this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2024
791 points (97.9% liked)

politics

19170 readers
5009 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Michael Cohen — who long served as former President Trump’s personal lawyer and fixer — warned Sunday of the potential risk of sending Trump back to the White House with mounting legal fees and financial liabilities.

“We need to be very careful about him as a potential president because he is for sale,” Cohen, now an outspoken critic of the former president, said in an interview on MSNBC’s “The Weekend” on Sunday.

“He needs to figure out where he is going to raise $500-plus million over a short period of time,” Cohen continued.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] knobbysideup@sh.itjust.works 94 points 8 months ago (3 children)

That is why background investigations for security clearances go deep into that stuff. Can't be cleared? Shouldn't hold office.

[–] MsPenguinette@lemmy.world 50 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Unfortunately the president gets security clearance inherently with the position. It’s kind of like asking the King/Queen to get a drivers license when those are issued “at their pleasure”.

[–] knobbysideup@sh.itjust.works 53 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Before being president, you are a citizen. If you can't be cleared, you shouldn't be eligible to run.

[–] DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 22 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

So you want CIA, NSA and the other intelligence agencies to have a full on veto power ower who can be president?

As a reminder, its not that long since being gay/trans would disqalify you from getting clearence because "it made you vulnerable to blackmail".

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Similar to the issue of medical disqualification. Theoretically the parties themselves are supposed to vet these candidates, except the parties themselves have alzheimers and their party platforms are insanity themselves.

I wonder how many of our elected officials could pass the psychological portions of an aviation medical exam. How many of them are too crazy to fly a Cessna by themselves but just can't be removed from Congress.

[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Legitimate question: could Jared Kushner be able to run then? He was denied clearance several times after Trump was initially elected in 2016... Anyone want to chime in to remind everyone what happened there?

[–] bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yes it did...

But back to the question: anyone remember what happened specifically with Jared Kushner's security clearance after it was denied over and over and over by the US Intelligence Community?

Ah fuck it, I'll just spoil it myself: Trump was able to override it and give him the clearance anyway! Yay checks and balances!

[–] DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Presidents and politicians in general misusing their power is always an issue. That being said, there is nothing wrong with an elected representative of the people (president) overriding an unelected official who is his employee. At least presidents are accountable to the people in theory.

[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Then why even have a vetting process? In what world would anyone (including Democrats) be ok if Biden or Obama did anything close to this... I mean truly, go read the full story of just how many times Kushner was denied clearance and for what reasons. It's a fucking travesty, and defending it should embarrass you.

Also, we're not talking about just any job, we are talking about trusting this person with the highest level of secrets and sensitive information you can have access to. You don't just rubber stamp your skeezy son in law into the highest levels of security clearance, and ignore the decisions of the actual people who's literal career it is to make sure only certain people receive that access. Literally any other person on the planet wouldn't even have had a second chance, let alone like fucking 8.

I don't think you understand that the president isn't a king. This country was meant to have checks and balances to protect us from this kind of thing, but turns out all of that shit was based on the honors system. Oops.

[–] DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Please try to re-read what I wrote. I am by no means defending issuing a clearence to Jared. I am saying the president is given this power by law, and in my opinion for a good reason.

Therefore Trump should definitly be held accountable by voters (as in no self-aware being should vote for him), but it is not a legal issue. What he did is (and should remain) legal.

[–] uis@lemm.ee 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

So you want CIA, NSA and the other intelligence agencies to have a full on veto power ower who can be president?

FSB seems to have. GRU too.

[–] bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 8 months ago (1 children)

We're already having a hard time stopping an insurrectionist from running for president.

[–] ApathyTree@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 8 months ago

Disappointingly not wrong.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

Wasn’t Queen Elizabeth II famous for never having gotten a drivers license and refusing to get one? Iirc, she skated by by only ever driving in private roads.

[–] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 13 points 8 months ago (1 children)

From her Wikipedia article

She trained as a driver and mechanic and was given the rank of honorary junior commander (female equivalent of captain at the time) five months later.[34]

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

yes, she did do that.

I was referring to her ever getting a civilian driver license, which I believe she famously refused to do. Of course it never mattered because she never drove herself on public roads.

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 5 points 8 months ago

She never had a passport, not sure about the driver's license.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I believe that she'd essentially be giving herself a license (and passport).

Also, for a person who is always driven or flown somewhere by very special people,who would need one?

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

a driver license and passport are different.

also, she didn't need a driver license because she never drove herself except during her military service or on her own properties when/where a license wasn’t required. otherwise, she was always driven.

[–] Tangent5280@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

I'm thinking if she's ever asked for a passport she would've just taken a napkin, sneezed into it and consecrated it as a valid license "by direct decree of the queen"

[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 18 points 8 months ago

Just like how Jared Kushner couldn't be cleared, right? Like 20 fucking times? Until Trump literally, personally overrode that and he got it anyway?

That shit only works for us plebs.