Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Failed Democrat Candidate Says NC Republican Madison Cawthorn Worse Than 95% of Gitmo Detainees

Failed Democrat Candidate Says NC Republican Madison Cawthorn Worse Than 95% of Gitmo Detainees

Failed Dem candidate and former Gitmo Prosecutor: “there’s far more evidence of Congressman Madison Cawthorn’s guilt than there was of guilt for 95+ percent of the detainees”

https://youtu.be/NoQuSvRHisQ

In November, Republican Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina became the youngest member of Congress. You may remember the inspiring speech he gave at the Republican National Convention, where he explained that a car accident left him paralyzed from the waist down.

His Democrat opponent just proved that North Carolina voters made the right choice.

Colonel Morris Davis, an Air Force veteran who served as a prosecutor at Guantanamo Bay, compared Cawthorn to terrorist detainees.

Virginia Kruta reports at the Daily Caller:

Former Guantanamo Prosecutor Says Madison Cawthorn Is More Guilty Than 95% Of Detainees

Colonel Morris Davis claimed Monday that there was more evidence of Republican North Carolina Rep. Madison Cawthorn’s “guilt” than that of his former detainees.

Davis, who lost his bid for North Carolina’s 11th Congressional District to Cawthorn in November, cited his work as the former chief prosecutor at Guantanamo Bay in a tweet attacking Cawthorn.

“I was Chief Prosecutor at Guantanamo for over 2 years and there’s far more evidence of Congressman Madison Cawthorn’s guilt than there was of guilt for 95+ percent of the detainees. It’s time we start a domestic war on sedition by American terrorists,” Davis tweeted.

See the tweet below:

Classy.

Davis is going after Cawthorn for supporting Trump’s challenges to the 2020 election, and as we have all learned recently, that’s no longer allowed. Cawthorn spoke at the Trump rally before the storming of the Capitol, which he was not a part of, but Davis is now using that to push for Cawthorn’s removal.

Professor Jacobson reacted to Davis’s tweet and got blocked as a result:

Back in 2014, Moe Davis pulled a stupid prank using military deaths as fodder. Read that whole story here.

Featured image via YouTube.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

If we believe Colonel Morris Davis he should be prosecuted for multiple counts of kidnapping and false imprisonment – he just admitted that he knew 95% of the persons he held were innocent and that he acted despite this certain knowledge.

Of course, nothing will happen to this dishonorable man.

    felixrigidus in reply to felixrigidus. | January 20, 2021 at 6:44 pm

    And to be clear – of course he did nothing of the sort. It is just that he elects to lie now. Undoubtedly because Xiden is all for “unity”…

      20keto20 in reply to felixrigidus. | January 21, 2021 at 5:39 am

      Thus the call for “unity”. Biden’s application of unity appears to be “Those of you on the right side need to move over to the wrong side, roll over and play dead while we continue to remove your liberties and freedoms.” Notice, Joe said nothing at all about the media censorship thus giving tacit approval, he said nothing about the latest sham impeachment thus giving tacit approval, and he said nothing about working together thus giving tacit deniability to his Congressional delegation. In other words, Joe, like most Democrats, conflate unity with submission. Last time this happened was about a century ago in Europe. That one didn’t work out too well for the world either.
      The Congressional Democrats are content to be Socialists and Communists. Their complicit media are content to be Nazis. Their voters, the real ones anyway, are zealots supporting all three philosophies. The Statue of Liberty will be a symbol to the world that anyone and everyone is welcome here. When the mask mandate fails miserably because of the invasion of the country and our death toll reaches millions before summer, we can thank a change in immigration policy (or lack thereof) for welcoming the new cases to our shores. Funny that the lockdown governors have become mute. All the “superspreader” events about which the media expressed such disdain have given way to the celebration of the open border. Vive l’hypocrise!

