McEntire
Well-known member
- Pronouns
- she/her
Okay I did it. Below you can find a full transcript of the "radio show from hell" that started all the trouble. See if you can find the classified info! I bet you can't. And if I'm wrong and there is classified information in this transcript, I suppose that'll be another count on my nonexistent criminal indictment!
Transcript of the EBC Radio Show on the Recall of Senator McEntire, OR
The First Ever Arnhelm Alternative Word Search - Find the Classified Info!
JayDee: Welcome to our radio show concerning the recall issue and referendum debate of Senator McEntire. We are joined today by McEntire, CSP, and Pichtonia to debate and discuss the rationale for the petition and the ongoing changes in the dynamics of the debate as it has presented itself today. So please introduce all yourselves, McEntire, CSP, Pichtonia.
McEntire: Hi there. McEntire here, excited to chit and chat about it with some smart people.
CSP: I'm CSP, I'm here to fuck shit up.
Pichto: I'm Pichtonia, I'm also excited to be here.
JayDee: Thank you all for joining us in volunteering to be on this show. CSP, you were a last-second addition so can you tell us why you asked to be on this show? What compelled you to want to join?
CSP: Well, it's not like I haven't wanted to be a part of this discussion, as you guys know I wanted to run for Senate and then this thing kind of started blowing up and it seemed to me, and I had some discussions with a few people about this, that this might be a good time to explore what effective oversight of the Executive government can look like, right? Because in my mind, executive oversight isn't asking an ongoing series of clarifying questions, it's looking at a situation and saying, there's some ambiguity here or some controversy here or some potential for misunderstanding or a lack of understanding about what's really going on. And that makes it hard for the individual citizen to engage in this material in an educated or productive way. So, to me, that's the value of oversight and it's definitely something I want to talk about.
Now, it became very heated very fast, and I kind of decided that I didn't want to be a part of escalating that, but I also sort of feel like I've done a disservice to McEntire personally because I think that ultimately [she]'s trying to do [her] job and we'll get into some of the reasons why maybe [she] didn't do that in the most effective way, but I think ultimately [she]'s trying to do [her] job and [she]'s trying to fulfill the potential of the Senate as an institution for providing this kind of service to the citizenry at large. And I don't think there are as many voices standing up for that, but I think you can stand up for that without necessarily defending every single thing that McEntire has said or done throughout the process. So I think today I just hit a tipping point and I'm annoyed at the discourse, so that's why.
JayDee: So before we get to discussion of Sopo's eventual petition, Sopo was all the first to bring issue with the oversight approach as a whole that McEntire took. So that has been subject to controversy in and of itself. It's going to be hard to separate the recall petition from a lot of the executive oversight because it overlaps so much. But looking purely at oversight, we in the past have seen a really laissez-faire approach, just trusting the Executive that they're doing their job correctly and checking in every once in a while if a Ministry has gone inactive or completely rogue to make sure the President is handling it adequately.
But McEntire has taken an alternative approach and one that has come across as rather unpopular to a lot of people. Now, there is sort of a black and white dichotomy here that people seem to be [inaudible] that there should be either minimum oversight or maximum oversight. And that's been a tug of war basically since Europeia was founded. How can the Senate hold the Executive accountable without confining the Executive? It's a balance we struggle to find, it's a balance we will continue to struggle to find, it's always going to be a back and forth, a tug of war. Do you think McEntire has been going too far, or do you think that this is just maybe a more appropriate approach to oversight that we haven't been used to?
Pichtonia: Maybe to start because we just ended on CSP and I want to save his voice so we get to enjoy it more. I think this is an approach to oversight that is permissible, definitely, and you said maybe it isn't the most popular and that's okay. Oversight doesn't need to be popular, in fact maybe it's most important when it's not especially popular. I think the devil's a bit in the details here. I think what McEntire's doing is important. I think some of what [she]'s done in pursuing that oversight was not helpful or necessary. I think it was the 36-hour deadline that in my eyes was unnecessary and not helpful or some of the actions [she] undertook. I sometimes understand that they were [inaudible] too rushed, and I'm thinking about the lawsuits specifically, too rushed and maybe not yet at the point where there was no other avenue, [she] had to pursue it this way. It's a mixed bag, the oversight and what [she] intends to do is definitely valuable and necessary, but some of how [she]'s gone about it, in my eyes, I would agree was inappropriate but I take different conclusions from that, maybe spoiler the future of this discussion.
McEntire: Can I back things up just like two paces?
Pichtonia: Yes
McEntire: I don't think you're wrong at all, Pichto. Just to kind of start with why I even thought this was necessary in the first place. Is it ok if I start there?
Pichtonia: Yeah
McEntire: Because a lot of things happened at once, and I think it was kind of hard for people who were not doing it and dealing with it every day to see what was really going on, because we had a treaty ratification for us joining this defender bloc and self identifying as defenders, the Aegis Accords. While that was happening, we had a Presidential election, Rand versus PA. And then the day of the Presidential election, we have someone from... we have MadJack, who was a foreign affairs officer in the North Pacific and also a citizen in the Rejected Realms, leak that Europeia's president is spying on the Rejected Realms, and that we were therefore violating the alliance that we had just joined a few days earlier. So all of that happening at once created kind of a perfect storm. Rand was obviously turned out of office, I think partially because of the immediate impact of what MadJack had said.
