DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Trump’s Campaign Promises. The scoreboard II

Ohhh, pfffft, I don't need to poke any more fun at it than it does at itself.

It's helplessly biased. You can tell, especially, when it tries to get emotional before painting some far-fetched fabrication of our eminent dystopian future. That crap hit the fire-sale-shelf eight weeks ago, apparently this writer didn't get the memo. Or their audience is so spellbound that they'll lap it all up. In that case, kudos lol.

I mean, if you can read this with a straight face?? >>

"Judge Aileen Cannon, whose rulings and maneuverings in the classified documents case appear to favor Trump, raises concerns about judicial impartiality."

Raises concerns about judicial impartiality?? Say it isn't so!! 🤣


I'm just being real here, don't hate. Trump is more than done after these four years, his interest is the handoff not the QB keeper. The whole "dictator!" language just loses more votes. Literally, loses votes.

ICYMI, he picked Vance within 24 hours of being shot at. That's when he knew he won the election and could build MAGA for the future. As much as that makes you want to puke, it's the truth. Vance's role over the next four years will make Kamala look like a flunkie. And unless you produce Golden Boy 2.0 in between, the chances before '32 are slim. You'll have to fight your balls off to win it then.

Anyway. Your party has sent it's voters wandering through the desert. Your party thinks they will wander to try to find their way back, right now they're wandering to get away. May want to course-correct quickly, you're looking a bit like the Whigs right now. A lot like the Whigs -- as soon as things got shady, they all rushed away to join the Republicans.

I don't doubt that has crossed his mind
He will sugar coat it by calling it a 3rd term

A lot can happen in 4 years though
His dementia may progress like Biden's did - very possible - but will anyone care?
When he becomes a lame duck president, perhaps congress will grow some balls - doubtful
More likely when push comes to shove, enough of congress will not commit treason.

trump is already laying the ground work
How much action results? We will see
A lot of it might depend on whether or not Dems or Republicans win the next election

ooooooooooo FATE hit you with some pre-civil war trash talk, Oob!

what you gonna do? return fire or drop your single shot rifle and head back to Lawrence, Kansas?

"you couldnt hit water if you fell out of a *bleeping* boat".

yoooo Kevin delivered that line soooo freaking smooth!

One of my favorite movies
It was a reply to the meme people
This was the shortest clip I could find

The quote I wanted to reference was that I have a good idea about their 5 cent heads

It's an opinion piece... as was stated multiple times.


dystopian? Yes. Far-fetched? I don't think so. Browse through pictures of Jan6 and the accounts of that day (including several higher-ranked GOP), and tell me the premise behind the article is some dreamed up fantasy. You trying to characterize worry about our democracy after it's already been attacked by the dude that's about to start a second term defies common sense. I get that you think worst fears aren't going to happen, but describing those as far-fetched makes me think you forgot about the time a transfer of power was violently delayed.



I agree.


Definitely agree.


Ah, the whole "you don't agree with 100% I'm saying so you're a AOC/Bernie-worshipping liberal". SMH... This is how I know when you've stopped debating and are arguing for arguing's sake.

I'll respond to your last question first. Did you see this quote in the article:

"First, reject hysteria — rhetorical warnings about “fascism” have proven ineffective at swaying voters, at least so far. We shouldn’t so easily take the bait when Trump trolls us, for example, by saying he wants to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America.”

No, I do not believe Trump will try to become a dictator. If I'm honest, I don't think he has the organization skills, discipline, acuity, attention span or the mental wherewithall to even pull that off. I think Trump will do what's best for Trump at any given moment and give in to his impulses. I think he has proven that time and time again, with January 6th as Exhibit A.

Now to circle back to the first part of your post - I think what it boils down to is at the central point of the article. He clearly had people who held him in check during his first term. There were examples of both my prior two bosses: Mattis and Esper. Now, I will be reporting to the guy who *checks notes* hosted Fox & Friends.

Quite a few of his cabinet members checked his impulses. The most glaring of which was his Vice President. JD Vance has dodged, dipped, ducked, dived, and dodged when it came to certifying the 2020 election, saying he would have had the states appoint alternate slates electors (not very state-friendly, as we conservatives like to be). If a Vice President refuses to certify a vote, do you not consider that a significant damage to the guardrails that our country has in place?

Trump's very own Vice President thought so horribly of the whole situation that he both ran against Trump in '24 and also refused to endorse him. I'm going to say that again, Trump's Vice President refused to endorse him AND ran against him. That's pretty unprecedented ever since the VP has been of the same party.

