On Background Checks for Trump Appointees, The Magic Number Is “Four”
Yesterday, Hugo Lowell reported that Trump wants to bypass FBI background checks until he has gutted the FBI.
Trump officials to receive immediate clearances and easier FBI vetting
Exclusive: president-elect’s team planning for background checks to occur only after administration takes over bureauDonald Trump’s transition team is planning for all political appointees to receive sweeping security clearances on the first day and only face FBI background checks after the incoming administration takes over the bureau and its own officials are installed in key positions, according to people familiar with the matter.
The move appears to mean that Trump’s team will continue to skirt FBI vetting and may not receive classified briefings until Trump is sworn in on 20 January and unilaterally grant sweeping security clearances across the administration.
Trump’s team has regarded the FBI background check process with contempt for months, a product of their deep distrust of the bureau ever since officials turned over transition records to the Russia investigation during the first Trump presidency, the people said.
But delaying FBI vetting could also bring ancillary PR benefits for the Trump team if some political appointees run into problems during a background check, which could upend their Senate confirmation process, or if they struggle to obtain security clearances once in the White House.
In the days before this story, as I laid out here, up to five Senators have spoken with various degrees of fortitude in support of requiring FBI background checks before confirming any Trump appointee. Lisa Murkowski did so in an Alaskan interview. Then the Hill quoted four Senators at least expressing support for background checks, with Susan Collins, Kevin Cramer, and Mike Rounds joining Murkowski in questioning the value of a private firm’s review as opposed to the FBI’s.
“The FBI should do the background checks, in my judgement,” said Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), who serves as the ranking Republican on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense and as a senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, argued that the FBI has access to information gathered by law enforcement on the federal, state and local levels that private firms don’t.
“If you wanted to supplement it with a private firm, I’d say OK. But the FBI does have access to information that probably a private firm wouldn’t have, even a really good savvy one,” he said.
Cramer said a private firm could help the FBI in its background investigations, but he “sure wouldn’t leave it” entirely outside the FBI’s hands.
[snip — click through to see Murkowski’s comments]
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said not having the FBI conduct background checks for high-level nominees by the time Trump formally appoints them next year “would come under scrutiny at the congressional level.”
He said lawmakers “would want to know the validity of those individuals doing the background checks.”
“Just because the White House doesn’t request a background check out of the FBI wouldn’t then mean perhaps some committees might not ask for it,” he said.
A different Hill story, which focuses on Scott Caucus member Bill Hagerty scoffing at the value of background checks, also quotes Joni Ernst saying FBI checks would be “helpful,” at least for Pete Hegseth.
Other Senate Republicans, however, say the FBI should retain its leading role in conducting background checks, and Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), a member of the Armed Services Committee, says an FBI background check of Hegseth would be “helpful.”
I get that Susan Collins has a history of backing down from principles she claims to care about. I get that some of these statements are squishy. It is also true that right wingers are already targeting Murkowski’s more categorical statement as some kind of Deep State plot.
But even as the pressure on Murkowski ratchets up, those seeking to prevent the wholesale takeover of the government by conspiracy theorists need to understand that it will take more than journalism about the risks of entrusting the intelligence community to a woman who finds Bashar al-Assad persuasive and the largest military in the world to a guy slathered with white supremacist tattoos (though experts have pointed out that for some of these positions, a proper vetting would require further intelligence involving).
It requires convincing four Republicans in the Senate to insist on doing the bare minimum by requiring background checks. In a 53-47 Senate, any four Republican block of voters, joining the Democrats, would be enough to thwart Trump’s crazier plans.
Want proof that can work? After four Republicans (and then six) came out against Matt Gaetz’ nomination, Trump conceded he didn’t have and never would get the votes.
Realizing this — understanding that the Magic Number to guard against Trump’s crazier plans is four — makes things both easier, and harder. Easier, because we know that only a quarter of Senate Republicans (including Hagerty) will reflexively support everything Trump does, at least as measured by support for Rick Scott over one of the more institutionalist Senate Majority Leader candidates. And harder, because most of these people have a history of caving and Trump will bring a great deal of pressure on them to do so again.
But that’s no reason to cede the fight ahead of time. On the contrary, it’s all the more reason to spend the time, now, to call Republican Senators who might demand background checks — to call your Republican Senator — and insist that exercise at least that minimum level of due diligence for the most powerful positions in government.
Get used to that magic number, four. Because trying to persuade four-Senator blocks of Republicans to oppose something is one of the most obvious ways to protect the country.
Good and interesting piece yet again
? Typo in this clause : “ proper vetting would require further intelligence involving).” ? involvement ?
