The Dictatorship

Biden has one last chance to protect America from Trump’s attempts to skirt the law

Published

2 years ago

November 19, 2024

Biden has one last chance to protect America from Trump’s attempts to skirt the law

We had fair warning. Last month, The New York Times reported that then-candidate Donald Trump’s advisers were telling him to skip FBI background investigations for his high-level selections for nominees. Last week, BLN, citing “people close to the transition planning,” reported that Trump doesn’t plan to submit the names of at least some of his Cabinet-level picks for FBI vetting. Whether you’re Republican, Democrat or independent, and regardless of whether you’re energized or enraged by Trump’s controversial picksyou should be concerned about the possibility of a vetting process that’s really no process at all.

Whether you’re energized or enraged by Trump’s picks, you should be concerned about the possibility of a vetting process that’s really no process at all.

The FBI has conducted background investigations of White House nominees since at least the tenure of President Dwight Eisenhower’s time in office. Even so, there’s no law clearly mandating presidents or presidents-elect to submit their nominees and appointments to the FBI for investigation. In 1953, Eisenhower issued Executive Order (EO) 10450calling for investigations of prospective federal employees. Yet, executive orders don’t have the full effect of a law and are only binding on the executive branch. Worse, Eisenhower’s executive order is subject to interpretation. Consider Section 2, “The head of each department and agency of the Government shall be responsible for establishing and maintaining within his department or agency an effective program to ensure that the employment and retention in employment of any civilian officer or employee within the department or agency is clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.” There’s lots of wiggle room there.Section 3 of that executive order reads, “The appointment of each civilian officer or employee in any department or agency of the Government shall be made subject to investigation … but in no event shall the investigation include less than a national agency check (including a check of the fingerprint files of the Federal Bureau of Investigation).” That means that Trump, who claims he’s using private firms to conduct background inquiries, might get by with having whatever firm that is simply checking FBI fingerprint files. Yet, despite there being no mandate, the intent here was a government inquiry involving the FBI.

Subsequent presidents, including Bill Clinton and Barack Obamarevised Eisenhower’s edict to mitigate intrusive inquiries into sexual orientation in the granting of security clearances, but still missing is a specific mandate for FBI investigation of White House nominees. And again, an executive order isn’t quite a law. Clearly, the intent in these executive orders has always been for a government agency, particularly the FBI, to conduct these inquiries, but we have an incoming president who thumbs his nose at rules and intentions.The Presidential Transition Act of 1963 directs the FBI to conduct such background checks “expeditiously” for “individuals that the President-elect has identified for high level national security positions.” But what if he never formally identifies and submits his picks to the Department of Justice and the FBI? In his last administrationTrump overrode security adjudicators who denied clearances for his son-in-law, Jared Kushnerand many others, after FBI background checks resulted in national security concerns. This time, he appears poised to dispense with the FBI checks and potentially with the Senate confirmation process by making recess appointments.

That leaves us with two pertinent memorandums of understanding (MOU) which should enable President Joe Biden and/or the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee to quickly do something to preserve national security and the Constitution’s advice, and consent powers conferred on our elected lawmakers.

This time, he appears poised to dispense with the FBI checks and potentially with the Senate confirmation process by making recess appointments.

First, Biden should rely upon the existing MOU between the Department of Justice and his office, as well as the Presidential Transition Act, to investigate the people Trump says he wants to put in office. The MOU sets out procedures for requesting background investigations of nominees “at the request of the president.” It doesn’t say the president-elect, it says “president.” That’s you, Joe. As for the transition act, it reads as applying to people “…the President-elect has identified” for high-level positions. Well, the president-elect has already publicly identified those people. And Biden should respond.What happens if a nominee refuses to cooperate, won’t provide his consent to be investigated or won’t fill out any forms? The MOU has a remedy for that: “The DOJ and FBI may consider a request from the President for a name check or BI without the consent of the appointee if justified by extraordinary circumstances.” I’d say with some of these nominees named by Trump, and the fact that Trump may forego FBI vetting of them, we have extraordinary circumstances.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has its own pertinent MOU with the Counsel to the President. That document says the committee “shall have access to” the FBI reports on nominees for attorney general, FBI director or summaries for “all other DOJ nominees and non-judicial nominees.” Emphasis on all other and non-judicial. We know senators want the details of the House Ethics Committee inquiry into former Rep. Matt Gaetz, Trump’s pick for attorney general. An FBI background investigation would certainly include a request to review that report, as well as the DOJ criminal investigation, now closed, into Gaetz. The Senate Judiciary Committee should make a bipartisan request for an FBI background check of Trump’s picks now. Regardless of party affiliation, if senators relinquish their advice and consent authority or confirm a nominee without benefit of knowing the risk they pose, then they set a precedent for never again exercising their constitutional powers.

You’d be right to ask, “What’s the point?” After all, Trump is unlikely to read, let alone act upon, any derogatory information developed in FBI reports. The point would be to force Trump’s hand. Drop the reports on his desk and let him go forward with nominees who potentially are either found through investigation to be unqualified, at risk of compromise, or even a national security threat. Let Trump order White House security clearance adjudicators or his hand-picked agency heads to grant security clearances to seemingly unqualified candidates. Let the Senate affirm nominees after they’ve read details about the kind of people who may lead the DOJ or serve as the director of national intelligence.