I don't think J6 is overblown. I think it's propagandized very often by the Democrats to distract from their own shortcomings, sure. I think the bigger problem is that we, collectively in America, have goldfish attention spans, short memories, and such crappy options to choose from. Nixon was basically ousted from the Presidency for doing less than Trump. Our visions and our radicalism have changed since that era, though. I think J6 was despicable, but people get so caught up in the day to day rage headlines that keep getting thrown in our face that we allow J6 to be a distant, diluted memory.

Aside from Pence, Trump was damn near convicted on the impeachment related to J6. McConnell basically said in his speech that Trump was worthy of conviction, but that the only thing that prevented him from whipping the caucus to convict was that Trump was no longer a sitting President. Now, McConnell finds himself as another check to power that is removed.

Your next point was on impulses and examples. I think we saw from his first administration, whether that was asking for quid pro quos from countries to investigate his opponent to receive aid, firing cabinet members and chiefs of staff who dare tried to provide checks, siding with the despotic ruler of Russia over his own intelligence service, or calling the 2020 election "rigged", among others provides a fair amount of precedent. But, to your point, let's get on to concerns I have.

One, appointing a guy with a list of 60 members of the "deep state" to head up the FBI miiiiiight be an inkling that there is impulsive, immiment revenge. I'm not exactly sure, but I would be glad to make a bet with you that all 60 of those people are people Trump doesn't like and wouldn't mind seeing behind bars.

Let's not forget that he also attempted to appoint Matt Gaetz to run the DOJ. I'll repeat that. He tried to make Matt freaking Gaetz the head of the DOJ. A person so despicable that even some in the MAGA caucus were like "Yeah, we can't do this..." So, why did he do it? Well, he also didn't want to certify the 2020 election and called for investigation of Trump's critics.

The recurring theme so far is "retribution" being one of those impulses. Here's a quote for you:

Steve Bannon, who helped run Trump's first presidential campaign and served as his chief strategist in the White House, has called for prosecutions of Special Counsel Jack Smith, Dr. Anthony Fauci and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, among others.

"You deserve what we call a rough Roman justice, and we're prepared to give it to you," Bannon said on a livestream on election night.

The whole point of this may be getting lost in the deep dive. Let me ask you two questions: Do you think that there were people who held Trump's impulses in check, for the betterment of the country, during his first administration? Do you think this same cabinet and/or VP would be willing to do the same?

That's really what it boils down to.

Side note on this quote:

""Judge Aileen Cannon, whose rulings and maneuverings in the classified documents case appear to favor Trump, raises concerns about judicial impartiality.""

I will say this about Cannon. She got smacked pretty bad on appeal to the 11th Circuit, and she dragged her feet pretty incessantly throughout the process. She also failed to disclose her participation in several paid-for, right wing colloquiums, which is a rule violation. It has been a while, but I did work in the 11th Circuit before. She stands out quite a bit from the judges I worked with in the past.

That case also hits close to home for me - and is another brick in the house of impulse from a guy who thinks he can do whatever he wants. Why the hell did a President keep and share all that classified data at his private residence after he left the Presidency, and also refuse to give it back? Are we okay with this?

Is it really any surprise that the only thing he brings up is Jan. 6th? Because that's not the entire story. There's the fake electors who tried to overturn state results of the 2020 election. There are the 147 republican lawmakers who voted not to certify the 2020 presidential election.

There's the fact that trump actually appointed people who weren't yes men that challenged him and called him on things that were illegal and most egregious during his first term. But not this time around. He is installing yes men. People that will strictly take his orders and follow through without question. In fact, part of the interview process for even supposedly non political appointees this time around include questions of loyalty to trump......

Incoming Trump team is questioning civil servants at National Security Council about their loyalty

At least some of these nonpolitical employees have begun packing up their belongings since being asked about their loyalty to Trump.

https://www.12newsnow.com/article/n...507-586d2e63-5c64-4324-8224-3f3f78ac54a5

Not about their loyalty to the constitution. Not about their loyalty to the rule of law. Not about their loyalty to serve the American people. But about their loyalty to trump.

I'm certainly not going to try to predict the outcome of all these things. But the stage is being set to open the door for the possibility of the worst case scenario.

I think that's where a lot of us stand. Nobody can predict with any certainty, but I think the concerns are valid.

I just hope that IF our concerns come to fruition, that those who voted for this will not try to dismiss, mitigate or avoid sitting with the consequences of their decisions.

