Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Military.com)   US Coast Guard Commandant to US Congress: Fark you   (military.com) divider line
    More: Asinine, United States Coast Guard, Coast Guard Academy, commandant of the Coast Guard, Cmdr. Brittany Panetta, Democratic Reps. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, Karl Schultz, Homeland Security, Coast Guard's Commandant  
•       •       •

6725 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Jul 2020 at 2:05 AM (4 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



43 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-07-13 10:12:58 PM  
Fark off, admiral. You do you think you are? John Bolton?
 
2020-07-13 10:25:28 PM  
Rear Arm. Karl Schultz, has refused to testify
external-content.duckduckgo.comView Full Size
 
2020-07-14 2:08:43 AM  
Of farking course this toad was appointed by Trump. I have family connections to the Coast Guard, and this makes me farking sick.
 
2020-07-14 2:17:43 AM  

LordJiro: I have family connections to the Coast Guard, and this makes me farking sick.


Drug smugglers?
 
2020-07-14 2:41:49 AM  
Yeah, that's not going to go the way that Coast Guard schmuck thinks it's going to go.
 
2020-07-14 2:45:00 AM  
Let's pretend, let's assume that the Republicans lose the presidency in 2020.

Let's pray they lose the Senate!

Let's hope that the House remains in D hands.

A hard rain is going to fall, Admiral.

/Let's have no "now is not the time to"
//Let's have no "Bipartisan"
///Fire purifies and it's well past due.
 
2020-07-14 2:51:57 AM  
Ahhh the Coast Guard. The Air Force of the un-kept civilian Navy. Pool parties count as flooding drills, command BBQ parties count as fire fighting drills and the strippers are essential workers. And drug run interventions? Hell, those are resupply missions for the CO.
 
2020-07-14 2:53:20 AM  
I should add to the above. They are the merchant marine dropouts.
 
2020-07-14 2:53:23 AM  

powhound: Ahhh the Coast Guard. The Air Force of the un-kept civilian Navy. Pool parties count as flooding drills, command BBQ parties count as fire fighting drills and the strippers are essential workers. And drug run interventions? Hell, those are resupply missions for the CO.

 
2020-07-14 2:54:46 AM  

Rent Party: powhound: Ahhh the Coast Guard. The Air Force of the un-kept civilian Navy. Pool parties count as flooding drills, command BBQ parties count as fire fighting drills and the strippers are essential workers. And drug run interventions? Hell, those are resupply missions for the CO.


😂
 
2020-07-14 2:54:48 AM  

Rent Party: powhound: Ahhh the Coast Guard. The Air Force of the un-kept civilian Navy. Pool parties count as flooding drills, command BBQ parties count as fire fighting drills and the strippers are essential workers. And drug run interventions? Hell, those are resupply missions for the CO.


Now, let me comment as I suck at the internet.

The Coast Guard does more before breakfast to keep Americans safe than the Navy does all week.  Coasties deserve all the BBQ and strippers they get.
 
2020-07-14 2:59:43 AM  

powhound: Ahhh the Coast Guard. The Air Force of the un-kept civilian Navy. Pool parties count as flooding drills, command BBQ parties count as fire fighting drills and the strippers are essential workers. And drug run interventions? Hell, those are resupply missions for the CO.


I don't think it's appropriate for a Coast Guard recruiter to post on Fark.
 
2020-07-14 3:04:25 AM  

Mabeled: powhound: Ahhh the Coast Guard. The Air Force of the un-kept civilian Navy. Pool parties count as flooding drills, command BBQ parties count as fire fighting drills and the strippers are essential workers. And drug run interventions? Hell, those are resupply missions for the CO.

I don't think it's appropriate for a Coast Guard recruiter to post on Fark.


I don't either. If I was a coastie recruiter I would be getting a hell of a lot more action ... if you know what I mean.
 
