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

[BobBKK]

1 minute ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

That's who Trump aspires to be... one of those guys, with no U.S. Constitution or rule of law or congressional oversight to reign in his worst excesses...

 

But the worst part is, too many Americans seem to think his trashing of the Constitution and democratic institutions is a good thing for the country, which is clearly is not.

 

And it's not going to change until enough Americans wake up and get their heads screwed on straight, or, they're instead going to wake up someday living in the U.S. version of Russia.

 

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.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

The federal government has nominally independent inspectors general whose specific mission is to investigate and bring to light wrongdoing, waste and abuses in their respective agencies.

 

They do that in Democratic administrations. They do that in Republican administrations. And they have done so for decades.

 

Only someone who condones government wrongdoing, waste and abuse can be in favor of the politically motivated, without-cause removal of multiple IGs under Trump, who clearly has shown that he believes himself and his cohorts to be above any and all laws.

 

That's what a dictator is, not a president.

 

[Sujo]

Pompeo being investigated.

Pompeo asks for investigator to be fired.

Whitehouse fires invedtigator.

 

Trump supporters business as usual.

[ChouDoufu]

36 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

The federal government has nominally independent inspectors general whose specific mission is to investigate and bring to light wrongdoing, waste and abuses in their respective agencies.

 

They do that in Democratic administrations. They do that in Republican administrations. And they have done so for decades.

 

Only someone who condones government wrongdoing, waste and abuse can be in favor of the politically motivated, without-cause removal of multiple IGs under Trump, who clearly has shown that he believes himself and his cohorts to be above any and all laws.

 

That's what a dictator is, not a president.

 

if the president has the legal authority to appoint (with consent) and fire inspectors general, then he has the legal authority regardless of popularity with opposition members of congress.  i'm not aware of a requirement to give a "good" reason for the firing, merely that he must inform congress. 

 

congress may investigate to their hearts' content, but unless the law is amended, there's not much they can do about it, other than use it as a political talking point and as another method of "resistance."

 

unfortunately (or not) those appear to be the rules.

[Mama Noodle]

14 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Pompeo being investigated.

Pompeo asks for investigator to be fired.

Whitehouse fires invedtigator.

 

Say the Democrats, for their billionth 'scandal' in the last 3 years. 

[Eric Loh]

Does has a semblance of crime family getting rid of good cops. 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

2 hours ago, ChouDoufu said:

unfortunately (or not) those appear to be the rules.

 

Some things in American government depend on the customs of, and respect for, democratic institutions. When you have a president like Trump, all respect for and adherence to democratic institutions goes out the window.

 

It's now up to the American people to decide if they want a would-be dictator to run the country or a democratic republic with leaders who follow the norms of American government.

 

One of the last major times a U.S. president did abhorrent things like this, it was under President Nixon and the "Saturday Night Massacre" in the midst of the Watergate scandal that ultimately led to his resignation.

 

Trump is a walking, talking Saturday Night Massacre.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre

 

Quote

 U.S. President Richard Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox; Richardson refused and resigned effective immediately. Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox; Ruckelshaus refused, and also resigned. Nixon then ordered the third-most-senior official at the Justice Department, Solicitor General Robert Bork, to fire Cox. Bork carried out the dismissal as Nixon asked.

 

And Bork, in all his glory, could years later have become a U.S. Supreme Court justice if the Republicans had had their way.

 

Quote

The night he was fired, Cox's deputy prosecutor and press aides held an impassioned news briefing and read the following statement from him, "Whether ours shall continue to be a government of laws and not of men is now for Congress and ultimately the American people [to decide]."

 

Edited May 17, 2020 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[ChouDoufu]

16 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Some things in American government depend on the customs of, and respect for, democratic institutions. When you have a president like Trump, all respect for and adherence to democratic institutions goes out the window.

 

It's now up to the American people to decide if they want a would-be dictator to run the country or a democratic republic with leaders who follow the norms of American government.

 

One of the last major times a U.S. president did abhorrent things like this, it was under President Nixon and the "Saturday Night Massacre" in the midst of the Watergate scandal that ultimately led to his resignation.

 

Trump is a walking, talking Saturday Night Massacre.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre

 

 

And Bork, in all his glory, could years later have become a U.S. Supreme Court justice if the Republicans had had their way.

