For all that drain the swamp rhetoric, Trump sure loves him some swamp monsters
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Confirmation hearing of Mark Esper for Defense Secretary before the Senate Armed Services Committee. July 16, 2019.
Make sure you watch it to the very end.
Partial transcript -- Senator Warren's summary statement:
Alright. So let me get this straight. You're still due to get at least a million dollar payout from when you lobbied for Raytheon. You won't commit to recuse yourself from Raytheon decisions. You insist on being free to seek a waiver that would let you make decisions affecting Raytheon's bottom line and your remaining financial interest. And you won't rule out taking a trip right back through the revolving door on your way out of government service, or even just delaying that trip for four years after you leave government.
Secretary Esper, the American people deserve to know that you're making decisions in our country's best security interest, not in your own financial interest. You can't make those commitments to this committee, that means you should not be confirmed as Secretary of Defense.
Tags
Who is online
165 visitors
He's expected to be confirmed next week.
Ethics? We don't need no stinking ethics.
He’s a good man and will receive many Dem Senator votes to confirm just as they did previously
Pocahantas is just seeking attention because she’s running for president
the Sec Defense doesn’t award contracts nor can they override the bidding process.
You don't find that the slightest bit shady? Not even a wee smidgen?
Just stop.
[Deleted]
Well then, he could have just agreed to her requests in good faith and been done with it, being irrelevant and all.
Dig,
I am with you 100% on this. This is a total conflict of interests and I can't believe that this is allowable.
MUVA,
Are you going with the two wrongs makes a right defense? This is not TDS. This should never be allowed. We should have learned this from the whole Haliburton debacle. But no, we just carry on the same way. Look, you might not like the messenger, and neither do I, but the message is correct. When someone campaigned on cleaning the swamp, they shouldn't be adding to it and following along because you like the dude, is not right either. That is the whole issue with partisanism. Buying into anything a president does, means you have forfeited your own thoughts.
There is no such things as TDS. I think you know that.
I disagree with that. I think there is TDS. It's when the air that Trump breaths is even a bad thing. You can dislike a president, without having going over the top. TDS is over the top.
You are right it is really TDDS.
And I don't care about what every administration did before. This administration made a chat out of draining the swamp and now they are doing the exact opposite. You can call it TDS but I call it hypocrisy.
And please keep it civil if you are responding to me. It's the minimal I request. "squatting dog" is just insulting for the sake of being insulting.
Oh, but there is. The phrase is simply being misused. The people who have it are the same ones who had ODS. Their derangement on full display at every Trump rally for all to see. You HAVE to be deranged to think a character like Trump should be sitting behind the Resolute desk.
Remember this stuff?
There's your Trump derangement syndrome.
[Deleted]
How is that different than these?
I don't see anyone in your pictures calling for the death of anyone, just expressing their First Amendment right. The first picture above clearly calls for death and violence. Liberals say that hate speech should not be allowed, but I don't see any liberals denouncing these idiots. Wonder why?
Why does the Antifa flag look more like a Nazi flag? Anti fascist, my ass. More like Anti F irst A mendment
Well, that is a huge assumption on your behalf. You were not even here during the Obama administration when I said plenty then when things went afoul. So don't give me the I only care when the other side is in charge, since I don't have a side, but you do.
And for asking for civility, I am talking about when dealing with me. I treat people civilly and I expect it back.
Clapping are we? I get to see all the vileness posted here and I would say that the level of civility sucks on both sides of the political fence. But what I have found is that it is only offensive when it's done to your side, and not the other's.
"Both sides" Both sides" "Both sides" "Both sides" Both sides" "Both sides"
well done Dignitatem Societatis
Yes John, I keep forgetting that all liberals are civil/ sarc.
Normalizing Donald Trump is the end result of "both sides"-ism. No thanks.
TDS refers to people who:
A. Cried on election night
B. Screamed at the sky
C. Do nothing but predict horrible outcomes for America because Trump is President
D. Seed article after article after article filled with nothing more, really, than "I Hate Trump" themes.
There is no such thing as "Trump Derangement Syndrome"
That is like saying there is a Bernie Madoff Derangement Syndrome or a Ted Bundy Derangement Syndrome.
Trump is a horrible human being. He doesnt belong in the presidency, never in a million years.
There is nothing whatsoever "deranged" about pointing that out.
Oh come now... Trump isn't that bad... certainly not Ted Bundy level.
The reality is that Trump is kind of a jerk. He's not a serial killer, or a mass murderer, or a serial rapist. He's just a rather arrogant ass, and not a terrific speaker, and he's a bit of an asshole. He's rich, he's powerful, he's successful, he was on TV... kind of a megalomaniac, certainly a little rude and crude, but that really about all it is.
He's not even terribly likable, but he's no Mao, or Hitler, or Bundy, or Madoff.
He's just Trump, the same kinda guy we saw on the apprentice.
For crying out loud, you make him sound like someone's annoying little brother!
That's a pretty fair assessment.
Thank you!
Says the guy who is probably someone's annoying little brother.
No, not at all
Those people are seriously deranged. I feel sorry for the little girl in the one picture.
Are you serious? You think that one of the two major national political parties in this country, with members in governments everywhere (city, country, state, federal) is comparable to Antifa? For real?
Antifa is a completely unorganized, uncoordinated, and unconnected smattering of activists. Some make horribly offensive signs like that top one, some brawl with neo-nazis, some just march around and protest. They aren't actually a coherent thing.
Those rallies, on the other hand, are real-deal national politics. They are public events sponsored and sanctioned by the U.S. Republican Party. They are presidential rallies for crying out loud.
How is it different? You've got to be kidding me.
The flag in that second picture looks like a Nazi flag because it is a Nazi flag. What you're trying to pass off as a picture of an Antifa flag is actually a picture of a National Front flag, apparently from a 2016 protest that someone photoshopped to make the N look like an A, and then spread around to intentionally dupe people. National Front is an actual fascist party from the UK. They use the Nazi version of the Reichskriegsflagge with NF written in the middle instead of a swastika, and an old Germanic rune that means "inheritance" in the upper left instead of the Iron Cross.
Here's the original image next to the photoshopped version:
See the difference? Read about it at this Snopes article .
Antifa doesn't even have an official flag. They're not a real organization. There is a red flag, black flag combo type of logo thing that you see on flags, t-shirts and hats sometimes, but that's about it.
Where did you get that fraudulent picture, anyway? Is it making the rounds on conservative media or something? It's totally fake news.
Bingo.
I don't agree totally with your comment, but is it level-headed (high 90's). Thank you, TOBM!
