Donald Trump's Cabinet picks

[Pyperkub]

Boo Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)!!!!!!

Assuming that you are referring to Haspel, I agree. I just don't get it. I get that she is qualified to be CIA Director, insofar as she certainly has relevant experience. But there has already been an insufficient reckoning for the U.S. engaging in torture already, and putting someone deeply involved in charge is the icing on the waterboarded cake. I get that red state senators might want to show some bipartisan bona fides, BUT John McCain is already giving you political cover! Plus if the Obama years have taught us anything about how American politics works, if you stay united in opposing something, you thereby make it unpopular, thereby obviating the need to show bipartisan bona fides on the issue. Plus Warner's not even really from a red state and is not up for reelection!

I'm not sure what I'm missing here. Maybe the thinking is that Haspel is not necessarily a Trump flunky, so maybe better her than Trump picking some lackey as a replacement, but...I dunno.

I'm relatively ok with this, as she flat out said she wouldn't restart the torture program(s). Without that shadow/blemish, she appears to be an excellent candidate.

[Chaz]

Great, now I have to call my senator and yell at her.

[gbasden]

When the alternative could be CIA Director Steve Doocy, taking someone qualified but blemished is more understandable.

[El Guapo]

Boo Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)!!!!!!

Assuming that you are referring to Haspel, I agree. I just don't get it. I get that she is qualified to be CIA Director, insofar as she certainly has relevant experience. But there has already been an insufficient reckoning for the U.S. engaging in torture already, and putting someone deeply involved in charge is the icing on the waterboarded cake. I get that red state senators might want to show some bipartisan bona fides, BUT John McCain is already giving you political cover! Plus if the Obama years have taught us anything about how American politics works, if you stay united in opposing something, you thereby make it unpopular, thereby obviating the need to show bipartisan bona fides on the issue. Plus Warner's not even really from a red state and is not up for reelection!

I'm not sure what I'm missing here. Maybe the thinking is that Haspel is not necessarily a Trump flunky, so maybe better her than Trump picking some lackey as a replacement, but...I dunno.

I'm relatively ok with this, as she flat out said she wouldn't restart the torture program(s). Without that shadow/blemish, she appears to be an excellent candidate.

Oh, well if she said that she wouldn't, then we're good. She probably got all the torture out of her system already.

[LordMortis]

Or it could be the thinking that if they reject Haspel, Trump will very likely nominate someone even worse. Its hard to think of who could be worse than a torturer/evidence destroyer, but I don't doubt Trump would find a way.

As a lifelong card carrying pessimist who gets lost in hypotheticals I'm picking up what you're laying down but it's hard for me to accept a lifelong childbeater with a strong moral compass as the schoolmaster because the selection committee will then have the opportunity to choose as a suspected kidnapper.

They're not my reps so not much I can do about it but Boo and maybe sleep more until the elections of 2018 and 2020.

[Pyperkub]

Boo Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)!!!!!!

Assuming that you are referring to Haspel, I agree. I just don't get it. I get that she is qualified to be CIA Director, insofar as she certainly has relevant experience. But there has already been an insufficient reckoning for the U.S. engaging in torture already, and putting someone deeply involved in charge is the icing on the waterboarded cake. I get that red state senators might want to show some bipartisan bona fides, BUT John McCain is already giving you political cover! Plus if the Obama years have taught us anything about how American politics works, if you stay united in opposing something, you thereby make it unpopular, thereby obviating the need to show bipartisan bona fides on the issue. Plus Warner's not even really from a red state and is not up for reelection!

I'm not sure what I'm missing here. Maybe the thinking is that Haspel is not necessarily a Trump flunky, so maybe better her than Trump picking some lackey as a replacement, but...I dunno.

I'm relatively ok with this, as she flat out said she wouldn't restart the torture program(s). Without that shadow/blemish, she appears to be an excellent candidate.

Oh, well if she said that she wouldn't, then we're good. She probably got all the torture out of her system already.

At some point in time you do need to take people not proven to be pathological liars at their word while on the record (are they considered under oath in these hearings? ).

[GreenGoo]

It's hard to do that when they have a history of doing the opposite of their current word.

