What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[LaCroix]

raise an eyebrow probably. for reporters, maybe look into things.

Ok. That looks to be all that is happening. I don't see he is on trial for treason or espionage or something. We already have concerns about Russia so it is not a good look yes?

for conspiracy theorists, use as further proof trump receives orders from master putin

Oh FFS. That is not what I asked you.

He loves to be the devil's advocate on anything concerning Trump and his reign.  I guess he feels like he needs to balances out the anguish that is seen elsewhere on the web by adopting a silly pose that we should wait until someone does something bad before evincing concern.

nah, now that the nation has elected trump, I'm generally interested in his presidency and hope he does well. post-election, I've defended trump here and there on points I think he's unfairly attacked. with tillerson, I saw posts that very clearly went beyond mere "evincing concern." it seemed similar to attacks directed at some of obama's nominees

[OttoVonBismarck]

I'm not so ready to say Tillerson is unqualified. For one, and I've mentioned this before, the cabinet isn't the cabinet anymore. It could be, sure, but at least up til now it hasn't been. Dating back about 50 years, Presidents have deigned to run most of the high level government out of the White House. So Executive Office appointees (who are appointed at Presidential whim and not subject to Senate confirmation) have very frequently been the important players in actually determining the President's decisions on policy issues.

For example, the Vice President and other top advisers to Bush had his ear on the invasion of Iraq, a former Chairman JCS and the guy who formally held the top foreign policy job in America (Powell) was, like most cabinet secretaries, given the "courtesy" of being in the room, but had little influence, little power, and was expected to fly around shaking hands and parroting the party line in speeches, which is largely what he did.

Historically the cabinet's most important role was in advising the President, and filling out the patronage positions. We largely eroded the old patronage system (for good reason), and most of the "real work" of the executive branch is done by civil servants, who report up the chain to higher and higher ranking civil servants. The very top level political appointees, the cabinet secretaries and their direct reports (who are also usually appointees) often aren't even analogous to a CEO of a company, and have so little operational involvement they might be better thought of as a non-executive "Chairman of the Board" type of person.

Considering Tillerson has a lot of experience actually running (not just appearing to run) a large, complex organization that actually probably makes him more apt to actually be able to take a more hands on role with things than a lot of SecStates (including Clinton, who had essentially no executive experience whatsoever before being SecState.)

One area that SecStates have gotten to 'exercise' a lot in recent years has been negotiating very high level deals, and I'd argue that Tillerson has more experience in negotiations (even with foreign leaders) than a former First Lady and 1.5 term Senator like Hillary, and probably even more than a very long term Senator like Kerry. Kerry had spent a lot of time on (and ultimately chaired) the Committee on Foreign Relations, but a Senate Committe on foreign relations doesn't actually engage in foreign policy or negotiations with foreign leaders--so on that mark Tillerson is again, more experienced than Kerry was when he was nominated.

Not necessarily saying I think Tillerson is a good choice, but just pointing out that a) most SecStates have had almost no executive experience in recent years, b) a lot of real foreign policy decisionmaking is ran out of the White House anyway and c) "generic government experience", like being a Senator or Governor or previously being a Secretary of Labor or whatever aren't really all that relevant as experience for being Secretary of State, if we wanted to talk "real experience", very few politicians accumulate genuine foreign policy experience before being Secretary of State. Most jobs that give foreign policy experience to high level politicians are jobs that usually come after a person has already surpassed SecState in terms of important--i.e. someone who has been Vice President or President. One of the notable exceptions might've been a guy like George H.W. Bush, who in his brief stint at CIA acquired some foreign policy experience, so he could've said going in if he had been Reagan's SecState (instead of his running mate / Vice President), he had some prior foreign policy experience. But most politicians just don't have it, if we really wanted experience here we'd be looking at the long-term under-secretaries and such, but they aren't politicians.

[derspiess]

...and Rex Tillerson as Abraham Lincoln.

[Razgovory]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trumps-national-security-adviser-shared-secrets-without-permission-files-show/2016/12/13/72669740-c146-11e6-9578-0054287507db_story.html?utm_term=.60b37321817a

A secret U.S. military investigation in 2010 determined that Michael T. Flynn, the retired Army general tapped to serve as national security adviser in the Trump White House, "inappropriately shared" classified information with foreign military officers in Afghanistan, newly released documents show.

Although Flynn lacked authorization to share the classified material, he was not disciplined or reprimanded after the investigation concluded that he did not act "knowingly" and that "there was no actual or potential damage to national security as a result," according to Army records obtained by The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act.

Flynn has previously acknowledged that he was investigated while serving as the U.S. military intelligence chief in Afghanistan for sharing secrets with British and Australian allies there. But he has dismissed the case as insignificant and has given few details.

The Army documents provide the first official account of the case, but they are limited in scope because the investigation itself remains classified. Former U.S. officials familiar with the matter said that Flynn was accused of telling allies about the activities of other agencies in Afghanistan, including the CIA.

The Army files call into question Flynn's prior assertion that he had permission to share the sensitive information.

