Trump's firing of State Department watchdog may be 'unlawful,' Pelosi says

[Mama Noodle]

3 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Pompeo supposedly has a history of doing this, including in his prior government posts.

 

Maybe walking dogs and picking up dry cleaning is what you think U.S. government employees should be doing for their supervisors, but I pretty much think serving as personal servants isn't in their job descriptions.

 

If Pompeo wants or needs a maid or a houseboy, let him hire them himself -- and not on the taxpayers' dime.

If this is the hill you guys wanna die on then all I can do is chuckle at it. Can you imagine how many aides Pelosi has around just to keep her face from melting off?
 

Lmao this is all so weak it’s hilarious. But y’all go for it. 

[Xavnel]

Again and again and again.... 

Every single thing that Trump does or says,   the Democrats say " oh oh oh,  that might have been against the law "... 

The guy was an APPOINTEE , he served at the pleasure of the President. Just like Ambassador and many others.. 

If he wants, Trump could fire him because he wore a green shirt on Tuesday... 

[stevenl]

12 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

If this is the hill you guys wanna die on then all I can do is chuckle at it. Can you imagine how many aides Pelosi has around just to keep her face from melting off?
 

Lmao this is all so weak it’s hilarious. But y’all go for it. 

It really doesn't matter what exactly the aide(s) were doing. What matters is that the IG was possibly dismissed due to an investigation into possible misuse of government employees doing personal business for him.

That should be investigated by Congress, one of their responsibilities. Maybe something comes of it, maybe not.

[jm91]

45 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Seriously, you guys are gonna try the obstruction of justice thingy again?

Seriously, you don't think possible criminal acts should be investigated? 

[jm91]

16 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

Nobody takes Pelosi and her little cabal of hitlers seriously. If they are talking, lies are flowing. 

Nice distraction. The issue is should possible criminal acts be investigated by congress. That is their duty. 

[Mama Noodle]

1 minute ago, jm91 said:

The issue is should possible criminal acts be investigated by congress. That is their duty. 

 

The horrible, pearl-clutching outrage of... Getting Chinese food and walking a dog. 

 

Lemme go find my fainting couch... 

[Crazy Alex]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

Why not, if he keeps doing it why should it not be investigated for all to see who he is.

 

Or do you think the president can do no wrong.

I think all presidents do bad things. I also think this "GET TRUMP!" obsession has backfired or not worked on virtually every occasion it has been tried. But don't worry... Joe Biden is ahead in the polls. He's sharp, intelligent and has a strong record to run on (snicker).

[andersonat]

1 hour ago, Xavnel said:

Again and again and again.... 

Every single thing that Trump does or says,   the Democrats say " oh oh oh,  that might have been against the law "... 

The guy was an APPOINTEE , he served at the pleasure of the President. Just like Ambassador and many others.. 

If he wants, Trump could fire him because he wore a green shirt on Tuesday... 

 

  --  Why would President Trump choose to fire an IG for wearing a green shirt on a Tuesday ? 

 

Wouldn't that be a very odd reason/basis to lose confidence in an IG ? 

 

 

[jm91]

15 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Honestly, I think you should accept two words: Trump won.

I agree trump won. He is the president of the USA. He is our president. The president and the people in his administration are subject to the rule of law. If the IG was fired because he was investigating the secretary of state then it is a possible illegal act. That should be investigated. 

You don't believe in the rule of law? 

You will probably claim partisanship - but IF the IG was fired because he was investigating the secretary of state the congress has  a DUTY to investigate...or maybe you do not believe in the rule of law. 

Edited May 18, 2020 by jm91

[Crazy Alex]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

It really doesn't matter what exactly the aide(s) were doing. What matters is that the IG was possibly dismissed due to an investigation into possible misuse of government employees doing personal business for him.

That should be investigated by Congress, one of their responsibilities. Maybe something comes of it, maybe not.

Based on the House's batting average so far, I'm guessing NOT.  ????

 

[Crazy Alex]

7 minutes ago, jm91 said:

The house batting average is a distraction. 