2020-07-14 3:08:54 AM  
Congress isn't doing shiat when people they subpoena don't show up to testify. Why wouldn't one refuse an "invitation" and avoid talking about those nasty little racisms they let slide?
 
2020-07-14 3:17:16 AM  
I have a high regard for the Coast Guard.  That being said I thought I'd just drop in the old WWII description from the line sailors at the time:  Hooligan Navy.
 
2020-07-14 3:57:54 AM  
Just another part of Donnie's legacy. "I don't gotta it I don't want to. If I like you, you don't gotta either."
 
2020-07-14 4:38:38 AM  

Thosw: Just another part of Donnie's legacy. "I don't gotta it I don't want to. If I like you, you don't gotta either."


I imagine the Commandant received orders from his supervisor (Secretary of Homeland Security) or above; not much he can do at that point. Following orders is fairly clear, barring doing something unlawful - and unless Congress dropped a subpoena on him, they've only asked nicely for him to appear (so far). All that to say - not sure he has much choice, given the chain of command.
 
2020-07-14 5:28:48 AM  

Rent Party: The Coast Guard does more before breakfast to keep Americans safe than the Navy does all week.  Coasties deserve all the BBQ and strippers they get.


After Hurricane Katrina, when Dubya and the then governor of Louisiana were arguing over who should declare it an emergency, leaving many state and federal agencies paralyzed, the Coast Guard figured they didn't need anyone's permission to rescue people as long as water was involved.
 
2020-07-14 5:34:30 AM  

NotoriousFire: Thosw: Just another part of Donnie's legacy. "I don't gotta it I don't want to. If I like you, you don't gotta either."

I imagine the Commandant received orders from his supervisor (Secretary of Homeland Security) or above; not much he can do at that point. Following orders is fairly clear, barring doing something unlawful - and unless Congress dropped a subpoena on him, they've only asked nicely for him to appear (so far). All that to say - not sure he has much choice, given the chain of command.


And we've seen what happens to officers who comply with subpoenas.
 
2020-07-14 5:55:14 AM  

NotoriousFire: Thosw: Just another part of Donnie's legacy. "I don't gotta it I don't want to. If I like you, you don't gotta either."

I imagine the Commandant received orders from his supervisor (Secretary of Homeland Security) or above; not much he can do at that point. Following orders is fairly clear, barring doing something unlawful - and unless Congress dropped a subpoena on him, they've only asked nicely for him to appear (so far). All that to say - not sure he has much choice, given the chain of command.


Yeah. I thought it was a little disingenuous of the quoted Congressional Reps to point to Fauci and others as having testified and defied Trump's directives. They're not subject to the UCMJ.
 
2020-07-14 6:38:53 AM  
Congressional subpoenas are completely optional.  I would ignore it if I got one, too. What are they gonna do? Make frowny faces on the news?

By not enforcing their subpoena power, they have set the precedent that they have no subpoena power. On the plus side, the Biden Administration can safely ignore the feces the GOP will start throwing at the wall on January 21, 2021. No more marathon Benghazi hearings.
 
2020-07-14 6:41:00 AM  

powhound: Ahhh the Coast Guard. The Air Force of the un-kept civilian Navy. Pool parties count as flooding drills, command BBQ parties count as fire fighting drills and the strippers are essential workers. And drug run interventions? Hell, those are resupply missions for the CO.


The Coast Guard would like you to draft their new recruiting poster.
 
2020-07-14 6:51:27 AM  
Pictured here is Trump demonstrating the Coast Guard salute

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-07-14 6:52:34 AM  

LordJiro: Of farking course this toad was appointed by Trump. I have family connections to the Coast Guard, and this makes me farking sick.


Draft dodgers?
 
2020-07-14 7:53:19 AM  
"...we continue to seek out opportunities to foster an inclusive, respectful academy environment"

If so, then take part in the oversight. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
 
2020-07-14 7:59:08 AM  

JerkStore: By not enforcing their subpoena power, they have set the precedent that they have no subpoena power.