If our concerns do not come to fruition, then good for everyone, and I'll admit as such.

That's become a recurring theme, and I'm not trying to call you to the carpet, FATE, but I don't get it. Quite honestly, I think it beneath you.

The zero sum things I really don't understand. There are certainly people who are dyed in the wool conservatives and dyed in the wool liberals, but I don't get the whole reversion to "your party" unless it's just for the sake of insults in this case, and/or to charge the discussion.

I'll say this as far as the topic goes. There are a handful of posters on this board who span the political spectrum. When they say something, I really contemplate it. If we differ, I re-examine my stances to see if maybe I have it wrong. Sometimes I find out that maybe I do.

Two of those posters who I greatly respect, I would consider to be dyed-in-the-wool conservatives. Neither one voted for Trump. One deeming that the actions of J6 should disqualify him from the presidency.

Despite the fact some of us differ in our opinions, I do not think I would lump them into "your party" simply because we may have disagreements on a candidate or policy. I think the only people I would lump into such a group would be those people who remain unwavering to a party or candidate no matter what the facts say.

I would have to say that works in both directions. Often times of you aren't what the far left calls being "woke" enough you get labeled as some far right republican by many on the left. At the same time if you promote any policies that Democrats approve of you get labeled as some far left liberal. On this board I've simply come to embrace the label. I'm pretty liberal when it comes to social policies. Not so much on foreign policy and our military.

But there s no room for middle ground anymore. Our society has become "You're either with us or you're against us". There's no longer room left for facts. There's no longer room left for what many have claimed to be and have been all along.... a moderate.

The main reason that on here I embrace it when they label me a liberal is that what's the alternative? When you point out that they elected a man such as trump with all of his convictions and court cases, all of his nasty behavior and name calling, all of his sowing of division and painting anyone who disagrees with him as scum they say "Just look at the alternative!"

And that's a pretty cheap cop out on their part. They had a primary with more level headed and experienced people to choose from. But rather than choose sanity, they chose insanity. Instead of choosing someone who was not a convicted felon they chose the felon. And no matter how hard they try to blame that on others, it was their choice to make and they made it.

That's fine... Whig boy.

I'll admit, I was drinking a fine Tobalá last night and that post just rolled off my pen. Thankfully, it still reads as funny this morning... although I may have been getting a bit carried away at the end.

I know it's an opinion piece. You asked if I was poking fun at DL for posting it, I was just making it clear that I was poking fun at the piece itself.

The worry of "dictatorship" is 100% far-fetched. You'll not be able to convince me otherwise with any pictures of J6. I know you think that makes me ignorant, I'd say my ignorance matches your paranoia and we'll have to call it a day.

My issue last night is I was struggling to come up with the right word.... I don't think you're ignorant at all. Ignorant isn't the right word. Maybe it'll come to me later but there's a bunch bouncing around up in the noggin right now.

As for the second part, that's fair.

Okay, but you're taking something and 100% turning it inside out. "Your party" still has to earn enough votes to win an election. Talking about individual nuance on conservatism or liberalism is great -- but they all must be lumped together to win an election. Dig? I'm never saying "your party" to insult the individual, I'm more pointing out how "your party" has insulted YOU.

And that's why I've used the wandering metaphor more recently. And, no offense to Oob, but it has nothing to do with Bernie or AOC, that's just something he made up like he wanted to tack on, almost like he wanted to create something I wasn't saying for the point of grandstanding.

The problem with your party is that they have mixed messages all over the board and have managed to alienate all of you to some degree. That has nothing to do with me trying to point out that you're all green tree-hugging, gender-bending, unhoused-people-drug-addict apologists who think everything should be free and college degrees should grow on trees. (That was a mouthful)

Pointing out the ludicrous isn't a reflection of individual members of the party, nor is it meant to demean anyone who is a member. Unless, as you stated, they "remain unwavering to a party or candidate no matter what the facts say". With that said, there is a majority of liberals on this board that would do just that. You all would have voted for a corpse if the coronation hadn't taken place. A corpse. Not some of you, ALL of you. So, I guess if were going to indict voters or parties for being beholden to absolute insanity, we'll have to use a sliding scale.

05, a couple of thoughts about things you posted. As far as quality of appointees, I think for people like you and me, appointees that you and I would ID positively would be experienced “old timers” who have been around the block a few times. Unfortunately most of those folks are establishment repubs who have been part of the problem for years, resulting in endless wars, spending with no regard for our future , immigration policies that paid no mind to how it affected Americans etc. Those are the folks Trump wanted to avoid. He wanted new, young blood that would shake things up. What’s that old saying, “in order to make an omelette you gotta break a few eggs”. Well, I think we are gonna break a few eggs.