IF you believe in the RULE of LAW then the congress has a DUTY to investigate. That is the rule of law. 

Your comments are hand waving to distract from the issue. 

 

 

Investigate away! I think it's hilarious.

[rabas]

15 minutes ago, jm91 said:

I agree trump won. He is the president of the USA. He is our president. The president and the people in his administration are subject to the rule of law. If the IG was fired because he was investigating the secretary of state then it is a possible illegal act. That should be investigated. 

You don't believe in the rule of law? 

You will probably claim partisanship - but IF the IG was fired because he was investigating the secretary of state the congress has  a DUTY to investigate...or maybe you do not believe in the rule of law. 

However, if the IG initiated an investigation solely or even partially for political purposes (could you even imagine in today's Washington? lol) then it is the IG who clearly broke the rules of his employment. I would assume that's criminal if someone grabbing some food for you to eat is, right?

 

[jm91]

6 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Investigate away! I think it's hilarious.

Nice to see that you eventually came around to the idea that potential crimes should be investigated. 

 

 

[seajae]

this is the idiot that was under an investigation by the defence department last year, he is also the idiot that made his own list of conspiracy theories against trump and gave them to the dems to try to help remove trump but they were all BS and couldnt be used, he deserves whatever happens to him

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

12 minutes ago, jm91 said:

Tragic that conservatives have sold out their principles.  

 

They have their principles....  Their principles are -- if IGs are fired for no legitimate reasons including to obstruct investigations into the potential misuse of public funds, the conservatives are fine with all that -- the firings and misuse of public funds -- as long as Trump and his cronies are protected.

 

The rest of us, who have some conscience and respect for good government, would be outraged at that kind of behavior whether it occurred in a Republican or Democrat administration. No difference. Everyone should be held to the same standards of legality and ethical conduct. And federal IGs should be able to fulfill their duties in a professional manner free from political retribution.

 

But those notions of professionalism, impartiality and ethical conduct are totally foreign concepts to Trump and his fans.

 

Edited May 18, 2020 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Crazy Alex]

4 minutes ago, jm91 said:

The topic is - was the IG fired for starting an investigation into the secretary of state?

You do love your distractions. 

Measuring the merit of and the motivations of people making the accusations is perfectly legitimate and topical.

[rabas]

9 minutes ago, jm91 said:

And remember Clinton was impeached. 

Conservatives hate the rule of law when republicans are accused of a crime and they hate the constitution when congress might due its duty and investigate potential crimes. 

And the potential crime is firing the IG to stop an investigation. Get it clear. Dog walking etc. is quite minor..so why would the secretary of state potentially have a guy fired? My guess is he thinks he is above the law. Tragic that conservatives have sold out their principles.  

He was not impeached for using is um staff, no not his staff, his assistant, that staff, well I guess it was both, for sexual purposes outside her job description. Imagine.  Boy, did that ever put a stain on the office of the president, no, it was the dress, ok both.

 

Maybe the Pompano investigation is because it was Chinese food, that sounds more serious.

 

[rabas]

8 minutes ago, jm91 said:

The topic is - was the IG fired for starting an investigation into the secretary of state?

You do love your distractions. 

Was he fired for starting and illegal investigation(s) for political purposes?  Was he working outside his job description?

 

[jm91]

10 minutes ago, rabas said:

Was he fired for starting and illegal investigation(s) for political purposes?  Was he working outside his job description?

 

Good questions. So you agree that the entire matter should be investigated? Democracy is about transparency - or do you believe that only credible accusations against people you don't like should be investigated? 

[Crazy Alex]

This whole thread is much ado about nothing. The president has notified House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in writing of his intent to fire the mole in question- precisely what he is supposed to do. Nancy trying to spin this into a potential crime is beyond laughable.

 

"Trump informed Congress of his intent to oust Linick, a Justice Department veteran appointed to the role in 2013 by then President Barack Obama, in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Friday night.

 

The president said he "no longer" had the "fullest confidence" in Linick and promised to send the Senate a nominee "who has my confidence and who meets the appropriate qualifications." The executive branch is required to notify Congress 30 days ahead of time if it intends to remove an inspector general."

