IIRC, it was quietly decided that anything to do with the football had to be approved by Kissinger and Haig in concert while someone poured Nixon another scotch.
'Seeing Nixon willing to do anything to win power, Schlesinger feared the president might do anything to retain it. According to the reporter Seymour Hersh, in spring 1974, a Washington bureaucrat, Joseph Laitin, called Schlesinger and speculated about Nixon launching nuclear bombs or mobilizing Marines to save his presidency. “If I were in your job,” Laitin advised, “I would want to know the location of the combat troops nearest to downtown Washington and the chain of command.” “Nice talking to you,” the secretary of defense blurted before hanging up.
...Schlesinger told a colleague: “I had seen enough so that I was not going to run risks with the future of the United States.”
That summer, Schlesinger spoke elliptically to the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, George Brown, about only following White House orders Schlesinger approved. “I’ve just had the strangest conversation with the Secretary of Defense,” Brown informed his colleagues. One of them—who remains anonymous—recalled: “We sat around looking at our fingernails; we didn’t want to look at each other. It was a complete shock to us.” Schlesinger told another friend he wanted to ensure that “no idiot commander somewhere was misled.”'
I'm a little worried about the "nuclear football", too.
When I was in the Strategic Command, I remember one story where NORAD had detected a launch from the USSR. This automatically set off a counter launch sequence through SAC. It is really a long process but during the sequence, many of the launch officers were getting sick. Fortunately, some officer at NORAD took another look at the pictures. They determined that what happened was the sun was being reflected off the roof of known Russian launch sites, And everything was de-escalated.
What rank? And where is that documented? Wiki should have it. The Russians are just so much better at all this.
This morning, I spoke to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley to discuss available precautions for preventing an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike. The situation of this unhinged President could not be more dangerous, and we must do everything that we can to protect the American people from his unbalanced assault on our country and our democracy.
Strategic Command is the current name for Strategic Air Command. I began as a 2nd Lt there and rose to Captain before I transferred over to Air Training Command.
I understand there are similar stories the Russians tell of when they thought they were coming under attack
Like the time Reagan, not realizing the mic in front of him was live, said American missiles were headed to Moscow as he spoke.
One other story I remember. It happened when I was in college. I worked in the mailroom for the college. Every Saturday NORAD would send out a test of the Emergency Broadcast System. One Saturday, though, they broadcasted the wrong tape. It was not the drill tape. Since it was about the same time when NORAD would have sent out the test of the EBS, we just kept our cool. About an hour later, they canceled the warning.
This morning, I spoke to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley to discuss available precautions for preventing an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike. The situation of this unhinged President could not be more dangerous, and we must do everything that we can to protect the American people from his unbalanced assault on our country and our democracy.
BTW, Hawley's lost a book deal because of how he behaved yesterday.
Hawley has also been 'disowned' by John Danforth, his political mentor, who now says that taking Hawley under his wing was the biggest mistake of his political life.
I fear that Trump may have gone too far to be able to weaken the Republican party the maximum amount over the coming four years. I was looking forward to watching him tear the party down the middle as he threatened to sic the crazies in his base on every Republican who displayed any inclination to run without his approval. As it is, I'm afraid the Republican party may simply reject Trump and recover quickly enough to be viable for the 2022 midterm elections without making any changes of substance. If so, my hope is that Trump at least doesn't even try to run in 2024.
Unfortunately for The Republic, the MAGA Red Hat Brown Shirts will be even more aggrieved and will already be planning for 2022 and 2024, with or without Trump ...
MSNBC is reporting new articles of impeachment will be introduced on Monday in the House. There will be about one hour of debate and it will be voted on Monday afternoon. The articles will be taken to the Senate on Tuesday. If all goes according to plan, the Senate will have a vote to convict by Wednesday.
Biden has now said he does not want Trump to be at the inauguration, but Pence is welcome if he wants to attend.
MSNBC is reporting new articles of impeachment will be introduced on Monday in the House.
For those who are interested, a draft of the Article of Impeachment is here. Note the singular. There is only one Article of Impeachment in this draft (though the final version may be more extensive). It's for "Incitement of Insurrection". That's some Jeff Davis stuff. Makes the articles drafted against Nixon look positively tame by comparison.
MSNBC is reporting new articles of impeachment will be introduced on Monday in the House. There will be about one hour of debate and it will be voted on Monday afternoon. The articles will be taken to the Senate on Tuesday. If all goes according to plan, the Senate will have a vote to convict by Wednesday.
Wednesday? According to an article in the WaPo, Senate "proceedings ... would all but certainly occur after [Trump] leaves the White House" because all 100 Senators would have to agree to have it begin earlier.
