It’s President Donald Trump’s pick. No more reason is necessary.
Think just because Trump nominated her is not a reason not to confirm her, and McCaskill gave a reason not to vote for confirmation
If Dems only vote no on his nominations then we are not any better then the Republicans, especially during the Obama years.
Besides do you really think he picked her? He wouldn’t be able to pick her out of line-up, only comment on her appearance.
It’s laughable that Cotton or any other GOP Congressman can criticize McCaskill for reflexively voting with her party or putting partisan politics above the interests of the country. It’s disappointing that McCaskill “voted with her party only about half the time” but I’ll accept her voting record over any Republican who votes with their party 100% of the time because reasons.
The reason haspel is another follhardy anti American dotard pic…Shame on the dems who,voted for her…the rethugs are shameless just like the interloper fake news pResident…
Arrest her…with drumpf and rethugs…
Willfully destroying evidence that was ordered to be preserved by judges is a criminal act. This part is not “classified” so it is reason enough not to have a lying scofflaw at the top of the CIA.
The reasons are “classified”? Oh, give me a break
And here is a reason why not to vote for Haspel, not just because she’s ( McCaskill) a Dem and Trump nominated her.
Voting against torture should not be hard to defend. It’s actually a ‘big enough to drive a truck through’ opportunity for Democrats, but for some reason they complicate it. It’s like a Republican ‘punch a hippie in the face’ moment that Republicans rarely if ever miss out on.
This was not a vote based on politics for McCaskill. As a Democratic Senator running for re-election in Missouri, the politically safe and smart thing to do would have been to vote to confirm Haspel. I doubt that the Democratic base in Missouri was clamoring for a No vote so she wasn’t trying to galvanize the base; but her vote will certainly be used against her repeatedly by the Republicans, as shown by the immediate criticism.
(However, the argument “voting against Trump” that Cotton and Hawley used, might just galvanize the base - so, thanks for that, guys.)
Good for McCaskill.
Haspel fits the profile of the people who became torturers in South America: People who were good obedient children taught strict standards of right and wrong and capable of doing practically anything if convinced they were defending good.
The destruction of the tapes was very carefully choreographed to limit who could be charged with responsibility. Once the torturing had taken place and the tapes had been made – those officers in those tapes were at risk. This situation continued for some two years during a period when the CIA had a leaker who was later caught and convicted. From her testimony Haspel felt strongly that the CIA officers (and herself) were unduly endangered. At the hearing she pledged with considerable emotion that no such situation woukd be allowed to drag on on her watch. This drive to protect her own is part of why Haspel is beloved in the agency. Both Haspel and her boss, Jose Rodriguez were said to be pushing strongly for the destruction. So how was is choreographed?
-
Haspel drafts the order ostensibly for Rodriguez to present it to his superiors for consideration.
-
Rodriguez either does or does not present it to his superiors. There was a lot of dodging on this point at the hearing. Haspel keeps reciting that Rodriguez told her he was sending on his own responsibility.
-
She sends it as is arguably her duty as his chief of staff and she either is or is not under the impression that he consulted his superiors.
Jose Rdruguez has fallen on his sword and is ostensibly the only person with clear personal responsibility.
Lots of room for interesting things to emerge in a classified setting.
Having said that I do not know how I would have voted. Tom Cotton appears to have been the runner-up and would have been a far more enthusiastic torturer and is generally nuts.
… and Bush (The Lesser), Cheney, and Rumsfield.
If it’s classified, expect a leak by Wednesday. I suspect this is a calculated move.
So Cotton of a state other than Missouri is pounding McCaskill and taking his complaints to MO AG Hawley who failed miserably at prosecuting Greitens. This a gift. She gets to talk about Hawley’s incompetence instead of a vote for Haspel, whom I suspect Missourians are not paying as much attention to as they are the Greitens scandal. “Haspel, CIA, wha’, who?” That’s what I’m hearing.
I thought the reason some senators were against Haspel, that she destroyed tapes, even after a court decision ordered the CIA to keep these tapes. This is why I am glad that McCaskill voted against her. How can someone who destroyed evidence in defying a court order, and still be a head of the CIA.
I was being snarky, kind of.
It’s the New America. No morals, no truth, no competence.
She’s finally figured out that she’s going to have to run as a Democrat if she wants to win re-election? Things have gotten so bad for all Republicans with the impending Greitens impeachment that Claire might even mean it when she says she’s against torture?
It’s great when a moderate can go back to her progressive roots if only for one vote. Let’s get out there and vote so all the moderates can vote with us for a change.
It’s their Conservative Movement America. If it stinks, it’s because that’s what it is.
Is there any Democrat left with a spine or is spinelessness now a prerequisite for DNC campaign funds? If this senator or any other cannot make a basic prima facie case why Haspel ought not to be under indictment for war crimes rather than leading the CIA, then we all ought to give up on the Democratic party to act as loyal opposition. (The Republicans have long ago abandoned that role.) The GOP waves a flag and calls a Dem unAmerican and she, per usual, caves and wilts. Even ‘ever compromising’ Obama took the bold position that the United States does not torture.