Serial Rapist? There are rumors. . . and accusers.
Madoff? Yeah boy! Trump is 'owed' the Madoff treatment. (Whether life will deal it out to him remains to be seen.)
Dare I guess your lineage?
Clapping? Yea, I was clapping. By far, the most vile, racist crap coming on this site is from the left. I say that because conservatives are outnumbered probably 5 to 1 on here, so anytime a conservative makes a comment, the left hive comes out in a drove to attack that poster, and most of it is vile insults and other attacks.
There is no denying this.
Not really. They have social media to announce that a peaceful protest of people they don't like is going to happen, and the asses show up in droves, with one thing on their mind...violence.
The people at the Trump rallies, with the exception of a few assholes, do not engage in violence, do not physically threaten anyone, and certainly are not there to disrupt, as ANTIFA normally does.
To be honest about the flag..if it is photo shopped, then I am not aware. I did not "pass it off" as anything. How do you know it was not photo shopped to look like something other than an ANTIFA flag. Sounds to me like you know an awful lot about ANTIFA, and are prepared to defend them at any time.
What I am aware of is the violence behind the assholes that have no problem assaulting someone simply because they do not like their ideas.
ANTIFA does not mean "Anti Fascist". They are exactly what they say they are against. A fascist group. What the truth about ANTIFA is that ANTIFA really means Anti First Amendment. There is no denying it.
Nope, TDDS is an affliction only born by the left; they have moved on from plan old TDS.
Next Democratic Administration had better buckle up. The precedents the left are setting will be built upon.
I'm sorry, but I am interested in learning what kind of racist crap are you receiving from the 'Left' on NT, Bugsy?
When I first came to this site, I made mention that my wife is from an Asian country. [deleted]
There is also others who state that blacks who agree with the President, or simply Republicans are "tokens" and "Uncle Toms". [deleted]
There are others, and I am sure you have seen them, but some decide that blinders are far better than the truth.
Great, another Antifa apologist.
Antifa isn't organized, bullshit. Antifa isn't coordinated, bullshit. Antifa isn't connected, bullshit.
Antifa does more than attack fascists. They attack journalists, marines (who were unfortunate enough to be in the area), gays (once again wrong place at the wrong time), and government facilities.
If Antifa isn't coordinated why do they have a hand book on how to form a group, run it, and training advice for potential conflicts?
If Antifa isn't connected how do they continue to outnumber the fascist groups at events?
What is it going to take for the left to label Antifa what it is, a terrorist organization out to limit free speech and organizing to what they find acceptable? I doubt Antifa killing someone would do it at this point. The left would just argue right extremists have killed more.
That doesn't make them a real organization, any more then flash mobs materializing somewhere to do the YMCA dance. There's no governing authority.
Trump rallies are the most disturbing political events since the days of George Wallace. Worse even. The President of the United States intentionally demeans and belittles other Americans and the crowds go nuts for it. Trump actively incites division. Instead of appealing to Honest Abe's oft cited better angels in people, he seeks to bring out some of the worst. And he's supposed to be the President . It's absolutely shameful.
For crying out loud. Here's the White Supremacism entry on the Wikipedia page about NF . See the flag there? That's the flag in your picture. Also, Here's a partial video of the protest that the image was ripped from (skip to about 1:07):
Same guy, same tile roof on the building in the background, same flag... except it plainly says NF and not AF. If you have to, slow the playback down to the slowest setting and you can see it plainly while the flag is fluttering in the wind.
The video is from the Snopes link I provided earlier. It's apparently an RT video and RT is Russian state-owned, so the photoshopper could very well have been someone from a Russian web brigade who then slipped it into American social media in order to piss conservatives off even more about Antifa. You know, to stir up even more unrest. Or did you think all of that Russian interference stuff was bogus? If you did, here's some pretty compelling evidence right in front of you. Did you get the picture from Facebook or a chain email or something?
Unlike most of the run-of-the-mill liberals you probably mistake for lefties all the time, I actually am one, but I'll let you in on a little secret: if you use Chrome, all you have to do is right click on an image and tell Google to search for it. Sometimes you get some pretty clear results. That's how I found the Snopes article. I also discovered that your other picture has likely not been tampered with and was taken in the Boston area. It's not all that difficult.
deleted at poster's request by Charger 383
ANTIFA consists of a dispersed miniscule group of impotent misfits waging internet battles and occasionally showing up in small numbers as counter protesters at much larger American Nazi, Aryan Brotherhood, Skinhead and White Supremacist rallies. There are several thousand well organized well funded far rightwing neofascist racist white separatist groups. ANTIFA is their imagined bogeyman. Again, 97% of all mass atrocities suffered by Americans in 2018 were at the hands of rightwing domestic terrorists. ANTIFA was responsible for none zero zip nada...
I am sorry to read this. I am no fan of anyone diminishing women. I, myself, am a Christian homosexual male and no one here disparages me for being so in any shape form or slight. Even though, the conservatives and I have a real problem together over their political (and religious) treatment of the subject matter and political policy prescriptions.
The "Uncle Tom" and "token" references are a different matter, and you are correct. I do see them. Usually it is against a backdrop of hot rhetoric being exchanged by both sides, (I figuratively throw up my hands and opt-out before I get started.) More importantly, sometimes the black person supporting Trump is so manifestly compromised in what has been directly stated or said about his or her own people ("plantation-mentality" or "democrat 'slave') that I think oh well, why bother.
Myself, I do not use words like, "uncle tom" or "token" —usually. Though sometimes an image, joke, or Youtube video can be a 'teachable moment" on a variety of themes. I do my best to be contextual in any case.
So I do not wear 'blinders' in here, bugsy! I experience everything that is for me to experience; and, I leave the rest for others to experience.
Again, I am sorry that anybody was so wrong-headed as to attack your beloved wife under any circumstance. Such an insult can only cut like a knife-no matter how it is delivered.
ANTIFA does have a website or websites (Chapter sites?). A pretty long while back on NT, I will check my site Collection, if memory serves me, I remember ANTIFA as the "counterpunch" - figuratively and literally if necessary- to white supremacist groups and the Like.
At that time I was posting something about how ANTIFA were taking photographs of homes, houses, job sites - exposing the addresses of Nazis, White supremacists, et ceteras to the public. Doing so on their web spot.
These 'groups" are in their own leagues facing off with one another. And, since there is a free-speech component involved - they are difficult to accept at the protests or deny at the protest. My opinion.
