• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Bigger than Vindman: Trump scrubs 70 Obama holdovers from NSC

JORMBO

Darkness no more
Mar 5, 2009
8,177
7,246
1,470

President Trump is making good on his promises to “drain the swamp” and cut Obama-era holdovers from his staffs, especially the critical and recently controversial National Security Council.

Officials confirmed that Trump and national security adviser Robert O’Brien have cut 70 positions inherited from former President Barack Obama, who had fattened the staff to 200.

Many were loaners from other agencies and have been sent back. Others left government work.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
19,988
40,807
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
Makes sense. When these folks show themselves more than willing to engage in subversion over "foreign policy disagreements", they shouldn't be in any political position, especially not one that is close to the president. We already have problems with politicians employing chinese spies, no need to open up even more opportunities for corruption and treason.
 

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
6,350
9,346
910
Let me guess, the chicken littles are going to be screaming about dictators now.
 
  • Fire
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

Vicetrailia

Member
Mar 12, 2019
1,075
537
410
I thought he would have been done with this already.

They're employees, not corrupt burrecrats. They're giving lefties something to screech about in an otherwise non-controversial, totally normal thing to do.
 
Last edited:

Vade

Member
Dec 28, 2012
1,485
108
570
Honestly for every good man or woman who just wants to do their job regardless of who appointed them; there are always seemly 3 or 4 who are mad that 'their side' lost and will actively or passively waste time and resources to 'get even'. Trump should have gone scorched earth just like Obama did on Bush. Trying to pay nice when you are an outsider was the wrong move. You were going to get trashed in the media regardless might as well get the ball rolling early.

Obama demands resignations
 

The Pleasure

Member
Jan 8, 2019
1,261
1,405
405
Does this mean Afro Republican has a new job in the administration? Trump needs a new African American and he can tell black voters that deliveries are in the back. While rambling about how Hispanic votes are meaningless while cursing the fact that they make more money than black people in 1/10th the time.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
30,484
39,621
1,170
Does this mean Afro Republican has a new job in the administration? Trump needs a new African American and he can tell black voters that deliveries are in the back. While rambling about how Hispanic votes are meaningless while cursing the fact that they make more money than black people in 1/10th the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: King of Foxes

DarkMage619

Member
Jun 19, 2004
758
152
1,470
Trump knows who the whistleblower is and now knows if he did this on Day 1 there would've been no impeachment.
Has there been any credible info that showed the whistle-blower or any of the other witnesses at Trump's impeachment were lying? Is the belief here that the 17+ witnesses were all making it up?
 

dionysus

Yaldog
May 12, 2007
6,783
839
1,285
Texaa
Has there been any credible info that showed the whistle-blower or any of the other witnesses at Trump's impeachment were lying? Is the belief here that the 17+ witnesses were all making it up?
They weren't lying, but they literally had no knowledge of Trump's motives. They all inferred it, and since the whole impeachment was based on his motives and not the actual illegality of the act, it had no substance. It was nothing more than office gossip. Every single witness the Democrats called admitted under cross examination that they never heard Trump say, or were directed by others to withhold aid because of Hunter Biden. In fact, one of them had to admit that they Trump told them he didn't care about the Biden investigation.

But you see, they all knew in their hearts what it was "really" about and thus they had to work with Schiff.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
19,988
40,807
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
Has there been any credible info that showed the whistle-blower or any of the other witnesses at Trump's impeachment were lying? Is the belief here that the 17+ witnesses were all making it up?
Approximately as much credible info that showed Trump's secret motive was to hurt Biden for the sake of the 2020 election.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Tesseract

Teletraan1

Member
May 17, 2012
6,931
4,682
670
Canada
Good, I thought he would wait until after the election but this makes more sense to hopefully prevent another coup before the election. He should replace the FBI head Christopher Wray as well. That guy is useless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: infinitys_7th

Madonis

Member
Oct 21, 2018
1,097
558
315
Unsurprising, since the Dear Leader demands only absolute loyalty and yes-men.