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to felixrigidus. | January 20, 2021 at 7:25 pm

    ““I was Chief Prosecutor at Guantanamo for over 2 years and there’s far more evidence of Congressman Madison Cawthorn’s guilt than there was of guilt for 95+ percent of the detainees. It’s time we start a domestic war on sedition by American terrorists,” Davis tweeted.”

    “The cry for survival comes from the planet itself. A cry that can’t be any more desperate or any more clear. And now a rise of political extremism, white supremacy, domestic terrorism that we must confront and we will defeat.” Joe Biden – Inaugural address.

    Climate change is an existential threat that justifies any action. COVID has a 0.26% case fatality rate. Look at what they are willing to do to “fight COVID.” What then will they do to “fight climate change.”

    And now “political extremism, white supremacy, and domestic terrorism” are elevated to existential threats as well.

    The conclusion is conservatives and republicans are equated as “political extremism, white supremacy, and domestic terrorism” by this new president.

    Doubt me. Then why 26,000 soldiers in Washington, DC?

    I pray I am wrong. I pray I am a fool. But what are the logical conclusions I am to take? God save our country.

      They always forget they are white

        Brave Sir Robbin in reply to gonzotx. | January 20, 2021 at 8:46 pm

        Race is a completely made up construct. Anyway, the problem are white racists and supremacists, which will simply be defined as anyone who does not kneel before them. They are creating the concept of multi-racial whiteness now, so they cam lump in any required that requires cancellation (virtual or physical).

        They are the good whites. Anyone that disagrees, are evil. Color of skin does not matter.

        Unite! . . . or else.

      Brave Sir Robbin: COVID has a 0.26% case fatality rate.

      The case fatality rate in the U.S. is 1.7%.
      https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

      Perhaps you mean the infection fatality rate. While still uncertain, the CDC estimates the infection fatality rate at about ½%. COVID has killed over 400,000 Americans thus far, and the pandemic is far from over.

        Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Zachriel. | January 21, 2021 at 8:54 am

        I stand corrected on the case versus the infection fatality rate.

        However, all these numbers are suspect as the testing is highly suspect. PCR testing does not tell you if someone has been, is, or will become infected. The positivity rate for PCR testing is very likely not a good measure of actual infection rates. The idea their are asymptomatic cases may be flawed, or at least very much overstated as a result, meaning the true IFR may be substantially higher in the number of COVID related deaths is being accurately reported and not also inflated, which is suspect is also the case.

        There has been much discussions over people dying with vice dying of COVID, to include ridiculous counts of people being counted as COVID deaths who died in motorcycle accidents, gun shot wounds, drug overdoses, etc. which are presented to highlight the issue.

        In truth, all the numbers for infections and deaths are highly fungible and suspect because of reliance on PCR testing, which is a shame because it clouds our ability to devise and execute rational and effect strategies to respond to the virus.

        The best measures would likely be hospitalization of people with clinical manifestation and presentation of COVID symptoms, blood antibody positivity, and deaths of people admitted to hospital with COVID symptoms, have positive blood antibodies, and who die after admission and a course of treatment. While this would miss people with mild symptomatic response who did not seek medical evaluation, it would very likely be more accurate than our current PCR based testing regimen, again with my caveat that true asymptomatic cases are likely rare to nonexistent.

        Bottom line, I suspect all the numbers being used for IFR, CFR, number of “infections,” and deaths are highly unreliable. I think deaths and infections are likely lower than reported, but at the same time true IFR could be a great deal higher.

          Kary Mullis the co inventor of PCR stated that PCR could only be used to copy human DNA. The medical profession is using to copy virus DNA. Dr. Mullis has stated any other us will give mutated copies.

          Brave Sir Robbin: The best measures would likely be hospitalization of people with clinical manifestation and presentation of COVID symptoms, blood antibody positivity, and deaths of people admitted to hospital with COVID symptoms, have positive blood antibodies, and who die after admission and a course of treatment.

          Medical examiners consider all aspects of a person’s death to determine cause.