Don’t take it from me. Here’s what Founding Father Alexander Hamilton said about the Senate’s advice and consent role, and the need for checks and balances against a president’s nominees. “…the president would be ‘ashamed and afraid’ to bring forward unmeritorious candidates, whose only qualifications would be [hailing] from particular states, or being personally allied to the president, or ‘possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.’”

Biden should be neither ashamed nor afraid to thoroughly investigate Trump’s picks, given the signs that Trump may not. Through executive order, he should mandate that the FBI conduct background investigations on Trump’s picks and instruct the FBI to begin the process now. The U.S. Senate should use its power to request the same of the FBI.

The clock is ticking.

Frank Figliuzzi

Frank Figliuzzi is an BLN columnist and Senior National Security and Intelligence Analyst for NBC News and BLN. He was the assistant director for counterintelligence at the FBI, where he served 25 years as a special agent and directed all espionage investigations across the government. He is the author of “The FBI Way: Inside the Bureau’s Code of Excellence.”

The Dictatorship

Trump wants a Supreme Court do-over on birthright citizenship, but he won’t get one

Published

11 minutes ago

July 9, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Trump wants a Supreme Court do-over on birthright citizenship, but he won’t get one

For months, Donald Trump made clear that he expected the Supreme Court to rule against him on birthright citizenship, and his expectations were correct: Last week, a narrow majority of the high court ruled that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment means what it says.

Hours after the decision came down, the president downplayed the importance of his defeat, saying that he would pursue a legislative solution through Congress, but eight days later, the Republican published a very different kind of message to his social media platform that approached the issue in a more hysterical way. The missive read, in its entirety:

Signs and Billboards are being put up all over our Southern Border, and Mexico, advertising BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP, with “Deliveries starting at $4000.” Likewise, similar signs going up all over our Country. Billions of Dollars will be illegally made by this SCAM, with Citizenship going to anyone willing to pay. It will be, by far, the number one way of becoming a citizen, and then the entire family will be allowed to follow. Not sustainable.

NOBODY SAW THIS COMING!!! AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP IS NOT FOR SALE! In fact, that is a crime, and therefore, the Supreme Court’s ruling is wrong. I will be asking for a Rehearing by the United States Supreme Court, IMMEDIATELY. This miscarriage of justice will destroy America if they don’t change their absolutely insane decision. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

Even by Trump standards, this one’s a doozy.

The New York Times reported“The president appeared to be referring to a Fox News report that identified a hospital in Texas that had advertised paying for ‘Birth Packages in South Texas’ on billboards in Mexico. The outlet reported that Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas, a Republican, had ordered an investigation into the hospital, which told Fox News that “marketing materials regarding maternity services are no longer in use due to any unintended misunderstanding.”

Trump apparently took this report and ran with it, inventing various other details, including the amusing idea that cross-border birth tourism will somehow become “the number one way of becoming a citizen” (“by far,” the president added), as opposed to simply being born on U.S. soil to American parents.

But even if such an advertising campaign existed, it wouldn’t generate a rehearing from the Supreme Court. There is no scenario in which justices would say, “Sure, we ruled last week that the unambiguous language of the 14th Amendment means what it says, but if there are billboards going up, that changes everything.”

For good measure, let’s not forget that, according to Trump, his administration has effectively ended illegal border crossings, so as a practical matter, he really shouldn’t be that concerned.

The president’s online rant said he intends to ask for an immediate rehearing. If he orders administration lawyers to go through with such a pointless exercise and they bother to do the paperwork, they should keep their collective expectations low.

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”

The Dictatorship

Democrats’ scramble to replace Graham Platner ramps up in Maine

Published

11 minutes ago

July 9, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Democrats’ scramble to replace Graham Platner ramps up in Maine

Christmas. 9, 2026, 9:46 AM EDT

Maine Democrats are scrambling to replace Graham Platner a day after their nominee for U.S. Senate ended his bid following an allegation of sexual assault.

There’s a July 27 deadline set by state law for the party faithful to pick a new standard bearer in a race that is expected to be instrumental when it comes to whether Republicans can keep control of the Senate in this fall’s midterms.

Incumbent Republican Sen. Susan Collins may be vulnerable, but she has won five straight races for the seat dating back to 1996, and trying to defeat her was likely to carry challenges for Democrats even in the best case scenario.

Their new candidate will have to essentially start from nothing in the race, mend the divisions sown by Platner, introduce (or reintroduce) themselves to the broader electorate and corral support from the ex-candidate’s outsider-minded current and former followers, all in less than four months.

That amounts to a daunting task with massive implications not only for Maine Democrats, but potentially for the final two years of President Donald Trump’s time in the White House. Democrats need to flip at least four GOP-held Senate seats, and maintain all their current ones from several competitive states, to vault themselves into the majority in the midterms. A loss in Maine would be a significant setback.

