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.

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    12 minutes 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
    43
    ·
    2 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

  • MeaanBeaan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    53 minutes ago

    Maybe because the whole fucking thing is a rat king of tangled conflicts of interest. If I were them I wouldn’t want anyone with half a spine to so much as look at me.

  • eran_morad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 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.

  • villainy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    65
    ·
    4 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?

  • lennybird@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    4 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.

    • MIDItheKID@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      30 seconds 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.

    • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)@badatbeing.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      3 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”.

  • Gammelfisch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Cadet Bone Spurs relied on (PAID!!!) a private doctor to give him bone spurs and completely avoided the military doctors who would have found his worthless fit for duty. How in the fuck can one avoid an FBI background check for any government position and contract work?

  • Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    140
    ·
    6 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
      72
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      6 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.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours 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 ….

      • GlitchyDigiBun@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        41
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

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

      • Sanctus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 hours ago

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

          • SomeGuy69@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 hours ago

            Also people who didn’t vote at all, are at minimum fine with Trump and not against him.

    • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      4 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!”.

    • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 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
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        5 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
        7
        ·
        5 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.

  • cygnus@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 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
      30
      ·
      5 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
      7
      ·
      5 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
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 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
          1
          ·
          1 minute 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
          5
          ·
          3 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
            1
            ·
            3 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
    31
    ·
    5 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?

  • Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 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
      6
      ·
      5 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
        3
        ·
        3 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
    20
    ·
    6 hours ago

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

  • affiliate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    do we really even need to do a background check on gaetz to know that he’s a bad idea? i’m pretty sure they’d find even more skeletons if they background checked him, but there should already be more than enough information to know he’s a bad candidate.