Is he actually accusing them of doing something specific or proven leaking? Nope.

But hey, whatever. It'll make him look worse in the history books, regardless of the GOP cheerleading.

As for draining the swamp....all the lobbyists he has been naming would suggest otherwise.


I wonder why he names so many of them, if his goal was supposedly to fight corruption.

Or maybe these are all good lobbyists, somehow, while all the "Obama people" (bet several of them might be pre-Obama folks too, btw) were evil.
 
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: Sakura Doritos

gunslikewhoa

Member
Mar 3, 2014
2,543
1,406
550
Has there been any credible info that showed the whistle-blower or any of the other witnesses at Trump's impeachment were lying? Is the belief here that the 17+ witnesses were all making it up?
The belief here seems to be that none of the 17+ witnesses possess the ability to read minds.
 

DarkMage619

Member
Jun 19, 2004
758
152
1,470
The belief here seems to be that none of the 17+ witnesses possess the ability to read minds.
True. I suppose that's is why the president could release documents and witness that show everything he was doing was above board and those 17 witnesses all got it wrong. It's been a normal practice in the past. Did Nixon and Clinton release documents and witnesses?
 
Feb 25, 2013
5,896
831
915
True. I suppose that's is why the president could release documents and witness that show everything he was doing was above board and those 17 witnesses all got it wrong. It's been a normal practice in the past. Did Nixon and Clinton release documents and witnesses?
Did Nixon and Clinton have such a rabid opposition that where out to get them impeached since day 0?

 

tfur

Member
Oct 21, 2007
3,316
239
1,080
Twin Ukrainian born brothers both working in the National Security Council. Interesting members of the coup d'état team.

Kind of creepy X-files feeling.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: infinitys_7th

Joe T.

Member
Oct 3, 2004
2,987
3,701
1,705
Montreal, Quebec
Unsurprising, since the Dear Leader demands only absolute loyalty and yes-men.


Very strange thing to say in regards to NSC staff, especially after a second, laughably weak attempt to remove Trump from office that needlessly tied up Congress for months and sucked up national media coverage that could have been much better spent on other topics, like the Dem presidential primaries for example.

Worth a read (and not just because the title amuses me, I swear):
 

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
5,616
7,238
460
Unsurprising, since the Dear Leader demands only absolute loyalty and yes-men.

Is he actually accusing them of doing something specific or proven leaking? Nope.

But hey, whatever. It'll make him look worse in the history books, regardless of the GOP cheerleading.

As for draining the swamp....all the lobbyists he has been naming would suggest otherwise.


I wonder why he names so many of them, if his goal was supposedly to fight corruption.

Or maybe these are all good lobbyists, somehow, while all the "Obama people" (bet several of them might be pre-Obama folks too, btw) were evil.
Obama demands resignations. “ totally normal. Nothing to see here.”
Trump demands resignations. “ He is a dictator. Mr Dear Leader blah blah blah.

Trump broke you people.
 

Teletraan1

Member
May 17, 2012
6,931
4,682
670
Canada
Obama demands resignations. “ totally normal. Nothing to see here.”
Trump demands resignations. “ He is a dictator. Mr Dear Leader blah blah blah.

Trump broke you people.
But the history books. Won't someone think about the history books.

For the next trick I will link something tangentially related to make sure everyone knows that OMB.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: DeepEnigma

gunslikewhoa

Member
Mar 3, 2014
2,543
1,406
550
True. I suppose that's is why the president could release documents and witness that show everything he was doing was above board and those 17 witnesses all got it wrong. It's been a normal practice in the past. Did Nixon and Clinton release documents and witnesses?
He didn't have to. Assumptions don't count, apparently. Maybe you should work on an amendment.
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
9,165
11,834
975
So Obama stuffed the NSC and expanded info sharing of the NSA all for Trump. Hmm sounds more like a guy putting his people in place and then letting them conspire amongst themselves.

