Summary
Donald Trump’s transition team has bypassed standard FBI background checks for key cabinet nominees, relying instead on private investigators, as reported by CNN.
This breaks decades-old norms meant to vet candidates for criminal history and conflicts of interest.
Controversial appointees include Matt Gaetz (attorney general), Tulsi Gabbard (director of national intelligence), and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (health secretary), all facing scrutiny for past investigations, pro-Russian views, or personal admissions.
Critics argue Trump seeks to undermine traditional vetting, with potential security risks tied to bypassing these checks.
Well duh. That’s what’s a convicted felon would want to do if they got into power.
Given that last time they weren’t even real proper investigations, they were directed by the White House and didn’t actually look into things (in spite of Trump saying otherwise repeatedly), this is really only saving unnecessary spending.
Well, the FBI agents are still getting paid and they are paying private investigators so I’m pretty sure these fake investigations are costing even more than the other fake investigations did.
Of course je did. How else is he going to appoint criminals and people with conflicts of interest ?
Well call this process “efficient” and say that Musk came up with it in his big brain
Another “norm” that we thought was a requirement. The shittiest Civics class.
Tulsi Gabbard as the head of intelligence means the US intelligence community will have a blind spot in Russia, Ukraine and the Middle East. Plus many field agents are going to die. It’s going to be massive set back for Ukraine. And she’s probably going to relay everything to dictators like Putin and Assad. Mahalo Tulsi /s. And fuck your sPiRIt of alOHa
Talking about US funded biolabs, that are already public knowledge, is hardly evidence of being a Russian spy.
Saying solutions in Syria need to involve Assad is common sense, not heretical.
It’s crazy that all these things I thought were laws my whole life turn out to just be “norms” that can be totally ignored
deleted by creator
It turns out that the erosion of rights will be done for fun during the real task of butchering the federal infrastructure and agenci6snd selling them to the highest bidding friend
So… About that “deep state” I kept hearing about for the past 30 years… Think maybe now it’s probably the time, if there ever was one, to do something to preserve the world order.
Turns out the “deep state” are a bunch of rich people who don’t want to pay taxes. Oops.
The deep state was always meant to mean the FBI, FDA, EPA, and other agencies that while not always forces for good are forces of career bureaucrats that keep the United States a functioning nation.
Didn’t the deep state already green light an attempted assassination on Trump?
So, Cheeto is relying on private investigators…run by the Russian FSB. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, the Deep State is going to filled with neo-Nazis, religious nutters and Russian agents.
Always has been
I assume if they’re investigating or vetting anything it’s: will they be loyal to Trump? Anything good to hang on to as blackmail or extortion material?
How much corruption can we take before he’s even installed? For real. This is way fucken nuttier than last time. It seems so malicious.
We will take whatever he gives. The US voters approved him. They want this. They chose this, and everything that comes from it.
This. There is no authority above the authoritarian. His word is law now. Whatever Our Glorious Cheeto wishes is now US doctrine.
Void help us all.
I tried. I can’t do anything.
Did you check your pockets for a time machine? I bet you left it there and could make a quick pop back to the 90s and correct the timeline.
Gore?
Yeah, there’d be plenty of that
He got more votes than he ever did in the previous elections, and won the popular vote for the first time. God damn.
Rigged!!! /s
I’m not even sure what world be the worse outcome, more fraud and cheating from Trump or that so many people genuinely voted for him.
Sadly my gut tells me that real votes are the worse situation, and also the true one.
Yup. There will be lots of opportunities to say “well, I hope you didn’t vote for trump if you wanted ______”
Healthcare, retirement, any kind of social service, etc etc.
This is why we’re supposed to have separation of powers. Any competent senate, even if the same party would insist in this before confirming. A senate full of sycophants on the other hand ….
Thats not true. There are at least 71 million people here who voted against it. Thats a lot of people.
There were even more who couldn’t be bothered to get off their asses and vote at all. They stood by and allowed this to happen without caring enough to try and stop it.
I have a friend who says “I’m not political” and I’m just what? So you don’t have any opinion on whether immigrants should get fucked or gay people should have rights? His position is “I see so many families and friends torn apart by disagreements so I’m just not political”. Okay. It makes me think he’s kind of a dolt. I don’t feel like it’s possible to not have an opinion on social issues at the least.
He won the popular vote, and the electoral college. Majority rules. (Unfortunately)
…Assuming he actually did, and didn’t just commit all the electoral fraud he kept talking about
There is that…
Plenty of voter suppression in swing states, like unenrolling people from voter registration lists. Also the ongoing issues like 4 hour lines in urban areas, due to not enough voting facilities and machines, and short or no lines in rural areas and suburbs. Also, how it’s easier for people with certain types of jobs to go vote but hourly workers etc have a harder time getting there since voting day isn’t a holiday.
Also people who didn’t vote at all, are at minimum fine with Trump and not against him.
It seems so malicious.
I guess he was being honest about all that revenge talk, eh? I mean, it is actively and onerously malicious, but just like last time, everyone’s just gonna let Trump steamroll them, because the federal government has long had hesitance to hold figures like presidents, senators, and supreme court justices to account, and this is just an extension of that.
I mean, we didn’t prosecute Bush and Cheney for war crimes. Hillary Clinton was proud of her friendship with Henry Kissinger. Kamala Harris was proud of her endorsement by Dick Cheney.
“It’s a big club and we ain’t in it,” but Trump and co. don’t feel the need to put up the facade anymore.
“It’s a big club and we ain’t in it,” but Trump and co. don’t feel the need to put up the facade anymore.
