Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EnigmaticHat]

Did the Obama admin or Bush 43 or Clinton admin have any that failed the background check? At least publicly anyway.

Sort of.  The white house staff and cabinet picks are supposed to be vetted before inauguration.  Trump's team not only didn't do that effectively but they believed that some of Obama's White House staffers would stay on, which is not normally the case.  So yes to failing background checks, but its not usually a publicly visible problem.  Also remember that most prior WH staffs have included a lot of people that have already had important government jobs; so a decent chunk of a normal WH would already have gained a security clearance at some point in the past.

[sluissa]

One up side of this is that we get a solid test of the "small federal government" idea. Executive branch is smaller than it's been in decades.

[Chevaleresse]

I don't think it works if said small government is objectively incompetent.

[palsch]

Did the Obama admin or Bush 43 or Clinton admin have any that failed the background check? At least publicly anyway.

Obama required everyone who applied take a separate background check before they even formally applied to the White House position, reducing the risk. I can't find any reports of anyone failing the federal checks but can imagine there were a couple. Thing is, he wasn't exactly hurting for staff. His transition team was ~500 strong, he was riding a huge wave of support, made appointments that reassured those in the party who didn't back all his views (Clinton as SoS, and letting her recruit her own team for example) and had a good reputation as a reasonable and thoughtful man.

Trump had a transition team of ~100 people whose leadership and plans were stripped away when Christy was ousted. They found themselves being undercut by Trump sitting in New York while they were working out of DC. He is working against a reputation that puts off a great many people while enforcing loyalty tests on those who are willing to work with him. They have been putting recruitment ads that mention possible Senate confirmation hearings for some of the roles available.

[smjjames]

Did the Obama admin or Bush 43 or Clinton admin have any that failed the background check? At least publicly anyway.

Sort of.  The white house staff and cabinet picks are supposed to be vetted before inauguration.  Trump's team not only didn't do that effectively but they believed that some of Obama's White House staffers would stay on, which is not normally the case.  So yes to failing background checks, but its not usually a publicly visible problem.  Also remember that most prior WH staffs have included a lot of people that have already had important government jobs; so a decent chunk of a normal WH would already have gained a security clearance at some point in the past.

Given the hundreds of positions that they have to fill, I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few background checks that failed here and there, but none of them were publicly visible AFAIK.

One up side of this is that we get a solid test of the "small federal government" idea. Executive branch is smaller than it's been in decades.

Not a great test of it I don't think. Just shows what happens when you have understaffed departments.

Anyways, they've found a new Comm. Director, though he hasn't accepted yet AFAIK, or maybe he has or they wouldn't announce it. Spicer is still on as Press Sec.

[Sergarr]

That took longer than I expected, but:

The Trump administration considered a proposal to mobilize as many as 100,000 National Guard troops to round up unauthorized immigrants, including millions living nowhere near the Mexico border, according to a draft memo obtained by The Associated Press.

For now, it's simply "considered"... but... soon.

[palsch]

FFS, more people fired from the State Department.

These staffers in particular are often the conduit between the secretary’s office to the country bureaus, where the regional expertise is centered. Inside the State Department, some officials fear that this is a politically-minded purge that cuts out much-needed expertise from the policy-making, rather than simply reorganizing the bureaucracy.

There are clear signals being sent that many key foreign policy portfolios will be controlled directly by the White House, rather than through the professional diplomats.

Because fuck informed governance and diplomacy.

[misko27]

If Trump weren't so toxic, I'd consider applying for some of those positions.

But I feel like even if I did it as a joke there'd be a non-zero chance I'd get called into DC.

[Neonivek]

If Trump weren't so toxic, I'd consider applying for some of those positions.

But I feel like even if I did it as a joke there'd be a non-zero chance I'd get called into DC.

Trump is getting to the point where people are actually starting to keep away for their future careers.

[smjjames]

FFS, more people fired from the State Department.

These staffers in particular are often the conduit between the secretary’s office to the country bureaus, where the regional expertise is centered. Inside the State Department, some officials fear that this is a politically-minded purge that cuts out much-needed expertise from the policy-making, rather than simply reorganizing the bureaucracy.

