Jump to content
BANGKOK
rooster59

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

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

You mean this isn't the thread for corroborating your claims with credible links? I'm sorry, are we in the Pub forum??

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

You know the rules so not sure why you're feigning ignorance.  Go ahead and start posting off topic and you'll find out.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

"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."  https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ409/PLAW-110publ409.pdf

 

From Republican Senator Chuck Grassley:   '“Here again, inspectors general are crucial in correcting government failures and promoting the accountability that the American people deserve,....As I’ve said before, Congress requires written reasons justifying an IG’s removal. A general lack of confidence simply is not sufficient detail to satisfy Congress."'  https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/grassley-demands-trump-answer-for-firing-state-department-watchdog-who-failed-in-steele-dossier-inquiry

Because I don't trust him, because I didn't appoint him etc

They serve at the PLEASURE of the president.

 

Chuck Grassley didn't write the constitution.

Edited by thaibeachlovers
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Forgive me for pointing out your ignorance of Russia and Russian progress. BTW completely unrelated to the topic and simple diversion into a biased narrative born of lack of knowledge. I get that but can't we stick to the topic?

Russian progress towards what?

 

You ignored my earlier question.  Do you think the  US should have a Russian style (Putin) dictator?  Do you think Trump should be such a dictator?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Russian progress towards what?

 

You ignored my earlier question.  Do you think the  US should have a Russian style (Putin) dictator?  Do you think Trump should be such a dictator?

I wasn't aware the topic was his opinion on anything.

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The law states that the President must provide a reason for firing an Inspector General. 

 

Why do you think it is sick to ask if laws are important?  The US Constitution can't cover everything, and was never meant to.  That's why we have a Congress to make laws.

That wasn't what I was claiming was sick and you know it.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

No please do not misunderstand me. Congress and The Senate provide oversight, ultimately, the electorate do too. I am just tremendously sad to see such a bipartisan dog fight every day, day in and day out. Part of that is Trump's ego mutterings via Twitter but a larger part, in my view, is the Dems fanatical "we'll get him one way or another" approach. Get him, IMHO, if you can in Nov not constant investigations.

Thanks for at least providing a reasonable answer rather than trolling. 

The "bipartisan dog fight" is something that occurred throughout pretty much every administration. For example, under Obama, the Republicans held one of the branches of Congress between 2011 and 2017, the last six years of his presidency. During that period, the Republicans launched five separate investigations: (1) The Solyndra Solar Energy Company Loan (a backer of Obama's campaign received financing, 1 committee investigation); (2) Political Bias against Tax-Exempt Conservative Groups (3 Committee/Sub-Committee investigations); (3) Benghazi (4 Committee investigations); (4) Fast and Furious Gun Program (1 joint Committee investigation); and (5) The Implementation of the Affordable Care Act Website (hearings by 4 different committees). I'm pretty sure you'd find the same thing with other administrations, both Democrat and Republican. It's the job of these committees to provide oversight and review, and if they think something is amiss, they have every right to investigate and the resources, subpoena power etc. to do so. What's particularly interesting is the number of convictions/resignations that have occurred as a result of the investigations into this administration versus the Obama administration or other ones.  

I certainly agree that November is the time to have overall judgement on the Trump Administration. However, I would say that it is both normal and something that either side does to regularly investigate each other whenever they're in power. It should also be noted that at least one of the Benghazi investigations was initiated by the Democrat-controlled Senate despite the target of the investigation being Hilary. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

What's particularly interesting is the number of convictions/resignations that have occurred as a result of the investigations into this administration versus the Obama administration or other ones.  

What I find "interesting" in the current situation is the level of hatred coming from the Dems towards Trump, and even from within the GOP. Seems to me it's more because he's an outsider ( not a member of the "club" ) and has threatened to drain the "swamp" with reference to the established political order which is, IMO, two sides of the same coin, than because of any particular policy he has attempted to impose. In addition there is an overt bias from the media, which in my experience openly campaigns against him instead of being neutral, as they should be.

Seems to me that the Dems are so set on their campaign of hatred they just can't see that his policies resonate with middle America, which has had enough of business as usual from the Washington bubble.

The election will be one of the big events of my lifetime, given the importance of America and the battle for it's soul taking place now.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, candide said:

I tend to think that the key issue is not so much whether there is a good reason to fire the IG or not. The key issue is whether a legitimate investigation has been halted because it was into Pompeo.

I agree, but given the events taking place at this time I'm surprised he's got the time to investigate what appears to be a minor matter, and given that it's just before an election the timing seems suspect, IMO. Perhaps it would have been more sensible to wait till after the election to be dealing with it. Pompeo and his wife will still be around next year.

I'd guess that the reason Trump sacked him was because it looks like yet another government witch hunt aimed not at Pompeo but himself.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Multiple off topic, troll, baiting, bickering posts removed also replies

Share this post


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

"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."  https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ409/PLAW-110publ409.pdf

 

From Republican Senator Chuck Grassley:   '“Here again, inspectors general are crucial in correcting government failures and promoting the accountability that the American people deserve,....As I’ve said before, Congress requires written reasons justifying an IG’s removal. A general lack of confidence simply is not sufficient detail to satisfy Congress."'  https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/grassley-demands-trump-answer-for-firing-state-department-watchdog-who-failed-in-steele-dossier-inquiry

 

please explain how "the President shall communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal" = the president of the united states must provide reasons that satisfy the political needs of nancy pelosi.

 

this is a nation of the lawyers by the lawyers for the lawyers.  "just cause" language in the law establishing IG's was specifically left out, in favor of simple notification.  the lawyers in congress considered more restrictive language, but in the end left if out by choice.  by removing the requirement, they've also removed their "intent" that the president must provide good enough to satisfy nancy reasons.

 

they have had the option of amending the law for 40 years.  when they did amend it about a decade ago, the reason requirement was left unchanged.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

"Trump's actions exposed just how vulnerable inspectors general are, making clear that greater independence is needed. Inspectors general currently serve at the pleasure of the president, and one perceived misstep can cost an IG their job, as we saw when Trump fired Michael Atkinson as inspector general for the intelligence community".

https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2020/04/its-more-clear-now-than-ever-inspectors-general-need-stronger-protections/

 

IMOP replace Trump with the words The  President and future office holders!

This article talks up the need for IG independence, disregarding the executive branch constitutional  separation of powers and promoting more overreach of the congress and deny the executive branch its rights . The congress needs to negotiate a compromise with the executive branch, otherwise or enact a law to change the current wording . If congress sole intention is to infringe on the separation of powers under the Constitution by enacting or changing the law ,then the  office of the President could use its constitutional right to vetoed it. It reminds me of the dem house trying to by pass their will by not using a subpoena and use the courts to solve a dispute between the  two branches .

When a congress vs the executive branch have a dispute it is resolved by the judicial  branch or in this case  overriding  a veto which needs passage of two thirds of the house and senate, democracy at work !

IMOP Wait until  the next POTUS in 2024 ,its another attack and overreach on the office by the congress especially the dem side

Edited by riclag
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

That wasn't what I was claiming was sick and you know it.

That wasn't the point of my post and you know it.  Trump has to provide Congress with a legitimate reason for firing the IG.  That is the law.

 

Let's try an approach that maybe you can't wiggle out of:  Do you think Trump must obey the law?

  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

I wasn't aware the topic was his opinion on anything.

Then please tell BobBKK that the topic isn't about his high opinion of Putin and Russia.

Edited by heybruce
  • Confused 2

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...