Finally: a report in the MSM of Bannon's need for confirmation to NSC.

[pnwmom]

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-01-31/steve-bannon-on-national-security-council-may-require-senate-confirmation

President Donald Trump's appointment of his senior adviser Steve Bannon as a member of his National Security Council's principals committee may require the approval of the Senate, but the appointment is so unusual the law regarding the Council has never been tested.

"Obscure law requires Sen confirmation for WH aide like Bannon to serve on NSC," Jonathan Alter, a Newsweek columnist and MSNBC contributor, wrote on Twitter Monday night, pointing to a line in the U.S. code that defines the council's membership.

Whether Bannon really requires Senate approval depends on the language of Trump's presidential memorandum naming him to the committee, and whether the principals committee is subject to the same rules as the Council itself.

U.S. Code 50, section 3021, defines the members of the council as the president, vice president, secretaries of state, defense, energy and "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."

SNIP

[pangaia]

1. Pretty soon the MSM will be INFOWARS, BREITBART, ALEX JONES.. et al...

That will be it..

[annabanana]

2. KAY-EN-ARE!!.. This needs all the exposure we can give it!

faced,tweeted,emailed etcetcetc

[onenote]

3. Bannon is not a member of the NSC and you can be a member of the Principals Committee

without being a member of the NSC.

I wish people would stop flogging this story, which is going nowhere.

The Trump NSC director doesn't list Bannon's position as one of the members of the NSC. After listing the "regular attendees" (statutory and non-statutory) of NSC meetings, it identifies certain additional office holders (including Bannon) who "are invited as attendees to any NSC meeting." Bannon's position is listed as a "regular attendee" of the Principals Committee, but membership on the principals committee historically has not been limited to members of the NSC.

For example, Obama's 2009 directive organizing the NSC identified "regular members" who did not include the director OMB, but the director OMB was named as a member of the Principals Committee. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Director of National Intelligence also were not named as members of the NSC -- they were described as "advisors". But they too were named as members of the Principals Committee. And the President's Chief of Staff -- a position that does not require senate confirmation, was named to both the NSC and the Principals Committee.

It isn't really a close call, as much as we all wish it was.

[pnwmom]

4. That depends on what DT's memorandum said.

Whether Bannon really requires Senate approval depends on the language of Trump's presidential memorandum naming him to the committee, and whether the principals committee is subject to the same rules as the Council itself.

[onenote]

7. I quoted the language in my post.

If you want to see it with your own eyes, here you go:

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

For good measure, you can compare it to the Directives issued by Obama, GW Bush, and Clinton:

Obama:https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/ppd/ppd-1.pdf

Bush:https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-1.pdf

Clinton:https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd/pdd-2.pdf

You'll note that Bush and Trump describe the make up of the NSC and the Principals Committee as consisting of "regular attendees" as well as certain invited attendees, including some invited to attend all meetings. Obama and Clinton used the term "regular members" or "members" as well as invited attendees. In any event, every one of them had a White House staffer who was not subject to Senate confirmation (typically Chief of Staff or White House Counsel) either as a "member", "invited" attendee, "regular attendee" on both the NSC and/or the Principals Committee.

[pnwmom]

8. But there's a difference between a member who participates

and an attendee who merely listens.

[onenote]

9. Show me where any of these directives say "only listens"

[pnwmom]

10. The attendees in the Obama administration did not participate.

They attended so they could later answer questions about what happened.

[onenote]

11. Axelrod and Gibbs were there to listen and only on occasion.

Again, point me to anything that suggests that Obama's Chief of Staff, named as a "member" of both the NSC and the Principals Committee, was only there to listen and answer questions. Clinton and Bush also had their Chiefs of Staff as regular members/attendees -- again, show me something they were given that spot simply to be silent.

[JHB]

5. I disagree. This is a wedge that can pry them apart.

Last edited Tue Jan 31, 2017, 11:05 PM - Edit history (1)

Some reports may have gotten sloppy with the details, but the main thrust is correct: Trump put two political operatives on the Principles Committee of the National Security Agency while relegating the people who are actually charged with national security to the "we'll call you if we need you" boondocks.

The top tier of the NSA will be a circle jerk of Trump's people, filtering what gets to him. Foremost among them is a guy who is so right wing that he calls the National Review and Weekly Standard "left wing" publications.

After all the horseshit about Obama and Hillary being so "terrible" for national security, the sTrumpets are doing it FOR REAL in big, obvious ways. Blow this horn loud! Daily. Hit them with it right between the eyes. Undermine the bastard.

I've left more Republicans who are usually jeering assholes in sullen silence in the past three days than I have in the last six months. This hits the smug f***ers in a place they think they own. Don't abandon it because some of the i's and t's mix up the dots and crosses.

[onenote]

6. I agree that we should go after his appointing Bannon

but not because Bannon needed to go through Senate confirmation -- he didn't
and not because its inappropriate to have a White House advisor on the Principals Committee -- because its not.

Its inappropriate because Bannon shouldn't have anything to do with anything.