As LM and EG imply, if a child beater tells you he won't beat anymore children during a job interview, is that enough to trust they're done beating children?

[Max Peck]

It's hard to do that when they have a history of doing the opposite of their current word.

As LM and EG imply, if a child beater tells you he won't beat anymore children during a job interview, is that enough to trust they're done beating children?

But she's not a child beater or a sadist (so far as I know). She's someone who did an arguably unsavory job that was mandated by national security policy at the time. It is perfectly reasonable that a pragmatic professional would come to the conclusion that "enhanced interrogation" doesn't actually produce actionable or reliable intelligence, and has more downsides than upsides. Hopefully, one of the things that the Senate confirmation process has done is to examine her track record between then and now, including interviews with her colleagues, to assess whether she is sincere when she says she would not reinstitute discredited policies. Or maybe they just read some op-eds. Who knows?

[GreenGoo]

The policies were already discredited when they implemented them the last time.

Each person is free to believe her or not or be unsure. Whether you think she's as good as her word is up to the individual of course.

She may not be a child beater but when she was told to have children beaten, she did.

[Remus West]

when she was told to have children beaten, she did.

This is the part that is the issue for me. I don't really care to have monsters standing on a wall to protect me from monsters.

[Combustible Lemur]

Or it could be the thinking that if they reject Haspel, Trump will very likely nominate someone even worse. Its hard to think of who could be worse than a torturer/evidence destroyer, but I don't doubt Trump would find a way.

As a lifelong card carrying pessimist who gets lost in hypotheticals I'm picking up what you're laying down but it's hard for me to accept a lifelong childbeater with a strong moral compass as the schoolmaster because the selection committee will then have the opportunity to choose as a suspected kidnapper.

They're not my reps so not much I can do about it but Boo and maybe sleep more until the elections of 2018 and 2020.

Without any tangible personal experience, I intuitively am persuaded that non torturous interrogation is much more effective. That's been the arc for a Long time now. And often without social demand for it.
To be fair to Haspel, your analogy is more like a competent and respected educator engaging in excessive corporal punishment who then used the 'it's the way things were' excuse to downplay and cover it up.
She was still a respected agent who also engaged in morally questionable illegal practices.
Adrian Peterson isn't a monster, neither am I going to put him in charge of children's discipline.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Remus West]

Adrian Peterson isn't a monster

Given the photos of his child's legs I have to disagree.

[LordMortis]

Let's be even more fair as to where I stand and get rid of charged language. The analogy was just the first thing I thought of and lends to my bias. So...

To be fair to Haspel, your analogy is more like a competent and respected educator engaging in excessive corporal punishment who then used the 'it's the way things were' excuse to downplay and cover it up

My answer is still to look for somebody else. If the defense is "She has a strong moral compass" then the red flags get raised and I desperately look for somebody else.

That may be my foible. My problem. That I can forgive but I can't forget and move forward as if the past is no indicator of the future.

[Max Peck]

when she was told to have children beaten, she did.

This is the part that is the issue for me. I don't really care to have monsters standing on a wall to protect me from monsters.

Because depicting her as a monster is totally not fainting-couch-grade hyperbole.

Who do you suppose that Trump would actually nominate that would pass your purity test? Would a leadership vacuum at the CIA for the duration of the Trump administration suit you better? Who do you think is going to be acting D/CIA until someone is confirmed to the position? How would the senators that voted to confirm Haspel assess these issues? Actually, I think I can guess the answer to that last question.

[Remus West]

when she was told to have children beaten, she did.

This is the part that is the issue for me. I don't really care to have monsters standing on a wall to protect me from monsters.

Because depicting her as a monster is totally not fainting-couch-grade hyperbole.

Who do you suppose that Trump would actually nominate that would pass your purity test? Would a leadership vacuum at the CIA for the duration of the Trump administration suit you better? Who do you think is going to be acting D/CIA until someone is confirmed to the position? How would the senators that voted to confirm Haspel assess these issues? Actually, I think I can guess the answer to that last question.

Obviously a stupid last question as they voted to confirm her. As for the first question, I don't know. I really doubt he would nominate anyone worth filling the role given his track record. That said, I do not think it "fainting-couch-grade hyperbole" to characterize someone who oversaw an operation designed to torture people as a monster. Bad enough to take part in it but to oversee and direct? Yep. You are a monster. Continue to refuse to acknowledge that torture is non immoral? Yep. you are a monster. Nothing in the public realm of knowledge regarding her suggests that she has a moral or ethical compass from what I can tell. Destroy evidence? No problem. Direct others to slam a man's head into a wall repeatedly? No problem?

Do I have a suggestion for who might be better than her? No, but if we don't have many many better candidates then we are a very very morally poor nation.

[LordMortis]

I do not think it "fainting-couch-grade hyperbole" to characterize

Agreed. I recommend starting with google search "Thailand Detention Site GREEN" with parameters of of time before 2016 to start. Add Haspel or Don't. It's pretty clear she was calling the shots. Though I have to admit, turning back time, I'm going down the rabbit hole and, I do wonder why Brennan passed her by expressly saying tuff along the lines of "It's the torture and destruction of tapes thing"

[Max Peck]

Obviously a stupid last question as they voted to confirm her. As for the first question, I don't know. I really doubt he would nominate anyone worth filling the role given his track record. That said, I do not think it "fainting-couch-grade hyperbole" to characterize someone who oversaw an operation designed to torture people as a monster. Bad enough to take part in it but to oversee and direct? Yep. You are a monster. Continue to refuse to acknowledge that torture is non immoral? Yep. you are a monster. Nothing in the public realm of knowledge regarding her suggests that she has a moral or ethical compass from what I can tell. Destroy evidence? No problem. Direct others to slam a man's head into a wall repeatedly? No problem?

Do I have a suggestion for who might be better than her? No, but if we don't have many many better candidates then we are a very very morally poor nation.

Yeah, my stupid rhetorical questions are always so stupid. I'm such a dope, thinking that trying to understand why someone made a decision has any bearing on a discussion about the decision they made.

Did Haspel actually destroy evidence? My understanding is that she drafted a wire at the request of a superior, but didn't action anything and wasn't consulted when someone else sent it and another someone else actioned it. But my memory is notoriously faulty, so maybe I'm confused regarding the details that have been reported. Although it may not matter all that much, in terms of ethics, if she personally agreed with the action in question.

I also don't recall anything about head-meet-wall kinetic interactions (I thought it was all about the waterboarding), but then I have too weak a stomach to delve deeply into the murky world of "enhanced interrogation" so there are probably all sorts of unpleasant details that have escaped my notice.

Finally, it doesn't matter how many better candidates your nation can offer up, because the only person that can nominate a candidate at the moment is Donald J. Trump (and I suspect that we are in agreement with regard to the extent of his moral and ethical bankruptcy). If someone is in the hot seat and has to make a decision on the nomination, they need to anticipate whether the next candidate will be better or worse than the last one. They can certainly run out the clock by refusing to confirm any imperfect candidate, but not choosing is still a choice, with consequences. Until someone is confirmed, Haspel is still the person running the CIA. Unless they truly believe that Trump can and will find someone better (Spoiler: he won't), she's as good as it's going to get until you get rid of Trump. If you get rid of Trump.

[Remus West]

Obviously a stupid last question as they voted to confirm her. As for the first question, I don't know. I really doubt he would nominate anyone worth filling the role given his track record. That said, I do not think it "fainting-couch-grade hyperbole" to characterize someone who oversaw an operation designed to torture people as a monster. Bad enough to take part in it but to oversee and direct? Yep. You are a monster. Continue to refuse to acknowledge that torture is non immoral? Yep. you are a monster. Nothing in the public realm of knowledge regarding her suggests that she has a moral or ethical compass from what I can tell. Destroy evidence? No problem. Direct others to slam a man's head into a wall repeatedly? No problem?

Do I have a suggestion for who might be better than her? No, but if we don't have many many better candidates then we are a very very morally poor nation.

Yeah, my stupid rhetorical questions are always so stupid. I'm such a dope, thinking that trying to understand why someone made a decision has any bearing on a discussion about the decision they made.

