General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTraitor Trump didn't realize Steve Bannon needs Senate confirmation for NSC
When Donald Trump decided that fake-news publisher and alt-right nazi Steve Bannon would be his White House Chief Strategist, he presumably chose that role so that the overwhelmingly controversial Bannon wouldnt have to go through Senate confirmation hearings, which would have been a firestorm for the ages. But now that Trump has subsequently also picked Bannon for the National Security Council, it turns out hell be unwittingly feeding Bannon to the Senate wolves after all.
According to section (a)(6) of federal statute 50 U.S. Code 3021, a civilian like Steve Bannon will in fact need to go through Senate confirmation and approval in order to serve on the National Security Council because he doesnt fit into any of the five listed pre-approved categories. That obscure law, which has remained obscure because no president has ever tried to put a political hack on the NSC until now, was dug up by MSNBC analyst Jonathan Alter late on Monday night. This sets up a remarkable showdown if Trump goes ahead with the Bannon pick, because few in either party have shown any affinity or trust for the guy and theyll have limitless material for embarrassing him.
If Bannon goes through a Senate confirmation, it will give Senators the opportunity to grill him about his former role running fake-news white nationalist site Breitbart, and the chance to hammer him about the allegations that he beat his wife. And it will pull back the curtain on the mysterious Bannon, who is believed to be acting as de facto president in the Trump administration. If all 48 Democrats vote against him, it will require just three Republicans to do the same. Considering just how deeply Bannon is distrusted, along with the strong belief that he should not be taking the place of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the NSC, its likely that Bannon will be rejected by the Senate.
http://www.palmerreport.com/opinion/trump-apparently-didnt-realize-steve-bannon-will-need-senate-confirmation-security-council/1282/
C_U_L8R
(45,020 posts)There's no good move for Trump... either way he looks weak and feckless
DK504
(3,847 posts)THIS IS HILARIOUS. He has all these advisors that semm to be completely ignorant to how the government works in every way imaginable.
Please, please please, I am begging every one to find every sordid pieces of dirt on this slug.
jehop61
(1,735 posts)to watch this confirmation hearing! Can't wait
PJMcK
(22,048 posts)If I've learned anything over the past year, it's that very little that I believe about the United States of America has turned out to be true. After all, over 60 million of my fellow citizens voted for a proven liar and conman. In the past few months, we've gone from having the best president of my lifetime to the worst. Our country is headed off a cliff and the future is frighteningly bleak.
The Republicans have been subverting our nation for years and their behavior during the last year of President Obama's terms illustrates how partisan they are. I don't expect them to do anything about Donald Trump or his advisors. If the Senate does hold hearings on Steve Bannon's nomination to the NSC, their default position of party-before-country will ensure that he is approved.
Donald Trump and his people scare me because they are ignoring the Constitution and the norms of political process. Their path leads to a very dangerous future.
world wide wally
(21,754 posts)Fla Dem
(23,743 posts)Just to name a few; his taxes, his business entanglements, his son in law being a member of the executive wing, his ties and members of his staff's ties to the Russians. So I don't expect this to go anywhere.
Ilsa
(61,698 posts)jmg257
(11,996 posts)The Council shall have a staff to be headed by a civilian executive secretary who shall be appointed by the President. The executive secretary, subject to the direction of the Council, is authorized, subject to the civil-service laws and chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, to appoint and fix the compensation of such personnel as may be necessary to perform such duties as may be prescribed by the Council in connection with the performance of its functions.
Ms. Toad
(34,087 posts)but I don't think there is anything statutory that would prevent staff from attending and participating in the meetings, as if they were members (at the pleasure of the president).
onenote
(42,759 posts)We look foolish continuing to make the claim that he has to go through senate confirmation.
PRETZEL
(3,245 posts)and that one of the shows this morning (I'm thinking CNN) mentioned that there were periods where David Axelrod had been an invitee (but not participating). If that's the case, then I'm not sure what the issue would be. But, if it's not the case, then I'm even more confused.
Some of the confusion for me, I guess, revolves around a few things I haven't read answered. Namely, is Bannon a paid White House staff member? If he is, then wouldn't Trump have to name him as his representative on the Council? And if he is named as his rep, wouldn't he then be presiding over the Council? And if he's presiding over the Council, wouldn't he by the nature of his role on the NSC require Senate confirmation?
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)The Senate GOP will unanimously approve him and Bannon will just evade and deny anything the Dems ask him.
Ms. Toad
(34,087 posts)It's not an obscure law (as claimed in the article), but the statute that defines the membership of the NSC. People have been citing it for days. I wrote to my Senators about it on Saturday.