Enforcing it how?  Does the Sargent-at-arms even have a gun?  Is he does, is he allowed to carry it outside of the capitol building?  Most of the people who have refused to obey subpoenas are guarded by people who definitely have guns and outnumber him anyway.  Has it even been confirmed that the House jail still exists?
 
2020-07-14 8:08:05 AM  

flondrix: JerkStore: By not enforcing their subpoena power, they have set the precedent that they have no subpoena power.

Enforcing it how?  Does the Sargent-at-arms even have a gun?  Is he does, is he allowed to carry it outside of the capitol building?  Most of the people who have refused to obey subpoenas are guarded by people who definitely have guns and outnumber him anyway.  Has it even been confirmed that the House jail still exists?



The Commandant is a government employee, Congress controls the government budget--how about he doesn't get a paycheck or a pension or health insurance until he shows up? Perhaps he'd eventually choose self-preservation over Trump-preservation.

Doing things at gunpoint isn't the only solution.
 
2020-07-14 8:13:17 AM  

JerkStore: flondrix: JerkStore: By not enforcing their subpoena power, they have set the precedent that they have no subpoena power.

Enforcing it how?  Does the Sargent-at-arms even have a gun?  Is he does, is he allowed to carry it outside of the capitol building?  Most of the people who have refused to obey subpoenas are guarded by people who definitely have guns and outnumber him anyway.  Has it even been confirmed that the House jail still exists?


The Commandant is a government employee, Congress controls the government budget--how about he doesn't get a paycheck or a pension or health insurance until he shows up? Perhaps he'd eventually choose self-preservation over Trump-preservation.

Doing things at gunpoint isn't the only solution.


Congress as a whole sets the budget. They don't manage day to day operations like payroll.
 
2020-07-14 8:32:00 AM  

LordJiro: Of farking course this toad was appointed by Trump. I have family connections to the Coast Guard, and this makes me farking sick.


... 'as a family member of someone who knew someone that lived by someone that once served...  I feel "
jesus CHRIST .
NO ONE CARES. Your opinion is NOT more valid due to your tenuous connection.
 
2020-07-14 8:33:15 AM  

qorkfiend: JerkStore: flondrix: JerkStore: By not enforcing their subpoena power, they have set the precedent that they have no subpoena power.

Enforcing it how?  Does the Sargent-at-arms even have a gun?  Is he does, is he allowed to carry it outside of the capitol building?  Most of the people who have refused to obey subpoenas are guarded by people who definitely have guns and outnumber him anyway.  Has it even been confirmed that the House jail still exists?


The Commandant is a government employee, Congress controls the government budget--how about he doesn't get a paycheck or a pension or health insurance until he shows up? Perhaps he'd eventually choose self-preservation over Trump-preservation.

Doing things at gunpoint isn't the only solution.

Congress as a whole sets the budget. They don't manage day to day operations like payroll.


So you're saying that the head of the Armed Forces Committee or the Judicial Committee or whomever is investigating this particular farkup can't find a way to make that happen? They surely have options they are not exercising, but by failing to do so, they are abdicating their power. If these subpoenas don't have to be honored, none do. They all apply or none apply. Shrugging their shoulders and saying, "Well, we tried," when you're part of the largest legislative body in the country is not an answer. They have means, they're either not trying, they don't care, or they aren't smart enough to think of creative ways of enforcement that don't involve sending an old man in a deputy's uniform to drag people out of their offices.

If a judge finds me in contempt, and I decide I don't want to be held in contempt, there's no consequence? Meh, I'm going home, I don't feel like being in court anymore.

And they just let me leave? Really?

If that's the case, then we're back to my original point that Congressional subpoenas carry exactly zero weight. Why should I obey any law? If I decide not to be governed by them, what can they do? Nothing, apparently.

Is that the point?
 
2020-07-14 8:36:41 AM  

JerkStore: qorkfiend: JerkStore: flondrix: JerkStore: By not enforcing their subpoena power, they have set the precedent that they have no subpoena power.