Bingo. Instead of “hiring” (paying off) politicians, they’re just doing it themselves. They’ve lost any and all care about keeping up appearances. After all, what are we going to do? Sue them?
the federal government has long had hesitance to hold figures like presidents, senators, and supreme court justices to account, and this is just an extension of that.
Because if they start holding others in similar offices to account, they might have to hold themselves as well, and that ain’t happening.
The 4 years of Trumpsanity isn’t starting in January, it’s starting right now. For fucks sake, I’m not ready yet. I need to start stockpiling popcorn and booze. Except this time I’ll probably need less popcorn and more booze because I don’t think it’s going to be as stupid funny as last time. It’s already not funny, it’s been nosediving into “could it get any worse?” and so far the answer has been “Yes!”.
It annoys me a lot when people I know say “Trump is funny”. Not really… he’s a whiny, conceited asshole. He might be somewhat amusing if he wasn’t the President. As it is, this isn’t funny at all.
Trump himself wasn’t funny, but he would come across as funny because he would say the stupidest things or act in an unprofessional way. For example when he said the experts should look into if showing light inside a human body would kill COVID or maybe injecting disinfectant might work, that was stupid funny. There were others like the “who knew healthcare is so complicated” statement
It’s funny in a way but still horrifying since someone that narcissistic and ignorant is in charge of the government.
He called Putin for a reason
This breaks decades-old norms meant to vet candidates for criminal history and conflicts of interest.
Come the fuck on. The FBI background checks are a “norm” too? Do we have actual laws for anything?
The FBI were supposed to check Hunter Biden’s laptop.
The actual laws also don’t seem to matter, in all fairness.
Up till now, we didn’t really need them because everyone agreed it was the smart thing to do.
We’re done with smart.
“Up till now, we didn’t really need them because everyone agreed it was the smart thing to do”
That doesn’t sound very smart to begin with.
That’s the hope. If we’re gonna have a fascist state, at least let it be a bumbling incompetent fascist state.
America: relies on tradition because laws are for the poor
And the party of tradition won’t care
to his supporters, this just looks like someone who gets things done. and they probably don’t trust the FBI
A crook and convicted felon fills his cabinet with folk who probably can’t pass an FBI security screening? Color me shocked.
The robber barons are back, baby
No shit, one of his picks has white supremacist tats all over his body, one paid a minor for sex and gave them hardcore drugs, and the other is an actual Russian Agent.
Citation for “Actual Russian Agent”?
(Hillary Clinton said so doesn’t count. )
Whether she has a direct chain of command from Russia or not, she is a Russian Asset by her actions.
She has been non-interventionist and spoke positively of Vladimir Putin and Bashar al-Assad for decades.
Gabbard promoted party division during the 2016 elections by supporting Bernie Sanders for president even after Sanders asked people to vote for Hillary Clinton. This aligns with Russian psyops on social media at the time.
When Russia Invaded Ukraine she parroted Kremlin Newspapers on the false claims that the USA operated 36 Biolabs in Ukraine.
She sued Hillary Clinton for calling her a Russian Asset for some good press but then dropped the suit shortly after announcing it to the news. Meaning she thought Hillary could have actually won such a case if it went to court.
She has been non-interventionist and spoke positively of Vladimir Putin and Bashar al-Assad for decades.
Diplomatic can often be confused with positivity
Gabbard supported Bernie Sanders for president even after Sanders asked people to vote for Hillary Clinton.
When Russia Invaded Ukraine she parroted Kremlin Newspapers on the false claims that the USA operated 36 Biolabs in Ukraine.
Well, The US did fund biolabs in the Ukraine.
She sued Hillary Clinton for calling her a Russian Asset for some good press but then dropped the suit shortly after announcing it to the news. Meaning she thought Hillary could have actually won such a case if it went to court.
Meaning value was gained in publicity and saved in legal fees.
Fucking tankies, bro…
Diplomacy supporting war and death is not a good thing.
You linking to before doesnt argue the point.
She had a lot more to gain by successfully suing Hillary. The only reason to drop the case already filed would be because the allegations were true enough that the opponent could provide evidence and the supposed victim couldn’t demonstrate otherwise.
Diplomacy reduces the war and death.
Supporting Sanders over Clinton could be exactly why she started the “Russian Asset” lazy mudslinging.
The only reason to drop the case already filed would be because
Winning a case, quickly, cleanly and cheaply is impossible.
It certainty doesn’t prove guilt.
Diplomacy with fucking Assad certainly never reduced war or death. I bet 80+ years ago you would have been the type to advocate the USA allying with actual Adolf Hitler.
I’ve got an idea to win the case quickly and cleanly: not have anything to do with Russia and having the court send Clinton the bill (pun not intended).
Diplomacy with fucking Assad certainly never reduced war or death.
Gabbard said they discussed her meeting with Assad and stressed the importance of meeting “with adversaries or potential adversaries, not just our friends, if we are serious about the pursuit of peace.”
Asked if she viewed Assad as an “adversary” of the US, Gabbard demurred and said it was important to look at who posed a threat to the US and how the interests of other nations compare to those of the US.
Pressed on the point, she said, “You can describe it however you want to describe it.”
When asked later in the interview if she thought Assad was a good person, Gabbard said, “No, I don’t,” and asked if Russian President Vladimir Putin was an adversary to the US, she responded, “Yes.”
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/politics/tulsi-gabbard-syria-assad/index.html
I bet 80+ years ago you would have been the type to advocate the USA allying with actual Adolf Hitler.
Gabbards stance against Assad is exactly equal to America’s in 1945.
I’ve got an idea to win the case quickly and cleanly: not have anything to do with Russia and having the court send Clinton the bill (pun not intended).
That is a shitty, and ironically slow and expensive, idea.