05, on controlling misinformation you do see the problem there don’t you?? Do you realize how many times during 2020-21 lame stream media and those electronic giants censored the words of docs and scientists who turned out to be 100% accurate. I’m not going to go back and review but a couple come to mind. Natural immunity effectiveness was shown early on but was censored. The side effects of vaccines were censored. Many other things.

The problem is that the folks who are identifying “misinformation” can be wrong! Censoring information because It does not agree with those in charge can lead to problems. Let Americans have all the info and let them decide.

Good talking with you 05

Well said. I appreciated it because that was NOT what I was getting from those posts.


You weren't responding to me, but I would say that the biggest problem I have with "my party" is that it doesn't exist. The current 2-party system forces people to extremes ("this is what we/you are gonna be about, and you're gonna like it")... and while most seem to accept that, I do not. I like being able to poke fun at both major parties equally.

This is a lot. Very good post. I think some of your peeps should embrace your statements about Donny being to dumb to even pull-off "dictator". Maybe then we can all stop arguing about it.

What one person may call "impulsive, imminent revenge", another may call "draining the swamp". A swamp that has gotten progressively worse since Hillary tried to challenge her election. I'm fine with anyone labeling it revenge. It would be nice if they would also acknowledge the necessity, but ideas and logic are usually pretty clouded when "Trump!!" is involved.

Wanting me to predict the future based on these different variables (checked vs unchecked) is futile. As futile as you attempting to do it yourself. One characteristic of Trump winning this election is everyone's rush to claim "it's going to be really bad!", use examples such as yours to endorse the idea, and then attempt to get those on the other side to refute it with facts. It just doesn't make sense.

Anyway, I'll try:

Do you think that there were people who held Trump's impulses in check, for the betterment of the country, during his first administration?

Were there certain instances? Probably. I honestly think, through his own ignorance and the volatile political climate, a first time president created much of his own chaos by putting the wrong people in place and trusting too easily where he shouldn't have. I don't say that to try to insist he was perfect and they all screwed the pooch, I say that to point out that effective leadership requires everyone rowing in the same direction. Between bad decisions on appointees, terrible personalities, organizational chaos, we saw a president that became increasingly paranoid about those around him. That, in and of itself, leads to impulsive reactions and stupid decisions. Just look at the Browns FO over the last 25 years if you need any evidence of that.

I think an environment was fostered where the opposite was achieved and he had a hard time listening to anyone. You can probably point of specific instances where someone "standing up to Trump" made all the difference, and maybe that's what you want me to do, but I don't think that answers the actual intent of your question. I think you want me to compare and contrast both questions so that the eminent answer becomes "Oh crap, what are we going to do now??!" Or, more specifically, point at me as "part of the problem" when I don't. When I "can't see the obvious". Don't worry, you won't need to say that, someone else will say that for you.

Do you think this same cabinet and/or VP would be willing to do the same?

Not sure what you mean by, "do the same" without referencing what I just typed at the end of the other answer. I think V 2.0 will do a much better job of rowing in the same direction. Obviously no one in the history of Don has a very good grasp on filtering his speech or changing his mind. It's unfortunate that he can't see the mess that first part creates.

The media beats him like a pinata with every dumb tweet and he just keeps coming back for more. I dread the next four years of infantile speech and the inability of people to find a happy middle ground between "Don being Don" and "OMG, he wants to be a dictator... agaaaaain!!". Sad. I must admit though, half the stuff y'all become outraged at barely rases an eyebrow for me, and only become I'm rolling my eyes below it.

I think at the core, you're asking me if America will be worse off because Trump hasn't appointed anyone to challenge him for her "betterment"? I say that would be like trying to explain an algorithm with flash cards.

I won't try to predict the future but will be willing to state what should be the obvious: If Donald Trump is what you all say he is, this amount of power, this mandate, this "smoke screen" and the wool he's managed to pull over everyone's eyes, should be enough to prompt the actual undoing of the Republic. Anything less and you all have basically over-played your cards.


(Rereading, some of this is a little rough but I've literally run out of time)

Hey Keith, as far as appointments go, I don't think age or anything else matters - outside of perhaps DoD. I do think you need an experienced person in that role. I don't really care much about what the age is at all, outside of that. In fact, I think sometimes it can be a hindrance.

