The Trump Presidency 2.0

[Box]

Did anyone ever expect anything different?

The question is - what do those who are still trying to masquerade as "honest politicians" do about it?

If I was in a position to do so - I would trumpet from the highest mountain tops all of the things that these criminals have done under the mantle of "public servant" that led to a residential "pardon"

Pardoned for treason
Pardoned for espionage
Pardoned for perjury
Pardoned for more treason
Pardoned for violating Article 103b, 104, 106a, 107, 117, 131, 132, and 133
Pardoned for witness tampering
Pardoned for more perjury
Pardoned for fraud
Pardoned for more sedition
Pardoned for public violations of Articles 81, 88, and 89 of the UCMJ
Pardoned for perjury and fraud and sedition
Pardoned for crimes against humanity
Pardoned for conspiracy to commit fraud
Pardoned for violating Article 94 AND 99 of the UCMJ
Pardoned for conspiracy to commit treason
Pardoned for conspiracy to commit espionage
Pardoned for conspiracy to commit witness tampering

...and it would continue until the mountains crumbled


Best of all is the complete lack of self awareness as the Biden justice department releases a statement that those that might get and ACCEPT a pardon from Donald Trump would do so with that very pardon being an admission of guilt.
One thing can now NEVER be changed - a former congresswoman NEEDED a residential pardon to save her from her nefarious conduct as she went about the process of indirect election tampering.

A retired General Office leaves as part of his legacy - that his public conduct and behavior to a seated and duly elected POTUS was such that it was warranted that he be protected form his actions and public statements through the issuance of a residential pardon.
There is "speaking truth to power" and then there is just "disrespectful cock bag" - there is no gray area.
...way to put the bow on 43 years of public service you uninspiring, overweight, disgraceful example of "Professional Soldier"

Fuck you ALL very much, goodbye, and good riddance.

 

[Devildoc]

"January 20, 2025 is liberation day". Lol. Brilliant.

 

[Ooh-Rah]

I’m envisioning liberals everywhere as he speaks…

 

[BlackSmokeRisinG]

Trump sounding good at the inauguration, just promised to designste the cartels as FTOs, and Drill Baby Drill!

 

[Muppet]

Only 2 genders!

Nooooo!!!!

Lol

 

[ThunderHorse]

Also, am I missing something or did Milley commit war crimes in Afghanistan when he was CINC ISAF?

 

[Kraut783]

Also ending telework for federal employees

https://www.npr.org/2025/01/20/nx-s1-5268852/trump-telework-executive-order-federal-workers

 

[Kraut783]

Trump starts to pardon Jan 6,ers

https://www.npr.org/2025/01/20/g-s1-36809/trump-pardons-january-6-riot

 

[Muppet]

Trump starts to pardon Jan 6,ers

https://www.npr.org/2025/01/20/g-s1-36809/trump-pardons-january-6-riot

They were political prisoners anyway, good news. I mean, if our lord and savior Fauci can get a pre-emptive pardon, why not political prisoners.

 

[Box]

maybe they didnt do anything wrong that needs a pardon?

 

[AWP]

Also ending telework for federal employees

https://www.npr.org/2025/01/20/nx-s1-5268852/trump-telework-executive-order-federal-workers

Which is more fluff than anything. Most positions are already back to full time in the office or one day of telework a week. The article also doesn't allow for RDO schedules and days, so this EO is much ado about nothing. Cheer, jeer, whatever. For most Federal workers this won't change much.

 

[R.Caerbannog]

Current EO's that have been signed.
Presidential Actions – The White House

As the resident "conspiracy theorist", here is one of my fav's. Who's wearing tinfoil now baby? Ha-cha-cha-cha!
Holding Former Government Officials Accountable For Election Interference And Improper Disclosure Of Sensitive Governmental Information – The White House

Spoiler: Text

Presidential Actions

HOLDING FORMER GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ACCOUNTABLE​

EXECUTIVE ORDER
January 20, 2025
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1. Purpose. In the closing weeks of the 2020 Presidential campaign, at least 51 former intelligence officials coordinated with the Biden campaign to issue a letter discrediting the reporting that President Joseph R. Biden’s son had abandoned his laptop at a computer repair business. Signatories of the letter falsely suggested that the news story was part of a Russian disinformation campaign.

Before being issued, the letter was sent to the CIA Prepublication Classification Review Board, the body typically assigned to formally evaluate the sensitive nature of documents prior to publication. Senior CIA officials were made aware of the contents of the letter, and multiple signatories held clearances at the time and maintained ongoing contractual relationships with the CIA.

Federal policymakers must be able to rely on analysis conducted by the Intelligence Community and be confident that it is accurate, crafted with professionalism, and free from politically motivated engineering to affect political outcomes in the United States. The signatories willfully weaponized the gravitas of the Intelligence Community to manipulate the political process and undermine our democratic institutions. This fabrication of the imprimatur of the Intelligence Community to suppress information essential to the American people during a Presidential election is an egregious breach of trust reminiscent of a third world country. And now the faith of Americans in all other patriotic intelligence professionals who are sworn to protect the Nation has been imperiled.

National security is also damaged by the publication of classified information. Former National Security Advisor John R. Bolton published a memoir for monetary gain after he was terminated from his White House position in 2019. The book was rife with sensitive information drawn from his time in government. The memoir’s reckless treatment of sensitive information undermined the ability of future presidents to request and obtain candid advice on matters of national security from their staff. Publication also created a grave risk that classified material was publicly exposed.

To remedy these abuses of the public trust, this Order directs the revocation of any active or current security clearances held by: (i) the former intelligence officials who engaged in misleading and inappropriate political coordination with the 2020 Biden presidential campaign; and (ii) John R. Bolton.

Sec. 2. Policy. (a) It is the policy of the United States to ensure that the Intelligence Community not be engaged in partisan politics or otherwise used by a U.S. political campaign for electioneering purposes. The term “Intelligence Community” has the meaning given the term in section 3003 of title 50, United States Code.

(b) It is the policy of the United States that individuals who hold government-issued security clearances should not use their clearance status to influence U.S. elections.

(c) It is the policy of the United States that classified information not be publicly disclosed in memoirs, especially those published for personal monetary gain.

Sec. 3. Implementation. (a) Effective immediately, the Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, shall revoke any current or active clearances held by the following individuals:

(1) James R. Clapper Jr.

(2) Michael V. Hayden

(3) Leon E. Panetta

(4) John O. Brennan

(5) C. Thomas Fingar

(6) Richard H. Ledgett Jr.

(7) John E. McLaughlin

(8) Michael J. Morell

(9) Michael G. Vickers

(10) Douglas H. Wise

(11) Nicholas J. Rasmussen

(12) Russell E. Travers

(13) Andrew Liepman

(14) John H. Moseman

(15) Larry Pfeiffer

(16) Jeremy B. Bash

(17) Rodney Snyder

(18) Glenn S. Gerstell

(19) David B. Buckley

(20) Nada G. Bakos

(21) James B. Bruce

(22) David S. Cariens

(23) Janice Cariens

(24) Paul R. Kolbe

(25) Peter L. Corsell

(26) Roger Z. George

(27) Steven L. Hall

(28) Kent Harrington

(29) Don Hepburn

(30) Timothy D. Kilbourn

(31) Ronald A. Marks

(32) Jonna H. Mendez

(33) Emile Nakhleh

(34) Gerald A. O’Shea

(35) David Priess

(36) Pamela Purcilly

(37) Marc Polymeropoulos

(38) Chris Savos

(39) Nick Shapiro

(40) John Sipher

(41) Stephen B. Slick

(42) Cynthia Strand

(43) Greg Tarbell

(44) David Terry

(45) Gregory F. Treverton

(46) John D. Tullius

(47) David A. Vanell

(48) Winston P. Wiley

(49) Kristin Wood

(50) John R. Bolton

Two signatories, Patty Patricia A. Brandmaeir and Brett Davis, are deceased.

(b) Within 90 days of this order, the Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, shall submit a report to the President through the National Security Advisor that details:

(i) any additional inappropriate activity that occurred within the Intelligence Community, by anyone contracted by the Intelligence Community or by anyone who held a security clearance, related to the letter signed by the 51 former intelligence officials;

(ii) recommendations to prevent the Intelligence Community or anyone who works for or within it from inappropriately influencing domestic elections; and

(iii) any disciplinary action—including the termination of security clearances—that should be taken against anyone who engaged in inappropriate conduct related to the letter signed by the 51 former intelligence officials.

Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

THE WHITE HOUSE, January 20, 2025.

That said, unraveling all the corrupt shenanigans in DC is going to take time.

 

[AWP]

I chewed over the remote work EO and the Federal work force EO. I've mostly addressed the telework issue. The Federal bit is more complicated and not the W most think.

The union, the AFGE, will push back. The EO can't suddenly undo collective bargaining agreements. You can't touch CBA positions until the lawyers are done.

I know for an absolute certainty engineering and cybersecurity positions are underfilled. In some cases they are already underfilled to the point of missing deadlines or one engineer is working multiple programs. I've seen what the latter does to work performance and it isn't pretty. Cybersecurity? Hooo boy, all of the emphasis on cybersecurity, all of the hand wringing, and we are still undermanned. If someone messes with the rank and file there they are, and I say this without exaggeration, affecting our security posture.