 

 

i dislike the man as much as anyone, but if we're gonna "respect the institutions" that also means observing little details like following the law as written, not as how we would like to have it applied in this special case 'cause we don't like the other team's guy. 

 

congress, i believe, can change the law.  i must assume they don't want to.  investigations are more fun and politically profitable.

[NoBrainer]

9 hours ago, Walker88 said:

While this website is for opinions, including re the firing of IG Linick, it would be interesting if those siding with 45 could point out what facts other people post here, including me, to which you take exception. Please back up your view with relevant facts and explain what job or access allowed you to become so 'well-informed'.  In other words, please explain your rationale for why---other than 'because he can'---45 fired IG Atkinson, fired the IG who would have overseen much of the CV-19 Bailout money distribution, and fired Intel Community IG Atkinson, who---like all other IGs---had followed the book in terms of opening investigations into alleged wrongdoing on the part of 45 or members of his Administration.

 

As I noted, Pompeo is not new to investigation. AG Sessions quashed the first one into campaign finance malfeasance. IG Linick was fired because he was looking into new allegations of violations by Pompeo at State. In other words, IG Linick was doing the job for which the taxpayer pays him.

 

My knowledge comes via a multi decade association with a certain organization in the govt, which afforded me TS/SCI clearances as well as allowed me to form relationships with many of the people now being vindictively pursued in violation of every norm upon which the US was founded. I am guessing not a single one of you has any such first hand knowledge, but rather merely have opinions. Yes, you are entitled to opinions, but opinions are weightless, while facts have gravitas.

 

The floor is yours.

 

Well at least we know now, who you support.

 

It is 44 and his cabal that need to be investigated & punished accordingly.  There will be plenty of time to investigate 45 after January 2025 when his term is complete, or even sooner if the crooks get their way. But now, they should get out of the way, and let him Govern, as he was elected to do.

 

 

[NoBrainer]

6 hours ago, JCauto said:

So will this be your position henceforth regardless of who is in power in the administration? There's really no need for any internal oversight or people to serve as Inspector-Generals? You'll be okay once a Democrat is in power for there to be no oversight? Or do you believe that the administration should select their own oversight or IGs? What could go wrong with that?

This is one of the many short-sighted viewpoints we see out of the Trump crowd, they will support anything that provides him free reign to do whatever he wants while he is in power, then will bleat endlessly after he's gone about how there's no check on government power. Similar to what we saw in Wisconsin, they actually pass laws to give Republican Governors new and extended powers, then once they lose the Governorship, pass laws to reduce the Governor's power to practically zero. This is not policy, this is not ideology. This is simply using partisan political power to achieve minority goals regardless of future consequence. 

Remember how the Right used to go on and on about the "Imperial Presidency" of Obama and how he was usurping power not granted to him by the Constitution? Seems so long ago now.

 

"Or do you believe that the administration should select their own oversight or IGs?"

 

Of course they should, just as Obama chose the IG that was just fired. If you think it should be different, then start lobbying your Democrat friends to change the law.

 

As for oversight, I think that Mr. Trump has been subject to more oversight than any President in History, and they just keep coming at him with every crooked scheme that they think the people might believe this time. 

 

It's well past time that the tables were turned, and that is exactly what has Washington in a panic now, as they all know they are about to be exposed.

 

Even with an all out assault of lies (Adam Schiff), and manufactured crimes, and the unprecidented rigging of the justice system, and the Main Stream Media singing their chorus, they have still not found anything illegal that the President has done, in 3 years and 100's of millions of dollars wasted in partisan investigations, in which I am sure they left no stone unturned. That should tell you something. There is no There, there.

 

 

 

[sirineou]

2 minutes ago, NoBrainer said:

"Or do you believe that the administration should select their own oversight or IGs?"

 

Of course they should

You actually believe that administrations select their own oversight???

3 minutes ago, NoBrainer said:

As for oversight, I think that Mr. Trump has been subject to more oversight than any President in History

Because someone is investigated a lot does not make them innocent but simply more suspect. Mafia bosses were investigated a lot. 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

57 minutes ago, ChouDoufu said:

i dislike the man as much as anyone, but if we're gonna "respect the institutions" that also means observing little details like following the law as written, not as how we would like to have it applied in this special case 'cause we don't like the other team's guy. 

