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.

  • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    6 hours ago

    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.

  • nutsack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    to his supporters, this just looks like someone who gets things done. and they probably don’t trust the FBI

  • psycho_driver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Lemmy doesn’t offer a way to filter posts by words in the title do they? I’m over hearing anything about this waste of oxygen and his buddies.

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    16 hours ago

    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.

  • Furbag@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    89
    ·
    18 hours 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

  • villainy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    131
    ·
    20 hours ago

    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?

  • Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    199
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    22 hours 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
      arrow-up
      116
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      22 hours ago

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

    • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      21 hours 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
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        edit-2
        21 hours 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
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        21 hours 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
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      20 hours 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!”.

  • lennybird@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    73
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Gabbard is the biggest threat here, in my view.

    You couldn’t dream of putting a spy in a better position than the DNI whose position is literally to oversee all intelligence agency silos.

    Russia will know literally everything.

      • azuth@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Not to defend those nutjobs but ‘religion’ (aka cults that reached critical mass) are far more dangerous, whether Catholicism or mainstream US Protestantism.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Not at all true. These are cultists who would happily march queer people into gas chambers and don’t make a secret about it.

          This is a Nazi cult. This is super fucking dangerous.

          • azuth@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 hours ago

            Dude there are certainly more Americans that would happily march queer people into gas chambers and don’t make a secret about it while being Christian.

            There already are “conversion” camps run by Christians for queer children. They are horrendous.

            Were hatred against queer people not normalized by Christianity her cult would be unable to use her to persecute them.

            Also, some Christian denominations are not troubled by someone being a Nazi.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 hours ago

              Okay? And plenty of Christians are not like that at all. And I say that as a life-long atheist.

              This is like saying the KKK isn’t extra dangerous because lots of non-Klan members are just as racist.

              You’re really missing the point here.

              Also, you don’t have to tell me about conversion therapy camps. We’re getting my daughter out of this country specifically because Trump selects people in dangerous bigoted cults to be in his cabinet.

              But sure, she’s not dangerous at all. Not compared to 10 out of 10 Christians, all of whom hate queer people, including the Christians who are themselves queer.

              • azuth@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 hours ago

                I am not missing the point, you are, by miles.

                That cult is less dangerous than Christianity. You don’t fear them, you fear an extremely anti-queer government. That government will take power due to Christianity’s influence. Those cultist might be invited along for the ride.

                But sure, she’s not dangerous at all. Not compared to 10 out of 10 Christians, all of whom hate queer people, including the Christians who are themselves queer.

                Not, all Christians hate queer people. It’s irrelevant if they do not seriously try to stop the ones that do from promoting hate. Which most Christian denominations officially do, for most of them any queerness is a sin. Which explains why even non hateful Christians will not seriously challenge the more extreme ones.

                As for queer people who identify as Christians, that’s not an argument in your favor, for Christianity being less dangerous. Christianity has probably driven more queer people to suicide for not being “good” Christians than this cult could even dream of hurting. It gets people to run conversion camps and parents to send their own children there. It probably also keeps good people who would otherwise help queer people from helping.

                So yeah Christianity is far more dangerous than some nobodies.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 hours ago

                  Some nobodies? Her genocidal cult is now going to be officially part of the U.S. government. Why does this not bother you just because there are lots of bigoted Christians as well?

                  Christians have been in charge of the United States since its inception. The current president is a devout Catholic. Queer people have been getting more and more rights despite that.

                  By your logic, queer people are in less danger now that this genocidal cultist can get all of their private information because she isn’t a Christian. Is that really what you think? Queer people will be safer under Trump? Or are you going to argue that Trump’s professed Christianity is genuine?

                  And your “queer Christians hate queer people” argument is also noted.

    • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)@badatbeing.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Trump is just putting a person between him and Putin this time around, Russia knew everything the first admin also. He hid meeting notes and visitor logs and nobody did shit, then the assholes voted him back in to finish selling us off because somehow that means “America First”.

    • MIDItheKID@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      16 hours ago

      "Nikolai Patrushev, part of the Russian president’s inner circle and former Secretary of the Security Council, told the Russian newspaper Kommersant that Trump was duty-bound to act on his words.

      Patrushev said: “To achieve success in the elections, Donald Trump relied on certain forces to which he has corresponding obligations. And as a responsible person, he will be obliged to fulfill them.”

      So yeah, sounds about right.

  • cygnus@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    22 hours 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
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      22 hours 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
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      21 hours 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
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        21 hours 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
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          16 hours 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
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          20 hours 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
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            19 hours 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.

  • Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    22 hours 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?

  • eran_morad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    18 hours 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.

  • Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    22 hours 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.@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      21 hours 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)@badatbeing.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        20 hours 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.

  • adarza@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    22 hours ago

    he’d just overrule anyway like he did jared and a couple dozen others before.

  • Godort@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Moves to cut out the FBI appear to be in line with a pre-election memo drafted by his legal advisers and fits with Trump’s enduring suspicion that the agency is part of what, without evidence, he believes to be a “deep state” machine within the federal government bent on undermining him.

    Trump administration does something obviously illegal and unethical

    FBI: “Hey, that’s illegal, you can’t do that.”

    Trump: “Look at this deep state organization trying to prevent me from doing my job”