Musk. Ramaswamy & 10 Other Billionaires: President Biden Warns of Oligarchy in Trump 2.0

Musk; Ramaswamy; Bezos; Zuckerberg; Altman 

(Five billionaire$ ki$$ Trump’$ ring & a$$)

Amazing article from MARKET WATCH (Barron’s) is pretty startling and right in line with Joe Biden’s remarks about the superrich taking over the Trump administration with this headline:

“Trump’s Team is stocked with billionaires. Why the Super Rich are taking over Washington”

President-elect Donald Trump is adding ultra-wealthy people to his administration to reward their loyalty and to shake up the agencies they are about to lead.

This headline article also from MARKET WATCH is:

“Biden warns that an oligarchy is taking hold in America. There is data to back him up”

Wealth disparity in the U.S. has grown since 2009, according to Fed data, with a significant increase in the share of the nation’s wealth held by the 238,000 richest people

Trump’s administration is shaping up to be filled with super wealthy individuals, many of whom could directly benefit from being close to the center of power.   

Billionaire Elon Musk is spearheading a new advisory unit (DOGE) aimed at cutting government waste alongside biotech billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy, and there are at least 10 other billionaires nominated to top roles.  At least six others have a net worth of $150 million or more

* Billionaire Howard Lutnick, investment firm CEO Cantor Fitzgerald, was nominated as commerce secretary.

* Multimillionaire Scott Bessent, Founder of the investment firm Key Square Capital Management, was nominated to lead Treasury. 

* Liberty Energy CEO Chris Wright, net worth of about $170 million, according to Bloomberg, may head the energy department. 

If confirmed, these and other super wealthy people — many without government experience or a working understanding of the departments they may oversee — will hold considerable sway over public policy. In return, they, either individually or through their business interests, could potentially benefit from policies and regulations they oversee.

President Biden raised alarm over the level of wealth held by members of Trump’s incoming team in his farewell address from the Oval Office drawing attention to the potential influence of tech entrepreneurs saying: “Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead.”

One reason Trump is nominating rich people is to reward their loyalty        — Wright, for instance, is among vocal domestic oil-and-gas industry supporters — but it’s also because they can shake up the agencies they are about to lead.

For example, in a statement made after nominating North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum to lead the interior department Trump said he would chair a National Energy Council that would: “Oversee the path to U.S. ENERGY DOMINANCE by cutting red tape, enhancing private sector investments across all sectors of the Economy, and by focusing on INNOVATION over longstanding, but totally unnecessary, regulation.”

Donald Sherman, Chief Counsel for (CREW) said: “Hiring billionaires and others with vast financial entanglements” is ensuring they abide by federal conflict of interest statutes. That has a tangible impact on whether the government is prioritizing the interests of the American public, or for everyday people who voted for, or didn’t vote for Trump. Or that versus the narrow financial interests of the individuals who are running these agencies.”

Brian Hughes, a spokesman for the transition of Trump and Vice President-elect JD Vance, said: “All nominees and appointees will comply with the ethical obligations of their respective agencies.” 

As an advisor, Musk doesn’t have to comply with the federal criminal conflict of interest statute, so he doesn’t need to sell shares in his companies. That billionaires and other wealthy folks — including mega donors —are filling the ranks of top government jobs in the U.S. is unsurprising to Krcmaric and other authors of a Northwestern University study titled “Billionaire Politicians: A Global Perspective,” published in June. 

According to their research, 11.7% of about 2,000 billionaires tracked by Forbes “held or sought political office through about the middle of 2023.”

That is particularly true in autocracies such as China and Russia where the rich are motivated to enter politics to protect their wealth, the authors said.

The statistics back it up: 36.4% of Chinese billionaires, and 21.3% of Russian billionaires held or sought political office through the summer of 2023. 

In the U.S. and other democracies, the wealthy had typically achieved similar goals through big, anonymous donations. Only 3.7% of U.S. billionaires sought or held office in the period studied for the paper.

Stephen Nelson, associate professor of political science at Northwestern said: “We don’t have data right now to suggest out of the total pool of billionaires how many are currently serving in politics Trump’s incoming team seems to be skewed more heavily toward ultra-rich people, which suggests the U.S. is moving in a particular direction.”