Enforcing it how?  Does the Sargent-at-arms even have a gun?  Is he does, is he allowed to carry it outside of the capitol building?  Most of the people who have refused to obey subpoenas are guarded by people who definitely have guns and outnumber him anyway.  Has it even been confirmed that the House jail still exists?


The Commandant is a government employee, Congress controls the government budget--how about he doesn't get a paycheck or a pension or health insurance until he shows up? Perhaps he'd eventually choose self-preservation over Trump-preservation.

Doing things at gunpoint isn't the only solution.

Congress as a whole sets the budget. They don't manage day to day operations like payroll.

So you're saying that the head of the Armed Forces Committee or the Judicial Committee or whomever is investigating this particular farkup can't find a way to make that happen? They surely have options they are not exercising, but by failing to do so, they are abdicating their power. If these subpoenas don't have to be honored, none do. They all apply or none apply. Shrugging their shoulders and saying, "Well, we tried," when you're part of the largest legislative body in the country is not an answer. They have means, they're either not trying, they don't care, or they aren't smart enough to think of creative ways of enforcement that don't involve sending an old man in a deputy's uniform to drag people out of their offices.

If a judge finds me in contempt, and I decide I don't want to be held in contempt, there's no consequence? Meh, I'm going home, I don't feel like being in court anymore.

And they just let me leave? Really?

If that's the case, then we're back to my original point that Congressional subpoenas carry exactly zero weight. Why should I obey any law? If I decide not to be governed by them, what can they do? Nothing, apparently.

Is that the point?


Yes, that's correct - no individual member of Congress has the power to stop another individual's paycheck or pension.
 
2020-07-14 8:40:57 AM  
Loyal to the president, not the people.

That's disturbing, to say the least.
 
2020-07-14 8:50:54 AM  
Maloney and Thompson said Schultz, in his refusal, referenced "a baseless White House directive banning virtual testimony from administration witnesses."

Trump has 6 months left in office. There is no reason we should have as any of the heads of our branches of military, including the soon to be short-lived Space Force, that can't think strategically enough to see the writing on the wall.

Congress shouldn't respond except to send him a bunch of boxes to his office from U-Haul with a note that it would be a good idea to start packing now before President Biden is sworn in.
 
2020-07-14 8:52:05 AM  
He probably figures testify and get fired by Trump shortly thereafter or refuse to testify and get fired by Biden early next year. However, that only happens if Biden gets elected but if Trump is re-elected he can remain Coast Guard Commandant for years to come.  So he went with refuse to testify.
 
2020-07-14 8:58:36 AM  
The part that got me is the new standard Trump Admin excuse for not testifying is they won't testify virtually. Amazing.
 
2020-07-14 11:31:42 AM  

runwiz: He probably figures testify and get fired by Trump shortly thereafter or refuse to testify and get fired by Biden early next year. However, that only happens if Biden gets elected but if Trump is re-elected he can remain Coast Guard Commandant for years to come.  So he went with refuse to testify.


He's out in 22 regardless.
 
2020-07-14 11:37:36 AM  
Shultz has been a pretty good commandant. "Z" was better but, Thad Allen or The Thadmiral was the best.

ADM ShultzhShultz done a lot in the anti-sexual assault/harassment, pro  gay/ trans sector

He's also done a lot since May in promoting listening to our shipmates of color, and hearing their struggles and stories.

But that's just my opinion.
 
2020-07-14 11:43:35 AM  
Heads of military commands are obligated to follow the orders of the POTUS.  Film at 11.

/ Appliesneven if the POTUS is a douchebag.
 
2020-07-14 11:57:24 AM  

Rent Party: Heads of military commands are obligated to follow the orders of the POTUS.  Film at 11.

/ Appliesneven if the POTUS is a douchebag.