 

No president in modern history, since the IG's became a fixture of the federal government in the late 1970s AFAIK, has ever abused the IG system/process like Trump is doing now. Some levels of criminality simply aren't expected of presidents.

 

[NoBrainer]

22 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

No president in modern history, since the IG's became a fixture of the federal government in the late 1970s AFAIK, has ever abused the IG system/process like Trump is doing now. "Some levels of criminality simply aren't expected of presidents".

 

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.

[ChouDoufu]

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

No president in modern history, since the IG's became a fixture of the federal government in the late 1970s AFAIK, has ever abused the IG system/process like Trump is doing now. Some levels of criminality simply aren't expected of presidents.

 

great!  let's get rid of him.  but let's do it legally.  no (ahem) trumped up charges.  he does have the authority to fire the IG, until congress decides to change the law.  if we get him removed by any means available, that sets precedent for the republican congress "resisting" 46, and spending four years on their own fraudulent investigations.

 

if what is coming out now can be proven, that flynn was entrapped, that fisa warrants were knowingly falsified, that crowdstrike testified they could NOT verify any data was downloaded from the infamous DNC servers, things will get interesting.

 

personally, i'm still waiting for an investigation as to under what authority obama had to order the drone execution of american citizens without trial.

[Tropposurfer]

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

[Sujo]

3 hours ago, ChouDoufu said:

i dislike the man as much as anyone, but if we're gonna "respect the institutions" that also means observing little details like following the law as written, not as how we would like to have it applied in this special case 'cause we don't like the other team's guy. 

 

congress, i believe, can change the law.  i must assume they don't want to.  investigations are more fun and politically profitable.

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. 

[Crazy Alex]

Another investigation over something every president has a right to do? Haven't they learned from all the previous failed attempts?

[Crazy Alex]

 

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.

[Sujo]

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. 

[Sujo]

3 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

 

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

You notice it more now because trump continues to act illegally and congress is forced to do its job.

[ChouDoufu]

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.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5a/compiledact-95-452/section-3

 

 

reform act of 2007 doesn't change the requirement.

 

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/110th-congress/senate-report/262/1

[rabas]

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.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/23/us/politics/john-durham-fbi-russia.html

 

[heybruce]

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?

[heybruce]

4 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.

Right.  You know Obama was a criminal President because Trump told you so.  Of course Trump has not specified what crime or crimes, but that's ok. Trump never lies, right?

[Tippaporn]

In my opinion this discussion isn't even worth having.  Why?  It's obvious from all of the declas info coming out what some people have known all along . . . that the entire Russian collusion hoax was a set-up, a farcically concocted scam to either 1) prevent Trump from getting elected, 2) (the insurance policy) if elected then to get him removed from office on false charges, and 3) if that failed then to hamstring his Presidency long enough to let the clock run out and install another corrupt Democrat who would bury all the crimes and protect the guilty.

 

This probe is just another continuation of their endless efforts and is again doomed to fail as all of their other efforts have failed.  The Dems are pulling out all the stops to prevent Trump from serving another 4 year term, including the use of a pandemic for political ends.  They have no other choice as another 4 year term will ensure they will all go to jail for a very long time.  It's not hard to figure out folks.

 

The discussions worth having are those which dig deeper into the proven, documented information exposing the malfeasance and criminality of the Obama administration . . . right up to Biden and Obama himself.  True justice is coming, and it ain't going to be the faux justice the Dems wish to criminally impose on the innocent such as Flynn.

 

Sit back and relax.  Get your popcorn ready.

[Tippaporn]

Here's what's coming. You can bank on every word Trump speaks.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, Walker88 said:

Neither you nor any other commenter here can name a single rule violation any of the fired IGs committed, because none did.

They serve at the pleasure of the president. he needs no excuse to fire them.

The Dems are opening yet another of countless investigations to see if they can find something, anything that will hurt the president in November. Yet again, IMO, they will fail.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

All I see is a meaningless comment conveying zero substance of anything.  Clever disparaging commentary won't cut it.

When meaningless comment is all one has............................................

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, rabas said:

and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.

Exactly, and that is why con men and scammers are successful. Human nature is to believe and the vile elements of society take advantage of that impulse.

[Tippaporn]

And saying the same yet another way . . . 

 

“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” ― Mark Twain