So I immediately post in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs oversight thread just to say "hey, is this true? Are you spying on our new friends? We literally just signed this treaty two shakes of a lamb's tail ago. What's the truth here? What's the deal here?" And so just to give you a sense of why things escalated and we can get further into this as we go, basically Lime and I got together because we also had UPC had resigned doing his half-term pledge, so we only had a four-person Senate, so it's not like we had an operating majority to do much of anything.
So Lime and I put our heads together, and we said "okay, we need to get answers on this, and we need to provide a private channel because we know the Executive is not going to answer these questions in public." That's something we've done plenty of times before, we've had private briefings or private hearings, and so I had a lot of questions and originally the quote-unquote "deadline" that I put on them was "I'd really like this in a week, that would be great, let's let the dust settle and see what the deal is here" and we all agreed to that when we were confirming our foreign affairs advisor, Kazaman. We confirmed him within, I think, 12 hours of the nomination being posted, and he said "yes, your questions seem reasonable, I'm going to give you the answers to them, etc etc."
Now what made me shrink that deadline from a week to 36 hours, which I'm willing to accept may have been a little unreasonable, was a conversation with NES in which he revealed to me something that is now public but I did not know before, which was that wherever we got this leaked information that MadJack was accusing us of spying with, that we were treaty-obligated to protect the source. So if you go look at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs thread, the question I immediately posted was "did we get this from any allied intelligence service?" Because in my head, in what situation would we be treaty-bound to not tell the Rejected Realms who leaked from their forums? And that was the conclusion I jumped to, and that was why I expedited the request, because I thought, if we got this from an allied intelligence service, therefore we are in violation of the Aegis Accords, therefore I would want that, as a Senator and as a political person, I think drop all the info.
If you're about to have a crisis where the bottom really falls out, and I think breaking a treaty you've been in for three days is the bottom really falling out, you want to absorb that blow as quickly as you can, deal with the consequences, deal with the accountability, and move forward. So that was why I felt that I needed to expedite things. I also can look back and understand why maybe I should have been more measured, but when NES told me that and all the sudden I thought, why the fuck are we treaty-obligated to not tell the Rejected Realms where we got this piece of information that we're basically saying is innocuous and out there and everyone has it and it wasn't spying and it wasn't espionage, why on earth would we be treaty-bound to protect the source of that information? So anyway, just to give you an idea of where my head was at at that point, and that was why I felt that I really needed to escalate things. So that if this was actually a serious violation of the Aegis Accords, that we could get that information out there, deal with the consequences, and move past it as a region in as short of order as possible.
JayDee: Would anyone like to respond, provide comments, rationale, rebut McEntire's comments?
CSP: I'm certainly not interested in rebutting. I do think that, again, to take further steps back, if you'll indulge me. I think there are two important things here.
The first is, I think the system as it's designed and the system I'm referring to being the mechanism by which we provide executive oversight in the Senate, sets us up for a situation like this. Just having a thread where anyone asks questions at any old time about whatever they want encourages Senators to go out on a limb on their own without collaborating, without talking it over with folks. I think if we had a system and we wrote down what it looks like, and the Senate had to by simple majority or whatever say we're going to have a formal hearing about this thing, there would be time for them to talk about their objectives and their questions and whether they were good questions or whether they struck the right tone or not. And we could have a process out in the open that everybody could benefit from. I don't think this system lends itself to that kind of quality control or necessarily producing something that's for everybody's benefit. I respect the need of the Executive at that particular time to have a private discussion, but the idea that we're done after that, that doesn't work for me. I don't think that's what we're looking for as a citizen body in terms of oversight or holding any branch of government accountable, right? So I think the system sets us up for failure here. I think it set us up for a situation like this. And when you combine it with someone like McEntire, and we've been friends for a long time and I think we respect and trust each other enough for me to make some characterizations here, [she's] always been sort of an insurgent figure, a disruptor figure. If you can count on anybody to take on an adversarial tone with the executive government, it's going to be McEntire. So I think those two things put together were not necessarily a recipe for this going super well.
The second part that I think we've really missed on as a group of people is to consider a broader perspective of "what are people's roles here?" And for us to not have unrealistic expectations of people based on that role. So an example of that would be, like, yes Kazaman as director of the EIA is very closed-lipped, he does not elaborate unnecessarily, he is cagey, he is evasive, he is protecting information, which is his job. He doesn't have any incentive in his job, nor would he be doing the best job he could, if he was just giving the Senate everything that they wanted all the time or broadcasting to folks all the information that we want all the time. It's his job to protect information and that's what he's doing. So to expect him to be super forthcoming is setting yourself up for failure. On the flip side, I think we are looking to McEntire and saying, why can't [she] just do this in a way that makes everyone happy? That's not [her] job. So I think we're all sort of looking at each other and taking everything at face value instead of considering what roles we have to play here and whether we're fulfilling those or not. And I think that there's probably a little bit of blame to go around anywhere you look.
