Live data from Hacker News

USDA Inspector General Who Refused to Leave Escorted from Office by Security

gizmodo.com

21–30 of 57 posts

Re: USDA Inspector General Who Refused to Leave Escorted from Office by Security

#21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> who’s going to enforce it? This is the real danger of where we’re at right now. We are currently at a point where the President has a stacked Supreme Court that had already showed they’re willing to take his side almost no matter what. There is now effectively no check against the executive branch because of that. Papers are already running stories about how Congress is just letting him loose, with these Inspectors…

> with these Inspectors General firings as a prime example of how Congress has just thrown their hands up without even a fight From what I can tell, the IGs do serve at the pleasure of the President. The only thing he didn’t do is notify the Congress. Is that true?

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11546

"The removal procedure for presidentially appointed IGs is found in Title 5, Section 403(b), which reads in part 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 substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress (including the appropriate congressional committees), 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."

Re: USDA Inspector General Who Refused to Leave Escorted from Office by Security

#22
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the courts essentially powerless to enforce? If memory serves, the judicial branch merely interprets the law and Constitution, but they lack an enforcement mechanism - it is up to the Executive Branch (the president) to administer and enforce the law. If they decide they don't feel like listening to the courts, it's unclear anybody could actually do anything. (Other than impeachmen…

Congress actually has it's own (small) police force, the sergeant at arms. It's a power they basically never use, but they can technically arrest someone for not complying with a congressional order/subpoena. But then if they did decide to arrest Trump or others for compliance that'd pit the Sargent at arms directly against the secret services.

Good point! It's always fascinating when the sergeant at arms is actually employed since it's so seldom used. I'm sure Congress wouldn't go down that path with Trump for many many reasons, but perhaps it could be used against lower-level minions in extreme situations. Probably not, but fascinating to consider :)

Re: USDA Inspector General Who Refused to Leave Escorted from Office by Security

#23

> Phyllis Fong was heading up an investigation into Elon Musk's Neuralink. > Last Friday, President Donald Trump purged several agencies of their inspectors general, demanding that at least 17 people in the role immediately turn in their work laptops and ID badges. One of those IGs, Phyllis Fong at the US Department of Agriculture, decided not to leave, believing the order to be illegal. According to a report from Re…

> even if it was ruled illegal, who’s going to enforce it The court that ruled it such. She would not only be entitled to back pay, anything her replacement does wouldn’t have legal force. That means anything they do can be challenged by anyone who doesn’t like it. We’re seeing the limits of Congressional checks on the executive. But we still have an independent judiciary. (If that collapses it will be a good time to…

Eh... When was not a good time to be a billionaire in USA? You mean like now? Is it not a good time now?

Re: USDA Inspector General Who Refused to Leave Escorted from Office by Security

#24
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love the use of the word purge here, makes me think of Stalin.

[flagged]

People should be very careful with words and comparisons. Stalin's purges resulted in assassinations numbering in the millions. Comparing Trump to Stalin is an exaggeration, even considering Trump’s policies that warrant criticism.

Re: USDA Inspector General Who Refused to Leave Escorted from Office by Security

#25
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

People should be very careful with words and comparisons. Stalin's purges resulted in assassinations numbering in the millions. Comparing Trump to Stalin is an exaggeration, even considering Trump’s policies that warrant criticism.

It's a comical comparison.

Similar to the left using the word "fascism" with no real grasp on the actual meaning.

It's just name-calling.

Re: USDA Inspector General Who Refused to Leave Escorted from Office by Security

#26
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> with these Inspectors General firings as a prime example of how Congress has just thrown their hands up without even a fight From what I can tell, the IGs do serve at the pleasure of the President. The only thing he didn’t do is notify the Congress. Is that true?

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11546 "The removal procedure for presidentially appointed IGs is found in Title 5, Section 403(b), which reads in part 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 substantive ratio…

> the President shall communicate in writing the substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress (including the appropriate congressional committees), not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer

So worst case, they’re legally fired a month from a few days ago and are owed back pay. This seems much ado about nothing.

Re: USDA Inspector General Who Refused to Leave Escorted from Office by Security

#27
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> with these Inspectors General firings as a prime example of how Congress has just thrown their hands up without even a fight From what I can tell, the IGs do serve at the pleasure of the President. The only thing he didn’t do is notify the Congress. Is that true?

The law says that he has to notify Congress with a good reason for the dismissal.

> he has to notify Congress with a good reason

He just has to notify. The law doesn’t give the Congress nor judges discretion over whether the reasons are good. Just detailed.

Re: USDA Inspector General Who Refused to Leave Escorted from Office by Security

#28
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's unclear anybody could actually do anything Sure, if we get down to mechanics like that, the courts require someone else to enforce. But at that mechanistic level, so does the President. He isn’t personally escorting her out of the office.

> But at that mechanistic level, so does the President. He isn’t personally escorting her out of the office. Fair enough, I strongly hope a good number of folks within the government show a backbone and resist unlawful or abusive orders however they can. Unfortunately those same people can easily be fired and replaced with somebody appropriately loyal (as is already happening). So, unfortunately, I'm not terribly opt…

> resist unlawful or abusive orders

These firings don’t appear to be unlawful or abusive. They’re sloppy. But he has the power to fire them.

Re: USDA Inspector General Who Refused to Leave Escorted from Office by Security

#30
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People should be very careful with words and comparisons. Stalin's purges resulted in assassinations numbering in the millions. Comparing Trump to Stalin is an exaggeration, even considering Trump’s policies that warrant criticism.

It's a comical comparison. Similar to the left using the word "fascism" with no real grasp on the actual meaning. It's just name-calling.

I’m not on the left but I know what fascism is, and this is both the same strategy and same ideology. The only reason I can think of to say it’s not is if you genuinely want fascism- but are worried the negative connotations of the label might prevent it from succeeding.

They’re openly using the publicly disclosed strategies of fascist blogger and author Curtis Yarvin for example- he was invited to the inauguration as a guest of honor.

Post reply on HN