As far as misinformation and controlling it, I think everyone wants to censor things - as evidence has shown - when it makes them look bad. Trump I think at one point threatened Zuckerberg with jail for life, if I remember correctly. What it boils down to with most billionaires, Zuckerberg included, is that they will do whatever is best for them at any given moment.

Personally, I think Zuckerberg wants there to be misinformation from any angle on his social media site because misinformation creates arguments, which creates traffic, which creates revenue. He already bought his sliver of land in Kaua'i, much to the chagrin of the locals there. He is very content to watch the world burn arguing over any truth, untruth, information, misinformation or otherwise as long as it makes him money, and he can just sit at his guarded estate on the Garden Island.

Good talking to you too, my friend.

Thanks for clarifying. I think I interpreted it the same way as oober, based on the fact that this is a message board and context is hard to parse out.

Thanks man. I'm a little rushed for time, so I will hit on a few things, and then maybe we can touch back on a few of the others.

Great post.

As far as draining the swamp, I don't think he's draining anything. He said he would do that in '16 and I think he just let more creatures into the swamp, the likes of his own kin, Manafort, his attempts at putting in Flynn, enabling people like Gaetz, MTG, Boebert et al, and putting a fox in to run the hen house (Esper). I can tell you first hand that defective pricing instances and negotiating with contractors during his time from '17 to '21 became markedly worse, but, to your credit, stayed worse from '21 to '25. The lobbying and campaign contribution corruption only got worse since his time coming into office.

As far as rowing in the same direction, your logic makes sense. The way I view it, if the captain of the ship wants to row over a water fall, I would hope that at least some of the people on board the ship are rowing in the wrong direction rather than going full speed ahead.


I'll be honest with you here. I don't understand what any of the above quote means.

Overall, I guess we'll just have to see what happens. I'm not saying he will undo the Republic on his own. But I think he is taking swings at its foundation and is leaving it damaged. I know that you think many are unhinged on the left, and I wouldn't disagree. I think the original article talks about staying away from hysteria, which I agree with, hence posting the article in the first place - and no, I don't agree with everything in the article.

I do think he has taken unprecedented means to undermine that which I and many of us consider to be sacred.

Yeah, that was bad. I was in a hurry and running late.

First, I'm saying that Trump's "people", and how they worked together, became one big chaotic mess. So much so, that rather than "keeping impulses in check", they would serve to do the opposite -- make him more impulsive in his decision making.

Second, I was questioning your intent with the two questions. Probably my own paranoia in assuming you were "leading the witness" to get an answer that would prove that I'm in some kind of denial. And then, comically, mentioning that you wouldn't need to point that out. 75% of the time, a sarcastic post from someone else will spell out my "refusal to recognize the truth" within five minutes of my own.

Seems like you're saying, by asking the two questions: "First time Trump had a filter and some obstacles, now he has none!" I'm merely saying that would elicit a response from most of: "Oh crap, what are we going to do now??!" I'm also pointing out that once that's not my response, I'm usually labeled as being in denial.

Sorry this is all so confusing, I'm having a hard time getting the words out today lol.


I guess my question, for clarity, is what impulsive decisions do you think were thwarted the first time around?

j/c...

Promises, promises. Oh wait, the WH is saying Biden did this!

I bet Pit is happy, he was worried that Trump was trying to start WWIII!

How do you try to become a dictator? Only American citizens can actually make him a dictator, and half of them have already decided to do just that.

Typical Goper’s taking a victory lap on democrats negotiating peace. I remember Goper’s taking a victory lap when Carter negotiated the release of the Iran hostages. Tsk tsk.

Mmmm, yeah, I wonder why Biden, the dude that just said the Statue of Liberty was a gift from France after our victory in the Civil War, decided to wait till five days before Trump got into office? I guess it's understandable, he waited over three years to see a problem at the border.

So, if he doesn't want to be one, we can make him a dictator against his will? This will make a great Disney movie.

I'm surprised it's only half. I know every Trump voter wants him to be the 'tator, I just really thought there would be more coming out of the closet with a (D) tattooed on their face.

All good. I am all over the place scrambling today myself. I try to get back on this. Just wanted to say real quick that I'm not leading. I present things as I see logically in my head. I can't get my head wrapped around how reality could be any different, hence getting different perspectives.

You know how it works. They'll claim anything bad that happens during Biden's last days in office is Biden's fault and anything good that happens is because trump was elected. They're rather transparent about that.

And then they'll talk about how wonderful it is that trump has only yes men surrounding him.