There are clear signals being sent that many key foreign policy portfolios will be controlled directly by the White House, rather than through the professional diplomats.

Because fuck informed governance and diplomacy.

Where is that image of a bunch of Department of State positions crossed out?

Wing-it-Foriegn policy, here we go. Also, since I've read that foriegn diplomats are already having major problems conducting diplomacy or trying to talk to the adminstration, this is only going to get worse.

Can't wait for the first major non-self-inflicted crisis /s, every President has one eventually.

If Trump weren't so toxic, I'd consider applying for some of those positions.

But I feel like even if I did it as a joke there'd be a non-zero chance I'd get called into DC.

Trump is getting to the point where people are actually starting to keep away for their future careers.

Getting to it? He's already there.

[Baffler]

FFS, more people fired from the State Department.

These staffers in particular are often the conduit between the secretary’s office to the country bureaus, where the regional expertise is centered. Inside the State Department, some officials fear that this is a politically-minded purge that cuts out much-needed expertise from the policy-making, rather than simply reorganizing the bureaucracy.

There are clear signals being sent that many key foreign policy portfolios will be controlled directly by the White House, rather than through the professional diplomats.

Because fuck informed governance and diplomacy.

The executive departments are full of Obama appointees and leaking information and personnel like a colander plenty on their own. Even if it is counterproductive in the short term it's not exactly unnecessary if they ever want to have something even resembling OpSec and internal cohesion.

[Puzzlemaker]

That took longer than I expected, but:

The Trump administration considered a proposal to mobilize as many as 100,000 National Guard troops to round up unauthorized immigrants, including millions living nowhere near the Mexico border, according to a draft memo obtained by The Associated Press.

For now, it's simply "considered"... but... soon.

What.

This is literally acting like a police state.  And I am using literally correctly here.  Using the military to enforce laws is a big no-no for many, many reasons.  What the fuck is he thinking?  Why not just increase police funding?

[smjjames]

That took longer than I expected, but:

The Trump administration considered a proposal to mobilize as many as 100,000 National Guard troops to round up unauthorized immigrants, including millions living nowhere near the Mexico border, according to a draft memo obtained by The Associated Press.

For now, it's simply "considered"... but... soon.

What.

This is literally acting like a police state.  And I am using literally correctly here.  Using the military to enforce laws is a big no-no for many, many reasons.  What the fuck is he thinking?  Why not just increase police funding?

The White House vhemently denied it.

Just like they did the CIA 'black sites' memo.

Anyway, I wonder if the whole 'Operation Wetback' in the 50's did that too. Absolutely not saying that just because it was done before, it still should be done. edit: Nope, it was entirely with border patrol forces.

[Rolan7]

The National Guard isn't really the military...  They're specifically used to handle domestic problems.  Isn't that their entire purpose?

Keeping in mind that I support one-time unconditional amnesty to resolve the problem of "unauthorized" immigrants, it's definitely a problem.  Whether they live "near the border" or not.

[palsch]

Here's that job ad for anyone interested.

And the duplicate submitted when they learned how to use formatting.

Wing-it-Foriegn policy, here we go. Also, since I've read that foriegn diplomats are already having major problems conducting diplomacy or trying to talk to the adminstration, this is only going to get worse.

There is some of it in that article where it notes they had no involvement in the Netanyahu visit and even had the Deputy shut out of the meeting he was scheduled to attend. It seems there is simply no interest in having a State Department among the core staff.

The image you mentioned was from here. The Counsellor position at the top was filled but now appears to have been abolished according to the above article. I believe the rest of the latest batch were from a level below that chart, but seem to mostly be from the branch that saw the firings before. It's possible it included some of those on there who remained after the last round.

The executive departments are full of Obama appointees and leaking information and personnel like a colander plenty on their own. Even if it is counterproductive in the short term it's not exactly unnecessary if they ever want to have something even resembling OpSec and internal cohesion.

The State department is always full of past appointments. The senior position fired was a Bush appointee who became a senior advisor to John Kerry under Obama. Most diplomats are career positions who serve professionally under either party. Trump makes that impossible for many.