Richard Painter, a professor of corporate law at the University of MN an Ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush from 2005-07 said: “Billionaires often have had roles in previous U.S. administrations. The super wealthy don’t take these jobs for the money, but for the opportunity to participate in government and take on a new challenge, Painter told Barron’s. They also get a tax benefit,” he said. Although government officials must sell holdings that may pose a conflict of interest, they often don’t have to pay capital-gains taxes on these ethics-related sales if they are issued a “certificate of divestiture” from the Office of Government Ethics and invest the proceeds from the sale in Treasuries or a government-approved diversified fund. Having to sell a concentrated, long-held investment can benefit someone who has been hesitant to diversify their holdings because of embedded capital gains. There’s also the broader, and again, non-legal question, of how a government of super wealthy individuals serves a public that isn’t nearly that rich. It’s a lot of billionaires coming in to solve the problems of the working people. We’ll see how that works out.” 

Whether the individuals selected for government roles have legal conflicts of interests with their jobs will be revealed when financial disclosure forms are filed and made available to the public. But even then, the extensive financial footprint of the richest nominees will make it challenging to learn all the potential conflicts that could touch the work they do and the sectors they oversee.  The roles that Wright, Bessent, Lutnick, and others may soon play also extends beyond legal conflict of interest questions to the appearance of a conflict.

Sherman also said about Wright: “It’s certainly reasonable for the American public to question the appointment of someone who is heavily invested in one part of the energy sector, being appointed to a role where they are meant to oversee the entirety of the energy sector. It’s like a cafeteria run by somebody who owns a candy shop.” 

My 2 Cents: President Biden stated the obvious and the above article reinforces his statement – proof meets pudding.

Elon Musk and dozen others in the White House inner circle which is pitiful to say least about him and his goals for Trump with and I might not a drop of legal authority for the DOGE crazy scheme and nonsense.

But we shall see as time goes by and thus far it has not been pretty in fact based on the above info it’s worse and apt to get worse. 

Thanks for stopping by.

Trump Pie in the Sky: GOP Willing to Help With His Metaphorical Carrots on a Very Big Stick

 

GOP House Bill Says Ok Purchase the Panama Canal 

Catchy article with this short video that explains the issue:

The short answer to the question is: No

The NEWS NATION story headline:

“House Republican bill would pave way for Trump to acquire Panama Canal for U.S.”

Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-SD) introduces a bill that would authorize the president to purchase the Panama Canal and put it under U.S. control, an acquisition that Trump has been pushing over the last several weeks.

Johnson plans to introduce the Panama Canal Repurchase Act, saying in a press statement: “President Trump is right to consider repurchasing the Panama Canal. China’s interest in and presence around the canal is a cause for concern. America must project strength abroad – owning and operating the Panama Canal might be an important step towards a stronger America and a more secure globe.”

The bill would authorize the president, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to: “Initiate and conduct negotiations with appropriate counterparts of the Government of the Republic of Panama to reacquire the Panama Canal.”

Trump in December had complained about the deal signed by former President Carter, saying: “Carter foolishly gave it away, for One Dollar.”

That is an apparent reference to the symbolic sale of the canal that was accompanied by numerous other provisions in the Carter-Torrijos Treaties signed in 1977 that transferred control of the canal to Panama.

An initial draft of Johnson’s bill authorized re-acquisition of the canal for the symbolic amount of $1.

The bill also directs the president to submit a report to Congress within 180 days of passage “detailing the progress of the negotiations as well as the potential challenges and anticipated outcomes.” 

Also, Trump refused to commit to not using the U.S. military to take control of the Panama Canal, saying at a press conference from Mar-a-Lago: “I’m not going to commit to that. It might be that you have to do something. Look, the Panama Canal is vital to our country, it’s being operated by China, China. And we gave the Panama Canal to Panama, we didn’t give it to China.”

Despite Johnson’s bill, the idea of the U.S. taking control of the Panama Canal — as well as acquiring Greenland — is facing skepticism from other Capitol Hill Republicans.

For example, Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker (R-MS) said recently about Trump’s ambitions of taking control of the Panama Canal & Greenland: “I think he was speaking aspirationally.”

My 2 Cents: True as Wicker said Trump was speaking aspirationally, because Trump is an “ass” on those two topics as well as acquiring Canada as our 51^st state, and who know what other wild ideas his little pea brain comes up with as wishful thinking as seen here to see what I mean:

1. Largest migrant deportation program in the history of America

2. Pardon the January 6 Capitol riot prisoners

3. Terminate electric vehicle mandate

4. Increase fracking (drill, drill, drill)

5. End the war in Ukraine

6. Roll back protections for transgender students

Okay, ‘nough said – Trump’s wild accusations speak for themselves, right Mr. Musk? Oops!!!

Thanks for stopping by.