Maine Democratic Party leaders announced plans “to hold a nominating convention to choose a new nominee,” while stating that “transparency is of the utmost importance.”

Already, several major voices are in the race, including unsuccessful candidate for governor and past Platner supporter Troy Jackson. The former state senate president made his bid clear less than an hour after Platner left the race. One major Bernie Sanders-aligned group, Our Revolution, has quickly rallied around Jackson.

Dan Kleban, co-founder of Maine Beer Company,”https://x.com/mainebeerbrewer/status/2075028234962677872?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet”>is also in the fray, along with former governor candidate Nirav Shah, who worked as Director of the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention during the pandemic. Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows who also ran for governor this summer is among other potential contenders.

Platner’s exit also brings difficulty for Collins and Republicans as well, however. Instead of facing a Democratic rival with a string of alarming controversies even before the sexual assault allegationan accustation Platner has denied, Collins instead will have to try to keep her seat in a blue state against someone far less defined, and potentially with far fewer vulnerabilities, in November.

Across the country this year, Democrats have navigated a political environment rife with divisions over how to sway voters in these strange times, with tension between more entrenched party leaders and an energetic and angered left wing often spilling out into the open.

What happens in Maine over the coming weeks may prove to be no different.

Hunter Woodall covers politics for MS NOW. He’s reported on politics and presidential campaigns for The Associated Press and CBS News and reported on Congress for The Minnesota Star Tribune.

The Dictatorship

Platner’s exit amplifies a key difference between Democrats and Republicans

Published

11 minutes ago

July 9, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Platner’s exit amplifies a key difference between Democrats and Republicans

It’s been almost three years since Kevin McCarthy became the first sitting House speaker to be ousted in the middle of a congressional sessionbut the California Republican has nevertheless tried to maintain a public profile and has routinely appeared on conservative media to push partisan talking points.

So it wasn’t too surprising to see McCarthy on Fox News on Monday night, responding to the latest sexual assault allegations against Graham Platner, still a candidate for Senate at the time.

As part of an apparent effort to contextualize the scandals surrounding the Maine Democrat, the former GOP leader said, “One thing I know about Republicans is when we had a very bad candidate and found out, we didn’t vote for that person. We walked away.”

Moments later, McCarthy added, “When Matt Gaetz came forward, we got rid of him.”

As is too often the case, the failed former House speaker not only had it backward, but his mistake also offered a timely reminder of details that made him and his party look worse, not better.

Indeed, Gaetz offers a rather extraordinary example. The Justice Department investigated the Florida Republican over allegations of alleged sex trafficking, and while Gaetz repeatedly denied any wrongdoing and the prosecutors’ probe ended without charges, his House GOP colleagues made no effort to “get rid of him” as the scandal intensified.

What’s more, the House Ethics Committee found “substantial evidence” that Gaetz “regularly” paid women for sex, had sex with a 17-year-old during his tenure on Capitol Hill and possessed illegal drugs. Nevertheless, as that evidence came together, he remained a GOP member in good standing; he won re-election in 2024 with the Republican Party’s backing; and President Donald Trump thought it would be a good idea to nominate Gaetz to serve as the U.S. attorney general — a nomination endorsed by Republican senators such as South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham and Alabama’s Tommy Tubervilleeven after they had seen the House Ethics Committee’s findings.

This is what McCarthy cited as an example of the GOP maintaining the highest standards and throwing “very bad candidates” to the curb. That’s ridiculous.

But there’s no reason to stop with Gaetz. Indeed, the list of scandal-plagued Republicans who continued to enjoy the party’s backing long after ugly allegations had reached the public is not short. Trump is obviously the most glaring example, but the list includes other contemporary figures, including Rep. Cory Mills of Florida and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

There’s no reason to limit the list to electoral candidates, either: Former Fox News host Pete Hegseth faced an avalanche of scandals during his confirmation fight early last year, but Senate Republicans decided to ignore the allegations and make him defense secretary anyway.

As the Hegseth fight unfolded, political scientist Jonathan Bernstein published a smart piece that remains relevant: “I do not believe that Republicans or conservatives are any more prone to [scandals] than Democrats. What has changed, however, is the incentive structure. Once upon a time both parties were equally likely to rid themselves of bad actors; now Republicans are far more likely to tolerate, and in some cases even celebrate, behavior they once would have shunned.”

When Democrats learned of serious allegations against then-Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, the party abandoned him. When then-New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez faced serious criminal charges for which he was later convicted, the party abandoned him, too.

In Maine, the Platner example followed the same path, as evidenced by his decision to withdraw from the Maine race after Democratic officials left him with no other choice.

Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, an MS NOW legal analyst, explained this week“The contrast here is hard to ignore. Democrats have shown that when credible allegations of sexual misconduct emerge against one of their own, the conversation turns quickly to accountability. Republicans have made a different choice. That’s not a partisan talking point, it’s a difference in how the two parties have approached questions of character and fitness for office over the last 10 years.”

That’s true, whether McCarthy wants to acknowledge it or not.