Senate racing to confirm Trump nominees who haven't been vetted

[Winehole23]

more banana republic bullshit:


since the Trump transition team did not pre-clear any of its selections for Cabinet positions with OGE before announcing them over the past two months, not all of the nominees have undergone their ethics review that helps Cabinet secretaries avoid conflicts of interest.

”The announced hearing schedule for several nominees who have not completed the ethics review process is of great concern to me. This schedule has created undue pressure on OGE's staff and agency ethics officials to rush through these important reviews,” wrote OGE Director Walter Shaub. “More significantly, it has left some of the nominees with potentially unknown or unresolved ethics issues shortly before their scheduled hearings.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-cabinet-hearings-ethics-office-233312

[DMC]

I don't see how racing will solve anything. They should share a ride.

[Winehole23]

these are some of the most important people in government. rushing the process is a disservice to the people and the government. it's important to know who's conflicted and how: it relates to the vulnerability of officials to special interests and foreign powers.

[Winehole23]

not strictly topical, but related to staffing and similarly short-sighted:


Since there are a lot of politically appointed ambassadors, and the Trump team has not announced a full list of replacements, let alone brought them up for approval in the Senate yet, the January 20 hard date [for ambassadors leaving their posts] means that a large number of nations, including some major US allies like Britain and Germany, are going to be without US ambassadors, potentially for months on end.

[Winehole23]

Trump wasn't prepared to win. It reflects poorly on his respect for the office and us that he didn't.

[DMC]

these are some of the most important people in government. rushing the process is a disservice to the people and the government. it's important to know who's conflicted and how: it relates to the vulnerability of officials to special interests and foreign powers.

Setting up a hurried atmosphere through calculated stalling is how many political agendas get by. It lowers the bar for scrutiny. We learned that in private industry as engineers decades ago. If something needs to be done, suggest it on Friday afternoon and it will get approved. If you suggest it on Monday it will be stalled all week and the stuff suggested on Friday will jump ahead of it. It's shitty that things have to run that way, makes you wonder which is the chicken, which is the egg.

[DMC]

Trump wasn't prepared to win. It reflects poorly on his respect for the office and us that he didn't.

Trump is the rich man's version of Harold Washington.

[Winehole23]

Setting up a hurried atmosphere through calculated stalling is how many political agendas get by. It lowers the bar for scrutiny. We learned that in private industry as engineers decades ago. If something needs to be done, suggest it on Friday afternoon and it will get approved. If you suggest it on Monday it will be stalled all week and the stuff suggested on Friday will jump ahead of it. It's shitty that things have to run that way, makes you wonder which is the chicken, which is the egg.it will tend to prevent Democrats from obstructing and pundits from grandstanding if they stick to the schedule: too much going on at once.

[DMC]

it will tend to prevent Democrats from obstructing and pundits from grandstanding if they stick to the schedule: too much going on at once.

They won't though. Too many people acting on their own best interests. It's like a reality TV show or some b grade series that has to drag shit along just to try to squeeze another season out of it. It's no longer about the story, but how it can be dragged out to get the most blood from the turnip. The story itself is known.

[Winehole23]

Trump is the rich man's version of Harold Washington.How so?

[Winehole23]

They won't though. Too many people acting on their own best interests. It's like a reality TV show or some b grade series that has to drag shit along just to try to squeeze another season out of it. It's no longer about the story, but how it can be dragged out to get the most blood from the turnip.sure beats governing

[DMC]

How so?

Harold had a huge surge of unexpected voters, 100K or so, and I think a lot of them were Latinos. These were newly registered voters. Harold's win was seen, at the time, as very unexpected. Unlike Trump, Harold had public service experience and actually had a law degree. Trump won a lot of states no one considered and I feel like people who usually didn't vote GOP did this time, at least for the POTUS. Like Harold, Trump comes in with "change" in mind and yet we'll see if he gets a 2nd term, like Harold.

[DMC]

sure beats governing

They do it for the same reasons producers do it with series, because it works. Like someone here said "if it's not against the law, why not do it?". Doesn't bode will for lawmakers though.

[rasuo214]

not strictly topical, but related to staffing and similarly short-sighted:


Since there are a lot of politically appointed ambassadors, and the Trump team has not announced a full list of replacements, let alone brought them up for approval in the Senate yet, the January 20 hard date [for ambassadors leaving their posts] means that a large number of nations, including some major US allies like Britain and Germany, are going to be without US ambassadors, potentially for months on end.


yea...