No, trump loves the uneducated. So does the other side. It's much easier to get people to vote for things they have no idea they're voting for. Because if people knew what they were really voting for they may not vote at all. That doesn't mean that isn't what they're voting for. It just means they don't have a clue.

I mean we all know that 11 billionaires being installed as a part of our government will be fighting for the average American every day.

Speaker Johnson removes Mike Turner as Intelligence Committee chair

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) will not make Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio) chair of the House Intelligence Committee in the 119th Congress, a source familiar with the decision confirmed to The Hill.

Turner had been the top Republican on the committee, a position selected by the Speaker, since the start of 2022, chosen by then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) for the role.

One Republican lawmaker told The Hill the decision was made after complaints from Freedom Caucus members.

Punchbowl News first reported Turner’s ouster.

Johnson’s decision to remove Turner comes as somewhat of a surprise. Though the Louisianan had not officially named a chair for the Intelligence panel for this Congress, Turner attended a dinner at Mar-a-Lago with President-elect Trump over the weekend with all the other House GOP standing committee chairs.

“It’s a new Congress, we just need fresh horses in some of these places, but I’m a Mike Turner fan, he’s done a great job, he’s performed valiantly in a difficult time under difficult circumstances. So I have nothing but positive things to say about my friend and colleague,” Johnson told reporters as he left the Capitol.

One Republican lawmaker familiar with the situation said the MAGA wing of the party revolted over keeping Turner in the post.

“What I know is that Mar-a-Lago vetoed Turner,” the lawmaker said.

“They vetoed him, and Johnson couldn’t resist doing it, and so he got sandbagged because Trump wanted that to happen.”

The lawmaker noted the move came shortly after an article in Tablet Magazine noting complaints about Turner’s influence as his deputy pushed to move to the National Security Council.

“All these people, Freedom Caucus people, went after Turner, got to Trump and told him, ‘You got to tell Johnson to sandbag him.’”

Asked about the claim that Mar-a-Lago pushed Turner out, a Trump spokesperson referred to a post on X from James Blair — incoming White House deputy chief of staff for legislative, political and public affairs — disputing a report that Turner said Trump requested his ouster: “False information.”

Because he will no longer be chair, Turner is set to no longer be on the committee at all. House rules limit membership on the panel to no more than four Congresses, or eight years, in a period of six successive Congresses — a rule that does not apply to the chair. Turner joined the Intelligence Committee in 2015.

Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the panel, condemned Turner’s removal.

“Mike Turner is a serious, security focused lawmaker dedicated at his core to the national security of the United States and to the thoughtful oversight of the Intelligence Community,” Himes said in a statement.

“The removal of Chairman Turner makes our nation less secure and is a terrible portent for what’s to come. The Constitution demands that Congress function as a check and balance to the Executive Branch, not cater to its demands.”

CBS News’s Margaret Brennan reported Turner told her Johnson fired him after citing “concerns from Mar-a-Lago.”

Asked if Trump had played a role in his decision, Johnson said, “This is not a President Trump decision, this is a House decision and this is no slight whatsoever to our outgoing chairman, he did a great job, but we just, the Intelligence Community and everything related to HPSCI is, it needs a fresh start and that’s what this is about, nothing else.”

One source familiar with Turner’s office speculated his removal had to do with a cryptic warning he issued about a “serious national security threat” in early 2024, setting off a national panic — and then backlash.

The Republican lawmaker said that was also a factor.

“What you’ll hear from Johnson’s camp is they had to clean up that mess. They had to clean up that mess, and they didn’t like that,” they said.

White House national security communications adviser John Kirby later confirmed the threat pertained to a Russian anti-satellite capability but said it is not an “active capability.”

Turner’s statement drew backlash from other Republicans, some of whom accused the chair of having ulterior motives behind releasing the statement.

It was a remarkable move, with the House Intelligence chair single-handedly forcing President Biden to declassify information he wasn’t otherwise planning to share with the public.

Himes said at the time that Turner had overstepped, adding “it’s something that the Congress, the administration does need to address in the medium to long run.”

Turner has also been a strong Republican supporter of aid to Ukraine, and supported an extension of surveillance powers known Section 702 in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — both of which have drawn the ire of Trump-allied, America First conservatives.
It is unclear whom Johnson will select to replace Turner. Johnson told reporters that he would announce the panel’s new chair on Thursday.

There are a number of vacancies and upcoming vacancies on the Republican side of the committee, due to retirements and members such as Reps. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) and Mike Waltz (R–Fla.) being selected for Trump administration positions.

