LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
“Nailed it!”LeafByNiggle:
Who precisely are you quoting here? Because it looks like a reference to the movie Coco?
No such justification has been given for firing Christi Grimm.
Opinion: Trump turns the presidency into a dictatorship
- Thread starter LeafByNiggle
- Start date
- Status
V
VonDerTann
Guest
Here’s what you’re just not getting:
He doesn’t have to have a reason.
She’s an at will employee. He can fire her because he doesn’t like her hair color or the shoes she wears.
He can certainly fire her for having her resume basically say “career swamp dweller aka government lawyer,” which is exactly what she is.
He doesn’t have to have a reason.
She’s an at will employee. He can fire her because he doesn’t like her hair color or the shoes she wears.
He can certainly fire her for having her resume basically say “career swamp dweller aka government lawyer,” which is exactly what she is.
Last edited:
A
Annie
Guest
It would seem that Obama’s justification was not given until after “[a]fter complaints about the dismissal grew,” either.
V
VonDerTann
Guest
For what it’s worth, “I did something that made the boss look bad,” is to me something that probably gets lots of people fired. That’s kind of what Ms. Grimm did.
One observation with government employees: usually they make less $ than their contemporaries in the private sector. However, by and large they also often don’t have significant turnover.
For example, the president picks the US attorney (the chief one) for each state but the rank and file assistant US attorneys don’t change all that much - but they still can be fired including for political reasons. Many times the Chief US Attorney needs to rely on career assistants to run the office day to day. Those assistants also get used to pensions; lots of time off; no pressure to generate clients like private lawyers, etc.
But the chief is still in charge. And the assistants need to remember that.
I believe many thus become entitled, as if they are entitled to their jobs due to less money and general lack of turnover which they view as “job security” - and they thus scream bloody murder when a new boss comes in, fires them, and basically gives a reason they don’t like, including things like “we want to go in a different direction” or things private employers say every day. To me “you made me look bad” more than qualifies.
Want to never be fired? Always make the boss look good.
One observation with government employees: usually they make less $ than their contemporaries in the private sector. However, by and large they also often don’t have significant turnover.
For example, the president picks the US attorney (the chief one) for each state but the rank and file assistant US attorneys don’t change all that much - but they still can be fired including for political reasons. Many times the Chief US Attorney needs to rely on career assistants to run the office day to day. Those assistants also get used to pensions; lots of time off; no pressure to generate clients like private lawyers, etc.
But the chief is still in charge. And the assistants need to remember that.
I believe many thus become entitled, as if they are entitled to their jobs due to less money and general lack of turnover which they view as “job security” - and they thus scream bloody murder when a new boss comes in, fires them, and basically gives a reason they don’t like, including things like “we want to go in a different direction” or things private employers say every day. To me “you made me look bad” more than qualifies.
Want to never be fired? Always make the boss look good.
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
He is not turning the presidency into a dictatorship. This sort of demagoguery is exactly why I cringe at op-eds being posted as news. However, he is definitely not a swamp-drainer. He is the most nepotistic and petty boss I can remember in my lifetime. If he is draining the swamp, it is only to make way for a toxic waste dump, which is what you get when you hire and fire based on an over-sensitivity to disagreement instead of talent. The American people voted for an administration of yes-men, and that is what we got.
V
VonDerTann
Guest
Interesting - but isn’t that really what every president does? They certainly don’t hire people who tell them “no.”
P
pnewton
Guest
Of course they hire people who disagree with them. Anyone with a modicum of humility understands that they are not always right. Trump has hired people like that as well. Unfortunately, he also fires them and returns to a safe place. It is a recipe for mediocrity at best, failure at worst. However, the real odd thing is the way he places family with in position they have no education or experience in. Nepotism.
Oh, so it was a biased accusation.
M
Maximus1
Guest
Senator Grassley sent a letter to the Whitehouse requesting the factual basis for Trump’s firing on the Inspector General of Intel. IG ATKINSON.
APPARENTLY the statute requires appropriate reasons. The bipartisan request sent by Grassley shows this.
Any " reasons" these days are conjecture until Trump himself gives them. " I felt like it," or ," he wasn’t doing good," are inadequate. Firing multiple IGs makes the firings more dubious.
APPARENTLY the statute requires appropriate reasons. The bipartisan request sent by Grassley shows this.
Any " reasons" these days are conjecture until Trump himself gives them. " I felt like it," or ," he wasn’t doing good," are inadequate. Firing multiple IGs makes the firings more dubious.
Last edited:
M
Maximus1
Guest
It was an educated point. With educated analysis. Obviously. I see no objection to being biased in favor of truth.
Truth requires facts. You provided none.
M
Maximus1
Guest
Are you representing that conservatives lawyers don’t forum shop?
How many things are wrong with that?
You have no facts for one.
It assumes Conservative lawyers are inept, they do not know how to take advantage of what the rules of procedure and substantive law on jurisdiction allow( see International Shoe).
Maybe Conservative lawyers only represent defendants? I doubt it, but defendants don’t get to choose the forum.
Expand the reading list.
How many things are wrong with that?
You have no facts for one.
It assumes Conservative lawyers are inept, they do not know how to take advantage of what the rules of procedure and substantive law on jurisdiction allow( see International Shoe).
Maybe Conservative lawyers only represent defendants? I doubt it, but defendants don’t get to choose the forum.
Expand the reading list.
V
VonDerTann
Guest
No, you’ve not proven that there even is a “statute” at play, let alone that it requires “appropriate reasons” for firing.
If there is such a statute at play, please cite it so we all may see exactly what it requires.