Not like Obama charged more WB's than any other President in history combined. Or requested the unmasking 100's of Americans.
 

Madonis

Member
Oct 21, 2018
1,097
558
315
Obama demands resignations. “ totally normal. Nothing to see here.”
Trump demands resignations. “ He is a dictator. Mr Dear Leader blah blah blah.

Trump broke you people.
Because clearly Trump and the Republicans never resort to mockery, personal attacks, hyperbole or making fun of someone else. They're always rational and respectful. :messenger_tongue:

Spare me the posturing and false equivalence. He isn't a dictator, seriously speaking, but demanding resignations (and not just these) at this time isn't exactly normal. As opposed to when it's done after entering office, for example, or after a particular task has been accomplished and you need to rotate or reduce staff.

In other words, normal personnel shifts usually happen without Trump's stream-of-consciousness ramblings on Twitter about traitors and disloyalty that have made clear he's paranoid as well as intolerant of criticism within the administration or in Congress. He's the one framing the discussion in those terms, so why should people pretend otherwise?

Very strange thing to say in regards to NSC staff, especially after a second, laughably weak attempt to remove Trump from office that needlessly tied up Congress for months and sucked up national media coverage that could have been much better spent on other topics, like the Dem presidential primaries for example.

Worth a read (and not just because the title amuses me, I swear):
These criticisms aren't exclusively restricted to the NSC staff involved in this report, but include the other folks that Trump is firing now. Things aren't happening in isolation. Someone can argue it might be worthwhile to reduce the NSC's size, fair enough, but the actual context is that he's doing it right after the impeachment.

Congress still did plenty of things even while this was going on... and the other complicated issues that already weren't moving beforehand weren't going to be addressed anyway, as long as you don't have both parties willing to compromise. The Democrats are getting more than enough coverage now that people are actually voting,

And again, "draining the swamp" was supposed to be about getting rid of corruption and special interests. Not really happening when you bring in a ton of lobbyists.
 
Last edited:

Joe T.

Member
Oct 3, 2004
2,987
3,701
1,705
Montreal, Quebec
Congress still did plenty of things even while this was going on... and the other complicated issues that already weren't moving beforehand weren't going to be addressed anyway, as long as you don't have both parties willing to compromise. The Democrats are getting more than enough coverage now that people are actually voting,
You're starting to figure out why the Mueller investigation and the Ukraine "election interference"/impeachment were so important to the Dems. You can't drive your base into a frenzy about resistance and then turn around to compromise over major legislation, now can you?

As for "enough [election] coverage," I submit an excerpt from a recent Vanity Fair article touching on that very issue:

Usually, the presidential primaries supplant whatever’s happening in Washington as the focal point of American politics. Not this year, not with Donald Trump as president. The Des Moines Marriott bar, described in rinse-and-repeat fashion every four years as a “Star Wars bar scene,” crawling with big-name journalists and minor political celebrities, was less crowded than ever. The big shot news anchors mostly avoided Iowa and stayed back on the East Coast covering the impeachment trial. In 2016, ABC, CBS, and NBC devoted 86 minutes of their evening broadcast airtime to the campaign coverage in the run up to the Iowa caucuses, according to the Tyndall Report. This year, the caucuses ginned up only 10 minutes of coverage on broadcast news, a record low. Impeachment, coronavirus, and Kobe Bryant were bigger stories than canvass kickoffs in Ankeny.
 

transformer

Member
Nov 5, 2013
643
387
460
Has there been any credible info that showed the whistle-blower or any of the other witnesses at Trump's impeachment were lying? Is the belief here that the 17+ witnesses were all making it up?
Has there been any credible info that any of these witnesses, sans Sondland, was an actual fact witness with firsthand information? Because the 16 they paraded out there let it be known that they were relaying information they “heard” or were “told” or were surmising. Even the whistleblower report was candid about how none of it was verified or first hand information. Meanwhile all firsthand accounts contradict the hearsay.

