Discussion: Multiple Senate Democrats Say They'll Support Gina Haspel To Lead CIA

She has been put on notice. She gives me the fucking creeps but I suspect most spooks would. Let’s hope Congress carries out its I&O responsibilities.

1 Like

With the exception of Warner it’s the usual rogue’s gallery voting to confirm the wrong person, but for me the good news is who isn’t and it includes both CA D Senators.


As Lewis Black once said: “The Republicans are the party of bad ideas, and the Democrats are the party of no ideas.”
Still, a far better alternative than the GOP, but that’s more a comment on the Republicans.


Asked if she agreed with Donald Trump’s assessment that torture is an effective means of obtaining information, Haspel said: “I don’t believe that torture works.” But she added that valuable information was gained from the al-Qaida detainees who were subjected to the interrogation techniques. Huh??

There is another Haspel quote that Trump would never order her to torture (which I cannot find), when Trump has repeatedly and publicaly advocated for torture. Say what??

These are disqualifying statements. I do not understand Democratic support for a torturer.


As usual, the conundrum is, if not Haspell, who’s career CIA, would Trump nominate someone a magnitude of order worse? For example, some reactionary tea partier even more batshit than Pompeo? Haspell, at least, appears to show some contrition. Elections have consequences and the separation of powers has become just a quaint 18th century concept. There are few palatable alternatives here. Vote the buggars out!


“With the benefit of hindsight and my experience as a senior agency leader, the enhanced interrogation program is not one the CIA should have undertaken,” Gina Haspel said.


Maybe I should be the CIA Director.

I arrived at the same conclusion without “the benefit of hindsight” or “experience as a senior agency leader.”


So, the new head of the CIA - Bloody Gina.
words fail.



“I do not support use of enhanced interrogation techniques for any purpose,” Haspel wrote.

Me: “Well, what about torture?”
Haspel: “Oh, I have never objected to that.”


These are the same folks who take McTurtle and rAyn at their word.


Or, say, how about not fucking rewarding a known torturer with a leadership position?!!


"Ms. Haspel explained to me that the agency should not have employed such tactics in the past and has assured me that it will not do so in the future…until it does."


Doesn’t matter what she says …

I feel tortured … and will continue to feel so all the way to November ----

The answer is that if Trump doesn’t nominate someone suitable enough to get 50 votes in the Senate, then no one.

Mitch McConnell’s refusal to even hold a vote on a number of Senate-confirmable roles (see Merrick Garland) clearly demonstrates that the Senate can permanently prevent any and all positions from being filled. If Trump wants to make ridiculous or outrageous nominations, then the Senate should just refuse to hold votes or straight-up vote them down.


All true, but the reality is the Dems don’t have a majority. Add to this the problem with red state conservadems siding with the Pubbies and the reality is the position will be filled. Perhaps the November elections will change things at least in the house. The Senate is much more problematical. We’ll see in November.


Is anyone else bothered by the sexual suggestiveness dripping from Haspel as she gazes up at Warner in the photo for this article?

He has an enormous franking privilege.


lol…I had to look that one up!

1 Like

Excellent summary of the situation. As unpalatable as Haspell is to most of us here, all indications are that she’s a professional, dedicated public servant who’s eminently qualified for the job and should be reasonably be expected to put the nation’s interests first. Can we say that about even 10% of the other major nominees Trump has put forward? We could be proven wrong on Haspell, but there’s no question that the odds of Trump’s alternative nominee being worse is almost certain.