McEntire: Can I add a third thing to that too? Sorry Pichto and JayDee, I also wanna get back to y'all, I don't mean to monopolize this conversation whatsoever. But the third thing is I'm also not surprised by this response. Number one because I've gotten it before because I have been the one to stick my neck out on oversight things before and I have gotten, for lack of a better term, bitch-slapped before. I actually even point to the debacle with Pichto and I and the Senate Intelligence Commitee that I know that these issues blow up. So I think I was very prepared for that backlash, and that's even moreso when it comes to foreign affairs. We do have a culture where the Senate has not traditionally been involved in setting the foreign affairs agenda in any way.
And so to Lloen's point and question in the chat here, Lloen said "What do I think when the constitution specifies that the Executive has the sole responsibility and privilege of conducting foreign affairs?" So I would say that the key word in there is "conducting." So, I can't, as a Senator, go out to a foreign region and say "I'm representing the Europeian government and this is our foreign policy." That is solely the purview of the Executive. But what that doesn't mean, in my mind, is that the Senate can't set some parameters on how the executive conducts foreign policy, and there are constitutionally certain points of entry, one of those being the treaty ratification process. And again, part of my concern here was because this was happening right after the treaty ratification of Aegis. So not only was I interested in reviewing the foreign policy [inaudible], but really a domestic question, was the Executive appropriately forthcoming and did the Executive conduct the Aegis ratification process correctly? So I think that I understand what you're saying, Lloen, and I do agree that the Constitution says the conduct of foreign affairs is solely the purview of the Executive, and it is. But I don't think that means the Senate has no point of entry, or has no ability to check the Executive in any way in setting parameters for foreign policy and setting the law when it comes to how foreign policy is handled. Especially when it comes to treaties.
JayDee: McEntire, you've been bringing up the Aegis Accords debate pretty frequently, so I just want to introduce or call back to a conversation we had concerning how the ongoing development of this conversation of this theory has sort of tied in with some of the non-answers that Rand gave us during the questioning period on the Aegis Accords. So, is that something that you'd be willing to elaborate on? On how the [inaudible] a lot of the information is lacking in the debate itself, and how this could naturally lead us to conclude to certain events transpiring as whether or not they actually developed that way?
McEntire: I would invite everyone to - MadJack, after he posted his dispatch, he was indicted in the North Pacific on espionage charges, okay? And there was a Freedom of Information Act request to publish the logs of MadJack's conversations with Gorundu, the Delegate of the North Pacific. I would encourage, if anyone has not seen those, I've been posting them everywhere, go read them. Because what happens in that conversation is that after Rand tells Gorundu that he has received this post from MadJack, Gorundu comes to MadJack and says "hey, do you think Rand knows that he just spied on TRR?" effectively. And Gorundu says "I'm gonna go tell Rand that he just spied on TRR." And then he says "hey, Rand just ignored me telling him that he spied on TRR." So that was the view of the North Pacific, our closest ally. So for me to be concerned about this, I don't think it's beyond the pale.
But rewinding, because this post has been flying around everywhere, I want to give everyone a sense of the timeline. MadJack made this infamous leaked post on May 30th. The hearings for the ratification of the Aegis Accords open in the Senate the next day, May 31st. So my, one of my questions, and one of the things I tried to make public, is when did the Executive have their hands on that post? Because it's hard to see, for instance I asked, "hey, TRR abstained on our entrance into the Aegis Accords. Do we have any insight into their internal conversations?" Rand said "we have no insight into the conversations of other regions." If he had this post from MadJack, it's hard to understand how he thought that he didn't have to disclose that publicly or privately. Lime asked, "hey, do we think that us joining Aegis is going to affect our relationship with the North Pacific?" If they had this post, which is the North Pacific's FA officer basically trashing us joining Aegis, it's hard to see how, in the face of that question, they would not think that they had to disclose, publicly or privately, to the Senate. It doesn't make sense to me how, if you have this explosive piece of information, we all know it's explosive because look at what's happened in the post-"leak", how you would think that the Senate didn't need to know that.
And even worse, if they did have - the vote to ratify the Aegis Accords passed on June 4th, and according to the logs, Rand confronted Gorundu on June 6th. So if they sat on this and didn't take action on it, even though they thought that it was such a crucial piece of information, if they sat on it specifically so that it wouldn't affect the Senate vote, that to me is a material omission and something that I don't fuck with. You don't get to decide what you tell the Senate when we're signing the "full faith and credit" of the Europeian government and the Europeian people and the ERN to a multilateral alliance, you don't get to decide that you're not going to tell the Senate about a major controversy brewing behind the scenes, if they had access to that post. So anyway, that's my deal with the Aegis ratification. We asked very specific questions that, to your point JayDee, did get non-answers. And it appears there was a lot more going on behind the scenes that we were not privy to. And as a Senator that take the power of treaty ratification seriously, that does not sit well with me. It does not sit well with me at all.
JayDee: So that leads me to another question concerning this relationship between treaty ratification and the Senate in general. Usually, we see the Senate sort of waive the whole process and just [inaudible] the President presents regardless of the shock value. So we saw Rand present the treaty of friendship with Lazarus and everyone was like "where the fuck did this come from?" but the Senate ratified it anyway with no objection. Do you think that this process needs some more scrutiny? Do you think the Senate is owed perhaps more sensitive answers, classified answers, if not publicly at least in private, or more frequent dialogue between the Executive and the Senate to get more information on treaties. Whether or not they're controversial or whether it's like a simple "hey, we're gonna be friends with Balder, we're besties and we've been besties" but there's also more controversial ones like Aegis Accords. Which wasn't super controversial, it enjoyed 90% support among the region and I only abstained on principle. But still, there might be these sensitive answers. So do you think the Senate is owed those answers, or do you think there should be some discretion where the Senate can operate with these assumptions of good intent?
McEntire: I mean, this isn't my opinion. This is the law. That no one can omit material facts in an official government proceeding. That's a criminal offense and it's called making false statements. So, yeah, if there's things that are too sensitive to be disclosed publicly, you disclose them privately, and we've tried time and time again and maybe Pichto you have some thoughts on this, to create these channels where they can share things that are more private. But again, it's not my opinion, it's the law. You may not omit material facts in a dealing with the government.
CSP: And here again, I think if there was a formal public process that we had codified in some way, you allow the Executive government to come into that process and say, I'm not answering that question on these grounds. Invoking whatever statute or principle or concern that they have, and then we, as a citizen body, can decide if that's appropriate or not.
Pichtonia: And the thing is we have these grounds not to reply in the SPA, right? They can say no, this goes against regional security, or we're not authorized to disclose or whatever. But they didn't in this case. Obviously Pland did so by now to some questions, I don't remember right now which those were, but the government has these tools already to not answer on certain grounds. I also, while I take the [inaudible], do want to rebut something that was probably said 10 minutes ago. But McEntire, when you talked about the conversation between Gorundu and MadJack, I didn't feel and I didn't read it as Gorundu saying "does Rand realize he was spying as TRR?" The spying thing is something that MadJack later brought up as inflammatory, which it really is, in his inflammatory dispatch. But I didn't get the feeling from the conversation that Gorundu was even implying that Rand had spied.
McEntire: I agree with that, but what he did say was that we were treaty-obligated, and so to me the only provision that applies to that is the treaty provision saying that we have to inform them of any act of subversion. So then it kind of follows to me that Gorundu would've considered that an act of subversion, because I don't know any other piece of the treaty that would apply.
JayDee: Okay, so let's move to the actual recall debate itself, we've seen the rationale in favor and those against. Constantly evolving pretty much by the day. I've gone from Sopo saying that McEntire made the Executive look bad and being very hostile, to people saying McEntire's character has been questionable, and the other's saying, well McEntire's been dropping a lot of [her] crusade, so that's sort of become the rationale now in favor versus those opposed, as opposed to earlier where it was a lot of "McEntire has gone too far, if we remove McEntire, that basically gives the Executive [inaudible] to do whatever they want and the region will always cover for the Executive." So how have you guys been following along with these developments, and if you want to disclose for McEntire to hear, where does your personal opinion fall on this developing spectrum?
CSP: I think mostly I've just been frustrated. I think it's been a very Euro debate. I'm trying to think of how to say this in the way that I'm really intending it because I don't feel like I have a dog in this fight. As I've said before, I've been President 5 times, I was on the EAAC for many years, I understand the need to deal with information in a specific and deliberate sort of way. I also, again, think the Senate has a more prominent role to play and more to do to fulfill its potential as a true check and balance on the executive government. So I'm not really cheering for or against anybody here, but I do think that, and plenty of people will tell me I'm wrong and they have every right to, but it seems that the essence of this argument is that McEntire has made things too difficult for the Executive, and that is somehow unbecoming of a Senator.
Which is sort of mind-boggling to me, I think the biggest criticism you could make of McEntire in this situation is just that [she] was, in some ways, ineffective in what [she] was trying to do, in other ways [she] was effective but [she] did it in a way that pissed a bunch of people off. So you could spend all day talking about the things [she] could've done differently to get the outcome [she] was looking for faster, but it's not the Senate's job to be collaborative with the Executive. Would it be nice if it could work that way all the time? Yeah, sure, it would be. I would love to eat ice cream every day and not keep getting fatter, as I am. But it's just like, that's not the way the world works, it's not the way nature works. If you're going to be a true check and balance to another branch of government, it is at times going to be adversarial. Did it need to be this adversarial? No! Again, not the way I would've gone about it. But I think that is an absolutely ridiculous reason to remove somebody from office. And I think some of the rhetoric here has been really high handed.