Contracting officers are already in bad shape. Cut those numbers and watch contracts go from bad to worse costing us more money and delays in performing those duties.

The "fix" for fewer Gov employees is contractors. Those savings hit a certain break point before a contractor is more expensive. Also, contractors are generally employed under strict responsibilities. Say one is hired to provide IT support for air traffic control systems. You can't moonlight at the base or facility help desk to "help out" without exceeding the limits of your contract. Cue the lawyers.

My tiny department of tech nerds, roughly 60 people, is already 6-8 positions short (Gov and Ctr combined), with 4-6 of those in cybersecurity (see above). We've been able to recruit in part through...generous telework policies. My command of about 1000 or so averages 2 retirements a month and onboards roughly 2 dozen new hires a month. (our attrition is significant) Even cutting new hires by 50% would be crippling. I could actually argue to not fill the CTR positions and make those Gov because of contracting restrictions.

Let's be honest, bean counters are most likely to assign an arbitrary percentage of personnel to cut rather than targeting specific careers. If you've read this far, do you see the problem?

You can cut the Federal government, and we need cuts, but you need to be really smart about those cuts. I honestly do not believe DOGE will take the time to analyze specific units, jobs, and needs. Those of you on the outside will see a "functioning" government and cheer the cuts. Those of us on the inside, Gov and CTR alike, will have a very, very different view as deadlines are missed and costs skyrocket.

 

[Steve1839]

Really interested to see how this will impact hybrid schedules. Especially those that aren't public facing roles like logistics, administration, and finance shops.

Having the ability to WFH one day a week/whenever weather in the pass is super shitty is a major benefit for myself and others who don't live in the Denver metro area.

The Fish and Wildlife Service regional HQ in Lakewood CO has been given a directive to be in the office 3 days a week...they recently moved into some new digs (the old building is in the process of being torn down) that can only accommodate 50% of the staff...seems like the powers that be/were decided that with remote work being a thing, they could get away without providing workspace for everyone. Not sure how this is going to play out, but I think some folks have a legitimate beef with that directive...one of my coworkers took it upon himself to create a space in our storage room...no phone, no internet, but it's on the Fed Center...

 

[Marauder06]

Coast Guard Commandant terminated over border lapses, recruitment, DEI focus: official

Fagan has demonstrated leadership deficiencies, operational failures and an inability to advance the strategic objectives of the Coast Guard.

Wow. That's way more specific than the usual "lost confidence in ability to command" or whatever.

 

[Cookie_]

Coast Guard Commandant terminated over border lapses, recruitment, DEI focus: official



Wow. That's way more specific than the usual "lost confidence in ability to command" or whatever.

I know border and DEI stuff gets clicks, but this seems like a bigger deal.

In Operation Fouled Anchor, the cover-up of sexual assaults at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy "deeply eroded trust" in the Coast Guard among the American public, the U.S. Congress and the military. The Coast Guard did not disclose the existence of Operation Fouled Anchor until 2023, despite its existence from 2014 to 2019.

Fagan was grilled by senators over the summer when she testified at a hearing on Capitol Hill, where she was questioned for not holding anyone accountable for the cover-up and withholding additional documents congressional lawmakers requested about the mishandling of the problem at the service’s academy.

 

[Dame]

As far as unions go, there is an exemption to collective bargaining agreements. This is from the Federal Hiring Freeze memo. Last line.

This memorandum does not abrogate any collective bargaining agreement in effect on the date of this memorandum.

 

[AWP]

The memo appears to provide for that type of contingency:

"...the department and agency heads shall make exemptions they deem necessary."

This is all understandably the talk of the office this morning. That's how the rank and file are viewing this, vague and open-ended enough that nothing will change UNLESS overzealous tries to make this a reality.

Buuuutttt, as @Steve1839 pointed out, not all gov't buildings can accommodate 100% in-office participation. Walking around this AM as part of my normal day-to-day, we're pretty close to being in that position if we aren't already there. We just took on a bunch of Army folks because they didn't have enough office space.

This all becomes a knee-jerk reaction leading to a dumpster fire or a nonevent.

And hell, if we want to properly secure the border we'll need to hire people. Probably a lot of people.

 

[Marauder06]

I think it’s kind of crappy they they lit “not properly securing the border“ on her, I mean, what was she supposed to do?

 

[Devildoc]

And hell, if we want to properly secure the border we'll need to hire people. Probably a lot of people.

Talking heads were on this today, saying the same thing. And you can't hire by EO, they need a budget, so they have to wait until the next budget cycle.

A lot of his EOs are low-hanging fruit that will give the MAGA crowd (myself included) warm fuzzies, but some face significant legal battles (looking at you, birthright citizenship). All I know is all of this is making me simply giddy.