if the denial was untrue? "Integrity"??

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 4:05 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:59 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:54 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:12 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 8:51 am Or, there really isn't conflict. I think that was the case with Kelly in the instance of the policy to separate parents and children at the border. If I recall correctly, he made statements at the time denying there was such a policy, statements which were later proven to be flat untrue.

But we don't actually know enough about what went down when Kelly was CoS to really have the full story, so I'm willing to make some positive assumptions about that period. But after he left, knowing what he knew, and watching the further actions of Trump, an act of "integrity", in service of his country, not the man, would have been to have spoken up. It would have mattered. It would now as well.

It was AG Sessions policy via his WH protege S Miller. It blindsided CoS Kelly & the new DHS.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na- ... story.html
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... ion-policy
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/nation ... story.html

There were numerous reported shouting matches between Trump & Kelly, on several issues.

But did Kelly actually disagree with the policy?...I seem to recall early denials that there was even such a policy, despite our later learning of the memo far earlier.

Again, I'd be very interested in what actually went down, where he objected (or had shouting matches) and most importantly his view of Trump's fitness for the position. But not to sell books. I have no issue with folks making a buck selling books, but there's a time when country over self is what really matters. Step up now, General.

The early denials were because CoS Kelly & DHS were blindsided. Sessions just did it & secured Trump's approval via S Miller.
Kelly & DHS recommended against it but couldn't block it.

And we know that because Kelly himself has told us or better yet told Congress under oath?

Or is that just speculating based on 'anonymous sources'?
Not saying it's incorrect, but would it not be helpful to hear from the horses' mouth?

And why the denial if the denial was untrue? "Integrity"??

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 4:34 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 4:05 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:59 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:54 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:12 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 8:51 am Or, there really isn't conflict. I think that was the case with Kelly in the instance of the policy to separate parents and children at the border. If I recall correctly, he made statements at the time denying there was such a policy, statements which were later proven to be flat untrue.

But we don't actually know enough about what went down when Kelly was CoS to really have the full story, so I'm willing to make some positive assumptions about that period. But after he left, knowing what he knew, and watching the further actions of Trump, an act of "integrity", in service of his country, not the man, would have been to have spoken up. It would have mattered. It would now as well.

It was AG Sessions policy via his WH protege S Miller. It blindsided CoS Kelly & the new DHS.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na- ... story.html
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... ion-policy
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/nation ... story.html

There were numerous reported shouting matches between Trump & Kelly, on several issues.

But did Kelly actually disagree with the policy?...I seem to recall early denials that there was even such a policy, despite our later learning of the memo far earlier.

Again, I'd be very interested in what actually went down, where he objected (or had shouting matches) and most importantly his view of Trump's fitness for the position. But not to sell books. I have no issue with folks making a buck selling books, but there's a time when country over self is what really matters. Step up now, General.

The early denials were because CoS Kelly & DHS were blindsided. Sessions just did it & secured Trump's approval via S Miller.
Kelly & DHS recommended against it but couldn't block it.

And we know that because Kelly himself has told us or better yet told Congress under oath?

Or is that just speculating based on 'anonymous sources'?
Not saying it's incorrect, but would it not be helpful to hear from the horses' mouth?

And why the denial if the denial was untrue? "Integrity"??

Read the links I posted. Nothing that Kelly could say would convince you otherwise.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 6:02 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 4:05 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:59 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:54 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:12 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 8:51 am Or, there really isn't conflict. I think that was the case with Kelly in the instance of the policy to separate parents and children at the border. If I recall correctly, he made statements at the time denying there was such a policy, statements which were later proven to be flat untrue.

But we don't actually know enough about what went down when Kelly was CoS to really have the full story, so I'm willing to make some positive assumptions about that period. But after he left, knowing what he knew, and watching the further actions of Trump, an act of "integrity", in service of his country, not the man, would have been to have spoken up. It would have mattered. It would now as well.

It was AG Sessions policy via his WH protege S Miller. It blindsided CoS Kelly & the new DHS.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na- ... story.html
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... ion-policy
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/nation ... story.html

There were numerous reported shouting matches between Trump & Kelly, on several issues.

But did Kelly actually disagree with the policy?...I seem to recall early denials that there was even such a policy, despite our later learning of the memo far earlier.

Again, I'd be very interested in what actually went down, where he objected (or had shouting matches) and most importantly his view of Trump's fitness for the position. But not to sell books. I have no issue with folks making a buck selling books, but there's a time when country over self is what really matters. Step up now, General.

The early denials were because CoS Kelly & DHS were blindsided. Sessions just did it & secured Trump's approval via S Miller.
Kelly & DHS recommended against it but couldn't block it.

And we know that because Kelly himself has told us or better yet told Congress under oath?

