Jump to content
BANGKOK
rooster59

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

Recommended Posts

 

24 minutes ago, Tropposurfer said:

What a total farce US politics has become (or maybe it always was and that I and others just notice it more now?).

You're just noticing it more now because the intense, irrational hatred of Donald Trump some people have has made them..... well, irrational.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

Some levels of criminality simply aren't expected of presidents, Until Obama came along, now we are going to witness the unmasking of the most criminal president to ever occupy the oval office.

 

You just need to be a little bit patient, as the secrets inside Grenell’s satchel, are the key to the biggest political scandal in US history, and it is about to unfold. And John Durham and his investigative team are finding things that some people will find hard to believe, but of course, unlike the attacks against President Trump, these will be real crimes against the state, backed up by real evidence.

 

And they involve the Who's Who, of the Obama administration.

Durham has commented only once since his appointment over a year ago. He stated he did not think the russia investigation started correctly, or words to that effect.

 

He has never made any other comment.

 

So do tell, where did you find the info to state that durham is finding things that some will find hard to believe. considering he hasnt even question four of the most important witnesses yet. 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sujo said:

No he cant just fire as he sees fit, thats why congress wants to investigate.

 

He cant fire someone for nefarious reasons, like to stop an investigation into himself. 

i'm sure there will be loads of talking heads on the news explaining the actual intent of the law, from both sides.  i read elsewhere there was a requirement to show cause in the house version, not included in the senate version, and removed in the final bill.  30 day notice, and "lost confidence" meet the requirements.

 

i suppose that 30 days is for consultations and investigations?  nothing in the bill about congress overriding the presidential firing.  otherwise the law would have been written require congressional consent to remove.

 

(b)  An Inspector General may be removed from office by the President. If an Inspector General is removed from office or is transferred to another position or location within an establishment, the President shall communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress, not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit a personnel action otherwise authorized by law, other than transfer or removal.
 
 
 
reform act of 2007 doesn't change the requirement.
 
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Durham has commented only once since his appointment over a year ago. He stated he did not think the russia investigation started correctly, or words to that effect.

 

He has never made any other comment.

 

So do tell, where did you find the info to state that durham is finding things that some will find hard to believe. considering he hasnt even question four of the most important witnesses yet. 

Durham is a prosecutor and investigator, he is not a political media hack. He is also noted for extraordinary reserve.  However he produced shock waves in December with comments about Mr. Horowitz's findings that the F.B.I. acted appropriately in opening the inquiry in 2016.

 

Mr. Durham rebutted by saying: “Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the inspector general that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the F.B.I. case was opened.”

It was considered extraordinary that he even made a public statement.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, BobBKK said:

Forgive me for saying but that's complete nonsense on many levels. You say 'clearly not' yet millions disagree.

BTW leave Russia out of it - great country, great people and Putin has lifted it out of very dark days back when Yeltsin was in charge. Have you been there? (yes, I have many. many times) and I hate to see them used by Americans as the Bogey Man, reds under the bed nonsense.

Are you claiming that Trump embraces constitutional checks and balances and is ok with Congressional oversight?

 

Do you think Russia's dictatorship with no real checks on Putin's power is a good thing and appropriate for the US?

  • Confused 1

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...