Summary

Donald Trump’s transition team has bypassed standard FBI background checks for key cabinet nominees, relying instead on private investigators, as reported by CNN.

This breaks decades-old norms meant to vet candidates for criminal history and conflicts of interest.

Controversial appointees include Matt Gaetz (attorney general), Tulsi Gabbard (director of national intelligence), and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (health secretary), all facing scrutiny for past investigations, pro-Russian views, or personal admissions.

Critics argue Trump seeks to undermine traditional vetting, with potential security risks tied to bypassing these checks.

  • cygnus@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 hours ago

    This all highlights how many loopholes and deficiencies there are in a system that prides itself so much on checks and balances.

    • jettrscga@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Apparently the balance was supposed to be one person with good faith checking one without. Now we see what happens when every dumbass stands on the corrupt side of the balance.

    • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 hours ago

      No system of rules or laws can fully account for people acting in bad faith.

      I think the founding fathers counted on social shame to limit bad faith actors in government. A dishonorable person used to become a social pariah and might even get killed in a duel back in the 18th century. People wouldn’t associate with them, sign a contract with them, or lend them money. But now?

      • cygnus@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        You obliquely touched on a pet theory of mine. We s a society have for decades now rallied against public shaming and bullying and that kind of thing, but I wonder if we’ve gone too far with it —antisocial behaviours are left to run unchecked, whereas 100 years ago these people would have been mercilessly mocked to their face every day. Without the fear of that public mockery and ridicule, we get this.

        • Curiousfur@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 hour ago

          Trying to protect neurodivergent people unfortunately shelters bad behavior as well as benign. Yes, the antisocial guy trying to start fights and hurt animals would’ve been driven out of society, but so would the harmless kid who needs things to be arranged by the last letter of its name or something. I’ve got some idiosyncrasies that make certain aspects of “fitting in” require more effort than most, and I definitely felt the difference in attitude towards how I struggled as I got older. Another hard to control factor is that malicious people can game those same attitudes that help people who simply can’t understand why they are different.

          • cygnus@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            Yes, that’s the catch. Maybe we can encourage ridicule directed only at “society-level” behaviours and make it clear that individual quirks are off-limits.