Or is that just speculating based on 'anonymous sources'?
Not saying it's incorrect, but would it not be helpful to hear from the horses' mouth?

And why the denial if the denial was untrue? "Integrity"??

MD, i have enjoyed the back and forth on this topic of Gen. Kelly. Normally i would apologize to you for my harsh tone towards you. This is not the the case here for this old soldier. i have a very serious question for you. i will try to side step all of the other minefields in this conversation. Gen Kelly decides trump is a raving bat dump crazy insane lunatic. We have now ventured into the 25th amendment territory. Explain for me the process how Gen Kelly goes about dealing with this truly bizarre and unique situation? He can't go up the chain of command because besides trump he is at the top of the chain of command. I don't ask this to be combative, i just wonder what does Kelly do? Who does he take his complaint to? The media is out of the question. How do you go about throwing your boss under the bus in this situation. There is only one realistic option, you resign your position and move along. After that, without going public, how do you get this ball rolling without creating a chitstorm in the process.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 6:20 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 4:34 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 4:05 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:59 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:54 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:12 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 8:51 am Or, there really isn't conflict. I think that was the case with Kelly in the instance of the policy to separate parents and children at the border. If I recall correctly, he made statements at the time denying there was such a policy, statements which were later proven to be flat untrue.

But we don't actually know enough about what went down when Kelly was CoS to really have the full story, so I'm willing to make some positive assumptions about that period. But after he left, knowing what he knew, and watching the further actions of Trump, an act of "integrity", in service of his country, not the man, would have been to have spoken up. It would have mattered. It would now as well.

It was AG Sessions policy via his WH protege S Miller. It blindsided CoS Kelly & the new DHS.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na- ... story.html
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... ion-policy
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/nation ... story.html

There were numerous reported shouting matches between Trump & Kelly, on several issues.

But did Kelly actually disagree with the policy?...I seem to recall early denials that there was even such a policy, despite our later learning of the memo far earlier.

Again, I'd be very interested in what actually went down, where he objected (or had shouting matches) and most importantly his view of Trump's fitness for the position. But not to sell books. I have no issue with folks making a buck selling books, but there's a time when country over self is what really matters. Step up now, General.

The early denials were because CoS Kelly & DHS were blindsided. Sessions just did it & secured Trump's approval via S Miller.
Kelly & DHS recommended against it but couldn't block it.

And we know that because Kelly himself has told us or better yet told Congress under oath?

Or is that just speculating based on 'anonymous sources'?
Not saying it's incorrect, but would it not be helpful to hear from the horses' mouth?

And why the denial if the denial was untrue? "Integrity"??

Read the links I posted. Nothing that Kelly could say would convince you otherwise.

I read the links; I repeat, it will be interesting to hear what Kelly has to say directly, not through anonymous sources.

Does he, for instance, have a perspective on the current travesty of Trump's claims that the election was rigged, full of fraud, he won, no transition?

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 7:09 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 6:20 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 4:34 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 4:05 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:59 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:54 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:12 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 8:51 am Or, there really isn't conflict. I think that was the case with Kelly in the instance of the policy to separate parents and children at the border. If I recall correctly, he made statements at the time denying there was such a policy, statements which were later proven to be flat untrue.

But we don't actually know enough about what went down when Kelly was CoS to really have the full story, so I'm willing to make some positive assumptions about that period. But after he left, knowing what he knew, and watching the further actions of Trump, an act of "integrity", in service of his country, not the man, would have been to have spoken up. It would have mattered. It would now as well.

It was AG Sessions policy via his WH protege S Miller. It blindsided CoS Kelly & the new DHS.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na- ... story.html
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... ion-policy
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/nation ... story.html

There were numerous reported shouting matches between Trump & Kelly, on several issues.

But did Kelly actually disagree with the policy?...I seem to recall early denials that there was even such a policy, despite our later learning of the memo far earlier.

Again, I'd be very interested in what actually went down, where he objected (or had shouting matches) and most importantly his view of Trump's fitness for the position. But not to sell books. I have no issue with folks making a buck selling books, but there's a time when country over self is what really matters. Step up now, General.

The early denials were because CoS Kelly & DHS were blindsided. Sessions just did it & secured Trump's approval via S Miller.
Kelly & DHS recommended against it but couldn't block it.

And we know that because Kelly himself has told us or better yet told Congress under oath?

Or is that just speculating based on 'anonymous sources'?
Not saying it's incorrect, but would it not be helpful to hear from the horses' mouth?

And why the denial if the denial was untrue? "Integrity"??

Read the links I posted. Nothing that Kelly could say would convince you otherwise.

I read the links; I repeat, it will be interesting to hear what Kelly has to say directly, not through anonymous sources.

