Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

gizmodo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 57 posts

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

#41

Post by anthonygd »

_yb2s wrote: post #30
catigula wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

If you know what fascism is then you are nearly alone in the world. Read over the Wikipedia definition of fascism and you'll find it starts with a comparison to "nailing jelly to the wall".

The most solid explanation is in this part: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Fascist_as_a_pejorativ...

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

#42

Post by catigula »

coder4life wrote: post #35
_yb2s wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Just learned about that guy Curtis Yarvin and his "Butterfly Revolution" today "DARK GOTHIC MAGA: How Tech Billionaires Plan to Destroy America" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RpPTRcz1no

That is a very polemical title. It makes me discard the opinion of the author because they present themselves as biased.

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

#43

Post by JumpCrisscross »

phonon wrote: post #40
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

"...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." It's a bit more than "detailed". And he didn't even try to meet any of the elements above. It's essentially a loyalty purge.

> a bit more than "detailed"

"Detailed and case-specific." The case-specific reason can be appointed by my predecessor on such and such date. The law doesn't place any limits on what those reasons can be.

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

#44

Post by JumpCrisscross »

clessg wrote: post #31
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Inspectors General have a special provision in the law regarding removal or relocation: > 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 communicat…

> it's illegal because he didn't notify Congress in advance

I can't see any judge agreeing with this. The notice requirement is separate from the removal. "If an Inspector General is remove from office..." the President has to do X 30 days in advance. It's a bit convoluted to argue that if the second part isn't done, the first part is invalid. The breach is in failure to notice. That can be cured by noticing.

This is boy who cried wolf crap. The firings are unprecedented but totally legal. The breach was in forgetting to tweet some Congressmen. If we go Defcon 1 over paperwork fuckups, there's nowhere left to go when he does something that's substantively illegal.

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

#45

Post by phonon »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #43
phonon wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"...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." It's a bit more than "detailed". And he didn't even try to meet any of the elements above. It's essentially a loyalty purge.

> a bit more than "detailed" "Detailed and case-specific." The case-specific reason can be appointed by my predecessor on such and such date. The law doesn't place any limits on what those reasons can be.

Sure. And it can also be "I don't like how his name was pronounced". What you suppose is a gutting of the law.

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

#46

Post by _yb2s »

catigula wrote: post #39
_yb2s wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

>I know what fascism is It doesn't seem like you do. I think if you're to make a claim, you should substantiate it. Simply calling "Curtis Yarvin", someone with only the most tangential relation to the Trump campaign - and I'm being generous because that's the directive here - a fascist is actually precisely the name-calling I outlined. The next steps are A. You define fascism and your understanding of it specificall…

I don't think Trump is personally a fascist, just an opportunist that is suffering from NPD, and found traction to get attention and power with a particular political movement.

I don't see the value in arguing this point- if you are smart enough to understand any argument I made, and I strongly suspect you are, you can see exactly what Trump and his movement are doing and why with a lot more nuance than any single word label would provide- and you already either think it's a good idea or isn't.

People I care deeply about are being targeted, and systematically dehumanized for who they are or where they are from, and all of the checks and balances that would have protected them in the past have been systematically eliminated. At this point we're past the point of discussing these issues productively, unfortunately.

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

#47

Post by _yb2s »

anthonygd wrote: post #41
_yb2s wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

If you know what fascism is then you are nearly alone in the world. Read over the Wikipedia definition of fascism and you'll find it starts with a comparison to "nailing jelly to the wall". The most solid explanation is in this part: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Fascist_as_a_pejorativ...

Trump isn't literally Mussolini, and he isn't even personally a fascist, just a political opportunist with no principles- but the movement he is part of literally fits the entire first paragraph of the Wikipedia article to a T.

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

#48

Post by kcplate »

phonon wrote: post #37
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Well, there's the whole Presidential obligation from the Constitution that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". No big deal. I'm sure it's fine he can pick and choose.

> I'm sure it's fine he can pick and choose

Pretty much every president has done this…so it probably is fine.

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

#49

Post by catigula »

_yb2s wrote: post #46
catigula wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I know what fascism is It doesn't seem like you do. I think if you're to make a claim, you should substantiate it. Simply calling "Curtis Yarvin", someone with only the most tangential relation to the Trump campaign - and I'm being generous because that's the directive here - a fascist is actually precisely the name-calling I outlined. The next steps are A. You define fascism and your understanding of it specificall…

I don't think Trump is personally a fascist, just an opportunist that is suffering from NPD, and found traction to get attention and power with a particular political movement. I don't see the value in arguing this point- if you are smart enough to understand any argument I made, and I strongly suspect you are, you can see exactly what Trump and his movement are doing and why with a lot more nuance than any single wo…

It doesn't really seem like you're interested in having a serious discussion about the points outlined, which is unfortunate, because I suspect it'd have seriously challenged some of your worldview that you appear to passively hold.

Anyways, just in terms of "vibe", I regret to inform you that your response, which I understand and empathize that it resonates heavily and even implicitly with you, is something you literally need to already agree with to engage with meaningfully.

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

#50

Post by kcplate »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #36
anon84873628 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, until they are used as evidence in an impeachment trial. Which of course isn't likely to happen in this case...

> Which of course isn't likely to happen in this case No. But that's in the hands of the American people. A simple majority in the house to impeach and 67 votes in the Senate to convict. 34 seats are up for election in 2026 [1]. Dems only have 47 seats, and a 20-seat pick-up is almost impossible. But if Indiana, Kansas, Texas, Ohio, Kentucky, South Carolina and Florida [2] swung, that could convince moderate Republic…

Please let’s not go back to the 2016-2020 impeachment and removal fantasies. The man was impeached twice, once even after his presidency was over and still the American people put him back into office.

Also, of note, every time he has run for president he received more votes than prior runs—even in 2020. There is literally only one person who has ever received more votes than Trump and that’s Biden in 2020 and frankly there will forever be an asterisk after that election due to the pandemic and Trump’s subsequent win in 2024.

If you want him out of office before his term ends, you will need to have 67 democrats as senators with probably at least a quarter of those senators being willing to lose their own elections for that vote. Bottom line, he is in for the next four.

Post reply on HN