Leaderboard

That’s EWO to you squid! That’s the Ahole who got the plate I wanted!

The guy you're looking for is Hoover.....

My brother sent me this…which one of you RIOs is this?

Supposed to where? Is it in the federalist papers? Are any of the founders known to have elucidated such a barrier? Is there a law that has been passed declaring such. Or is this just your opinion? Law enforcement falls under the executive branch, which has only one elected official. Two of you count the VP, but no one does. It is specifically the president's job to oversee these bureaucracies. What you are advocating for is an uncontrolled regulatory state, which is sorta what we have right now and it sucks. For the people, by the people. If the president isn't directly engaged in the management of the FBI and all of it's functions, then we the people have no recourse to change the FBI when it, let's say hypothetically, launches an investigation knowingly based off opposition campaign research, eventually lying to the FISA court in order to obtain warrants to surveil Americans who are participants in the nation's most important political process. Your perspective on this particular issue is perfectly demonstrative of the failing of liberal thought. The system should work this way. Best practices. I don't want. It shouldn't be. Ideals. An idealist would create an independent FBI and think that it will act in accordance with everybody's fair-minded values, even though there is no agreement on what is fair-minded. Conversely, our entire system was designed explicitly acknowledging that idealist independent systems will always devolve to tyranny, and instead used checks and balances amongst the competing branches of government in order to rein in the inevitable corruption and political posturing that would follow. An independent FBI is precisely what Americans should fear, and the history of the organization is so laughably demonstrative of this that I'm surprised you, usually historically aware, would think otherwise.

Just a couple months ago progressives weren’t so supportive of the “rule of law” when SCOTUS overturned Roe and told states that citizens can can carry firearms outside of their homes.

Fighting over Trump reminds me of this little TV series clip.

Maybe not? https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukrainian-mig-29s-are-firing-agm-88-anti-radiation-missiles

This is a great comparison. No. But you can bet your ass if the IG is going to kick in the door of a MAJCOM CC, he isn't doing so without first checking in with the CSAF. And you're delusional if you think otherwise, but I'm beginning to think you just might be. You are the king of misrepresentation. You don't think maybe there might be a conflict of interest in your scenario? Or are you implying that telling Biden about the Trump raid might tip off Trump during his weekly gossip session with Joe? Ridiculous. You are fabricating examples using completely ridiculous comparisons. These are not some routine procedures that don't require the king to sign off, this was raiding an ex-president and likely current candidate for the presidency. If you don't think that needs top of the chain sign off, it becomes hard to believe you were ever in the same military I was in. In fact, your comparison just keeps falling apart, since any major military operation gets sign off from the top. For example, bin laden and Soleimani. Or should Obama and Trump have maintained plausible deniability in those operations? The president is in charge of more than just the military. He can, as many before him have. He will pay at the polls. But the alternative to presidential nepotism is far worse. Besides, from the event you described is likely the legislature that takes over investigative responsibilities, as I suspect they will if Republicans take the house in November. Again, unlike the fantasy world you describe, this is not hypothetical fear mongering. The FBI was literally an unaccountable organization run by a power mad lunatic who used his position of power to extort and likely frame people who he disagreed with. Unelected officials should never have real power. When they do, our system does not operate as intended. This is why the supreme Court does not have the power to make laws, only judge them. And they can't even judge a law without someone else bringing it to them. These are pretty basic concepts and foundational to our government. It is surprising to see you struggle with them so much.