War over H1B Visas: Musk vs. MAGA as Trump Flips to Musk after 2016 Election Lie

The Battle Ground Issue

Musk Hard Line Stance on the H1B Visas

(He used to enter U.S. from So. Africa)

Trump aligns with Musk on the issue

Trump in March 2016 during his campaign

(Was against the H1B program in general)

Click here to see this short video introduction on the on-going battle over the H1B visa program and as posted here and below also.

Extract and Basic Summary: A civil war is now brewing between Elon Musk and his DOGE partner Vivek Ramaswamy, and the MAGA supporters of Trump.

Many of the open warfare is seen in the video and remarks and in this earlier post.

The DOGE twosome has found themselves on the opposite end of the legal immigration debate with the anti-immigration contingent of the MAGA base over the H1B visa program. 

Musk, has defended foreign-born engineers and said about the MAGA types: “Those contemptible fools must be removed from the Republican Party, root and stem. I’m referring to are those in the Republican Party who are hateful, unrepentant racists. They will absolutely be the downfall of the Republican Party if they are not removed.”

Ramaswamy further ignited the firestorm when he argued: “The lack of U.S.-born engineers in the job market was due to American culture that has venerated mediocrity over excellence for way too long.” 

Musk also defended Ramaswamy’s remarks. 

Trump then flip-flopped and lies (his trademark) and now agrees with Musk and Ramaswamy even after ran against the program in his 2016 election campaign, but now supports them.

Trump now even says has lots of those visa holders working for him at Mar-a-Lago and other places …. Oops!!! (High or low wages, I wonder which)???

My 2 Cents: Simply stated Trump and the DOGE two-some are not to be trusted or believed on any matters dealing with government programs or policy with their crazy insane self-centered suggestions or proposals whatsoever, period. At least in my view.

All I ask is do the extensive research and hopefully you will reach the same logical conclusion, too.

Thanks for stopping by.

Musk & Ramaswamy: Axe in Hand After SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and ACA Time to Stop Them

 

Trump’s running wild Gruesome Twosome

From MARKET WATCH the two billionaire thugs not associated with government now more or less running government for Trump with this headline:

“How Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy teamed up to gut $2 trillion of government spending”

Their DOGE gimmick (not government approved agency) will have to go after Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to hit its targets. Some in Washington don’t believe it stands a chance.

A little over a year ago, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy didn’t know each other. Then the two hopped on X Spaces along with venture capitalist David Sacks. Musk told Ramaswamy, who was running for the Republican presidential nomination at the time: “I would like to know more about you.”

Now, Musk and Ramaswamy have teamed up to cut $2 trillion in annual government spending, or more than 30% of the federal budget, within two years.

They’ve been tasked by Trump to run a department focused on “government efficiency,” called DOGE. The advisory body, which will not be an official department of the federal government, promises to radically shake up the federal bureaucracy and massively cut federal spending in the process.

Trump said about DOGE at a press conference: “They’ve been finding things you wouldn’t believe. We’re looking to save maybe $2 trillion and it’ll have no impact. Actually it will make life better, but it will have no impact on people.” (NOTE: Another Trump whopper)!!!

A raft of successful entrepreneurs have descended on Washington from Silicon Valley to help with the new Trump administration’s transition, many connections with billionaire venture capitalist Peter Thiel who was a liberal redoubt in 2017, then he broke the mold as the only Silicon Valley billionaire to openly back Trump.

Musk and Ramaswamy wrote in a Wall Street Journal opinion article two weeks after Trump’s victory: “The entrenched and ever-growing bureaucracy represents an existential threat to our republic, and politicians have abetted it for too long. We will serve as outside volunteers, not federal officials or employees. Unlike government commissions or advisory committees, we won’t just write reports or cut ribbons. We’ll cut costs.” 

DOGE doubts: Some in Washington don’t believe Musk and Ramaswamy’s effort stands much of a chance.

Elaine Kamarck, President Clinton’s National Partnership for Reinventing Government in the 1990 said: “Absolutely no one who knows anything about the federal government can imagine cutting that amount of money in that amount of time.”

The Clinton effort to cut spending and modernize government services saved $112 billion over eight years, and led to significant reductions in the federal workforce, real estate footprint, and government regulations according to an indeendent analysis at the time. 

That was in stark contrast to the so-called Grace Commission under President Reagan, which like DOGE, was led by business executives with little or no government experience. Over a two-year period, the committee of 161 business executives produced a report with thousands of recommendations that were largely ignored by Congress and never implemented. One major difference between the two efforts was that the Clinton approach was not adversarial and relied on the advice of career civil servants as well as the perspective of outside consultants and business leaders. 