The incoming Obama administration has notified all politically-appointed ambassadors that they must vacate their posts as of Jan. 20, the day President-elect Barack Obama takes the oath of office, a State Department official said.The clean slate will open up prime opportunities for the president-elect to reward political supporters with posts in London, Paris, Tokyo and the like. The notice to diplomatic posts was issued this week.
Political ambassadors sometimes are permitted to stay on briefly during a new administration, but the sweeping nature of the directive suggests that Obama has little interest in retaining any of Bush's ambassadorial appointees.
Most ambassadors, of course, are foreign service officers, but often the posts involving the most important bilateral relations (such as with Great Britain, Japan and India) or desirable locales (such as the Bahamas) are given to close friends and well-heeled contributors of the president.

[boutons_deux]

Y'all obviously have realized it, but Repugs don't give as a shit about the law or even propriety, any more then they give a shit about "truth" or science.

Repugs are totally corrupted by BigMoney, BigMoney being their one and only truth.

The Trash, his team, all the Repugs give a big FUCK YOU, AMERICA.

They ride the god/guns/gays/abortion social issues into office, then the filthy pigs and the paymaster start pillaging taxpayer money, screwing the country, and screwing everything and everybody else.

[Winehole23]

just as foolish when Obama did it.

[Winehole23]

it's more or less moronic to think it to refutes a criticism of a member of one party to point out that a member of another party has done the same thing. bad decisions are bad, no matter the party affiliation.

[DMC]

it's more or less moronic to think it to refutes a criticism of a member of one party to point out that a member of another party has done the same thing. bad decisions are bad, no matter the party affiliation.

But not really newsworthy if it's basically status quo.

[CosmicCowboy]

Who needs fucking ambassadors? If Trump wants to send a message to a country he can just tweet it...:lol

[Winehole23]

that was a side note. what about rushing cabinet level nominees without vetting?

[Winehole23]

I'm not even going to address the stupidity of conducting state to state communications via Twitter...

[CosmicCowboy]

that was a side note. what about rushing cabinet level nominees without vetting?

:lol

The press is doing a pretty good job of hysterically negatively vetting all his nominees...

Bottom line, if the Democrats can get a few Republicans to switch they can block any given nomination. If they can't, they won't.

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm not even going to address the stupidity of conducting state to state communications via Twitter...

Jeez Winehole. Tune up your sense of humor. It was a freaking joke. I even added the little :lol for your guidance.

[Winehole23]

:lol

The press is doing a pretty good job of hysterically negatively vetting all his nominees...that's the US Senate's job. rushing the job could compromise national security needlessly, not that you care.

[Winehole23]

Jeez Winehole. Tune up your sense of humor. It was a freaking joke. I even added the little :lol for your guidance. you use the lol emoji to ridicule other posters, force a laugh or exaggerate inane posts. without more information, it's not possible to determine which you're doing.

[CosmicCowboy]

you use the lol emoji to ridicule other posters, force a laugh or exaggerate inane posts. without more information, it's not possible to determine which you're doing.

Seriously?

:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol

Yeah, I'm laughing at you this time, Grumphole.

I obviously don't advocate conducting foreign relations via tweet.

[Winehole23]

But not really newsworthy if it's basically status quo.fair enough, but this is a discussion board, not a newspaper

[Winehole23]

Seriously?

:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol

Yeah, I'm laughing at you this time, Grumphole.

I obviously don't advocate conducting foreign relations via tweet.you used the same emoji to wave off rushing nominations. what did you mean there?

[CosmicCowboy]

you used the same emoji to wave off rushing nominations. what did you mean there?

If you stay up with current events you know that the media has been attacking virtually every nomination Trump has made. I'm laughing that you are advocating that the nominations are not being vetted when your complaint is really that the Democrats most likely won't have the votes to block most of the nominations. They might claim a token scalp or two but that's it. It won't be for lack of nominee criticism it will be for lack of votes.

[CosmicCowboy]

I realize it's not noon yet but you need to pop a cork and chill out.

[Winehole23]

If you stay up with current events you know that the media has been attacking virtually every nomination Trump has made. I'm laughing that you are advocating that the nominations are not being vetted when your complaint is really that the Democrats most likely won't have the votes to block most of the nominations.not at all. I'm complaining specifically about the US Senate's lack of due diligence. Even if it's pro-forma, it's important: rushing nominees could leave our government vulnerable to crooks, special interests and foreign powers.

It's important for the US Senate to search out possible conflicts and for nominees to do something about anything that might come up, prior to confirmation.

[CosmicCowboy]

not at all. I'm complaining specifically about the US Senate's lack of due diligence. Even if it's pro-forma, it's important: rushing nominees could leave our government vulnerable to crooks, special interests and foreign powers.

It's important for the US Senate to search out possible conflicts and for nominees to do something about anything that might come up, prior to confirmation.

You mean forget party politics and impartially seek the truth and do what is fair and right?

In Washington DC?

:lol

Yeah, I'm cynically laughing at that concept. Is what it is and that pendulum has swung both ways since the country was founded.

[SnakeBoy]

It's funny that for 8 years Winehole's only response to any hint of corrupt politics was that "Republicans are overplaying their hand". Since Trumps victory it's nonstop corruption corruption corruption from him...even though nothing has happened.

[Winehole23]

You mean forget party politics and impartially seek the truth and do what is fair and right?Fair and right has nothing to do with due diligence. Vetting cabinet nominees relates to prudence, responsibility and prevention of harm to the country, the US President and the US Senate.

It's about CYA as much as anything else. It's foolish and short-sighted for the US Senate to confirm the President's nominees without vetting them.

[Winehole23]

It's funny that for 8 years Winehole's only response to any hint of corrupt politics was that "Republicans are overplaying their hand". Can you give specific examples?

[Winehole23]

Since Trumps victory it's nonstop corruption corruption corruption from him...even though nothing has happened.you exagerrate. I've defended trump against scurrilous Democratic red-baiting and hysterical pleas to discredit the election results.

[Winehole23]

It's funny that for 8 years Winehole's only response to any hint of corrupt politics was that "Republicans are overplaying their hand".bullshit.

you'd be hard pressed to find a stronger critic on this board of the bank bailout, the ACA, the erosion of the the 4th Amendment, the war on whistleblowers, criminalizing journalism, the expansion of government secrecy, corrupt and foolish military interventions, and domestic surveillance. all these things happened under Obama and I've consistently called him out for it.

during the presidential campaign I attacked pinheads who tried to wave off HRC's home server and the Cllinton Foundation as non-issues. they weren't, and I consistently said so.

[Winehole23]

hell, I posted something today about it.

[Winehole23]

regarding Benghazi, Solyndra and Fast and Furious, you'd be right. those were ginned up media furores. there wasn't much there there -- Republicans did overplay their hand in those cases -- did you have others in mind?

be specific if you can.

[TeyshaBlue]

bullshit.

you'd be hard pressed to find a stronger critic on this board of the bank bailout, the ACA, the erosion of the the 4th Amendment, the war on whistleblowers, criminalizing journalism, the expansion of government secrecy, corrupt and foolish military interventions, and domestic surveillance. all these things happened under Obama and I've consistently called him out for it.

during the presidential campaign I attacked pinheads who tried to wave off HRC's home server and the Cllinton Foundation as non-issues. they weren't, and I consistently said so.

Co-signed.

[Th'Pusher]

Co-signed.

Agreed.

Snakeboy and a shitload of trump supporters are hyper-sensitive.

[Spurminator]

Cheerleaders always assume partisan bias from anyone who attacks their guy, because that's all they know.

[Winehole23]

CC said the same thing. So focused on the presumably desired result he can't see the issue with the process.

[CosmicCowboy]

CC said the same thing. So focused on the presumably desired result he can't see the issue with the process.

Of course I see the problem with the process. I've just seen it on both sides of the fence as long as I've been watching national politics. I admit to bring cynical that it will ever change no matter how much you wish it was different. Like Obama gleefully pointed out, elections have consequences.

[boutons_deux]

Of course I see the problem with the process. I've just seen it on both sides of the fence as long as I've been watching national politics. I admit to bring cynical that it will ever change no matter how much you wish it was different. Like Obama gleefully pointed out, elections have consequences.

