Summary
Donald Trump’s transition team has bypassed standard FBI background checks for key cabinet nominees, relying instead on private investigators, as reported by CNN.
This breaks decades-old norms meant to vet candidates for criminal history and conflicts of interest.
Controversial appointees include Matt Gaetz (attorney general), Tulsi Gabbard (director of national intelligence), and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (health secretary), all facing scrutiny for past investigations, pro-Russian views, or personal admissions.
Critics argue Trump seeks to undermine traditional vetting, with potential security risks tied to bypassing these checks.
Citation for “Actual Russian Agent”?
(Hillary Clinton said so doesn’t count. )
Whether she has a direct chain of command from Russia or not, she is a Russian Asset by her actions.
She has been non-interventionist and spoke positively of Vladimir Putin and Bashar al-Assad for decades.
Gabbard promoted party division during the 2016 elections by supporting Bernie Sanders for president even after Sanders asked people to vote for Hillary Clinton. This aligns with Russian psyops on social media at the time.
When Russia Invaded Ukraine she parroted Kremlin Newspapers on the false claims that the USA operated 36 Biolabs in Ukraine.
She sued Hillary Clinton for calling her a Russian Asset for some good press but then dropped the suit shortly after announcing it to the news. Meaning she thought Hillary could have actually won such a case if it went to court.
Diplomatic can often be confused with positivity
Gabbard supported Bernie Sanders for president even after Sanders asked people to vote for Hillary Clinton.
No, before
Well, The US did fund biolabs in the Ukraine.
Meaning value was gained in publicity and saved in legal fees.
Fucking tankies, bro…
Diplomacy supporting war and death is not a good thing.
You linking to before doesnt argue the point.
She had a lot more to gain by successfully suing Hillary. The only reason to drop the case already filed would be because the allegations were true enough that the opponent could provide evidence and the supposed victim couldn’t demonstrate otherwise.