MSNBC is reporting new articles of impeachment will be introduced on Monday in the House. There will be about one hour of debate and it will be voted on Monday afternoon. The articles will be taken to the Senate on Tuesday. If all goes according to plan, the Senate will have a vote to convict by Wednesday.
Wednesday? According to an article in the WaPo, Senate "proceedings ... would all but certainly occur after [Trump] leaves the White House" because all 100 Senators would have to agree to have it begin earlier.
Mitch has indicated that prep for a Senate trial would begin no earlier than January 19 ...
MSNBC is reporting new articles of impeachment will be introduced on Monday in the House. There will be about one hour of debate and it will be voted on Monday afternoon. The articles will be taken to the Senate on Tuesday. If all goes according to plan, the Senate will have a vote to convict by Wednesday.
Wednesday? According to an article in the WaPo, Senate "proceedings ... would all but certainly occur after [Trump] leaves the White House" because all 100 Senators would have to agree to have it begin earlier.
McConnell is making the claim it would be after Biden is elected that the Senate will take it up. But I would argue Schumer may want to act on it sooner. Everything is so fluid at this time. The point is, though, we cannot let this go without consequences.
McConnell is making the claim it would be after Biden is elected that the Senate will take it up. But I would argue Schumer may want to act on it sooner. Everything is so fluid at this time.
But Schumer has no power to make it happen sooner, whether he’d like it to happen sooner or not.
Besides, even if McConnell were keen to expedite matters, I can think of a few GOP senators who would remain obdurate in their refusal to give unanimous support.
They can move that fast if enough senators are willing to use the "nuclear" or "constitutional" option. Any lost vote would lead to a challenge to the chair, whereupon the loser cites article 1 of the constitution and a simple majority carries.
I believe enough republicans are now game to convict.
I believe enough republicans are now game to convict.
I anticipate there are several Republican Senators who would be quite delighted if Trump were barred from being president again, and thus not a candidate in the 2024 Republican presidential primary. (Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, Tom Cotton, and Marco Rubio are the ones that spring immediately to mind. There are doubtless others.) The only question is whether they'd be willing to publicly say so themselves.
There are usually a lot of people who want to see the king dead, but would rather not be seen with the blood on their own hands.
I doubt any Republican with serious hopes for 2024 would be willing to chance it. At the moment there doesn't seem to be any way to turn on Trump without alienating his supporters, and they'll have to be kept sweet for '24. As long as they're still with him, it's better to placate them and hope that someone or something else takes care of Trump (stroke, maybe?) Then he'd be out of the way; you wouldn't have to deal with his nonsense and you could get back to the people's business (tax cuts for the rich, natch!)
They can move that fast if enough senators are willing to use the "nuclear" or "constitutional" option. Any lost vote would lead to a challenge to the chair, whereupon the loser cites article 1 of the constitution and a simple majority carries.
I believe enough republicans are now game to convict.
One wise commentator pointed out that conviction in The Senate would require 2/3 of the Senators VOTING ...
It is (at least remotely) possible that not all of the GOP Senators would vote up/down, but some could abstain ...
As long as they're still with him, it's better to placate them and hope that someone or something else takes care of Trump (stroke, maybe?)
That thought had occurred to me. I don't want to speak out loud the calamitous end to Trump, which would suit a Republican who wanted to take over his base, the best. Luckily the thick loonies with a short fuse and a gun mostly seem to belong to the base rather than a demonised group outside of it.
There are usually a lot of people who want to see the king dead, but would rather not be seen with the blood on their own hands.
I doubt any Republican with serious hopes for 2024 would be willing to chance it. At the moment there doesn't seem to be any way to turn on Trump without alienating his supporters, and they'll have to be kept sweet for '24. As long as they're still with him, it's better to placate them and hope that someone or something else takes care of Trump (stroke, maybe?) Then he'd be out of the way; you wouldn't have to deal with his nonsense and you could get back to the people's business (tax cuts for the rich, natch!)
It's a fundamental problem for any Republican, so long as the Trump brand and the Trump supporters identify with 'Republican'. Currently (and I really mean for several years) they're still busy declaring that anyone who doesn't do exactly what Trumpism requires is not a true Republican.
And so far, there seems almost no appetite to counteract this by declaring that it's Trump who isn't a true Republican.
One way to get out of that bind is if the party completely breaks in two, but of course none of the 'establishment' Republicans want that. With most American electoral systems, that kind of fracture probably just means Democrats get elected instead. It was wanting to keep the Trump fans under the Republican banner, and the 'Tea Party' before that, that led us to the current situation
So yes, that leaves someone or something else taking care of Trump. While many can semi-secretly wish that his fast food diet finally catches up with him, it doesn't seem to be doing him any harm (even if you ignore the medical reports he writes about himself and his truly outstanding fitness...). What else would take him out? It's difficult to see. Scandal won't do it, because he's successfully created a worldview where any negative information can be treated as made up.
