via Daily Kos: Trump Has Illegally Bypassed Senate Consent on Bannon Appointment to NSC

[Farmgirl1961]

The story being slightly obscured by Trump’s cruel Muslim Ban is his appointment of Steve Bannon to the National Security Council. John McCain has blasted the move as it diminishes the role of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but it’s more than just “radical” and outrageous. It might be illegal.

The law states that the President can appoint advisors to the NSC with the advice and consent of the Senate, but I don’t recall Bannon having hearings before Trump made this appointment. That’s why I wrote to both of my Senators and my House representative to ask them to oppose this illegal appointment:

-snip-

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/29/1627096/-Trump-Has-Illegally-Bypassed-Senate-Consent-on-Bannon-Appointment-to-NSC

[Cha]

1. KICK

[Amaryllis]

7. Kick

[triron]

2. I will email and call mine in NM

So far they have been wimps so not much hope

[Chasstev365]

3. A Preemption FUCK YOU to Mitch McConnell when he tries to say it's OK!

The Senate will not subject the busy Mr. Bannon to an unnecessary hearing.......

[uponit7771]

6. +1

[KittyWampus]

4. I will contact my local Dem party and as them to send this up the chain.

[Takket]

5. how many crimes is he allowed before impeachment?

The ban was illegal
This is illegal

[rzemanfl]

9. You might want to tone this down a little. n/t

[bdamomma]

37. Yes I agree

[sarah FAILIN]

10. I've thought the same thing

P-tea from the Russians if he goes against them or some sort of something that will look like natural causes if it is one of his own. Pence has a lot to gain... Some patriot close enough to cause change will wind up doing something before he gets us into a war. I can not see us spending 4 years like the past week.

I'm promoting the hashtag #25/4 on everything I tweet now hoping they go that route.

[Ilsa]

43. What does that hashtag mean? 25/4? nt

[sarah FAILIN]

46. Amendment 25 section 4

Our only legal hope

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

[LiberalFighter]

58. The problem with that amendment

are the people that Trump puts in place. Because the only reason they are in their appointed positions is because of Trump. They would be gone if he is gone. The only hope I see is with Congress but that is slim too.

[sarah FAILIN]

59. This is the only way to legally declare him incompetent

Anything less than the legal option is highly frowned upon.
I have faith that our elected officials don't want this to keep on going this way. Even the reps are human.

Not so sure of Bannon and Flynn. They need to go.

[NewJeffCT]

63. It depends on how much backbone Republicans have

because Democrats are in the minority, they can only do so much. We need to find Republicans that will put country over party and power. There was talk about removing Trump after the "grab 'em by the pussy" came out, but it never materialized. Nobody had the guts to step up and do it.

Back in the 70s with Nixon, Democrats had big majorities in both houses, but still need principled Republicans as well. However, back then, there were liberal and moderate Republicans (Republican Lowell Weicker of Connecticut was, and still is, a liberal, but made a name for himself with his tough questioning of Nixon's people during the Watergate hearings.) Nowadays, the Republicans in the House and Senate are just conservative, very conservative or extremely conservative. Will enough of them be able to step up to stop Team Trump in time?

[pangaia]

73. Depends on your definition of human.

[Xipe Totec]

18. I would delete this post if I were you.

Like, now.

[Vinnie From Indy]

28. You are in the wrong place!

You should delete this post.

[FailureToCommunicate]

34. Only here on DU a month and now you'll be going.

Bye.

[highplainsdem]

11. K&R!

[drray23]

12. I just wrote to my senators (Tim Kaine, Mark Warner)

to ask them to bring the issue to the floor of the senate and oppose Bannon's appointment to the NSC.

[PA Democrat]

13. Here is the text of 50 U.S. Code 3021 - National Security Council

The function of the Council shall be to advise the President with respect to the integration of domestic, foreign, and military policies relating to the national security so as to enable the military services and the other departments and agencies of the Government to cooperate more effectively in matters involving the national security.
The Council shall be composed of—
(1) the President;
(2) the Vice President;
(3) the Secretary of State;
(4) the Secretary of Defense;
(5) the Secretary of Energy; and
(6) 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.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3021

Bannon was never voted on by the Senate.

[lastlib]

20. Nor is he a Secretary or Undersecretary of any otherexecutive or military department.

It does not pass the smell test. It stinks, it's rotten!