    Milhouse in reply to felixrigidus. | January 20, 2021 at 8:41 pm

    If we believe Colonel Morris Davis he should be prosecuted for multiple counts of kidnapping and false imprisonment – he just admitted that he knew 95% of the persons he held were innocent and that he acted despite this certain knowledge.

    Huh? He didn’t hold anyone. The President did. Even if he knew for certain that every one of them was being held wrongfully, how would it be his responsibility? What could or should he have done about it.

    In any case, even if they were all innocent of any crime, they weren’t being held for their alleged crimes, if any, they were being held as prisoners of war, so it was perfectly legal. He’s not disputing that they had fought for our enemies, is he? Or is he? Whatever, it doesn’t matter, because it’s not his responsibility.

    With that attitude, though, no wonder he didn’t achieve much in his two years there.

      Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Milhouse. | January 20, 2021 at 9:09 pm

      “Even if he knew for certain that every one of them was being held wrongfully, how would it be his responsibility? What could or should he have done about it.”

      Guess he was just following orders, then.

      What could he have done about it? Here’s a list: (A) Refuse to prosecute them, (B) Demand reassignment, (C) Lodge a formal complaint via his chain of command, (D) Resign his commission in protest, (E) if he had probable cause to know the base commander knew of and disregarded these persons innocence, charge the base commander under UCMJ Article 97 and send the issue to the military courts system.

      There are other perfectly reasonable, legal, and moral options.

      He took an oath to refuse unlawful orders, which is a key duty and responsibility under the UCMJ as well as sound and ethical leadership.

      But the Colonel was just engaging in dangerous and destructive hyper-partisan hyperbole which edged very close to calling for violence against a sitting member of congress. For him to accuse others of terrorism and insurrection….

      felixrigidus in reply to Milhouse. | January 21, 2021 at 7:25 am

      Milhouse, you really need to work on your sarcasm/irony detection or you’ll keep missing the point.

      Having said that, can we agree that liberty is not something granted by the state but states are formed to protect it against unjust attacks?

      Your proposed defense didn’t work at the Nuremberg trials and it would not work now.

      Brave Sir Robbin is correct.

      Let me just add this:

      If we take this man by his word then by his own words does he stand convicted.

      As Chief Prosecutor he positively knew that 95+% of the people he dealt with were innocent of any alleged links to terrorism. He didn’t just have reasonable doubt regarding their guilt, he had no reason to doubt their innocence.

      We know that because he admitted that “there’s far more evidence of Congressman Madison Cawthorn’s guilt than there was of guilt for 95+ percent of the detainees.” There is positive proof that Cawthorn is innocent of the charge made (sedition as you pointed out yourself, or insurrection – in that ballpark) so, logically, for there to be less evidence of guilt for the detainees mentioned there must have been even more positive proof or their innocence.

      That was the point I was driving at, by the way. I would have thought my explicatory note in my own reply would be a hint.

      Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | January 21, 2021 at 9:11 am

      Both of you seem to have forgotten what the word “prosecute” means. A prosecutor does not hold prisoners. Prosecutors have absolutely nothing to do with people being held in prison. It is not their responsibility and not their decision. They play no role in it. So even if he thought every single person there didn’t belong there he would have had no duty to do anything about it.

      Again, you wrote “95% of the persons he held”, and that is just not true. He did not hold even one person.

      BSR’s suggestions make no sense. He obviously didn’t prosecute anyone against whom he could not make a case. By definition it’s impossible to do that. Prosecution means making a case. If you can’t do that then you can’t. To say that he made a case against someone against whom he couldn’t make a case contradicts itself. I don’t know how many people he prosecuted in those two years, or what percentage of the detainees they represented, but however few they were, they were the ones he thought he had a case against.

      As for suggestions B-E, why should he have done any of those things? He had no duty to sacrifice his career, even if he thought an injustice was being done by other people.