So do you believe hearsay and opinion of these 16 witnesses over firsthand accounts and evidence? And the 17th witness, said under oath Trump clearly insisted upon no quid pro quo. So the only fact witness called, because the dems blocked others, backed Trumps claims.
 

HeresJohnny

Member
Mar 14, 2018
3,486
5,275
485
See? It really is a good thing when you cut government waste.

Seriously though, they serve at the pleasure of the president. GTFO. Should have been done a long time ago.
 
Last edited:

Teletraan1

Member
May 17, 2012
6,931
4,682
670
Canada
Because clearly Trump and the Republicans never resort to mockery, personal attacks, hyperbole or making fun of someone else. They're always rational and respectful. :messenger_tongue:

Spare me the posturing and false equivalence. He isn't a dictator, seriously speaking, but demanding resignations (and not just these) at this time isn't exactly normal. As opposed to when it's done after entering office, for example, or after a particular task has been accomplished and you need to rotate or reduce staff.

In other words, normal personnel shifts usually happen without Trump's stream-of-consciousness ramblings on Twitter about traitors and disloyalty that have made clear he's paranoid as well as intolerant of criticism within the administration or in Congress. He's the one framing the discussion in those terms, so why should people pretend otherwise?



These criticisms aren't exclusively restricted to the NSC staff involved in this report, but include the other folks that Trump is firing now. Things aren't happening in isolation. Someone can argue it might be worthwhile to reduce the NSC's size, fair enough, but the actual context is that he's doing it right after the impeachment.
These are being done after 3 years of investigation that turned up nothing more than assumptions parroted as fact, obstruction traps by running investigations for years past when they should have, a constant stream of timed leaks, tweets by the people representing these unelected people and these people themselves that read like a coup attempt. You can try and frame this as just retaliation for the last thing that happened but you are full of shit. We have 3+ years of reasons why he can move whomever he wants but we have you in here crowing about how it would have been acceptable if done for reasons you find acceptable like arbitrary new to office house cleaning. Sorry your feigned concern over this situation doesn't pass the smell test.
 

Madonis

Member
Oct 21, 2018
1,097
558
315
You're starting to figure out why the Mueller investigation and the Ukraine "election interference"/impeachment were so important to the Dems. You can't drive your base into a frenzy about resistance and then turn around to compromise over major legislation, now can you?

As for "enough [election] coverage," I submit an excerpt from a recent Vanity Fair article touching on that very issue:
Neither Trump nor current Republicans have ever really compromised about much of anything else, in practice, so what gives you the idea that only the Dems are to blame?

Of course both parties have used investigations in order to fire up their base. That's part of my point too. Honestly, you could argue both sides used their positions during the impeachment as part of their political campaign too. There's a lot of viable advertising material for the two parties that you can take from the hearings and the trial.

That's a fair point, regarding traditional coverage in historical terms. Nonetheless, see above.

These are being done after 3 years of investigation that turned up nothing more than assumptions parroted as fact, obstruction traps by running investigations for years past when they should have, a constant stream of timed leaks, tweets by the people representing these unelected people and these people themselves that read like a coup attempt. You can try and frame this as just retaliation for the last thing that happened but you are full of shit. We have 3+ years of reasons why he can move whomever he wants but we have you in here crowing about how it would have been acceptable if done for reasons you find acceptable like arbitrary new to office house cleaning. Sorry your feigned concern over this situation doesn't pass the smell test.
I guess only Republicans are allowed to carry out multi-year investigations that turn up with nothing, huh?

If he has proof that these specific people were leaking, I'd be fine with firing them. But I am not fine with blanket purges. Impeachment (or public criticism, or even leaking) is not a coup attempt.

Heaven help us if a real coup attempt actually does take place, sooner or later, so that people can learn the true meaning of the word.
 
Last edited:

DarkMage619

Member
Jun 19, 2004
758
152
1,470
Did Nixon and Clinton have such a rabid opposition that where out to get them impeached since day 0?

Does that change the facts? Trump had massive opposition and STILL acted corruptly. Democrats didn't make him use tax payer dollars to coerce a foreign country to investigate a US citizen. He brought it on himself. Still if he was innocent he could have provided documention and witnesses that showed he did nothing wrong.
 
Last edited:
Feb 25, 2013
5,896
831
915
You got proof that Trump acted corruptly? And the taxpayers that ELECTED him, did so because a large part of his platform was rooting out corruption. Remember the slogan, "Drain The Swamp!"? So I'm sure, and as you can see by the polls, that most are A-OK with him spending their "taxpayer dollars" to do just what they elected him for... BTW, we "coerce" foreign governments to do what we want all the time. It's part of doing your job as a President.


 

Madonis

Member
Oct 21, 2018
1,097
558
315
You got proof that Trump acted corruptly? And the taxpayers that ELECTED him, did so because a large part of his platform was rooting out corruption. Remember the slogan, "Drain The Swamp!"? So I'm sure, and as you can see by the polls, that most are A-OK with him spending their "taxpayer dollars" to do just what they elected him for... BTW, we "coerce" foreign governments to do what we want all the time. It's part of doing your job as a President.
But ironically enough, Trump isn't rooting out corruption nor draining the swamp in a meaningful, non-partisan sense.

He's also done things that probably invite greater corruption, including appointing lobbyists and proposing stuff like this:

Trump considering changing law that bans US companies from bribing foreign officials for business

 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
19,988
40,807
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
But ironically enough, Trump isn't rooting out corruption nor draining the swamp in a meaningful, non-partisan sense.

He's also done things that probably invite greater corruption, including appointing lobbyists and proposing stuff like this:

Trump considering changing law that bans US companies from bribing foreign officials for business

Ahh, the younger brother of "if he truly cared about corruption he would..."

Still an empty criticism. If you detailed what rooting out corruption in a "meaningful, non-partisan sense" would be, maybe we'd have more to discuss, but alas.
 
Feb 25, 2013
5,896
831
915
But ironically enough, Trump isn't rooting out corruption nor draining the swamp in a meaningful, non-partisan sense.

He's also done things that probably invite greater corruption, including appointing lobbyists and proposing stuff like this:

Trump considering changing law that bans US companies from bribing foreign officials for business

First off, I haven't been following that aspect much at all due to school, but neither you or I know what he is attempting behind the scenes. And he wouldn't make any of that public by it's nature so as not to alert anyone.

Secondly, he has been going at the corrupt media and pointing out those he thinks are corrupt for all to see for, like, ages. Putting a public eye on those larger entities that he doesn't have time for or know how to get to yet because his focus is elsewhere, puts a stumbling block in their way for the time being.

Thirdly, if people stopped standing in his way, maybe he could get more done. As I see it though, he has nearly the entire democratic party, media AND big tech companies and their algorithms standing in his path as well as some at the top of the FBI. If corruption really is a thing and infecting all these places, and I believe it is, it's not going to be easy to root it out when everyone is acting like they are on a frigging team and have to have each others backs at all costs.

Fourthly, addressing partisanship, again, maybe he could attempt to be more partisan if the dems weren't standing butthole to butthole and hiding each-others crap. As it is, the only people he would be able to get rid of is republicans... And he actually has done that. He's gotten rid of quite a few war hawks if I'm not mistaken. Which to me is a form of corruption.

And lastly, with all of that going against him there's just no way he is going to be able to root it ALL out on his own. Especially when that can't be his sole focus. So it's no surprise that it's been a long hard fight. All I really care about is that he is trying and hopefully inspiring others that come after him to try as well. Because this crap is something all of us should be worried about.
 
Last edited:

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
5,616
7,238
460
But ironically enough, Trump isn't rooting out corruption nor draining the swamp in a meaningful, non-partisan sense.

