Bolton
-
Do you think Trump took it away after evaluating those? Or because he said mean things about Trump?
Do you think Trump took it away after evaluating those? Or because he said mean things about Trump?
So, you found a situation where Trump can do a reasonable thing, and you can rhetorically frame it as orange man bad. Good for you. Mission accomplished.
I am sure we can all agree that Trump doesn't like Bolton. He's made that clear. That doesn't lock Trump into giving Bolton SS details forever, at penalty of being called orange man bad by random TDS sufferers on random internet fora.
-
Robert O’Brien, Trump’s National Security Advisor right after Bolton, was also given secret service protection by Biden for the very same reason. Trump didn’t remove his.
Seems odd to me. Must be my TDS.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
Robert O’Brien, Trump’s National Security Advisor right after Bolton, was also given secret service protection by Biden for the very same reason. Trump didn’t remove his.
Seems odd to me. Must be my TDS.
Robert O’Brien, Trump’s National Security Advisor right after Bolton, was also given secret service protection by Biden for the very same reason. Trump didn’t remove his.
Seems odd to me. Must be my TDS.
That's a better argument. I don't know that it's apples to apples, but yes one can imagine Bolton losing out on the asking of favors from Trump. Which is to be expected. The fact remains that these SS details are favors, not requirements. Are they norms? You can do that research if you would like.
-
Clinton once rained bombs on Baghdad when it came out that they had an assassination plot against Bush41. Biden gave secret service protection to two of Trump’s NSA’s because of specific threats from Iran. Are there other examples? I’m sure. Most presidents would do what they needed to to protect former American officials from threats from foreign adversaries, without concern for which party they belonged to or whether or not they kissed his ring.
-
Clinton once rained bombs on Baghdad when it came out that they had an assassination plot against Bush41. Biden gave secret service protection to two of Trump’s NSA’s because of specific threats from Iran. Are there other examples? I’m sure. Most presidents would do what they needed to to protect former American officials from threats from foreign adversaries, without concern for which party they belonged to or whether or not they kissed his ring.
Clinton once rained bombs on Baghdad when it came out that they had an assassination plot against Bush41.
That sounds really stupid and to the detriment of the USA. I don't expect Trump would do the same, and that is one reason why people voted for him.
I am entirely unconvinced that there is a norm that Bolton should receive lifetime SS detail.
-
Is there an expiration date on "legitimate specific threats"? If a foreign power wanted to force America to spend a trillion dollars a year on the SS, could they put a bounty on the heads of every governmental official in the country? None of this stuff is simple. It is only rhetorically simple.
-
Do you really think he took protection away from Bolton and not O’Brien due to expirations dates?
Bolton is a household name and was a notable anti-Iran hawk since Bush père. No one has heard of O’Brien. Which would be the better win for Iran?
-
Do you really think he took protection away from Bolton and not O’Brien due to expirations dates?
Bolton is a household name and was a notable anti-Iran hawk since Bush père. No one has heard of O’Brien. Which would be the better win for Iran?
Do you really think he took protection away from Bolton and not O’Brien due to expirations dates?
Bolton is a household name and was a notable anti-Iran hawk since Bush père. No one has heard of O’Brien. Which would be the better win for Iran?
I can imagine he would magnanimously continue doing a favor for this O'Brien character, while treating the Bolton situation more coldly and analytically, but still reasonably.
-
I can’t imagine, 10 years into the Trump era, with everything we know about him, saying ‘the most parsimonious explanation is that Trump took away Bolton’s protection on day one of his presidency for technical reasons, not because Bolton worked for him and went on to write a book telling the world how insane and incompetent he is’.
That is its own TDS or ideological capture.
-
I can’t imagine, 10 years into the Trump era, with everything we know about him, saying ‘the most parsimonious explanation is that Trump took away Bolton’s protection on day one of his presidency for technical reasons, not because Bolton worked for him and went on to write a book telling the world how insane and incompetent he is’.
That is its own TDS or ideological capture.
I can’t imagine, 10 years into the Trump era, with everything we know about him, saying ‘the most parsimonious explanation is that Trump took away Bolton’s protection on day one of his presidency for technical reasons, not because Bolton worked for him and went on to write a book telling the world how insane and incompetent he is’.
That is its own TDS or ideological capture.
You're not saying anything different from what I said. You're just using different words. I've admitted that Trump's personal feelings about Bolton played a role.
-
If the Iranians or some other Islamic fanatic proxy of Tehran do manage to whack Bolton on US soil during the course of this administration, Trump will, in part, have to own it.
Bolton may not be a particularly likeable person, but he is a tremendous asset as an advisor on matters of security and diplomacy with the likes of the Russians, Chinese and Iranians.
But if Trump feels that he can save a buck, what does it matter if something unpleasant happens to Bolton?
-
President Trump is very vindictive. It is pretty obvious that the removal of secret service and remove of security clearance for Sec. Bolton was due to his dislike of him.
President Trump currently controls the "sandbox" and if he doesn't want a certain person to be in the sandbox, it is his right to kick them out, weather it makes sense or not.
-
Robert O’Brien, Trump’s National Security Advisor right after Bolton, was also given secret service protection by Biden for the very same reason. Trump didn’t remove his.
Seems odd to me. Must be my TDS.
Robert O’Brien, Trump’s National Security Advisor right after Bolton, was also given secret service protection by Biden for the very same reason. Trump didn’t remove his.
Seems odd to me. Must be my TDS.
Seems the Biden admin did in fact deny O'Brien an SS detail. Care to hand-wring about that? In an objective manner?
WASHINGTON—The Biden administration has declined for almost a year to provide security to Robert O’Brien, a former national security adviser in the Trump White House, despite behind-the-scenes pressure from lawmakers and what they describe as continuing threats against his life.
-
My mistake was a case of ChatGPt disinformation.
Yes, bad Biden, bad. I wonder if they ever explained why.
My mistake was a case of ChatGPt disinformation.
Yes, bad Biden, bad. I wonder if they ever explained why.
Point being, this is not Trump being Trump and omg what will we do. This is normal politics, and it is not fair to frame it any other way.
Education is extremely important.
-
Some background on costs of SS protection, focusing on Bolton and O'Brien, largely apolitical: (Spoiler, it's multi millions per year per person.)
-
President Trump is very vindictive. It is pretty obvious that the removal of secret service and remove of security clearance for Sec. Bolton was due to his dislike of him.
President Trump currently controls the "sandbox" and if he doesn't want a certain person to be in the sandbox, it is his right to kick them out, weather it makes sense or not.
President Trump currently controls the "sandbox" and if he doesn't want a certain person to be in the sandbox, it is his right to kick them out, weather it makes sense or not.
And for that reason, I would argue that it is his presidential prerogative to kick them out rather than his right.
