[quote=FlyerInHi]Ucodegen, you can try to cover for Trump.all you want. … outmojo put it most succinctly given how the previous navy secretary resigned over Trump’s interference and how Thomas Modly got his job.
This is much worse than China silencing the whistleblower doctor since it came from Trump himself.
[quote=outtamojo]
That’s just par for the course. You suck his balls and war crimes are ok.[/quote][/quote]
You are changing approach and deflecting on your error.
I am not covering Trumps butt. I will attack him for what he does, however I will not prosecute him for things underlings do trying to use him for cover.
Trump should have stayed silent on comments with respect to supporting Modly’s decision.. which would have prevented him from doing a quasi-retraction shown in your first reference:
In a press briefing Monday, Trump suggested he might revisit Crozier’s case, saying that although he thought the letter shouldn’t have been sent, he didn’t want to destroy somebody for “having a bad day.”
This may also mean that Trump’s feelings are that Modly’s days are done.. and that Trump may be trying to make it look like a more coordinated hand-over as opposed to a straight firing. Trump already had Modly’s replacement in the pipe.
As I said before, and I reiterate; Modly’s decision was Modlys fault. It put the administration in a tight difficult place because firing the captain makes the administration look bad, firing Modly would make the administration look bad. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Unfortunately Trump did what he does too often – open his mouth at the wrong time.
Additional point that supports my contention is from your first article;
Peters, whose district includes Marine Corps Air Station Miramar and Naval Air Station North Island — home port of the Roosevelt — said Modly is side-stepping the department’s weak COVID-19 response and making Crozier the focus of his attention
Scott Peters is representative of 52nd district and is from the Democrat political party.