“…in my judgement.” says Susan Collins. Well, it’s my judgement that your judgement sucks, Susan. Collins cannot be counted upon to show any backbone, it simply isn’t in her. If she bucks Trump at any point in the festivities, the sword of Damocles that is now hanging over her head, comes crashing down and Maine takes the pointy end right in the arse.
“Get used to that magic number, four. Because trying to persuade four-Senator blocks of Republicans to oppose something is one of the most obvious ways to protect the country.” Yes.
Four people out of 340,000,000 ish are kingmakers on this. It’d be foolish to think at least four haven’t been gaming-out scenarios. Unsure if the public good even occurs to them, but upholding institutional (read: self) agency could be more than enough.
What of McConnell and Rand Paul? Will they take a place in line, or assert themselves as independent minds? How does that look? Next question, will Dems hold a solid bloc, and if so will that polarize Republicans to do the same? It seems that might happen.
Can the relevant Senate committees ask/require the FBI to conduct a background check, regardless of what Trump says?
That’s what Mike Rounds appears to be suggesting above. Perhaps you knew that?
“Require” is the key word, for both Rounds and me. If he asks, can Trump’s FBI Director say “no”?
Murky water aside, the FBI and the DoJ, to which it belongs, are part of the executive branch. Trump could prohibit them from cooperating with the Senate in a heartbeat. Nothing but lack of will, though, would prohibit the Senate from hiring its own investigators, assuming it can find the money to do it.
Well, no matter what Trump says, they have the power to say “either the FBI does a real background check, or we don’t approve the nominee”.
If they want it to be a requirement, it is.
No reason to tilt at separation of power windmills when the Senate can hire its own investigators. There are limits, though, to what they can come up with, in the face of a subject’s non-cooperation. But, yes, the Senate needs to insist on credible investigations before it agrees to confirm any nominee.
No doubt, Trump would use temporary appointments, and blame the Senate for any delays and resulting weaknesses in national security. There could be many such battles with this administration, especially if the Dems recapture one or both houses in 2026. But this battle is worth it.
That fits more with my consideration, if you don’t trust the nominees but do trust the FBI, are you double standard blind? And these days, what’s krompromat? Being gay, being trans, even being sexually pushy seem for some to be getting by. Being corrupt, we all have friends who . . .
What Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota (his SD mate is new Senate Leader-in-waiting John Thune) giveth in Senate confirmation votes, he taketh away in other areas:
From “DisavowTrump20” early this morning over at the xesspool,
“This is GOP Senator Mike Rounds. He just introduced Donald Trump’s plan to abolish the U.S. Department of Education in the Senate, which would defund special education services and public schools around the country.”
[Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the SAME USERNAME and email address each time you comment so that community members get to know you. You published this comment as “KaJo503” which you updated last December to meet the site’s standard. I have edited it this one time; please make a note of it and check your browser’s cache and autofill. /~Rayne]
Gottit; the private firm doing the vetting, called TrumpCheck, headed by Roger Stone, Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon, will report to senators once the nominee’s language skills are confirmed that they can communicate in either russian, mandarin and korean.
America does have enemies within and many of them are in Trump’s personnel picks and/or his supporters. People speak of guard rails but an autocratic leader can readily dismantle or otherwise bypass them. NYT, WaPo and the rest notwithstanding the American democratic experiment is in deep trouble. The deep state is actually the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation who are making a credible assault on the country and the rule of law (which they claim to support, in their favor).
Just to be clear, Suzy Collins has no history of being a deciding vote against her caucus. If she votes against a Republican bill or nominee, the whip count is likely 50-50 with the VP in the wings. The 2017 budget reconciliation to zero out Obamacare came down to McCain deciding to “stick it” to The Convicted Felon after being mocked in the 2016 primary. McCain was a drama queen and spiteful. Murkowski won an election as an Independent, so she’s really the only one who would fight back against her caucus.
And those Senators who just got re-elected have terms which extend beyond Trump’s presidency, assuming the Constitution stands through the 2028 elections. That number will continue to grow after the midterm elections. Assuming there are midterms.
I would argue all already passed the time where we question whether or not the constitution still stands, and differing minds may make different decisions about when that happened, but for me it was this summer when the corrupt Roberts court said that the third clause of the 14th amendment no longer makes any sense to enforce (we already got the queen of this when the emoulments clause no longer held any sway) and also this summer with the completely made up presidents have complete and absolute immunity over anything they do as long as they can tie it to some sort of objective official action based on them being the chief executive.
The Constitution may be under attack, but its wholesale demise is greatly exaggerated.
The Constitution still stands, but the Roberts Court created immunity for a convicted felon, and I’m sure they can invent other Constitutional gifts in the future for him and his admin.