      But most of all you’re ignoring the key point that their guilt or innocence was irrelevant to why they were being held. Even if they were all innocent, that would not mean they were being held illegally. A good many of them were never going to be prosecuted, because there was no claim that they had committed any prosecutable crime. I doubt that only 5% of detainees were accused of crimes; but if that were so then it wouldn’t be surprising that no evidence existed against the other 95%! Why would there be?

      Mostly, though, he’s just showing that he never believed in his job, which would explain why he didn’t achieve much during the two years he was doing it.

        Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Milhouse. | January 21, 2021 at 9:57 am

        “BSR’s suggestions make no sense. He obviously didn’t prosecute anyone against whom he could not make a case.”

        If a detainee is in Guantanamo they have been through several layers of examination to reach that facility. Guantanamo detainees are normally predesignated for Guantanamo detention even before they enter into US custody. Random captures on the battlefield very seldom end up at Guantanamo but are, rather, held locally in theater until disposition, which is usually transfer to jurisdiction of local or host nation authorities. If random captures do get eventually transferred to Guantanamo, if is because these detainees are discovered to have high level or important connections to terrorist organizations.

        The process is complex, but typically intelligence is developed locally in theater regarding a person and their affiliation with terrorist organizations. This intelligence can be derived from both human sources and technical collections. With sufficient evidence this person is placed on a targeting list under coded identity and designated for Guantanamo detention at that point, should they be captured alive. An operation is then planned to kill or capture this individual.

        They can also end up in custody because of unintended or unplanned interactions with local security or US forces where they are subsequently identified. But, still, they are an identified target and pre-designated for Guantanamo detention. Therefore, before action is taken against an individual, there is already an extensive and usually highly classified body of evidence behind the targeting which is much more detailed than anything you would see in a domestic police evidentiary file. Quite often there is copious forensics evidence as well of all sorts.

        So, the detainee is in US custody and extensive interrogation commences, which often adds to the evidentiary compilation. The intent is to positively identify the detainee and derive as much current, fresh intelligence from the detainee prior to transfer.

        Prior to transfer, case files are reviewed by DoJ. There is normally some sort of communication with the detainee’s country of origin which varies in accordance to US relations with the country of origin. In some cases, the detainee is sent to the country of origin authorities because of treaty requirements or the nature the request, so the detainee does not transfer to Guantanamo.

        Detainees have the right to challenge their detention and communicate with representatives from their country of origin. The role of the military “prosecutors” at Guantanamo Bay is precisely to determine that detention is justified and that people who do not need to be there are not admitted or held, and that people who do need to be there are not released.

        Therefore, it would have exactly been his role to make a determination to release men from detention he thought were not connected to terrorist organizations or who posed no further risk of violence against Americans. And if he thought 95% of Guantanamo detainees were being held without sufficient evidence, which is not what he actually said, he said a sitting member of congress had more damning evidence of terrorism than 95% of detainees there, but this is in response your assertion that “even if…” he would have been bound out of obligation to duty, service, honor, and the law, to seek the release of innocent detainees. If he felt innocent persons were being unjustly and knowingly detained, then he could have, and should have, taken those actions I described.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Brave Sir Robbin. | January 21, 2021 at 10:11 am

          “…that people who do need to be there are not released.”

          Should read, “…that people who do need to be there are released.”

          No, that is not what a prosecutor does. The prosecutor’s job is to bring cases before a military tribunal against those prisoners who he believes have committed crimes. Many prisoners will have committed no crime, and obviously he will not prosecute them, but he has no role in deciding whether they should be kept or released. That is simply not his business. It’s a military decision, not a legal decision.

          I don’t know where you got your description of what was happening at Guantanamo Bay; maybe that’s what happens now, but I doubt that was the case when Davis was there. Remember this was before Boumedienne, so prisoners had no right to challenge their detention. The mere fact that someone was in military custody was sufficient to establish that they were a POW, and therefore had no right to habeas corpus.

