Tangle - Trump pushes for recess appointments.

Episode Date: November 14, 2024

On Sunday, President-elect Donald Trump tweeted that any Republican senator hoping to obtain the position of majority leader would have to approve of recess appointments for his cabinet nominees. Typically, nominees for Cabinet positions, executive offices, or high-level ambassadorships undergo a hearing where they are asked questions by members of the Senate who then vote on whether to confirm an appointee. Only a simple majority is needed for confirmation. Ad-free podcasts are here!Many listeners have been asking for an ad-free version of this podcast that they could subscribe to — and we finally launched it. You can go to tanglemedia.supercast.com to sign up!You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story ⁠here and today’s “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.We are hiring!In the last month or so, the rapid growth of our readership has accelerated a planned expansion of our team. We are hiring for two positions:1) Customer service lead. We are looking for a highly organized, dedicated professional to help us provide the best possible service to our readers and listeners that we can. This is a crucial role to fill, and we'll be hiring as soon as possible. Job listing here.2) Assistant to the editor. We are also looking for a highly organized individual dedicated to Tangle's mission who has a passion for multimedia and politics. This person will be working directly with Tangle's executive editor Isaac Saul out of Tangle HQ in Philadelphia, with a start date in February-March. Job listing here.Check out Episode 8 of our podcast series, The Undecideds. Please give us a 5-star rating and leave a comment!Take the survey: What’s your opinion on recess appointments? Let us know!You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Jon Lall. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Will Kaback, Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, and produced in conjunction with Tangle’s social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Where can I get help hiring people with disabilities? There are hundreds of thousands of Canadians with disabilities who are ready to work, and many local organizations are available to help you find qualified candidates and make your workplace more accessible and inclusive. Visit Canada.ca slash right here to connect with one near you today. A message from the Government of Canada. to connect with one near you today. A message from the Government of Canada. From executive producer Isaac Saul,

this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle podcast, a place we get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of my take. I'm your host, Isaac Saul, and on today's episode, we're going to be talking about recess appointments and some of Donald Trump's most recent nominees for big cabinet positions, including I think three of the most controversial people pretty unambiguously that he has nominated so far. Before we do that, I do want to make a quick note here, a little, little inside baseball on what's going on at Tangle HQ right now. This is an ask just for a little bit of patience from

you guys. Not that you aren't displaying patience, but I know that it's a little hard to get ahold of our staff currently. In the last few weeks, we have had extraordinary growth, unlike anything we've literally ever experienced in the last five years since I started this. It has been so fun, so gratifying. It's so exciting. There's so much incredible stuff on the horizon for this company and this news organization, what we're doing. But part of massive growth is that we've basically had an influx of customer service issues, just like, I subscribed here, but I meant to do this, and I want to cancel this and move my subscription

or combine these things or whatever, that are unlike anything we've ever had. So our staff is totally overwhelmed. We typically divide up customer service issues among two or three people on staff. We have literally everyone from me down to our most recent intern hire on customer service issues right now There's like eight of us and we're barely getting out of the hole

They just more come in every time we catch up part of that is our fault As many of you know who've been listening for a while We tried really hard to get ad free podcasts and premium podcasts up. We launched that tried really hard to get ad free podcasts and premium podcasts out. We launched that. The way we did it probably wasn't the best way to do it because we wanted to get it done before the election. So we sort of launched it independently of newsletter subscriptions, rather than as like a bundle where you can manage both subscriptions all in one place. And that was a screw up. I've not made many huge mistakes since I started this, thankfully. But that was a mistake that I wish I could go back

and do differently and just take our time a little bit more on it, because now people are managing subscriptions in different places, and it's very complicated. And we are trying to resolve that while also building the bundle on our website so everybody can manage both these subscriptions in the same place. So all of that's coming. We're trying to figure all of that out. That will create a whole bunch

of other customer service issues, et cetera. My point is we're getting hammered right now with these requests and people having legitimate issues that we're trying to resolve. So I just want to say, I apologize if we don't get back to you in the first 48 hours, which is typically our goal. If we're a little delayed, that's why. We're literally all hands on deck. Everybody is helping manage this inbound stuff. So I'm hoping we'll be caught up in the next few days.