[Welcome to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We have adopted this minimum standard to support community security. Because your username is far too short it will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first known comment until you have a new compliant username. Thanks. /~Rayne]
The Senate is the most elite club in the world, so I think also write your Democratic Senators and suggest them the task of collegial persuasion. They should appeal through common values. Because of their common responsibilities, they have attitudes with a similar function beyond status in their political factions. With these Senators that’s on the low end anyway, but they could have greater status for the country and history. Trump challenges their egos, their prerogatives, and the common sense rational Americans share of our sheltering Constitutional structure. I think Raphael Warnock could even get some of them the Bill of Rights is God given. Warnock should try this on Mike Lee and Mike Crapo. Tell them Mormonism convinced him of this.
Some of the Senators under discussion sit on the Armed Forces Committee or the Intelligence Committee, and leadership has not really allowed the MAGAs to have a seat there.
If my years watching politics have taught me anything is that standing committees have a hundred ways to bury something they don’t like, without it coming to a floor vote. A hundred ways.
Collins doesn’t like to be publicly defiant of a Republican president. What is she like behind the doors of a closed committee hearing, and will that be relevant?
Again, I am not making a prediction. It’s more of an observation of possibilities.
Lowell’s story, as usual, is better than its headline. I don’t believe that – after the Senate approves his Cabinet picks and other nominations – Donald Trump will then conduct background checks through the FBI.
Not doing them is the point. He was famously frustrated last time when FBI investigations developed reasons to not give his favorites security clearances. He neutered the background check on Brett Kavanaugh to avoid revealing any reasons not to appoint him.
As Marcy says, if Trump does use the FBI for background checks, it will only be after he guts the staff and standards that normally do them. I still think he’s likely to use private dicks, instead, whom he can underpay and burden with restrictive NDAs.
Yep.
Trump will have his FBI do a Kavanaugh sexual harassment type check and Republican senators will accept it.
Is there a reason he wouldn’t simply appoint the private dicks to the FBI? He’d no longer have to pay them — we would — and he can crow about having done things “the proper way just like everyone wanted”. NDAs are of course not a thing between presidents and government employees, but again, is there a reason he couldn’t effectively do that with various incentives and threats?
Is there anything stopping the Democrats from conducting background checks on some of these proposed nominees and making them public (through hearings or whatever))?
I mean the republicans (in the house at least) conduct hearings with no rationale thought, why not senate democrats as a proactive measure. There is still currently some power before the next term begins, is there not?
Can’t the current president namely Joseph R Biden insist that the FBI that he is in control over right now do background checks and all these proposed cabinet members themselves?
To some extent. The target’s permission, though, is required for some steps. And, of course, that process would grind to a half at noon, Jan. 20th. It’s not a viable step for many reasons.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/11/26/2288939/-Frank-Figliuzzi-and-Michael-Popok-make-the-case-for-Biden-and-the-Senate-to-Sidestep-Trump-s-Game
According to this article Biden can order the FBI background checks. Opinions?
yes please. would also like much info.
my opinion is it gets me whet
FBI background checks take some time. The person filling out the paperwork for a background check will need some time to complete it. Then the FBI may come back and ask what was your address between 2nd and third grade. The longer the stall on the part of tfg’s the less likely it can be accomplished. Delay, delay, delay. This process should have already begun. I see no way TFG should pass scrutiny.
Doing some general math here.
Senator Cramer ND represents approx 787,672 ppl.
Senator Collins ME represents approx 1.39 million ppl.
Senator Rounds SD represents approx 919,318 ppl.
Senator Murkowski AK represents approx 733,536 ppl.
All told, these four represent approx 3,836,526 or 1% of the US population.
And? The Senate isn’t representing people, but states. In theory. (In practice, the represent their Big Donors.)
A tad 18th century, n’est-ce pas? It feeds the Southern conceit that the notional state was more important than those who lived there, especially as there were many more slaves than white plantation owners. In contemporary life, the state and its population are often the same.
Just a reminder:
Murkowski voted to confirm Trump’s criminals and incompetents last time around despite all the myth making about her.
The ‘myth’ of Murkowski doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
McConnell has allowed her to cast some few opposition votes but only after passage has been assured without her vote, thus providing padding for her myth.
To those who would like to believe in the mythical Murkowski, how many examples can you find when her ‘vote’ was decisive in blocking right wing agenda items?
(…disappointed in seeing a live link to a site purporting to be ‘Alaskan’ when it’s actually run by a dishonest MAGA propagandist out of Florida.)
Yeah, I get it. I come here every day and boy do I get it!
Thanks Marcy and many other folks with the rad clear momentum.
Of course these above named Senators all worked hard, long, wide and strong to get to their high positions. And did so with an honesty and independent stance even, to get their state a worthy and capable person in office to represent the interest and needs and ambition of their state, or at least their voters.
Quite the opposite to the lazy path taken and work avoided by an incompetent selfish lying Trumpthx mounted on his fetid strong nihilistic maga horde.