ANTIFA is about as ineffectual as The Underwear Bomber. Like I said before, they are a few misfit internet warriors who are dedicated to fighting the onslaught of creeping fascism who are mostly known for loud confrontational counter protests at a few much bigger white supremacist rallies. Unless you are a fascist or a white supremacist carrying a goddamn Tiki torch while screaming intolerant racist obscenities you will probably never ever personally encounter any of them. What exactly is wrong with fighting fascism unless you are, um, I don't know...A Fascist?
Someone's annoying little brother with a red button to play with.
Sure there is. You have it all ass backwards.
I am not a fan of Warren, but she is not wrong here. There is a complete conflict of interests here. And the fact that she was shut up goes to show they don't want it discussed either.
White women who were "Not fans of" HRC gave the Presidency to Trump...
How is that working out, by and large, for American women? Not so good.
This is what happens when one party decides to ignore, disrespect, and disregard the other party/ies. It's stupid. It's pitiful. (People do not permit children to do it.) It is disrespectful of principle—even when principle is THE THING.
Senator Warren is practically twitching at the end of the session, because principle is being ignored for the sake of something so petty (and I do mean petty) as partisanship. If it suits anybody-everybody, this BS in the states (Congress as representatives of people back home) has gone too far!
BTW, DIDN'T TRUMP PROMISE TO HAVE HIS CABINET OFFICIALS SIGN NO LOBBYING DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS AT THE BEGINNING OF HIS PRESIDENCY FOR UP TO FIVE YEARS OR MORE AT THE END OF THEIR TERMS?
Dignitatem Societatis ! Thank you for bringing this video (example) to our attention. We needed to see it. For some of us can SEE the mistake internally, even if they will do nothing to in protest to stop or disagree with it!
How so? Be specific with your "facts", not your feelings.
It it is pure political farce and Warren knows it. The Sec Defense cannot award contracts and bypass the system. I spent more than 20 years in management in the Aerospace and Defense Industry. I worked with both Dems and Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee including Murthy (D-PA), Rock Island, Elgin, China Lake, Hill AFB, and other military Procurement Centers.
The Bidding Process is tightly Controlled by law. I’ve seen so much misinformation and ignorance on this subject over many decades.
less than 1% of Defense acquisition dollars go to no bid or sole source awards. They are 99.9% of the time awarded because there is no qualified alternate sources
warren is just creating publicity for her campaign
It seems to be not to long ago you were explaining to me about how you barely have Internet - being that you live so stark. Now you'd a pension and "well-heeled" politically?
I don't believe you. You have no credibility with me. Sorry.
Perrie, I respect your opinion, but I don't remember you or any other "non conservative" pointing out the conflicts of interest during the Obama admin.
Every President since probably Washington has had some form of conflicts, whether personally, or with their cabinet.
Here are just a few of those in the Obama admin that liberals, and the media, decided to ignore:
• Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson instructed registered corporate lobbyists , whose company stood to profit from the EPA's policies, to use her private email account.
• In 2013, Obama hired revolving-door lobbyist Chris Jennings, who represented drugmakers and insurers, to help implement Obamacare. While he deregistered more than two years before joining the administration, there's reason to believe he never stopped lobbying until he joined the White House. After deregistering, Jennings kept his firm operating, kept his corporate clients, and kept on meeting health-policy aides at the White House.
• Obama's IRS hired former H&R Block CEO Mark Ernst to draft new rules regulating tax preparers. This clearly would have violated the ethics rules Eilperin discusses, except they dubbed Ernst a career bureaucrat rather than an "appointee," thus exempting him from the ethics rules. The regulations Ernst helped shape were beneficial to H&R Block, but also illegal.
Where was the "outrage" then?
People did not rant of malfeasance by Obama because there was none!
Really? Here let me refresh your memory:
I wrote that article. I was not pleased with Obama's stupid red line that he had no intention of following through with. I also had no time for the fact that he couldn't call Islamic terrorist, Islamic terrorists. I didn't like the fact he said that if he had a son, he would look like Trayvon..
Do you need me to go on, to get street cred? Right now it is Trump that is president and really, this is more about the fact that he is the same ol' same ol' and yet his followers think he isn't. He is every bit the swamp as all his predecessors...
He's far WORSE, than N E samomole Samoli, as he drained "The Swamp" to find the best of the WORSE, and he has outdone himself as he far exceeds what most thought could of, would of, been a plausibility , width a distinct ability, to Xpand Disability, to take his followers to new heights he never knew were possible, in too many Areas, conceivable, for most of US to have even thought a possibility, just a few years back.
The Republican short sided view, of what they've allowed to occur, will be their downfall,
and it can't happen soon enough for this, once great Country.
They've shamed All Of US
Uh, I just pointed out several to you. You, people with your warped ideology, and your media allies decided to ignore these "malfeasances".
You pointed out things that YOU did not like, and not on topic to the seed. However, my post specifically pointed out conflicts of interest of people Obama appointed, when we are seeing a piddle of faux outrage from snowflakes who are against this nomination because....Trump!!!
No other reason.
I thought you were an accountant for those years?
Bugsy,
Your question was did I ever complain about Obama and I did. There is nothing faux about my annoyance at this appointment. It stinks. It's putting the fox in charge of the hen house.
But let's go through your list:
This is more than just being a lobbyist. It's about profiting from your position. And while I feel lobbyist have no right to be in government when there is a conflict of interest, none of these individuals could profit from their appointments. That is the issue here. The other was that he was Trump was supposed to be draining the swamp while clearly doing what every other administration has been doing.
Now I don't make it a career here to go after Trump, but when I see something so blatantly wrong, I say so.
All outrages are not equal. All critiques are not equal. All presidents are not equal in their intents. Commonsense tells us this.
No, my post was...
"Perrie, I respect your opinion, but I don't remember you or any other "non conservative" pointing out the conflicts of interest during the Obama admin".
Nowhere did I say "complain about Obama, I specifically mentioned conflicts of interest of the Obama appointees.
You can't say that those Obama appointees did not profit off their offices. The Obama admin was good at hiding things.
SHAME!
thank u for a borrowed word, that i assume was subliminally suggested, via my reading of planted seed
I wouldn't claim to be an expert on this, but when she starts saying "I'll take that as a 'no'" without acknowledging - even a little - that the two set of circumstances might not be the same or that there might more details than she wants to acknowledge, she is being dishonest. Furthermore, he keeps claiming that he is abiding by the rules and regulations and she makes no attempt to dispute that claim. This smacks of grandstanding by her. It's not fair to disparage a man who is following the rules.