I think we're treating this as if McEntire has done or said something that is completely beyond the pale, like something that we determine as a society is just not acceptable discourse, and I just do not see that anywhere. And I'm reading some of these posts, especially over the last 24 hours, that are looking for contrition from McEntire and the fact that [she]'s just doubling down means that I was on the fence but now I'm voting to recall you. I mean, it must be lonely up there in that ivory tower because, well I guess it's not lonely because there are plenty of people occupying that space, I'm really frustrated with it. And it seems that people are taking themselves really really seriously and I've been super frustrated with that. But again, I don't think-
JayDee: How long have you been in Europeia?
CSP: Too fucking long my friend. Going on 14 years. It's been really frustrating for me, I guess, is the answer to the question. And again I want to reiterate that I see a lot of posts from McEntire that could be construed as frustrating or not effective, but the idea that any of it is inappropriate or unbecoming - and maybe this report was just the most disgusting thing that has ever been produced by a Europeian but we'll never know, so for me that's inadmissible.
McEntire: What do you think, JayDee? JayDee, did you have a stroke when you read the draft report? Was it absolute drivel?
JayDee: Well, before I even started reading it, I was like "oh shit, that was fast, is this hearing going to be done already?" And then I read it and I was like "oh, okay... interesting." And I saw all the comments from Kazaman at the bottom and I thought "okay, yeah, this is going to take a while." I'm limiting my comments to that because Pichto has been rather silent and I think that-
McEntire: Cop out! Cop out!
Pichtonia: I'm happy to give my commentary. But I'm interested to hear about your characterization of the report, because that mostly what we've been hearing from non-Senators, how terrible this report was going to be. You have said it, Gem has said it, Lime has said it, that you wouldn't support the report, and Prim of course as well. But there's some characterizations of the report going out where I think, oh no, is the world going to end?
McEntire: "Bizarre." "Not based in any facts." "Containing many falsehoods."
Pichtonia: Wait until you hear what I'm going to say, McEntire! [laughter]
McEntire: No no no, I'm laughing, I'm saying these are the things that people have been saying.
JayDee: Okay, so I don't think that Mac's report being published would be the apocalyptic, World War Z, end-of-Europeian issue that people seem to blow it up as. Was it biased? Yes. And was some of it harshly critical of the Executive? Yes. That's gonna happen when you have a non-neutral report. Someone's opinion is going to be part of that report. Do I agree with some of Mac's conclusions in the report? No, I do not. Would I support publishing it? No, I would not.
I can't really speak too much on the content of the report because I'm not Kazaman, I'm not Pland, I don't know what exactly is classified, what is sensitive, and what is not. I mean, it's just better to assume that everything is and find out later that we can talk about it. So right now, given how sensitive a lot of this information is, and how Kazaman basically openly said during the hearing "hey, this stuff is said with the strictest of confidence, some of this stuff is incredibly stupidly tremendously classified" well he didn't exactly say it like that, but there was a lot of "this is classified, this is classified, this is super classified." So any report from the Senate is going to be very contrite. It's going to have to be, based on the nature of how sensitive this information is and how delicate the situation has become from its origin. So, I can say I don't think McEntire's report was within the narrow scope, and is it something that we could use as a baseline? Sure, but I - Prim's also been sharing his own report around, I'll admit I haven't read that one yet because there's just so much other shit to worry about.
McEntire: I didn't get that one. I thought we were all working together in the Senate now?
JayDee: Okay, so Prim has not been sharing his thing around. I [inaudible] want to be clear. It's just, when you deal with something like this, I've never been part of a private hearing before, I'm going to be honest. So I'm sort of new to it, it's very difficult to openly discuss something like this. Even during my radio show with Kazaman, I tried to poke him about, hey, what's the deal with this treatied ally we can't disclose the information from? It's not something he can talk about at all, period.
McEntire: But here's the thing-
JayDee: He hasn't even talked about it in the hearing itself, it's that sensitive to them.
McEntire: Right, but how possibly? Because one thing, and I've asked it publicly so I'll talk about it. We said, hey, you can't tell us what the source is, can you tell us what the treaty provision is? All of our treaties are pretty copy-paste, so shouldn't be really revealing anything. That's why I sought judicial review, because I'm like, you don't get to just say "I'm not going to say, and this is all I'm going to say on it and I'm not going to say" if you don't actually have a reason to do so. Are you seriously telling me that saying which treaty provision blocks the release of this, that that somehow would endanger regional security? That doesn't make any sense to me, and furthermore, if this information was provided by some rogue individual and not an allied intelligence service, what treaty provision covers rogue random individuals sending things to governments? I don't know of any.
So, I said this very early on in the process, and again I'm not trying to have a problem with them. But I said early on in the debate, I'm not going to have people playing in my face. I'm not going to have people telling me things that don't make sense and me go "oh, you know what okay! Let me put my stamp of approval! I actually love it!" No, if you say something to me that doesn't make sense, I'm going to keep asking follow-up question to clarify it. And that point, to me, does not make sense. And maybe it's conspiratorial to think that amounts to some kind of greater problem or wrongdoing, but I don't know why that can't be revealed, even in private to the Senate. And it doesn't make any sense to me. So I'm going to keep trying to figure out what actually happened here.