Consequences when Repugs win are universally negative except for Repug BigDonors, and Repugs themselves.

[CosmicCowboy]

Boo hoo Booboo. :lmao

[DMC]

fair enough, but this is a discussion board, not a newspaper

So this discussion could very well have taken place when Obama did it and this could be an old thread. Instead it gets lumped on to the growing pile of Trump offenses as if he's broken new ground. If it was just a one off, that's different, but this is part of a pattern. It's very close to fake news in that it pretends to be something noteworthy when in fact it's only noteworthy because it's Trump. This becomes evident by the small writing in these articles, the disclaimers...Headlines read "TRUMP FIRING ALL AMBASSADORS" and "AMBASSADORS TOLD TO VACATE BY JAN 20th" and readers see "TRUMP HEAVY HANDED DICTATORSHIP LIKE POLICY SETS NEW PRECEDENCE" with the disclaimer later in the article "Obama did it as well".

Why be part of the problem, since we know the problem is largely perception based on propaganda?

[SnakeBoy]

bullshit.

you'd be hard pressed to find a stronger critic on this board of the bank bailout, the ACA, the erosion of the the 4th Amendment, the war on whistleblowers, criminalizing journalism, the expansion of government secrecy, corrupt and foolish military interventions, and domestic surveillance. all these things happened under Obama and I've consistently called him out for it.

during the presidential campaign I attacked pinheads who tried to wave off HRC's home server and the Cllinton Foundation as non-issues. they weren't, and I consistently said so.

Okay I concede that I overstated your bias but you've been off the rails with the corruption speculation since Trump won. At least let him become POTUS before you try to paint him as completely corrupt. Hell I couldn't stand Obama but once he won I didn't have much to say about him until after he became POTUS and actually started doing things I didn't like.

[boutons_deux]

"At least let him become POTUS before you try to paint him as completely corrupt."

His corruption goes back decades. He's a total mothefucker, totally ABNORMAL, but keep giving him the benefit of the doubt, normalizing him.

He's a sicko ABNORMAL, a corrupt megalomaniac.

[CosmicCowboy]

"At least let him become POTUS before you try to paint him as completely corrupt."

His corruption goes back decades. He's a total mothefucker, totally ABNORMAL, but keep giving him the benefit of the doubt, normalizing him.

He's a sicko ABNORMAL, a corrupt megalomaniac.



:lmao

*flush*Booscreammmmm

:lol

[Winehole23]

Why be part of the problem, since we know the problem is largely perception based on propaganda?It's not my fault team Trump was (and apparently still is) unprepared to nominate its own government. I'm not part of the problem for saying something entirely consistent with what Sen McConnell said in 2009: the incoming administration needs to dot its "i"s and cross its "t"s before due deliberation of the US Senate. The "petty procedural details" are not suddenly devoid of importance now that the GOP was won the election.

I disagree that voicing reasonable criticisms of the Trump transition or his current behavior constitutes a problem or denies him the chance to a job he will inevitably do, and anyway, his predecessor never received the benefit of a doubt, even if he didn't deserve it.

If you want respect, you can't just demand it when you think it's due, you also have to give it when it hurts, when you lost the election. The GOP and the Dems both fail miserably on this count.

[Winehole23]

I do my part here to defuse harebrained Democrats. I think I'm allowed a few criticisms of the other side, even if they make members of the tribe uncomfortable.

[DMC]

It's not my fault team Trump was (and apparently still is) unprepared to nominate its own government. I'm not part of the problem for saying something entirely consistent with what Sen McConnell said in 2009: the incoming administration needs to dot its "i"s and cross its "t"s before due deliberation of the US Senate. The "petty procedural details" are not suddenly devoid of importance now that the GOP was won the election.

I disagree that voicing reasonable criticisms of the Trump transition or his current behavior constitutes a problem or denies him the chance to a job he will inevitably do, and anyway, his predecessor never received the benefit of a doubt, even if he didn't deserve it.

If you want respect, you can't just demand it when you think it's due, you also have to give it when it hurts, when you lost the election. The GOP and the Dems both fail miserably on this count.

OK but can you link to your thread where you pointed it out in 2009 or before this one?

[DMC]

I do my part here to defuse harebrained Democrats. I think I'm allowed a few criticisms of the other side, even if they make members of the tribe uncomfortable.

Sure you are, but the pile on with anything you can find is evident, and if that's not your intent then you're caught up with the mob who's intent it certainly is.

[FromWayDowntown]

It is interesting that when pressed on these sorts of things, the "drain the swamp" guys go right back to the notion that this is just the way Washington works.

I get that we've now reached the point of saying that "drain the swamp" was more of a catchy thing to say to draw voters than an actual plan to deal with serious problems in Washington, but at a certain level, if you're going to insist that this guy was swept into office to "clean up" a broken governmental structure, resorting to "well, that's just the way things have been done around here" as a defense to criticism seems unprincipled.

[boutons_deux]

"drain the swamp" was more of a catchy thing to say

drop the euphemism, it was LIE by the fake-anti-establishment asshole to con his establishment-screwed voters.

[DMC]

It is interesting that when pressed on these sorts of things, the "drain the swamp" guys go right back to the notion that this is just the way Washington works.

I get that we've now reached the point of saying that "drain the swamp" was more of a catchy thing to say to draw voters than an actual plan to deal with serious problems in Washington, but at a certain level, if you're going to insist that this guy was swept into office to "clean up" a broken governmental structure, resorting to "well, that's just the way things have been done around here" as a defense to criticism seems unprincipled.

The liberal slant reminds me of those home improvement shows where the owners pop in now and again and criticize the progress of the build, while the before images of their home shows they never gave a shit about it. People become more vigilant with things other people are tasked with doing than in things they were tasked with doing.

You think Trump can change Washington before he becomes POTUS, as if the swamp filled overnight? He will change something, for better or worse. If you folks didn't believe that you'd not be running around like chicken little.

[CosmicCowboy]

It is interesting that when pressed on these sorts of things, the "drain the swamp" guys go right back to the notion that this is just the way Washington works.

I get that we've now reached the point of saying that "drain the swamp" was more of a catchy thing to say to draw voters than an actual plan to deal with serious problems in Washington, but at a certain level, if you're going to insist that this guy was swept into office to "clean up" a broken governmental structure, resorting to "well, that's just the way things have been done around here" as a defense to criticism seems unprincipled.

Exactly how is the new election of a President that hasn't even taken office yet supposed to magically change how politics in the Senate works?

[boutons_deux]

Exactly how is the new election of a President that hasn't even taken office yet supposed to magically change how politics in the Senate works?

It many ignorant asshols feeble minds, the President is some kind of omnipotent king, so why isn't Trash controlling his own party to drain the swamp?

Why has Trash HIMSELF named a cabinet and staff absolutely full of the worst swamp monsters?

[FromWayDowntown]

Exactly how is the new election of a President that hasn't even taken office yet supposed to magically change how politics in the Senate works?

He could say, "Hey look, I don't care what the precedent is, I want to ensure that my nominees are subjected to exacting ethical scrutiny before hearings begin" and encourage his nominees to fully submit to the vetting process. Nothing about not yet having been inaugurated prohibits him from insisting upon those things.


He will change something, for better or worse. If you folks didn't believe that you'd not be running around like chicken little.

I'm not running around like Chicken Little. Honestly, the one part of the Trump campaign that resonated with me was the idea that if he won he would strive to make meaningful ethical reforms in Washington. I'm hopeful that he will follow through on that, but he's done little with his early opportunities to actually move in that direction.

[boutons_deux]

"resonated with me was the idea that if he won he would strive to make meaningful ethical reforms in Washington."

Holy Shit. :lol You fell for that LIE from an unethical, tax cheating pussy grabber? :lol

Trash enforcing ethics? :lol Holeee sheeet.

[FromWayDowntown]

"resonated with me was the idea that if he won he would strive to make meaningful ethical reforms in Washington."

Holy Shit. :lol You fell for that LIE from an unethical, tax cheating pussy grabber? :lol

Trash enforcing ethics? :lol Holeee sheeet.

I'm not particularly taken by Trump's personal ethics. And it would be inaccurate to say that I "fell" for anything that Trump said; had I "fallen" for it, I would have voted for him. Frankly, I find him to be anathema to virtually every value that the Presidency should represent, without regard to the politics of the holder of that office. I can't say that my initial take on his "drain the swamp" position was particularly optimistic, and I'm now convinced that he never really intended it at all.