Kamarck said: “You need buy-in from the civil servants themselves. They’re the ones who are going to know where the inefficiencies are. Musk and Ramaswamy’s confrontational approach to the civil service could also be counterproductive in the long run, asking whether a career civil servant intricacies if its leaders have been calling them “lazy and good-for-nothing for two years.” 

Trump, Musk, and Ramaswamy didn’t respond to requests for comment.

The stated goal is to downsize the federal workforce by eliminating the ability of government employees to work from home writing: “Requiring federal employees to come to the office five days a week would result in a wave of voluntary terminations that we welcome. If federal employees don’t want to show up, American taxpayers shouldn’t pay them for the Covid-era privilege of staying home.”

Jacqueline Simon, policy director at the AFGE Employees which represents 800,000 Federal workers said: “That while some federal employees may leave if their remote work privileges are revoked, it will likely be the most talented and in-demand employees who do so. If there’s another employer down the street paying the same salary that will let someone telework a couple of days a week, there will be people who say: Forget about this, I can get a better hybrid deal elsewhere.”

The heads of DOGE may also be overestimating the extent of remote work taking place, as the OMB reports that that 54% of government employees aren’t eligible for remote work at all jobs ranging from civilian military workers, to VA hospital nurses to border-patrol agents. 

For federal employees who are not eligible for a fully remote work arrangement, 79.4% of regular working hours were spent in person, the OMB added.

DOGE is also a symbol of the power and reach of Thiel, and his brand of rightwing nationalism, which at one time marked him as an eccentric in tech circles, but now is becoming a dominant strand of thought in the industry. 

Thiel biographer Max Chafkin wrote his 2021 book: “Thiel is sometimes portrayed as the tech industry’s token conservative, a view that wildly understates his influence: The Contrarian, more than any other Silicon Valley entrepreneur has been responsible for creating the ideology that has come to define Silicon Valley: that technological progress should be pursued relentlessly with little, if any, regard for potential costs or dangers to society.” 

Both Ramaswamy and Musk were connected to Thiel long before they were household names. Musk and Thiel became business associates when their payment companies merged in 2000 to create PayPal. 

Ramaswamy, meanwhile, was one in a long series of young, conservative businessmen that Thiel has backed. Thiel’s venture-capital firm invested early in Ramaswamy’s biotechnology company, Roivant Sciences Ltd. 

When Musk and Ramaswamy first met virtually last year on the X Space discussion, Ramaswamy noted that “our mutual friend, Peter,” was also a seed investor in another Ramaswamy company, ETF provider Strive Asset Management.

Sacks, the other participant in that discussion, has been a long-time associate of Thiel’s, co-writing a book with him in 1995 called “The Diversity Myth,” and serving as chief operating officer of PayPal, the company cofounded by Thiel and Musk. 

FYI: Trump has named Sacks as his White House’s AI and crypto Czar.

Thiel speaks in revolutionary terms, comparing the Democratic Party in a November interview to “The empire in Star Wars whereas he and his fellow Silicon Valley billionaires are a ragtag rebel alliance comprising a diverse and heterogenous group that is fighting to overthrow stifling orthodoxy.”

Whether the American people voted in November for a revolution, or even an unprecedented downsizing of the federal government and the services it provides, is another question.

Kamarck argued that when Americans actually start to look at the services that would need to be cut to radically reduce the size of government, they begin to balk at making those changes.

In 2024, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid accounted for nearly 44% of all government spending.

Interest payments accounted for about 13%, national defense 14%, and veterans benefits 6%. 

This leaves precious little to cut, and even the remainder includes Republican priorities like border patrol and transportation infrastructure spending.

Trump well understands the sanctity of these programs for average Americans. He said Monday that DOGE: “Will never cut Social Security, things like that. It’s just waste, fraud, and abuse.”

Kamarck said: “Everybody hates government in general, but likes it in the particular. If they go after Social Security and Medicare — which they would need to do to make the numbers they’re talking — all hell will break loose, and the first person to be mad at them will be the president himself.”

My 2 Cents: This rundown on Musk and Ramaswamy via their DOGE cuts and such underscores and shows that those two are way, way out touch and in way over their heads on government of, by, and for the people. 

They must be ignored and cast aside since the public will not tolerate what their plans are for cuts to SS, Medicare, and Medicaid and getting rid of the ACA. 

Mark my words, the public will not tolerate their craziness one second.

Then Trump will blame them and cast them aside as he always does when things don’t go his way. That his M.O. and it’s as I’ve said many times before, it’s in his DNA.