Officers swear an oath to uphold the constitution.  Which, contrary to what the POTUS believes, does not contain an article that says the POTUS can do whatever he wants.

I think enlisted swear a different oath.  Does that mean we could have a situation where the enlisted are sworn to obey the president, while their officers are duty bound to uphold the constitution and oppose him?
 
2020-07-14 12:00:30 PM  

flondrix: Rent Party: Heads of military commands are obligated to follow the orders of the POTUS.  Film at 11.

/ Appliesneven if the POTUS is a douchebag.

Officers swear an oath to uphold the constitution.  Which, contrary to what the POTUS believes, does not contain an article that says the POTUS can do whatever he wants.

I think enlisted swear a different oath.  Does that mean we could have a situation where the enlisted are sworn to obey the president, while their officers are duty bound to uphold the constitution and oppose him?


While the words are different in the oath, the oath in itself is pretty much the same.
 
2020-07-14 12:54:06 PM  

flondrix: Rent Party: Heads of military commands are obligated to follow the orders of the POTUS.  Film at 11.

/ Appliesneven if the POTUS is a douchebag.

Officers swear an oath to uphold the constitution.  Which, contrary to what the POTUS believes, does not contain an article that says the POTUS can do whatever he wants.

I think enlisted swear a different oath.  Does that mean we could have a situation where the enlisted are sworn to obey the president, while their officers are duty bound to uphold the constitution and oppose him?


It contains the words "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me."

You can finangle all you like, but if Trump tells this guy to not testify virtually for whatever reason, that is what he has to do.

And that is how it should be.
 
2020-07-14 5:28:34 PM  

Rent Party: flondrix: Rent Party: Heads of military commands are obligated to follow the orders of the POTUS.  Film at 11.

/ Appliesneven if the POTUS is a douchebag.

Officers swear an oath to uphold the constitution.  Which, contrary to what the POTUS believes, does not contain an article that says the POTUS can do whatever he wants.

I think enlisted swear a different oath.  Does that mean we could have a situation where the enlisted are sworn to obey the president, while their officers are duty bound to uphold the constitution and oppose him?

It contains the words "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me."

You can finangle all you like, but if Trump tells this guy to not testify virtually for whatever reason, that is what he has to do.

And that is how it should be.


The oath of commissioned officers:

I ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Their loyalty is supposed to be to the Constitution.  The President is not mentioned.

It sounds like you are remembering the oath of enlistment:

I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (So help me God).

So, the officers have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign or domestic with no specific loyalty oath to the President.  The grunts on the other hand may remember having sworn to obey the President.  A touchy situation.
 
2020-07-15 12:09:25 AM  

flondrix: Rent Party: flondrix: Rent Party: Heads of military commands are obligated to follow the orders of the POTUS.  Film at 11.

/ Appliesneven if the POTUS is a douchebag.

Officers swear an oath to uphold the constitution.  Which, contrary to what the POTUS believes, does not contain an article that says the POTUS can do whatever he wants.

I think enlisted swear a different oath.  Does that mean we could have a situation where the enlisted are sworn to obey the president, while their officers are duty bound to uphold the constitution and oppose him?

It contains the words "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me."

You can finangle all you like, but if Trump tells this guy to not testify virtually for whatever reason, that is what he has to do.

And that is how it should be.

The oath of commissioned officers:

I ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Their loyalty is supposed to be to the Constitution.  The President is not mentioned.

It sounds like you are remembering the oath of enlistment:

I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (So help me God).

So, the officers have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign o ...


Is it your contention that the words "the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States" is *not*  in the constitution?   And therefore officers are not sworn to uphold that?  Because that would be novel.

You are going to have to get over the fact that Trump is the CiC, that military officers have to do what he says, and there isn't anything illegal at all about an order not to talk to people about official business if it isn't in person.

He might be the biggest douche to ever live.  Doesn't matter.   There are no douchebag exceptions in the constitution or the chain of command.
 
Displayed 43 of 43 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.