this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2024
373 points (99.0% liked)

politics

19283 readers
2174 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Republican senators are privately pushing to review Tulsi Gabbard’s FBI file amid concerns about her alignment with Russian interests following her nomination as Trump’s director of national intelligence.

Gabbard’s past support for Edward Snowden, who leaked U.S. state secrets, has drawn particular scrutiny, as has her history of echoing Russian talking points on Ukraine and Syria.

While GOP senators are publicly deferring to Trump’s pick, some, including Sens. Mike Rounds and Susan Collins, emphasize the importance of full background checks and hearings to address potential security risks.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Viking_Hippie 83 points 1 month ago (46 children)

Gabbard’s past support for Edward Snowden

Yeah, Republicans WOULD be upset about her only correct stance, even if it's a past one 🤦

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Whether or not you agree with notorious intelligence leaks, and I'm not saying I don't, it's not a great look for the Director of National Intelligence to support the leaking of sensitive intelligence documents.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Well, the sensitive intelligence documents showed that the NSA was interpreting the law in a way that goes way beyond what Congress allowed.

Having someone at the top that agrees that their department has limits regarding the US constitution is prepared to enforce those limits does NOT sound like a bad thing.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (11 children)

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a breach of security.

It's like applying for bank security after praising Pretty Boy Floyd.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (45 replies)
[–] TropicalDingdong 65 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The call is coming from inside the house..

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

Well, Senate, technically. But the joke was perfect.

[–] halcyoncmdr 61 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

The Senate receiving every bit of intelligence on a nominee from every government organization should be a requirement. If there's a national security issue with disclosure to the general assembly, that information should still go to the committees/Senators that have those clearances, like the Intelligence Committee.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago (2 children)

"Although FBI file reviews are standard for presidential cabinet candidates..."

I don't disagree with you, but this is a non-story. The committee asks for and receives this information as a matter of course

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Apart from the fact that the transition team hasn’t signed the required paperwork to actually kick that off, sure.

[–] WhatYouNeed 5 points 1 month ago (12 children)

The fucker won't sign it either. It will go to inauguration and he will proclaim its not needed by executive decision.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Maggoty 4 points 1 month ago

Trump wanted the Senate to just take a recess so he could make all his appointments without oversight.

That was never going to happen unless he allowed The Heritage Foundation to choose the cabinet and the Federalist Society to choose the judges. But Gaetz, Hegseth, and Gabbard made the request laughable.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 month ago (1 children)

i love that he won't even be in office for a couple more months and they're already eating each other

[–] [email protected] 42 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

I really hope the infighting completely paralyzes them or at least slows down the fascism

[–] takeda 17 points 1 month ago (2 children)

My thoughts too. I prefer non functional over fascist functional.

Though it looks like people around him this time are expecting to be able to manipulate him and to have a real power.

Another concern is that he likely replace Thomas and Alito with younger ones, basically cementing this corrupted makeup.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I could see Alito retiring for party over country but Thomas is too self-serving, he'd have to die to give up the free money position.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

He better book his rooms on the ground floor for the next 4 years then, or else a certain somebody might try his overlord's favorite trick.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

Nah Trump doesn't care about the long-term that way. So long as he votes for Trump's side in every case.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Unfortunately, incompetence and infighting haven’t slowed fascism much in the past. Recklessness fuelled by ignorance actually makes autocrats more dangerous, not less.

For example: Hitler Was Incompetent and Lazy—and His Nazi Government Was an Absolute Clown Show.

The parallels are uncanny.

[–] enbyecho 3 points 1 month ago

Trump even has his own Baby Goebbels.

[–] Xanthobilly 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

They had all three branches for two years under Trump starting in 2016 and only got the tax cuts passed, and otherwise dicked around.

[–] spongebue 8 points 1 month ago

ACA repeal was only after a surprise vote by John McCain. Before that it was assumed to go through. I'm not so sure it won't be replaced this Congress with "concepts of a plan"

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 month ago

Marco Rubio is on the Intelligence Committee, yeah?

Dude wants to be Sect. Of State so damn bad he's throwing all those Alphabets directly under a speeding Lada.

[–] Skanky 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

But Trump said the FBI was crooked', so... Now what?

[–] GladiusB 6 points 1 month ago

Don't try and make sense of the crazy lunatic. You will just drive yourself crazy.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So supporting Snowden is a bad thing now?

[–] ikidd 17 points 1 month ago

To government bootlickers, always has been.

[–] FlyingSquid 12 points 1 month ago

Tulsi Gabbard is literally in a cult. And I don't mean the GOP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_Identity_Foundation

[–] Gammelfisch 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Tulsi is a Kremlin asset and she qualifies as a Russian SVR RF agent!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (6 children)

after Gaetz dropped out i told a friend of mine that if I could have only one other person kept from the new administration, it would be Gabbard.

She is absolutely compromised, and it must be very, very deep. Whatever she afraid of, it must be massive.

Either that or she's actually turned and loves (Soviet) Russia.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago

Quit being concerned quietly in private and freak the fuck out loudly like the rest of us, you fuckheads! Why do you keep choosing the most shit-filled route and then saying that the amount of shit you have to wade through gives you pause.

load more comments
view more: next ›