Thanks for stopping by,

Memo for The Donald: We the People Are the Nation With Voter Remorse We're Not Your Toy

As You See Yourself: King Donald the 47th

(It Ain’t Gonna Happen, Give It Up)

The Constitution Gives Congress Not You This Power

From ProPUBLICA this astonishing worrisome and long post with this headline:

“How Trump Plans to Seize the Power of the Purse from Congress”

The second-term president likely will seek to cut off spending that lawmakers have already appropriated, setting off a constitutional struggle within the three branches of government. If he is successful, he could wield the power to punish perceived foes.

Trump is entering his second term with vows to cut a vast array of government services and a radical plan to do so. Rather than relying on his party’s control of Congress to trim the budget, Trump and his advisers intend to test an obscure legal theory holding that presidents have sweeping power to withhold funding from programs they dislike.

Trump said in a 2024 campaign video: “We can simply choke off the money. For 200 years under our system of government, it was undisputed that the president had the constitutional power to stop unnecessary spending.”

His plan, known as “impoundment,” threatens to provoke a major clash over the limits of the president’s control over the budget.

The Constitution gives Congress the sole authority to appropriate the federal budget, while the role of the executive branch is to dole out the money effectively.

But Trump and his advisers are asserting that a president can unilaterally ignore Congress’ spending decisions and “impound” funds if he opposes them or deems them wasteful.

Trump’s designs on the budget are part of his administration’s larger plan to consolidate as much power in the executive branch as possible. He has pressured the Senate to go into recess so he could appoint his cabinet minus any oversight. 

Note: Republicans who will control the Senate have thus far not agreed. Trump also has plans to bring most, if not all, independent & Federal agencies (e.g. DOJ et al) under his total and direct and singular political control.

If Trump were to assert a power to kill congress’  approved programs, it would almost certainly tee up a fight in the federal courts and Congress and, experts say, could fundamentally alter Congress’ bedrock power.

Eloise Pasachoff, a Georgetown Law professor who has written about the federal budget and appropriations process says: “It’s an effort to wrest the entire power of the purse away from Congress, and that is just not the constitutional design. The president doesn’t have the authority to go into the budget bit by bit and pull out the stuff he doesn’t like.”

Trump claims to have power under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which requires the president to spend the money Congress approves. 

That 1974 law contravenes a Nixon-era law that forbids presidents from blocking spending over policy disagreements as well as a string of federal court rulings that prevent presidents from refusing to spend money unless Congress grants them the flexibility.

Related: In an op-ed published recently, Elon Musk and his sidekick Vivek Ramaswamy, overseeing the newly created non-governmental Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), wrote that they planned to slash federal spending by $2 trillion and fire as many as 50,000 civil servants.

Some of their efforts could offer Trump his first Supreme Court test of that post-Watergate/Nixon era Impoundment Control Act.  

The law allows exceptions, such as when the executive branch can achieve Congress’ goals by spending less, but not as a means for the president to kill programs he opposes.

Trump has decried that 1974 law as not a very good act in his campaign video saying: “Bringing back impoundment will give us a crucial tool with which to obliterate the Deep State.”

Musk and Ramaswamy have seized that mantle, writing: “We believe the current Supreme Court would likely side with him on this question.”

The once-obscure debate over impoundment has come into vogue in MAGA circles thanks to veterans of Trump’s first administration who remain his close allies. 

Russell Vought, Trump’s former budget director, and Mark Paoletta, who served under Vought as the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) general counsel, have worked to popularize the idea from the Trump-aligned think tank Vought founded, the Center for Renewing America.

Trump announced he had picked Vought to lead OMB again saying: “Russ knows exactly how to dismantle the Deep State and end Weaponized Government, and he will help us return Self Governance to the People.”

Vought was also a top architect of the controversial Project 2025. In private remarks to a gathering of MAGA luminaries uncovered by ProPublica, Vought boasted that he was assembling a shadow OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) so that Trump is armed on day one with the legal rationalizations to realize his agenda saying: “I don’t want President Trump having to lose a moment of time having fights in the Oval Office about whether something is legal or doable or moral.”

The prospect of Trump seizing vast control over federal spending is not merely about reducing the size of the federal government, a long-standing conservative goal, but it is also fueling new fears about his promises of vengeance, similar to his attempted power grab that led to his first impeachment when he Trump held up nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine while pressuring President Zelenskyy to find corruption on Joe Biden and his family (which BTW did not exist).

The GAO later ruled his actions violated the Impoundment Control Act. Pasachoff also predicted that when advantageous the incoming Trump administration will attempt to achieve the goals of impoundment without picking such a high-profile fight.