Pichtonia: Yeah, and I think that's fair. I don't think, well I don't know, but at least publicly no one is saying, McEntire can't ask anything at all. I think for many people it really is more about the conduct, and Lloen has said something in the thread. Lloen, of course, always says something very intelligent, in this instance I refer particularly to one of his posts in the recall referendum debate, where he said something to the effect of "everyone sets their own individual limit of what is too far for them, what is a good reason for recall" and I think that's fair to respect. There will be many people, and I understand them wholeheartedly, who say "no, McEntire, what you've done here goes too far for me, this is a reason for recall." I agree that you've gone too far in some aspects, but I think you shouldn't be recalled, to spoil that already. But I also think some of the points in this debate don't convince me. I mean, we've heard for example, and this is in fact going back to the Senate we two shared, McEntire, which you've already referred to earlier, where we discussed the Senate Intelligence Committee. I sat there publicly on the Senate floor and we went back and forth and I kept having to correct things you said because I felt they were mischaracterizing. And I also said on the Senate floor, I'm not going to talk privately with you anymore about Senate matters. So to me, this was not at all a surprise the conduct. You might disagree with me and say this is not the nicest defense of me, but you've heard worse in recent days, this is still one of the nicest defenses.
McEntire: [laughter] Yes.
Pichtonia: So this was not at all a surprise to me, and when I hear many people, and some obviously don't have to remember, no one has to remember this obviously, it's something we both remember because we were involved. To hear that "I voted for you and I'm so shocked you behaved this way" is not at all understandable to me. And CSP, I don't know how you see this, but you said earlier that McEntire is someone you can argue with and [she]'s putting up a bit of a fight, so that in and of itself was not the most surprising thing. To me, wouldn't be a reason to recall now. This is who McEntire is sometimes, and [she] goes too far and I think if [she] deserves a slap for that, speaking in images, then I think that's fair. But I wouldn't have recalled [her] for that, personally.
And to also add on to that Senate term where we discussed the Senate Intelligence Committee, the reason why I still support McEntire despite me disagreeing with [her] approach is that in that term, in the end my side more or less won the debate we had about oversight then, and we continued with the framework that the Senate had produced in previous terms. But in the end it was disappointing, the whole process and the results yielded from it were not at all satisfactory. And if I was to do the process again I would say we can't do it the same way, and it does not yield any results. And it was probably the most disillusioned I had ever been with oversight, going back to what CSP said. Maybe that's the role that the other party has taken in this event. But as a Senator, you're entirely in the right to say, in your experience and from what you think is important, to say no, we need to act differently here. And if I see then that we have a lot of people attacking you for that, especially those who've decided our foreign affairs in recent history and who have a vested stake in this, Sopo, Writinglegend, obviously Kazaman, then I think while I get why they're defensive about this, but I'm really happy that you're here to ask the questions. And I personally feel if you weren't in the Senate, I would be worried that we wouldn't get that. We do see, for example, Prim, who said no, everything is good, and also let's shut down oversight on the Executive. Which, to me, is the complete opposite direction of you. So I think you give an important role to the Senate and I think it's important that there's someone who pursues these things. And do I wish it was done differently? Yes. But beggers can't be choosers.
McEntire: Thank you, Pichto. That's very nice. There's also another thing here. There's the question of "did we- or did the Executive act properly in the Aegis ratification?" There's kind of the question of the "did we act properly in taking this leaked information to TNP and the way we did that?" And then there's a third thing, which is related but a little bit different, which is that there's also growing pains with new alliances. And we have had a lot of the same folks kind of on top of our foreign policy, and one of the things that I've taken from this is let's say that the situation was reversed. Let's say that we had a sensitive piece of information from the North Pacific and we were going to go confront our Aegis allies in the Rejected Realms about it. Does anybody really think that we wouldn't run it by TNP first? Does anybody? And so I think that there's a certain amount of legacy bias because we've had a bad relationship with TRR in the past, that we're treating them differently than we would treat any other ally. And frankly, that was one of the reasons that I did make a stink about this as well, because I think that that kind of behavior needs to be called out at the beginning of the process, you know? At the beginning of our relationship within Aegis. I don't know if anyone has thoughts on that, in terms of how our legacy bias of our past relationships and how we handled things in the past may have caused us to have a bit of a double standard.
