More speculations about Trump’s cabinet

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

This article gives a nice overview of the people who it appears are being considered for positions in a Trump presidency, should he win.

Unfortunately, it does not give a lot of background about the people mentioned. Many, like Chris Christie, Jeff Sessions, Rudy Giuliani, and Newt Gingrich, are well known. Others, like businessman Donald McGahn, are unknown. Some, like Senator Bob Corker, suggested as potential Secretary of State, would be a disaster, based on his past history of getting the Iran deal approved.
Some. like Harold Hamm and Steve Mnuchin, have been described here at BtB at the links behind their names, Hamm positively and Mnuchin negatively..

There is more at the link. Read it all. This list is a start. It will require vetting to get a sense of what we can expect from a Trump administration.

Note that there is a reason I am so focused on Trump and not Clinton. Trump remains an unknown, who might be worth voting for if it appears his plans as President are reasonable, something that might still be possible, despite all the negative reports I’ve given him. Moreover, there is a chance that Trump can be positively influenced. Learning as much about him as possible increases that possibility.

Clinton however is not an unknown. She is corrupt, a liar, and an avowed socialist who believes strongly in increasing the size and power of the federal government, as does the entire political party that supports her. To deny any of this is to live with your head in the sand. She thus needs no vetting.


  • Cotour

    I happened to listen to her this morning on Charlie Rose, and she disagrees with you in the extreme. She has “worked hard”.

    When asked about her email server situation she plainly said that “all of the former Secretary Of States did it”. She of course did not mention that none of them set up their own separate from the government server with NO security on it. And when asked if she had been hacked she replied “there is no evidence that it had been hacked”. And when it was pointed out that the FBI director Comey stated that she was “sloppy” and the people who would do such things were so good at what they did there would never be any evidence left. She replied “but there still is no evidence that it was hacked”. (I was reminded of Al Gore “there is no controlling legal authority. In other words BS)

    She also stated that she communicated with over three hundred professionals who would never put any secure communication in jeopardy. I interpret that as they were forced to communicate with you on your illegal and unsafe system, including the president, because no one had the stones to stay directly to you that they would not communicate with you because they were communicating on a rouge, unsecured system. What she actually did was cause all of them to become complicit in her illegal system and by default they would all have been dragged into her indictment. Imagine the years of legal complications. She is the ultimate security risk! Unparalleled in history.

    Her final comment? Well you know now after all this I will never communicate in anything other than a secure system, I learned a valuable lesson! (I para phrase) But doesn’t that go to your competence from the get go? You were incompetent then, but now you are competent? The people will be the judge and jury.

    I pointed out to a confused Liberal the other day that Trump was probably the closest candidate in history most like the Founders. She almost threw up!

    Jefferson, a rich womanizer who had established a separate slave family with Sally Hemmings, was a brilliant thinker of the day and writer. Washington, I believe after he married he became the richest land owner / developer / entrepreneur in the country. And I leave the best for last, Franklin. Franklin became very, very wealthy in the printing business, was an inventor and was the Playboy of his day and chased women constantly, loved drinking wine and was the main deal maker and negotiator with the French.

    They were probably all ego maniacs to varying degrees, probably all A type personalities and all over achievers.

    Remind you of anyone?

  • Wayne


    What your description reminds me of, is the left-wing narrative concerning our Founding Fathers.
    They were nothing like a Trump.

    The Jefferson-Hemming’s thing, is far from “settled history,” & he died heavily in debt.
    Washington was able to amass an Estate worth approximately $1 million at the time of his death. He was no pauper but not the wealthiest person in the new Country.
    Franklin could have become our modern version of a billionaire-inventor, but he gave away the Patents on a lot of his inventions, and donated large sums to charity.

    Not of these Men were perfect but they were considerably less flawed than Trump.

  • Ted

    If you watched Hillarys America this past weekend (we went opening night) and followed the WikiLeaks disaster I would think Dinesh D’Souza must be doing the happy dance. It would seem everything he presented has come to light in the leaked DNC emails. Well maybe not everything but the coincidence is amazing.

  • Phill O

    Bob, your gut instinct are right (I agree with) in that the success (on a conservative base) for Trump will be who he surrounds himself with. His VP pick is promising. Campaigning is one thing, it will be his actions which define the long term.

