567
Trump’s niece says Musk now ‘owns’ ex-president: ‘He’s always been up for sale’
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
567 points (98.6% liked)
politics
19195 readers
2219 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If they did this, Trump could just rescind clearance from all Dems. Unfortunately, this is up to the voters.
All compromised Dems? Sounds like a good idea. And I assume he would need to do it by proxy since he currently has only citizen powers.
I meant obviously while he was in office for the 2020 election. Just because it's too late now doesn't mean it's a good idea for the future.
Potentially letting a political rival decide who is compromised is obviously not a good idea no matter who is in charge to make that decision.
Well someone is already deciding based on the ability to get a security clearance. And if being "Don citizen" and not able to get a security clearance at all, how should that person be allowed an office that needs a Top Secret clearance level?
Also it shouldn't be up to Trump, or anyone he appoints (or that any president appoints).
There's no such thing as an impartial procews that includes humans. Biases will come out either consciously or subconsciously.
So the question becomes who should that person be and how should they be assigned/appointed to that position and who has authority over them if they become corrupted?
Ultimately, that has to come down to the Executive (under the President), Legislative (confirmed like judges and subject to filibuster and the whole legislative process), maybe the Judiciary if you can find a way to wrangle that, which would put them under the authority of the Supreme Court, or appointed by direct election (which would 99% likely mean it just swings whichever way the President swings anyway).
That is the way our government works and none of these solve the problem of politicizing who gets clearances and who doesn't.
Traditionally, this is under the authority of the President and he doesn't ever get involved because why the fuck should he? But just like the Postmaster bullshit with DeJoy, the President can decide he's going to take direct control (by firing the old person and appointing someone amenable to his wishes).
The only protection we have is for the American people to look at their own candidate and say, "No, he's up to some bullshit and I will not support that." And far too many of us simply won't do that. Yeah, that skews right which means Republicans get away with more shit than Democrats do.
There is not a political solution to human nature.
Why/ how? There is an application process and disqualifying criteria for a security clearance. The suggestion is that if you can't pass that process you should not be let in on any confidential information.
You think it is simple because Trump is so obviously not a good faith actor, but let's pretend he gets elected again (possibility). He declared everyone against him (not just Dems) enemies of the state and ineligible to hold office. This reminds me of Russia, oh wait he would like that.
Unfortunately our democracy hinges on whether or not we can convince our fellow citizens that freedom matters and to over vote. Winning by 51% isn't enough. In order to make effective change, the Dems would need to win and get a supermajority in the house and Senate. And THEN DECIDE to give up power to change our government to a STAR vote or ranked choice style. Some form of representation democracy so that our politians would have to negotiate properly. Citizens United needs to go along with the part of the judicial that was installed because of the fascist movement of the heritage foundation.
I just doubt this will happen. It is possible, but I'm not sure how. The left never has enough resources to play the decades long game. They(conservatives) were manipulating the media in the early 1900 to stop progressive movements. They delayed Teddy Roosevelt getting into office. After he did get in and people saw how effective and popular progressive movements were, they decide to work against it. They still are. They just bought all the media empires now, so it is easier.
The people ultimately in charge of that work serve at the pleasure of the President. He could simply fire people until someone does what he wants. Same thing he did with the Justice department. It also could be as simple as an executive order, but I really don't know that much about that level of the process.
And a lot of the criteria are determined by regulation IIRC.
Meaning that the president can order the agencies to update the regulations, and say that in addition to communist party membership being disqualifying, Democrat party membership is now also disqualifying. (More likely a more plausible sounding reason would be picked but the result would be the same - exploiting a loophole to prevent your opponents from running against you.)
Sadly, it doesn't work that way. The President has absolute authority over the process. In fact, someone can fail the security check and be refused security clearance and the president can wave his hand and give that person full clearance. How do I know? It's been done.
Which, by the way, he did. Intelligence agencies said Kushner should not have any level of clearance but Trump gave him clearance to everything.