But I also want to answer Lloen's question really quickly. "Do I think that a different result to the oversight request was possible if things had been handled differently?" I hate to say this, because I know this is not going to be a popular answer, and I'm in my Miss Congeniality era right now, I'm trying to mend fences and I'm trying to beat this recall, but no. I think at any time that I did this it was going to blow up. And frankly, and this is going to be a very cynical analysis, but I need everyone to just take it for what it is, frankly I don't think the Executive - they were very forthcoming with us in that private briefing. And I think if they had felt that their position was totally solid, I don't think that they would have done that at all. So, when you have an inquiry like this, and I think that this is a lesson that I've also gotten from real-life politics, the beginning or the point at which you have the most leverage, is the time when you need to expand the scope of the inquiry, because it's not going to get better from there. The idea that things would have just settled down and then Kaz would have come to us and said "heyyy, here's all the things that we did wrong, by the way, and feel free to put that out publicly and hug hug kiss kiss," any time that I've conducted oversight, it has been met with saying that it's not the right time. And maybe there are ways in which that's true, and I'm not saying that this was all done correctly, but I think at any time it was done, if I was as firm as I had been in seeking answers, it was going to blow up. And I think that I, frankly, regret that it made their lives harder, I regret that it added more stress to Pland Adanna, who I loved and supported for President, and Kazaman, who I have had a contentious but good relationship with, that I regret that it made their lives harder, and I regret that it caused problems within the region writ large, but I don't actually regret doing it, because I think that we needed to use that point to - Peeps has a question too - I think that point in time was the point at which we needed to ask questions if we were going to get a response, frankly. I've seen this rodeo go around a lot of times.
To Peeps' question, why I've said that the Executive has furnished every document that we requested. So, my initial questions, when I talk about documents, I requested four specific documents. So I requested conversations between Rand and Gorundu, I requested the original post from MadJack, I requested the Modern Gameplay Compact post that also caused MadJack- I requested some specific documents. So when I say that the Executive has furnished every document I've requested, they were very straightforward and forthcoming with my first round of questioning. With my second round of questioning, and when I requested that we could bring in Rand and Writinglegend to testify, that's when I was told no. So, it wasn't that I was ping-ponging back and forth on my assessment of them, it's that I was trying to put out a positive vibe because they were doing what I wanted, and then they stopped. And so my perspective changed.
And one last question from Lloen, do I think it's possible that it could've or did impact our regional relationships? Again, I think this whole issue has affected our interregional relationships, I think this whole affair has affected our interregional relationships [conversation with Lloen in chat]. I don't think that the Senate- and that was something that people really leaned on me with. I had Writinglegend and NES and all these people in my DMs, telling me "people are watching what the Senate's doing right now, and you need to be careful, and da da da da" and again, my position is that the damage is done. How much is disclosed about this really just impacts our ability to correct it. It wouldn't be the Senate hurting those relationships if we get to the bottom of the matter and find that there were issues of how it was handled. And in fact, again, what I was trying to do was rip the bandaid off so we could repair our relationship with our Aegis allies. Because I think there was a perception that we treated TRR differently. And I think it's probably a fair one. So anyway, to your question, it's a very complicated question actually, about how it affects our interregional relationships. And I also have not at any point been presented with any information that it actually has hurt any of our relationships, this whole kerfuffle. I've asked for it, but I've not actually been provided any evidence of that. So I don't have any reason to believe that that's true.
CSP: I think it's worth saying that, if again we are considering what people's jobs are here, if McEntire by whatever legal means, as a result of [her] oversight, forces the Executive to disclose something, a fact, that is detrimental to our foreign affairs, that's not [her] spilled cheerios to worry about, that's [her] doing [her] job. So again, I think the idea that internal dissent gives our enemies ammunition may be correct, but that's not how representative democracy works.
JayDee: I've been holding on to this question for quite a while, because Lloen just keeps pre-empting me, thank you. But it's almost human nature, really, that we assume good faith in those who we see as our leaders. [inaudible] there's always a boss, there's always someone who's in charge, and we sort of assume good faith, good intentions, until suddenly there's just too much shit, for lack of a better word, on the wall it all just blows over and we have a bigger crisis, versus if we just handled each issues as it came along. Do you guys see this as sort of the amalgamation of all these assumptions of good faith that were never really challenged? And now it's all coming to blows here with the region pushing the limits of Senate oversight when it's finally challenged, or do you think that this is an evolution of a developing relationship between the Senate and the Executive that has slowly put more power into the Senate to hold the Executive accountable?
CSP: I guess I'll start. I think that in this particular instance, we've punted that possibility of this being productive down the road. Maybe this is a first level step that allows us to point back to this at a future controversy or point of clarification where we can say "okay, well it didn't work last time let's make it work this time because..." but now we're not, some people are so I shouldn't say that "we're" not, but as a group right now we're focused on this recall, we're not focused on the facts of what did or didn't happen, what was or wasn't said by whom and when. In terms of MadJack's PNG designation or how this information was handled, right? We're talking about McEntire and whether [she]'s a big stupid meanie or not. And I don't think after this recall is over we're going to really revisit those issues with the full attention and intention that they deserve. I'm confident that the Senate will produce something, but the moment will have passed for us to really sit with this and consider it as a community and better ourselves as a result. I think that's going to be for the future.
