Outside the Beltway

Source: the White House

More Loyalist Appointments

Nunes and Grinell.

Steven L. Taylor
20

Comments

Source: the White House

Reuters reports: Trump gives allies Devin Nunes, Richard Grenell key roles.

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump on Saturday named his social media platform CEO Devin Nunes to lead an intelligence advisory panel and said his former intelligence chief Richard Grenell would run “special missions” in places such as U.S. adversaries Venezuela and North Korea.

They both have adequate on-paper qualifications for the positions, but it should be underscored that their main qualifications are their personal loyalty to Trump.

Really, all you need to know about Nunes is how Trump views him (and that he is currently the CEO of Truth Social).

“Devin will draw on his experience as former Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and his key role in exposing the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax, to provide me with independent assessments of the effectiveness and propriety of the U.S. Intelligence Community’s activities,” Trump wrote.

Nunes was highly combative in that role, which included an Ethics Committee investigation regarding the disclosure of classified information (he was eventually cleared of charges). He, like his patron, likes filing lawsuits, especially against media companies.

Two previous posts of mine on Nunes: On Cows, Devin Nunes, and Twitter and What the Nunes Memo Tells us.

Side note: that Trump, even in writing in an ostensibly official press statement, continues to use the juvenile, “Russia, Russia, Russia” line is both utterly unsurprising and oh so very grating. It is also a constant reminder of how juvenile he is and well as what he thinks (correctly, in many cases) his supporters find appealing.

In regards to Grinnell (whom I wrote about almost five years ago here), I have to wonder to what degree Trump will use him as shadow SoS and undercut the more normie pick, Marco Rubio.

Like Nunes, Grinnell is a clear Trump loyalist and demonstrated himself to be an ideologue during his rather undiplomatic stint as ambassador to Germany. See, for example, this 2018 piece from Politico: German politicians call on US to withdraw ambassador.

Categories

,

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

20 responses to “More Loyalist Appointments”

  1. Kathy Avatar
    Kathy

    I still think Devin’s cow is more qualified.

    7
  2. al Ameda Avatar
    al Ameda

    U.S. President-elect Donald Trump on Saturday named his social media platform CEO Devin Nunes to lead an intelligence advisory panel and said his former intelligence chief Richard Grenell would run “special missions” in places such as U.S. adversaries Venezuela and North Korea.

    You can almost make the case that Grenell and Nunes are close to being within the ‘normal’ boundaries of ideology and competence to be appointed and confirmed. Although Nunes, like Tulsi Gabbard, probably should not be allowed anywhere near secret intelligence information.

    It comes down to picking you battles.
    Are either of these two guys are worth fighting for or against?
    If I had to choose one fight it would be Nunes. He is a greaseball who sold out the House Committee and ran to Trump to disclose sensitive information that the House Committee had regarding Trump.

    7
  3. DK Avatar
    DK

    his former intelligence chief Richard Grenell would run “special missions” in places such as U.S. adversaries Venezuela and North Korea.

    Hahahaha. Grinnell campaigned hard for Sec. of State, this is participantion trophy stuff. Ouch.

    5
  4. just nutha Avatar
    just nutha

    @DK: Still beats working for a living. I see this simply as expansion of the wingnut welfare system to the Civil Service realm. Patronage is still patronage and a “participation trophy” job still better than nothing.

    By the end of February he’ll be sneering that “Marco has to work for him while I’m getting paid for doing almost nothing.”

    4
  5. Scott F. Avatar
    Scott F.

    I actually want Trump to place loyalists in every possible position.

    Trump has already acknowledged that he won’t be able to lower the price of groceries like he promised he would during the campaign. Since tariffs and mass deportation won’t reduce crime or mitigate the fentanyl crisis or increase the supply of affordable housing, those promises won’t be kept as well. World peace ain’t going to be a matter of simply giving Putin and Netanyahu whatever they want either.

    So when Trump is asked to defend his failures, I’d rather the “I was thwarted by disloyal Deep State bureaucrats” argument that he used so much the last term be taken away from him. Sure, he will find a way to blame something or someone other than himself for his failures, but we need to force him to invent new scapegoats. He’s not that clever, so this will be hard on him.

    IMO loyalists throughout the Executive Branch aren’t the biggest threat. Let him have his lickspittles. The bigger threat is his partners and enablers in the Legislative and Judicial branches. The opposition’s focus needs to be there.