Trump has also tested piecemeal ways beyond the Ukrainian arms imbroglio to withhold federal funding as a means to punish his perceived enemies; for example, after devastating wildfires in CA and WA, in his first term, he delayed or refused to sign disaster aid declarations that would have unlocked federal relief because neither of those two states had voted for him in 2016,

He then targeted “sanctuary cities” by conditioning federal grants on local law enforcement’s willingness to cooperate with mass deportation efforts, which never materialized.

FYI: Joe Biden later was able to withdraw those two policies.

Trump and his aides claim there is a long presidential history of impoundment dating back to Thomas Jefferson. However, Zachary Price, a professor at the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco says: “Congress had explicitly given presidents permission to use discretion, Jefferson, for example, decided not to spend money Congress had appropriated for gun boats — a decision the law, which appropriated money for a number not exceeding fifteen gun boats and a sum not exceeding $50,000 that authorized him to use.”

President Richard Nixon took impoundment to a new extreme, wielding the concept to gut billions of dollars from programs he simply opposed, such as highway improvements, water treatment, drug rehabilitation, and disaster relief for farmers. 

He faced overwhelming pushback both from Congress and in the courts. More than a half dozen federal judges and the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the appropriations bills at issue did not give Nixon the flexibility to cut individual programs.

Vought and allies argue the 1974 Congress put in place are unconstitutional saying the Constitution obligates the president to: “Faithfully execute the law and implies his power to forbid its enforcement.”

Note: Trump is fond of describing Article II, where this clause lives, saying it: “Gives me the right to do whatever I want as president.”

The Supreme Court has never directly weighed in on whether impoundment is constitutional. However, it did throw water on that reasoning in the 1838 case of Kendall v. U.S., about a federal debt payment, writing: “To contend that the obligation imposed on the President to see the laws faithfully executed, implies a power to forbid their execution, is a novel construction of the constitution, and entirely inadmissible.”

During his cutting spree, Nixon’s own DOJ argued roughly the same. For example, William Rehnquist, the head of the Office of Legal Counsel at the time, and whom Nixon later appointed to the Supreme Court, warned in a 1969 legal memo: “With respect to the suggestion that the President has a constitutional power to decline to spend appropriated funds, we must conclude that existence of such a broad power is supported by neither reason nor precedent.”

My 2 Cents: I leave this post with the famous debate words of former TX Gov. Rick Perry (R) who could not even remember or was not able to count the number of Federal agencies he would shut down by saying: “Oops” (seen here in this 2016 video debate gaffe  – remember???)

Case closed for “the Donald” too in this his weak attempt to the power of the purse away from Congress in simple terms: Read the damn law, Mr. Trump – them you can add your own Oops, too.

Thanks for stopping by.

Trump Trusts Nominees: He Wants No FBI Background Checks or Vetting So What's He Hiding

Trump doesn't trust nor believe FBI's vetting

A GOP Senator with Spine, Honor, and Dignity

(Will more follow her & help stop the madness)

Current National Security Concern Article from MSNBC and Past Historical events to prove past crimes (exceptionally long article and I'm sorry about that, but the information is much needed at this time in our nation's history of massive change now upon us.)

The MSNBC article is analyzed by Frank Figliuzzi, former law enforcement agent who also served as Assistant FBI Director for Counterintelligence regarding this issue and many others:

“Biden should order background checks of Trump’s Cabinet picks”

The FBI has conducted background investigations of White House nominees since at least the tenure of President Dwight Eisenhower’s time in office from 1963 forward. Trump hates the FBI ergo he does not want them screening the background and security background of his recent nominees – which BTW could preserve and protect any threats to our national security if any unchecked nominee falls in to the trap as those in part two of this very long and critical topic – enjoy. 

We had a fair warning, for example, last month as The New York Times reported that then-candidate Trump advisers were telling him to skip any FBI background investigations for his high-level nominees. Also reported in VANITY FAIR as well.

Then just last week, CNN, citing “people close to the transition planning,” reported: “Trump doesn’t plan to submit the names of at least some of his Cabinet-level picks for FBI vetting.”

Whether you’re Republican, Democrat, or independent, and regardless of whether you’re energized or enraged by Trump’s controversial picks, you should be concerned about the possibility of a vetting process that’s really no process at all.

The FBI has conducted background investigations of White House nominees since at least the tenure of President Eisenhower’s time in office. Even so, there’s no law clearly mandating presidents or presidents-elect to submit their nominees and appointments to the FBI for investigation.

