Will Rand cave on the Gina Haspel confirmation too?

[Matt Collins]

Place your bets now!

[Swordsmyth]

No

[timosman]

More interesting question would be how many calls to Trump and Haspel he will make before he flips.

[Anti Globalist]

Better not.

[AuH20]

I highly doubt he will.

[AuH20]

994319286972964868

994243295407689730

[spudea]

yes he will. He read a fake news story about how she participated in torture and destroyed tapes. Both claims have been retracted.

[timosman]

yes he will. He read a fake news story about how she participated in torture and destroyed tapes. Both claims have been retracted.

Who was spreading these fake news?

[Krugminator2]

Zero percent chance he votes for her and I am sure Matt knows this.

[Raginfridus]

Who was spreading these fake news?Gina Haspel dindunuffin

[r3volution 3.0]

Better not.

Yep


Zero percent chance he votes for her and I am sure Matt knows this.

I would have said the same about Pompeo right up to the minute it happened.

Now, I wouldn't be surprised either way, which is itself a sad state of affairs.

[kpitcher]

If it follows some other recent votes he'll talk to her, she'll promise never to do it again, and that will be enough.

Oh she already has said that "Gina Haspel Vows She Won’t Allow Torture if She’s Confirmed to Run the C.I.A."

I think he'll vote for her

[r3volution 3.0]

If it follows some other recent votes he'll talk to her, she'll promise never to do it again, and that will be enough.

Oh she already has said that "Gina Haspel Vows She Won’t Allow Torture if She’s Confirmed to Run the C.I.A."

I think he'll vote for her

It's kind of odd that our standard for acceptable politicians has become: will you imprison and torture people without trial?

...maybe it's just me.

"Oh, so you won't mercilessly beat puppies? ..You're hired!"

[Matt Collins]

Zero percent chance he votes for her and I am sure Matt knows this.
3 weeks ago I would have said he will never vote for Pompeo...



If it follows some other recent votes he'll talk to her, she'll promise never to do it again, and that will be enough.

Oh she already has said that "Gina Haspel Vows She Won’t Allow Torture if She’s Confirmed to Run the C.I.A."

I think he'll vote for her
Exactly my point.

[timosman]

It's kind of odd that our standard for acceptable politicians has become: will you imprison and torture people without trial?

...maybe it's just me.

"Oh, so you won't mercilessly beat puppies? ..You're hired!"

With all the sensitivity training on the rise maybe it is time we did one for congress. "The supreme law of the land aka. The Constitution" and "Why Fucking Your Fellow Citizens Is A Bad Idea"

[r3volution 3.0]

With all the sensitivity training on the rise maybe it is time we did one for congress. "The supreme law of the land aka. The Constitution" and "Why Fucking Your Fellow Citizens Is A Bad Idea"

It would be better to just dismiss them (they aren't really up to the task).

[timosman]

It would be better to just dismiss them (they aren't really up to the task).

Sure, but we would have to make sure the future talent knows about these rules as well.

[Krugminator2]

3 weeks ago I would have said he will never vote for Pompeo...

Exactly my point.


Yep

I would have said the same about Pompeo right up to the minute it happened.

Now, I wouldn't be surprised either way, which is itself a sad state of affairs.


In wasn't clear to me at all that he would vote against Pompeo despite what he was saying publicly. Here is what I said (in a thread you made about Rand) five days before the vote when Rand was making the rounds in the press. There were a lot of political reasons to vote for Pompeo with no basically no political upside in voting against him. Haspel is a much easier no and that vote is actually close.


I think Rand is a clear no on running in any future Presidential election...............

More interesting is if he votes no on Pompeo. Voting no will be a huge deal. If he votes no, I wouldn't be surprised if he is at least considering not running again for Senate

[CaptUSA]

Just like Pompeo - if they need his vote, they will offer him something to get his vote.

We'll never know what it was with Pompeo, but I'm sure there was something that Rand was given. Not a personal thing, but some assurance that something he wants would get through.


I doubt they'd offer very much for Haspel - so I'm saying Rand is a "no" vote. Unfortunately, Rand is a double-edged sword. Unlike his father, Rand is willing to bend his principles on one matter if can get a return on another matter. That's a bad thing and a good thing, depending on how you look at it.

[Brian4Liberty]

This will be used to try to convince Rand...


