Well yeah, you will.....
What is wrong with these people??? Good lord.
What is wrong with these people??? Good lord.
"Hell no, I won't go!"
- Thread starter vraiblonde
- Start date
What is she going to do when the cancel user access and remote wipe her cell phone not to mention she has to eat / go the restroom at some point, she is going to be LOCKED OUT of her office
Well remember, I did say Devil's Advocate - if she's being fired, that's the way it works, and as the article says, like many in the government, she serves utterly at the pleasure of the President. There are MANY positions where the President can dismiss them for any reason.
But that said, if there are procedures and agreed upon laws that must be observed, it doesn't seem to ring legitimate, and I would hate to be the person on the side of ignoring protocol, especially the optics let alone lawsuits.
She ultimately will lose her job of course, but why do it that way?
Yeah .... I'm surprised no one has filed a lawsuit yet as the rule SUPPOSEDLY is 30 notice to Congress BEFORE firing any IG's
Even Congress Critters whining to lame stream media
Progressive Ideologues ... believe in THEIR Self Righteousness THEIR Moral Superiority
and she shows EXACTLY why she should NOT be in this JOB
So is it a rule or is it a law? Because if it's just a rule....pffft.
Exactly.
Don’t remember the Democrats whining so much when Hillary fired the entire travel staff in the White House. Nor when Obama cleaned out and replaced every position during his administration. Nor when he converted all the partisan positions to civil servant positions for his departure.
They don’t seem to follow rules when they’re in charge.
But the Republicans sure did. And it wasn't because they weren't allowed to do it. Everyone understood and was ok with it.
It was the public maligning of them - because of the poor optics, she decided it was necessary to make it look like they were fired for cause - that what they did was inferior.
Again - Devil's Advocate - he has every right to remove them. I don't know the circumstances precisely but it sounds like they just intended to frogmarch her out without warning. Most of the time, you can't even do that to the guy who sweeps the floor. Near as I can tell, she didn't object to being FIRED - only the manner in which it was done.
I’m good with Trump ignoring protocols, since Democrats do it so frequently so **** ‘em.
I'm actually in favor of him following protocols to the letter. Even if they do complain - they will look seriously stupid to anyone well informed.
I mean, since the debate with Joe - the antagonistic press is leaning harder on the Democrats, because their shrill shrieking is just not going to work anymore. You can't just keep repeating racist or stupid arguments and expect people to listen. Mainstream media is realizing, supporting seriously stupid Dem arguments is losing viewers.
If they do everything by the book - sooner or later, a limping network is going to have the balls to say, I'm sorry sir, but doesn't the President have the right to do that? Didn't he do that exactly as the rules are written? Are you really going to cry racist when a white person was fired?
Clem72
Well-Known Member
I more or less agree, but I can also see why giving 30 days notice to someone who might feel justified to throw a bunch of clogs in the gears might be a bad idea.
Grumpy
Well-Known Member
Isn't it standard for the higher-ups in an org to be escorted out of the building immediately if they are fired or laid off?? Thats what I have seen over the years working.
It is the law that "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."
Seems stupid and a separation of powers issue, but then again a lot of laws are like that.
LightRoasted
If I may ...
For your consideration ...
Perhaps for regular, as a whole, government employees, GS-1 and up, but this woman was a top level presidential appointee. Trump had every right, as the President and executive to fire and replace her at his sole discretion.
Perhaps for regular, as a whole, government employees, GS-1 and up, but this woman was a top level presidential appointee. Trump had every right, as the President and executive to fire and replace her at his sole discretion.
Congressional ' oversight ' or really a way of interfering in the Executive - appointing IG's to monkey with Executive Actions
I'd think a presidential appointee's term would end when the President's does. I honestly thought that's the way it works, appointees are done and can either be reappointed or cut loose.
black dog
Free America
The bitch found out she was an "At Will" employee.
As far as the Times can tell, all these far-left, fired appointees —many, like Ms. Fong, even appointed by Republican presidents, but still— they all seem to be leaning toward taking the “L” too. None so far have filed a single lawsuit. It turns out that, despite the Democrats’ howls of protest, the legal limits on presidential hiring and firing might not be quite so constitutional after all, and they know it:
How about that? Now the Times tells us there are serious questions over whether Congress can limit a president’s power to fire his own employees.
Hamlet once asked, to sue or not to sue, that is the question. (It was in an earlier draft of the play.) That is the question confounding the Democrats right now. They just don’t seem to have any ideas. In fact, many of the article’s comments were white-hot with fury since the Times only presented the problem, not any solution.
Astonishingly, none of the Times’ “legal experts” quoted in the article offered any possible strategy to counter the President’s maneuver. Not one. That’s partly why I called Trump’s plan “brilliant,” since there are no clear countermoves. It’s also why I called the Resisters cowards, because, at least so far, they’ve refused the risks of lawfare, too chicken to stand up for their principles in a fair fight.
The Deep State’s usual tactics—delay and sabotage—aren’t effective against this mass-firing strategy. Bureaucratic slow-walking and procedural hurdles are great for stalling policies, but they don’t work, can’t work, when an agency’s entire leadership has been physically removed by security. Bye, Felicia.
☕️ FROZEN ☙ Thursday, January 30, 2025 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
The terrible or terrific (depending on your point of view) brilliance of Trump's mass-firing plan begins to emerge from the fog of war. The Democrats are realizing they are playing major catch-up.
www.coffeeandcovid.com