I actually lean to thinking that the Republican best bet would be to take the immense pain of getting rid of him now, because the pain will probably just get worse and worse if they don't. It's hard to see how he'll be silenced, Twitter bans notwithstanding, because he has the money to create his own platforms for broadcasting. The remaining strategy is to make his ongoing noise as impotent and irrelevant as possible.
The party may yet split in two if trump gets annoyed enough with establishment Republicans and sets up a MAGA party. Assuming he’s not already in prison, of course.
The party may yet split in two if trump gets annoyed enough with establishment Republicans and sets up a MAGA party. Assuming he’s not already in prison, of course.
With most American electoral systems, that kind of fracture [Trump Republicans and True Republicans] probably just means Democrats get elected instead.
They could always become Democrat, which would ensure their election.
The party may yet split in two if trump gets annoyed enough with establishment Republicans and sets up a MAGA party. Assuming he’s not already in prison, of course.
Neither. MAGA would divide the opposition.
Does trump even begin to care about that? He wants attention and adulation and will do whatever gives him those things.
With most American electoral systems, that kind of fracture [Trump Republicans and True Republicans] probably just means Democrats get elected instead.
They could always become Democrat, which would ensure their election.
An option for some of them, perhaps.
I confess to not fully understanding the American system. The whole way that so many voters register themselves with parties, brought about in part by the primaries, is a bit of a mystery to me, never mind how people go about switching their alignment.
Membership of political parties here is small, and consequently the number of people involved in formally deciding who a party's candidates for office are is very limited. But then, with compulsory voting we're all involved in deciding who gets elected.
They can move that fast if enough senators are willing to use the "nuclear" or "constitutional" option. Any lost vote would lead to a challenge to the chair, whereupon the loser cites article 1 of the constitution and a simple majority carries.
I believe enough republicans are now game to convict.
One wise commentator pointed out that conviction in The Senate would require 2/3 of the Senators VOTING ...
It is (at least remotely) possible that not all of the GOP Senators would vote up/down, but some could abstain ...
I think they have to be off the floor if there is a vote.
Comments
The hero of the hour was James R. Schlesinger:
'Seeing Nixon willing to do anything to win power, Schlesinger feared the president might do anything to retain it. According to the reporter Seymour Hersh, in spring 1974, a Washington bureaucrat, Joseph Laitin, called Schlesinger and speculated about Nixon launching nuclear bombs or mobilizing Marines to save his presidency. “If I were in your job,” Laitin advised, “I would want to know the location of the combat troops nearest to downtown Washington and the chain of command.” “Nice talking to you,” the secretary of defense blurted before hanging up.
...Schlesinger told a colleague: “I had seen enough so that I was not going to run risks with the future of the United States.”
That summer, Schlesinger spoke elliptically to the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, George Brown, about only following White House orders Schlesinger approved. “I’ve just had the strangest conversation with the Secretary of Defense,” Brown informed his colleagues. One of them—who remains anonymous—recalled: “We sat around looking at our fingernails; we didn’t want to look at each other. It was a complete shock to us.” Schlesinger told another friend he wanted to ensure that “no idiot commander somewhere was misled.”'
What rank? And where is that documented? Wiki should have it. The Russians are just so much better at all this.
Well, there you go.
So, apparently, is Nancy Pelosi.
Unfortunately despite some failed legislative efforts in this direction, the president's power to launch nukes at his sole discretion remains unimpeded.
I believe that the proper response from Biden's camp should be: "Thank you!!!!!!"
I understand there are similar stories the Russians tell of when they thought they were coming under attack
Like the time Reagan, not realizing the mic in front of him was live, said American missiles were headed to Moscow as he spoke.
One other story I remember. It happened when I was in college. I worked in the mailroom for the college. Every Saturday NORAD would send out a test of the Emergency Broadcast System. One Saturday, though, they broadcasted the wrong tape. It was not the drill tape. Since it was about the same time when NORAD would have sent out the test of the EBS, we just kept our cool. About an hour later, they canceled the warning.
Yeah, but it's amazing how even the best coded signals can get corrupted in the ether. *shrug* Ain't nothin' you can do about it.
Or, better still, "You're under arrest."
Hawley has also been 'disowned' by John Danforth, his political mentor, who now says that taking Hawley under his wing was the biggest mistake of his political life.
Unfortunately for The Republic, the MAGA Red Hat Brown Shirts will be even more aggrieved and will already be planning for 2022 and 2024, with or without Trump ...
Thanks - all comes back now.
Given that there's quite a nasty virus going round, should anyone be attending?
Biden has now said he does not want Trump to be at the inauguration, but Pence is welcome if he wants to attend.
But they've already put up stands for the outdoor event at the Capitol.
It is not clear if the Inauguration will be in the open, true. There is some indication that there might be another march on the capital.
I gather it's to be mostly virtual. Which is what I'd expect from a man who ran most of his campaign that way.
For those who are interested, a draft of the Article of Impeachment is here. Note the singular. There is only one Article of Impeachment in this draft (though the final version may be more extensive). It's for "Incitement of Insurrection". That's some Jeff Davis stuff. Makes the articles drafted against Nixon look positively tame by comparison.
Biden - Harris are responsible leaders ... (thank God) ...
Wednesday? According to an article in the WaPo, Senate "proceedings ... would all but certainly occur after [Trump] leaves the White House" because all 100 Senators would have to agree to have it begin earlier.
Mitch has indicated that prep for a Senate trial would begin no earlier than January 19 ...
You mean the one with the biggest crowds of all time? [/irony]
Scary article:
"The Capitol Riot Is Over. But the Search for Booby Traps Could Take Weeks. " (The Daily Beast).
McConnell is making the claim it would be after Biden is elected that the Senate will take it up. But I would argue Schumer may want to act on it sooner. Everything is so fluid at this time. The point is, though, we cannot let this go without consequences.
I believe enough republicans are now game to convict.
I anticipate there are several Republican Senators who would be quite delighted if Trump were barred from being president again, and thus not a candidate in the 2024 Republican presidential primary. (Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, Tom Cotton, and Marco Rubio are the ones that spring immediately to mind. There are doubtless others.) The only question is whether they'd be willing to publicly say so themselves.
I doubt any Republican with serious hopes for 2024 would be willing to chance it. At the moment there doesn't seem to be any way to turn on Trump without alienating his supporters, and they'll have to be kept sweet for '24. As long as they're still with him, it's better to placate them and hope that someone or something else takes care of Trump (stroke, maybe?) Then he'd be out of the way; you wouldn't have to deal with his nonsense and you could get back to the people's business (tax cuts for the rich, natch!)
One wise commentator pointed out that conviction in The Senate would require 2/3 of the Senators VOTING ...
It is (at least remotely) possible that not all of the GOP Senators would vote up/down, but some could abstain ...
That thought had occurred to me. I don't want to speak out loud the calamitous end to Trump, which would suit a Republican who wanted to take over his base, the best. Luckily the thick loonies with a short fuse and a gun mostly seem to belong to the base rather than a demonised group outside of it.
It's a fundamental problem for any Republican, so long as the Trump brand and the Trump supporters identify with 'Republican'. Currently (and I really mean for several years) they're still busy declaring that anyone who doesn't do exactly what Trumpism requires is not a true Republican.
And so far, there seems almost no appetite to counteract this by declaring that it's Trump who isn't a true Republican.
One way to get out of that bind is if the party completely breaks in two, but of course none of the 'establishment' Republicans want that. With most American electoral systems, that kind of fracture probably just means Democrats get elected instead. It was wanting to keep the Trump fans under the Republican banner, and the 'Tea Party' before that, that led us to the current situation
So yes, that leaves someone or something else taking care of Trump. While many can semi-secretly wish that his fast food diet finally catches up with him, it doesn't seem to be doing him any harm (even if you ignore the medical reports he writes about himself and his truly outstanding fitness...). What else would take him out? It's difficult to see. Scandal won't do it, because he's successfully created a worldview where any negative information can be treated as made up.
I actually lean to thinking that the Republican best bet would be to take the immense pain of getting rid of him now, because the pain will probably just get worse and worse if they don't. It's hard to see how he'll be silenced, Twitter bans notwithstanding, because he has the money to create his own platforms for broadcasting. The remaining strategy is to make his ongoing noise as impotent and irrelevant as possible.
Neither. MAGA would divide the opposition.
They could always become Democrat, which would ensure their election.
Does trump even begin to care about that? He wants attention and adulation and will do whatever gives him those things.
An option for some of them, perhaps.
I confess to not fully understanding the American system. The whole way that so many voters register themselves with parties, brought about in part by the primaries, is a bit of a mystery to me, never mind how people go about switching their alignment.
Membership of political parties here is small, and consequently the number of people involved in formally deciding who a party's candidates for office are is very limited. But then, with compulsory voting we're all involved in deciding who gets elected.
I think they have to be off the floor if there is a vote.
Re US voting system:
These might help.
California Dept. Of Elections
San Francisco Dept. Of Elections
League Of Women Voters
I give up. I gather California is notorious, even in an American context, for having votes on anything and everything.