The entire executive branch is accountable to the President, who is accountable to Congress, term limits and the American voters, but he does not control the entire executive branch. Nor should he! Nor can he! I've tried to EILI5 w/ comparisons to the Air Force but maybe that's not working. Does the IG run every investigation by the CC first? Do you think they should? I mean, the CC is ultimately responsible, right? Why shouldn't they personally direct and shape the outcome of every IG investigation into anyone within his/her scope of command? Every security forces action on base? Every OSI investigation on base? Hell maybe the CC should jump up on the flight deck and personally land the plane on every sortie! The answers here seem self-evident to me. On top of the analogy to a bureaucracy we're all more used to, there were specific rules put into place after Watergate designed to limit the President's direct personal involvement in DOJ affairs, for reasons you can imagine if you're familiar with what happened in Watergate. I'm not a DOJ/constitutional law expert, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night and found this article by Jack Goldsmith, who most certainly is. And he's also a conservative Republican FWIW so this isn't some kind of anti-GOP partisan opinion. Perhaps you're a big believer in the "unitary executive theory" and therefore basically a President can do whatever he wants so long as he isn't voted out, term-limited, or impeached by Congress. I don't subscribe to that theory, and neither does Goldsmith. The DOJ and in turn the FBI can both be independent and accountable, are so at present, and have been pretty explicitly so under both Democrats and Republicans since Nixon resigned. Hell, even President Trump's administration (if not the man himself...) believed it was proper to limit communications between the White House and DOJ. You can read the WH Counsel Don McGahn's memo on the subject here. Trump didn't follow or care about those rules, but that's another story. Here is the Biden Admin's memo, written by AG Garland, about communications with the White House that's largely the same as McGahn's memo linked above. This isn't some made up bullshit by some guy online, there are actual policy memos from both of the last two administrations laying out how they will operate; independently but with accountability. Maybe if these guidelines were in the Federalist Papers, which were written as (effective!) propaganda to "sell" the need for the Constitution 234 years ago, you'd think that they were ok 🤷‍♂️ Let's flip the current situation on it's head. The FBI intents to raid Hunter Biden's home seeking evidence of crimes after obtaining a warrant. Being politically sensitive, though not required, they seek and gain the approval to proceed from AG Garland. Would you like Garland to brief President Biden ahead of time about the raid? Should President Biden be able to stop the raid if he wishes? I mean, the President is head of the executive branch, elected by the voters, "...clothed in immense power," why shouldn't he be able to stop this "unwarranted harassment of his innocent son by unelected bureaucrats, ones who work for him in the first place!?!?" My emphatic answers to the above hypotheticals are not only no but hell no, and I bet yours are too.

If you truly believe, like you said, that the oath you swore means nothing, the constitution is worthless because it’s not followed, and all of our various military operations are pointless, then I urge you to either not join, not re-enlist, or resign your commission ASAP, depending on who you are at this point career-wise. No additional debate is needed - your views as you’ve described them are not compatible with uniformed service. Good luck to you in your other endeavors. I’m all for being introspective and acknowledging how we as a nation have made (and continue to make) mistakes and how we can do better, but that’s not what you’re saying.

Is that TS/SCI?....asking for a friend...(/s)

:For apples-apples comparison: Airline+AFRES guy here: My avg days off/mo was ~17, or 209 total days off in the past 12 months. And that's actual days off, meaning at home, no duty, not commuting (I live in base). That number will improve when I retire from AFRES pretty soon here. Compare that to when I was RegAF. The avg days off baseline was ~12 days/mo (includes 30 days' leave, weekends, holidays, and family days), 153 days off total. Then throw in weekend TDYs and deployments and that number goes down considerably.

Normal? In 200+ years of existence, no president current or former, past or present has had their home raided by law enforcement. Normal would not enter the conversation. Unprecedented would be a better choice. The regime had better find a check from the Russians written directly to Trump for nuke secrets, stealth technology, the location of Jimmy Hoffa, the recipe for Coke (original not New Coke), and Scarlett Johansson s phone number. Any failing to dot an i or cross a t bullshit isn't going to cut it but I think that's what the FBI has done.

Look dude, if Trump is deemed by an impartial court as having broken the law, then he should suffer the consequences. Let’s not pretend that the impartiality part is even remotely possible. What little faith in our justice system will go to shreds if Trump is sent to prison let alone convicted. I’ll tell you this though, if the above happens, there will be a political backlash like none other we have ever seen. He still has a very loyal base; they will see this as a political attack and martyrdom, especially after Hilary has gone scott free and still runs off her mouth. I’ve never seen our country more polarized but I think this might make the cut. The rest of us are simply acknowledging the second and third order effects. Also, legal precedent might be a factor here?

Great post Danger. Just wanted to highlight this one part directed at a general audience…a big YMMV, but I punted airlines for a while due to this belief. But reality is even if you’re flying a “full” schedule of say 16 days, that’s 2 weeks of a month you’re doing 0% work, not even getting texts about work. Now let’s throw in the thousands of games you can play in the airlines schedule/money wise that can reduce that work-money ratio significantly in your favor. It’s worth considering what “home between airline trips” is compared to “home while working for the AF.” And FWIW, there are tons of schedules out there that are not some heinous 5 on/2 off, repeat…unless you’re in the regionals. To be clear, not a spear at your personal plan or your reasons (I think they’re great), but more just putting this out there for guys like past me. Talk to your airline bros before immediately passing on the idea because “I don’t want to be gone from home all the time.” It’s far more nuanced than that.

