this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2024
257 points (99.6% liked)

politics

19148 readers
4073 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter
aidan
jordanlund
HLMenckenFan
little_cow
257
‘You Don’t Care?’: GOP Senator Shocks ABC Host With Take on Background Checks for Trump Picks (www.thedailybeast.com)
submitted 5 days ago by MicroWave to c/politics
29 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Summary

Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-TN) dismissed the necessity of FBI background checks for Donald Trump’s cabinet nominees, claiming the public prioritizes implementing Trump’s policies over vetting appointees.

On ABC’s This Week, Hagerty criticized Biden officials and supported Trump’s expedited transition process, despite reports that many nominees, including Pete Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard, have bypassed FBI checks.

Moderator Jonathan Karl expressed concern over abandoning standard vetting practices, but Hagerty argued the FBI is “weaponized” and insisted checks would be completed quickly, though no evidence supports his claims of agency bias.

all 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 201 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

People in the media need to stop feigning fucking shock over this shit.

If you're still shocked you're complicit because these assholes have been telling you very clearly who they are and what they plan to do for over ten years now.

How do you expect us to take you seriously as arbiters of the truth when you're fucking constantly shocked stupid by the reality that's been staring you in the face for a decade. At a certain point, it beggars belief that you're somehow still shocked that shitty people who promised to be shitty people are indeed shitty people doing the shitty things they promised to do.

If you're truly, genuinely shocked at this point, you're an idiot.

[–] rockSlayer 35 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

The folks who are shocked seems to be because they can't interpret beyond the exact literal words they say.

[–] CharlesDarwin 1 points 2 days ago

I think way too many people in journalism were taught that they should be stenographers who should be mostly concerned about having access to politicians, and being overly gun-shy of being labeled "liberal" (ZOMG! Not liberal!).

Thing is, the nuts will call them "liberal" no matter what, so playing the bullshit "objective" game of trying to find "both sides" to every story, no matter how much one side is fucking lying their ass off, is just not going to prevent the wingers from calling corporate outlets "liberal".

[–] [email protected] 42 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

It's an abdication of journalistic responsibility, this refusal to contextualize and explain. It's all just repeating the surface of what people said today, without any attempt to communicate what's at stake and why it matters. This is the journalistic equivalent of the useless manager who does nothing but forward emails.

[–] A7thStone 3 points 3 days ago

My local news channel yesterday kept repeating "so called hush money". It's not so called he was fucking convicted.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 days ago

The problem is that the people who need to get their head out of their ass and start paying attention aren't watching the medias that would confront the politicians defending Trump.

[–] Dupree878 11 points 4 days ago

A felon is president-elect. It doesn’t matter about the cabinet. It’ll just be whatever oligarch has his ear this week that will dictate his policies

[–] [email protected] 73 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Pete Hegseth as secretary of defense and Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence—have not gone through the FBI process, as Trump does not trust federal background checks.

the donvict wouldn't even pass a background check himself.

[–] AbidanYre 38 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Remember when Jared had to resubmit his SF86 like a dozen times before Trump said "fuck it, just give him a clearance"

[–] [email protected] 28 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

That's what they mean by the FBI being "weaponized" against them: it's doing the job effectively and rightly identifying Republicans as crooks and spies.

[–] CharlesDarwin 1 points 2 days ago

Why would anyone be shocked by this?

Their leader is a felon. Any pretense of norms or the rule of law - gone.

[–] [email protected] 63 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

Funny thing… the FBI is “weaponized” against people who have dodgy backgrounds. I can see how that could present issues for the modern Republican party.

That said… I’ve had that check done. It took about 4 months. Obviously, I’m not as high a priority as the US executive team, but Trump is in a situation where he needs to get everyone vetted by mid-December. That’s better than what he did last time around, where he didn’t even begin most of the vetting for appointments until after inauguration.

[–] benignintervention 33 points 5 days ago (2 children)

I had a top secret clearance in my old job. The whole process usually takes less than 9 months and anything outside a year usually means there's something fishy with your background. It boggles my mind that members of Congress aren't required to have security clearances and waiving background checks is completely insane. They're clearly hiding a lot of nefarious and dodgy crap that would otherwise disqualify them from office

[–] orclev 14 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

The process must have slowed down considerably. About two decades ago I had a security clearance (just a basic one for access to some military bases for contract work) and that process, although the paperwork was a nightmare, got cleared in under 2 months. I'm sure a higher level of access takes longer, but equally someone being vetted for one of the highest offices in the world is certainly going to be a higher priority than some military contractor pleb.

[–] benignintervention 12 points 5 days ago (1 children)

About a decade ago there was a huge Chinese hack into one of the security clearance contractors, who then lost the contract, so the final remaining contractor has been playing catch up ever since.

[–] sensiblepuffin 4 points 4 days ago

That was fucking insane. I remember being dumbfounded to learn that the clearance agency had fired all of the investigators from that contractor, only for a new contractor to rehire them all and win the contract to process clearances again. Horrorshow.

[–] sensiblepuffin 3 points 4 days ago

In my experience, if you're white, male, and have a semblance of your shit together, you'll be done in 6 months or less. I've seen minorities stuck in the process for years, despite having the squeaky-cleanest of records. (On the flip side, I heard a rumor that someone in the building recently got their reinvestigation processed successfully despite having recently received their 3rd DUI...) The exception to that is if you're in the military, as the government will have a record of anything you've ever done, and if you're an officer then you probably already have a clearance to begin with.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

There is nothing normal about this, stop trying to normalize it.

He didn't vet people after the inauguration last time. He didn't do it at all.

[–] fluxion 3 points 5 days ago

He vetted them for not being like Hitler's generals at a record pace afterward though

[–] Rapidcreek 28 points 5 days ago

Background checks bad, genital checks good.

[–] AtHeartEngineer 22 points 5 days ago (1 children)

This is how you get people into positions where they can be blackmailed

[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 days ago

Translation: “You don’t seriously expect me to oppose the doings of Trump and the GOP, do you? I’ll lose my job!”

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 days ago

Hot take here. Please listen to the interview if you want to debate it. I took the Senator as saying the background checks should be done expeditiously by the FBI. That was his long answer. I don't think the "Certainly" quoted in the text of the article was a direct answer to the question of if he was saying they are not needed.

[–] danekrae 4 points 5 days ago (3 children)

I'm going to be a bit provocative here and ask people:

What are YOU doing about it?

[–] actually 12 points 5 days ago

What are YOU doing about it?

Nothing. I fought my fight for years. I’m done.

This is a dumb situation caused by years of stupid people not understanding democracy.

Popcorn?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago

Scooping up old pressure cookers on Craigslist.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago

Eating popcorn and futilely hoping the fallout stays mostly contained to America.

[–] friend_of_satan 4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Rawlsian veil of ignorance ~~strikes again~~ would once again be awesome to use.

Imagine that one side gets no background checks, and the other does, but you don't know which side gets what. Do you agree to that?

[–] eran_morad 3 points 5 days ago

the republicunts care only about preserving their power and money. they are worthless traitor filth that a just society would force to account.