In 1953 for example, President Eisenhower issued EO Order 10450, calling for investigations of prospective federal employees. 

Yet, executive orders don’t have the full effect of a law and are only binding on the executive branch, and that EO remains subject to interpretation.

Take for example Section 2 which states: “The head of each department and agency of the Government shall be responsible for establishing and maintaining within his department or agency an effective program to ensure that the employment and retention in employment of any civilian officer or employee within the department or agency is clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.”

There is lots of wiggle room there since Section 3 reads: “The appointment of each civilian officer or employee in any department or agency of the Government shall be made subject to investigation … but in no event shall the investigation include less than a national agency check (including a check of the fingerprint files of the FBI).”

In essence , that means that Trump, who claims he’s using private firms to conduct background inquiries, might get by with having whatever firm that is simply checking FBI fingerprint files.

Yet, despite there being no mandate, the intent here was a government inquiry involving the FBI.

Subsequent presidents, including Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, revised Eisenhower’s edict to mitigate intrusive inquiries into sexual orientation in the granting of security clearances, but still missing is a specific mandate for FBI investigation of White House nominees, plus any EO order law per se.

Clearly, the intent in these executive orders has always been for a government agency, particularly the FBI, to conduct these inquiries, but we now have an incoming president who thumbs his nose at rules and intentions.

The Presidential Transition Act of 1963 directs: “The FBI to conduct such background checks “expeditiously for individuals that the President-elect has identified for high level national security positions.”

But what if Trump, for example, never formally identifies and submits his picks to the DOJ and the FBI for vetting?

Recall the impact of that: “In his last administration, Trump overrode security adjudicators who denied clearances for his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and many others, after FBI background checks resulted in national security concerns.”

That leaves us with two pertinent Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) which should enable President Joe Biden and/or the Senate Judiciary Committee to quickly do something to preserve national security and the Constitution’s advice, and consent powers conferred on our Senators. 

Now, this time, Trump appears poised to dispense and go around and ignore the FBI checks and potentially with the Senate confirmation process by making recess appointments.

First: Biden should rely upon the existing MOU between the DOJ and his office, as well as the Presidential Transition Act, to investigate the people Trump says he wants to put in office.

Frank Figliuzzi continued: “The MOU sets out procedures for requesting background investigations of nominees “at the request of the president. It doesn’t say the president-elect, it says “president. That is President Joe Biden. As for the transition act, it reads as applying to people. Trump, the President-elect has identified for high-level positions people, and since the president-elect has already publicly identified those people, Mr. Biden should respond.”

What happens if a nominee refuses to cooperate, won’t provide his consent to be investigated, or won’t fill out any forms?

The MOU has a remedy for that too Figliuzzi says: “The DOJ and FBI may consider a request from the President for a name check or BI without the consent of the appointee if justified by extraordinary circumstances. With some of these nominees named by Trump, and the fact that Trump may forego FBI vetting of them, we have extraordinary circumstances.”

Second: The Senate Judiciary Committee has its own pertinent MOU with the Counsel to the President. That document says the committee “shall have access to the FBI reports on nominees for AG; FBI director; or summaries for all other DOJ nominees and non-judicial nominees.” Emphasis on all others and non-judicial. We know Senators want the details of the House Ethics Committee inquiry into former Rep. Matt Gaetz, Trump's pick for AG. An FBI background investigation would certainly include a request to review that report, as well as the now closed DOJ criminal investigation into Gaetz.

The Senate Judiciary Committee should make a bipartisan request for an FBI background check of Trump's picks now. Regardless of party affiliation, if senators relinquish their advice and consent authority or confirm a nominee without benefit of knowing the risk they pose, then they set a precedent for never again exercising their constitutional powers.

Frank Figliuzzi continued: “You’d be right to ask: What’s the point? After all, Trump is unlikely to read, let alone act upon, any derogatory information developed in FBI reports. The point would be to force Trump’s hand. Drop the reports on his desk and let him go forward with nominees who potentially are either found through investigation to be unqualified, at risk of compromise, or even a national security threat. Let Trump order White House security clearance adjudicators or his hand-picked agency heads to grant security clearances to seemingly unqualified candidates. Let the Senate affirm nominees after they’ve read details about the kind of people who may lead the DOJ or serve as the director of national intelligence.”

That is end of that excellent and very informative MSNBC article and remarks by Frank Figliuzzi – a must read with lots of factual links. 

