Sweep
No actually let’s not spend months looking at their records.
The Pentagon has suspended the processing of a number of former President Donald Trump’s last-minute appointees to defense advisory boards as the new administration looks to weed out loyalists to the former president.
He shouldn’t have been making last-minute appointments. He should have been packing up.
The move effectively prevents a number of Trump allies, including his 2016 campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and deputy campaign manager David Bossie, from actually serving on panels tasked with providing advice to the defense secretary, at least for the time being.
Make it permanent.
The freeze announced on Wednesday pertains only to appointees who have not yet been sworn in or have [not] completed all the required paperwork, the people said. Several new board members, including Earl Matthews and Anthony Tata, were sworn in on Jan. 19 after pressure from the White House to push through as many appointees as possible before President Joe Biden’s inauguration. But others, including Lewandowski and Bossie, were still undergoing a lengthy financial disclosure and security clearance process that normally takes weeks or months, according to the people familiar.
Sworn in on January 19, one day before the criminal had to be out.
It was not immediately clear whether the Pentagon planned to take any action against those who have been onboarded, but the Biden team is looking into whether it can replace dozens of Trump’s last-minute appointments to boards and commissions across the U.S. government.
There’s a lot of muck to shovel out of there.
The Augean stables.
Trump would know how to deal with it. He’s a stable genius.
Like Mr. Ed?
Well, America could join the rest of the democratic world.
The day the votes are tallied is the day the roles are declared. The stupidity of clinging to horse and buggy days defies explanation.
In Aus and NZ, the day the election is called, the government goes into caretaker mode. Until the election results are known the incumbent government can make no major laws or take other action without consulting with, and gaining agreement from, Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.
The day the election is declared, it is out with the old and in with the new.
FFS, giving the defeated a 3 month tenure to throw as much shit as they can?
“onboarded”.
My language hurts.
Roj Blake,
In France it takes a maximum of ten days, in the UK it’s even faster. I do not understand the logic of the 3 months period but it may have to do with the distances involved, the time the US constitution was written and the absurd reverence Americans have for said constitution…
Despite my chronic lack of employment for the past 5 years and endless “onboarding” for temp jobs it was only within the last couple years I finally understood WTF “onboarding” meant. I share your pain.
Wrong end of the horse.
I so nearly complained about “onboarded” but forced myself to stick to the point instead. But yeah. Urgh.
That is a lot of it. Originally inauguration was in March; it has been moved forward a couple of months as travel got faster, but it does seem like there is no need for the three month wait anymore. At the very least, adopting a policy like Roj describes, where they cannot pass any major legislation or do anything other than routine maintenance of the government seems practical.
Putting in last minute things is really quite common; Dubya did it, and I believe Obama did, too. I suspect that’s mostly for when your party is not the incoming, and you want to get the last of those things done, hoping the incoming president won’t nix them all before they take effect.
As for the last minute appointments, it has a long history. John Adams did it,. and he was president number 2.
Roj @4,
But how much of that is actual law that would be enforced against any government that tried to violate it, versus custom? If an Australian or NZ “caretaker” prime minister tried to issue orders in council (or whatever the equivalent is there) without consent of the opposition, would the Governor General refuse? Would the courts refuse to enforce them? Could the PM request that the Queen dismiss a recalcitrant GG (in a replay of the 1975 crisis)? Are there clear answers here, or is it just that these things aren’t done, because there would be hell to pay with the voters if anyone tried?
I don’t think the problem is so much that other countries have better laws or constitutions, as it is that some of the customs and norms that every system relies upon are breaking down in the U.S. There’s an increased tendency to play “constitutional hardball” by pushing past traditional limits to do whatever you can get away with. During this last election crisis, we saw some Republicans try to take this to logical (and illogical) extremes by arguing that mere ministerial duties like announcing the Electoral College results somehow equate to the power to decide what those results should be, or rejecting results one doesn’t like.