Bolton

jon-nyc · wrote on 23 Jan 2025, 02:21

It’s like you missed my last post. Let me repeat it.

It’s conceivable there’s some non-obvious back story between O’Brien and Biden that caused Biden to finally reject an extension after granting it at least twice (I’m not clear on the timeline). But the continued protection of other officials rather weakens the case that Bolton got it for hating on the fat man.

Horace · wrote on 23 Jan 2025, 02:23

"Bolton got protection for hating on the fat man" has never been a central claim of mine. I was responding to your ridiculous notion that the Biden admin should have been expected to have antipathy for Bolton, but kept his SS, which proves they are objective and fair. It proves nothing of the sort. The Biden admin absolutely should have been expected to value Bolton's life very highly.

jon-nyc · wrote on 23 Jan 2025, 02:25

And how about Mike Espers? And Pompeo? And Hook? You have yet to acknowledge what their inclusion in the list does to your overall argument, to the extent that you have one. (Of course I get that nipping at my heels is the point and you don’t necessarily have an argument).

Horace · wrote on 23 Jan 2025, 02:29

I suspect there is some sort of back story with O'Brien which made Biden's handlers drop him. Having worked for Trump in some capacity is not enough, if that's the point of your comparisons with Pompeo et al.

Again, you have to live in a world where the intelligence services are able to say "that guy, that guy right there, he's received death threats from Iran, but we're sure they're not after him now. Let's save 6 million and not give him protection next year". So, just to be clear, that's the world you live in, right?

jon-nyc · wrote on 23 Jan 2025, 10:05

It seems like it must be such a world. Mark Esper receives protection but I doubt a decision was made in 2020 or 2021 to give it to him for life. I’m sure there exists some procedure for threat assessment review that happens periodically.

George K · wrote on 23 Jan 2025, 15:36

I just read that Mike Pompeo’s Secret Service detail has just been revoked.

jon-nyc · wrote on 23 Jan 2025, 16:06

Trump probably did a threat assessment and decided that Pompeo’s lack of fealty was a threat to his ego.

Jolly · 23 Jan 2025, 17:24

No, I suspect we are going to see a lot of changes at the Secret Service. I think we are going to see assets pulled from peripheral figures such as Bolton or Pompeo. I suspect they are getting out of the counterfeit investigation business.

Pique, realignment, efficiency, whatever.

Times are changing...

jon-nyc · wrote on 23 Jan 2025, 17:23

Hook just lost it too.

jon-nyc · J Jolly 23 Jan 2025, 16:15

@Jolly said in Bolton:

Pique, realignment, efficiency, whatever.

Spite.

This is first day stuff. The shock and awe planned including rewarding friends and smiting enemies. I don’t think they spent the last 45 days studying cost efficiency in the secret service with the idea to unleash efficiency moves day one.

Doctor Phibes · 23 Jan 2025, 18:07

I don't really understand this whole argument. Is anybody seriously trying to argue that Trump isn't petty and vindictive and takes everything personally?

The best anybody has managed to come up with is 'Trump is coldly rational when dealing with Bolton, but is emotionally attached to O'Brien, so his better nature leads to him allowing him to keep his security', which seems to be an extraordinarily generous assessment of Trump's personality.

Jolly · 23 Jan 2025, 18:19

When you look at everything through a blue lens, everything has a blue tinge.

jon-nyc · wrote on 23 Jan 2025, 17:59

@Doctor-Phibes

Jolly’s answer to your question is ‘yes’.

Horace · 23 Jan 2025, 18:15

@Doctor-Phibes said in Bolton:

I don't really understand this whole argument. Is anybody seriously trying to argue that Trump isn't petty and vindictive and takes everything personally?

The best anybody has managed to come up with is 'Trump is coldly rational when dealing with Bolton, but is emotionally attached to O'Brien, so his better nature leads to him allowing him to keep his security', which seems to be an extraordinarily generous assessment of Trump's personality.

I think these revocations are conveniently frameable as spite, but can be easily viewed as reasonable. I do not think there is going to be open season on these people now that they don't have their detail, and it is public record how expensive they are. There is such a thing as an abundance of caution, and there is such a thing as spending other people's money in order to make oneself feel secure that your own ass is covered. Trump has exposed his ass here if Pompeo or Bolton et al get assassinated, but obviously they have a far greater chance of dying in a random traffic accident or any number of other things. The calibrated risk for these people is extremely low, or so I surmise. Not worth 6m per year of taxpayer money. To what benefit is killing these people, exactly? Other than some terror effect? Terror effects can be achieved easily in other ways.

Renauda · 24 Jan 2025, 01:59

@Horace

To what benefit is killing these people, exactly? Other than some terror effect? Terror effects can be achieved easily in other ways..

None of those questions ever cross the mind of ideological or religious fanatics. It’s all about the terror effect. Nothing more.

Horace · wrote on 23 Jan 2025, 18:16

The O'Brien character apparently has his detail reinstated, which I can only guess is maybe payback for Biden's handler's having capriciously dropped it (or, in jon's world, the intelligence services providing an exacting threat assessment which singled out him as the one guy Iran doesn't want to kill anymore), or maybe it's just a crony, sweetheart deal. There is also a chance that Trump considers him a valuable asset for some reason, more valuable than the others he dropped. Which sounds cold, but perfectly reasonable as the actions of an executive go.

Horace · wrote on 23 Jan 2025, 18:18

I don't like thinking Iran can force America to write a 6m yearly check just by planting some rumor of an assassination plot against some ex-political operative.

Doctor Phibes · J Jolly 23 Jan 2025, 17:56

@Jolly said in Bolton:

When you look at everything through a blue lens, everything has a blue tinge.

To be fair, with you I'm looking at a blinding red light through my blue lens.

taiwan_girl · wrote on 24 Jan 2025, 01:53

@Doctor-Phibes said in Bolton:

I don't really understand this whole argument. Is anybody seriously trying to argue that Trump isn't petty and vindictive and takes everything personally?

The best anybody has managed to come up with is 'Trump is coldly rational when dealing with Bolton, but is emotionally attached to O'Brien, so his better nature leads to him allowing him to keep his security', which seems to be an extraordinarily generous assessment of Trump's personality.

I agree with your statement.

taiwan_girl · 24 Jan 2025, 02:03

@Renauda said in Bolton:

@Horace

To what benefit is killing these people, exactly? Other than some terror effect? Terror effects can be achieved easily in other ways..

None of those questions ever cross the mind of ideological or religious fanatics. It’s all about the terror effect. Nothing more.

I agree. The counter response to any terror attack is many times greater than the attack itself (and I am not saying that it shouldn't be).

(This may be a bad example, and I am not trying to make light of the incident so I apologize in advance, but....)

That car that drove down the street in New Orleans is going to cause a massive change in how car security, etc. is handled on almost every street that has an event in the US, with some sort of increased cost.

The odds of me being on a street where a terrorist drives a vehicle down it is closer to zero than 100%, but now for any parade, there will be blockades, extra police, etc.

An assassination of a public figure will have the same effect. So, better to prevent it, than react after it happens.

The New Coffee Room

Bolton