          (Boumedienne affirmed that POWs have no right to habeas, but first the government has to establish that they are POWs. In the cases establishing this principle the prisoners freely admitted that they were POWs, so this wasn’t an issue.)

        Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Milhouse. | January 21, 2021 at 10:07 am

        “As for suggestions B-E, why should he have done any of those things? He had no duty to sacrifice his career, even if he thought an injustice was being done by other people.”

        He absolutely has that duty. Period – full stop.

        Officers are relieved of command or their duties all the time for failure to take action to stop injustices to those under their charge, to include detainees and prisoners. At such point of relief, their careers are ruined. Failure to relieve officers who allow injustices in their full sight is a failure of military discipline. There is an absolute expectation a commissioned officer will not tolerate acts of injustice, and will take corrective active, or they shall have lost the confidence of their chain of command, and shall be relieved.

          1. Nobody at the prison was under his charge.

          2. Injustice is not illegal. If he’d seen something illegal maybe he’d have a duty to report it to someone (whom?). But injustice?! Not his department.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Brave Sir Robbin. | January 21, 2021 at 3:06 pm

          “2. Injustice is not illegal. If he’d seen something illegal maybe he’d have a duty to report it to someone (whom?). But injustice?! Not his department.”

          As a military officer, it absolutely is, Milhouse. A military officer is not just obligated to thinly comply with the minimum requirements of the law.

          As you noted, the discussion is not about who broke a law, per se. We are talking about the duties and obligations expected of a commissioned officer in the US armed forces. US military officers do not avoid culpability simply because something is technically legal. An officer who allows cruelty and depravity that is still legal, for instance, will be relieved, as will those around that officer who turned a blind eye to it.

          And back to the main point, if an officer knows that a person is being improperly detained by the military, unjustly if you will, it is an absolute requirement for that officer to take some action to end that improper and unjust detention. Failure to take appropriate and timely action should result in punitive administrative action, at a minimum, against such an officer who knowingly and willfully allows unethical, unjust or other activities to prevail without contravention.

          You do not get to just minimally comply with the law. Way more is expected.

          That’s BS. If something is lawful then an officer doesn’t get to stop it just because he doesn’t like it, which is all that “unjust” or “improper” mean. According to you an officer who thinks a war is “unjust” would have a duty not to “allow” it. That makes no sense.

          Davis did not deny that every prisoner at Guantanamo was being held lawfully, and that is all that matters. For that matter he didn’t even say they were being held unjustly, just that there was less evidence of their having committed crimes than there is of Cawthorne having committed one. Being innocent of crimes doesn’t make their detention unjust, let alone unlawful.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Brave Sir Robbin. | January 21, 2021 at 10:26 pm

          “That’s BS. If something is lawful then an officer doesn’t get to stop it just because he doesn’t like it, which is all that “unjust” or “improper” mean.”

          Dead wrong Milhouse. An officer MUST stop something that is improper, even if legal. It’s called moral integrity and leadership.

          Let’s say an officer, a company commander for instance, does not like the established Rules of Engagement (ROE) because he finds them too restrictive. So he decides to use his men in small detachments as bait and places them in dangerous and exposed positions to draw out the enemy to create ROE allowed engagements. Now that they are shooting at your guys, you can shoot back.

          Perfectly legal. Also, to many, perhaps morally reprehensible, and perhaps contrary to the commander’s intent who is trying to avoid unnecessary engagements and calm down a sector.

          A company commander in another battalion overhears two soldiers complaining about their company commander and his tactics that are placing soldiers in unnecessary danger.

          If the officer who overheard this thinks this is a dereliction of sound leadership, though completely legal, it is that officer’s duty and obligation to confront the offending company commander to ascertain facts, advise him of your objections once those facts are confirmed to your satisfaction, and if the officer you confront does not conform to your wishes to end this behavior, you take the issue to his battalion commander, via your commander.