The provision being cited:
Unless Bannon is appointed to a new position (all of which require confirmation), he is not even eligible to be a member of the NSC. Confirmation or not.
onetexan
(13,058 posts)from the looks of it his henchman Bannon will be giving direction regardless of whether he is senate approved or not. Bastards.
Ms. Toad
(34,087 posts)in reading very simple, straightforward statutes.
The statute is being referred to as obscure (it's not - it is the statute that defines the committee)
The prerequisite to being appointed is being completely skipped over, in favor of outrage over a provision that isn't even applicable to people who can't be appointed in the first place.
The statute is equivalent to saying you can only eat grapefruits and oranges, and then only if they are round. Our side is saying, "My God, that zucchini isn't round!!! Don't eat it!!!!" The response should be, "That's a zuchinni. Don't eat it."
onenote
(42,759 posts)Believe me, I wish it was otherwise, but its not.
Ms. Toad
(34,087 posts)The two I have previously heard are that he was appointed to the National Security Council (he's not eligible and, if he was he would need confirmation) and that he was appointed to the Principals Committee (eligible and no confirmation needed).
What needs to be clarified is precisely what his appointment was.
onenote
(42,759 posts)It states as follows: "The Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, the Assistant to the President and Chief Strategist, the Counsel to the President, the Deputy Counsel to the President for National Security Affairs, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget are invited as attendees to any NSC meeting."
PRETZEL
(3,245 posts)onenote
(42,759 posts)Obviously, one difference is that Obama didn't have a "Chief Strategist" (i.e., Bannon) to designate. But Obama did designate the White House Counsel as being invited to attend any NSC meeting. Obama also named his Chief of Staff as a member of the NSC (while Trump seems only to have named his Chief of Staff as an invited attendee).
https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/ppd/ppd-1.pdf?ref=Presidential
I think its horrific that Bannon is allowed anywhere near anything, let alone NSC meetings. But there is precedent for the President naming members of his staff to attend meetings.
AlexSFCA
(6,139 posts)He will be approved by the senate easily.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)SHRED
(28,136 posts)DFW
(54,437 posts)"Wo kein Richter, kein Henker." "Where there is no judge, there is no hangman."
i.e. if no one is going to indict these guys for their illegal actions, none of them will ever have to account for them.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Last edited Tue Jan 31, 2017, 12:01 PM - Edit history (1)
(Edited to update to more direct source)
Link to tweet
About Laurence Tribe:
Harvard Law School professor Laurence H. Tribe has joined a legal team suing President Donald Trump, arguing that Trumps ownership of the Trump Organization violates a clause of the United States Constitution.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/1/25/lawrence-tribe-sues-trump/#.WJB0e0dhj_A.twitter
Blecht
(3,803 posts)Keep this shit to yourself.
On edit (in addition to fixing the typo): The information may be correct -- find another source to cite.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Link to tweet
?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Tribe is currently suing Trump for conflict of interest, so he's up on his facts:
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/1/25/lawrence-tribe-sues-trump/
Harvard Law School professor Laurence H. Tribe has joined a legal team suing President Donald Trump, arguing that Trumps ownership of the Trump Organization violates a clause of the United States Constitution.
librechik
(30,676 posts)world wide wally
(21,754 posts)onenote
(42,759 posts)Certain members of the NSC are member by statute. Others may be named by the president with Senate confirmation. There is a third category of NSC meeting attendees that can attend at the direction of the President and do not require Senate confirmation. Bannon falls into that category.
Wish it was otherwise, but its not.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3021
rzemanfl
(29,568 posts)I am starting to disagree with Lawrence Tribe, which is a thought that makes me shudder a bit.
My concern is, what is the meaning of "member" regarding these committees? Does it mean a member of the NSC or does it mean anyone Drumpf feels like appointing?
onenote
(42,759 posts)Trump: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/28/presidential-memorandum-organization-national-security-council-and
Obama: https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/ppd/ppd-1.pdf?ref=Presidential
In both instances, certain staff members are designated as invited "attendees" to NSC meetings. In Obama's case, for example, the White House Counsel was so designated. In Trump's case, the designated invitees included his "Chief Strategist" (i.e. Bannon).
It sucks, but it appears that there is nothing that can be done about it short of enacting new legislation regarding attendees at NSC meetings.
rzemanfl
(29,568 posts)Equinox Moon
(6,344 posts)How are any of these people in his cabinet passing security clearances?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)"Palmer Report" is wrong, as usual.
subterranean
(3,427 posts)I doubt it was Trump's idea in the first place. I think President Bannon probably suggested the idea to Trump, and he just went along with it. Trump seems too busy obsessing over his own media coverage to think about political maneuverings like that.