During the presidential race, Flynn campaigned vigorously for Republican nominee Donald Trump and drew attention for his scalding attacks against Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified material. Clinton was investigated by the FBI for allowing classified information to be transmitted on her private email server when she ran the State Department. No charges were filed against the former secretary of state, but the issue dogged her for more than a year.

[Trump's national security adviser says he's ready to fight another world war]

At the Republican National Convention in July, Flynn called on Clinton to drop out of the race for putting "our nation's security at extremely high risk with her careless use of a private email server." He egged on the partisan crowd in chants of "lock her up," adding: "If I, a guy who knows this business, if I did a tenth, a tenth of what she did, I would be in jail today."

Flynn did not respond to requests for comment.

The office of the Army's Judge Advocate General released a four-page summary of the investigation into Flynn in response to The Post's Freedom of Information Act request for records of any misconduct allegations involving the retired three-star general.

The U.S. military opened the investigation into Flynn in 2010 after receiving a complaint from an unnamed Navy intelligence specialist, according to the documents. The intelligence officer charged that Flynn violated rules by "inappropriately" sharing secrets with "various foreign military officers and/or officials in Afghanistan."

The documents do not reveal the nature of the information. But former U.S. officials familiar with the case said it centered on slides and other materials containing classified information about CIA operations in Afghanistan.

"It was a general intelligence briefing that included stuff that shouldn't have been on those slides," said a former senior U.S. intelligence official, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the subject. The disclosures revealed "stuff the intelligence community was doing that had a much higher level of classification."

The agency has had an extensive presence in the Afghanistan since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Beyond gathering intelligence on al-Qaeda and the Taliban, the CIA has also assembled its own paramilitary networks in the country, paying warlords for cooperation and funding armed groups known as Counterterrorism Pursuit Teams.

A second former U.S. official said Flynn failed to secure permission to reveal those secrets. "This was a question of whether or not information was put through proper channels before it was shared," the second official said.

The episode marked the second time in a year that Flynn had drawn official complaints for his handling of classified material.

Former U.S. officials said that Flynn had disclosed sensitive information to Pakistan in late 2009 or early 2010 about secret U.S. intelligence capabilities being used to monitor the Haqqani network, an insurgent group accused of repeated attacks on U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

Flynn exposed the capabilities during meetings with Pakistani officials in Islamabad. The former U.S. intelligence official said a CIA officer who accompanied Flynn reported the disclosures to CIA headquarters, which then relayed the complaint to the Defense Department. Flynn was verbally reprimanded by the Pentagon's top intelligence official at the time, James R. Clapper Jr.

Clapper subsequently became director of national intelligence and endorsed Flynn to become his successor as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. In 2014, however, Clapper forced Flynn out of that job over concerns with his temperament and management.

The newly disclosed Army documents state that the 2010 investigation was ordered by the head of U.S. Central Command, which oversees military operations in the Middle East and Afghanistan. Although the records do not say exactly when the case was opened, the commander at the time would have been Marine Gen. James Mattis.

Mattis took charge at Central Command's headquarters in Tampa, Fla., in August 2010. One month later, Flynn was ordered back to Washington from Afghanistan. He was assigned to a temporary job at the Pentagon as the special assistant to the Army's chief of intelligence while the investigation unfolded, records show.

Mattis was nominated this month by Trump to serve as secretary of defense. In that role, Mattis will work closely with Flynn; the retired generals are expected to be the most influential voices on national security in the Trump administration.

The Army documents that summarize the investigation into Flynn do not specify which countries he was accused of improperly sharing secrets with. In an interview with The Post in August, Flynn said he was scrutinized for giving classified information to British and Australian officials serving in Afghanistan alongside U.S. forces.

In that interview, Flynn defended his actions and said he did nothing wrong. "That was substantiated because I actually did it. But I did it with the right permissions when you dig into that investigation. I'm proud of that one. Accuse me of sharing intelligence in combat with our closest allies, please."

The Army documents, however, state explicitly that the Central Command investigation determined that Flynn did not have permission to share the particular secrets he divulged. The Defense Department's inspector general, which conducted an independent review of the investigation, came to the same conclusion, the documents show.

It is routine for the U.S. military to share intelligence in Afghanistan with NATO allies such as Britain, as well as other members of the broader international coalition fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda, including Australia. But there are established mechanisms and guidelines that must be followed.

Flynn was highly regarded within the Army for the key role he played in shaping U.S. counterterrorism strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pentagon officials had intended to promote Flynn in 2010 to the rank of lieutenant general and to make him assistant director of national intelligence, a job that would place him in charge of improving ties with foreign intelligence agencies.

The Central Command investigation delayed his career advancement for a full year. He received his promotion and new assignment in September 2011.

After being forced to retire from the military in 2014, Flynn became a vocal opponent of the Obama administration's policies regarding Iran and al-Qaeda. At the same time, he gained a reputation for floating conspiracy theories on Twitter.

Some Democratic lawmakers have criticized his selection as Trump's national security adviser. The position, however, is not subject to Senate confirmation.

[viper37]

Lock him up!

[Jacob]

Insiders: Trump Team Dangled Ambassadorships to Lure A-List Inauguration Singers

President-elect Donald Trump's team is struggling so hard to book A-list performers for his inaugural festivities that it offered ambassadorships to at least two talent bookers if they could deliver marquee names, the bookers told TheWrap.

