Jump to content
BANGKOK
rooster59

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

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

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.

Seems to me you could replace "Dems" with Republicans and "Trump" with Obama and you'd have an accurate depiction of events from 2008 to 2016.

Share this post


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

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.

Do you think IG's take time off during election years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, ChouDoufu said:

 

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.

No, "the President shall communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal" = the President shall show that the firing was not to prevent the Inspector General from performing his legal duties under the law.

 

Please try to keep up.

Share this post


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

No, "the President shall communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal" = the President shall show that the firing was not to prevent the Inspector General from performing his legal duties under the law.

 

Please try to keep up.

i'm trying to find that specific language in the law written by a lot of really smart lawyers.  where does it state that, for example, "the dude smells funny" is not acceptable?  it doesn't.  as long as he meets the requirements of 30-day notification, he's within the law.  congress can investigate, but they can't move the goalposts.

 

the two sides of your equation above are not equivalent.  you've added what you believe was the intent, but which was not specified in the law, and was deleted from the original bill before passage.  congress removed that provision from the bill, so how is that now a requirement?

 

i'm trying to keep up.  when did they change the law?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, ChouDoufu said:

i'm trying to find that specific language in the law written by a lot of really smart lawyers.  where does it state that, for example, "the dude smells funny" is not acceptable?  it doesn't.  as long as he meets the requirements of 30-day notification, he's within the law.  congress can investigate, but they can't move the goalposts.

 

the two sides of your equation above are not equivalent.  you've added what you believe was the intent, but which was not specified in the law, and was deleted from the original bill before passage.  congress removed that provision from the bill, so how is that now a requirement?

 

i'm trying to keep up.  when did they change the law?

 

 

To be clear, are you stating that if the intent of the law is to prevent the President from firing the IG for performing his legal duty and obligation, it must clearly say so in the law?

 

The flip side would be that the law, as written, allows the President to fire an IG for doing his job and uncovering illegal activity, so long as the corrupt President makes it clear that he doesn't like competent IG's of integrity.

 

BTW:  I don't think that Trump said "the dude smells funny".  I think Trump is more likely to say "the dude is too honest to be a 'team player'".

Edited by heybruce
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, heybruce said:

To be clear, are you stating that if the intent of the law is to prevent the President from firing the IG for performing his legal duty and obligation, it must clearly say so in the law?

 

The flip side would be that the law, as written, allows the President to fire an IG for doing his job and uncovering illegal activity, so long as the corrupt President makes it clear that he doesn't like competent IG's of integrity.

i am saying you are inserting your interpretation of what you think should be the intent of a law establishing ig's.

 

i am saying the original house version of the law in 1978 had a "just cause" provision, the senate version did not.  the language was removed in committee prior to final passage of a bill with no additional requirement as to reasons for firing.  congress removed what you might consider their intent.  that's pretty clear, then.  congress did NOT intend that the president must provide evidence of just cause.  they didn't even require "reasonable" or "justified" reasons.

 

the law was amended in 2008 i believe, and NO additional requirement for "valid" reasons was added.  it must have been discussed, so why didn't they change it then, if that were the intent?  my guess, just a guess, is that congressmen don't want that sort of limitation when their guy is sitting behind the big desk.

 

the "flip side" is how the law is actually written.  most laws are like that in some way.  there are loopholes that let some people get away with (for our political fortunes) bad stuff.  we don't get to apply the law differently to them cause we don't like them.  we have to change the law first.

 

sure, congress can investigate, but trump appears to have been within his rights as the law stands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A misleading troll post has been removed:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my apologies, please forgive.

 

foxnews reports that

 

"The State Department watchdog whom President Trump fired last Friday had been looking into whether Secretary Mike Pompeo had ordered a staffer to perform personal errands including walking his dog, making dinner reservations and grabbing dry cleaning, a source familiar with the investigation told Fox News on Sunday."

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fired-state-department-watchdog-ig-pompeo-errands

 

how is this the best use of the time of a man making around $150,000/year, with staff of lawyers under him making around $125,000?  i thought it was common practice to have staffers run errands for important people.  but then, a phone call from HR should suffice.  an inspector general investigation seems rather extravagant if this is all he's got.  it sounds great that he's under investigation, but the details matter.

 

 

i would rather he be investigating why there was no inspector general for the state department between 2008 and 2013. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

No, "the President shall communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal" = the President shall show that the firing was not to prevent the Inspector General from performing his legal duties under the law.

 

Please try to keep up.

So every president who has taken office has given reasons for removals of everyone they fired, in writing, upon taking office? Please do show where this laws allows a grace period or honeymoon or other exemption that indicates when during a president's term this kicks in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/17/2020 at 2:38 AM, Walker88 said:

IGs generally last through Administrations, even when the Party in power changes. They are professionals and are tasked with rooting out malfeasance, corruption and violation of laws and norms. They tend to have a particular expertise and are not viewed as political, despite being an appointment.

