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.
Citation for “Actual Russian Agent”?
(Hillary Clinton said so doesn’t count. )
Whether she has a direct chain of command from Russia or not, she is a Russian Asset by her actions.
She has been non-interventionist and spoke positively of Vladimir Putin and Bashar al-Assad for decades.
Gabbard promoted party division during the 2016 elections by supporting Bernie Sanders for president even after Sanders asked people to vote for Hillary Clinton. This aligns with Russian psyops on social media at the time.
When Russia Invaded Ukraine she parroted Kremlin Newspapers on the false claims that the USA operated 36 Biolabs in Ukraine.
She sued Hillary Clinton for calling her a Russian Asset for some good press but then dropped the suit shortly after announcing it to the news. Meaning she thought Hillary could have actually won such a case if it went to court.
Diplomatic can often be confused with positivity
Gabbard supported Bernie Sanders for president even after Sanders asked people to vote for Hillary Clinton.
No, before
Well, The US did fund biolabs in the Ukraine.
Meaning value was gained in publicity and saved in legal fees.
Fucking tankies, bro…
Diplomacy supporting war and death is not a good thing.
You linking to before doesnt argue the point.
She had a lot more to gain by successfully suing Hillary. The only reason to drop the case already filed would be because the allegations were true enough that the opponent could provide evidence and the supposed victim couldn’t demonstrate otherwise.
Diplomacy reduces the war and death.
Supporting Sanders over Clinton could be exactly why she started the “Russian Asset” lazy mudslinging.
Winning a case, quickly, cleanly and cheaply is impossible.
It certainty doesn’t prove guilt.
Diplomacy with fucking Assad certainly never reduced war or death. I bet 80+ years ago you would have been the type to advocate the USA allying with actual Adolf Hitler.
I’ve got an idea to win the case quickly and cleanly: not have anything to do with Russia and having the court send Clinton the bill (pun not intended).
Gabbard said they discussed her meeting with Assad and stressed the importance of meeting “with adversaries or potential adversaries, not just our friends, if we are serious about the pursuit of peace.”
Asked if she viewed Assad as an “adversary” of the US, Gabbard demurred and said it was important to look at who posed a threat to the US and how the interests of other nations compare to those of the US.
Pressed on the point, she said, “You can describe it however you want to describe it.”
When asked later in the interview if she thought Assad was a good person, Gabbard said, “No, I don’t,” and asked if Russian President Vladimir Putin was an adversary to the US, she responded, “Yes.”
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/politics/tulsi-gabbard-syria-assad/index.html
Gabbards stance against Assad is exactly equal to America’s in 1945.
That is a shitty, and ironically slow and expensive, idea.