MSNBC - 'Total lack of vetting': Breaking down Trump's cabinet picks
The conversation focuses on the typical process of presidential nominees lobbying for their cabinet picks and how Trump's approach has been controversial due to a lack of thorough vetting. Normally, presidents advocate for their nominees, and the Senate engages in a serious advice and consent process. However, Trump's nominees have faced significant controversy, with several dropping out due to personal issues and lack of experience. This has been attributed to inadequate vetting, where nominees are quickly chosen after informal meetings without proper background checks or ethics agreements. This lack of preparation could lead to a situation where Trump assumes office with fewer confirmed cabinet members than previous administrations, potentially impacting national security. The discussion draws parallels to the Bush administration's challenges during the 9/11 attacks, highlighting the need for a fully staffed government to ensure effective governance and national security.
Key Points:
- Presidential nominees typically lobby for their cabinet picks, but Trump's approach has been controversial due to inadequate vetting.
- Several of Trump's nominees have dropped out due to personal issues and lack of experience, highlighting vetting deficiencies.
- Proper vetting involves FBI background checks and Office of Government Ethics agreements, which have been lacking in this process.
- The lack of confirmed cabinet members by inauguration could impact national security, as seen in the Bush administration during 9/11.
- A fully staffed government is crucial for effective governance and national security, regardless of political affiliations.