Did Haspel actually destroy evidence? My understanding is that she drafted a wire at the request of a superior, but didn't action anything and wasn't consulted when someone else sent it and another someone else actioned it. But my memory is notoriously faulty, so maybe I'm confused regarding the details that have been reported. Although it may not matter all that much, in terms of ethics, if she personally agreed with the action in question.

Article I saw today said she was "responsible" for the destruction. That could mean doing it or ordering it done. Shrug. Either means condoning it to me.

I also don't recall anything about head-meet-wall kinetic interactions (I thought it was all about the waterboarding), but then I have too weak a stomach to delve deeply into the murky world of "enhanced interrogation" so there are probably all sorts of unpleasant details that have escaped my notice.

"Walling" in the brief description I read is the repeated slamming of a subjects head into a wall. They were using that and sleep deprivation as well as waterboarding from my short look into her time there.

Finally, it doesn't matter how many better candidates your nation can offer up, because the only person that can nominate a candidate at the moment is Donald J. Trump (and I suspect that we are in agreement with regard to the extent of his moral and ethical bankruptcy). If someone is in the hot seat and has to make a decision on the nomination, they need to anticipate whether the next candidate will be better or worse than the last one. They can certainly run out the clock by refusing to confirm any imperfect candidate, but not choosing is still a choice, with consequences. Until someone is confirmed, Haspel is still the person running the CIA.

If she is already running it why confirm her and give her greater power?

Unless they truly believe that Trump can and will find someone better (Spoiler: he won't), she's as good as it's going to get until you get rid of Trump. If you get rid of Trump.

Sadly I agree entirely with this part.

When(if) we get adults back in charge they are going to have so much work to do.

[Rip]

The "adults" put Brennan in charge and if Haspel was knee deep in the interrogation program Brennan was neck deep in it.

[Sepiche]

Credit where credit is due (granted a low bar these days):
Drumpf's pick for NASA administrator publicly changed his tune on climate change at his first town hall meeting with NASA employees.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tr ... 46186a4f3b

As far as my position on climate change and how it’s evolved, I’ll be very open,” he told NASA employees Thursday. “I don’t deny that consensus that the climate is changing. In fact, I fully believe and know that the climate is changing. I also know that we human beings are contributing to it in a major way.”

Humans are putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere “in volumes that we haven’t seen, and that greenhouse gas is warming the planet. That is absolutely happening, and we are responsible for it.”

[Max Peck]

Credit where credit is due (granted a low bar these days):
Drumpf's pick for NASA administrator publicly changed his tune on climate change at his first town hall meeting with NASA employees.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tr ... 46186a4f3b

As far as my position on climate change and how it’s evolved, I’ll be very open,” he told NASA employees Thursday. “I don’t deny that consensus that the climate is changing. In fact, I fully believe and know that the climate is changing. I also know that we human beings are contributing to it in a major way.”

Humans are putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere “in volumes that we haven’t seen, and that greenhouse gas is warming the planet. That is absolutely happening, and we are responsible for it.”

I'll give him credit if he steps up to do something concrete, like saving the Carbon Monitoring System that Trump defunded last week. Words are cheap, especially when he's saying them to NASA staff instead of the White House.

[GreenGoo]

I always enjoy when Max gets the bit in his teeth.

I have nothing to add to the conversation about monsters and fainting couches. I've said my piece.

[Sepiche]

Credit where credit is due (granted a low bar these days):
Drumpf's pick for NASA administrator publicly changed his tune on climate change at his first town hall meeting with NASA employees.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tr ... 46186a4f3b

As far as my position on climate change and how it’s evolved, I’ll be very open,” he told NASA employees Thursday. “I don’t deny that consensus that the climate is changing. In fact, I fully believe and know that the climate is changing. I also know that we human beings are contributing to it in a major way.”

Humans are putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere “in volumes that we haven’t seen, and that greenhouse gas is warming the planet. That is absolutely happening, and we are responsible for it.”

I'll give him credit if he steps up to do something concrete, like saving the Carbon Monitoring System that Trump defunded last week. Words are cheap, especially when he's saying them to NASA staff instead of the White House.

Not Bridenstine's doing, however...
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/ ... restore-it

A U.S. House of Representatives spending panel voted today to restore a small NASA climate research program that President Donald Trump’s administration had quietly axed.

The House appropriations panel that oversees NASA unanimously approved an amendment to a 2019 spending bill that orders the space agency to set aside $10 million within its earth science budget for a “climate monitoring system” that studies “biogeochemical processes to better understand the major factors driving short and long term climate change.”

That sounds almost identical to the work that NASA’s Carbon Monitoring System (CMS) was doing before the Trump administration targeted the program, which was getting about $10 million annually, for elimination this year. Critics of the move said it jeopardized numerous research projects and plans to verify the national emission cuts agreed to in the Paris climate accords.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

So this is... not great?

Alarming to see that the Secretary charged with protecting the 2018 elections claims not to have read the intelligence on the 2016 elections. If she had, she would have seen the specific evidence the Russians sought to help Trump, a finding now affirmed on a bipartisan basis.

[Captain Caveman]

She obviously knows about the intelligence consensus, so she's probably just following the WH playbook of making basic facts a point of controversy so that partisans can take sides. It also makes the boss happy, kind of like when she claimed she didn't know Norway predominantly consisted of white people.

[Isgrimnur]

Pruitt to roll out a maliciously misnamed 'transparency' rule to prevent research from being used in EPA decision making. The worst people are running this government.

Reading the article it almost sounds like he is finishing the job of crippling the agency ahead of being removed himself. Asshole can not be gone soon enough. Which also applies to this entire administration.

Newsweek

The Environmental Protection Agency will not consider the health risks and impacts of asbestos already in the environment when evaluating the dangers associated with the chemical compound, Scott Pruitt quietly announced last week. That means asbestos used in tiles, piping and adhesives throughout homes and businesses in the United States will remain largely unchecked and unaccounted for. Nearly 15,000 Americans die each year from asbestos-related diseases, but President Donald Trump has called the substance "100 percent safe, once applied."

In his 1997 book, The Art of the Comeback, Trump argued that the association of the chemical with health risks was part of a mob-created conspiracy. “I believe that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob, because it was often mob-related companies that would do the asbestos removal. Great pressure was put on politicians, and as usual, the politicians relented,” he wrote.
...
The EPA announced last Friday that it would evaluate and require approval for new uses of asbestos but would not evaluate the health risks of asbestos already in the environment. “The end result will be a seriously inadequate risk evaluation that fails to address major contributors to the heavy and growing toll of asbestos mortality and disease in the United States,” said Linda Reinstein, president of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization in a statement.

[Smoove_B]

I'd like to petition for a facepalm smilies for this site. Thanks.

[Remus West]

And then there is Devos
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/us/p ... ssion.html

I really don't mind her not answering if an 18 year old should be able to purchase a gun. That is outside of her realm. The idea of ignoring guns while looking into school violence though.....? Ridiculous.

[$iljanus]

Pruitt to roll out a maliciously misnamed 'transparency' rule to prevent research from being used in EPA decision making. The worst people are running this government.

Reading the article it almost sounds like he is finishing the job of crippling the agency ahead of being removed himself. Asshole can not be gone soon enough. Which also applies to this entire administration.

Newsweek

The Environmental Protection Agency will not consider the health risks and impacts of asbestos already in the environment when evaluating the dangers associated with the chemical compound, Scott Pruitt quietly announced last week. That means asbestos used in tiles, piping and adhesives throughout homes and businesses in the United States will remain largely unchecked and unaccounted for. Nearly 15,000 Americans die each year from asbestos-related diseases, but President Donald Trump has called the substance "100 percent safe, once applied."

In his 1997 book, The Art of the Comeback, Trump argued that the association of the chemical with health risks was part of a mob-created conspiracy. “I believe that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob, because it was often mob-related companies that would do the asbestos removal. Great pressure was put on politicians, and as usual, the politicians relented,” he wrote.
...
The EPA announced last Friday that it would evaluate and require approval for new uses of asbestos but would not evaluate the health risks of asbestos already in the environment. “The end result will be a seriously inadequate risk evaluation that fails to address major contributors to the heavy and growing toll of asbestos mortality and disease in the United States,” said Linda Reinstein, president of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization in a statement.

Yeah, baby! MAGA... MAKE ASBESTOS GREAT AGAIN!

[Freyland]

Well, I imagine asbestos is cheaper than sprinkler systems.

[Paingod]

Trump must have a few Asbestos issues in his hotels he'd rather not have to deal with.

[GreenGoo]

Trump must have a few Asbestos issues in his hotels he'd rather not have to deal with.

Without even doing any investigating I am now 100% sure drumpf had a major run-in with asbestos on one or more of his developments that ended up costing him a mint. The dude is so transparent that if it wasn't for the spray on tan he'd be invisible.

[Paingod]

Trump must have a few Asbestos issues in his hotels he'd rather not have to deal with.

Without even doing any investigating I am now 100% sure drumpf had a major run-in with asbestos on one or more of his developments that ended up costing him a mint. The dude is so transparent that if it wasn't for the spray on tan he'd be invisible.

Well, look at that. In 1980, he was paying hundreds of undocumented Polish immigrants to demo a building and they ran into asbestos without protection. It ended up costing him $1.375 million. That's just the first thing on Google. There's probably more.

[Isgrimnur]

Pure dereliction of duty at CFPB with Mulvaney in charge.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will not be conducting a full investigation of Equifax, the credit agency whose trove of Social Security numbers, addresses, credit card details, and other information belonging to more than 140 million people was hacked in May, according to a report from Reuters.

There will be no accountability from the Federal Government if you lose customer data. That is the message that the business world just heard from the government. We'll be testing if the market or the States (especially NY or CA) will protect us

NPR

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau continues to come under fire by the man running the watchdog agency — Mick Mulvaney, the interim director appointed by President Trump.

In his latest action, Mulvaney moved on Wednesday to effectively dismantle the agency's consumer advisory council. "It's quite clear that we've been fired," said Kathleen Engel, a law professor at Suffolk University and a member of the CFPB's Consumer Advisory Board.

The board is designed to help consumer groups work with the CFPB to identify problems facing Americans who are treated unfairly by financial firms.
...
In a letter to advisory board members about Mulvaney's latest move, the CFPB said it will continue consumer advisory groups but will "reconstitute" them with "new, smaller memberships. Smaller memberships will ensure streamlined discussions about the Bureau's policy priorities and needs in a productive manner."

Consumer Advisory Board members said the move, along with previous steps, signal the "destruction from within" of the CFPB.

[Moliere]

Sarah Sanders, Raj Shah planning to depart the White House

Two of the most visible members of the Trump administration are planning their departures, the latest sign of upheaval in a White House marked by turmoil.

Press secretary Sarah Sanders and principal deputy press secretary Raj Shah are both heading for the exits, according to sources inside the White House and close to the administration. Sanders, who has become a confidante of President Trump since the departure of former communications director Hope Hicks, has told friends that she plans to leave the administration at the end of the year.

[Paingod]

Of course you deny everything, right up until the end where you get up and leave. It stops them from changing the locks on your office door and kicking you out before you're ready.

[LordMortis]

Of course you deny everything, right up until the end where you get up and leave. It stops them from changing the locks on your office door and kicking you out before you're ready.

I find it more likely the That the Party of Trump is hunting for leaks and were catching up on Game of Thrones. Spreading false leaks, discrediting them and then castrating the leakers is a pretty good tactic, I would think.

[Kraken]

I don't think it signifies anything significant. Turnover in this administration is running at 51%. Trump reportedly fosters chaos and deliberately pits people against one another, leaving everyone thinking that they might be fired at any moment for any reason or no reason. It must be a miserable place to work.

One pundit speculated that the turnover rate will gradually drop as the current crop of second-string personnel are replaced by third-stringers who can't get jobs anywhere else.

[LordMortis]

I don't think it signifies anything significant. Turnover in this administration is running at 51%. Trump reportedly fosters chaos and deliberately pits people against one another, leaving everyone thinking that they might be fired at any moment for any reason or no reason. It must be a miserable place to work.

One pundit speculated that the turnover rate will gradually drop as the current crop of second-string personnel are replaced by third-stringers who can't get jobs anywhere else.

He values loyalty most.

[GreenGoo]

Why on earth would they bother to talk to you? To get your lies on record? You're the least reliable source available, even when the topic is yourself.