Voting For Torture For Electoral Expediency

John McCain is probably dying. And from his death bed he's talking about torture and why his colleagues in the Senate should reject "Bloody Gina" Haspel to head the CIA. This weekend the second Democrat worried about his reelection prospects, Joe Donnelly of Indiana (following Joe Manchin of West Virginia) announced that he would vote to confirm "Bloody Gina." Trump just got the guarantee he needed to confirm his torture princess. How could it not have been a Democrat?

Donnelly, one of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate: "I believe that she has learned from the past, and that the CIA under her leadership can help our country confront serious international threats and challenges. Importantly, Ms. Haspel expressed to me her commitment to be responsive to congressional oversight and to provide her unvarnished assessment-- both to members of Congress and the president." This president:



This president:



Thanks, Joe Donnelly. Does Donnelly think because he votes to confirm "Bloody" Gina, Trump will stir doing this:

Donnelly’s office said the Indiana Democrat met Thursday with Haspel, the current acting director of the CIA.

The same night, President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Penceappeared together Indiana at a rally in support of Donnelly’s Republican challenger Mike Braun.

During the event, Trump and Pence criticized Donnelly for his voting record, while also pushing him to support the CIA nominee. In his statement, the senator said the support Haspel has received from the intelligence community was an important factor in his decision.

“As our country faces dynamic and challenging security threats, it is critically important that our intelligence agencies have the leadership and support that they need to help keep Americans safe and defend our nation from those who wish to do us harm,” Donnelly said. “Gina Haspel has served our country and the Central Intelligence Agency for more than 30 years, and she has the strong support of both her colleagues at the agency and former CIA Directors Hayden, Panetta, and Brennan, who served under Presidents Bush and Obama.”

Donnelly can't possibly. Sensing weakness, Trump, if anything, will ramp up the attacks against him. That's his modus operandi. About a year ago only 5 Senate Democrats voted to keep arming the Saudis and Emeratis so they could continue destroying the civilian population of Yemen. Donnelly and Manchin were among the five. The two of them did it again 2 months go. The both of them also undercut the Democratic case against confirming Pompeo the same way they're undercutting the case against confirming Haspel.

I've heard people say that the two of them have no choice, that they live in red states that supported and continue to support Trump and that they have to vote for Trump's nominees to win in November. Why's that? Republicans have their own candidate-- Mike Braun-- who Trump will be supporting loudly and even fanatically. Trump is already referring to him as a "sleeping swamp person."

Donnelly is counting on the Democratic base sticking with him anyway, that they'll pick the lesser of two evils. Friday the state's biggest newspaper reminded him that his voting record-- even voting against Planned Parenthood-- "could dampen enthusiasm." The paper pointed out that Donnelly has been "careful about putting too much distance between himself and Trump in a state where the president is well-liked. Donnelly often touts that he has voted with Trump more often than not, an indication that his campaign believes he needs to win over at least some Trump supporters to win in November."

Although it's usually conservative Democrats who give way to this kind of thinking, it isn't always only conservatives. In 2006 my favorite Senate candidate was progressive congressman Sherrod Brown (D-OH). But Blue America withdrew out endorsement-- over torture. At the time Brown has a 10-point lead over Bush incumbent rubber stamp Mike DeWine (R-OH). The House passed Bush's torture bill 253-168, only 7 Republicans voting for torture, but 34 Democrats crossing the aisle in the other direction to vote for torture. The only progressive among them was Brown. Later-- after he was safely elected-- he apologized and admitted he was wrong. Democrats eventually stopped voting for most of the 34 aisle-crossers. I believe that besides Brown, only Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX) and co-sponsor Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN) are still in Congress. In the end, it was a Democratic wave year and Brown beat DeWine 56.2% to 43.8% about two and a half points more than before the vote. Was it worth it?

Gina Haspel Wanted To Withdraw-- Guess Which Imbecile Didn't Want Her To

Looks like Trumpanzee wants even more chaos and anguish. Sunday afternoon, a team of Washington Post reporters claimed that torture queen Gina Haspel tried to withdraw her nomination to head the CIA. Sensible, considering what's gone on in the past and what's coming in her confirmation hearing. But the fascist regime-- likely either Trumpanzee or Bolton, since no one remotely sane would have-- told Bloody Gina to keep fighting. She's not just a hands on torturer but was also caught destroying evidence of illegal torture for the CIA.

Haspel told the White House she was interested in stepping aside if it avoided the spectacle of a brutal confirmation hearing on Wednesday and potential damage to the CIA’s reputation and her own, the officials said. She was summoned to the White House on Friday for a meeting on her history in the CIA’s controversial interrogation program-- which employed techniques such as waterboarding that are widely seen as torture-- and signaled that she was going to withdraw her nomination. She then returned to CIA headquarters, the officials said.

Taken aback at her stance, senior White House aides, including legislative affairs head Marc Short and press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, rushed to Langley, Va., to meet with Haspel at her office late Friday afternoon. Discussions stretched several hours, officials said, and the White House was not entirely sure she would stick with her nomination until Saturday afternoon, according to the officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

Trump learned of the drama Friday, calling officials from his trip to Dallas. He decided to push for Haspel to remain as the nominee after initially signaling he would support whatever decision was taken, administration officials said.

...Haspel’s nomination to become the first woman to lead the CIA came close to being scuttled Friday ahead of any hearings-- and largely at her own hand, the U.S. officials said. The problem came to a head Friday afternoon when she was summoned to the White House for some urgent questions, particularly on her role in the use of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques.

She had been in a meeting with her staff at CIA headquarters in Langley, fielding mock questions to prepare for her confirmation hearing, when the summons arrived.

Some White House officials were concerned by material being raised in questions from Congress, information they were just learning about, according to the U.S. officials. Those officials said the material was not revelations that have been unearthed in recent months, but the White House wanted to hear Haspel’s explanation of it.

...Haspel’s chances of winning Senate confirmation are considered uncertain... with some Trump advisers telling the president in recent weeks she was unlikely to be confirmed.

Not really "high respected" and Trumpanzee doesn't need a single Democrat to confirm her

So why would Trump make such a goofy move as to keep her front and center? He loves playing the victim. He lives anything taking his own criminal behavior out of the spotlight. He loves a fight. Do you think he's verifiably insane? Just asking for a friend.

After Pompeo Is Confirmed We'll Be Hearing Lots About "Bloody Gina"

I'm really looking forward to former Democrat Joe Lieberman's OpEd on why Democrats need to confirm Torture Princess Gina Haspell. He hasn't published it yet, just one called Senate should fulfill constitutional duty, confirm Mike Pompeo. Pompeo has to move on the State before Haspell cn be voted on for his old job at the CIA. Lieberman hectored Democratic senators that the pro-Pompeo and anti-Pompeo votes are "breaking along partisan lines which is contrary to precedent for this important position and bad for our country because it sends a message of internal division to our allies and adversaries around the world." But he doesn't lecture the Republicans about serving the country by rejecting him-- only the Democrats about confirming him. "Pompeo’s academic and professional credentials," he insists, "are stellar. He graduated first in his class from West Point, and served as a U.S. Army cavalry officer. Later, he graduated from Harvard Law School, as an editor at the Harvard Law Review. Afterwards, he was successful in business, co-forming an aerospace company and serving as president of an oilfield equipment company. During Mike Pompeo’s three terms in the House of Representatives, he became known as a thoughtful voice on national security, serving on the House Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Intelligence Subcommittee on the CIA. While in the House, he focused on homeland security and the War on Terror, sponsoring numerous bills to contain Iranian aggression. Nothing that indicates he would be a good Secretary of State.

For the last 15 months, Pompeo has served as director of the CIA. His tenure there has been considered broadly successful, including efforts to pare bureaucracy and squeeze North Korea’s supply routes. Pompeo delivered President Trump’s daily intelligence briefings, giving him insight about emerging security threats and how the president comprehends them. These briefings earned him the trust of the president, crucial to the success of any cabinet member. This president’s confidence in Pompeo is such that he dispatched Pompeo to handle the sensitive portfolio of meeting with North Korean despot Kim Jong Un earlier this month.