Does he, for instance, have a perspective on the current travesty of Trump's claims that the election was rigged, full of fraud, he won, no transition?

One more link which illustrates my point re the child separation policy. In Mar 2017, early in his DHS tenure, Kelly acknowledges that it was being considered as a deterrent, but it was not implemented during his DHS tenure. It was introduced over a year later, in Apr 2018, by AG Sessions. Kelly has said that he & DHS were blindsided. It was no longer a DHS policy. DoJ was in the lead.
https://www.statesman.com/news/20190625 ... fore-trump

FTR -- family separations were already taking place in previous admins. In 2014, it was limited by court order, creating the "catch & release" loophole. This restriction prompted a flood of migrants with minors & unaccompanied minors, exploiting the resulting loophole. There was already a significant number of unaccompanied minors in fed care when Trump took office. The zero tolerance policy pushed by Sessions (to please Trump) grew the problem into a crisis.

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 7:13 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 7:09 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 6:20 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 4:34 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 4:05 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:59 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:54 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:12 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 8:51 am Or, there really isn't conflict. I think that was the case with Kelly in the instance of the policy to separate parents and children at the border. If I recall correctly, he made statements at the time denying there was such a policy, statements which were later proven to be flat untrue.

But we don't actually know enough about what went down when Kelly was CoS to really have the full story, so I'm willing to make some positive assumptions about that period. But after he left, knowing what he knew, and watching the further actions of Trump, an act of "integrity", in service of his country, not the man, would have been to have spoken up. It would have mattered. It would now as well.

It was AG Sessions policy via his WH protege S Miller. It blindsided CoS Kelly & the new DHS.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na- ... story.html
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... ion-policy
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/nation ... story.html

There were numerous reported shouting matches between Trump & Kelly, on several issues.

But did Kelly actually disagree with the policy?...I seem to recall early denials that there was even such a policy, despite our later learning of the memo far earlier.

Again, I'd be very interested in what actually went down, where he objected (or had shouting matches) and most importantly his view of Trump's fitness for the position. But not to sell books. I have no issue with folks making a buck selling books, but there's a time when country over self is what really matters. Step up now, General.

The early denials were because CoS Kelly & DHS were blindsided. Sessions just did it & secured Trump's approval via S Miller.
Kelly & DHS recommended against it but couldn't block it.

And we know that because Kelly himself has told us or better yet told Congress under oath?

Or is that just speculating based on 'anonymous sources'?
Not saying it's incorrect, but would it not be helpful to hear from the horses' mouth?

And why the denial if the denial was untrue? "Integrity"??

Read the links I posted. Nothing that Kelly could say would convince you otherwise.

I read the links; I repeat, it will be interesting to hear what Kelly has to say directly, not through anonymous sources.

Does he, for instance, have a perspective on the current travesty of Trump's claims that the election was rigged, full of fraud, he won, no transition?

One more link which illustrates my point re the child separation policy. In Mar 2017, early in his DHS tenure, Kelly acknowledges that it was being considered as a deterrent, but it was not implemented during his DHS tenure. It was introduced over a year later, in Apr 2018, by AG Sessions. Kelly has said that he & DHS were blindsided. It was no longer a DHS policy. DoJ was in the lead.
https://www.statesman.com/news/20190625 ... fore-trump

FTR -- family separations were already taking place in previous admins. In 2014, it was limited by court order, creating the "catch & release" loophole. This restriction prompted a flood of migrants with minors & unaccompanied minors, exploiting the resulting loophole. There was already a significant number of unaccompanied minors in fed care when Trump took office. The zero tolerance policy pushed by Sessions (to please Trump) grew the problem into a crisis.

Matnum PI wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 6:55 pm RT @kylegriffin1: Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs has had to release a statement describing "ongoing and escalating threats of violence" against her, her family and her office. She pledged that "intimidation tactics will not prevent me from performing the duties I swore an oath to do."

seacoaster wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 6:24 pm Kelly pulls down a dusty thin volume off the shelf called the Constitution, and peruses the 25th Amendment. He sees that it doesn't mention the CoS, but says this:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office

General Kelly says, "Oh shoot. I have to recruit a few of his sycophants, acting cabinet members and other toadies who would make Kim Jong blush. Hmmmm. I am screwed. Back to work."

The 25th Amendment contemplates bucking the "chain of command." Putting the nation over the leader, over the party.

Matnum PI wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 6:42 pm RT @chrislhayes: It's a lifetime ago, but it used to be an extremely common conservative talking point to complain about frivilous lawsuits and people that sued everyone over every damn thing.

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 12:16 am Speaking of another lifetime appointment- Biden wasn't qualified for his first job in the Senate either.
She'll grow into the role, just like he did.


Being inexperienced and unqualified didn't stop Barack or your boy Trump from ascending to the highest heights either.