Yep....for a while they tried to pass it as the "Guard/Reserve Pay Disparity Act".....got lost in committee's so they inserted the language into this years (FY22) NDAA. Below is all the legalese BS straight from the NDAA however bottom line is the SecDef has until 30 Sept 22 to submit a report on how to implement/pay for it and it should go into affect FY23. SEC. 602. EQUAL INCENTIVE PAY FOR MEMBERS OF THE RESERVE COMPONENTS OF THE ARMED FORCES. (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 37, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section: ``Sec. 357. <> Incentive pay authorities for members of the reserve components of the armed forces ``Notwithstanding section 1004 of this title, the Secretary concerned shall pay a member of the reserve component of an armed force incentive pay in the same monthly amount as that paid to a member in the regular component of such armed force performing comparable work requiring comparable skills.''. (b) Technical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter <> is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 356 the following: ``357. Incentive pay authorities for members of the reserve components of the armed forces.''. (c) <> Report.--Not later than September 30, 2022, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a report containing-- (1) <> the plan of the Secretary to implement section 357 of such title, as added by subsection (a); (2) <> an estimate of the costs of such implementation; (3) the number of members described in such section; and (4) <> any other matter the Secretary determines relevant. (d) Implementation Date.--The Secretary may not implement section 357 of such title, as added by subsection (a) until after-- (1) submission of the report under subsection (b); and (2) <> the Secretary determines and certifies in writing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives that such implementation shall not have a detrimental effect on the force structure of an Armed Force concerned, including with regard to recruiting or retention of members in the regular component of such Armed Force.

I took @Standby advice and reached out to my congressman as well. Fool me 1,000 times, shame on me but at least I’m going to say something.

They could put them to good use... "CAP claimed its first U-boat kill on July 11, 1942, when Captain Johnny Haggins and Major Wynant Farr, flying a Grumman G-44 Widgeon armed with two depth charges, bombed a sub they had been shadowing for three hours, just as it came up to periscope depth." ..."reported 173 U-boat positions and dropped 82 bombs on 57 of those subs." https://www.historynet.com/civil-air-patrols-combat-pilots/

When’s the last time a president left office literally carrying boxes of classified out of the Oval Office? For that matter, when was the last time a sitting president fomented a riot/insurrection at the Capitol. When was the last time a sitting president threw his Vice to wolves who literally wanted him hanged? When was the last time a former president took the fifth (more than 400 times) in a deposition? (Oh yeah, since this is the hypocrisy thread remember when DJT said: “The mob takes the fifth.” And: “If you’re innocent, why are you taking the fifth?”?) Unprecedented you say? Trump is a master of unprecedented. If unprecedented things are happening to him, it’s because he set a whole bunch of unprecedented shit in motion with his own actions. Why people continue to defend this scumbag is beyond me. Somehow, there are Americans who believe we will better off with more of his buffoonery. Do (royal) you really believe that this country will be better off with another Trump presidency? If I’m a republican, I throw the book at this jack hole and make him disappear forever. He’s made a joke out of the party. If the Republicans continue to double down on Trumpworld, they’ll forever be known as the party of Rudy Giuliani standing in front of a dildo store with cheap hair dye dripping down his face. Pathetic. Him acting like a spectacularly dumb criminal is a gift. It’s like God and Mike Pence (I assume they know each other) are handing the party a way out. TAKE IT!

The whataboutism is amazing. I, for one, find the thing most ironic in these discussions to be the title of this thread. Today, in hypocrisy, you defend someone’s actions just because they are a Republican. Also, the President can not unilaterally declassify anything. Notable exceptions include nuclear data, waived data, and intelligence agent locations, among others. Oh, and there’s a process for it, you don’t just get to say “I DECLARE UNCLASSIFIED” like Michael Scott.

I’m willing to send many more billions because A) it helps keep the Ukrainian people free from Russian tyranny, and B) it continues to bleed out one of our biggest geopolitical opponents without costing a single American life. Sounds like money well spent to me!

