Trump Fires Intelligence Community Inspector General Who Informed Congress Of The Ukraine Whistleblower Complaint

President Donald Trump has fired the CIA Inspector General who was responsible for informing Congress of the whistleblower complaint on the Ukraine scandal. Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson will leave his job in 30 days and, in the interim, will be on interim leave. No successor has been named. I previously stated that I believe Atkinson was wrong in his interpretation of the law (as later found by the Justice Department). However, I believe that this is a mistake and undermines the system of whistleblower protections as well as the Inspector General system. Without a specific basis for the action, it appears retaliatory and it is certainly unnecessary. As noted below, there could be a legitimate concern over the interpretation of this law in the future if Atkinson was defying the Justice Department’s conclusions. Yet, that was not cited as the basis for the termination.

I have long resented how administrations often wait until Friday night to bury stories that they do not want to be covered. That was the case with Atkinson’s firing. On Friday night, President Trump informed Congress: “As is the case with regard to other positions where I, as President, have the power of appointment … it is vital that I have the fullest confidence in the appointees serving as inspectors general. That is no longer the case with regard to this Inspector General.”

When Trump removed figures like Alexander Vindman after the impeachment, I thought it was gratuitous and unnecessary (he was leaving within the month). However, I could understand working with Vindman would be difficult. This is different.

Atkinson was wrong in his interpretation of the complaint failing within the statutory scheme for reporting to Congress. While the inspector general concluded that this allegation fell within the whistleblower law, the Justice Department has a good faith basis to reject his interpretation. That law is intended to address mismanagement, waste, abuse or a danger to public safety by intelligence officials. The president is the ultimate intelligence authority, and there is little support to argue that a discussion between world leaders should be viewed as a subject of this law. After all, any intelligence official could claim that a president undermined national interests in discussions with another world leader. Trump has been denounced, perhaps correctly, for disclosing classified information to foreign figures, but he has total authority to declassify information for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all.

I believe that Atkinson should have yielded to the legal judgment of the Justice Department on the interpretation of this law. I further believe that Trump had a legitimate complaint about the use of the law to cover such high-level communications. Yet, this was obviously a matter of good-faith disagreement. I understood the bind that Atkinson felt in deciding whether to report the complaint to Congress. He decided to err on the side of transparency, which is generally a good predisposition for any government official. Moreover, whatever mistake was made on the legal interpretation, it does not warrant this action. Atkinson did what he honestly thought was right for the country and I have seen nothing to suggest a political or vindictive motive.

Moreover, Atkinson’s firing undermines the independence of the Inspector General’s office and its key function in our system. It is also damaging to President Trump. Rather than take the high road and move his Administration beyond the scandal, Trump will appear as vindictive and retaliatory. To take the action in the middle of a pandemic also makes the President look petty and distracted.

What concerns me the most is that there was no reason given for firing Atkinson other than a “loss of confidence.” No one questions the right of a president to fire high-ranking officials on that basis, but it seems to reaffirm that this is being done in retaliation for his decision that he had to inform Congress of the complaint. The position of the White House would be stronger if the Inspector General was asserting that he would continue to report such complaints to Congress on calls with heads of State. Such a position would defy the legal interpretation of the Justice Department, which historically is given deference on the meaning of federal law. There was no indication that Atkinson had indicated that he would defy that interpretation. If he did, the Administration should make that position clear.

Atkinson was widely respected and was appointed by Trump to this position after a distinguished governmental career.

Tom Monheim, a career intelligence professional, will be named acting inspector general for the intelligence community. It is vital that President Trump fill this position as soon as possible.

401 thoughts on “Trump Fires Intelligence Community Inspector General Who Informed Congress Of The Ukraine Whistleblower Complaint”

  1. Sunday’s Press Briefing:

    Trump Had Government Stockpile Unproven Drug.  Fauci Not Allowed To Answer

    Specifically, one that Trump has been touting for weeks, saying he has a good feeling about it.

    “We bought massive amounts of it, 29 million doses of it,” Trump said of hydroxychloroquine, an anti-malaria drug. The Trump administration approved its use for clinical trials in New York, despite there being no scientific consensus at this time that it works and health experts having concerns about heart and vision risks.

