Who will be in trumps cabinet?

[The Frankish Reich]

Pet peeve of mine (oh, and I've got many of 'em): I've worked for the federal government. I've had clearances. I've been through the whole process. Interviewing neighbors and work associates about my behavior. Excessive drinking? Any illegal drug use? Extra-marital affairs? Contacts with undesirable people like strippers and hookers and drug dealers? Sexual harassment allegations and other workplace behavior?

Getting my prints taken. Giving access to my tax records. Disclosing all my investments and any foreign contacts. Undergoing interviews under oath. I've been involved in hiring. I've vetoed good job candidates because I knew that wouldn't get the necessary clearance.

 

And then some political appointee comes in who I know could never get hired/pass a security clearance for a career job. Never. The people in the most important jobs are the most compromised individuals. 

Edited November 18 by The Frankish Reich

[Biden is Mentally Fit]

6 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Pet peeve of mine (oh, and I've got many of 'em): I've worked for the federal government. I've had clearances. I've been through the whole process. Interviewing neighbors and work associates about my behavior. Excessive drinking? Any illegal drug use? Extra-marital affairs? Contacts with undesirable people like strippers and hookers and drug dealers? Sexual harassment allegations and other workplace behavior?

Getting my prints taken. Giving access to my tax records. Disclosing all my investments and any foreign contacts. Undergoing interviews under oath. I've been involved in hiring. I've vetoed good job candidates because I knew that wouldn't get the necessary clearance.

 

And then some political appointee comes in who I know could never get hired/pass a security clearance for a career job. Never. The people in the most important jobs are the most compromised individuals. 

Yet you are an unabashed admirer of the  deep state. Interesting. 

[The Frankish Reich]

1 hour ago, Biden is Mentally Fit said:

Yet you are an unabashed admirer of the  deep state. Interesting. 

If by "deep state" we mean a government of decent people who obey the laws and avoid scandalous behavior, well, then, count me in.

[The Frankish Reich]

Question: Trump will have a clear Senate Majority. Does Trump strong-arming the Senate to go into a technical 10-day recess to allow him to make appointments without hearings bother those of you who support him? If not, why do you believe such a cynical manipulation of the constitution is a good idea?

[nedboy7]

4 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Question: Trump will have a clear Senate Majority. Does Trump strong-arming the Senate to go into a technical 10-day recess to allow him to make appointments without hearings bother those of you who support him? If not, why do you believe such a cynical manipulation of the constitution is a good idea?

I believe there are a few decent R senators left who are planning on opposing that recess. His blatant attempt to shove unqualified idiots in by making his cult believe he’s draining the swamp aren’t fooling real republicans.  “Loyalists”. I wonder where I’ve heard that one before. 

[Tommy Callahan]

Long history of recess appointments.  Remember in 17 when the Dems and GOP blocked them under the guise of "Russia gate"

 

https://search.app?link=https%3A%2F%2Fen.m.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FRecess_appointment&utm_campaign=aga&utm_source=agsadl1%2Csh%2Fx%2Fgs%2Fm2%2F4

 

 

Eff, supreme Court judges have been put on the bench using this process. 

 

But the usual voices were told this is new and bad by the talking heads.  

 

 

[AlBUNDY4TDS]

5 minutes ago, nedboy7 said:

I believe there are a few decent R senators left who are planning on opposing that recess. His blatant attempt to shove unqualified idiots in by making his cult believe he’s draining the swamp aren’t fooling real republicans.  “Loyalists”. I wonder where I’ve heard that one before. 

Whose unqualified?

[The Frankish Reich]

45 minutes ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said:

Whose unqualified?

Gaetz and Hegseth and Gabbard.

and Kennedy.

Take away the scandals, Gaetz is still ridiculously unqualified. About 2 years of actually practicing law at a completely local/private level

[AlBUNDY4TDS]

8 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Gaetz and Hegseth and Gabbard.

and Kennedy.

Take away the scandals, Gaetz is still ridiculously unqualified. About 2 years of actually practicing law at a completely local/private level

How is Tulsi unqualified?

[The Frankish Reich]

2 minutes ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said:

How is Tulsi unqualified?

She's not unqualified for some things, but we are talking here about the DNI. She wasn't even on the congressional committees dealing with Intel. Wrong person for the job.

[The Frankish Reich]

Meanwhile: the investment banker/hedge fund manager scrum for Treasury apparently got too hot even for Trump.

So Mark Rowan is private jetting back from Asia to be interviewed. An upstanding member of the investor class, he started at Drexel Burnham of the 1990 junk bond fiasco, then worked with Leon Black at Apollo - the very same Leon Black who named Jeffrey Epstein as trustee of his foundation and paid him $50 million.

Thank God Trump won; otherwise the Davos-Epstein class would have continued to run the world.

[AlBUNDY4TDS]

6 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

She's not unqualified for some things, but we are talking here about the DNI. She wasn't even on the congressional committees dealing with Intel. Wrong person for the job.

That's like your opinion man.

[The Frankish Reich]

2 minutes ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said:

That's like your opinion man.

Well, it's my opinion that she is unqualified. It is a fact that she has no real exposure to the Intel world.

[Biden is Mentally Fit]

1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:

If by "deep state" we mean a government of decent people who obey the laws and avoid scandalous behavior, well, then, count me in.

Is that what you meant by it in your “three cheers for the deep state” thread? Or it just implied? 
 

One day you are going on about how, in reality, the office of the president is unimportant and the country trucks along just fine with a doddering old fool and now you bemoan the apparatus that allows that to be the case. Seems like you just want something to whine about. 

[The Frankish Reich]

Just now, Biden is Mentally Fit said:

Is that what you meant by it in your “three cheers for the deep state” thread? Or it just implied? 
 

One day you are going on about how, in reality, the office of the president is unimportant and the country trucks along just fine with a doddering old fool and now you bemoan the apparatus that allows that to be the case. Seems like you just want something to whine about. 

My "three cheers for the deep State" meant exactly that. There are people out there in the government who know what they're doing, who understand that a government of laws and not of men means that there is a continuity that must always be there regardless of who won the last election, because the constitution and the laws remain in place until they're changed. 

The advise and consent requirement for cabinet appointees is in that constitution for a reason. It isn't something to be cynically abandoned because Susan Collins (hah!) and a couple other Republican Senators won't just rubber stamp any fool or creep.

[Biden is Mentally Fit]

1 minute ago, The Frankish Reich said:

My "three cheers for the deep State" meant exactly that. There are people out there in the government who know what they're doing, who understand that a government of laws and not of men means that there is a continuity that must always be there regardless of who won the last election, because the constitution and the laws remain in place until they're changed. 

The advise and consent requirement for cabinet appointees is in that constitution for a reason. It isn't something to be cynically abandoned because Susan Collins (hah!) and a couple other Republican Senators won't just rubber stamp any fool or creep.

And those people are all upstanding individuals worthy of security clearance? Please. 

[The Frankish Reich]

25 minutes ago, Biden is Mentally Fit said:

And those people are all upstanding individuals worthy of security clearance? Please. 

No. Not all of them.

But I can assure that a 40ish applicant who has faced credible accusations of having sex with a 17 year old would not be cleared. Nor would a man who, in his 50s or 60s, admitted to dumping a dead bear cub in Central Park. Nor would a man who has been the subject of credible allegations of repeatedly using illegal drugs other than marijuana in the very recent past.

These are not close calls.

[nedboy7]

54 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Meanwhile: the investment banker/hedge fund manager scrum for Treasury apparently got too hot even for Trump.

So Mark Rowan is private jetting back from Asia to be interviewed. An upstanding member of the investor class, he started at Drexel Burnham of the 1990 junk bond fiasco, then worked with Leon Black at Apollo - the very same Leon Black who named Jeffrey Epstein as trustee of his foundation and paid him $50 million.

Thank God Trump won; otherwise the Davos-Epstein class would have continued to run the world.

 

Epstein said Trump was one of his closest friends.  And had no morals.  Imagine that coming from Epstein. 

Meanwhile people on here were crying about pedophilia.  I think they are for it as long as it's their own guys.  Scumbags. 

[AlBUNDY4TDS]

4 minutes ago, nedboy7 said:

 

Epstein said Trump was one of his closest friends.  And had no morals.  Imagine that coming from Epstein. 

Meanwhile people on here were crying about pedophilia.  I think they are for it as long as it's their own guys.  Scumbags. 

How much you want to bet Trump wasn't involved like most of Hollywood? Scumbag.

Edited November 18 by AlBUNDY4TDS

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

3 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Pet peeve of mine (oh, and I've got many of 'em): I've worked for the federal government. I've had clearances. I've been through the whole process. Interviewing neighbors and work associates about my behavior. Excessive drinking? Any illegal drug use? Extra-marital affairs? Contacts with undesirable people like strippers and hookers and drug dealers? Sexual harassment allegations and other workplace behavior?

Getting my prints taken. Giving access to my tax records. Disclosing all my investments and any foreign contacts. Undergoing interviews under oath. I've been involved in hiring. I've vetoed good job candidates because I knew that wouldn't get the necessary clearance.

 

And then some political appointee comes in who I know could never get hired/pass a security clearance for a career job. Never. The people in the most important jobs are the most compromised individuals. 

This is a great post Frank, and I would love to believe all the players involved have the integrity to interact/oversee following the spirit and intent of the guidelines.  I bet many do, but more than a fair number do not.   
 

Sidebar— what you described is what most reasonable people would assume would be the approach to handling classified documents  and which clearly does not.   
 

Your point on appointees is fair.  Maybe some day it gets fixed but none of the critical players who can fix it seem to want to.