this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2024
226 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2618 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Republican senators are privately pushing to review Tulsi Gabbard’s FBI file amid concerns about her alignment with Russian interests following her nomination as Trump’s director of national intelligence.

Gabbard’s past support for Edward Snowden, who leaked U.S. state secrets, has drawn particular scrutiny, as has her history of echoing Russian talking points on Ukraine and Syria.

While GOP senators are publicly deferring to Trump’s pick, some, including Sens. Mike Rounds and Susan Collins, emphasize the importance of full background checks and hearings to address potential security risks.

top 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 36 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Gabbard’s past support for Edward Snowden

Yeah, Republicans WOULD be upset about her only correct stance, even if it's a past one 🤦

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world -1 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

face it man, Snowden is a Russian asset at this point.

he didn't start out that way be given the options of tea, window, or sabotage he chose sabotage.

[–] LavenderDay3544@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

He's a survivor.

What would you have done differently than him? Die?

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 59 minutes ago* (last edited 58 minutes ago)

Quietly quit because his whistle was never going to stop that kind of surveillance. If you held a gun to my head and said I had to leak then NYTimes and WaPo would get the relevant slide deck and I'd stand my day in court knowing I'd probably have my sentence commuted after several years.

He chose the literal worst option.

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Are you thinking of Assange?

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

no. Assange cares only for Assange.

Snowden cared about Americans once, but was abandoned by his nation to a corrupt government.

he's an unwilling Russian asset now, think of it like indentured servitude for his life.

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Are you able to point to actions that Snowden has taken to negatively impact the interests of the US people or to materially aid Russia?

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world -5 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

no, and I don't have to.

It is my opinion after all.

we're allowed to share those on here still, right?

[–] Exatron@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

It's not unreasonable to ask someone to elaborate or justify their opinion, kiddo.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 1 points 3 minutes ago

and it's not unreasonable for someone to refuse.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 43 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

The Senate receiving every bit of intelligence on a nominee from every government organization should be a requirement. If there's a national security issue with disclosure to the general assembly, that information should still go to the committees/Senators that have those clearances, like the Intelligence Committee.

[–] incogtino@lemmy.zip 13 points 1 day ago (2 children)

"Although FBI file reviews are standard for presidential cabinet candidates..."

I don't disagree with you, but this is a non-story. The committee asks for and receives this information as a matter of course

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 53 minutes ago

Trump wanted the Senate to just take a recess so he could make all his appointments without oversight.

That was never going to happen unless he allowed The Heritage Foundation to choose the cabinet and the Federalist Society to choose the judges. But Gaetz, Hegseth, and Gabbard made the request laughable.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Apart from the fact that the transition team hasn’t signed the required paperwork to actually kick that off, sure.

[–] WhatYouNeed@lemmy.world 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

The fucker won't sign it either. It will go to inauguration and he will proclaim its not needed by executive decision.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 52 minutes ago

He can't. It's the Senate's choice.

[–] cheers_queers@lemm.ee 31 points 1 day ago (1 children)

i love that he won't even be in office for a couple more months and they're already eating each other

[–] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 35 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

I really hope the infighting completely paralyzes them or at least slows down the fascism

[–] takeda@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

My thoughts too. I prefer non functional over fascist functional.

Though it looks like people around him this time are expecting to be able to manipulate him and to have a real power.

Another concern is that he likely replace Thomas and Alito with younger ones, basically cementing this corrupted makeup.

[–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I could see Alito retiring for party over country but Thomas is too self-serving, he'd have to die to give up the free money position.

[–] EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

He better book his rooms on the ground floor for the next 4 years then, or else a certain somebody might try his overlord's favorite trick.

[–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 2 points 13 hours ago

Nah Trump doesn't care about the long-term that way. So long as he votes for Trump's side in every case.

[–] Xanthobilly@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

They had all three branches for two years under Trump starting in 2016 and only got the tax cuts passed, and otherwise dicked around.

[–] spongebue@lemmy.world 6 points 14 hours ago

ACA repeal was only after a surprise vote by John McCain. Before that it was assumed to go through. I'm not so sure it won't be replaced this Congress with "concepts of a plan"

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 48 points 1 day ago

The call is coming from inside the house..

[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 18 points 1 day ago

Marco Rubio is on the Intelligence Committee, yeah?

Dude wants to be Sect. Of State so damn bad he's throwing all those Alphabets directly under a speeding Lada.

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 9 points 1 day ago

Quit being concerned quietly in private and freak the fuck out loudly like the rest of us, you fuckheads! Why do you keep choosing the most shit-filled route and then saying that the amount of shit you have to wade through gives you pause.