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.

  • @RagingRobot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    305 months ago

    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

  • WrenM
    link
    fedilink
    115 months ago

    Things are going to be FAR worse than anyone has imagined thus far.

    I just know it.

  • Phoenixz
    link
    fedilink
    45 months ago

    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

  • Ebby
    link
    fedilink
    375 months ago

    Bypassed standard FBI background checks … to vet candidates for criminal history and conflicts of interest.

    Those are features, not bugs now. They know exactly who they picked.

    • kamenLady.
      link
      fedilink
      125 months ago

      Exactly, they don’t need the FBI to discover the things they already know about them. I would even say, those things are the reason why they were picked.

      • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)
        link
        fedilink
        English
        85 months ago

        Just like Trump limited what the FBI could look at for Kavanaugh, and nobody did anything about that either. He also over-ruled intelligence telling him Flynn was a foreign agent and cleared Kushner also. And the list goes on, but it didn’t matter the first time around, and the assholes that voted him back in are cool with it.

  • @cygnus@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    705 months ago

    This all highlights how many loopholes and deficiencies there are in a system that prides itself so much on checks and balances.

    • @jettrscga@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      445 months ago

      Apparently the balance was supposed to be one person with good faith checking one without. Now we see what happens when every dumbass stands on the corrupt side of the balance.

    • @ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      165 months ago

      No system of rules or laws can fully account for people acting in bad faith.

      I think the founding fathers counted on social shame to limit bad faith actors in government. A dishonorable person used to become a social pariah and might even get killed in a duel back in the 18th century. People wouldn’t associate with them, sign a contract with them, or lend them money. But now?

      • @cygnus@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        155 months ago

        You obliquely touched on a pet theory of mine. We s a society have for decades now rallied against public shaming and bullying and that kind of thing, but I wonder if we’ve gone too far with it —antisocial behaviours are left to run unchecked, whereas 100 years ago these people would have been mercilessly mocked to their face every day. Without the fear of that public mockery and ridicule, we get this.

        • @ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          45 months ago

          I touched on one of my pet theories as well; the Constitution was written assuming dueling would be a safety valve. Holding office was originally limited to land-holding men, so the high class. They were mostly the only ones that did dueling back then. It was technically illegal, but it was a law for the common folks. At the time dueling was often done with pistols, which was paradoxically safer than swords. A duel with a sword always ended with blood. A pistol duel could end with both parties missing (often intentionally) and be considered a finished matter. Both parties would agree to a compromise that preserved the honor of each.

          It sounds insane, but I suggest bringing back dueling. Just for federal elected officials though. Just the threat of a duel would make the assholes who take office just to enrich themselves run for the hills. They would never actually put their own ass on the line. You would actually have to believe in something enough to die for it to take office.

        • @Curiousfur@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          115 months ago

          Trying to protect neurodivergent people unfortunately shelters bad behavior as well as benign. Yes, the antisocial guy trying to start fights and hurt animals would’ve been driven out of society, but so would the harmless kid who needs things to be arranged by the last letter of its name or something. I’ve got some idiosyncrasies that make certain aspects of “fitting in” require more effort than most, and I definitely felt the difference in attitude towards how I struggled as I got older. Another hard to control factor is that malicious people can game those same attitudes that help people who simply can’t understand why they are different.

          • @cygnus@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            35 months ago

            Yes, that’s the catch. Maybe we can encourage ridicule directed only at “society-level” behaviours and make it clear that individual quirks are off-limits.

  • @Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2305 months ago

    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.

    • @whithom@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      1295 months ago

      We will take whatever he gives. The US voters approved him. They want this. They chose this, and everything that comes from it.

      • @Zink@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        55 months ago

        He got more votes than he ever did in the previous elections, and won the popular vote for the first time. God damn.

          • @Zink@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            25 months ago

            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.

        • @whithom@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          35 months ago

          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.

      • @Sanctus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        255 months ago

        Thats not true. There are at least 71 million people here who voted against it. Thats a lot of people.

            • @zeppo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              45 months ago

              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.

        • @kent_eh@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          85 months ago

          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.

          • @zeppo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            45 months ago

            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.

      • @GlitchyDigiBun@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        805 months ago

        This. There is no authority above the authoritarian. His word is law now. Whatever Our Glorious Cheeto wishes is now US doctrine.

      • @AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        22
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        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 ….

    • Snot Flickerman
      link
      fedilink
      English
      36
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      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.

      • @Kyrgizion@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        19
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        “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?

      • @FutileRecipe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        105 months ago

        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.

    • @GoodEye8@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      195 months ago

      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!”.

      • @zeppo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        25 months ago

        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.

        • @GoodEye8@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          15 months ago

          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

          • @zeppo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            15 months ago

            It’s funny in a way but still horrifying since someone that narcissistic and ignorant is in charge of the government.

  • @Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    495 months ago

    I’ve needed FBI background checks for nearly every job I’ve ever had. If I need a background check to work in an elementary school, why don’t these people need it to handle our nation’s secrets?

  • fox2263
    link
    fedilink
    English
    45 months ago

    When you can’t drain the swamp, stuff the swamp with more swamp until unlimited swamp.

    • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)
      link
      fedilink
      English
      65 months ago

      He already said as much before the election and people still voted him in. He also stated he’s cool with leveling Gaza, and called Netanyahu and told him no deal until after the election, that way he can give Israel carte blanche and claim the credit for “ending the war” (ignoring the complete genocide of the Palestinians).

  • Capt. Wolf
    link
    fedilink
    15 months ago

    Excellent, this surely won’t have any far reaching consequences.

      • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)
        link
        fedilink
        English
        85 months ago

        There are Republicans already encouraging the Senate to meet the 10-day recess necessary to allow Trump to circumvent the Senate with the Recess Appointments Clause. Which is Republicans using a rule in bad faith that was supposed to protect the process from the Senate using an excessive recess to prevent/delay a President from getting their picks vetted.

  • @Furbag@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    1115 months ago

    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

  • @eran_morad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    145 months ago

    My only confidence and hope is that these guys are such monumental fuckups that they won’t be able to string together enough executive function to realize their dark vision.