The bookers, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said they were approached by members of Trump's Presidential Inaugural Committee in recent weeks with offers of cash or even plush diplomatic posts in exchange for locking in singers.

http://www.thewrap.com/insiders-trump-team-dangles-ambassadorships-to-lure-a-list-inauguration-singers-exclusive/

[Eddie Teach]

What, Ted Nugent's not good enough?

[Valmy]

Ah well. I guess Ambassadorships have been sold for less.

[The Brain]

Luckily, that song was "White Christmas".

[The Minsky Moment]

Considering Tillerson has a lot of experience actually running (not just appearing to run) a large, complex organization that actually probably makes him more apt to actually be able to take a more hands on role with things than a lot of SecStates (including Clinton, who had essentially no executive experience whatsoever before being SecState.)

Running Exxon is not like running the State Dept.  Very different kinds of organizations.  tillerson has literally done nothing other than work for Exxon.  He is a lifer, an oil man all the way through.

If someone like McCain was President - a Russia hawk with very strong public experience and a security background, then a pick like Tillerson could make some sense: a deal guy who can good cop.  But in this context it's a terrible pick, he accentuates all of Trump's weaknesses: lack of public experience, a worldview slanted by strong private interests, softness for the Russians.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Considering Tillerson has a lot of experience actually running (not just appearing to run) a large, complex organization that actually probably makes him more apt to actually be able to take a more hands on role with things than a lot of SecStates (including Clinton, who had essentially no executive experience whatsoever before being SecState.)

Running Exxon is not like running the State Dept.  Very different kinds of organizations.  tillerson has literally done nothing other than work for Exxon.  He is a lifer, an oil man all the way through.

If someone like McCain was President - a Russia hawk with very strong public experience and a security background, then a pick like Tillerson could make some sense: a deal guy who can good cop.  But in this context it's a terrible pick, he accentuates all of Trump's weaknesses: lack of public experience, a worldview slanted by strong private interests, softness for the Russians.

And running a Senate office (avg budget of $3.5m or so for staff) is also, nothing like running the State Department (hi Hillary and John Kerry.) Just saying people (not you, precious) are acting like the typical politician that's held these positions has vast experience relevant to the job--and they don't. I do work in a Federal agency, I can honestly say the only people who have experience running these things are the top-level bureaucrats, who will eventually be rewarded with a deputy or sub-deputy level political appointment, but will never be considered for the cabinet secretary job--those typically go to largely unqualified politicians.

I'm not sure the last Secretary of State that had meaningful experience working in government as a civil servant. The last Sec State with serious foreign policy experience was probably Condi Rice, but her experience was more academic (National Security Advisor is knowledgeable but not usually a functional player), Madeleine Albright was UN Ambassador so she'd at least been in the room with foreign diplomats and involved in negotiations. Colin Powell had a lot of "line experience" managing in government, but it was in the military, which is a whole different beast.

[jimmy olsen]

yes, as is the plan with any nominee accepted into a position. I mean, anyone has the potential to openly and fragrantly harm US national interests, but it doesn't make much sense to bar everyone before they have the chance to do it. some (almost every if not every) won't actually do it

Not everyone has giant red flags going in. 
A recent personal award from a hostile foreign government is a bad indicator for a SoS.   That just seems very obvious.

not everyone does, absolutely, but my stance is to give him a shot. some credible people recommended him for the position--it's not like he's some shadowy figure no one knows about who happens to have ties with putin.

Those credible people are currently consulting for Exxon.

[OttoVonBismarck]

It's also not super relevant that they don't have experience "running the State Department", the State Department is largely ran by the same bureaucrats that will never actually be a SecState. The cabinet secretary relies on their judgment for a lot of the day to day stuff that functions largely the same under every administration. The biggest roles of the current SecState are advisory to the President (if the President makes them part of their inner circle, which is hit or miss with modern Presidents), and chief negotiator for the more important, high press attention parts of major international accords and etc.

Where a cabinet secretary can be more influential in day to day operations is if they push major reforms of how their department works, which they sometimes try--but these reforms often fall apart because they are difficult to implement and a lot of the entrenched civil service just takes a 'hunker down' attitude, knowing whenever the next guy is in office he'll likely forget reform initiatives. If a cabinet secretary testifies before Congress and builds support for legislation that pushes reform that can have a more lasting impact since the new legislation stays even after the old secretary is gone, but that's not often been the normal behavior of these guys. A lot of cabinet secretaries are quite clearly taking an ego-driven "victory lap" (Ben Carson), and/or just glad-handing before running for higher office (Hillary).

[jimmy olsen]

Anyways,  Tillerson's lack of government experience does not bother me. I think he will be extremely competent. It's his conflicts of interest and pro-Russian agenda that I take issue with.

[Berkut]

Anyways,  Tillerson's lack of government experience does not bother me. I think he will be extremely competent. It's his conflicts of interest and pro-Russian agenda that I take issue with.

Well, you have to pay Putin back somehow.

I am sure this is just a downpayment on the expected payoff for getting Trump elected.