 

Neither you nor any other commenter here can name a single rule violation any of the fired IGs committed, because none did. Similarly, you cannot refute the investigations that got each of them fired, because every single one of the investigations was legitimate and was being carried out by the book. This is similar to Russiagate. When the first indications came in that Russia was going to aid one candidate over another, President Obama warned every single person on the Bigot List (that identifies every single person who has knowledge of a particular issue) that all must be done 'by the book'. When additional intel began to come in that Russia was receiving cooperation from 45's campaign, all were again reminded both of the seriousness of the intelligence and the absolute need to perform the investigation 'by the book'. You will not hear this on Fox, either because they do not know or do not care.

 

You are blissfully unaware of your own lack of knowledge of both this IG firing and the Russia investigation. Perhaps reality does not matter to you, perhaps it does not matter to you that a hostile foreign govt interfered in the 2016 election with the cooperation of the candidate and his campaign, but for those of us who served and who understand that independence from foreign interference is something we cherish, it is important. Current AG Barr said recently, when asked by CBS about pure partisan politics in the so-called Dept of Justice, 'history is written by the winners'.  Perhaps that is true. November is coming, and after the Dems retake both the WH and the Senate, some history will be written. Those who actually broke the law, as opposed to those who merely criticized a person with thinner skin that a 13 year old schoolgirl, will face justice. Those of us who served owe that to everyone who has ever served to defend the ideals upon which the United States was founded.

 

If your post is allowed to stand, then my reply is equally relevant. Mine has the added benefit of being fact based. I know exactly how Russiagate began and how it progressed. You, I am willing to bet, do not, because you never had access.

 

 

Trump fired this dude because he was incompetent, no rules violation required to fire him another IG or ANYONE.

 

Everyone questioned Trump for firing the ultra standout ambassador Marie Yovanovitch who turns out to be pathological liar, lying under oath to congress and is nothing more than a deep state conspirator doing all she could to promote the russia hoax against 45.

Thats why he fires these obama waste of skin hold overs. Get rid of em all!

 

 

Edited by i84teen
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

i am saying you are inserting your interpretation of what you think should be the intent of a law establishing ig's.

 

i am saying the original house version of the law in 1978 had a "just cause" provision, the senate version did not.  the language was removed in committee prior to final passage of a bill with no additional requirement as to reasons for firing.  congress removed what you might consider their intent.  that's pretty clear, then.  congress did NOT intend that the president must provide evidence of just cause.  they didn't even require "reasonable" or "justified" reasons.

 

the law was amended in 2008 i believe, and NO additional requirement for "valid" reasons was added.  it must have been discussed, so why didn't they change it then, if that were the intent?  my guess, just a guess, is that congressmen don't want that sort of limitation when their guy is sitting behind the big desk.

 

the "flip side" is how the law is actually written.  most laws are like that in some way.  there are loopholes that let some people get away with (for our political fortunes) bad stuff.  we don't get to apply the law differently to them cause we don't like them.  we have to change the law first.

 

sure, congress can investigate, but trump appears to have been within his rights as the law stands.

I am saying that firing an IG to prevent him from performing his legal duties is illegal, and will be judged so in court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ChouDoufu said:

my apologies, please forgive.

 

foxnews reports that

 

"The State Department watchdog whom President Trump fired last Friday had been looking into whether Secretary Mike Pompeo had ordered a staffer to perform personal errands including walking his dog, making dinner reservations and grabbing dry cleaning, a source familiar with the investigation told Fox News on Sunday."

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fired-state-department-watchdog-ig-pompeo-errands

 

how is this the best use of the time of a man making around $150,000/year, with staff of lawyers under him making around $125,000?  i thought it was common practice to have staffers run errands for important people.  but then, a phone call from HR should suffice.  an inspector general investigation seems rather extravagant if this is all he's got.  it sounds great that he's under investigation, but the details matter.

 

 

i would rather he be investigating why there was no inspector general for the state department between 2008 and 2013. 

If true, Pompeo was using a government employee as his personal valet, and the IG was looking into that.  That is one of the things an IG does.  Firing him for doing his job and preventing misuse of government resources is yet another example of how much Trump embraces the swamp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

So every president who has taken office has given reasons for removals of everyone they fired, in writing, upon taking office? Please do show where this laws allows a grace period or honeymoon or other exemption that indicates when during a president's term this kicks in.

The link I provided shows the law as written, it applies to Inspector General, and it gives the timelines required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, i84teen said:

Trump fired this dude because he was incompetent, no rules violation required to fire him another IG or ANYONE.

 

Everyone questioned Trump for firing the ultra standout ambassador Marie Yovanovitch who turns out to be pathological liar, lying under oath to congress and is nothing more than a deep state conspirator doing all she could to promote the russia hoax against 45.

Thats why he fires these obama waste of skin hold overs. Get rid of em all!

 

 

If Trump fired the IG for incompetence, then all Trump has to do is explain how he was incompetent.  I don't expect that to happen.

 

However there is no point in reasoning with a deep state conspiracy theory believer who is so out of touch with reality he doesn't realize that Trump is the pathological liar.

  • Like 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...