Given his strong background, Pompeo is certainly qualified to be secretary of State. His narrow path to confirmation in the Senate isn’t a reflection on his qualifications; instead, it reflects our country’s growing political polarization.

No-one doubts that had Democrats not driven Lieberman out of the Senate, he would be joining DINOs Joe Manchin and Heidi Heitkamp in supporting the nomination. He insists that "the Advise and Consent clause has become increasingly used in these hyper-partisan times as another way for senators to prove their conservative or liberal bona fides to their political bases. This risks turning every nomination into an exercise in ideological posturing. It is time to time to return to the traditional understanding of 'advise and consent,' putting the national interest above partisanship-- and judging simply if the candidate can do the job. Director Pompeo has shown he can. He deserves confirmation."

So what about Gina? Did he read her college record from the University of Kentucky? How about her record as Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency? There must be a reason that more than 100 retired admirals and generals are raising serious concerns about her.

I'd trust former CIA officer and torture whistleblower John Kiriakou, who personally knew her, far more than Lieberman. He told Amy Goodman at Democracy Now! that Haspel "tortured Just for the Sake of Torture." Perfect for Trump and his budding fascist state! And percent for Team Bolton! And Lieberman. What about Manchin and Heitkamp on this one?

He's not a big fan of Pompeo either but feels we could have done worse with that nomination "Gina Haspel, however, is a problem, a big problem. I’ve been talking about Gina Haspel for more than a year. She was a dreadful choice to be the deputy director. She’s a worse choice to be the director. I think it’s wonderful that there’s a possibility of a woman heading the CIA, but there are 50 different women who are qualified to lead the CIA. It shouldn’t be Gina Haspel... We did call her Bloody Gina. Gina was always very quick and very willing to use force. You know, there was a group of officers in the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center, when I was serving there, who I hate to even make the accusation out loud, but I’m going to say it: who enjoyed using force. Yeah, everybody knew that torture didn’t work. That’s not even the issue. Lots of different things work. Was it moral, and was it ethical, and was it legal? I think the answers to those questions are very clearly no. But Gina and people like Gina did it, I think, because they enjoyed doing it. They tortured just for the sake of torture, not for the sake of gathering information."

[A] black site is a site that’s more or less off the books, meaning it doesn’t officially exist. It exists, but nobody is supposed to know that it exists. And in many cases, that includes the congressional oversight committees. So, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the CIA set up such black sites all around the world, with the idea being that if we captured someone from al-Qaeda or kidnapped someone from al-Qaeda, we could send him to one of these black sites, interrogate him without having to worry about the law, about ethics or morality or the FBI breathing down their backs. They could do whatever they wanted. And that’s how this torture program spiraled out of control. There were people who were murdered in the course of their interrogations.

How Many Democratic Senators Will Approve Gina Haspel For CIA Chief?

The face of torture. Gina Haspel has been nominated for CIA chief. Which Democrats will support her? (source)

by Gaius Publius

An interesting vote will be coming up in the Senate, the confirmation vote on Trump nominee Gina Haspel as Director of the CIA. Make no mistake; this will be a torture vote, a yes or no to confirm the CIA's role in systematic torture of our "enemies" abroad (see below for details).

The last time a pro-torture Trump nominee came to the Senate — Mike Pompeo for the same job in January 2017 — the Senate confirmed him 66-32-2. The motion to bring his nomination to the floor, called the "motion to proceed" (MTP), passed by an overwhelming 89-8-3. (For what it's worth, Bernie Sanders was one of the few No votes on that motion.)

Democratic Party votes to confirm Pompeo included "progressives" Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Amy Klobuchar (MN), and Brian Schatz (HI). In all, 16 Democrats said yes to pro-torture Mike Pompeo, after which one of them, Whitehouse, got an earful at a town hall.

Gina Haspel for CIA Chief

Now comes Trump nominee Gina Haspel for CIA chief. She's not just pro-torture, she's an actual torturer. Will Democrats take a stand against her? If so, in what numbers?

Will they campaign publicly, in the press and elsewhere, against her torture background with the same vigor they campaigned against the travel ban and Obamacare repeal?

Or will most, as they did with Pompeo, quietly vote No knowing that enough of their Democratic colleagues will vote Yes to get the job done without them. Recall again the vote to bring Pompeo's nomination to the floor. That vote, the motion to proceed, was the only vote that mattered. No one serious about stopping a nomination votes Yes to on the motion to proceed, and it passed with overwhelming Democratic support.

Most of those we torture are dark-skinned and Muslim — an identity-politics gotcha for the gotcha-inclined. These are the same people targeted by Trump's widely hated travel ban, which Democrats came out strongly against. Of course, as Yahoo News points out, "If confirmed, 61-year-old Gina Haspel would become the first female head of the CIA," so there's that. 

Who will play hypocrite for the CIA? Which Democratic senators? Watch for that vote.

Gina Haspel's Torture Background

A fair amount has been written about Gina Haspel's background with the CIA, but this 2017 Glenn Greenwald piece is seminal. Bottom line — Haspel, as a CIA agent stationed abroad, ran a torture site.

Greenwald (emphasis mine):

In May 2013, the Washington Post’s Greg Miller reported that the head of the CIA’s clandestine service was being shifted out of that position as a result of “a management shake-up” by then-Director John Brennan. As Miller documented, this official — whom the paper did not name because she was a covert agent at the time — was centrally involved in the worst abuses of the CIA’s Bush-era torture regime.

As Miller put it, she was “directly involved in its controversial interrogation program” and had an “extensive role” in torturing detainees. Even more troubling, she “had run a secret prison in Thailand” — part of the CIA’s network of “black sites” — “where two detainees were subjected to waterboarding and other harsh techniques.” The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on torture also detailed the central role she played in the particularly gruesome torture of detainee Abu Zubaydah.

Beyond all that, she played a vital role in the destruction of interrogation videotapes that showed the torture of detainees both at the black site she ran and other secret agency locations. The concealment of those interrogation tapes, which violated multiple court orders as well as the demands of the 9/11 commission and the advice of White House lawyers, was condemned as “obstruction” by commission chairs Lee Hamilton and Thomas Keane. A special prosecutor and grand jury investigated those actions but ultimately chose not to prosecute.

The name of that CIA official whose torture activities the Post described is Gina Haspel.

Keep in mind, the first purpose of torture is to please the torturer. She's the worst of the worst.

By the way, the John Brennan named above is the same person now passing as "hero of the anti-Trump resistance" John Brennan. That's who the mainstream #resistance is in bed with.

Think Brennan and those around him have an agenda? Do you think getting rid of Trump is their only goal?

GP
 

Senators-- Democratic Senators-- Who Vote To Confirm Trump's New Cabinet Garbage Are Voting For Torture As A Legitimate Policy

Revolving Door by Nancy Ohanian

The Trump White Mad House is still a chaotic mess, in complete turmoil orchestrated my the fool Putin placed there. Supposedly, at least according to the Wall Street Journal John Kelly is staying on-- for now-- as chief of staff. H.R. McMaster, on the other hand, will be replaced as soon as Trump can persuade someone to take the job. This week a West Wing staffer in Señor Trumpanzee's White House was widely quoted saying that "This is the most toxic working environment on the planet... There's no leadership, no trust, no direction and at this point there's very little hope." Other heads on the chopping block-- reputations ruined because of their collaboration with the fascist clown-- include Ben Carson, David Shulkin, Steven Mnuchin, Jeff Sessions, Betsy DeVos, Ryan Zinke and Vanessa Trump, estranged wife of Trumpanzee Jr., and others who have been using taxpayer dollars to live like royalty.

At least a half-dozen current or former Trump Cabinet officials have been mired in federal investigations over everything from high-end travel and spending on items such as a soundproof phone booth to the role of family members weighing in on official business. On Wednesday alone, newly disclosed documents revealed fresh details about spending scandals at both the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

...The controversies surrounding members of Trump’s Cabinet have caused upheaval within the administration, prompting White House officials to scramble in an effort to avert any further political fallout and to summon agency leaders for face-to-face ethics meetings.

Meanwhile, Señor Trumpanzee is using Ivanka as a substitute for fired Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. CNN and Politico are both reporteing that Trump could have trouble getting new appointments confirmed. CNN was mild, reporting that Trumpanzee's "appetite for an ambitious shake-up of his Cabinet and other key advisers is already facing headwinds from inside his own administration and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. Trump's nominee to run the CIA, Gina Haspel, is causing heartburn among Senate Republicans because of her role in overseeing an interrogation and detention program. Meanwhile, at least one Republican and a handful of Democrats in the narrowly divided Senate are already planning to oppose Mike Pompeo, Trump's nominee to succeed Rex Tillerson, who the President fired Tuesday from his post as secretary of state. There is also some trepidation among the national security establishment about the potential of hardliner John Bolton replacing H.R. McMaster, whose fate as national security adviser is in doubt, according to several sources. And some top Senate Republicans are warning the White House of overburdening lawmakers with too many nominations. 'With everything else we have to do around here, having the prospect of two additional confirmation fights perhaps is going to be a challenge,' said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Senate Republican." Politico went much further with the idea of the Democrats actually being able to block the worst of the dreck Trump wants to bring into government.

The White House was hoping for a smooth 2018 on Capitol Hill. Instead, President Donald Trump is staring at two bitter confirmation fights-- and the possibility emboldened Democrats could block his new Cabinet nominees.

Trump’s decision to nominate CIA Director Mike Pompeo to replace Rex Tillerson at the State Department-- and to elevate Pompeo’s controversial deputy Gina Haspel, who hasn’t previously been confirmed-- has created a pair of high-stakes battles in the Senate, where the GOP enjoys a threadbare 51-49 advantage.

With Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) opposing both nominees and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) absent while he undergoes treatment for brain cancer, Trump will need Democrats to support his picks.

The looming struggle to get Cabinet replacements through underscores just how much the political calculus has changed for Trump since the early days of his administration, as Democrats look ahead to the midterms and throw off any semblance of cooperation with the White House.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), for example, supported Pompeo to be CIA director, as did 14 of his colleagues in the minority. Democrats say Pompeo will fall far short of that-- if he gets any Democratic support at all.

“Both of them have serious questions to answer and neither confirmation is a sure thing,” Schumer told Politico in a statement.

Republicans agree that failed confirmation votes are a real possibility.

...Retiring Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Z), who serves on the Foreign Relations panel, has been privately cited by Democrats as a potential flip vote on both Pompeo and Haspel. A vocal Trump critic, he said he’s “looking into” Haspel’s record and wants to hear willingness from Pompeo to break with Trump on Russia.

“We need people who will stand up to the president, frankly, on some of these issues. I want to make sure he’s willing to do that,” Flake said in an interview.

...Trump’s demonstrated preference for unorthodox figures could leave some Democrats inclined to accept the pair, who few would label unqualified even if they disagree with them on policy.

Republicans also have the advantage of a cadre of Democratic senators facing reelection in 2018 in states Trump easily won: Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Claire McCaskill of Missouri. All four voted to confirm Pompeo at the CIA.

...Short of blocking the picks altogether, Democrats could still cause serious headaches for the White House throughout the process.

“The biggest danger for the White House is that both of these people are coming from inside the administration and are going to be asked to talk about what’s happened inside the administration during their confirmation hearings,” said Matthew Miller, who helped shepherd former Attorney General Eric Holder through his confirmation hearings and joined him at DOJ as a spokesman.

He pointed as an example to a Washington Post report from June 2017 that Trump complained to Pompeo and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats early in his presidency about then-FBI Director James Comey’s handling of the Russia probe.

If Pompeo refuses to address that conversation, Democrats could use that as justification for voting against him, Miller said, since such questions go to how Pompeo reacted to presidential pressure while leading the CIA.

“If you invoke executive privilege at your oversight hearing, there’s nothing the senators can do to you,” Miller said. “In a confirmation hearing, you can lose votes over it.”

Is it a "purity test" to support and vote for Democrats who are not going to help block garbage nominees like Haspel and Bolton to influential posts? Fake Democrats like Heitkamp, McCaskill and Manchin are going to make the difference whether or not the U.S. goes back to torturing people.