The Republican lawmaker suspected that Rep. Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) would be the top pick. Crawford has served on the panel for years and recently led an investigation into the origins of “Havana syndrome,” saying the symptoms may well be the result of a foreign attack.

Johnson last year appointed Reps. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) and Ronny Jackson (R-Texas) to the committee, while the remaining Republicans on the panel are holdovers from before he became Speaker.

In a statement, Turner said he was “proud to have served on the House Intelligence Committee and as its chairman. There are great members on the Committee, and I’m honored to have served with them.”

“Under my leadership, we restored the integrity of the Committee and returned its mission to its core focus of national security. The threat from our adversaries is real and requires serious deliberations,” he added.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5088169-mike-turner-intelligence-committee-chair-speaker-johnson/

Yes, one week before trump takes office Mike Johnson claims one of the main reasons he is replacing turner is because of something he said back in February of 2024.

Turner sparks backlash with cryptic call to declassify ‘national security threat’ - 02/16/24 5:30 AM ET

https://thehill.com/homenews/4471323-turner-backlash-declassify-national-security-threat/

Progress.

All illegals who had committed sex crimes or domestic violence were already inadmissible and deportable.

I suppose if political grandstanding is something you're a fan of this would be right up your alley.

FWIW, morning news was pretty clear about Trump being the main driver on this one. Kept mentioning how unusual it was to have an incoming president take such an active role.

No, this wasn't Fox News.

That's terrible news. No knee jerk reaction on my part, either. I've actually met Mike Turner. He's the rep overseeing the area where I work.

He is as level-headed as they come in politics (not saying much I know), and he is very well respected by everyone who I work with, and he's well respected by the members of the military.

MAGA really trying to take over all positions now.

And I don't really believe Johnson that it was solely his decision.

I wonder if you'll give trump credit for this as well...........

Netanyahu says ‘last-minute crisis’ with Hamas holding up approval of Gaza truce and hostage deal

TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Thursday that a last-minute dispute with Hamas was holding up Israeli approval of a long-awaited ceasefire that would pause the fighting in the Gaza Strip and release dozens of hostages. Israeli airstrikes, meanwhile, killed at least 72 people in the war-ravaged territory.

The delay raised concerns about the implementation of the deal, scheduled to go into effect on Sunday, shortly after U.S. President Joe Biden and key mediator Qatar announced it was complete.

That created a dual reality: War-weary Palestinians in Gaza, the relatives of hostages held in the enclave and world leaders all welcomed the result of months of painstaking diplomacy, even as Netanyahu said it was not yet finalized.

“Hamas is backing out of the understandings and creating a last-minute crisis that prevents a settlement,” Netanyahu’s office said. It was not immediately clear if the deal was in jeopardy, or whether Netanyahu’s statement merely reflected jockeying to keep his fractious coalition together.

Although the Israeli Cabinet had been set to vote on the deal Thursday, Netanyahu’s office said it would not convene until Hamas backs down, accusing the Palestinian militant group of reneging on parts of the agreement in an attempt to gain further concessions — without specifying which parts.

In a briefing Thursday, David Mencer, an Israeli government spokesman, said Hamas’ new demands dealt with the deployment of Israeli forces in the Philadelphi corridor, the narrow strip that borders Egypt and which Israeli troops seized in May.

Mencer said Netanyahu “strongly insisted” late Wednesday that Hamas drop its 11th-hour request. An Israeli troop presence in the sensitive zone, long one of the main sticking points in negotiations, was “crucial to stop weapons smuggling” he said.

“We hope that the details will be finalized,” he said.

A U.S. official with knowledge of the negotiations confirmed that Hamas made a last-minute revision relating to the distance that Israeli forces would withdraw from at least one largely populated area in Gaza, without identifying it. The issue is expected to be resolved quickly and enable the ceasefire to begin as planned this weekend, said the official, who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Hamas denied the claims, with Izzat al-Rishq, a senior Hamas official, saying the militant group “is committed to the ceasefire agreement, which was announced by the mediators.”

The deal announced Wednesday would see scores of hostages held in Gaza released and a pause in fighting with a view to eventually wind down a 15-month war that has destabilized the Middle East and sparked worldwide protests.

Hamas triggered the war with its Oct. 7, 2023, cross-border attack into Israel that killed some 1,200 people and took 250 others hostage.

Israel responded with a fierce offensive that has killed over 46,000 Palestinians, according to local health officials, who do not distinguish between civilians and militants but say women and children make up more than half of those killed.

