Kirk Lippold

So, @Delta, how long is DL 1723 going to sit on the ground without an update from the crew about the broken toilet system??? At some point you either fix it, find a new plane, or deplane and put everyone up in a hotel for the night and rebook. Silence is not customer service.

Always a pleasure to have @KirkLippold on the show to gain his expertise and extensive knowledge on issues.

Good evening @RepRoKhanna. We hope you had a nice Saturday. Several people have requested we comment on your post. We will quickly before we take Mrs. USOGA out for date night. First - like you, we hope this war will end soon and things will return to normal. Until then - things will be what they will be. But high gas prices in your district aren’t “Trump’s war”—they’re Sacramento’s doing. California drivers pay nearly double the national average in state taxes, plus cap-and-trade, Low Carbon Fuel Standard, unique reformulated gasoline, refinery limits, and geographic isolation that blocks cheap imports. That adds $1.00–$1.78+ over the U.S. average. Here is our suggestion. Your proposed windfall profits tax will do nothing to bring relief to your overtaxed and underappreciated constituents. Instead -suspend those state-level taxes first and bring California prices in line with the national average. Put your state bureaucracy on a diet. They could stand to shed a few pounds. Encourage California domestic oil and gas production and expand your refinery capacity instead of shutting it down. Stand up to your Governor. You know he is wrong and you can be on the right side of things And let's talk windfall profits tax. They don't work. While you don't call it a windfall profits tax, California recently passed one and called it a "wealth tax" now you see high net worth individuals fleeing your state. History proves it backfires. The 1980 Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax cut domestic production 1–8% (hundreds of millions of barrels lost), boosted imports 3–13%, raised far less revenue than projected after deductions, created massive bureaucracy, and was repealed in 1988 because it discouraged supply exactly when America needed more. That in turn led us to depend even more on Middle East imports for another 20 years right up until the shale revolution occurred. Kind of like how California is dependent on imports now. Your repeated sponsorship of a new Big Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act would repeat the exact same mistake—shrinking U.S. output and raising costs. Crude exports? They expand global supply, narrow price spreads (WTI-Brent) which is exerts downward pressure on world prices. It is directly helping allies in Europe and Asia counter China's skirting sanctions and colluding with Iran to purchase crude at huge discounts. Restricting exports would tighten markets, spike costs everywhere—including here—and hurt the consumers you claim to protect. Finally we must also point out that your voting record shows consistent opposition to our industry you want to tax. For example, you: Voted against leasing more public lands and waters for oil drilling (2023, Roll Call 23). Voted against reversing land-management protections to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil and gas drilling—multiple times, including 2025 Roll Call 295 and earlier efforts to halt ANWR development. Opposed critical oil and gas leasing reforms and fast-tracking fossil-fuel infrastructure (2024 Roll Call 95; 2025 votes undermining LNG authority and blocking fracking bans). Voted NO on NDAA provisions that would expedite oil/gas permitting (2022–2023). You have a 99% lifetime League of Conservation Voters score—near-perfect opposition to domestic energy exploration, production and leasing. You’ve led hearings attacking us and sponsored bills to repeal industry tax provisions. Fine—own that record. But please stop shifting blame to “Trump’s war” or federal policy while California’s own choices keep your constituents paying the highest pump prices in America. Real relief comes from more American supply + streamlined permitting, not recycled 1980s taxes or more restrictions. Energy abundance, not rhetoric, lowers prices and bolsters U.S. and allied security. Mrs. USOGA has instructed us to put the phone away so we will do that. Have a good weekend.

PENTAGON FOCUSED ON REOPENING THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ @KirkLippold says the first step is proving U.S. ships can safely pass through, warning they will be “prime targets.”

Hi there, Rep. Khanna. Retired Army JAG here & current prof of int'l law. And you are way out of your depth. You should consider sticking to legislating & leaving #LOAC commentary to actual specialists. Like me. Allow me to explain. First off, if a power plant is "dual use," then attacking it is, by definition, NOT an "indiscriminate bombing." Here's why. As DoD Law of War Manual notes, this term is often "used to describe objects that are used by both the armed forces and the civilian population, such as power stations" (pic 1). The Manual also correctly points out this term has no legal significance. Either something qualifies as a military objective such that directing an attack against it is permitted, or it's a civilian object such that it may not be made the object of attack. See the problem yet? That's right! If something is "dual-use," it qualifies as a military objective...and directing an attack against a military objective is, by definition, NOT "indiscriminate" (pic 2). Back to pic 1, the Manual also notes that when attacking "dual-use" objects, "it will be appropriate to consider in applying the principle of proportionality the harm to the civilian population expected to result from the attack on such a military objective." You might notice I emphasized "proportionality" & "expected" there, and I did so because it's a preview to your next massive error. Here's what you claim about proportionality in your 🧵: "Proportionality forbids attacks where expected incidental civilian harm including effects like loss of hospital power, water pumps failing, food spoilage or extreme heat or cold exposure. This is excessive compared to the concrete military gain per Article 51(5)(b)." We'll get to your selection of source (AP I) later. For now, let's focus on how badly you botched the proportionality rule. To describe what the actual rule is supposed to look like, let's go back to the Manual. As it observes, personnel engaged in hostilities "must refrain from attacks in which the expected loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, and damage to civilian objects incidental to the attack would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained" (pic 3). Now, I added bold text to the "expected" at the beginning & end because this highlights your next mistake. Yes you correctly note expected incidental harm is part of the equation, but you left out "expected" on the military advantage component. This is a massive error because you need to be able to tell what the expected incidental harm is & the expected (or anticipated) concrete & direct military advantage is for each attack in order to assess whether the former was "excessive in relation to" the latter. And, do you have any intel indicating what degree of incidental harm AND concrete & direct military advantage is for each attack you purport to be addressing? No, of course you don't. As such, you're not conducting a legitimate proportionality assessment. Which, is easy if you don't properly articulate law. Hell, you can make pretty much anything seem illegal if you can come up with any bullshit articulation of the legal standard you feel like fabricating. But we're not allowed to do that in actual practice. And so, you shouldn't either in public discourse, or else you're creating a false impression that potentially lawful conduct is illegal. And another thing - I noticed you left off the direct part of "concrete & direct military advantage" in your bullshit version of proportionality. That matters because remote harms need not be factored (pic 4). Some prospective harms you mentioned probably are direct enough, but others...not so much. Finally, I also noticed you claim AP I binds 🇺🇸 "as customary international law." But not all of AP I is customary, which is why I draw from the Manual instead. I'll finish off with a simple pro tip: stay in your lane. Leave LOAC analysis to @DeptofWar. And actual experts...like me.