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/15/state-department-inspector-general-fired-261536

[jm91]

6 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

This whole thread is much ado about nothing. The president has notified House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in writing of his intent to fire the mole in question- precisely what he is supposed to do. Nancy trying to spin this into a potential crime is beyond laughable.

 

"Trump informed Congress of his intent to oust Linick, a Justice Department veteran appointed to the role in 2013 by then President Barack Obama, in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Friday night.

 

The president said he "no longer" had the "fullest confidence" in Linick and promised to send the Senate a nominee "who has my confidence and who meets the appropriate qualifications." The executive branch is required to notify Congress 30 days ahead of time if it intends to remove an inspector general."

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/15/state-department-inspector-general-fired-261536

Mole in question? 

Hmmm. you know he was a mole? 

Sounds like you have personal information. Get ready to testify in front of congress. Please don't plead your constitutional right not to self incriminate. 

[Stadtler]

Trump can fire anyone who is not elected.  Full stop.

 

End of discussion.  Move along please ...

[andersonat]

3 minutes ago, Stadtler said:

Trump can fire anyone who is not elected.  Full stop.

 

End of discussion.  Move along please ...

 

 

  -  Do you think that The President can fire a Supreme Court Judge ? 

 

 

[Crazy Alex]

13 minutes ago, jm91 said:

Mole in question? 

Hmmm. you know he was a mole? 

Sounds like you have personal information. Get ready to testify in front of congress. Please don't plead your constitutional right not to self incriminate. 

 

Yes, I think he's a mole. But that's beside the point. Your dodging the actual point says all anyone needs to know.

[jm91]

7 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

 

Yes, I think he's a mole. But that's beside the point. Your dodging the actual point says all anyone needs to know.

The point is democracy in the US is based on checks and balances and congress has oversight to investigate the executive branch. I hear you mocking that process. Sad really. 

[jm91]

trump can fire the IG but trump is also accountable if the guy was fired as a way of obstructing an investigation in the secretary of state. I guess that nuance needs to be pointed out to you. Or are you a supporter of the theory that the president has absolute immunity from any action he takes while president? 

Democracy requires transparency. I think you would support the process of democracy. Maybe not. 

 

[ChouDoufu]

22 minutes ago, jm91 said:

Mole in question? 

Hmmm. you know he was a mole? 

Sounds like you have personal information. Get ready to testify in front of congress. Please don't plead your constitutional right not to self incriminate. 

i am very much looking forward to the testimony on c-span!  i can't wait to hear about pompeo sending staffers to pick up his dry cleaning and walk his dog.  it's gonna be a hoot! 

 

there must be a reason for this.  surely pelosi knows how trump will be able to play the deep state angle, after what was (allegedly) done to flynn and others. yet another obama holdover investigating nothingburgers.  could this be one of those get something in the news before this other thing gets out things?

 

 

[Crazy Alex]

7 minutes ago, jm91 said:

The point is democracy in the US is based on checks and balances and congress has oversight to investigate the executive branch. I hear you mocking that process. Sad really. 

You must be confusing me with someone else. I've shown how Trump has followed procedure to get rid of the IG in question. I've encouraged an investigation. Please check your hearing aid.

[Crazy Alex]

2 minutes ago, ChouDoufu said:

i am very much looking forward to the testimony on c-span!  i can't wait to hear about pompeo sending staffers to pick up his dry cleaning and walk his dog.  it's gonna be a hoot! 

 

there must be a reason for this.  surely pelosi knows how trump will be able to play the deep state angle, after what was (allegedly) done to flynn and others. yet another obama holdover investigating nothingburgers.  could this be one of those get something in the news before this other thing gets out things?

 

 

Now just hold on there! What about them picking up his Chinese food?????? :)

[ChouDoufu]

29 minutes ago, Stadtler said:

Trump can fire anyone who is not elected.  Full stop.

 

End of discussion.  Move along please ...

not exactly.  trump can fire those he has authority to fire.

according to the 1978 law, he DOES in this case have that authority.

 

(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