Summary

Donald Trump’s transition team has been barred from accessing federal agencies due to delays in signing standard ethics and transparency agreements, leaving Cabinet nominees without access to classified or non-public data.

This standoff hampers preparation for national security, workforce, and budget issues as the administration readies for the January 20 inauguration.

Concerns include safeguarding against threats like conflicts abroad and domestic crises, such as avian flu.

The delays also risk derailing nominee confirmations, with scrutiny over FBI background checks and controversies involving key picks like Pete Hegseth and Matt Gaetz.

    • mister_flibble@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      28 days ago

      Honestly I think there will be. Trump has always treated anyone he considers an underling (hell, anyone who isn’t him for that matter) as disposable. He said you’ll never have to vote again but given he’s not running for congress there’s a fair chance that doesn’t apply to midterms simply because he does not give a shit about any of those people.

    • MrPoopbutt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      29 days ago

      There probably will be, but election certification may make them void.

      There are a lot of effective avenues for fuckery short of just outright banning things thay ends up having the same effect.

    • IHeartBadCode@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      29 days ago

      Well until Congress appeals 2 USC § 7, the law indicates that they are indeed on the schedule. But Article II leaves elections in the hands of Congress and the States to deal with. The President is very much excluded from the process.

      But I mean, SCOTUS apparently can do whatever they want. So it’s literally could be anything at this point. So who knows? But till 2 USC § 7 is removed, that’s what puts it on everyone’s calendar. And so far, most of the Courts seem to not hold that particular law in question.

      • Nougat@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        29 days ago

        “Since there’s so much evidence that the midterm elections are rigged, we’re going to have to postpone them.”

        • IHeartBadCode@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          28 days ago

          That’s not a power the President has. The President cannot postpone them and they aren’t included as an emergency power. So he can’t call an emergency and suspend elections. And yes, we’ve got precedent from the Civil War that elections can’t be suspended when we’re at war with ourselves.

          States can remove themselves, but that just means fewer folks arrive in Congress. Unless the President forcefully dissolves Congress, which would require a lot of the military being okay with murdering elected officials, only Congress can have a say on the law.

          The President can indicate that they’re rigged and what have you. But he only gets away with it, if Congress or the Courts or both goes along with it. That’s the only means that doesn’t require murdering people. All the other methods will require force. Including the “it’s all rigged”. California can have their midterm election, certify it, and send their members of Congress to DC. If Trump stops them, they can sue to be rightfully seated. That requires the Courts to go along with it. If the Courts allow them in, but the Speaker won’t acknowledge them or grant them a vote, that’s Congress going along with it.

          The only way the Executive alone prevents a member of Congress from taking their duly elected seat is shooting them in the head. That’s it, that’s the only means. All the other methods require some other ⅓ of our Government being cool with the heist.

          • Nougat@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            28 days ago

            You mean it would be a crime to do that? SCOTUS has spoken on that already.