I have to agree. I can see both ideals but if he’s following the law to the legal letter of it, she shouldn’t publicly try to humiliate him. He will have to accept that there may be scrutiny over certain of his decisions. I do believe that Pocahontas was engaging in TDS.
All I have to say to you is that you shouldn't be talking about right from wrong when you use the name "Pocahontas", which is really offensive to Indians.
I don't think Warren was engaged in TDS, but pointing out that he is not being held to the highest moral standing that was supposed to be part of this administration.
One of the Oklahoma Native Chiefs (It does not matter which tribe as he was speaking about generic Native identity) recently explained that being "Native" is not in the blood. It is cultural. It is spiritual. It is who you are...an identity based upon growing up in and on being a participating familial member within a Native, or tribal, group. When white or black or brown children are adopted by Native families and raised within their Native culture they are accepted as full members of their tribe. They ARE Native. When Native children were removed from their Native culture to be raised by non-Natives they were effectively being robbed of their Native identity...
On the otherhand, no matter their concentration of Native blood, those who have never lived in or participated in the Native culture are considered not to really be Natives by those who are living in and breathing in and contributing to the Native culture. Native Americans, as much as anyone could, resent the cultural appropriation of their identity...
Just FYI, though I am a lifelong Oklahoman with about 1/16th Native ancestral herritage I do not identify in any way as Native. My multitudes of Native friends would all be appalled if I ever made any pretence of being Native because I have never ever even lived within a Native American home. This is where Elizabeth Warren ran afoul of the Native Tribes of Oklahoma. Even if Warren was half Native having never been a part of or a participating tribal member she is not even considered a member of her own Cherokee blood tribe...
Just a bit of further expansion on that theme which might shed some light on my personal perspective. My by then ancient Jewish great great grandfather migrated from Georgia to Oklahoma with his much younger Cherokee second wife along the Trail of Tears right after the end of the Civil war. By blood that would make me 1/32nd Jewish and 1/32nd Cherokee. That line of my forbearers chose to assimilate and to identify with and to only associate with their white family. The dominant culture mostly absorbed their Nativeness and their Jewishness though as anyone from a mixed cultural background can attest, some vestages remain especially along any maternal familial lines. In the West assimilation was the norm. Excess pride in Native Herritage is mostly a modern phenomenon. For many puoneers their mixed cultural heritage was something seldom spoken of and often sloughed off over successive generations in America.
Therefore, I never identify as either Native or Jewish because I was raised as a full member of the dominant white culture in America. I do not belong to a Native tribe or an organized religion or political party.
Although...I am both...a Methodist and a Democrat. BADABING! BADABOOM!
We have a very similar background. My Jewish great granddad married a full-blooded Canarsie Indian (Algonquin). My grandpa married my grandmother who was a Russian Jew from Odessa. Both cultures were practiced at home since they are not really in conflict with each other. My dad and I are members of the Shinnecock Nation, but my children are not, which makes me sad, but those are the rules.
For many whose families go way back here our cultural heritage is confusing to those from less diverse cultural backgrounds. Several of my European familial lines go back in America 350 years dominated by Anglo, Scotch and Irish ancestry with a little bit of spice added in through various marriages. Both sides of my family migrated West nearly simultaneously. Since the times when John and Charles Wesley were curcuit riding preachers the various lines of my family have congregated and concentrated in a mere few very small rural Methodist congregations. My Daddy proposed to Mama publically in their church when he was only ten and she was five with all parents in approval though she was not allowed to wear her ring until she was 15 and not allowed to marry till she turned eighteen. She was, of course, a virgin when they married and stayed faithful for over sixty years till Daddy died. So, the culture I grew up in was very mainstream despite some long ago mixed herritage. There was enough awareness though to instill generational tolerance of and sympathy for those outside the dominant mainstream culture. Warren, I believe, has explained her background similarly which is understandable considering our background similarities with both our families ending up in Indian Territory about the same time and from similar places and stock...
And she knows she does not have time for BS (tepid, slow as molasses answers). Senator Warren is obviously aware her best outcome is to get the knowledge out about this 'candidate' about to be rewarded with the job and see if some protections can be voluntarily stated by him; because the Republicans are going to 99.9 percent pass the man anyway, because Trump (DS?) wants him on the job immediately. Thus, she is "making him famous" so to speak. After that fashion, it is the reason we know to cry, "Shame!" as we gather around the matter right now.
There are Indians and there are Indians....As you explained the culture is most important and living that culture is the linchpin to being Native.
I identify as American Indian since I'm Ojibwe and Michief/Cree and speak both languages and was born and raised in the culture of my tribes/nations.
The blood quantum is a U.S. government invention and is used by some tribes for membership. Historically if an Indian family adopts a non-native they are considered native because they are being raised and taught the culture of that tribe.
A point of information to both JBB and Perrie. Are you aware that there was a Jewish Chief of an American Indian tribe? The person was 100% Jewish with no native blood.
His name was Solomon Bibo and he became the Chief of the Acoma tribe. He was known to the Acoma as, The curly hair white man that speaks with one tongue.
Bill John Baker, Chief of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma is 1/16th Native. So, you can see that blood quantum is not the number one reason to be seen as a native. Chief Baker was raised in the Cherokee tradition/culture and is fluent in the Cherokee language.
Also using the term/name Pocahontas as used by Trump and some members of NT is a huge insult to Natives. A little accurate historical knowledge goes a long way.
I seem to remember reading that back in colonial times, Native American tribes occasionally adopted White people, who were then considered members of their tribe with the same rights and responsibilities as any other.
Attachment to traditions was essential. Blood ties were not.
Interesting, for many of my NA friends, Warren is far more offensive, than the use of that word to mock her.
I believe that what you say is completely aligned with my understanding...
Kavika, and all Indians on this site I share this as a reminder of a type of "difficulty" of understanding and dealing with President Trump. Who despite an immense staff and protocol people, still slipped in an 'insult' to Ms. Warren and kept President Jackson in the camera frame for the duration of the presentation to the famed Navajo Code Talkers.
Those adoptions were done well past the colonial times...And yes it's true.
Is everything about you, your personal acquaintances and your anecdotes?.
NO...
Native Tribes and Native tribal leaders universally condemned Trump's slur.
I think it's a pretty good insult (not that I endorse presidential insults) and Native Americans shouldn't be bothered by it at all. It's not aimed at insulting them. It's aimed at mocking Warren.
It's like if I said I had a great throwing arm and you said, "ok Tom Brady, show us what you got." That mocks me, not Tom Brady.
That's a bit strange since all the Indians that I know feel quite differently about it. Using Pocahontas the way it is used by Trump is an insult.
It's seem's that the NCAI and many other Native organizations and tribes feel quite differently than your NA friends.
Osage "Head Rights" are transferred like stocks. My college roomate, culturally as white as me, inherited a whole slew of head rights from a whole bunch of his childless Osage distant great aunts and great uncles on his mom's side. He is probably only 1/16th yet he "owns" an outsized share of Osage Tribal Stock which come with voting rights like preferred stocks do by a quirk of fate. His grandmother was the only member of her generation to have any children. I met some of his ancient aunts and uncles back when. They all spoke French and were very aristocratic in their bearing.
Now that is very interesting. How did that happen?
Bibo and the tribe had become close friends and as you can tell by the name bestowed on him, he was trusted.
When the government tried to screw the Acoma out of land they transferred it to Bibo and the government couldn't do anything about it...Although they did try. Later in life, he married an Acoma women and became Chief fo the tribe.
Are you familiar with the Osage Murders...The first big case for the FBI and J Edgar Hoover.
Yes, I am and I had just been reading, again, about those shameful times and had even commented on such today. Many Natives also died, were murdered, in the Tulsa Race Riots aka The Greenwood Massacre of 1921. Both atrocities happened around the same time. It was always very dangerous in post statehood Oklahoma when any minority members, minority groups or even whole minority communities would strike oil or became very (too) successful in business...
If Liz Warren is Pocahontas then Donald Trump must be Brokeahontas...
It would be like if you called Trump "George Washington" or "Abraham Lincoln."
You don't mock someone with that name in the presence of these brave men who happen to be Indians. But then again, it is Trump who went on personal attacks with the graves of the war dead in France as a backdrop. He has the sensitivity of a turnip and the manners of a mud slide.
She asked him several times directly is that a yes or a no and he refused to give a simple answer. The issue is that this administration said they were going to do better, and this isn't better, but more of the same. I didn't see anything she said as disparaging and frankly cutting her off was rather rude.
Because the answer isn't always simple. Often that's because the question presumes a simple comparison as we saw here. However, the situation was not simple in the way that she was presenting it. Thus, a simple answer is inappropriate.
Similar example: Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no. Simple answer, right?
Tacos,
That was not a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question.
She specifically gave him an example of a counterpart in government who gave up his position due to conflict in interests and then asked him if he was going to do the same and he refused to answer. It was a simple yes or no or yes but, but he didn't do any of those things.
And he tried to explain it wasn't the same situation, but she didn't want to hear it
because you can't do the same thing if the situation is different.
There are moments like this that I wonder if we watched the same video.
I understand but I just ask you this and see if you disagree:
1) Is he trying to make distinctions between his situation and that of the other people she is referencing? I say yes.
2) Is she trying to dismiss his qualifications as irrelevant? I say yes
3) Is she trying to prevent him from giving the answer he wants to give? I say yes.
Now, maybe he is wrong to make those qualifications. I don't know. But I have described (accurately I think) what is happening in that video.
Tacos,
In order for me to answer your questions I found the transcript of this hearing: I will highlight different parts to answer your question (color coded)
SENATOR WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Esper, prior to becoming Army Secretary, you were the top lobbyist for Raytheon, which of course is the nation's third largest defense contractor.
Now, under current ethics rules, you're prohibited from participating in any decisions involving Raytheon for two years after your appointment as Army Secretary. But because you have already been in government for 20 months, that recusal period is set to expire in November, which means you will soon be able to participate personally and substantially in matters involving your former employer. That's a conflict of interest given that Raytheon does billions of dollars worth of business every year with the Defense Department.
So Secretary Esper, your predecessor, Acting Secretary Shanahan, committed to extend his recusal from all matters involving his former employer, Boeing, for the duration of his government service.
If you're confirmed, will you do the same and commit to extending your recusal from any and all matters involving Raytheon for your -- the duration of your tenure as Secretary of Defense?
ESPER: Senator, we had this discussion in your office--
WARREN: Yes, we did.
ESPER: We had this discussion a couple years ago. On the advice of my ethics folks at the Pentagon, the career professionals, no, the recommendation is not to. The belief is that the screening process I have in place, all the rules and regulations and law that --
WARREN: So let's just cut to it. You're not going to do what Acting Secretary Shanahan agreed to do? And that is to agree not to be involved in decisions involving your former employer, where you were head lobbyist, for the duration of your time as Secretary of Defense.
ESPER: Senator, I can't explain why he made that commitment. We obviously come to -- he was --
WARREN: But you are not willing to make the same commitment, is that right?
ESPER: He was fulfilling a different role than I am, and he obviously --
WARREN: You are unwilling to make that same commitment, is that right, Dr. Esper?
ESPER: He has a different professional background --
WARREN: I'll take that as a yes, you're unwilling to make that commitment. That is not the only ethics problem with your nomination.
Part of the deal you got from Raytheon when you left as their top lobbyist was at least a million dollars in deferred compensation after 2022.
Now the law prohibits you from participating in matters that would affect Raytheon's ability or willingness to hand you this massive payout. But there's a catch. In a recent memo, you detailed an exception to your ethics obligations by writing that you can get a waiver to participate in matters that directly and predictably affect Raytheon's financial interests if it's "so important that it cannot be referred to another official."
This smacks of corruption, plain and simple.
So here's my question: Will you commit that during your time as Defense Secretary that you will not seek any waiver that will allow you to participate in matters that affect Raytheon's financial interests?
ESPER: Senator, let me correct the record with regard to what you said. At any time in the past twenty-some months, to include the past three weeks, did I request or seek or receive or be granted any waiver.
WARREN: I appreciate, Dr. Esper, that you have not in the past asked for one. But you're the one who has detailed an exception to your ethics obligation by saying that you could seek a waiver in the future.
And so I'm asking, if you're confirmed, will you agree not to seek such a waiver? I think it's a fair question. It's a yes or no. I have other ethics issues I'd like to cover.
ESPER: I think this is a good debate.
WARREN: No, I'm not trying to have a debate. I want to know if you will agree not to seek such a waiver.
ESPER: So let me just read to you -- this is a letter from the Director....
WARREN: Is that a yes or a no? I'll take it then as a no, you will not agree not to seek such a waiver.
ESPER: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to submit this for the record.
WARREN: I have third question to ask about ethics. I think I'm entitled to ask these questions.
ESPER: I just want to answer the question.
WARREN: His question is a yes or no. Will he agree?
CHAIRMAN INHOFE: I'm going to interrupt for a moment here. I think that Dr. Esper has the opportunity, should have the opportunity to answer the questions that you're asking. You've asked several questions, he's trying to answer a question. We'd like to recognize him to answer that question.