Relatedly, we are hiring for a customer service lead that we are going to bring on immediately. So we have somebody whose whole job is helping handle this because I don't think this problem is going to go away. So there's a job listing for that in today's episode description. There's also a job listing in today's episode description for a full-time assistant to the editor role.

That's to work with me. If you are somebody who has any kind of multimedia background or wants to get in this space, come apply for the job. It is based out of Philly, so you'll have to be here. It's kind of a hybrid remote in person, but you're gonna need to come into the office. So if you don't live in Philly or the greater Philadelphia area,

or you're not willing to move here, then it's probably not a good gig for you. But I wanna flag that we have two openings. So we're gonna keep talking about them till we fill the roles. Just wanted to make sure you guys knew that. Thank you again for your patience. With that, I'm going to pass it to John for today's main story and I'll be back for my take. Thanks Isaac and welcome everybody here are your quick hits for today.

First up, President Joe Biden hosted President-elect Trump at the White House, where the two discussed the presidential transition of power, as well as the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. Number two, CIA official Asif Rahman was arrested in Cambodia on charges of violating the Espionage Act for allegedly leaking classified documents about Israel's preparations for a retaliatory strike on Iran. Number 3. The 12-month inflation rate was 2.6% in October, up 0.2% from the month prior. Housing and food prices drove the increase, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Number 4.

Special Counsel Jack Smith and his team planned to resign before President-elect Trump's inauguration in January. And number five, the Pennsylvania Senate race between Senator Bob Casey and Republican Dave McCormick will go to an automatic recount. Counties must finish the recount by November 26th. President-elect Trump says he wants the next Senate Republican leader, the majority leader, to allow what we've discussed earlier called recess appointments. This would allow the White House to temporarily bypass confirmation votes for high-level appointments when the Senate is out of session. And in a post on social media, Trump said, quote, sometimes the votes can take two years or more.

This is what they did four years ago ago and we cannot let it happen again. We need positions filled immediately. Recess appointment power is enshrined in our constitution. Typically, the constitution requires that the United States Senate confirm high level federal officials, cabinet officials, federal judges and the like. But it also says that when the Senate is in recess, basically when the senators are not in session, when they've all dispersed to their home states, the president can appoint officials through a recess appointment, which does not require Senate confirmation.

So historically, this has been something that presidents will use typically when they suspect that the Senate will not confirm the nominee they'd like to put in the job. On Sunday, President-elect Donald Trump tweeted that any Republican senator hoping to obtain the position of majority leader would have to approve of recess appointments for his cabinet nominees. Typically, nominees for cabinet positions, executive offices, or high-level ambassadorship undergo a hearing where they are asked questions by members of the Senate who then vote on whether to confirm an appointee. Only a simple majority is needed for confirmation. However, Article 2 of the Constitution allows for recess appointments, which were designed to prevent vacancies in the event the Senate is adjourned for an extended

time. Presidents of both parties have used recess appointments to avoid confirmation hearings in the past, but the practice was widely curtailed after the Supreme Court's 2014 decision undoing President Obama's recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board. Part of the court's decision was that Congress had to be out of session for at least 10 days for a recess appointment to take place, and Senate leaders have recently used three-day recesses with pro forma sessions to block the process from taking place. This week, President-elect Donald Trump has tapped a number of future cabinet members and high-level executive staff for positions within his incoming administration.

However, several of Trump's nominees—Governor Kristi Noem for Secretary of Department of Homeland Security, Representative Matt Gaetz for Attorney General, former Representative Tulsi Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence, and veteran and former Fox News anchor Pete Hagsteth for Secretary of the Department of Defense, are highly controversial and likely to undergo a difficult confirmation process. The new Congress will convene on January 3, 2025, and Trump will formally nominate his selections after he is sworn in on January 20. At that time, the Senate or House leader may call a recess. However, a recess of three days or more must be approved by a majority in each chamber.