The military campaign has leveled vast swaths of Gaza, and pushed around 90% of Gaza’s population of 2.3 million from their homes. Hundreds of thousands are struggling with hunger and disease in squalid tent camps on the coast.

Netanyahu faces heavy internal pressure

The Israeli prime minister faces great domestic pressure to bring home the hostages but resistance from his far-right coalition partners, who have threatened to bring down his government if he makes too many concessions.

Netanyahu has enough opposition support to approve an agreement without those partners, but doing so would weaken his coalition.

His hardline allies who hold key positions in the government, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, have already denounced the current deal as “terrible” and “dangerous,” respectively.

The departure of both of their factions could bring down the government and lead to early elections.

A night of heavy Israeli strikes

Palestinians in Gaza reported heavy Israeli bombardment overnight as people were celebrating the ceasefire deal. In previous conflicts, both sides have stepped up military operations in the final hours before ceasefires as a way to project strength.

“We were expecting that the (Israeli) occupation would intensify the bombing, like they did every time there were reports of progress in truce talks,” said Mohammed Mahdi, who is sheltering in Gaza City.

Gaza’s Health Ministry said Israeli strikes have killed at least 72 people since the ceasefire deal was announced. It said the toll from Thursday’s strikes only includes bodies brought to two hospitals in Gaza City, and that the actual toll is likely higher.

“Yesterday was a bloody day, and today is bloodier,” said Zaher al-Wahedi, head of the ministry’s registration department.
The Israeli military said it had struck approximately 50 militant targets across the Gaza Strip over the past day, including weapons storage facilities and rocket launch sites.

Anxiety spread Thursday with the news of last-minute quarreling between Hamas and Israeli officials.

“We ask our brothers in Hamas to communicate with mediators to end the war,” said Omar Jendiya, in Deir al-Balah. “Enough with the destruction and killing.”
A phased withdrawal and hostage release with potential pitfalls

Under the deal reached Wednesday, 33 of some 100 hostages who remain in Gaza are set to be released over the next six weeks in exchange for hundreds of Palestinians imprisoned by Israel. Israeli forces will pull back from many areas, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians would be able to return to what’s left of their homes, and there would be a surge of humanitarian assistance.

The remainder of the hostages, including male soldiers, are to be released in a second — and much more difficult — phase that will be negotiated during the first. Hamas has said it will not release the remaining captives without a lasting ceasefire and a full Israeli withdrawal, while Israel has vowed to keep fighting until it dismantles the group and to maintain open-ended security control over the territory.
Ceasefire leaves questions about Gaza’s future unanswered

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump’s Mideast envoy joined the talks in the final weeks, and both the outgoing administration and Trump’s team are taking credit for the breakthrough.

Longer-term questions about postwar Gaza remain, including who will rule the territory or oversee the daunting task of reconstruction.

Israel has come under heavy international criticism, including from its closest ally, the United States, over the civilian toll in Gaza. It also blames Hamas for the civilian casualties, accusing it of using schools, hospitals and residential areas for military purposes.

Hamas, a militant group that does not accept Israel’s existence, has come under overwhelming pressure from Israel’s invasion of Gaza’s largest cities and towns and seizure of the border between Gaza and Egypt. Its top leaders, including Yahya Sinwar, who was believed to have helped mastermind the Oct. 7, 2023, attack, have been killed.

But its fighters have regrouped in some of the hardest-hit areas after the withdrawal of Israeli forces, raising the prospect of a prolonged insurgency if the war continues.

https://apnews.com/article/israel-p...16-2024-dc0ef64dd52db395c5a54328518e8efd

Let me guess. When it looked like a ceasefire was imminent trump was pulling the strings and getting the credit from your ilk. Now that it's not looking so good you'll place the blame elsewhere.

Trump warns ‘all hell will break out’ if Gaza hostages aren’t released before his inauguration...............

Some people don't seem to be so concerned about a wannabe strong man's threats.

Trump claims credit for Gaza ceasefire deal.

But I bet he won't take credit for this.

This is who we are now. Mike Turner is an actual Republican and not a trumpian. He isn't a yes man. That was his downfall. He believed in doing what he saw as the right thing and not being led around by the nose by trump. Turner made it quite clear to Margaret Brennan that Johnson fired him after citing “concerns from Mar-a-Lago.” And like yourself I'm going to take Turners word for it over Johnson's. While I never agreed with Turner on certain policy issues, his motivation and integrity were never in question by me. That's a lot more than I can say about the people who will be in control of the upcoming crap storm.