Here’s how Donald Trump could try to install his controversial cabinet picks

Here’s how Donald Trump could try to install his controversial cabinet picks

Donald Trump has signalled his willingness to bypass the U.S. Senate if it refuses to confirm the cast of controversial characters he’s picked for his cabinet. Even if his own Republican allies try blocking those nominees, which remains far from certain, he may have several paths around them.

Trump has already raised one possibility — recess appointments, which in essence mean plowing ahead while the Senate is on break.

Trump aide Stephen Miller confirmed to Fox News this week that recess appointments are being considered, adding Trump will “use all lawful, constitutional means” to fulfil his mandate.

But this Plan B comes with caveats and complications, is uncertain to work and could trigger a constitutional conflict.

At a minimum, Republicans would have to agree to a recess. If they don’t, some of Trump’s allies are talking about a Plan C — forcing Congress into a recess, a gambit critics call potentially unconstitutional, depending on how it’s done.

And if all that fails there’s a possible Plan D — a 1998 law that allows temporary appointments, although this too comes with conditions.

Less controversial candidates would normally have an easier route to confirmation, which requires a majority vote in the Senate, which is projected to be 53 per cent held by the Republicans once the still-lingering election counts are done. 

This all portends months of drama ahead over choices that shocked official Washington, including some members of Trump’s own party.

At the epicentre of this storm is former congressman Matt Gaetz. He was picked for attorney general while being investigated in Congress for alleged sex with a minor, payments for sex, illegal drug use and accepting improper gifts.

The bipartisan ethics committee working on that investigation failed to get a consensus Wednesday to release a draft report; however, it did vote to complete the final report, according to Punchbowl News, a congressional newsletter.

There’s also the pick for defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, a veteran and Fox News host who opposes women in combat, dislikes the Geneva Conventions against torture, and once paid to settle a rape claim he calls untrue.

A number of Republicans have also expressed doubts about two ex-Democrats Trump wants to appoint: a critic of U.S. intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, to lead U.S. intelligence; and a vaccine-, pharma- and food-industry critic, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., to lead the health bureaucracy.

“My expectation is that most of these nominees get through,” said David Lewis, an expert on presidential appointments at Vanderbilt University. 

Lewis says he wouldn’t be surprised if one or two ran into serious trouble, then either withdrew or got stuck in limbo.

The fundamental reality, he says, is that Republican senators face competing incentives. There’s the institutional pressure to preserve the power of the Senate, which has a constitutional duty to scrutinize major presidential picks.

But their own political careers may rest with backing Trump. Fighting him has been a career-ending move for several Republicans.

“They are cross-pressured,” Lewis said.

Splitting the difference

These competing demands are evident in the vacillating public comments from several Republicans who detest Gaetz. 

Like Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, who has made clear his disdain for Gaetz on a personal level, but is hedging on whether he’ll vote to confirm him. Maybe, maybe not.

Some are splitting the difference another way: insisting the process must continue, and that there must be a nomination hearing in January, but without guaranteeing they’ll vote to confirm Gaetz.

A number of senators who met with Gaetz this week emerged saying he deserves to at least tell his story in a hearing.

“This process will not be a rubber stamp nor will it be driven by a lynch mob,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, who urged colleagues to do a thorough vetting, but to keep an open mind.

And then, if his confirmation stalls? 

Republicans are playing coy on whether they agree with the Plan B of recess appointments. Some like Sen. Rick Scott of Florida appear to wholeheartedly endorse it.

Others disagree. 

Sen. Thom Tillis says recess appointments are fine for low-level officials. They’ve happened hundreds of times over the generations. But they’re inappropriate for senior cabinet roles, he says.

“That should be absolutely off the table,” the North Carolina senator told reporters Wednesday. “These positions are too important and carry too much weight internationally.”

There are restrictions on recess appointments. The Supreme Court has said Congress must be on break for a minimum of 10 days, which rarely happens without a pro forma meeting interrupting the break.

The top Republican in the Senate, John Thune, sounded skeptical in an interview with local media in his home state of South Dakota.

Without ruling out the idea, he said going on recess requires an adjournment motion in both chambers, which could be amended and dragged out ad nauseum by Democrats.

That has Trump allies talking about a Plan C: forcing Congress to shut down. The Constitution allows the president to do this when the chambers disagree on adjournment, a remnant of the prorogation power in the British system.

“It’s an awful and anti-constitutional idea,” according to Ed Whelan, a legal analyst who writes for the conservative but Trump-skeptical National Review.

He also called it an abuse of the rules. 

But that plan would fall apart if both chambers of Congress oppose a recess, and a few Republicans are balking, the website Axios reported Wednesday.

