It's Bibipalooza! Live, from Congress! One show only!

[Valmy]

Is Yi a radical?

I am sure Siege would consider him an establishment sellout and enemy of the people.

[Berkut]

Amazing the lengths the radicals in each party will go to justify anything their tribe does.

Is Yi a radical?

From the standpoint of knee-jerk defending his tribe, very much so.

[The Minsky Moment]

Which is the same thing Charlie Wilson did, but in that case it was not objectionable.  Or am I missing something?

What exactly did Charlie Wilson do?  All I know about him is that he was pro aid to the Afghan rebels; Massoud maybe?

[Admiral Yi]

What exactly did Charlie Wilson do?  All I know about him is that he was pro aid to the Afghan rebels; Massoud maybe?

Met with Zia ul-Haq, discussed more aid for Afghans and how it should be channeled.

Also met with Egyptian defense officials to arrange arms transfers.

Do you not watch movies?

[Valmy]

Yeah but again he was working with the executive branch to do that.

[CountDeMoney]

Yi is gonna make this square peg fit this round hole if it takes all day.

[Jacob]

What exactly did Charlie Wilson do?  All I know about him is that he was pro aid to the Afghan rebels; Massoud maybe?

Met with Zia ul-Haq, discussed more aid for Afghans and how it should be channeled.

Also met with Egyptian defense officials to arrange arms transfers.

How did that undermine the administration?

[Razgovory]

I did answer the question.  Directly.

In a spazzy way.

Excuse me, but the correct term is "Razy", not "spazzy".

[Admiral Yi]

How did that undermine the administration?

I don't think it does.

[The Minsky Moment]

What exactly did Charlie Wilson do?  All I know about him is that he was pro aid to the Afghan rebels; Massoud maybe?

Met with Zia ul-Haq, discussed more aid for Afghans and how it should be channeled.

Also met with Egyptian defense officials to arrange arms transfers.

Do you not watch movies?

Saw it a while ago, didn't recall the exact details, wouldn't necessarily trust Hollywood to get it accurate anyway.

The kinds of things you are talking about seem more like overseas "fact-finding" missions where the discussion centers around implementation of existing policy.   There is  precedent for that sort of thing although if the administration was not kept in the loop it would seem a bit dicey to me.

[Jacob]

How did that undermine the administration?

I don't think it does.

So that's the difference.

Talking to foreign governments with the buy-in of the administration, in pursuit of the administration's foreign policy goals is very different than talking to foreign governments without the buy-in of the administration, and with the explicit intention of undermining the foreign policy goals of the administration.

[Admiral Yi]

So that's the difference.

Talking to foreign governments with the buy-in of the administration, in pursuit of the administration's foreign policy goals is very different than talking to foreign governments without the buy-in of the administration, and with the explicit intention of undermining the foreign policy goals of the administration.

Unless the second is done indirectly.

Apparently.

[Jacob]

So that's the difference.

Talking to foreign governments with the buy-in of the administration, in pursuit of the administration's foreign policy goals is very different than talking to foreign governments without the buy-in of the administration, and with the explicit intention of undermining the foreign policy goals of the administration.

Unless the second is done indirectly.

Apparently.

That doesn't seem that difficult a distinction to make.

[Berkut]

So Yi, you are seriously suggesting that it is "fair pool" for members of the Senate to directly communicate with foreign belligerent powers with the express intent of sabotaging ongoing negotiations undertaken by the executive?

[Admiral Yi]

That doesn't seem that difficult a distinction to make.

It's a trivially easy distinction to make.

My point is that it seems like a fairly minor and technical point to hang a constitutional argument on.