Rand Paul Explains His Surprise Vote For Chuck Hagel
"The president gets to choose political appointees," Paul says.
February 26, 2013

WASHINGTON — Kentucky Senator Rand Paul said his support for a filibuster against Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel never meant that he would vote against Hagel's confirmation.

"I voted no because I wanted more information and I think that part of what the Senate does is try to get information about the nominees," Paul told reporters in the basement of the Capitol after Hagel's confirmation Tuesday. "I've said all along that I give the president some prerogative in choosing his political appointees."

"There are many things I disagree with Chuck Hagel on, there are many things I disagree with John Kerry on, there are very few things I agree with the president on, but the president gets to choose political appointees," Paul said.
...
https://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/rand-paul-explains-his-surprise-vote-for-chuck-hagel

[Krugminator2]

Just like Pompeo - if they need his vote, they will offer him something to get his vote.

We'll never know what it was with Pompeo, but I'm sure there was something that Rand was given.

They didn't need the vote on Pompeo. That was one of the easier confirms that Trump has had. They actually didn't even need it in committee. I think completely opposite. Had they needed his vote Rand would have almost certainly voted against Pompeo.

I doubt he was given anything. I think it was a simple as Trump made an issue of it in the press and really wanted Rand's vote. He didn't want the embarrassment of the guy having to bypass going through committee. Rand didn't want to be on the outs with Trump with only an inconsequential vote that no one will appreciate to show for it.

[EBounding]

I say there is an 80% chance Rand will vote no. It should be 100% though.

I didn't really care if Rand voted for Pompeo; my problem was the spectacle he made over it. Rand is increasingly being seen as someone who pulls stunts instead of standing on principles. So relatively speaking, it wasn't that big of a deal even though I didn't like it.

In this case though, I don't see how Rand can justify it just listening to her testimony. It will fundamentally change my opinion of him if he votes to confirm her. :o

[dannno]

994319286972964868

994243295407689730

I'd let Gina Haspel torture those cops. Fucking bastards.

[Raginfridus]

994319286972964868
Stop! Resisting!

[enhanced_deficit]

Probably not.

[r3volution 3.0]

In wasn't clear to me at all that he would vote against Pompeo despite what he was saying publicly. Here is what I said (in a thread you made about Rand) five days before the vote when Rand was making the rounds in the press. There were a lot of political reasons to vote for Pompeo with no basically no political upside in voting against him. Haspel is a much easier no and that vote is actually close.

What were those?

As I saw it, the major effect of the vote was to inform Rand's friends and foes that he's unreliable and easily conned.

[Matt Collins]

Just like Pompeo - if they need his vote, they will offer him something to get his vote.

We'll never know what it was with Pompeo, but I'm sure there was something that Rand was given. Not a personal thing, but some assurance that something he wants would get through.Rand failed politics 101: private promises mean nothing.

[CaptUSA]

Rand failed politics 101: private promises mean nothing.

Actually, Matt... Rand passed politics 101 with flying colors. And that's the problem.

[timosman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RFBfK3YMYY

[EBounding]

It would be very shocking to me if Rand votes to confirm.

Why Isn’t Gina Haspel Coming Clean About Torture? (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/05/11/gina-haspel-cia-rand-paul-218358)


Why Isn’t Gina Haspel Coming Clean About Torture?
By SEN. RAND PAUL
May 11, 2018


We know that in the early 2000s, Gina Haspel’s CIA was rendering accused terrorists to unfathomable torture in Syria, as well as Egypt and Jordan. And we know that in 2005, Haspel herself was busy ordering the destruction of evidence of her involvement in the waterboarding of prisoners.

What we don’t know is if she was involved in sending Maher Arar, a Canadian engineer, to Syria, where he was tortured by Bashar Assad—the same Assad now condemned for gassing his own people; the same Assad the CIA has been trying to depose for the past six years.

Did Haspel participate or even order Arar and others to be sent to Syria to be tortured? We will likely never know: Haspel, whose nomination for director of the CIA is currently being considered by the Senate, refuses to declassify the dark underbelly of her involvement in extreme rendition and torture-by-proxy.

Jane Mayer recounted Arar’s story in 2005 after interviewing him for The New Yorker:

Ten hours after landing in Jordan, Arar … was driven to Syria, where interrogators … “just began beating on me.” They whipped his hands repeatedly with two-inch-thick electrical cables, and kept him in a windowless underground cell that he likened to a grave. “Not even animals could withstand it,” he said. Although he initially tried to assert his innocence, he eventually confessed to anything his tormentors wanted him to say. “You just give up, he said. “You become like an animal.”

A year later, in October, 2003, Arar was released without charges. … Imad Moustapha, the Syrian Ambassador in Washington, announced that his country had found no links between Arar and terrorism. Arar, it turned out, had been sent to Syria on orders from the U.S. government, under a secretive program known as “extraordinary rendition.” This program had been devised as a means of extraditing terrorism suspects from one foreign state to another for interrogation and prosecution. Critics contend that the unstated purpose of such renditions is to subject the suspects to aggressive methods of persuasion that are illegal in America—including torture.

Was Haspel simply a loyal dupe, unable to protest an accused man being sent to certain barbaric torture? Or was she an eager participant in this dark chapter in our history?

If she had any criticisms at the time, Haspel, who is currently the acting head of the CIA, has the power to declassify them. And yet all we’ve gotten are select records that don’t address her participation in extraordinary rendition.

Know this: That fact alone should be enough to cause the Senate to reject her nomination.

[timosman]

It would be very shocking to me if Rand votes to confirm.

Why Isn’t Gina Haspel Coming Clean About Torture? (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/05/11/gina-haspel-cia-rand-paul-218358)

Because everybody else, including congress and the executive branch, had their heads up their asses at the time. Why single her out?

[jmdrake]

3 weeks ago I would have said he will never vote for Pompeo...

No he didn't. Source please.

[dannno]

No he didn't. Source please.

He thought 3 weeks ago that Rand wouldn't have voted for Pompeo, he isn't claiming Rand said he wouldn't vote for Pompeo.

[jmdrake]

He thought 3 weeks ago that Rand wouldn't have voted for Pompeo, he isn't claiming Rand said he wouldn't vote for Pompeo.

You're right. My bad.

[timosman]

You're right. My bad.

Jumping the gun, again?

[Matt Collins]

Jumping the gun, again?
Be nice to JM, he's a good guy, I know him in real life.

[timosman]

Be nice to JM, he's a good guy, I know him in real life.

I know he's a nice guy, just a bit trigger happy.

[jmdrake]

I know he's a nice guy, just a bit trigger happy.

Fair enough. But I was shocked at how casually someone with more +rep than most would openly advocate murder of me and mine for no reason whatsoever. Racism I get. Mass murder I do not. Trigger happy? If this country keeps going the way it's headed I may need to get one. :(

Edit: And I know I'm crossing threads here, but I'm responding to your "again" part. As for Matt on Rand, we had a previous discussion where it turned out that Matt was basing his view on what he thought Rand said as opposed to what was said. I see in this case Matt is basing it on what he thought Rand would do as opposed to what he thought Rand would say. As for me I don't have the same expectations of Rand.

[dannno]

Be nice to JM, he's a good guy, I know him in real life.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7doCJbg_XBA

[milgram]

So will she be confirmed? 2 GOP against, one Dem in favor

http://wfpl.org/rand-paul-still-opposes-haspel-to-head-cia-citing-interrogation-program/

After an event in Louisville, Paul said he wasn’t convinced by Haspel’s testimony and that she shouldn’t be “rewarded” for her involvement in the program.

“I think that people, after the fact when they’re struggling to get a nomination, will say a lot of things. She struggled to say though whether it was immoral even today,” Paul said.

“To my mind, torturing people is immoral and something we shouldn’t do. It’s against the Geneva Convention, it’s against American principles.”

Haspel ran a secret CIA prison in Thailand during the administration of President George W. Bush.

Paul is one of two Senate Republicans so far who openly oppose Haspel’s confirmation. Arizona Sen. John McCain released a statement earlier this week calling Haspel’s role in the interrogation program “disturbing” and urging the Senate to reject her nomination.

One Democrat, West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin said he would support her.

New York Times: Until Gina Haspel Denounces Torture, She Shouldn’t Lead the C.I.A.
(In case you forgot: Words are more important than actions)

[eleganz]

annnnnnd Rand stood firm.

[phill4paul]

annnnnnd Rand stood firm.

I wonder if we could get a moneybomb together to Matt Collins could take a bus to teach him Politics 101?

[AuH20]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nR_lmL0o6E