Watched the new Predator movie on Hulu this weekend. I wished they had done a Hunt for Red October language scene. But overall, a very good movie.

If he did what WHO is saying. I think the two situations are VERY different but would like the law to apply equally. On the Trump side there are a few complicating factors that are not adding up at first look. 1. His initial response is "these were declassified documents" As we all know, POTUS is the ultimate declassification authority. While the intel apparatus prefers those documents be reviewed, there is no requirement. It will be interesting to see if any process was followed or is this just an excuse. 2. The FBI knew all of this stuff was there and there were other mechanisms to get the documents. Also, they left the information there for two months after the last visit. If this was so sensitive why did they wait? The timing is VERY specious and has the appearance of the DOJ being weaponized just before the mid-terms. 3. It has been reported that Obama took 30 MILLION documents with him when he left. The national archives has put out a statement saying there is no classified in those documents. Do you honestly believe they reviewed all 30 million documents. With regard to Hillary Clinton that is a VERY different situation. 1. She was not POTUS, she had no declassification authority and no legal justification to purposely mishandle very classified material. 2. They found SCI not in a locked closet but on her freaking private server. As you know, that was a deliberate act...I say again, A DELIBERATE ACT. Someone had to copy/print/USB stick that info from a system that did not touch her private server and purposely load it onto an unclassified system. 3. She purposely destroyed 33,000 emails. How can they prosecute Trump with a straight face after Comey changed the language on the Hillary report and let her off the hook. Do you not see that as complete double standard of justice?

@Negatory When’s the last time a federal agency raided a previous president’s home? And would you please answer CH’s last question. Look, I’m not defending anybody here, but holy fuck, we just watched something unprecedented in our country’s history go down that has, until now, been a staple of banana republics and communist regimes. Meanwhile the plethora of left organizations and figures who have been glossed over/swept under the rug is astounding. Here’s the major problem: there is no single standard, and when that doesn’t exist, you are looking at weaponization of the government along a party line. That’s the shit that happens in China, Russia, NK, etc. - not the United States of America. Lock up Trump? OK sure, if he’s convicted of something that warrants it by law. But no fucking way if you also don’t go grab the Clintons, Biden, 90% of congress, all of Epstein’s cohorts, probably tens of thousand three letter agency bureaucrats, etc. Regardless of personal political beliefs, stop accepting a pass for one party’s peeps while cheering on witch hunts vs. the opposite party. If you’re not on board with that, then kindly fuck off out of this country. I think you probably agree with that statement - but your words/approach communicate otherwise.

Dear god...he not even acknowledge Hillary Clinton or what she did and how she got away with the same thing they are accusing Trump of doing. For the record, if Trump broke the law I have ZERO issue with him being prosecuted and held accountable. Makes ZERO difference who appointed the FBI director...ZERO. I do not trust the FBI. From FISA warrants to insurance policies to leaked indictments...there exists in those halls a rot. I don't think the entire organization is corrupt but I simply don't trust them. The warrant is one thing, but the government can write whatever they want on that warrant. I certainly hope it was 'squeaky clean", but I prefer to wait for the affidavit and the facts.

Please point to me the exact phrase in the Constitution that allows for the FBI to exist. There are millions of things that go against the oath we all swore. The oath is useless and Constitution means nothing. None of us actually defended the Constitution. We supported and continue to support our destroyers.

BLUF…except not up front 😅 Drone strike: Presidential authority -> delegated to a TF Commander -> JTAC used to conduct the operation -> pilot pulls the trigger, comms flow up and down throughout as required DOJ investigation: Presidential authority -> delegated to the Attorney General -> FBI used to conduct the operation -> individual agents do their jobs, comms flow up and down minus flowing all the way to POTUS; POTUS will not direct or stop any investigation, the AG is the top of the comms chain even if he/she is not the ultimate legal authority. The President explicitly agrees to this and set this as his policy.

Care to make an argument instead of clutching pearls? Please tell me how your service, or mine, has defended the constitution from enemies, foreign and domestic. Please tell me how we have more freedoms now than when when we joined the military. While you're at it, make a case for all of the service members that were killed in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other hellholes in the last 25 years. How did they die for the constitution? How are the millions of dead civilians in line with the constitution? How is going to war without declaring war in line with the constitution?