Therefore, in order to pass recess appointments, Trump needs a Senate leader willing to call a recess and both a Senate and House that will pass the request. Republicans will control both chambers in 2025. On Wednesday, Senator John Thune was elected Senate Majority Leader over Senators John Cornyn and Rick Scott in a secret ballot election among Senate Republicans.

Trump surrogates like Elon Musk, Charlie Kirk, and Vivek Ramaswamy had pushed for Scott, but he was eliminated in the first round of voting. Thune has stated that the Senate must quickly and decisively confirm the President-elect's nominees, adding all options are on the table to make that happen, including recess appointments. Today, we'll get into what the left and the right are saying about the recess appointments, and then Isaac's take. We'll be right back after this quick break. Got a mortgage? Chances are you're thinking about your

payments right now. Need help? Ask your bank about relief measures that may be available to you. Learn more at Canada.ca slash it pays to know. A message from the Government of Canada. All right, first up, let's start with what the left is saying. The left opposes Trump's push for recess appointments, arguing the move would be an abdication of the Senate's oversight duties.

Some suggest that Trump is using recess appointments to test senators' loyalty. Others say the move highlights Trump's authoritarian impulses. The Washington Post editorial board said, Senate Republicans should not surrender to Trump on appointments. Mr. Trump wants opportunities to circumvent the Senate confirmation process even though Republicans will have a clear majority of seats, at least 52, according to the latest count, signaling his intention to elevate appointees whom even some Republicans cannot tolerate. Senators should refuse to squander their constitutional prerogatives in this way," the board wrote.

In general, presidents should be able to assemble the executive branch teams they want. The bar for opposing a cabinet nominee should be high, but it should not be insurmountable. Mr. Trump tried to skirt the Senate confirmation process during his first term, when his party held a narrower majority. He routinely abused the Federal Vacancies Reform Act to install acting secretaries with dubious legal authority, the board said. Senators should fight his efforts to evade their scrutiny in his second term.

Regardless of what the next Senate GOP leader has promised Mr. Trump, there will be ample opportunities for objections. Republicans, as well as Democrats, should take them. The Economist asked, why is Donald Trump keen to use recess appointments? Mr. Trump has previously threatened to oblige the Senate to go into recess. The Constitution requires each House to seek the other's permission to adjourn for more

than three days. In 2020, Democratic obstruction compelled the Senate to stay in session so as to prevent Mr. Trump from making recess appointments. Frustrated, he talked about exercising a never-before-used constitutional power that allows a president to force Congress to adjourn. He did not go through with it, and the maneuver might not have worked if he had tried, the authors wrote. This time, too, it's not clear how serious Mr. Trump is about using recess appointments. Mr. Trump may just be unwilling to wait for confirmation hearings to happen.

He may also worry that some Republicans might refuse to confirm some of his appointees, the authors added. The Senate's responsibility to confirm appointees is supposed to be a check on presidential power. By asking would-be leaders of the chamber to forego that responsibility in some circumstances, Mr. Trump may be indicating that he expects unquestioning loyalty. In the New York Times, Charlie Savage framed Trump's push as an early test of a radical second term. The demand to weaken checks and balances and take for himself some of the legislative branch's usual power

underscored Mr. Trump's authoritarian impulses. While there is no obvious legal obstacle to Mr. Trump's request, it would be an extraordinary violation of constitutional norms, Savage wrote. There is no historical precedent for a deliberate and wholesale abandonment by the Senate of its function of deciding whether to confirm or reject the President's choices to bestow with government power. While previous Presidents have occasionally made some recess appointments, none has ever tried to systematically bypass Senate approval to unilaterally fill their administrations. It remains to be seen whether Republican Senators, fearful of Mr. Trump's ability to end their

careers by backing a primary challenger, will give up one of the most important powers and prerogatives of their office. Alright, that is it for what the left is saying, which brings us to what the right is saying. The right is mixed on the proposal, with many expressing hesitancy about the Senate voluntarily handing its power to the president. Some say recess appointments are a smart way to circumvent democratic obstructionism. Others note that relying on recess appointments could delay Trump's agenda in different ways. National Review's editors argued Donald Trump doesn't need

recess appointments. One can comprehend the president-elect's desire to hit the ground running, especially given that in our era of sprawling government, there are indeed too many positions that require confirmation. Nevertheless, his request is wholly inappropriate within the American system of government and ought to be rejected with prejudice, the editor said. The core purpose of our unique system of separated powers is to reduce the authority that any one person or faction enjoys with the federal apparatus.' Were a prospective Senate-majority leader devout to help Trump get around this arrangement, he would not only be undermining that principle, but doing so by abdicating his own oath of

office and weakening the institution that he had been selected to protect.'" As president, Trump controls the executive branch. He has no power over the legislature. Republicans understood this in 2012, when they successfully sued to prevent Barack Obama from making illegal recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board. They understood it in 2016, when they successfully blocked Obama from appointing Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. They understood it in 2021, when they blocked President Biden from nominating Neera Tanden,

David Chipman, and others to the executive branch. Nothing has changed since then, other than that the shoe, for now, is on the other foot. In the Wall Street Journal, Don McGahn wrote about why Trump needs recess appointments. During his first term, President Trump struggled to staff senior government posts. Some 1,200 jobs require Senate confirmation. The upper chamber moved extraordinarily slowly in processing nominations, which routinely took several months or even years. The average length of a Senate confirmation process during Mr. Trump's first term was

more than twice as long as under President Reagan. As a result, much of the federal government wasn't staffed by the president's nominees, McGahn said. Without recess appointments, it is doubtful President Trump can fulfill his constitutional mandate to ensure that the executive branch officials are supporting the policies the people voted for. After his recent and decisive election victory, he asked the Senate to return to its long-standing tradition of taking recesses long enough for the president to make some recess appointments. This is a good idea," McGann wrote.

Returning to the long-standing tradition of recess appointments would ensure that every elected president is able to staff the government with senior officials who share his policy vision. It would reduce the extraordinary time demands on the Senate to process presidential nominees. It would prevent senators from gratuitously delaying nominations. And it would help ensure that the executive branch implements the policies the American people voted for. In The Washington Examiner, Ramsey Touchbury suggested Trump's demand for Senate recess

appointments could undercut his agenda. President-elect Donald Trump's bid to shake up how the Senate confirms his cabinet and other appointments has more potential to weaken his agenda rather than kickstart it, Touchbury said. Being off of work for extended periods could undermine Congressional Republicans' stated objective of passing an ambitious legislative agenda within the first 100 days of Trump's second term presidency and the political message they are ready to get to work for the country. Democrats could put up a fight to recessing, which only needs a simple majority, by flooding a recess resolution with endless amendments and debate.

Republicans would need 60 votes to put an end to it and support from at least seven Democrats, Touchbury wrote. Perhaps most importantly, Senate Republicans already plan to jumpstart the transition process when they take control on January 3, so they are ready to confirm nominees when Trump takes office on January 20. This includes holding confirmation hearings and vetting individuals in the weeks between the new Congress and Trump entering the White House, further undercutting the argument for recess appointments.

All right, let's head over to Isaac for his take. All right, that is it for what the left and the right are saying, which brings us to my take. So 24 hours ago, my take on this issue looks something like this. Trump's demand for the Senate majority leader to support recess appointments is probably just a test of loyalty and not something that should prompt genuine alarm about the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. But after the past few days' reports about who Trump nominated for key posts, I see his

call for recess appointments in a different light. I'm going to address a few overarching points before getting into the specifics of Trump's strategy or lack of strategy. First, Democrats really don't have much leverage here. I understand the Trump team's concerns that the minority party could delay the important work of filling cabinet and other key positions in a timely manner through procedural obstructions. Senate Democrats already seem to be gearing up for a disrupted every turn type of strategy, so much so that some party members are questioning whether five term Senator Dick Durbin from Illinois

has enough energy to lead the fight as the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. In that context, I get why Trump would want to move urgently. But remember, while Democrats can delay, there's ultimately nothing they can do to stop Trump from getting his picks confirmed. As long as Republicans are behind him. During Trump's first term, when Republicans started with 52 Senate seats, his entire cabinet was confirmed within the first 100 days. That's faster than Obama's was by one day. While Democrats did obstruct the process for some nominees, many others were held up simply because they needed to sort out their business interests with the Office of Government Ethics. Second, I think writers on

the right have made an even stronger case against recess appointments than those on the left. Most left-leaning commentators frame Trump's strategy as following authoritarian impulses or as a dangerous power grab. This is part of a trend in how the left criticizes Trump over using alarmist terms in ways that devalue them. It's hard to see leveraging a process that is outlined in the Constitution that other presidents before Trump have used regularly as an authoritarian takeover. Instead, I find myself agreeing with writers like National Review's editors, The Dispatch's

Chris Stierwalt and Hot Air's Ed Morrissey. Trump shouldn't need recess appointments with 53 Republican-held seats in the Senate. Trump should be able to staff the federal government with the people he thinks are best for the job. That's just an extension of the democratic will of the people who elected him. And I'd say the same thing about any president. However, recess appointments are a way for a president to avoid a fundamental check on executive power. And in this case, Trump is trying to avoid a check by his own party, which is alarming. When we wrote about Trump's initial cabinet picks on Tuesday, I praised the president-elect for selecting respected, competent people like

Suzy Wiles, Lee Zeldin, and Marco Rubio for key roles. Even picks like Stephen Miller and Tom Homan, who I disagree with on approaches to immigration policy, are perfectly capable of enacting the government agenda Trump campaigned on. Of these picks, I suspect the ones that require Senate confirmation to get it without much trouble. But Trump's latest picks suggest he might need recess appointments after all. Tulsi Gabbard is perhaps less controversial than Hegseth or Gates, but her foreign policy record is cause for legitimate concern. Immediately after the pick was announced, intelligence experts on the right and left criticized the pick, primarily on the grounds that she is

too sympathetic to America's adversaries. Personally, I've always found the most extreme allegations about Gabbard, that she's a Russian agent or asset, to be laughable, and I respect her staunch anti-war stance. But I also have a hard time taking her seriously. After all, days after Putin invaded Ukraine and began ransacking towns and killing civilians, Gabbard is the woman who called for embracing the spirit of Aloha. I suspect some establishment Republican senators to balk at her nomination, and I think they should.

Pete Hegsest will have an even harder time getting confirmed as Secretary of Defense. The pick makes sense as a move to shake up the national security establishment, but his inexperience is an issue for a post of this magnitude. I question the wisdom of nominating a Fox News host with little command experience as Secretary of Defense, even if there are some compelling reasons to put a combat veteran in that role. The Department of Defense has serious issues, wasteful spending, inventory issues, shaky leadership, and now two major ongoing conflicts. But a leader who rails against the political left as domestic enemies, says women shouldn't serve in combat

roles, and generally blames all of the military's problems on wokeness is not the right person to address the DOD's biggest problems. Some Senate Republicans are already expressing doubt about the pick, and I think Hegseth is in for a bruising confirmation fight. And finally, we have Matt Gaetz, who is simply not a good choice for attorney general. I don't really know how else to say that, and I know some people might disagree, but this guy reeks of ethics issues and sleazy behavior. In the midst of still unproven accusations that he had sex with an underage girl, multiple members of Congress spoke on the record about Gates showing videos on the floor of Congress of women he had slept with and talking openly about drug-fueled sex parties. Even worse, a nonpartisan House ethics group was about

to release an apparently damning report on Gates before he resigned yesterday, which prevented the report from coming to light. Gates also lacks the qualifications we typically associate with a role like attorney general, although inexperience alone isn't a strong reason to oppose his nomination. President John F. Kennedy appointed his 35 year old brother, who had never argued a case in court at the time for attorney general, and Robert F. Kennedy ended up having a very effective tenure. I'm much more skeptical that Gates is a good pick because of the ethical concerns surrounding him and because he does not appear to have the requisite support for confirmation.

A lot of smart people have suggested that Gates's appointment is some kind of ploy to either give him a graceful exit from Congress and an ethics investigation or to feed him to the wolves so Trump can get his real pick for attorney general later. I have to say I find both of these ideas preposterous. Trump was investigated by his own FBI and DOJ during his first term. Then Biden's attorney general came after him after he left office. He wants to throw a grenade inside the DOJ and see what happens. That is his governing style for better or for worse. He's going to try earnestly to get Gates, Gabbard and Hegseth appointed, even if he has to use recess appointments to do it.

Ironically, I think their nominations actually decrease the chance of Trump being able to get anyone through without Senate support. Each of them individually are so objectionable to so many Republican members of Congress that I suspect some genuine bipartisan pushback is coming. Will all three get blocked? I doubt that, but I'd be shocked if all three made it through too. John Thune, the Republican from South Dakota, the new Senate majority leader, has a long history of both opposing Trump and adhering to Senate traditions. And he said on

Wednesday that he plans to approach the nomination process, quote, the old fashioned way. Furthermore, recess appointments require a recess and any Senate adjournment of 10 days or longer would need the consent of a majority in the House. That would be an even harder task than just confirming a nominee on a straight vote, considering Republicans' already small House majority is growing smaller by the day, and considering how many enemies Gates has made

in the lower chamber. More likely than not, Trump will push for recess appointments, the Senate or the House will block it, and the Senate will confirm most but not all of his selections through the normal confirmation process. And that, by the way, is how it should be. I hope Thune and other congressional Republicans hold the line.

We'll be right back after this quick break. Help create an inclusive workplace that benefits everyone. Find the tools and resources to help you hire persons with disabilities at Canada.ca. A message from the Government of Canada. All right. That is it for my take, which brings us to your questions answered. This one's from Julian in New York City. Julian said, in a reader question, you had a couple of simple answers for how to get money out of politics, restricting members of Congress from being allowed to trade stocks and make active investments while in office and prohibiting politicians from taking jobs as lobbyists or industry regulators after they leave office. Both sound good to me, but I'm wondering, can you think of any unintended consequences

that these seemingly common sense ideas might have? I love this question. It's a helpful reminder that writing good policy is hard because common sense ideas will always carry with them unexpected costs. That doesn't mean they're not worth enacting, just that nothing ever comes for free. So what are those costs? Let's start with forbidding members of Congress from trading stocks or making active investments. Obviously, this would disincentivize business-oriented people from running for Congress. Another drawback is that,

if enforced correctly, this rule would make members of Congress pay less attention to the market when maybe being clued into it is helpful for drafting legislation. Lastly, it would invite corruption. If I'm a senator who can't trade stocks and learn that a bill is likely to pass or will soon enter committee, I might want to tell my family, friends, or staff to make an investment for me. Either that would create new issues or we'd have to make congressional staff unable to trade stocks as well, which would make the first two disincentives even costlier. Next, prohibiting politicians from lobbying or regulatory positions after they leave office would prevent experts in

legislation from joining firms that draft legislation and prevent experts in the different congressional committees from joining industry regulators. That knowledge strain would hurt lobbying firms and regulatory bodies which do important work in government. Another possible side effect would be the replacement of salary posts for congressional retirees with stacked consultation fees that would be harder to make legal and harder to track. Is this an exhaustive list? No. Does it mean these reforms aren't worth enacting? Not in my opinion, but it is definitely helpful to think about these consequences before pushing for these reforms so we can anticipate the next problems we'll have to

solve. All right, that is it for your questions answered. I'm going to send it back to John for the rest of the pod and I'll see you guys on Sunday, maybe tomorrow too. We'll see. We're going to try our best to get out a pod version of tomorrow's newsletter, but definitely Sunday, Ari and I are going to chop it up about some of this and the latest news. So we'll see you soon either way. Have a good one. Thanks, Isaac. Here's your Under the Radar story for today, folks. Five months after New York Governor Kathy Hochul paused a plan to implement a congestion toll on motorists entering Manhattan below 60th Street, the governor announced she's reviving the program. The new plan will reduce the fee that most drivers will pay to enter Midtown and Lower

Manhattan from $15 to $9, but likely without the extended environmental review process that mired the original effort in delays. Hochul is fast-tracking the plan, putting it before the Metropolitan Transit Authority Board for approval next week, and it could go into effect before President-elect Trump takes office in January. Hockel faced intense scrutiny from public transit advocates for her decision to pause the program in June. Eminey speculated that her decision was intended to give vulnerable state Democrats political cover in their campaigns. Now, with the election over, Hockel is framing the reduced fee as a compromise that will help fund New York City's mass transit system while limiting the financial burden on motorists. Gothamist has this

story and there's a link in today's episode description. Alright, next up is our numbers section. The approximate number of positions in the executive branch that requires Senate confirmation is 1,200 to 1,400, according to a 2012 estimate by the Congressional Research Service. The number of recess appointments made by President Bill Clinton was 139. The number of recess appointments made by President George W. Bush was 171. The number of recess appointments made by President Barack Obama was 32. The number of recess appointments made by President Trump and President Joe Biden during their terms

was zero. The number of days between Donald Trump's first inauguration and when his full cabinet was confirmed by the Senate was 97. The median number of days between the official nomination of a presidential cabinet member and a full Senate vote on their nomination for the four presidential administrations preceding Trump's first term is one. The number of Obama, Bush, and Clinton cabinet nominees, respectively, who failed to be confirmed by the Senate is three, one, and one. The median number of days between the official nomination of Trump's cabinet members and a full Senate vote on their nomination during Trump's first term was 25, and the number of Trump's first term

cabinet nominees who failed to be confirmed by the Senate was one. And last but not least, our Have a Nice Day story. As a child, Sarah Bryce was a patient at Boston Children's Hospital. Now, she works at the hospital as the program manager of Culinary Experiences, where she creates exciting meals for children, usually between the ages of 4 and 16, while they undergo treatment. Recently, Bryce hosted a pickle party for Emerson Bace, an 8-year-old heart transplant candidate.

Due to fluid restrictions, Bace has a craving for salty dill spears. So Bryce made Bace's pickle making dreams into a reality. Today has this story and there's a link in today's episode description. All right, everybody, that is it for today's episode. As always, if you'd like to support our work, please go to readtangle.com and sign up for a membership. And if you'd like to receive ad free podcasts, including Friday editions and Sunday editions, head over to tanglemedia.supercast.com and sign up for a membership there. Isaac will be here for the

Friday edition podcast, and then Isaac and Ari will be back for the Sunday podcast. And I will return on Monday. For the rest of the crew, this is John Maul signing off. Have a fantastic weekend, y'all. Peace. Our podcast is written by me, Isaac Saul, and edited and engineered by John Wall. The script is edited by our managing editor, Ari Weitzman, Will K. Back, Bailey Saul, and Sean Brady. The logo for our podcast was designed by Magdalena Makova, who is also our social media manager. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. If you're looking for more from Tangle, please go to readtangle.com and check out our website.

Are you sure you parked over here? Do you see it anywhere? I think it's back this way. Come on. Hey, you're going the wrong way. Feeling distracted? You're not alone. Whether renting, considering buying a home, or renewing a mortgage, many Canadians are finding it hard to focus with housing costs on their minds. For free tools and resources to help you manage

your home finances and clear your head, visit Canada.ca slash it pays to know. A message from the Government of Canada.