Now the history why background checks are critical and yes, in some cases screened people who later turned out to be horrific spies. See below:

Americans who stole, held illegally, sold, or kept classified docs: Defendants have been prosecuted for offenses related to documents marked: Confidential; Secret; Top Secret; and Top Secret/SCI, the highest security clearance of all. TS/SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information) requires special handling and storage and access to read in a safe secure place know as: Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility called a SCIF (pronounced; SKIFF). No phones, cameras, laptops, or other recording devices are allowed in a SKIFF. 

TS (SCI) documents represent information, which if unauthorized disclosure were made would: “Cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States.” 

Two key cases appear to be characterized by extreme carelessness without intent to share classified materials examples follow:

1. Former Obama’s CIA director, David Petraeus: He pleaded guilty in 2015 to giving away classified information to his mistress, Paula Broadwell, for her book. He got two years of probation and paid a $100,000 fine. Some of information was names of covert operatives, the Western coalition war strategy, and notes of discussions with President Obama and the NSC. When he resigned from the CIA in 2012 after his affair was revealed, Petraeus signed a form falsely attesting he had no classified material.

2. Sandy Berger, NSA adviser to Bill Clinton: He pleaded guilty in 2005 to unauthorized removal and retention of classified material from the National Archives. Berger visited the National Archives in 2002 and 2003, looking for intelligence documents related to extremist activity in the years before the 9/11 as a prep for his 9/11 testimony. An alert archives staffer emailed a colleague to say he may have seen what looked like paper sticking out from underneath Berger's pants. Berger was fined $50,000, given a sentence of 100 hours community service, two years’ probation, and relinquished his law license.

3. Elizabeth Jo Shirley in 2021 was sentenced to eight years in prison for unlawfully retaining documents containing national defense information: She admitted to unlawfully retaining one NSA document containing information classified at the top secret and secret levels relating to national defense that outlines intelligence information regarding a foreign government's military and political issues.

4. Reality Winner, a former NSA contractor in Fort Gordon, GA smuggled out one highly classified report in her pantyhose detailing the Russian government's efforts to pierce a Florida-based voting software supplier ahead of the 2016 presidential election: That information was later reported by The Intercept news outlet. Winner said she was motivated to act on a belief that the American public wasn't getting the full truth. She served 4 years in prison.

5. Kendra Kingsbury, former FBI  Analyst reported on by the Washington Post shows that she pleaded guilty in October 2022 to two counts of unlawful removal and holding of 386 National Security classified records in her home in Kansas City, MO. She now faces 12 years in prison.

Four Historically Infamous American Spies:

1. Aldrich Ames: 1985-1993 – life in prison: Ames was known to have compromised more highly classified CIA assets than any other person until Robert Hanssen, who was arrested seven years later in 2001. Ames' attorney, threatened to litigate the legality of FBI searches and seizures in Ames' home and office without conventional search warrants, although Ames' guilty plea made the threat moot. After that mess, Congress passed a new law giving that specific search warrant power to the FISA Court.

2. Robert Hanssen: Biggest ever: 1979-2001 – got 15 life terms: Those two leakers resulted in the exposure of hundreds of U.S. assets in the former USSR. The most-direct damage to the U.S. military was from exposing one high-level U.S. asset: Gen. Dmitri Polyakov was the head of Soviet intelligence and a major spy for the U.S. who provided information on Soviet anti-armored missile technology, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and China. He was shut down when revealed by Ames & Hanssen. Polyakov was executed in 1988.

3. John Walker in 1967: A Navy Warrant Officer stole and gave the Russians over 1 million encrypted messages involving the U. S. Navy; the Aussies; and UK Navy as well. In late 1967 he copied a document from the Atlantic Fleet Submarine Force Headquarters in Norfolk, Va. and carried it home. The next morning, he took it to the Soviet Embassy in Washington where he leaked it. For the next 18 years, Walker would leak the locations and encryption codes for U.S. assets as well as operational plans and other documents. He died in prison in 2014.

4. Edward Snowden: NSA contractor stole over 1.7 million highly classified documents in 2013. He then flew to Hong Kong and gave them to American & UK Journalists. He now remains and still lives in Moscow since 2020.

5. Kendra Kingsbury: Former FBI Analyst pleaded guilty in October 2022 to two counts of unlawful removal and holding of 386 National Security classified records in her home in Kansas City, MO. She now faces 12 years in prison.

My 2 Cents: Trump is taking us down a tricky and unnecessary road as outlined above and the potential for potholes and deception are real. 

He must be stopped and not conducting background checks on all Trump high-level nominees would present us with more troubles as noted in those spies listed above – that must never ever happen again.

Thanks for stopping by.