          If the battalion commanders say this is OK, and you do not, and they perhaps even tell you to start such practices, you can can (a) take the issue higher, (b) refuse to carry out the orders and potentially suffer the consequences to career and or even trial before a Courts Marshall – which could also exonerate you expose the poor leadership practices so it is stopped, (c) demand reassignment, (d) resign your commission.

          As an officer, if you see something and you do not like it, you MUST act. Not doing so is called moral cowardice.

          If a commissioned officer in the United States armed forces notices a person being improperly or unjustly detained, even if it’s “legal”, he must indeed act, or he becomes a party to this activity, and should the wheels of non-judicial justice (aka “non-judicial punishment”) eventually roll around on this matter, he is likely to be crushed under the same wheel as all other offenders.

          Love ya’ man. Keep to that foxhole!

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Brave Sir Robbin. | January 21, 2021 at 10:38 pm

          I shall bring you back to the contention, by you, that is the subject of this thread of thought, so as to avoid confusion. You stated, “Even if he knew for certain that every one of them was being held wrongfully, how would it be his responsibility? What could or should he have done about it.”

          All else from me on the topic follows that assertion, which I categorically reject.

George_Kaplan | January 20, 2021 at 6:10 pm

Rita Panahi? Curious – she is an Australian columnist I believe.

A friend worked for Moe Davis, and said some pretty negative things about Cawthorn before and after the election, but nothing remotely close to what Davis did here. What a terrible person.

Guilty of what, exactly?

Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime. Has a familiar ring to it…

“It’s time we start a domestic war on sedition by American terrorists….”

Give them the war. Otherwise, they’ll take it to us.

These people are insane, and worse: they are serious.

We’ve got to be an immoveable wall, or we’ll wind up camps.

Perhaps Republicans could rethink their “fall for every fake national security crisis, accept whatever anyone with a uniform has to say at face value, and unconditionally increase military spending to absurd levels no matter what while hypocritically talking about the deficit” policy?

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Danny. | January 20, 2021 at 7:27 pm

    Republicans have no control of anything now. And if they did, would it make any difference? Looks to me the Republican leadership in congress is choosing a side in opposition with its base of support.

    They’re just not that into you, folks.

    CommoChief in reply to Danny. | January 20, 2021 at 7:32 pm

    Danny,

    The previous administration was a r administration. During that time the level of forces deployed to Afghanistan etc fell dramatically. In fact there are less than 2500 US troops in Afghanistan.

    The previous administration, did I forget to remind you that was DJT by the way, pushed our NATO allies to meet the funding levels they agreed to and to deploy their troops. As an example, many European nations were urging that troop levels in Afghanistan be maintained or increased, until PDJT essentially told them to put up or shut up by deployment of their Nation’s troops if force levels were such an issue. You are no doubt unsurprised they chose to shut up instead.

    All in all the r base has internalized the dangers of a large intelligence/counter intelligence apparatus following the illegal use of that apparatus to attempt destroying and discrediting the Trump administration.

    Finally, I would recommend you read Eisenhower’s address about the danger of the ‘military industrial complex’. FYI Ike was a r and that speach was given over 60 years ago. Many r, especially those of us with active military service experience, know precisely how our military prowess and national intelligence apparatus could be misused.

    I don’t take any taking head with or without uniformed experience at face value.

2smartforlibs | January 20, 2021 at 7:47 pm

Let’s see one’s a detritus liberal and the other lost legs fighting for his country. I wonder with one gets more respect?

    CommoChief in reply to 2smartforlibs. | January 20, 2021 at 8:26 pm

    Representative Cawthorn didn’t ‘loose his legs’ in military service. He was in a tragic car accident that left him paralyzed.

    That doesn’t diminish his personal struggle nor enhance his expertise. He seems like the all American kid next door who has overcome his setback and used it to propel him to become the youngest member of the HoR.

Aaaaaaaaaaand we are back to “mostly peaceful protests”:

https://mobile.twitter.com/zenpundit/status/1352049677382930432

Don’t you dare call it a RIOT!

