Traitor Trump didn't realize Steve Bannon needs Senate confirmation for NSC

[kpete]

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 wouldn’t 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 he’ll 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 doesn’t 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 they’ll 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, it’s 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]

1. This is gonna be good

There's no good move for Trump... either way he looks weak and feckless

[DK504]

24. Well, he is feckless.

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]

2. I'd buy tickets

to watch this confirmation hearing! Can't wait

[PJMcK]

3. I'm not holding my breath

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]

10. You speak for many of us

[Fla Dem]

20. Agree. All those things we thought were going to explode in Trump's face have fizzled.

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]

4. Then Dem senators need to make it happen, but how? NT

[jmg257]

5. Can't he just make him an executive secretary of the NSC then? Or 'staff"?

(c) Executive secretary; appointment; staff employees
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]

8. Yes. He wouldn't be a member,

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]

21. He wasn't name a "member" -- he was named an invitee and does not require confirmation

We look foolish continuing to make the claim that he has to go through senate confirmation.

[PRETZEL]

28. I had thought I had heard the same thing,

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]

6. Trump doesn't care.

The Senate GOP will unanimously approve him and Bannon will just evade and deny anything the Dems ask him.

[Ms. Toad]

7. Bannon first has to be a secretary or under secretary.

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:

The Secretaries and Under Secretaries of other executive departments and of the military departments, when appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to serve at his pleasure.

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]

11. the Idiot doesn't care

from the looks of it his henchman Bannon will be giving direction regardless of whether he is senate approved or not. Bastards.

[Ms. Toad]

14. I know the idiot doesn't care. I'm just astounded at the challenge our side has

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]

22. He was simply named an invitee, not a member. No confirmation necessary.

Believe me, I wish it was otherwise, but its not.

[Ms. Toad]

23. That is a new description.

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]

29. Here is the official document

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/28/presidential-memorandum-organization-national-security-council-and


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]

30. That makes sense, I think nt

[onenote]

33. Trump's directive follows, in many respects, the wording of the Obama NSC directive

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]

9. not an issue

He will be approved by the senate easily.

[pnwmom]

12. After public hearings that will expose him to many who don't know his background. Good. nt

[SHRED]

13. Who will enforce this??

[DFW]

16. The Germans have an appropriate saying for situations like this

"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]

15. Not true - like much in the Palmer Report. It's just clickbait.

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 Trump’s 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]

19. Thanks for the link to a right-wing fake news site

Keep this shit to yourself.

On edit (in addition to fixing the typo): The information may be correct -- find another source to cite.

[ehrnst]

25. Here's the direct tweet to Laurence Tribe's tweet

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 Trump’s ownership of the Trump Organization violates a clause of the United States Constitution.

[librechik]

27. twitchy is trash n/t

[world wide wally]

17. They have an abundant supply of rubber stamps in Congress

[onenote]

18. Unfortunately, Alter was wrong.

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]

34. Do you have the text of the EO?

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]

35. Yes. And also the parallel one issued by Obama in 2009.

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]

36. I read the stuff and agree. n/t

[Equinox Moon]

26. Wouldn't he have to pass top secret clearance as well?

How are any of these people in his cabinet passing security clearances?

[oberliner]

31. He doesn't

"Palmer Report" is wrong, as usual.

[subterranean]

32. Or more likely, Bannon didn't realize it.

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.