McEntire: I mean, I think that's probably right, although I hope that the Senate will push for a really robust timeline and statement of facts. Personally, I think that there was nothing biased or problematic about my timeline that I constructed, it was all based directly on quotes, so I don't particularly understand why we can't just use that. But the Senate wanted to start over, because I think there are perception issues here. To your point, though, is it a problem that we don't have any system and we're all just relying on good faith? I think that's something that CSP has said, and it's true, that we need a more robust actual system in place because it's kind of scattered everywhere and no one has an expectation. And let me say again what I said earlier, Kaz and I have come to blows a lot of times, but I don't really have a problem with him and he doesn't have a problem with me - maybe he does actually, some of his posts seem like he does - but we're not talking about feelings. We're talking about positions. He's trying to protect the prerogative of the Executive the best that he can, and if he thinks that there will be a report that comes out that will have damaging information, he is going to try and reduce the scope of that as much as possible.
Likewise, I don't have feelings, I mean I have been feeling feelings, but it's not that I'm so whipped up about this that I need to do a judicial review, it's that I'm a Senator and I'm going to establish my position, to CSP's point, to do my job. So again, I would just ask people to keep that in mind, that this is really a game of, as much as we want to pretend that it's a game of feelings and harmony and community, it's a game of leverage and positions and politics. And that's also at play here, you know? It's not personal. I don't have a vendetta against... I had a really good relationship with Rand his whole time in office. I had a great relationship with Gleg over the years. So yeah, I would just ask people to keep that in mind, that it's not personal, that it's not coming from any kind of negative place. There are actual competing interests, competing powers, ideological differences at play here, and those things can be incredibly serious without dipping into the personal.
JayDee: Well I think that brings us to a pretty natural conclusion, so does anybody have any closing remarks before we cut this show off?
Pichtonia: I do hope that we can come down from this afterwards. I feel like - even though you say it's not personal for you - and while I imagine your motivations aren't personal, that's probably absolutely true. But I feel like some of the debate has gotten into personal territory, just generally. And I hope we can remove ourselves from that again, focus on the issues, focus on how best to solve them, calm down, take a step back, be calm, and just continue to do oversight in a precise, maybe even for the executive hurtful manner [laugh]. Just focus on the issues and stop... now I lost my train of thought again. But yeah, focus on the issues, don't get lost in these mud fights. I don't think this has helped our region the way it's been discussed. Even though what's being discussed is very important. And I hope we can focus on that again.
McEntire: Yeah, I don't disagree. I mean, I do think that again no matter how I approached it, if I have a spine, they're gonna say that I'm a dangerous radical who's a threat to regional security. And that is my opinion, but I do need to work on not reacting and not firing back with something personal when I feel someone has directed something personal at me. I'm just not good at that.
Pichtonia: Yeah, that's fair! And sorry if I interrupt you now, but I see on the thread that people were like "oh, McEntire, just stop responding! You're not making this better for you! I was just going to vote for you!" Their opinion is fair, but I find it so hard not to respond to things when I feel they're unjustified that I can't blame you for it at all.
McEntire: I shouldn't be reactive, I understand that. Phoenix's question, "when a lot of this started to get personal, was there any idea in your mind to do damage control instead of focusing on the investigation?" Um, no. Because I've known these people for over a decade, and I know that the shit they're throwing my way is not, I don't believe it's personal for them, I think it's a position. And that sounds cynical and it is, so whatever. My final thoughts would just be that I do feel very confident about this recall, I think that most people, I've GOTV'd every citizen which I've never done. Not even in my campaigns, which is probably by some of them weren't successful. The conversations I'm having, a lot of people are saying "okay, yeah, I don't this is recall-able," I feel really good about it, and I'm not super worried about actually being recalled. But my concern is just that the process continues to move. So, we'll see how that goes, and see how it unfolds, but I hope that the Senate gets moving, I haven't seen anything really since Gem and Lime's motion. JayDee, apparently there's a draft of something circulating, I don't know, but. I just wanna get past this thing, get back to work, and move forward.
CSP: I do love a closing thought, and I have several, but I won't do that to you. I will just say that I am going to be voting against the recall of Senator McEntire. For me, this is an issue that's much bigger than McEntire. It's much bigger than the discussions that we've had over the last week or so. I think that setting a precedent that the people that are in the know are going to be questioned either aggressively or not, are going to stand up more or less as a unit and say "no, we're not having this, we're removing you from office," I think that's a precedent we do not want to be setting. I'm not casting aspersions on anyone or assigning nefarious motives or personal motives to anybody, but that, to me, is the real-world effect, regardless of the intent. I know Sopo pretty well, I love the guy. I don't think he's trying to do anything wrong or personal or backward here. But I think the effect of this recall going through is something we will be dealing with for a long time. I also think that, to Pichto's point earlier, like it or not, McEntire has been a voice without which I don't think we would be seeing any report, whether that report is editorialized or dangerous or milquetoast, I don't think we would see a damn thing if McEntire wasn't in the Senate, and I think that that's something that we should be thinking about. So I'm going to vote no, I urge others to vote no regardless of whether you think McEntire is a dude who [END OF RECORDING}
