Who’s the Next Trump Official Who’ll Turn Out Not to Have Been Vetted?

White House staff secretary Rob Porter was forced to step down after it turned out that high-ranking White House officials failed to make sure that he passed his security check even though he handled highly classified information for the present. Although there were a variety of changing narratives coming out of official spokespeople, it now seems clear that they knew that he stood credibly accused of domestic violence against his former wife, yet decided to keep him on board anyway

12 thoughts on “Who’s the Next Trump Official Who’ll Turn Out Not to Have Been Vetted?

  1. … even though he handled highly classified information for the present

    Ted, if you’re going to take after Mr Trump in dealing with the English language, I fear someone will have to vet you cartoons !… 😉


  2. Vetted? what is this “vetted of” which you speak? Why do the aides need to vetted any more than The Most Terrific President ever?

    I’ve often suggested that our elected officials should have to pass a test demonstrating a thorough understanding of Math, Physics, Sociology, History, Biology, and Constitutional Fucking Law. (not necessarily a complete list – just what popped into my head)

    We can’t have a religious test for office, but would it hurt to ask “If you perceive a conflict between the Laws of God and the Laws of Man … which would you enforce?” (hint: You’re being hired to enforce the Laws of Man. If you want to enforce the Laws of God, join the priest hoods instead.)

  3. This may be somewhat unfair, akin to accusing Thomas Jefferson for owning what was later recognized to be human beings and sexually taking advantage of them – well before this anyone important could have known that would become an issue.

    We need to ask ourselves: can we really judge whether some poor bully was acceptable to civilized society in 2017 using the elevated moral standards of 2018?

    In particular, didn’t these guys run on a platform of scaling back political correctness and establish neo-feudalism? It’s not like anybody accused Mr Porter of slandering a gentleman of standing. He also never struck a horse in anger (shockingly he does not wear a wig though).

    Judging by a previous cartoon, Ted even seems to prematurely apply the moral standards only to be established in 2058 (after the 2057 series of revolutions): that siphoning off as much as possible of workers’ wages to spend on Yachts may not be entirely unproblematic – requiring 5 recitations of ave maria, and transfer of 2399.7G bitcoin to the St. Pence foundation to offset.

    • Jefferson’s affair with Sally Hemmings lasted for eighteen years. If he just wanted a little brown sugar, wouldn’t he have sold her off and bought himself a younger girl every couple of years?

      As you noted, slavery was more complex than our current society sees it as. (I’m not an apologist for slavery, but one who desires to look at the Founding Fathers in light of their times, rather than through the lens of a quarter-millennium of social progress.)

      • A man’s wife was considered under law to be his chattel, thus more like the relation of slave to master.

        Assholes still believe this today.

        “The most interesting and disturbing aspect of chattel law is the notion of women as chattel that has woven itself into legal codes throughout history. In various times, places and cultures such as Merry Old England, the Hebrew Bible, The Code of Hammurabi and the Middle East, a bride price was/is an amount of money or property paid by the groom to the parents of his bride, she thus becoming his possession like a horse, a wagon or household utensils.”


      • > Social progress is like the ever ascending staircase

        True, dat, but we *are* making progress. Women are no longer considered chattel and slavery is right off the table. While blacks are still second-class citizens, they’re still better off today than in the 50’s. Gays are no longer hiding in the closet, etc.

      • Women and Blacks are now allowed in combat positions so they can kill other color and gendered people and get their very own case of PTSD.

        Every step up is also a step down on the ever ascending Escher staircase of social progress.

      • Women petitioned to be in combat positions, it’s a sign of equality that they’re allowed to serve. (not that we’re using our military properly nowadays, but that’s a different discussion)

        Blacks fought on both sides of the Civil War, that’s nothing new.

        Today, blacks are over-represented in the armed forces, that’s true – and a sign that we haven’t reached the top of that staircase yet.

        I see it as a slow progression from darkness to light. If one is expecting a sudden flash of illumination, one will be sorely disappointed. Human social progress simply doesn’t work that way. The fact that there are still inequities in no way invalidates the observation that we are, undeniably, making progress.

      • > MLK and I see a link between domestic and governmental mass murders, and a sick society.

        I can agree with that.

        But that particular diagnosis also applies to 99.999429% of human societies throughout history. I suspect that the last healthy society was hunting & gathering on the savanna over a hundred thousand years ago.

        But even if you’ve got a healthy hunter-gatherer society (“tribe”) game theory says it’s safer to treat strangers as enemies. “Kill ’em & take all their stuff” works regardless of whether they’re friend or foe.

        Archeologists have discovered that some early humans were cannibals. “Kill ’em and eat ’em and take all their stuff” works even better.

        Cannibalism has a obvious evolutionary advantage over dinner; most likely all of us have cannibals for ancestors.

        None of us are without blood on our hands. The interesting question is where we go from here.

Leave a Reply