Regarding the ethics agreement

[Igel]

3. People--because the media's collapsed on the job--don't understand.

It is not incumbent on the incoming folk to sign if they don't want the stipulated assistance from the various parts of the executive branch.

The replacement of the cabinet and elected officials will not be stalled--that's up to the Constitution and how the Senate proceeds with confirmations. A statute cannot stage a coup against the Constitution.

What is up for grabs is what the admin provides by way of staff support, office space, and funding, and what the newly elected president, vice-president, and his appointees are obligated to do in exchange for those things. It's unwise to not provide them; it's unwise not to accept them. If they're not provided, there's no legal fall out; if the incoming folk don't want the restrictions and obligations, there's no legal fallout. Any fallout is real, in whether or not the admin coming in is prepared to act, esp. in a crisis.

That is all.

I think https://presidentialtransition.org/reports-publications/presidential-transition-act-summary/ does a fine job, and notice all the shalls are on the side of the current admin and all the allows and mays on the side of the incoming, because that's what the Constitution allows Congress to weigh in on and the President to sign off on. Note this law dates to 1963 and before that ... Transitions still happened, y'know?