    When NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell asked Trump how he draws a line between being enthusiastic about a possibility and “playing doctor,” Trump explained his logic this way: “If it doesn’t work, great. If it doesn’t work … it doesn’t kill people.”

    When CNN’s Jeremy Diamond asked Trump why he doesn’t just let the clinical trials play out and let science determine whether the drug works, Trump claimed he wasn’t pushing the drug (even though he has, near daily) and attacked the reporter for asking the question.

    When a reporter asked Fauci to comment on this, Trump intervened and wouldn’t let Fauci speak.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/05/sunday-white-house-coronaivirus-takeaways/
    …………………………………………………………..

    This WaPo link features the exchange described in text. Trump literally steps in to prevent Dr. Fauci from responding to a question regarding the wisdom of stockpiling unproven drugs.

  2. Paul,

    Regarding Common Law Being Adopted in Arizona

    ARS 1-201. Adoption of common law; exceptions

    The common law only so far as it is consistent with and adapted to the natural and physical conditions of this state and the necessities of the people thereof, and not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States or the constitution or laws of this state, or established customs of the people of this state, is adopted and shall be the rule of decision in all courts of this state.

    Arizona is a common law state. Other states also have similar statutory provisions. New York used to have it in its constitution and may still.

    1. Young – there is a qualifier in there. only so far as it is consistent. At best, you could say that Arizona is a limited common law state.

      1. Yeah, nobody says that. The bulk of the common law has been incorporated into the laws of Arizona. The requirement of consistency with the constitution is to block things like cruel and unusual punishment or the penalty for suicide, having a stake driven through your heart and being buried at a crossroads. Most of it deals with civil law and is still valid. I have used it more than a few times in other states. The important distinction that you are missing altogether is the common law process in which courts grow the law by their decisions and precedents are law even in the absence of statutes. That is not the case in civil law countries like Europe and Latin America. Of the two great legal systems in the Western world, Civil Law and common law, Arizona has adopted the common law system.

      2. You also overlooked the ‘rule of decision’. Whatever else you may object to about a part of the common law, if you appear in court the case will be decided according to the procedures of the common law. That is important. “the rule of decision in all courts of the state.” I recall that California’s common law statute adopts the same phrase.

  3. When you serve at the pleasure of the president it is stupid to displease him.

    The rest of the snakes still in government can now see he is not reluctant to do something about it.

    Quite possibly the best president sinceWashington.

  4. This is the guy who changed the criteria from no “third hand info” to “OK for third hand info” in the whistleblower guidelines…on his OWN with NO ONE’s permission. Goodbye you sorry a-hole. Nice try.

  5. BRILLIANT HEGEMON
    __________________

    China executed a preemptive “first strike” attack commencing and concluding World War III while sustaining no imperative “second strike” retaliation.

    China deployed a biological munition similar to a neutron bomb which kills and injures living entities but does not touch or affect equipment or structures.

    After self-administering “acceptable losses,” China is now forcing its people and military to make a hard turn into its rapid-recovery mode as China transitions into a ruthless, brutal, dictatorial and global, communist hegemon.

    The U.S. economy has been destroyed.

    The U.S. military has been infected by the “Wuhan Flu,” and the impotent remnants repurposed into civilian first-response and healthcare provision.

    The U.S. will succumb and surrender rather than respond as the “Hammer of God” seeking instantaneous recompense, severe atonement and mortal reckoning.

    1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-three citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after seventy weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – you won’t understand the Japanese criminal legal system until you play Ace Attorney.

      1. What a wanker you are PCS. The same complaint for more than a year now?

        Childish fock you are, PCS — a fool on steroids.

          1. You think everyone is Diane, DSS.

            You are unmoored from reality, DSS. Over time your contributions have become nothing but spittle against a ghost of your own making.

            You are pathetic.

  6. bythebook, @ Washington State University in the pre-law options it is difficult to avoid taking Phil 470, Philosophy of Law. I suppose for many it is just a requirement and forgotten as soon as possible after acceptance into a law school. Some will take it seriously and do their part to attempt to improve the justice system.

    🎓

    1. Hopefully so, but I have perused the curriculum at a couple of top 40 law schools and asked students and a couple of professors. They weren’t encouraging.

      1. No, they wouldn’t be encouraging. I explained below that those studies are irrelevant to most of law and, frankly, boring. I don’t know of any law school that actually looks for applicants who have taken these useless courses. Not sure why what’s his name keeps citing them.

    1. Alas, law school is mostly trade school. Given the importance of the law and it’s philosophical underpinnings that’s too bad, but explains the shallow thinking of too many of our officers of the court.

  7. Meanwhile. speaking of Trump firing people for not kissing his a.s, it cost Captain Crozier of the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt his job.

    March 2:

    “WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper has urged American military commanders overseas not to make any decisions related to the coronavirus that might surprise the White House or run afoul of President Trump’s messaging on the growing health challenge, American officials said.

    Mr. Esper’s directive, delivered last week during a video teleconference call with combatant commanders around the world, is the latest iteration of Mr. Trump’s efforts to manage public fears over the disease, even as it continues to spread around the world…”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/02/us/politics/esper-trump-military-coronavirus.html

    Crozier wrote a recommended course of action to his superiors which asked that his crew be temporarily quarantined and it was leaked. Here’s the letter:

    https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Exclusive-Captain-of-aircraft-carrier-with-15167883.php#

    Continued below:

    1. He was fired by acting Sec of the Navy Modly.

      “Modly told one colleague Wednesday, the day before he announced the move: “Breaking news: Trump wants him fired.”

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/04/trump-wants-him-fired-inside-ouster-capt-brett-crozier/

      Trump publicly blasted Crozier Saturday:

      “”The letter was a five-page letter from a captain, and the letter was all over the place,” Trump said. “That’s not appropriate.”

      “I thought it was terrible, what he did, to write a letter. I mean, this isn’t a class on literature. This is a captain of a massive ship that’s nuclear powered. And he shouldn’t be talking that way in a letter,” Trump said.

      The president also criticized Crozier for making a port call in Da Nang, Vietnam, in the midst of a global outbreak.

      “Perhaps you don’t do that in the middle of a pandemic,” Trump said. “History would say you don’t necessarily stop and let your sailors get off.”

      Defense officials have defended the Roosevelt’s port call as reasonable decision to have made back in early February.

      “At that time there were only 16 positive cases in Vietnam, and those were well to the north all isolated in Hanoi,” Adm. Michael Gilday, the chief of naval operations, said in a March 24 press briefing, calling it “a very risk-informed decision” made by Admiral Philip Davidson, the head of Indo-Pacific.”

      https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/04/trump-brett-crozier-letter-165020

      See below

        1. I wonder how they got infected. Did they get infected on shore leave in the midst of the Coronavirus outbreak? If so it makes one question the Commander’s judgement. This was not just any ship. This was a nuclear warship.

          1. Maybe they got infected because your dear leader and his stooge sycophants were saying everything’s OK for so long.

            Maybe, like you, they held a burning branch for too long.

            1. Arlene is back. Trump is the one that did the Chinese Travel Ban while you were picking your nose at the Chinese lunar new years festival spreading Covid to everyone else because Pelosi and the Democratic health commissioner of NYC told you it was a good idea. They were stupid. You followed their advice. What does that make you.

      1. His firing had nothing to do with the President. His firing was because as a Commander of a nuclear ship he is supposed to handle things in a more appropriate way. We don’t need people that go off half cocked commanding our nuclear weapons.

        1. Allan, Agree absolutely. Imagine this Nervous Nellie twisting his pearls if he commanded the Yorktown at Coral Sea or Midway. Disgraceful conduct for any ship’s captain.

          1. Young, you’re unable to respond to even the simplest questions about statements you regurgitate here from your leader. Grow a pair and we can discuss events. Until then, your Kelly Anne without the bleached doo.

          2. Young, you think sailors with the virus are capable of manning guns?
            Guess again. Even for patients who can tough it out, this virus can keep a person in bed for up to 10 days.

            1. Not many guns on a carrier but you wouldn’t know that. The Yorktown kept fighting at Coral Sea with many sailors killed or wounded and again at Midway. It is truly unfortunate that generations of soy boys and pajama boys being raised today don’t know or appreciate any of that.

        2. “WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper has urged American military commanders overseas not to make any decisions related to the coronavirus that might surprise the White House or run afoul of President Trump’s messaging on the growing health challenge, American officials said.

          Mr. Esper’s directive, delivered last week during a video teleconference call with combatant commanders around the world, is the latest iteration of Mr. Trump’s efforts to manage public fears over the disease, even as it continues to spread around the world…”

          https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/02/us/politics/esper-trump-military-coronavirus.html

          “Modly told one colleague Wednesday, the day before he announced the move: “Breaking news: Trump wants him fired.”

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/04/trump-wants-him-fired-inside-ouster-capt-brett-crozier/

          NYTs. WaPo, vs Trump. Easy call on who is the confirmed liar and who has a reputation they have to maintain to still be delivered to world decision makers every day.

          1. This is the second time you posted this. Mark Esper’s words weren’t quoted because the news venues you prefer are FOS. They wanted something different then what he said so they rewrote the comment they wanted. You were dumb enough to believe it.

    2. Regarding Above:

      Esper’s message to commanders is: ‘Don’t say anything that might embarrass Trump’.

      1. Trump More Than Likely Had Crozier Relieved

        “At his briefing on Saturday, Mr. Trump likewise endorsed the firing of Capt. Brett E. Crozier of the Navy, who was removed from command of the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt after sending his superiors a letter pleading for help for his virus-stricken crew. “He shouldn’t be talking that way in a letter,” the president said. “I thought it was terrible what he did.”

        Edited from: Trump Proceeds With Post-Impeachment Purge”

        Today’s New York Times
        …………………………………………….

        Trump thought Captain Crozier’s letter was “terrible”, leaving no doubt why Crozier was relieved.

        1. “Trump More Than Likely Had Crozier Relieved”

          That is a lie. I endorse relieving Crozier of that command but I had nothing to do with it.

          Why do you lie so much?

          1. Why do they lie so much? I have wondered the same and believe some are paid to do it. They certainly have no shame or honesty.

    3. I Guess that means that you don’t know the difference between what is said and what is reported said. Take note Esper wasn’t quoted because his words didn’t say what the NYTImes wanted to report. Pure fraud.

      It is easier to quote in context then it is to lie as the NYTimes just did but then they would loose the readership of the loons.

  8. As Pandemic Sinks Us To Year Zero..

    Trumpers Remain Frozen In Neverland 

    Yesterday’s discussion, here on this thread, was highly revealing with regards to the mindset of Trumpers.  Apparently this global pandemic has had no effect on their worldview.  The news that Donald Trump has fired Inspector General Atkinson elicits malicious glee.  Trumpers hope this move harkens a wider purge of so-called ‘deep state’ elements.  

    Today, on the Sunday morning shows, a consensus emerged that corresponds with numerous stories in mainstream media.  The narrative goes like this: ‘Trump’s wrecking ball approach to government created a disorganized power structure where loyalty to Trump was valued over professional expertise’.  

    For 3 years Donald Trump has waged a relentless war on Science and fact-based arguments.  Most notably Trump denies Climate Change, which is overwhelmingly recognized by the world’s scientific community.  In denying Climate Change, Trump has doubled-down on a national ‘ ‘strategy’ of dirty fuels while politicizing the EPA.  

    Clean Air & Water standards are actually being compromised merely for the purpose of dismantling Obama’s legacy.  That’s how dumb it gets; the ‘politics of spite’ has been the hallmark of Donald Trump’s presidency.  In this pursuit, Trump has staffed the upper echelons of government with ‘Acting Directors’ who understand their first priority is allegiance to Donald Trump.

    Trump’s only legislative achievement was the 2017 tax-cutting bill that is essentially a kickback to billionaire campaign donors.  Never was a piece of legislation so perverse and inappropriate.  As a result of those tax cuts, 2 years of robust economic expansion were squandered.  A period that could have been used to pay down the national debt was used instead to pile on additional debt.

    During these past 2 weeks our economy has lost as many jobs as were lost during the entire Great Recession; a revelation that staggers the mind.  Amid this carnage the administration hinted it might open the Obamacare enrollment exchanges to accommodate those losing employer-based healthcare plans.  But then, late in the week, Trump said ‘no’ to that idea.  Instead the administration has a less than half baked plan to use money from the $2 trillion stimulus package to compensate hospitals for uninsured patients.