Obama Prosecutor. LOL

Mike LaChance: Failed Democrat Candidate Says NC Republican Madison Cawthorn Worse Than 95% of Gitmo Detainees

Uh, no. He didn’t say that.

felixrigidus: he just admitted that he knew 95% of the persons he held were innocent and that he acted despite this certain knowledge.

Uh, no. He didn’t say that either.

    felixrigidus in reply to Zachriel. | January 21, 2021 at 8:30 am

    felixrigidus: he just admitted that he knew 95% of the persons he held were innocent and that he acted despite this certain knowledge.

    Uh, no. He didn’t say that either.

    There is a difference between “he admitted” and “he said” (verbatim).
    The man claims “there’s far more evidence of Congressman Madison Cawthorn’s guilt than there was of guilt for 95+ percent of the detainees” and the guilt of Cawthorn is apparently sedition, being an American terrorist, or both. There is zero evidence for that, and given that as a matter of law the alleged behavior of Cawthorn is nothing of the sort, that is positive proof of innocence.
    So that constitutes, according to the dishonorable man tweeting this out, “far more evidence … of guilt” than he had against the detainees he mentions, which can only be true if he had more overwhelming evidence of their innocence of any involvement with terrorist activity.

    Perhaps you just don’t like the fairly obvious implication of that ill-advised tweet?

      felixrigidus: There is zero evidence for that …

      Not per his opinion, and you remade his statement based on this difference, a straw man.

        felixrigidus in reply to Zachriel. | January 21, 2021 at 12:39 pm

        I didn’t claim he realizes that if his assertions are true the only possible conclusion is the one I spelled out.

        You could call it reductio ad absurdum of his attack on the congressman.

        The dishonorable twitterer cannot be assumed to actually mean what he says because to do so would imply an admission of routinely and deliberately committing human rights violations.

          felixrigidus: I didn’t claim he realizes that if his assertions are true

          That’s what “admitted” means.

          felixrigidus in reply to felixrigidus. | January 22, 2021 at 7:07 am

          Not so. Admitting to certain facts does not require you correctly grasp their meaning.
          Say a Nazi death-camp guard admits to having been a Nazi death-camp guard. Does she need to realize that she was committing crimes against humanity before we are allowed to say she admitted committing crimes against humanity?
          Obviously not. Although you might want to claim otherwise. One would have to wonder for what reason you would do that.

          felixrigidus: Not so.

          You twisted the person’s words. Do better.

Moe Davis has filled his twitter with calls for violent action for the last couple of years. Like most blowhard leftists he is a real badass when he’s surrounded by his own kind or hidden behind a screen. I was born and raised in Western North Carolina and can attest to the fact these leftists are as meek as lambs when they are outside of Asheville city limits.

Bitterlyclinging | January 21, 2021 at 10:57 am

A George W Bush appointed Democrat.
How many Alexander Vindmans do we have wearing the uniform of the United States, today?

    He was not “Bush appointed”. He was doing his military service like anyone else, and was assigned — not appointed — to a rotation in this position. The president is not involved at all in such matters.

      CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | January 22, 2021 at 12:05 pm

      Milhouse,

      You are for all practical purposes correct. However, the promotion of military Officers is a Presidential prerogative. The POTUS nominates the list Officers selected for promotion by the branch of service and transmits that to the Senate for for approval.

      So while technically, legally the process is that the POTUS nominates and the Senate confirms that is practically speaking a pro forma exercise.

      Certainly the military branches do very much reflect in their promotion decisions for SR Officers, O6 (COL) and higher the personal and professional ‘traits’ that the POTUS wants. That isn’t to say the President chooses every COL for promotion or assignment, he could if he wanted to.

      The selection boards do reflect the ‘type’ of SR Officers that meets the sitting Presidents idea of what a SR Officer should be. That is a fact.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend