Jump to content
BANGKOK
rooster59

Democrats launch probe of Trump's firing of State Department watchdog

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, heybruce said:

From your source:

 

'According to The Post, Bulatao said that “officials had no evidence Linick was personally responsible for the leaks but that the disclosures had the potential of tainting the outcome of ongoing probes.”'

 

So we can fire a person for leaks that they are not responsible for.  Doesn't that cover the entire Trump administration?

It's good to be president. You get to fire people if and when you want for whatever reason you want.

 

"Elections have consequences."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

It's not about the sausage factory it is about appeasing donors. Almost every aspect of every Bill so far is about appeasing donors. First their corporations then their tax dodge charities, then their campaign contribution dark money corps, then their lobbyists. It's all different parts of the same group. It's all corporate bailouts!

Good call. "Sausage factory" makes it sound like stuff just kinda accidentally got in there due to a sloppy process. It is all calculated by both parties to pay back their big money supporters. How the dollars spent speak for themselves. There's probably what like five dollars to special interests for every dollar to the people. Sausage factory my <deleted>.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, BobBKK said:

Obama gave his reason "no confidence"  or did you forget that?

And the Republicans investigated it, just like the Dems are going to investigate this case.

Edited by candide
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, heybruce said:

From your source:

 

'According to The Post, Bulatao said that “officials had no evidence Linick was personally responsible for the leaks but that the disclosures had the potential of tainting the outcome of ongoing probes.”'

 

So we can fire a person for leaks that they are not responsible for.  Doesn't that cover the entire Trump administration?

The requirement is to give a reason. It can apparently be any sort of reason at all as not specified.

I don't recall this sort of controversy when Trump fired many W H staff, so I can only assume it's political.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, candide said:

And the Republicans investigated it, just like the Dems are going to investigate this case.

Investigate away then. Just don't have any faith it's the magic bullet that will end Trump's presidency. It's all just political noise anyway, IMO.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Investigate away then. Just don't have any faith it's the magic bullet that will end Trump's presidency. It's all just political noise anyway, IMO.

Funny, I don't recall Trump ever having an "investigate away" attitude when he was the target.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I have no idea. The US political system is obviously broken and they are all as bad as each other IMO. If the US wasn't so globally important and our only bastion against China I wouldn't care one way or another. I'll support the candidate that wants a big strong military.

Thanks for commenting on the substance of the post. 

I agree that the US political system is broken and that the US is globally important as a fellow non-American. However, given that one administration was able to both identify and prosecute people who were then found guilty in a court of law whereas the other tried to make cases then was unable to do so indicates to me that one side was likely actually engaging in illegal/unethical activity beyond whichever line the prosecutors need to see crossed whereas the others stopped before that. I think that's an important distinction.

Having worked in China several times, I'm much less concerned about them from the point of view of being a military threat - the US is so far beyond everyone in terms of military capacity it would be insane for any country to attempt to challenge them and the Chinese have a LOT of their own issues to deal with that will preoccupy them for a long time. I hope that the US somehow manages to sort itself out, but I am having my doubts. I think their system has finally run itself onto the rocks with its inherent contradictions.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, JCauto said:

the US is so far beyond everyone in terms of military capacity it would be insane for any country to attempt to challenge them and the Chinese have a LOT of their own issues to deal with that will preoccupy them for a long time.

Doesn't matter if they have the best military in the world if the POTUS isn't prepared to use it.

 

34 minutes ago, JCauto said:

I think their system has finally run itself onto the rocks with its inherent contradictions.

Agreed. Too much hatred for the "other" now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Doesn't matter if they have the best military in the world if the POTUS isn't prepared to use it.

 

Agreed. Too much hatred for the "other" now.

I don't think the willingness to use the military has been an issue to date; rather the opposite is true from my point of view. But the challenges that we're facing and will face in the future are hardly those that will be able to be solved with weapons.

We're in agreement on the last sentence.  Appreciate you're being civil in discussion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, heybruce said:

Resurrecting an issue that has been dead for over a decade to justify Trump firing four IG's in six weeks.  A bit desperate, aren't you?

You're right he should have fired them all in his first week.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The requirement is to give a reason. It can apparently be any sort of reason at all as not specified.

I don't recall this sort of controversy when Trump fired many W H staff, so I can only assume it's political.

Obama gave a reason 'no confidence' so what's good for the Goose...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BobBKK said:

You're right he should have fired them all in his first week.

Right, make it clear form the beginning that he wouldn't be constrained by checks, balances, and rule of law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BobBKK said:

Obama gave a reason 'no confidence' so what's good for the Goose...

The 'no confidence' reason was followed up with a factual summary of IG Walpin making repeated comments to the press regarding an investigation that was still in progress in what appeared to be an attempt to influence a mayoral election.  http://www.nbcnews.com/id/31325894/ns/us_news-giving/t/obama-fires-americorps-inspector-general/

 

That's why Congress didn't pursue the matter.  So all Trump has to do is give a valid reason for firing the IG.  After all, what's good for the goose...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pompeo reportedly hosted dozens of elaborate dinners paid for by American taxpayers — and records showed only 14% of guests were diplomats or foreign officials

 

  • Secretary of State Mike Pompeo allegedly spent taxpayer money to host multiple dinners with CEOs, media personalities, conservative politicians, and foreign officials, NBC reported. 
  • Officials in the department raised concern when these "Madison Dinners" began in 2018 when Pompeo started in his role as Secretary of State. 
  • There were allegedly more of these dinners planned through at least October before the coronavirus pandemic emerged.

https://www.businessinsider.com/pompeo-had-dozens-of-madison-dinners-at-taxpayers-expense-2020-5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...