    4
  6. steve Avatar
    steve

    It’s a cult Scott. Wont work. He appointed lots of people his last time and he just disowned them. We will out that some of those people he appoints and fails were secret lefties all along, or they will find some way to blame it on lower level bureaucrats. One of the primary rules of the cult (of personality) is that the leader is always right and never wrong. They will contrive some reason why Trump is at fault and, usually, find some way to blame the left.

    Steve

    2
  7. gVOR10 Avatar
    gVOR10

    @Scott F.: There is an attitude on the right expressed as, “Conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed.” That still applies as conservatism has become Trumpism.

    I’ve been reading Democracy’s Resilience to Populism’s Threat” by one Kurt Weyland. He’s studied a lot of successful and unsuccessful populist authoritarians. One of the constants is incompetence. They routinely appoint unqualified loyalists and scorn expert counsel. In this country we blame distrust of experts on MAGA, but it has deep roots in establishment Republicanism. After all, experts would tell them to raise taxes and slash oil and coal production.

    I have a mental picture of Gandalf, clinging to the bridge in Moria, shouting, “Raise taxes, you fools!”

    2
  8. al Ameda Avatar
    al Ameda

    @gVOR10:
    A Conservative Government is an organized hypocrisy.
    the words of Benjamin Disraeli, a Tory British statesman and Prime Minister

    I fully understand that a Tory politician in Britain was and is a far cry from the nihilist Republicans who dominate American politics today, but these people want to burn it down and leave the ashes for future non-nihilists to govern.

    3
  9. Scott F. Avatar
    Scott F.

    @steve, @gVOR10 & @al Ameda:
    True, Trump specifically and the GOP generally never fail but are failed and blame-shifting is de rigeur. If Republicans couldn’t be hypocritical, they’d be mute.

    That doesn’t mean the opposition shouldn’t be relentless in pointing out the lies, undermining the excuses, and bringing evidence to bear. I contend that eventually Reality will assert itself. As Dr. Taylor continues to point out to us, Unreality is a core element of the authoritarian/fascist-curious Age of Trump. Resistance may be futile (for now), but we must not concede in advance.

    2
  10. Ken_L Avatar
    Ken_L

    Giuliani was the “special envoy” in Trump’s first administration, effectively running US foreign policy in eastern Europe, according to Gordon Sondland. His task was to dig up dirt on Democrats, especially the Bidens, and solicit illegal donations.

    From what I know of Grenell, he will be a worthy successor.

    2
  11. joe Avatar
    joe

    Again with this argument that Trump should appoint disloyal people to his Cabinet. Has that ever been applied to any other President? It’s bizarre.

  12. Steven L. Taylor Avatar
    Steven L. Taylor

    @joe: I can’t decide if you really don’t understand what is being said or are just trying to rile people up.

    Of course, I suppose it could be both.

    1
  13. joe Avatar
    joe

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    I’m curious about the thought process going on here. It seems normal to me that a President will put people he trusts into his administration.

    Do you accept that January 20th of next year that Trump will be the President? I don’t mean physically occupying the office, but as head of the Executive Branch and Commander in Chief? Why should he be treated differently than any other President?

  14. Matt Bernius Avatar
    Matt Bernius

    @joe:
    Thanks for posting that. I think it helps us understand part of the fundamental disagreement here.

    You wrote:

    I’m curious about the thought process going on here. It seems normal to me that a President will put people he trusts into his administration.

    This is true. I think where the disagreement lies is in the question of qualifications in addition to “trust.”

    In a different comments thread you wrote that you think Kash Patel is qualified to run the FBI–or at least you suggested that is the case. Thats something I think the majority of us here (and perhaps elsewhere) deeply disagree with.

    First, I don’t think there is any way for us to reconcile that particular divide right now.

    Second, I think the position that Steven, myself, and others take, is that Trump’s most important metric in making these decisions is trust. Based on the majority of his agency-head/cabinet level picks, actual skill or traditional qualifications are an afterthought.

    To that point–and knowing that in other comments you said Trump was not your preferred choice for a Republican President–do you think your preferred choice would have made the same decision to elevate trust so far above and beyond qualification for those positions?

    1
  15. The Q Avatar
    The Q

    Matt, Joe has a point. Its always been to the victors goes the spoils.