[ChazInAz]

67. Reminds me of "MacBeth"

There's a scene where MacBeth, as the new king of Scotland, passes out thaneships and titles to random cronies.

[KewlKat]

21. I don't see that banhim fits any of the above. He's only the president in the shadows

not VP and he's not a secretary.

[PatSeg]

22. A friend just said:

"I think he is trying to make a recess appointment while congress is in session."

[elehhhhna]

33. It clearly says "shall be comprised of" and gives a list and titles,

Unless there is a clause that states "plus any other jackasses the president is friendly with and maybe his son-in-law" does Bannon have a right to be there?

Extreme vetting starts at home.

[titaniumsalute]

39. I just posted this on Facebook. We need to be LOUD on this one!! SHARE IT!

[rzemanfl]

41. Bannon isn't Secretary or Undersecretary of anything. This appointment is totally illegal. n/t

[fishwax]

48. That is for membership on the National Security Council -- but there are many who attend who aren't

on that list, like the Chief of Staff. And now (unfortunately), the "Chief Strategist."

In looking at that section of the Code, you can see that the membership of the council is established there. But there are others who are routinely invited to meetings as "attendees." These include both positions which are subject to Senate Confirmation (like the Director of the Office of Management and Budget) and positions which are not subject to confirmation, like the National Security Adviser and, now, the "Chief Strategist" .

Bannon, as Chief Strategist, is being invited to all the meetings, including those of the "Principals Committee," which is the cabinet-level meeting in support of the National Security Council. (There is also a "deputies committee," which consists of the deputy directors/undersecretaries.) The shocking thing, though, is that the head of the Joint Chiefs and the Director of National Intelligence are no longer going to be Regular Attendees of the Principals Committee, but instead will be invited on an as-needed basis by the NSA, who chairs the committee. (At least, that's as I understand it.)

[PA Democrat]

56. Trump appointed Bannon as a permanent member according to reporting from the Washington Post

The president compounded this error of structure with an error of judgment that should send shivers down the spine of every American and our allies worldwide. Even as he pushed away professional security advice, Trump decided to make his top political advisor, Stephen K. Bannon, a permanent member of the NSC. Although the White House chief of staff is typically a participant in NSC deliberations, I do not know of another situation in which a political adviser has been a formal permanent member of the council.

[link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-danger-of-steve-bannon-on-the-national-security-council/2017/01/29/ba3982a2-e663-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.5b827f665a1ahttp://|

Obama was heavily criticized by Republicans for allowing Axelrod to attend an occasional NSC meeting (but never a meeting of the "principals&quot at the beginning of his first term in office. Bush actually BANNED Rove from attending all NSC to avoid the appearance of political motives for national security decisions.

Some have also pointed to comments by Joshua Bolten, the former chief of staff to Bush,and how he recalled the former president specifically demanding that adviser Karl Rove not attend meetings where national security issues were discussed.

"It wasn't because he didn't respect Karl's advice or didn't value his input," Bolten said at a national security forum last September. "But the president also knew that the signal he wanted to send to the rest of his administration, the signal he wanted to send to the public, and the signal he especially wanted to send to the military is that the decisions I'm making that involve life and death for the people in uniform will not be tainted by any political decisions."

[link:http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-controversial-adviser-stephen-bannon-seat-national-security/story?id=45122927|

[fishwax]

61. yeah, I agree that it's outrageous

I just don't think it requires senate approval to do.

[Desert grandma]

69. Calling your Senators in Washington works faster

Believe me, they are listening and sensitive to their constituents. Whenever you call them, they ask for your zip code to verify that you are actually a constituent. I called Senator Udall and Heinrich's office too. I also asked them to refuse consent on ANY Republican agenda items. I read that this is how the Republicans were able to obstruct so many of President Obama's agenda when Democrats controlled all three branches in 2009.

[C_U_L8R]

14. Trump answers to no one

and will do whatever pleases Trump.
He's all but declared himself Ruler Supreme.
The fuck.

[triron]

15. wtf

He and his gang have committed treason without consequence, so hey why not do anything they want?

[creeksneakers2]

16. I don't believe

NSC members require confirmation.

[PA Democrat]

17. I posted the text of 50 U.S. Code 3021 - National Security Council

further up in this thread and it looks to me that he does indeed need Senate confirmation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8561890

[creeksneakers2]

45. I read it

I don't see the list of those required to receive confirmation as exclusive. I know the director doesn't need confirmation. Its too bad he doesn't too.

[Ms. Toad]

53. The only non-statutory members of the NSC

must be Secretaries or Under Secretaries (each of whom receives confirmation as part of their appointment process). In addition, any Secretary or Under Secretary not listed in the statute requires the advice and consent of the senate for appoint to the National Security Council.

[fishwax]

62. I don't think that's accurate

If you read the rest of the link for the code, for instance, it talks about additional committees to support the Council, such as the Committee on Foreign Intelligence (h), which will include specific individuals plus (h.2.e) "Such other members as the President may designate."

The reorganization of the Council and Bannon's central role is outrageous, but I don't think it's illegal. (I could be wrong, of course, but haven't seen any compelling evidence that it's illegal.)

[Ms. Toad]

66. Membership on additional committees to support the Council

Is not the same as additional members on the Council.

By statute, the membership of the Council is limited to the named individuals and additional Secretaries or Under Secretaries appointed with by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate.

If Bannon was not appointed to the Council itself, you may be correct. I didn't trace the breadcrumb trail that far. What I checked on was membership on the Council (and whether all of the individuals eligible to be appointed to the Council would have required confirmation hearings, in addition to the advice and consent for Council membership.

[fishwax]

68. "member" seems to be used in varying ways, with considerable slippage

in this discussion/story. But the bottom line is this: nothing trump has done challenges or changes the list of members in the quoted section of the law.

When people speak of the NSC, they sometimes mean the Principals (which are basically the positions listed in the statute plus a few others), and they sometimes mean the NSC as an organization, including its staff, which include hundreds of people, most of whom aren't mentioned in the statute, and for whom senate confirmation is not necessary to be on the Council, because the statute permits the executive to staff it with whomever he sees fit.

In the actual memo announcing this administration's organization of the NSC, it lists the strategist as being invited to attend all the meetings. That's problematic enough, particularly when coupled with the fact that the Joints Chair and the DNI are invited to the Principals Committee only in specific cases now.

[marybourg]

23. If that excerpt from the statute

printed up-thread is complete, Bannon doesn't even fall into the class of persons whose names can be submitted for confirmation. But if he were in that class, it appears that confirmation is necessary, since he definitely is not one of the persons enumerated in 1-4.

[rzemanfl]

42. Absolutely. I posted before I read this. You are 100% correct. n/t

[TomCADem]

19. Was Wondering Why No Other President Has Not Done What Trump Did Before?

Why not just nominate a figurehead as a cabinet appointee, then bypass them, and rely on an unappointed staffer who would never clear the Senate?

In other words, why hadn't other Presidents simply bypassed the Senate in this way? I guess because that would violate Constitution.

[Ford_Prefect]

25. What makes you think W didn't do that?

[TomCADem]

50. Even Dubya Did Not Put Rove on NSC...

...Trump has to take it up a notch.

[sarah FAILIN]

49. Ethics?

Trump has none though.

[catbyte]

24. And the Senate will do absolutely bupkis, zilch, nada, NOTHING.

[KittyWampus]

26. This is incorrect. Read diary. Obama appointed people w/o approval.

[tinrobot]

29. Who exactly was appointed?

[DonCoquixote]

27. now let's see

If the same Senate that was literally willing to put a noose around Obama's neck even dares crack the whip for Trump. Hands down they won't, even if the Coke brothers decide to drop their very last penny into the coffers, because they are so scared of Steve Bannon.

(At first I thought of changing the analogy of the noose, but let's be honest, the reason the Senate didn't want to go ahead and give Obama any slack was because of his race, so the analogy fits in many ways. Clarence Thomas complained that he was the victim of a "high-tech lynching", we all know damn well who the real victim of a high-tech lynching was, and I'll add to that, in the case of Hillary, a high-tech which burning. Yet, this same Senate, who acts like they're a bunch of Camelot Knights, 300 Spartans, fighting to the tooth and nail to keep America safe from itself, now bow before Trump, and by proxy, czar Vladimir Rasputin.

[TrollBuster9090]

30. Okay, that's YOOGE! It was bad enough when Trump appointed Bannon to the NSC,

but I didn't know NSC appointments required approval by the Senate. Or, even if it's just the COMPOSITION of the NSC, if not the personnel, that's still YOOGE! I can't see Trump either backing down on his Bannon appointment, OR subjecting Bannon to Senate hearings. So, I suspect this could be the first official clash between him and the GOP Senate.

[burrowowl]

31. K&R!!!!!!

[thinkingagain]

32. Dead Cat Theory

I read somewhere that what Trump is doing is called the dead cat theory you do something and then when people are talking about that you throw a dead cat on the table and all attention goes to the dead cat and no one notices what is now really going on.
I think Trump is doing some of the bigger things to distract from the other things. We must stay alert for everything
Our Democratic leaders can not get distracted by the "dead cat" Make sure someone is always in session to vote no to his appointments say no to his every action.

[bdamomma]

40. yea about staying alert

we need to say alert on February 5th Super Sunday, they would pull so much shit because they will think we will be distracted. correct???

[lou ky dem]

35. The RNC was also hacked

My thoughts are Trump has the goods on them. They cannot go against him. There are too many Republicans that are lawyers that know what he is doing is unconstitutional. Why else wouldn't some speak out?

[cos dem]

36. Thanks for this

Gives me context for my next round of letters to congress critters.

[Rex]

38. Trump is running the country unilaterally, I guess the GOP are a bunch of morons.

They should have known he would run wild once outside his element. You know he is loving signing shit he can't even read.


Look at my signature! I have no idea what this says!

[czarjak]

51. "I R *President!"...

"Believe me".

[Rex]

75. "Bigly with these huge titan size hands believe me they are huge folks."

"The best hands, these hands are."

[Bucky]

44. Wow. If I didn't know better, I'd swear he's acting like a dictator

This isn't that much of an aberration. We've been building up to this with 60 years of an imperial presidency.

Maybe it was just a matter of time before a real Caesar wiggled his way into office

[fishwax]

47. I don't think it requires senate confirmation ... Bannon is invited to all the meetings

The President can invite, I would imagine, anyone he likes. There are routinely people who are invited to the NSC meetings who aren't confirmed by the senate, like the white house counsel and the chief of staff.

The thing that's got people (rightfully) up in arms is the shakeup on the Principals Committee, which is a subset of the National Security Council. It isn't the same thing as being on the National Security Council. So Bannon isn't really a member of the Council (the membership of which is established by the law posted elsewhere in this thread); he's just invited to all the meetings of the cabinet-level members.

All of this is not to say that this isn't a dangerous step, or that the elimination of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs or the Director of National Intelligence from the Principals Committee ought not concern us.

[marybourg]

76. When I wrote to my Publican Senators, I

emphasized the removal of the military from the NSC.

[Ms. Toad]

52. Already done (contacting senators).

It actually appears to me that he couldn't appoint Bannon, even with consent and approval.

Appointment to the committee is limited to Secretaries and Under Secrataries, by statute.

[bettyellen]

54. Calling everyone I can first thing Monday!

[TomVilmer]

55. The Daily Kos story is retracted now

From cache:
"UPDATE: ... An important and overlooked detail in the coverage of this story is that Steve Bannon has not actually been added as a member of the National Security Council, even though some outlets are reporting it that way.
Bannon has been given a permanent invitation on the principals committee, a subgroup of the NSC, while the permanent invitations of the DNI and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to sit in with the principals committee have been withdrawn.
It’s a distinction that apparently confuses even John McCain. ... This is still an outrageous move and I still believe there needs to be pressure on Congress to minimize Bannon’s ideological influence in the principals committee and restore the permanent invitations of the DNI and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."

[The Wizard]

57. Bannon is pushing the envelope

to the extreme to see what he can get away with. And I say Bannon because he's now our own Rasputin.

[Big_K]

71. Apparently it was his decision to not allow green card holders back in the US

So let's investigate Bannon for THAT.

[Qutzupalotl]

60. story has been removed

See post 55.

[ehrnst]

64. Story has been removed. (nt)

[ehrnst]

65. DT didn't put Bannon in the NSC - just allowing him to attend meetings. (nt)

[jeanmarc]

70. There will be no difference.

There's going to be lots of leaks about 'bigly things' thanks to this creep being in on the council.

And Donald doesn't have time for Presidentin', so he'll just rely on Bannon's Readers Digest version, which will be extremely light.

[tavernier]

72. Story removed.

Books burned.
Elections canceled
When reaching age of two, all children will be raised and educated in government schools. Informing on parents who speak negatively of government will be rewarded.

[lindysalsagal]

74. Nothing at link. Got pulled.