Why shouldn’t they demand a fledged vetting of candidates that will strongly affect every policy area of their states lives via Fed systems?
Their co-equal official duty and bona fides demand it.
Any one need a restful tune to kick the evening off?
Massage with song I’m going in field is lush and funny and relaxing. Ivor Cutler words again! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH3kbN0FUP4
Yeah, I am going in a field tonite for sure.
If anyone wants a rad jam from a band with a punny band name, this Tomaga album re-release hits the spot and whets for jazz to come. Track Sunday ticket did it past wknd.
https://handsinthedarkrecords.bandcamp.com/album/sleepy-jazz-for-tired-cats
need more? psst, Wfmu is the best freeform earwormer ever lol
“Four ‘s core and several years to go…”
“Good luck, we’re all counting on you”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRB24HUAKKs
The number 4 is like hoping Gumby will stop the Kansas City Chiefs on fourth and one inch.
Trump’s nominations of such traditionally non-qualified sycophants, so quickly, to so many Advice & Consent-required positions, with such strong risk to U.S. interests, enables an exercise in categorization and ranking. So, first acknowledging it’s going to be sycophants all the way down, place each nomination in a sycophant Traunch (finance industry term involving categorization of bonds in a bundled security), rated by strength of argument against Senate confirmation:
Traunch 1: Anti-Qualified & Unqualified. Not just lack of qualifications, but specific disqualification for unacceptable risk of substantial damage to U.S. national security or interests, characterized by either/or:
1. Traditionally disqualifying history (i.e., legal, sexual, financial, addiction, etc.).
2. Provable history of antipathy to the organization they would head.
3. Anti-qualification of a demonstrable malevolent eagerness to obey Trump’s orders either to ruin capabilities needed to perform a primary federal mission as defined in relevant statutes; or unlawfully use government capabilities to harm persons or organizations considered the president’s enemies.
So, AG Matt Gaetz (moot); SECDEF Eric Hegseth; DNI Tulsi Gabbard; HHS Sec Robert Kennedy Jr. form Traunch 1.
Traunch 2: Unqualified. Lack of experience, knowledge, and abilities necessary to the adequate performance of the organization primary mission as defined in relevant statutes.* Examples include Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy; Navy Secretary John Phelan.
Traunch 3: Minimal Qualifications. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem; Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services administrator: Dr. Mehmet Oz.
Traunch 4: Traditional Qualifications. Examples include Secretary of State Marco Rubio; AG Pam Bondi; Interior Secretary Doug Burgum.
So, after Senate committee hearings to confirm and document each nominee’s qualifying, unqualifying, anti-qualifying, and overall risk factors, the Senate should (with support of Marcy’s Four Magic Republicans) vote to:
1. Deny Article II consent to all of Traunch 1 as a temporally-separated-multipart but single decision,
2. Deny consent of specific high-risk-to-U.S.-interests Traunch 2 nominees (Big-Dick-Toilet Salesman to NATO, to start) but likely approve some.
3. Likely approve most of Traunch 3.
4. Approve Traunch 4.
Names are just suggestions…additional welcomed! I have some hopes for the Senate here, and more than just four R’s.
______
*Per Alexander Hamilton Federalist 76:
“Need to understand” is becoming a hackneyed phrase.
Sure, the Senators do – but they won’t.
They jibber and jabber but then fold.
Lots of good analysis by all the smart people here ar EW, including Dr. Wheeler, but I’m afraid the dire national security threat remains a doddering, mentally declining 78 year old hate-monger who knows virtually nothing, reads virtually nothing and is the human embodiment of the Seven Deadly Sins. The clown show he has assembled around himself is going to be irrelevant as he blunders forward. I fear how he will react to a new terrorist attack on American soil, for example. Or a cyberattack via cutting all the transoceanic Internet cables or a biological, chemical or nuclear attack on an American city. His gross mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic should have been disqualifying alone.
WTF!! He isn’t even pretending any more — he just appointed Charles Kushner as ambassador to France.
Has any president ever appointed a convicted felon, who he pardoned, to an ambassadorship?
When Trump nominated Mike Huckabee to be Ambassador to Israel, it immediately struck me as possibly being related to the compilation of documents the FBI found in Molly Michael’s desk at Mar-a-Lago.
So, now this nomination of Charlie Kushner as Ambassador to France reminds me of the classified document pertaining to Emmanuel Macron and somehow related to a grant of clemency for Roger Stone.
I see these 2 nominations connected to those curious and mysterious documents. Of course, they may not be at all. But it seems like Trump may have reasons associated with these people that are also somehow connected to the reasons he kept those documents close. Just a WAG, though.
Enter Kash Patel, stage Right.
Helter skelter……..