WARREN: I presume, Mr. Chairman, I'll get extra time then?
INHOFE: Yeah, you can have extra time.
ESPER: Yes, sir. I'd just like to submit this for the record. It's a statement from the director of the standards of conduct officer. I won't read the whole thing, in the interest of time. But it says: "At no time while serving as Secretary of the Army or the Acting Secretary of Defense did you -- he's writing to me -- request, seek or receive a waiver or authorization related to your ethics agreement and ethics obligations."
INHOFE: Ok, Senator Warren.
WARREN: So I stipulated earlier, that I understand you have not asked in the past. So I'll ask my question again. Will you agree not to ask for a waiver during the time you serve as Secretary of Defense?
ESPER: Uh, no Senator, I won't. Because I'm going to continue to abide by the rules and regulations, and I'm going to --
WARREN: Thank you. I have a third question.
ESPER: And I'm going to continue to consult closely with my ethics personnel to ensure that we stay in the ethical midfield.
WARREN: I recently introduced legislation to block the revolving door between the Pentagon and giant defense contractors like Raytheon by prohibiting big defense contractors from hiring former senior DoD officials for four years after they leave government. If it were the law, you couldn't go back to work at Raytheon or any other defense contractor immediately. In other words, it would help close the revolving door.
If confirmed, will you commit not to work for get paid by any defense contractor for at least four years after your government service?
ESPER: No, Senator. I will not.
WARREN: Alright. So let me get this straight:
You're still due to get at least a million dollar payout from when you lobbied for Raytheon.
You won't commit to recuse yourself from Raytheon's decision.
You insist on being free to seek a waiver that would let you make decisions affecting Raytheon's bottom line and your remaining financial interests.
And you won't rule out taking a trip right back through the revolving door on your way out of government service, or even just delaying that trip for four years after you leave government.
Secretary Esper, the American people deserve to know that you're making decisions in our country's best security interests, not in your own financial interests. You can't make those commitments to this committee, that means you should not be confirmed as Secretary of Defense.
ESPER: Senator, if I may answer your question. At the age of 18, I went to West Point and I swore an oath to defend this Constitution. And I embraced the motto called "duty and honor and country." And I've lived my life in accordance with those values ever since then. I went to war for this country. I served overseas for this country. I've stepped down from jobs that pay me well more than I what I was working anywhere else. And each time it was to serve the public good, and to serve the young men and women of our Armed Services.
So no, I disagree. I think the presumption is, for some reason, anybody comes from the business, the corporate world is corrupt.
WARREN: So I'm asking the question -- no.
INHOFE: Okay, next up. That's it.
WARREN: This is not right, Mr. Chairman. He does not -- I didn't ask a question at the end.
INHOFE: Senator Sullivan is recognized. You've gone 2 minutes over --
WARREN: No, I haven't gone over. He has gone over. And he is not willing to make a commitment that he will not engage in conflicts of interest for the company for which he was a lobbyist. This is outrageous.
1. The orange part that I highlighted was his excuse for not excusing himself from Raytheon. Warrens point is that whether or not there was a loophole for him to take, he shouldn't take it because it was clearly a conflict of interests. His point was that he found a loophole and he was taking it.
2. Nowhere is she dismissing his qualifications for the job. She is questioning his ethics.
3) She askes him several times to answer some questions. He dances around them. They are yes or no questions and in fact, she does give him a chance to answer:
ESPER: We had this discussion a couple years ago. On the advice of my ethics folks at the Pentagon, the career professionals, no, the recommendation is not to. The belief is that the screening process I have in place, all the rules and regulations and law that --
ESPER: Senator, let me correct the record with regard to what you said. At any time in the past twenty-some months, to include the past three weeks, did I request or seek or receive or be granted any waiver.
WARREN: I appreciate, Dr. Esper, that you have not in the past asked for one. But you're the one who has detailed an exception to your ethics obligation by saying that you could seek a waiver in the future.
And so I'm asking, if you're confirmed, will you agree not to seek such a waiver? I think it's a fair question. It's a yes or no. I have other ethics issues I'd like to cover.
ESPER: I think this is a good debate.
WARREN: No, I'm not trying to have a debate. I want to know if you will agree not to seek such a waiver.
ESPER: So let me just read to you -- this is a letter from the Director....
ESPER: Yes, sir. I'd just like to submit this for the record. It's a statement from the director of the standards of conduct officer. I won't read the whole thing, in the interest of time. But it says: "At no time while serving as Secretary of the Army or the Acting Secretary of Defense did you -- he's writing to me -- request, seek or receive a waiver or authorization related to your ethics agreement and ethics obligations."
WARREN: So I stipulated earlier, that I understand you have not asked in the past. So I'll ask my question again. Will you agree not to ask for a waiver during the time you serve as Secretary of Defense?
ESPER: Uh, no Senator, I won't. Because I'm going to continue to abide by the rules and regulations, and I'm going to --
He clearly answers the question saying that he won't be staying out of Raytheon's business after the period is up.
Now I won't say that she wasn't vigorous in her questioning, but the issue here is if we were going to "drain the swamp" clearly he is adding to it.
This is what I'm talking about. He says these situations as different. She won't acknowledge that (or even dispute it) and wants to twist his words into something else.
And here's an example of how she doesn't want him saying out loud that her whole line of questioning, wherein she tries to shame him for following the rules, is unfair.
She's showboating. She's using him for her own image enhancement. She's not remotely interested in hearing (or in allowing anyone else to hear) why her accusations of unethical behavior might be unjustified. And she was rightly chastised for not allowing the witness to answer.
He's following the rules. She can't dispute that and worse, she won't admit it. Her mind is not open. She actually calls it "outrageous" that he is planning on abiding by the regulations. That's ridiculous. How is anyone in government supposed to know how to behave if we have the actual official rules over here and over there we have Warren's rules? If she doesn't like it, she should she see about changing the rules. She is a senator, after all.
The five minutes questioning rule is stupid. These professionals have or used to have a a solemn job to perform and it took as much time as it needed. Now all the people back home (and the representatives from the states) put on unremarkable theater. It is so sad. But apparently it is what a percentage of this country's voters want.
She does not have TIME for the answers which won't be sufficient or relatable. As she stated, "I have more to ask. . . ."
I only agree with you on one of your points, which is when she cut him off here:
ESPER: Uh, no Senator, I won't. Because I'm going to continue to abide by the rules and regulations, and I'm going to -- WARREN: Thank you. I have a third question.
although she did question him quite a bit before she cut him off.