    Many GOP members harangued Biden for appointing an FTC Chair women barely out of law school and the youngest ever at 31 with zero experience. Yet Lina Khan is an absolute stalwart and guttsiest anti monopoly Democrat in a generation.

    Was she “qualified”? If we use Prof Taylor’s criteria – NO. But does the POTUS have the right to appoint anyone he wants – YES

    We will.miss her and that’s why WINNING elections is important and not endless virtue signaling by our party elites.

    1
  16. Matt Bernius Avatar
    Matt Bernius

    @The Q:

    Many GOP members harangued Biden for appointing an FTC Chair women barely out of law school and the youngest ever at 31 with zero experience. Yet Lina Khan is an absolute stalwart and guttsiest anti monopoly Democrat in a generation.

    Was she “qualified”? If we use Prof Taylor’s criteria – NO. But does the POTUS have the right to appoint anyone he wants – YES

    Fair points and things I need to think more about.

    The only thing I will add is:

    But does the POTUS have the right to appoint anyone he wants – YES

    Totally agree on this. But I also believe it’s not about of you “can,” is about if you “should.”

    For a perfect example of that see: https://youtu.be/Cr–_i0JZbs?si=7-rZMfZuXCZgKZ1-

  17. Steven L. Taylor Avatar
    Steven L. Taylor

    @joe: Thanks for a more direct engagement.

    First, I wrote a long post about my views on these appointments, On Qualification for Cabinet Positions, that might give you insight into my views on the subject.

    Second, and to your point about trust. I absolutely accept that any president should want trustworthy individuals. However, being trustworthy and loyal to a person above other considerations is a different matter altogether.

    Loyalty should be to the constitution, the county, and the job before it is personal loyalty to a specific man. Trump is appointing people who are loyal to him in a way that is more like the mob than government.

    Moreover, it is manifestly obvious that many of these appointees are being chosen because of their loyalty to Trump and Trump’s wishes than they are because they are qualified for their jobs. Gaetz was a slam-dunk example of this. Bondi an Patel fit the bill as well.

    How would you feel if president-elect Harris appointed an FBI Director who has written sycophanti children’s books about Queen Kamala? I think you would have found it disturbing and weird.

    Do you accept that January 20th of next year that Trump will be the President? I don’t mean physically occupying the office, but as head of the Executive Branch and Commander in Chief?

    Yes. He’s the president-elect and will be the 47th POTUS in January.

    Why should he be treated differently than any other President?

    I am treating him like every other President. He has the right to name whomever he likes and I, as a citizen and a political analyst have the right to criticize them as I see fit.

    I expect that the Senate will confirm most, if not all of these picks (or, at least, the ones they have control over). I think that will be a massive comment on the party.

    But how am I not treating him like any other president?

    1
  18. Steven L. Taylor Avatar
    Steven L. Taylor

    @Matt Bernius:

    Second, I think the position that Steven, myself, and others take, is that Trump’s most important metric in making these decisions is trust. Based on the majority of his agency-head/cabinet level picks, actual skill or traditional qualifications are an afterthought.

    I agree, but think (to be pedantic) that “trust” is too neutral, or insufficiently stong, of a word. I think “loyalty” and even “personal loyalty” (if not sycophancy) is the right term.

    I am sure, for example, that George W. Bush trusted his AG Alberto Gonzales, and even had a personal relationship that cemented that trust. But I don’t think he picked Gonzales because he was such a Bush loyalist that he would place that loyalty above doing his job as AG.

  19. Steven L. Taylor Avatar
    Steven L. Taylor

    @The Q:

    Matt, Joe has a point. Its always been to the victors goes the spoils.

    Honest question: do you perceive of criticisms of the picks (and any analysis of what they mean) to be questioning the notion the winner gets to pick?

    Winning means the chance to make the pick, but that doesn’t mean we all have to sit down and shut up, does it?

    1
  20. Steven L. Taylor Avatar
    Steven L. Taylor

    @The Q: BTW, I do not recall if I noticed or had an opinion about Khan. I probably would have thought her resume to be thin., but that is just a guess.

    But, goodness, I wish we were just debating whether Trump’s pick for FTC was too young or not as opposed to the avalanche of questionable and problematic picks for the majority of the open slots.

Latest Posts