    In light of the confusion and paralysis we have seen from this administration, it is shocking that Turley’s Trumpers remain in the pre-virus age where purging ‘Deep State’ was an urgent priority.  Yesterday’s discussion garnered numerous comments to the effect that Trump needs to decentralize the government and continue weeding out the real professionals.  The ‘idea’ seems to be that only political hacks can save the country at this point!

    It’s hard to fathom what ‘movement’ Trumpers seek to preserve amid this earthquake of a crisis.  In no fact-based journal could Trump’s presidency be considered positive at this juncture.  But Trumpers, like Trump himself, dwell in a fact-free neverland.  That is the reason this crisis enveloped us so completely: ‘Trump inhabits a fact-free neverland’.

    For 3 years pundits have referred to the alarmingly close relationship between Donald Trump and Fox News.  The term ‘feedback loop’ has been used to describe the dynamics.  Trump’s reacts to Fox News while Fox News follows Trump’s lead.  These dynamics led to a cycle of denial by this administration in the first 2 months of pandemic, a now-sqaundered window of time.

    Currently Fox News faces a public interest lawsuit brought by a coalition of journalists. They accuse Fox New of quite literally misleading the American people In the run-up to this pandemic.  The filing of this suit has been curiously under-reported by mainstream media.  Conservatives will, no doubt, dismiss this suit as another ‘Deep State’ attack.  Yet the Murdoch family, owners of Fox News, are reportedly taking this suit very seriously.  The Murdochs recognize, and rightly so, that any civil trial, regarding these accusations, could be devastating to Fox.

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news-moguls-rupert-and-lachlan-murdoch-stockpile-attorneys-against-coronavirus-lawsuits?source=facebook&via=desktop

    1. No glee in his firing unless you consider approval of doing the right thing glee. We should have more glee and a whole bunch of people involved in the Russia Hoax, the Ukraine Hoax and all the other hoaxes in jail. That too wouldn’t be glee just the satisfaction of knowing that the law has meaning and the right thing was done.

      1. Alan, the idea that purging Trump’s enemies has any importance now demonstrates a time-warp mentality. Purge for ‘what reason’?? Trump’s approval is about to fall off a cliff as the full impact of this crisis sets in.

        1. You have a warped sense of what enemies are. The man deserved to be fired. He didn’t do his job the way it is supposed to be done.

          I think you objected to Comey being fired as well. He too deserved to be fired and actually deserves to be in jail.

          1. Allan – like all the other Trumpsters here – can’t articulate what Atkinson did wrong, other than not kissing Trump’s butt by covering up his extortion attempt.

            1. It’s been explained multiple times on these threads. You elect to ignore that. (Which is shrew Natacha’s MO as well).

              1. You’re full of …. and you know it. You’ve got nothing or you’d be beating me up with it. It’s not like you can’t type 8 paragraphs at the drop of the hat.

            2. You ran away from the answer provided several times. That is usual for you. Now, once again you want someone to rewrite the answer so you can run away again? That’s laughable. Additionally despite the lie provided by you above “covering up his extortion attempt.” there was no quid pro quo and you ran away from that as well.

              Everyone has a good vision of your back fading into the distance.

              1. Even if there had been a quid pro quo, nothing in the conversation suggested extortion or impropriety of any kind.

                1. DSS, of course you are right but I was trying to keep it easy for Anon. He has problems dealing with facts. He can’t even remember the answers provided to him and repeated over and over again

                2. TIA, the Conversation certainly did “suggest” extortion and the actions of the administration which followed confirmed it.

                  Everything of significance that the WB revealed was confirmed in the House hearings. That is a fact.

          2. Allan, considering the volume of Seth’s output and the consistent distortions it is getting easier to believe he is a paid hack. I have stopped responding to his rubbish. He wants to keep it churning.

            1. Young, who should we listen to? Alan? He’s a character from “Dr Strangelove”. None of the Trumpers on this blog recognize the depths of the crisis we’re in. Trump’s popularity is going to CRASH in weeks to come.

              1. Paint Chips while you were cursing Trump out for banning the Chinese travellers Trump was busy saving lives.

              1. Allan,

                That’s for sure. They should demand a refund but the money has probably been wasted on pizza to feed the cubby hole inhabitant.

          3. Allan, I expect these screwballs and their dishonest statements will appear in greater volume on this and other sites as we get closer to the election. It is astroturfing.

            1. So what brings you here, Young, beyond your pretentious ‘common law of Arizona’ discussion with PCS?

              Greasing the skids, I suspect — a claim of civil discourse while doing all to denigrate, as most of your recent contributions show.

                1. Naw, PCS. Just pointing out the baton passing between you and Young.

                  You’ve always been a fool, PCS. But your self-deprecation in the ‘common law of Arizona’ comments with Young is unlike you, and presents a new low for yourself.

                  1. R. Lien – to the best of my knowledge Arizona does not recognize the common law. Can you prove different?

                    1. I believe Young already has shown that Arizona recognizes common law.

                      I think you know that, given that you acquiced to his case law arguments in the pretentious dialog you both presented.

                      This argument was between you two. I’m just noting the fact that your dialog seems to be a pretension — a grasp towards validity that denies your hubris.

                      You are a fool. PCS.

              1. Lien, did you know your last name is the same as a legal term for an encumbrance on property to secure a debt?

                1. It’s not like we have a shortage of pretentious poseurs here who are so stupid they believe whatever Trump dishes out to them and ask for more. Welcome aboard Young, but you’ll have to get in line, That spot’s taken.

                  1. Yes, I agree,.

                    I scanned through your posts trying to find something interesting about you.

                    The only intersting thing I could find about you was that your last name is also a legal expression.

                    You really couldn’t see that coming? I was waiting for your response so I could reveal that.

                    1. You ‘scanned’ through a meager field then, I pray my time here hasn’t cost you any detriment.

                      Revel what you want, you wanton fool — so my surname is the same word to a claim on property — so what?

                      What a fool you are.

  9. OT

    Where are the global “ambulance chasers” madly pursuing the world’s first multi-trillion dollar judgement?

    Pacific Gas & Electric was sued for $30 billion and into bankruptcy for starting a fire which caused numerous deaths and extensive damage.

    China must be sued into “junk” status and insolvency for dereliction and negligence in its irrefutable generation of a pandemic which caused huge numbers of deaths and massive economic damage worldwide.

    1. George – a class action suit has been filed against China, the CCP, etc. According to my sister who was involved in a suit against China, it has to be translated into Mandarin, certified and then served in China on the right agencies.

      1. China, in fact and in the absence of enforcement, continues to maliciously disregard the health and well-being of all other nations and populations throughout the world. China must provide recompense for damage and death, and corrective action to terminate its behaviors, witting or unwitting, which cause pandemics.

        1. For its corruption, subservience to China and crimes against humanity, the W H O must be dissolved, annihilated and replaced by a public health version of the “Five Eyes” – the Five Eyes Intelligence Oversight and Review Council (FIORC) – as reconstituted by President Trump and extirpated with extreme prejudice of its Obama “holdovers.”

    2. 1918 “Spanish Flu” was the first “Wuhan Flu.”

      https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/1/140123-spanish-flu-1918-china-origins-pandemic-science-health/

      Sealed Railcars

      At the time of the outbreak, British and French officials were forming the Chinese Labor Corps, which eventually shipped some 94,000 laborers from northern China to southern England and France during the war. “The idea was to free up soldiers to head to the front at a time when they were desperate for manpower,” Humphries says. Shipping the laborers around Africa was too time-consuming and tied up too much shipping, so British officials turned to shipping the laborers to Vancouver on the Canadian West Coast and sending them by train to Halifax on the East Coast, from which they could be sent to Europe. So desperate was the need for labor that on March 2, 1918, a ship loaded with 1,899 Chinese Labor Corps men left the Chinese port of Wehaiwei for Vancouver despite “plague” stopping the recruiting for workers there. In reaction to anti-Chinese feelings rife in western Canada at the time, the trains that carried the workers from Vancouver were sealed, Humphries says. Special Railway Service Guards watched the laborers, who were kept in camps surrounded by barbed wire. Newspapers were banned from reporting on their movement. Roughly 3,000 of the workers ended up in medical quarantine, their illnesses often blamed on their “lazy” natures by Canadian doctors, Humphries said: “They had very stereotypical, racist views of the Chinese.” Doctors treated sore throats with castor oil and sent the Chinese back to their camps. The Chinese laborers arrived in southern England by January 1918 and were sent to France, where the Chinese Hospital at Noyelles-sur-Mer recorded hundreds of their deaths from respiratory illness. Historians have suggested that the Spanish influenza mutated and became most deadly in spring 1918, spreading from Europe to ports as far apart as Boston and Freetown, Sierra Leone. By the height of the global pandemic that autumn, however, no more such cases were reported among the Chinese laborers in Europe.

    1. Please tell us why he deserved to be fired for doing his job. No one else here is able to, unless by doing his job you mean kissing Trump butt.

      1. He badly mishandled his job and the President lost confidence. The details have been written over and over again. You don’t think the details represent a mishandling of the Job but Trump does and he is President. Story over.

        1. More empty zombie BS. Anybody with a brain out there who wants to state what accusations from the WB were false or what the IG did that was wrong?

  10. ‪The process for removal of persons serving throughout the federal government is impeachment, which is vested in the House of Representatives, followed by removal, which is vested in the Senate, the president can only recommend a persons removal to congress for their consideration as directed by Article 2 Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States.

    The President cannot appoint or remove anyone, the Senate must appoint and remove by the concurrence of a 2/3 majority consensus of the Senators present. The President only nominates, which is a recommendation for appointment, or recommend for removal which has to have the concurrence of the House of Representatives by proportional majority consensus of the States before removal is considered by the Senate.

    Try as you might to misconstrue the legislative process of the States as a Confederation as they are assembled in the Senate, but the Constitution is clear that it is the States assembled as the Union which have the power of appointment and removal of all persons serving in the executive and judicial departments of their government, not the President, and defiantly not the Parties!

    1. Article 2,Section. 3:

      “He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.”

      Where does it say that the President can not remove anyone without 2/3 concurrence of the Senate? It doesn’t. Not even close.

      1. It takes the advice and consent of the senate to appoint, the president cannot defy that advice and consent and remove, especially since the House has sole authority to impeach, not the president.

        No one works for the President, everyone works for the United States, and it’s the united States, in congress assembled which make all the decisions of the United States.

        We can do this all day and it will still amount to the same, the States as the Union are the established government authority, not the president, and definitely not the patties.

          1. Is that the best you can do? Delusions take on many forms, and it seems like you are affected by all of them.

        1. Of course it takes the advice and consent of the Senate to APPOINT because the Constitution explicitly says so.

          Impeachment is NOT the equivalent of getting fired…not even close. It’s a trial in the Senate for some form of malfeasance that then bars the person from holding office. Not even close.

          The Congress doesn’t “make all the decisions.” They are specifically granted limited powers to legislate, tax, spend, declare war, approve principle officers and judges, etc. They do not have the powers that are specifically delegated to the executive and judicial branches. They DO NOT make ALL decisions. That is explicitly clear in the Constitution. Does the Congress make the decision about pardons? Obviously not.

          1. I’m sitting here laughing at you trying to make sense out of our totally destabilized government. I’ll answer your last question first, yes congress does have authority over decisions regarding pardons, it’s called impeachment! If the States as the Union are not happy with what the President is doing, they remove the President, problem solved.

            Congress is the decision making assembly of the States and the States make all the collective decisions of their union through legislative processes which are explicitly specified by assembly of the States, distribution of suffrage among the States to reach majority consensus, and what constitutes a majority consensus for all manner of decisions to be made by, the united States, in congress assembled. Powers granted to the united States, in congress assembled, by Article 1 Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which literally means the assembly of the united States, and where are they assembled, in Congress as established in Article 1 Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States.

            That makes all legislative powers, decision making powers and all legislative processes, decision making processes which have strict protocols for assembly, quorum to operate, distribution of suffrage to reach majority consensus, and what constitutes a majority consensus.

            Yes, I repeated myself because once is not enough for you geniuses!

            To better understand the decision making assembly of the States which is congress and the decision making processes of congress, I would suggest you refer to the Articles of Confederation, which are still in effect, amended by the addition of a republican form of government, but still in effect as the form of government exercised in the Senate which governs treaties and appointments.

            Stop believing what you are told and taught by those that have an interest in how our government functions to execute their agendas! The Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution are readily available for you to study for yourself!

          2. I hesitated to respond to your comment because I’m sure that you believe you know what you wrote, but you have everything upside down. Congress doesn’t have limited powers to legislate, Congress is vested with “All” legislative powers by Article 1 Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States.

            Article. I. Section. 1.

            All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

            Congress was empowered as a legislative assembly by Article 2 of the Articles of Confederation, and specific protocols were established to govern the legislative process used to make “All” the decisions of the States as the Union.

            The Constitution and the Articles of Confederation before it only assemble Congress as a legislative body, and all other aspects of government are defined and assembled through legislative processes.

            Do yourself a favor and read the Articles of Confederation which establishes the united States, in congress assembled, as the established government authority and empowers Congress as a legislative assembly to make all the decisions of the States as the Union.

            By the way, it doesn’t matter how congress is assembled, unicameral or bicameral, it is still a Congress, an assembly of the States as the Union.

      2. I haven’t figured out if this person is a bot or a palaeolibertarian crank to the nth degree.

        1. Neither, I’m someone who can actually read and comprehend the constitution! You might try it yourself!

    2. No it is not. The only people subject to impeachment are “Civil Officers of the United States”. Employees of the Executive Branch serve at the pleasure of the President.
      Only specific officers require Congressional (Senate) consent.

      1. Find that in the constitution! No one serves at the pleasure of the President, absolutely no one! Everyone serves at the pleasure of the united States, in congress assembled, the Union, the Union which makes our country the United States of America!

        1. Maybe you should just learn to read and read my post. What part of specific officers do you not understand?
          Other than those specifically designated (by the Constitution or Congress) all other Executive Branch employees are just that, subordinates of the Executive.
          Since the sole Executive power resides in the President, Q.E.D.

    3. Impeachment is punitive action for “Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

      Firing and “termination for cause” is executive management.

      The Senate provides Advice and Consent regarding appointments.

      The Senate may not usurp the power of the executive branch.

      The Senate may not provide Advice and Consent for execution of duties or management including firings and terminations for cause.

      The power to fire an officer rests with the president by omission in Section 2 and by Section 1 which directly vests “executive” or management power in the president and by omission in Article 2.

      The author preposterously posits that vested executive power may not be exercised and management may not occur. In fact, it is the duty of the president to execute and manage, and the president is required to swear and affirm that, “I will faithfully execute the Office of President…”
      _________________

      “Termination for cause is serious business. Employers and employees have many reasons for parting ways, but employment termination for cause is not a desirable outcome—for either the employer or the employee. Termination for cause generally occurs when an employee makes a severe error in actions or judgment.”

      – Susan M. Heathfield
      __________________

      Section 1.

      The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
      __________________________________________________________________

      Article 2, Section 2

      He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
      __________________________________________________________________________________________

      execute

      verb

      ex·​e·​cute | \ ˈek-si-ˌkyüt
      \
      executed; executing
      Definition of execute

      transitive verb
      1 : to carry out fully : put completely into effect execute a command
      2 : to do what is provided or required by execute a decree
      3 : to put to death especially in compliance with a legal sentence
      4 : to make or produce (something, such as a work of art) especially by carrying out a design
      5 : to perform what is required to give validity to execute a deed

      – Merriam Webster
      _______________

      You Sir, prevaricate, strain credulity, have been conclusively impeached and retain no credibility.

      Sergeant at Arms, please remove this charlatan from the court.

      1. Don’t just copy the constitution, try actually reading it!

        I was going to just ignore you, but your delusion is too irresistible to ignore!

        Do yourself a favor and read the Articles of Confederation, and yes I can tell that you have never read the Articles of Confederation, if you had you wouldn’t be prattling on with all this nonsense you believe is the proper interpretation of the Constitution.

        When you get finished let me know what the united States, in congress assembled, is and what role it plays in our federal government!

        I already know you are too arrogant to actually read the Articles of Confederation, so save your ignorant rebuttal for someone who believes your BS.

  11. It’s tough being an alligator in a draining swamp. Anybody who thinks this guy acted in good faith doesn’t know the story.

Leave a Reply