Until you do so, I will respectfully conclude that the IGs are at will employees who can be fired for any reason not void for public policy, or no reason at all. In fact by asking for a reason, the letter implicitly acknowledges that none need be provided at the time of firing.
I would add that trump’s reason - “I lack Confidence in you,” should more than qualify, given Atkinson took a (private) whistleblower complaint and immediately sent it to the dem-controlled House of Representatives, leading to impeachment.
Atkinson = another swamp dweller disloyal to his boss.
If there is such a statute at play, please cite it so we all may see exactly what it requires.
Until you do so, I will respectfully conclude that the IGs are at will employees who can be fired for any reason not void for public policy, or no reason at all. In fact by asking for a reason, the letter implicitly acknowledges that none need be provided at the time of firing.
I would add that trump’s reason - “I lack Confidence in you,” should more than qualify, given Atkinson took a (private) whistleblower complaint and immediately sent it to the dem-controlled House of Representatives, leading to impeachment.
Atkinson = another swamp dweller disloyal to his boss.
Last edited:
M
Maximus1
Guest
Atkinson’s actions complied with the statute precisely.
He performed his own independant evaluation as required.
He is required by statute to forward the complaint and he did.
The facts in the complaint were eventually verified by independant witnesses under oath.
Next
Your AT WILL EMPLOYEE opinion is one that by suggestion says," Grassely and the bipartisan Senator list don’t know the law." A law they wrote. A law where THEIR INTENT IS THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT.
That position is " obtuse." It assumes that the OFFICE OF IG is a sham and the Whistleblower statute is also.
Trump’s grounds thus far are precisely inadequate to comply with the statute. Read the letter! Grassley is not in the business of damaging Trump.
And the reason why the letter and what it requests is vital is plain. The OFFICE OF IG is created to do oversight for the executive and Congress. That intent is completely thwarted if an IG has the threat of a president who can say," I will obliterate you if you make a peep."
Surprise! It wasn’t a dictatorship, and won’t be, if elected officials do their job preventing it
He performed his own independant evaluation as required.
He is required by statute to forward the complaint and he did.
The facts in the complaint were eventually verified by independant witnesses under oath.
Next
Your AT WILL EMPLOYEE opinion is one that by suggestion says," Grassely and the bipartisan Senator list don’t know the law." A law they wrote. A law where THEIR INTENT IS THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT.
That position is " obtuse." It assumes that the OFFICE OF IG is a sham and the Whistleblower statute is also.
Trump’s grounds thus far are precisely inadequate to comply with the statute. Read the letter! Grassley is not in the business of damaging Trump.
And the reason why the letter and what it requests is vital is plain. The OFFICE OF IG is created to do oversight for the executive and Congress. That intent is completely thwarted if an IG has the threat of a president who can say," I will obliterate you if you make a peep."
Surprise! It wasn’t a dictatorship, and won’t be, if elected officials do their job preventing it
Last edited:
V
VonDerTann
Guest
You keep referring to a statute.
Which one?
You claim to be a lawyer. This shouldn’t be hard.
My guess is some whistleblower statute. I mean the alleged statute making IGs not be at-will employees. Without that your position is just a vent.
Which one?
You claim to be a lawyer. This shouldn’t be hard.
My guess is some whistleblower statute. I mean the alleged statute making IGs not be at-will employees. Without that your position is just a vent.
Last edited:
M
Maximus1
Guest
You read Grassley’s letter! Why do I need to do your legal research. Reasonable people will believe the very bipartisan signatories to the letter WHO WROTE THIS VERY STATUTE. THEY WILL ASSUME BIPARTISAN WRITERS KNEW WHAT THEY WROTE, debated, had hearings on, and passed out of committee, then voted on as a body after debate.
I don’t have to play fetch for you in these circumstances.
I don’t have to play fetch for you in these circumstances.
V
VonDerTann
Guest
YOU need to “do the research” because you’re the one claiming some alleged “statute” is relevant, and, I think, also claiming this “statute” requires Trump give some reasons for his firing.
What statute? What does it say?
If there is none, just say so.
Sheesh, you claim to be a lawyer. Is this what you say when a judge asks you what statute you’re relying on?
What statute? What does it say?
If there is none, just say so.
Sheesh, you claim to be a lawyer. Is this what you say when a judge asks you what statute you’re relying on?
Last edited:
M
Maximus1
Guest
I cited the letter. You read it. You read the Senatorial interpretation of a statute they wrote. Stop wasting time on NONESENSE. Are you going to find parts of that statute that contradict the very men who wrote it? Please!
The President’s response, if any, will contain his position. That’s all that matters at this point. Then you will have both sides of the argument if Trump thinks the Senate wrong.
Next!
You are not a Judge. Not close. So your question is silly.
The President’s response, if any, will contain his position. That’s all that matters at this point. Then you will have both sides of the argument if Trump thinks the Senate wrong.
Next!
You are not a Judge. Not close. So your question is silly.
Last edited:
V
VonDerTann
Guest
If my question is so silly, edify lurkers by citing to the statute allegedly making the IGs not at-will employees.
Citing a statute ought not be hard for a lawyer.
Citing a statute ought not be hard for a lawyer.
M
Maximus1
Guest
It isn’t hard. I stated why it is unnecessary. I cited Grassley’s letter. He is the Committee Chairman. A RUBY RED REPUBLICAN. You can choose to ignore his letter. The many bipartisan Senatorial signatories can be ignored also. You are free to be wrong, I really am not focused on stopping you. My point has been made adequately for anyone else reading.
- Status