Skip to comments.
Trump Team Signs Agreement to Allow F.B.I. Background Checks for Nominees
The New York Times ^
 |     Dec. 3, 2024Updated 6:21 p.m. ET
 | Maggie Haberman, Charlie Savage and Jonathan Swan
Posted on 12/03/2024 4:21:40 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
President-elect Donald J. Trump’s transition operation announced on Tuesday that it had belatedly signed an agreement with the Justice Department that will allow the F.B.I. to conduct background checks on people Mr. Trump intends to appoint as senior officials in his new administration.
F.B.I. background checks have long been a routine part of transitions. Law-enforcement vetting of a president-elect’s senior team is normally part of decisions about whether they can be entrusted with access to national security secrets, and senators traditionally want to see such dossiers during the confirmation process.
But Mr. Trump, who is hostile to the F.B.I. because of its role in various criminal and counterintelligence investigations into him, had let weeks pass without signing the agreement.
Despite the signing of the agreement, it remains unclear whether Mr. Trump’s team plans to send the names of all officials requiring a security clearance or Senate confirmation to the F.B.I. for vetting. The announcement did not say whether Mr. Trump would require his appointees to undergo the process or was simply allowing the F.B.I. to begin looking at those who are willing to submit to its scrutiny.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
TOPICS: Humor
KEYWORDS: 0iqnevertrumpers; 3dnevertrumpers; 3drinos; 4dchess; bestkarens; bestpeople; charliesavage; epluribusrino; fbi; fbiakastasi; jonathanswan; maggiehaberman; nevertrumpingtrolls; trump; trumptransition; trusttheplan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
 first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-99 next  last
    
To: E. Pluribus Unum
To: E. Pluribus Unum
3
posted on 
12/03/2024 4:22:52 PM PST
by 
dadfly
 
To: E. Pluribus Unum
    Could be a way to catch them, though, having already vetted separately.
 
4
posted on 
12/03/2024 4:24:17 PM PST
by 
Fester Chugabrew
(In a world of parrots and lemmings, be a watchdog.)
 
To: E. Pluribus Unum
    i’m sure fagg wray will be fair and impartial
 
To: E. Pluribus Unum
    So he’s going to use today’s FBI to check on his nominees? Big mistake.
 
6
posted on 
12/03/2024 4:25:48 PM PST
by 
SkyDancer
(                                    ~ Am Yisrael Chai ~)
 
To: E. Pluribus Unum
    People still don’t trust Trump. That’s a mystery
 
7
posted on 
12/03/2024 4:26:47 PM PST
by 
stanne
 
To: dadfly
    It may be a good way to flush out undesirable fbi agents.
 
To: dadfly
    It may be a good way to flush out undesirable fbi agents.
 
To: E. Pluribus Unum
    How did Valerie Jarrett ever pass the FBI check?
 
10
posted on 
12/03/2024 4:28:43 PM PST
by 
Zathras
 
To: E. Pluribus Unum
    Hopefully the agreement has some method for auditing materials collected.
 
11
posted on 
12/03/2024 4:29:11 PM PST
by 
glorgau
 
To: E. Pluribus Unum
    
President Trump this not good.
VERY BAD !!! THEY CAN NOT BE TRUSTED AT ALL !!!
12
posted on 
12/03/2024 4:29:46 PM PST
by 
mabarker1
( (Congress- the opposite of PROGRESS!!!  A fraud, a hypocrite, a liar.  I'm a member of  Congress!!!)
 
To: 1malumprohibitum
    Mistake?? Please....I'm sure the FBI already has all they need to make a decision. These candidates are not new to the political/social world. 
The agreement is just part of the process. No big deal in the real world.
To: E. Pluribus Unum
    Don’t give your enemies anything.
 
14
posted on 
12/03/2024 4:37:14 PM PST
by 
popdonnelly
(All the enormous crimes in history have been committed by governments.)
 
To: SkyDancer
    It’s no coincidence that Trump’s nominees are making the rounds with Repub senators right now. So, it either means they gave nominees an ultimatum - background checks or a likely ‘no’ vote on confirmation - or - some are ‘no’ votes and Trump is removing this excuse.
 
To: Fester Chugabrew
    No way should he allow the corrupt FBI to vet
Anyone.
 
16
posted on 
12/03/2024 4:41:02 PM PST
by 
Ronald77
 
To: Zathras
    Was she ever in a position that required a back ground check such as a director of an agency. She was an advisor. They should, but are checks done on advisors ?
I don’t think back ground checks are done on congress either.
 
17
posted on 
12/03/2024 4:42:49 PM PST
by 
HollyB
 
To: stanne
    I gave up on that.
Probably sounded like a concern troll during the election :)
“omg he said that?!? he’s done!!”
“oh no, he did what?!?! he’s done!!”
Etc :)
 
18
posted on 
12/03/2024 4:44:22 PM PST
by 
dp0622
(Tried a coup, a fake tax story, tramp slander, Russia nonsense, impeachment and a virus. They lost.)
 
To: E. Pluribus Unum
To: E. Pluribus Unum
    What could possibly go wrong???
 
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
 first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-99 next  last
    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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson