Hi
Which hand-offs by incumbent Presidents to Presidents-elect were acrimonious, not smooth and cordial?
I look forward to your feedback.
Truman-Eisenhower wasn’t all that pleasant.
It was a tradition that the incoming first couple came over to the White House to have coffee with the outgoing first couple and then ride together to the Capitol for the swearing in.
The Eisenhowers never showed up and went by themselves.
Ike, in general, let it be known that he didn’t need any advice or anything from Truman. He treated Truman pretty much like crap.
And Eisenhower really could have used his advice. In particular, Ike thought he was still in the Army and in charge. If he gave some orders, people would carry them out. Truman knew better.
They did ride together but Eisenhower waited outside and refused to enter the White House while Truman was there. Truman campaigned for his opponent and the campaign was nasty.
The outgoing Clinton administration staffers vandalized the executive offices causing $13000 to $14000 in damage according to a GAO report. (pdf link) It was not merely the well publicized damage to computer keyboards, which accounted for $4850 of the above mentioned damage.
Desk drawers were glued, graffiti in a restroom, missing doorknobs, stolen executive seal… criminal damage to property tax taxpayers had to pay to clean, repair, or replace.
You missed some. (NYTimes article
As I recall, Nixon just flew off in a helicopter. 
You might enjoy this bookabout how presidents and ex-presidents related to each other.
I think Andrew Jackson kept calling in markers after he left office. He forced the Trail of Tears when he was no longer in office, by exerting his influence on the powers that be, even going against the Supreme Court order. However, the incoming Van Buren was pretty compliant with Jackson’s wishes and there wasn’t much acrimony.
You should read the GAO report. Due to lack of evidence on prior transitions they could not determine whether the the vandalism was typical or not.
They did interview EOB staff who had been through multiple transitions. One said the office was left in worse shape after Bush the elder left. All the rest said it was in worse shape after Clinton left.
And the GAO did determine that much of the damage in 2001 was the result of intentional acts. Glue squirted into desk drawer locks is not an accident. One remote control for a tv missing, perhaps a coincidence. But a couple dozen remotes missing… not such a coincidence.
Remember, these staffers were trashing our stuff. It wasn’t Clinton’s to trash as he wished. It wasn’t Bush’s property. It was public property.
I was under the impression that the whole formal transition process where staffers for the incoming President work in government offices shortly after the election until inauguration has only happened in the last few decades–before that there was simply an abrupt change on Inauguration Day. Anyone know?
This article debunks that story
WEDNESDAY, MAY 23, 2001 04:00 PM CST
The White House vandal scandal that wasn’t
How the incoming Bush team nudge-nudged a credulous press corps into swallowing a trashy Clinton story.
"Now it seems those closely detailed stories were largely bunk. Last week it was revealed that a formal review by the General Accounting Office, Congress’ investigative agency, “had found no damage to the offices of the White House’s East or West Wings or EOB” and that Bush’s own representatives had reported “there is no record of damage that may have been deliberately caused by the employees of the Clinton administration.”
"
Doesn’t the president have to pay a damage deposit? What about a pet fee?
You altered my words.
The Salon article you quoted was written and posted May of 2001. The GAO report was issued June 2002 in response to a request from Congress which was made in June 2001. That June request was a follow up on a January 2001 request. Thus the Salon article could not have possibly debunked the GAO report of June 2002.
Moderator Note
davidmich accidentally typed a sentence inside the quote that was meant to go after the quote. Since it was rather obvious and clearly unintentional, I moved the sentence to where it was intended to go.
Please be careful with quote boxes, as we have strict rules here regarding quotes.
John Adams feared a Jefferson administration and wouldn’t stay in Washington for his inauguration.
Interesting enough as a young man Truman lived in a boarding house where one of Eisenhower’s brothers lived.
Depends how you define “acrimonious.” Sometimes there’s quiet bad blood, rather than fighting like cats and dogs.
Jimmy Carter considered Ronald Reagan an unqualified dunce, and didn’t even try to hide it. No fireworks, though.
Carter - Reagan was a mess. Carter thought he was a moron (he was right about that) and the Reagan team didn’t even want to talk to Carter and his staff. The Reagan gang was busy planning dirty tricks to play on Carter and how to loot the treasury. OTOH Carter thought he was going to lecture Reagan on how to run the country and even if the Gipper cared about reality no one wanted to listen Carter drone on about anything.
So no fireworks, because they barely engaged.
Is someone able to clarify a statement attributed to Trump? Apparently Trump asked about the White House staff who will remain after the transition. The answer to Trump was “no one,” meaning the Trump team needs to find and hire an entire White House staff to operate the building. Otherwise, he would return from taking the oath to an empty building (not really but close).
Did this exchange actually occur, and if so, what was actually said?
I’ll assume it’s true since the Tweeter-In-Chief hasn’t denied it yet.
That’s correct. Much of the process was not actually formalized until very recently indeed.
http://presidentialtransition.org/timeline/outgoing-administration/index.php