Then, as a final backup, there’s the 1998 Federal Vacancies Reform Act. A lawyer who tried helping Trump overturn the 2020 election says the president can use that.

Jeff Clark, who served in Trump’s Justice Department, described this option in the podcast hosted by his ally Steve Bannon.

A candidate could be installed on a temporary basis for 300 days, provided they were not formally nominated after Trump takes office on Jan. 20.

Trump has “tools in his quiver,” said Clark, who has been fighting disbarment for actions he took as Trump’s acting assistant attorney general in 2020.

All these options have pros and cons. But as for the president shutting down the Senate?

“Then the wheels are coming off the bus,” Sarah Binder, an expert on presidential-congressional relations at the Brookings Institution, told a liberal podcast hosted by The New Republic.

“We’re sort of [on] the uncharted path here.”

She said the key point is Republican lawmakers have power here — but only if they choose to use it.

They could, for instance, always re-gavel the Senate back into session, and reset the recess clock at zero days, thwarting Trump’s plan.

It’s a big “if.”

“The No. 1 learning from the first Trump four years: The rules on the parchment can’t defend themselves. Rules can’t protect themselves,” she said. “Lawmakers have to leap into action and make a choice…. Certainly standing up to Trump seems a challenge.”

Published at Fri, 01 Nov 2024 08:11:21 +0000

Google must sell Chrome to restore competition in online search, U.S. Justice Department says

Alphabet’s Google must sell its Chrome browser, share data and search results with rivals and take other measures — including possibly selling Android — to end its monopoly on online search, prosecutors argued to a judge on Wednesday.

The measures presented by the Department of Justice are part of a landmark case in Washington which has the potential to reshape how users find information.

They would be in place for up to a decade, enforced via a court-appointed committee to remedy what the judge overseeing the case deemed an illegal monopoly in search and related advertising in the U.S., where Google processes 90 per cent of searches.

“Google’s unlawful behavior has deprived rivals not only of critical distribution channels but also distribution partners who could otherwise enable entry into these markets by competitors in new and innovative ways,” the Justice Department and state antitrust enforcers said in a court filing on Wednesday.

Their proposals include ending exclusive agreements in which Google pays billions of dollars annually to Apple and other device vendors to make its search engine the default on their tablets and smart phones.

Google criticizes proposals

Google called the proposals staggering in a statement on Thursday.

“DOJ’s approach would result in unprecedented government overreach that would harm American consumers, developers, and small businesses— and jeopardize America’s global economic and technological leadership at precisely the moment it’s needed most,” said Alphabet Chief Legal Officer Kent Walker.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta has scheduled a trial on the proposals for April, though President-elect Donald Trump and the Justice Department’s next antitrust head could step in and change course in the case.

The proposals are wide-ranging, including barring Google from re-entering the browser market for five years and insisting Google sell its Android mobile operating system if other remedies fail to restore competition. The Justice Department has also requested a prohibition on Google buying or investing in search rivals, query-based artificial intelligence products or advertising technology.

Publishers and websites would also be given a way to opt out of being included in training Google’s AI products.

A five-person technical committee appointed by the judge would enforce compliance under prosecutors’ proposals. The committee, which Google would pay for, would have the power to demand documents, interview employees and delve into software code, the filing showed.

Chrome is pillar of Google’s business

The measures together are meant to break “a perpetual feedback loop that further entrenches Google” through additional users, data and advertising dollars, prosecutors said.

Chrome is the world’s most widely used web browser and is a pillar of Google’s business, providing user information that helps the company target ads more effectively and profitably.

Google has used Chrome and Android to preference its own search engine to the detriment of rivals, prosecutors said.

Google has said making it divest Chrome and Android, which are built on open source code and are free, would harm companies that have built upon them to develop their own products.

The proposals would bar Google from requiring devices that run on Android to include its search or AI products.

Google would have the option to sell the software off in lieu of compliance. The Justice Department and state antitrust enforcers would have to approve any potential buyers.

Google will have a chance to present its own proposals in December.

Required to share data

Google would be required under the proposals to license search results to competitors at nominal cost and share data it gathers from users with competitors for free. It would be barred from collecting any user data that it cannot share because of privacy concerns.

Prosecutors crafted the proposals after speaking with companies that compete with Google, including search engine DuckDuckGo.

“We think this is a really big deal and will lower the barriers to competition,” said Kamyl Bazbaz, DuckDuckGo’s head of public affairs.

DuckDuckGo has accused Google of trying to dodge European Union rules requiring data sharing. Google said it will not compromise user trust by giving competitors sensitive data.

Published at Thu, 21 Nov 2024 10:12:27 +0000