But you seem to be missing the bottom line, which is that he is not willing to forfeit money from Ratheon. That there is a conflict of interests and if there wasn't, then that is all he had to say, but he doesn't.
You want to say that Warren was grandstanding fine. But that doesn't preclude the fact that she is right and if she wasn't all he had to say was "I was advised that there was no conflict of interests", which he doesn't.
Which goes back to the not draining the swamp.
I'm fine with her cutting him off. Too many of these folks, when questioned, make it their goal to either run out the clock without ever answering a question, or add superfluous comments to muddy the waters (while also running out the clock).
That may be true, but we also see grandstanding politicians who do not want to ask a question, but simply want to give a 5 minute speech on why they don't like the person being questioned, or even better, why they don't like Trump. When the one being questioned wants to make a rebuttal, the grand stander says their time is up and the one questioned does not have time to answer.
That has happened many times in the past 3 years.
It's not his fault that the format only gives her 5 minutes.
What's telling to me is that he says they had this conversation in her office and now she is going to act like she is asking questions for the first time, like she is seeking information she doesn't have. It's dishonest and it's all for show - for her.
What she really is doing is using the public forum to accuse him of being unethical but she does not want to allow him to publicly defend himself. That's what's so unfair.
Questions asked in committee are often not new. It's a means for getting the exchange recorded in an official place.
I think he does. He tries to say he has been advised that he is being ethical. She doesn't want to let him defend himself.
He has been advised by presumably neutral experts that he shouldn't - or is not required to - do the thing she is suggesting. She wants to act like it's an obvious no-brainer that any ethical person would agree to, but that clearly is not the case.
What the? This is not some game, bugsy. People's lives depend on Senators getting to the truth, if they will - that is. Senators - in either party - should act with a greater sense of integrity than 'stupe' throughout these hearings. I can remember a time when Senate hearings were a thing to be admired by the public and we put great stock in the solemnness of the occasion.
Now, on both sides, it seems like truth is hard to phantom, because one side is seeking it and the other side is shearing truth away. Unfortunately for us trying to make a determination out here!
Thank you, Bob. Emphatically.
You're mistaken. See @3.2.14.
There are numerous nuances which can take place in question asking of other authorities and more to the point, what someone perceives the reply given them to be may not be right at all. She is asking him point-blank tp respond to a direct (her) line of questioning.
She has no way of knowing what type of questions were put to the ethics folks. Moreover, she won't be able to find it out in five minutes to agree or disagree.
Then declaring him to be "outrageous" based on limited information is horribly unfair and unethical coming from her. Her whole routine is so she can sell herself as the one saving America from corruption. But there is no reason to think this guy ever has, or ever would, do anything corrupt.
Please spare me this exchange. It is her job to ask the questions as Senator. His to answer them—for the record. He does not. The remainder is BS.
He is sitting down for the interview. She is the questioner; her task is to get him on the record. She has five minutes to do so. There is high probability that he is going to 'diplomatically,' expend the time.
Giving a 5 minute speech, then tell the one being grilled that they do not have time to rebut their soapbox (lies), to simply grandstand, is not "getting to the truth". It getting their faces on the camera for as long as they can, especially when there is an election coming up.
Again, the issue is not is it legal but is it moral. There is a difference. That is the crux of this issue. When we say "Drain the swamp" we mean doing things that are of the highest caliber and not getting aways with legal loopholes. You have no business getting money from the company you were representing to the defence department and now being the head of it and getting money from them. Can't you see that smacks of swampiness even if it is technically legal? That was her point.
Two and a half years after Obama left office we can all rest assured that the Trump Administration would have prosecuted to death Obama and the members of his administrations if they could have ever ever ever come up with any, even one, viable legal pretext for doing so. Yet still today, zero nada zip no ranking members of Obama's two full terms has ever ever ever been legally indicted for malfeasance in office during Obama's terms. That is now a historic fact. Under US Law and in all of US history. "Ethically" Obama and his administrations were the squeaky cleanest...Ever!
Despite these now irrefutable facts some around here continue to falsely maintain the exact opposite, that Obama's administrations were really the most corrupt, ever. That is a prime example of what Joeseph Goebells called THE BIG LIE. Orwellian Misinformation...
Only you can stop you from reading my posts. I say what I think. If you don't like it, that's fine, but I'm not going to stop expressing my thoughts to please you.
Maybe that's what you mean, but it isn't necessarily what other people think of.
For me, draining the swamp means 1) abiding by and enforcing the existing rules, and/or 2) writing new rules that eliminate corruption, graft, and loopholes we find improper.
You may not like it, but legal loopholes are legal. If you don't like them, change the law.
I think demanding that a lone person abide by the rules of this or that individual senator, rather than follow the written-down rules required of everyone else is well, bullshit.
Yeah, it's something I see people do all the time. And as I said, I think it's bullshit to complain that people abiding by the law are doing something improper. It's hard enough to get by in this world without getting a bunch of grief even though you are following the law.
There are moments like this that I wonder if we watched the same video.
So ONLY Law, decides to YOU, what is, and isn't proper ?
Were you never taught ethics and morals ?
Our Laws have been brought about by many, many that decided they could profit and or benefit in some way, by promoting certain agendas, agendas more easily completed, if loopholes existed to enable them a 'technically' legal way out, when in any other way viewed, they would be guilty of a violation.
Violation, in no way, should mean as described by the letter of the Law, as that's ridiculous, and i believe U R well aware of this.
WHY would you Defend these ABUSERS of our flawed system ?
And most definitely, they are apparent on both sides of our ridiculous, two party system, that needs to be modified, so as the ones who can purchase Laws, do not determine about everything, for Everyone.
It IS WRONG, and i believe U know it, but that is just my opinion, as that is all , we all have.
Did someone just tell this woman that Trump is a well endowed, monogamous, truthful, religiously and politically correct
Choir Boy... ?
It's rhetoric there. Here is the rest of the comment:
Anyone who is being considered for a post like this should know that ethics are about avoiding even the appearance of impropriety.
Unfortunately, Trump's only qualification for who he brings in is how loyal they'll be to him - forget about us, the people they're supposed to be actually working for. And forget about actual qualifications or ethics.
That's very convenient. You can be sanctimonious in any situation just by claiming that something is or isn't proper. The question is based on what is it improper? Your opinion? Everyone's got one, right?
Like I have said over and over, if you don't like the legal behavior, change the law. Are you against changing the law?
Have you never taken ethics training? Apparently not, or you wouldn't have said what you just said.