He's also done things that probably invite greater corruption, including appointing lobbyists and proposing stuff like this:

Trump considering changing law that bans US companies from bribing foreign officials for business

“He isn’t fighting corruption the way I want him to do it, therefore he isn’t fighting corruption.”

Oh please, cut the shit. Your side has spent 3 years trying to convict this guy of treason. He didn’t work in a non-partisan way? I wonder why?
 

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
6,350
9,346
910
But ironically enough, Trump isn't rooting out corruption nor draining the swamp in a meaningful, non-partisan sense.

He's also done things that probably invite greater corruption, including appointing lobbyists and proposing stuff like this:

Trump considering changing law that bans US companies from bribing foreign officials for business

That is a really stupid law that causes a huge compliance headache for businesses doing work overseas.

In some parts of the world, you literally HAVE to grease fingers to get things done.

I have had to sit through training so many times on this crap. The law should be changed. It is far too strict, and also too vague.

If you take a potential customer who has links to a foreign government to a sportsball game, that could land you in hot water with the feds.

It is a really poorly written law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VlaudTheImpaler

transformer

Member
Nov 5, 2013
643
387
460
But ironically enough, Trump isn't rooting out corruption nor draining the swamp in a meaningful, non-partisan sense.

He's also done things that probably invite greater corruption, including appointing lobbyists and proposing stuff like this:

Trump considering changing law that bans US companies from bribing foreign officials for business

You are exhibiting, in a nutshell, exactly what is wrong with politics and political rhetoric in the USA right now. You throw this news article, which disparages changing a law and assumes that "Orange Man Bad" and that this is proof that "Orange Man Bad". The article you quote said nothing of actual substance beyond that the law is being looked into for possible change. So we have two possible scenarios here:

1. This law is perfect and any discussion of changes is automatically evil! Orange Man Bad!
2. Or perhaps looking into laws to evaluate their effectiveness, potentially propose changes to improve, etc. is prudent work by government officials. Perhaps this law isn't perfect and it's not so quite a binary proposition: https://publicpolicy.wharton.upenn.edu/live/news/1335-does-the-foreign-corrupt-practices-act-work

I suggest number two is the likely scenario here and perhaps we should all wait until we hear an actual proposal (at least) or an actual draft of a law (preferred) before jumping to conclusions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VlaudTheImpaler

Madonis

Member
Oct 21, 2018
1,097
558
315
You are exhibiting, in a nutshell, exactly what is wrong with politics and political rhetoric in the USA right now. You throw this news article, which disparages changing a law and assumes that "Orange Man Bad" and that this is proof that "Orange Man Bad". The article you quote said nothing of actual substance beyond that the law is being looked into for possible change. So we have two possible scenarios here:

1. This law is perfect and any discussion of changes is automatically evil! Orange Man Bad!
2. Or perhaps looking into laws to evaluate their effectiveness, potentially propose changes to improve, etc. is prudent work by government officials. Perhaps this law isn't perfect and it's not so quite a binary proposition: https://publicpolicy.wharton.upenn.edu/live/news/1335-does-the-foreign-corrupt-practices-act-work

I suggest number two is the likely scenario here and perhaps we should all wait until we hear an actual proposal (at least) or an actual draft of a law (preferred) before jumping to conclusions.
If he were proposing a reform that would make it more effective and easier to enforce, then maybe I would accept that angle as plausible.

The thing is, Trump has previously criticized this law as a businessman and the gist of his opposition is...that it's "unfair".

"Now, every other country goes into these places, and they do what they have to do. It's a horrible law and it should be changed. I mean, we're like the policeman for the world. It's ridiculous," Trump said in a 2012 interview on CNBC.

His argument seems to be that since foreign companies also engage in bribery, then U.S companies shouldn't be forced to follow that law.

In other words, I don't see how that proposal benefits the anti-corruption fight. All it means is the U.S. would turn a blind eye to corruption (ironic, btw, in light of the Ukraine scandal).

It would be like saying "China doesn't respect intellectual property and copyright laws, so neither should we!" or something along those lines.
 
Last edited: