Its implicit in her new comment that she regrets the program, which is a newer statement than the one she was criticized for when questioned by Kamala Harris over a week ago.
US Politics
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
Its implicit in her new comment that she regrets the program, which is a newer statement than the one she was criticized for when questioned by Kamala Harris over a week ago.
That's a positive step then. She should still be in jail.
She should run the CIA, which is what she will do shortly.
Yeah sounds like a real nice person the cnut picked as CIA chief...
Or the most recent statement was just made to keep up appearances. It's hardly unheard of in politics.
You're wasting your breath. He's made it obvious that if the American Government says it's legal then it's acceptable practise. No amount of evidence is going to change his mind.
Progressive woman defeats pro-Trump ‘Democrat’ in Pennsylvania primary
https://shareblue.com/susan-wild-de...emocrat-john-morganelli-pennsylvania-primary/
https://shareblue.com/susan-wild-de...emocrat-john-morganelli-pennsylvania-primary/
There was another one in Nebraska as well.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/15/us/elections/results-nebraska-primary-elections.html
House panel rebukes Trump, upholds sanctions on Chinese tech megafirm
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/17/house-panel-backs-zte-sanctions-in-rebuke-of-trump-550140
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/17/house-panel-backs-zte-sanctions-in-rebuke-of-trump-550140
Or had 5 dems not crossed over to confirm her. 3 Republicans didn't vote for her, they couldn't have gotten it through without the Democrats
Fortunately we have some who still vote based on the merits and not on tribal loyalty.
The same reason they have kept the Senate filibuster in place - to preserve some degree of opposition power once they are back in the opposition.
Let's never again pretend Democrats care about civil liberties or respect from the rest of the world. They put a torturer into place as the head of the CIA.
Everyone should care about civil liberties, but they should also weigh each vote based on the merits and not on herd behavior of following their party.
This has nothing to do with herd behaviour. It has to do with promoting a torturer to head of the CIA.
A torturer that burnt evidence. But this is the same people that confirmed Betsy Devos
That's why we have a Senate process to adjudicate this stuff.
This is the only notable time the Dems have used the filibuster in the Trump admin, and the GOP nuked it.
Its generally bad to nuke any filibusters. They are there for a purpose to give the opposition some degree of leverage when one party controls both the executive and legislative.
That's why we have a democracy so people can express their views on matters. Not surprised you are so hostile to the democratic process after you earlier called it pointless squealing.
People can express whatever view they want, but the Senate votes on nominees...and they have.
Great so what is your actual point here? Or are we all to just post cspan lists of how senators voted.
That's irrelevant civics 101.
The GOP have shown repeatedly that they will ignore norms to achieve their goals. They would have done that for Haspel's nomination, and part of the evidence for that is how they did it for Gorsuch's nomination. Thus that tweet shows no understanding of politics or how the GOP works.
The tweet made a factual statement, which happens to be correct. It doesn't attempt to suggest the GOP are morally pure and wouldn't attempt something similar. The broader point is that filibusters are there for a reason and shouldn't be fiddled with by either party.
Haspel seems eminently qualified to be CIA Director.
Do you not think torture is disqualifying?
Its a very plausible scenario that was entirely avoidable.
The GOP not trampling the filibuster is plausible?
(I just showed you that in the *one* time they were stymied by it, they nuked it.)
They infamously overused the filibuster under Obama, and created precedent with how they obstructed Garland.
(Those are other instances of norms that they chose to broke.)
(edited 1 word for clarity)
They've been stymied numerous times and still kept the Senate filibuster. So much for your extravagant thesis.
So where and to who did this torture happen? Pretty scandalous if it was only suspects, and in America.
If it was a Guantanamo and the subjects were confirmed terrorists, who gives a feck.
If it was a Guantanamo and the subjects were confirmed terrorists, who gives a feck.
Google it, you twat.
The Constitution...?