Tacos,
Do you not get that you actually wrote the meaning of irony. Your words:
then say:
So knowing you are doing something ethically wrong is OK as long as there is a loophole and no one has written a law to prevent it. Got it.
I have, in fact. And you know what they have in ethics courses? I'm guessing you haven't taken such a course or you might know. They actually have RULES of ethics. Written down. You can go to a source and point at an ethics rule. You don't have to wait for a senator to pull a made-up rule out of her ass.
That doesn't make sense. There's nothing inconsistent or ironic in what I said.
We change rules all the time because we have decided we don't like certain behavior. What we don't do is hold someone accountable for that behavior before changing the rule. It's not fair to punish someone for something they haven't been told is wrong. That is the philosophy behind the Constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws.
But you want to hold this person accountable for behavior because Elizabeth Warren says it is wrong. Who made her God?
You'd be wrong. Were you sleeping when they got to the very major point about avoiding even the appearance of impropriety?
You don't have to be a god to understand that something that clearly looks like a conflict of interest is something to be avoided. It's one of the main ethical points.
How wonderful! We both got to be wrong about the same thing.
The appearance of potential impropriety is very far from being the same thing as actual impropriety. I make my judgments based on more than just appearances.
What looks "clear" to you may not look clear to others. That is true for many things. For example, I think it's clear that Elizabeth Warren has her presidential campaign in mind when she asks questions. But I guess that's not clear to you.
Many people who come before the senate for confirmation have potential conflicts of interest. I would guess most people have some potential for some level of conflict. At some point, we have to decide to trust these people to do their job with integrity and then punish them if they actually don't.
I'll also remind you that this guy says he has been advised that he is on the right side of the ethics question. What makes Warren right and his advisors wrong?
R U sure..?
Sure there is. "Draining the swamp means getting rid of loopholes we find to be inappropriate, but in the meantime, we're going to use those loopholes that we find to be inappropriate, and claim to be draining the swamp, and get mad at those who call out the loopholes for grandstanding."
No I want him held accountable since what he did and wants to do is morally wrong, if not ethically. And the fact that I don't particularly like Warren, doesn't make her wrong and this is why partisan politics is a joke to me.
Totally agree!
People on the Left love to complain that rich individuals and corporations aren't paying their fair share because they take advantage of legal exemptions, write-offs, and other so-called "loopholes." They may grudgingly acknowledge that these tactics are legal but they insist they are immoral.
And then when it comes time to do their own taxes, they do everything they can to pay as little as legally possible. When you suggest they pay more, they say the law needs to be changed.
It's like this for anything. That's all I'm saying.
Sure.
People want to make a lot of money, and keep/spend/enjoy all of it. That's very human.
The problem is that, at the same time, we (community) have decided that the state should do certain tasks... and those tasks cost money.
So there's a tension.
As with so much public policy, some people actively intervene to change the law to their advantage - the loopholes. These are blatantly inegalitarian.
Do we care?
This nomination is entirely in keeping with the standards of Trump's kleptocracy.
Mark Esper immigrated to the United States from the country of Corruptus. Send him back.
You're a bad man, John Russell! (Smile.)
It it is pure political farce and Warren knows it. The Sec Defense cannot award contracts and bypass the system. I spent more than 20 years in management in the Aerospace and Defense Industry. I worked with both Dems and Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee including Murthy (D-PA), Rock Island, Elgin, China Lake, Hill AFB, and other military Procurement Centers.
The Bidding Process is tightly Controlled by law. I’ve seen so much misinformation and ignorance on this subject over many decades.
less than 1% of Defense acquisition dollars go to no bid or sole source awards. They are 99.9% of the time awarded because there is no qualified alternate sources
warren is just creating publicity for her campaign
Esper is highly qualified for this position
Esper also has extensive experience working on Capitol Hill. He served as national security advisor for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist; policy director for the House Armed Services Committee; and as a professional staff member on the Senate Foreign Relations and Government Affairs Committees where he was responsible for national security issues. Esper also served as the legislative director and senior policy advisor to Senator Chuck Hagel.
His Pentagon experience includes serving as the deputy assistant secretary of defense (Negotiations Policy) in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and earlier on the Army staff as a war planner. Esper was also chief of staff of the Heritage Foundation, and taught at Missouri State University’s Department of Defense and Strategic Studies program in Fairfax, Virginia.
Esper is a 1986 graduate of the U.S. Military Academy and received his commission in the Infantry. Upon completion of Ranger and Pathfinder training, he served in the Regular Army for over a decade, including service in the 1990-1991 Gulf War with the 101st Airborne Division. He later commanded an airborne rifle company in Europe. Following active duty, he served in both the Virginia and District of Columbia National Guard, and Army Reserve before retiring in 2007.
Esper holds a Master of Public Administration degree from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and a doctorate in Public Policy from George Washington University. He is a recipient of the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service. Among his military awards and decorations are the Legion of Merit, Bronze Star Medal, the Kuwait Liberation Medal, Kuwait Liberation Medal – Saudi Arabia, and the Combat In
fantryman Badge.
The November 2017 vote to confirm Esper as Sec Army was 89-6
Raytheon
All that from you and not one mention of the word. Shame.
And yet I will again point to our VP Cheney and Haliburton. The numbers range from 35-39 million dollar payout from the war in Iraq. Tell me, do you think he didn't see the benefit to himself personally with that war? So please don't tell me how tightly controlled bidding is when even a VP can influence the game and he should be nowhere near it.
When do U suppose you are going to livefree
of ignorance ruling...?
As I predicted, Esper was overwhelmingly confirmed with a vote of 90-8. Most Dems did not give in to the obvious BS by Warren
It is not BS because the vote was overwhelming. Good for Mr. Esper that the vote was overwhelming in his favor. Bi-partisan support means we can all have high hopes for this Defense Secretary! Good for us!
Now we will see how he behaves going forward regarding the issues and concerns highlighted by Senator Warren. Watch this space.
Of course it is. You can’t be bothered to learn how contracts are awarded and that there is no conflict of interest.
nor do you care that Esper is Eminently qualified to be SecDefense
a distinguished military officer, DOD experience, Professor, Senior Congressional Staff experience.
and all you and commie Warren care about is that he once worked for Raytheon (as have many distinguished military officers)
America is in much better position with this good man as our new SecDef
What is your problem, LFOD? Gloating is unbecoming on a modest man. So I trust you are not attempting to bask in some kind of 'after-glow' - that would be unbecoming.
Now that the people who have the authority to vote have voted OVERWHELMINGLY: (and I ran through the names - if you do not believe me, here)
Grouped By Vote Position