    I have just heard that Obama has been nominated as the 5th best president of the USA;
    1 Lincoln ,Reagan and Truman tied for first place
    2 Sixteen Presidents tied for second place
    3 Twenty-three other Presidents tied for third place
    4 Jimmy Carter came in fourth, and …
    5. Obama was fifth.

    Sorry, but humor is needed at this time!

  • Cotour

    Left wing interpretation? I admire them all for their achievements and I recognize that they were all deficient human beings, as we all are.

    Washington, what other president was worth 1/2 billion dollars upon his death, your information and / or interpretation is flawed :

    “The net worth of the presidents varies widely. George Washington’s estate was worth more than half a billion in today’s dollars. On the other hand, several presidents went bankrupt.”

    Jefferson / Hemmings, I believe the connection has been verified, even through DNA testing. More flawed information / interpretation:

    “The claim that Thomas Jefferson fathered children with Sally Hemings, a slave at Monticello, entered the public arena during Jefferson’s first term as president, and it has remained a subject of discussion and disagreement for two centuries. Based on documentary, scientific, statistical, and oral history evidence, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (TJF) Research Committee Report on Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings (January 2000) remains the most comprehensive analysis of this historical topic. Ten years later, TJF and most historians believe that, years after his wife’s death, Thomas Jefferson was the father of the six children of Sally Hemings mentioned in Jefferson’s records, including Beverly, Harriet, Madison, and Eston Hemings. ”

    “Not of these Men were perfect but they were considerably less flawed than Trump.”

    Now you are just splitting hairs and being petty, no? I like to deal in facts, no matter where they lead. The interpretation may have its nuances but facts are facts. People have their flaws and their shining moments and we are all deficient in some ways. But the facts are the facts and there are many parallels between The Founders and their natures and Trump. You do not have to like it but it is plain, its a type of personality and they all shared varying degrees of it.

    They were more like Trump than not. And your attempt to characterize my observations of the reality of the parallels as a “liberal” attempts to discredit me and them all is just plain I.D. And you know what that means.

    I will leave it to others on this thread to discuss and judge the validity of my proposition.

  • Phill O

    If Trump is the extreme egotist as I think, he comes to the plate without an agenda like Obama did. You could say his agenda is to be president and he will go the direction of the people who put him there. This may not be a bad thing for the American workers who seem to be putting him there. All the bullies I have worked for know the power structure and Trump does seem to be courting the electorate, both on the emotional and logic side.

    Conservatives tend to be thinkers, making logical choices based on evidence. By the Briggs Myers personality profiles, we are in the minority. So, Trump working the emotional side (something Romney could not do) might end in a win.

    As you and others have said, loading the congress with true conservatives (Tea Party types) is a priority.

  • mpthompson

    If Trump is the extreme egotist as I think, he comes to the plate without an agenda like Obama did.

    I have no idea how you can conclude that Obama came into office without an agenda. His agenda to diminish the country and sow the seeds of dissension is meticulously spelled out in every action Obama has taken since becoming President. Given the lost stature of this country on the world stage and the deep divisions that now run through this country, I can only conclude that he succeeded brilliantly.

    Trump on the other hand, I believe, is a narcissist, but potentially in a healthy way. Sure, he wants to increase his public stature and feed his own ego, but the only way he can really do this is by doing a good job as President. I think he wants to secure his place in history and be remembered as Reagan, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt or Lincoln are remembered. He may piss of a lot of people along the way, just as those presidents did, but I believe his eye will always be on the long game. In doing so, he may actually to some good things for this country which would be a great improvement on what we’ve seen from the last four presidents.

  • mpthompson

    Phill O, I think I misinterpreted your first sentence. In re-reading it, I guess you were implying that Obama did come to the presidency with an agenda. Sorry for the confusion on my part.

  • Phill O

    mpthompson I re-wrote it with a coma that makes it make sense!


    If Trump is the extreme egotist as I think, he comes to the plate without an agenda, like Obama did.

  • Garry

    There is one HUGE difference between Trump and the founding fathers: the founding fathers recognized the danger of to much power in one person, so they devised checks and balances.

    Ask yourself one question, Coutour, if Trump had been offered the crown as king of America, would he have refused it, as Washington did?

    I’m not singling out Trump; the same would apply to Obama and many others, but Trump is fundamentally different from the founding fathers when it comes to attitude towards power.

  • Cotour

    You and I really do not know the answer to that power question. Its undeniable, when you step back and look at them all there are many more personality and behavior similarities between these men than not. Why do you assume that Trump as a Founder would not recognize the need for checks and balances?

    As for the Trump V Washington / King Of America question, I think Washington was unique in history and few men compare IMO to him in that regard. But in ambition, organization and ability? I think yes. Thinking about it if Washington is not Washington there is no America (as we know it anyway). So everything after that HUGE G. Washington leadership leap I think Trump is certainly in the game and signs his name right next to Ben Franklin’s.

    Do you really think that Trump would be a British sympathizer with all of the land, inns with bowling greens and beaver pelts he had possession of?

    Obama would not even be close to making this list, nor would Hillary, nor would Bernie. They all three would tend more to be embedded spy’s for the Crown and would wait out the war to be rewarded with the Kings power for a job well done.

  • Garry

    “Why do you assume that Trump as a Founder would not recognize the need for checks and balances?”

    Because Trump seems to see everything as a negotiation, with a winner and a loser. The founding fathers’ main concern was getting rid of tyranny; Trump seems to want to dictate everything.

    This conversation is a complete sidetrack (sideshow?), but it does serve the purpose of further exposing your naivete when it comes to how Trump thinks.

  • wayne

    Excellent remarks.

  • Localfluff

    Maybe one leader is better than hundreds of collective corrupt incompetent tyrants? An individual has (can have) a consciousness. A collective doesn’t even have a brain.
    The night has many eyes, the clear day only one. (Old European royalist saying)

    Politics is NOTHING BUT NEGOTIATION! That’s the only thing politicians do when they accomplish anything, regardless of topic. That and holding speeches to make the public find it agreeable enough. That’s kind of what Donald Trump excels at! He’ll be a great president for America. The world leader of the century, already.

  • Garry

    Localfluff, you sound a lot like loyalists during the American Revolutionary War arguing against democracy, “It’s better to be rules by 1 tyrant 3,000 miles away than by 3,000 tyrants 1 mile away.”

    Which is exactly my point; you can say Trump would be a great world leader, but even if that’s true, he’s the opposite of the founding fathers in terms of his approach.

  • wayne

    Good stuff.

  • Localfluff

    Of course he is! But he wouldn’t have been if the American people as a whole very emphatically voted AGAINST the constitution four years ago when Ron Paul tried to run to the last. So Trump rationally computes this data about the political popular reality: No American cares at all about the constitution. All Americans want ein Kaiser. So, this is my opportunity to run as a Trumperor!

    If there (total fantasy, will never happen) was any kind of significant opinion making itself heard, which protested against Trump’s “New Safe Constitution”, he will simply drag out the old very hated Ron Paul to the media screens as his new temporary opponent puppet. Let him talk about how good the old unsafe constitution was in 1772, and then rant him down for how failed a society this backwardness has led to in modern time.

    All Americans have already in the last election, in full freedom, deliberately chosen to abolish their hated constitution. All Americans have with voluntary action proven that they just want something as very simple as a Kaisertum. This US election needs to recognize and accept this fundamental and current US moral popular value of our age. Violence is incessantly demanded by the people, and violence will be supplied by their elected government. Libertarianism and its constitution is hated now more than ever.

    This is all completely logical and perfect according to the democratic idea of having the collective choose their own collective destiny. And now the US is electing a very competent Kaiser. Congratulations!

    Trump has no interest in changing anything with the constitution. He’ll just informally run over it just like all other presidents have done. Democracy has never, is nowhere and could not possible be any better than that. People just want to see some important problems solved by their God Government simply applying the obvious methods, like building the wall and killing the murderers, now impossible because of the corrupt collective mess of thousands of parasitic incompetent politicians hiding behind laws and treaties and amendments to excuse their impotence and worthlessness. Just do it!

  • Cotour

    Wayne, you may not like the analogy to the Founders that I have made, but you have not reasonably refuted it.
    G. Washington was in fact the largest land owner in America, was an entrepreneur and developer, in today’s dollars worth 1/2 billion dollars when he died. Franklin was a playboy and master negotiator, Jefferson was a dude who liked his ladies. All asymmetrical American meatballs. (as degrading to those apex American as that might be)

    I have drawn many undeniable similarities between just three of the Founders personalities, ego’s, predilection’s, abilities and behaviors and Trump, you and Garry not liking these facts do not make them untrue.

