Summary

Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-TN) dismissed the necessity of FBI background checks for Donald Trump’s cabinet nominees, claiming the public prioritizes implementing Trump’s policies over vetting appointees.

On ABC’s This Week, Hagerty criticized Biden officials and supported Trump’s expedited transition process, despite reports that many nominees, including Pete Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard, have bypassed FBI checks.

Moderator Jonathan Karl expressed concern over abandoning standard vetting practices, but Hagerty argued the FBI is “weaponized” and insisted checks would be completed quickly, though no evidence supports his claims of agency bias.

  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    203
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    30 days ago

    People in the media need to stop feigning fucking shock over this shit.

    If you’re still shocked you’re complicit because these assholes have been telling you very clearly who they are and what they plan to do for over ten years now.

    How do you expect us to take you seriously as arbiters of the truth when you’re fucking constantly shocked stupid by the reality that’s been staring you in the face for a decade. At a certain point, it beggars belief that you’re somehow still shocked that shitty people who promised to be shitty people are indeed shitty people doing the shitty things they promised to do.

    If you’re truly, genuinely shocked at this point, you’re an idiot.

    • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      edit-2
      30 days ago

      The folks who are shocked seems to be because they can’t interpret beyond the exact literal words they say.

      • floofloof@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        42
        ·
        edit-2
        29 days ago

        It’s an abdication of journalistic responsibility, this refusal to contextualize and explain. It’s all just repeating the surface of what people said today, without any attempt to communicate what’s at stake and why it matters. This is the journalistic equivalent of the useless manager who does nothing but forward emails.

        • A7thStone@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          27 days ago

          My local news channel yesterday kept repeating “so called hush money”. It’s not so called he was fucking convicted.

      • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        26 days ago

        I think way too many people in journalism were taught that they should be stenographers who should be mostly concerned about having access to politicians, and being overly gun-shy of being labeled “liberal” (ZOMG! Not liberal!).

        Thing is, the nuts will call them “liberal” no matter what, so playing the bullshit “objective” game of trying to find “both sides” to every story, no matter how much one side is fucking lying their ass off, is just not going to prevent the wingers from calling corporate outlets “liberal”.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      29 days ago

      The problem is that the people who need to get their head out of their ass and start paying attention aren’t watching the medias that would confront the politicians defending Trump.