Posted on 12/04/2024 11:33:36 AM PST by RandFan
I've just seen Sen. Collins say she wants FBI background checks on Trump nominees.
WTF is going on that is overstepping the mark isn't it?
But the Senate does not have the right to demand that he use subordinate, two levels down to investigate his nominees.
They will fail in their efforts.
But nice to see you still out there swinging for the fences to line up against Trump any way you can.
Individual Senators can condition their vote on any issue they choose.
And the new President can condition the requests that Senator wants for the State of Maine. Works both ways. Lot’s of things on Maine need federal funding.
That’s because the actual Constitution, and the Constitution alone, sets the minimum requirements to hold the elected offices specified in the Constitution. There is no mention of a background investigation in the Constitution, so it can’t be made a condition of being elected. That’s the same reason that term limits are unconstitutional.
__________________________
That said, I can’t believe the drafters of the Constitution would be OK with national security risks of the likes of Obama, Schiff, Swalwell, Feinstein, Graham others smuggly sitting in judgment of presidential appointees. Now, these dirtbags lie and flimflam their way into office and once elected stay there. If many were subjected to a full-field investigation, they would be disqualified. I suppose a Constitutional amendment would be necessary to clear up what is a serious national security loophole, but Congress will never do it on their own, it would require an Article V Convention to do it. While at it, the Article V Convention should also clarify the ‘natural born citizen’ requirement for president.
The Constitution doesn't guarantee we choose the right representatives. Just that we get to choose them. They were well aware of the risk that we'd choose poorly, which is why there are all the checks and balances.
“The FBI reports it’s findings. It doesn’t have veto power over who gets confirmed.”
It’s the leaks and the made up crap that they specialize in. No, they don’t have veto power. But they, in league with their old media friends can and do create a huge frenzy around false allegations, when their power is threatened.
See, eg, Steele memorandum leak to the Post and then warning conference to Trump to justify publicizing it.
Do you trust the FBI to do an honest job vetting folks they think threaten their power and pensions?
No. But that doesn't mean the alternative isn't worse.
“No. But that doesn’t mean the alternative isn’t worse.”
Perhaps. But the status quo is unacceptable.
“No. But that doesn’t mean the alternative isn’t worse.”
I’m curious. What do you propose as a solution to the deep problems in the FBI?
Fire the people responsible, replace them with better people. The hard part is that to do that, you sort of need someone familiar with the organization who can identify the problem people, and also knows of good, competent people to replace them. So hopefully, there are still some folks in there who can be relied upon.
But the alternative of just eliminating the FBI immediately and entirely isn't viable. First, because Congress wouldn't approve that anyway. And second, because it still has legitimate functions. But obviously, the politicization exposed by the whole Strock/Page thing really needs to go.
I hope Trump takes note of the EXTREME partisanship of the DemonicRats in the Senate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.