  • wayne


    Not understanding your point; (and don’t feel a need to “disprove” your allegations, just saying they are flawed & based on an incorrect assumption.)

    We will just have to agree to disagree on this Topic.

    –do you mean to say “the Founding fathers were scum-bags & billionaire’s, so it’s ok if Trump is one as well?”

    That’s what I’m hearing.
    –Don’t want to speak for Garry, but would speculate he senses something along those lines himself.

    I read the Time article you linked to & the source article.
    “Figures are in 2010 dollars & amounts are “peak” static amounts.”

    As for Jefferson– I know enough about genetics & the tests that were done, to say– “the evidence points to genetic markers from a male in Jefferson’s family.” (carried on the “Y” chromosome alone, a key factoid.)

    It’s by no means 100% that it was Jefferson himself, there is strong evidence that it might have been his brother. But I will admit, with the DNA they compared, they can’t prove a negative, for the reason they are missing the key bit of DNA to state categorically yes/no.
    (there is also incomplete data recording the births from slaves at the Plantation, that indicate at least some of these alleged descendant’s mothers, could not possibly have been impregnated by Jefferson himself– the time frames don’t add up.)

    Franklin liked the Ladies… so what?

    You are simultaneously trashing the Founders with a tired old lefty Meme, and using those conclusions to justify whatever negatives Trump has regarding divorces, etc. to proclaim Trump is just like our Founder’s.

    1/2 the population has been divorced, I don’t think anyone holds that against Trump.
    By all accounts Trump has been a “good father.” Good for him!

  • Garry

    Wayne, I appreciate your caveat that you don’t want to speak for me, but yes, my thoughts are along the same general track.

    I’m not interested much in the personal lives and morals of the founding fathers, except as it relates to the system that they built. I didn’t care much about Bill Clinton’s indiscretions themselves, other than his brazenness and his lying about it. I personally am disappointed whenever anyone, public figure or not, commits disloyalty to their spouse, but I can separate that from their job performance.

    Similarly, I admire Bernie Sanders the man perhaps most of all the major candidates this time around, in that he seems exceptionally honest and well-meaning, but I am horrified by his goals, so I would never vote for Bernie Sanders the candidate.

    Saying that Trump is rich and immoral makes him just like the founding fathers isn’t too far off from saying that an 8-year-old boy who is horrifically burned and told he will never walk again will break the world record in the mile, because that’s what Glenn Cunningham did.

    Being rich certainly helped the founding fathers get the opportunities they did, and perhaps being immoral (as you say) made them bold, but even if I were to concede that these were necessary conditions (in getting them the opportunity), they clearly were not sufficient conditions.

    The founding fathers didn’t build our system because they were rich and immoral (as you claim); they built our system because of their brilliance, a certain type of morality they had, and their interest and passion for philosophy. Trump has a certain type of brilliance, but I don’t see any evidence of the certain type of morality in him, and I don’t recall him being a big proponent of philosophy (maybe Kevin Klein’s character from A Fish Called Wanda will bring him up to speed on some great philosophers).

    I’m leaning towards voting for Trump at this point, and see some promising things from him, but I would never confuse him with a founding father.

  • Garry wrote: “I’m leaning towards voting for Trump at this point…”

    I am curious. Are you leaning away from Clinton or from a third party vote, or a no-vote?

  • Garry

    I will under no circumstances vote for Clinton. Living in a deep blue state, Democrats are generally locks, so for all practical purposes my vote doesn’t have a direct effect on the outcome. Unless I know of and approve the Republican candidate, I often vote 3rd party (even if I don’t know much about the 3rd party candidate), because I think that it’s a stronger message to show that there’s one more voter who doesn’t like the 2-party system than it is to show that the Republican candidate lost by one fewer vote.

    But no outcome would surprise me this time around, so my vote may indeed count.

    Although I disagree with many aspects of Cotour’s viewpoint of Trump, I agree with his basic logic that Trump is the only practical alternative to Clinton at this point (now that Trump has been nominated; I had hopes for several candidates early on, and eventually supported Cruz ).

    Given the right conditions (being surrounded by lots of conservatives), Trump may be a better choice than Clinton. I see potential good coming out in foreign policy, in the economy, and possibly in emboldening/inspiring the American people. Of course, I see potential disasters in these areas as well.

    I see so many red flags with Trump that I haven’t committed to voting for him, and I want to give him until November so I can see whether or not he recovers and learns from his inevitable self-inflicted wounds. I haven’t researched 3rd party candidates much yet, and haven’t ruled out sitting out the presidential vote (I think the down ballot races are even more important this time). The only thing I’ve ruled out at this point is voting for Clinton, and I’ve held that view for years.

  • Cotour

    Wayne & Gary, I have just objectively listed personality traits of leaders, I am not judging them morally, you have.

  • Garry: It appears we are of like minds.

    As for 3rd party candidates, see the link. Unfortunately Gary Johnson is not as small government as one would think.

  • Garry

    Cotour, you listed a list of a few personality traits found in some leaders (of which there are many types).

    I contend that I find no trace in Trump of some of the personality traits that enabled the founding fathers to achieve greatness.

  • wayne

    Garry– good stuff. I’m largely in your camp, except I’ve excluded Trump this time around.
    Could have supported any number of Republicans, in addition to my first choice, Cruz.
    This would be the first time I just didn’t vote for a President.

    Cotour– I’m totally disappointed in Gary Johnson & I ‘d be interested to know what drugs he’s on. (It’s not so much a “problem” with Libertarian’s, it’s a problem with Gary Johnson.) That being said– some but not all of his positions, are being spun, but I do have key differences with him and will not vote for him.
    [I’ve been to a Libertarian Convention before, and they have just as many personality-clashes, agenda’s, and backroom dealings, as any (semi) organized Group structure.]
    –His opponent, the young guy Peterson, I think is his name, was infinitely better equipped to move the Libertarian Agenda along. Look for him in the future.
    (Never was a Ron Paul guy, but I do like Rand.)
    –I have no delusion a 3rd party would ever win. If I suspect/know a Republican candidate is a Rino, I generally give votes to Libertarians to keep their ballot access going. (Up and down ballot.)
    –I’ll Vote in November, just won’t mark the Presidential election oval.

    Republicans do hold more elected office’s, nationwide, than at any time since the Civil War. Some are, of course, the inevitable Rino’s, but a larger and larger percentage are Conservative’s. Those are the people I’m more concerned about helping this cycle.

  • Cotour

    I fully support your efforts in endeavoring to fill the Congress and Senate with as many Conservatives and reasonable and rational thinking Americans as possible. I will be doing the same as best as I can.

    Either way the cycle and the winds of change IMO have now turned in favor of the Republican party.

  • wayne

    I wholeheartedly concur in your support of down-ballot Conservatives & rational thinking Americans throughout the nation, dog-catcher on up.

    I would put forth the Republican Party, is & probably has, destroyed itself. Trump is not to “blame,” he’s just the catalyst to contrast it all at this point in time.
    But that is more properly a topic, for another thread.

    I would add briefly– heard Trump clumsily defend “religious rights” yesterday, so maybe he is susceptible to input from his more “Right” thinking advisor’s.

  • Localfluff

    The Libertarian Party has obviously become another socialist party. They don’t even false flag anymore. They just preach all out socialism, hoping to improve their poll numbers. But on election day voters won’t waste their ridiculous pieces of paper on third parties who will never have any influence anyway. They will vote for or against Donald Trump. He himself is the only topic of this election. And you know what? Trump is an expert on Trump! So he will win this “debate” about his “tone” very easily. In a historically great landslide.

    The Green Party, I would think, would have a potential to become a third party to count with in the next election. If they hired Bernie Sanders and his supporters and got, say, 20%, in this election. Stolen from wanted-to-be democrats who became very disappointed by Wall street lyin’ crooked whatshername.

  • Cotour


    You are over looking a potential new party that may emerge after the DNC convention tonight, The Black Lives Matter party. That promotes the separation of all black people from America in order to form their own government within our present government, spear headed by …………….Barack Hussein Obama? The one subject that has not begun to be talked about? What is this young, good looking, clean former president going to be doing after he leaves office?

    Liberatrianism is a belief system, a philosophy and does not and can not translate into a form of governance. To me it is much like a religion and can inhabit only one aspect of a persons life and possibly inform other aspects, and that’s it. And in the end you realize, hey wait a minute……..I am not a socialist!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *