Jump to content
StringJunky

Should administrations be allowed to tamper with their overseers

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I find this highly disquieting:

Quote

White House says Trump fired State Department watchdog at Pompeo's request

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump fired the State Department’s inspector general following a recommendation by U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the White House said on Saturday.

“Secretary Pompeo recommended the move, and President Trump agreed,” a White House official said after two top Democrats announced a probe into the Republican president’s Friday night firing of the department’s internal watchdog, Steve Linick.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-trump-inspectorgeneral-whitehouse/white-house-says-trump-fired-state-department-watchdog-at-pompeos-request-idUKKBN22S0VU?il=0

This all came about because Linick wanted to probe some possibly dubious behaviour by Pompeo.

I suppose my main question is: Should an administration be allowed to control its oversight mechanisms?

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No

And this isn’t the first time it’s happened in the current administration (probably not even the first time this month). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, iNow said:

No

And this isn’t the first time it’s happened in the current administration (probably not even the first time this month). 

Do you think permanently bipartisan oversight committees (equal composition) should have autonomy over the selection/dismissal of Inspectors General and equivalent? Could that be part of a solution? I think the Supreme Court should be composed this way as well.

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Do you think permanently bipartisan oversight committees (equal composition) should have autonomy over the selection/dismissal of Inspectors General and equivalent?

Probably, yes. I’d need to better understand how those committees are formed before committing, though.

Really... Anything we can do to maximize objectiveness and minimize bias is both welcome and needed. I’m tired of grifters and corrupt imbeciles continually running roughshod through our governments. 

I want to now rant about how the people voting should care way more about this stuff, and then also rant about the people who don’t vote at all... that all makes me want to scream, but it’s also peripheral to your topic so hoping this doesn’t lead to a tangent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does one member of the US Senate get to decide what laws or proposals can be debated. Seems to be to be a blue print for trouble. Majority leader turned  czar. Wouldn't flipping a coin even be smarter than McConnell?

Edited by TimeFlies
Adding solution

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting questions perhaps worth exploring, but obviously an off-topic thread hijack here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2020 at 12:24 AM, StringJunky said:

I suppose my main question is: Should an administration be allowed to control its oversight mechanisms?

Do you see parallels with the UK situation where Boris Johnson has refused to fire Priti Patel, Home Secretary, following the report finding she was in breach of Ministerial behaviour via multiple instances of bullying? The Code of Ministerial Behaviour lays out the standards and Sir Alex Allan, heading the enquiry, held that they had been breached. He then resigned in protest at the rejection of the findings by Johnson. While the Code is not legally binding the norm has been to resign if foundin breach of it. This incident is, in my view, a dangerous precedent, akin to his refusal to ditch Cummings after he blatantly flouted Covid restrictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Do you see parallels with the UK situation where Boris Johnson has refused to fire Priti Patel, Home Secretary, following the report finding she was in breach of Ministerial behaviour via multiple instances of bullying? The Code of Ministerial Behaviour lays out the standards and Sir Alex Allan, heading the enquiry, held that they had been breached. He then resigned in protest at the rejection of the findings by Johnson. While the Code is not legally binding the norm has been to resign if foundin breach of it. This incident is, in my view, a dangerous precedent, akin to his refusal to ditch Cummings after he blatantly flouted Covid restrictions.

Yes.  I think he will get rid of her anyway, when the penny drops. I get a distinct entitled feeling off her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Yes.  I think he will get rid of her anyway, when the penny drops. I get a distinct entitled feeling off her.

Probably, but gravity seems to be constrained in his brain - the penny drops slowly. I agree with the entitled impression, though in my mind I just think of her as a politically incorrect five letter word: if there is an ounce of compassion in her it is well concealed. Still, while we are almost as messed up as the US, it's less important. :)

Edited by Area54
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Area54 said:

Probably, but gravity seems to be constrained in his brain - the penny drops slowly. I agree with the entitled impression, though in my mind I just think of her as a politically incorrect five letter word: if there is an ounce of compassion in her it is well concealed. Still, while we are almost as messed up as the US, it's less important. :)

I think the bell has been tolled... and it tolls for her.  :D   The resignation of two people will not pass without consequences. What the PM thinks in matters like this doesn't really matter much... once enough people don't like her... the pressure mounts. It seems to be a pattern in politics.

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She already got sacked once- essentially for treason.
She may well get sacked again, but it won't last.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

She already got sacked once- essentially for treason.
She may well get sacked again, but it won't last.

She scares me worse than anyone else. She seriously wanted to send British warships into French ports  to drop off unknown individuals.

Hopefully she joins Boris and Trump on the train out of office in January.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Endy0816 said:

She scares me worse than anyone else. She seriously wanted to send British warships into French ports  to drop off unknown individuals.

Hopefully she joins Boris and Trump on the train out of office in January.

There's no earthly reason why they would leave if they don't want to.
Our govt has a massive majority. We are stuck with the Tories for years. And it's hardly as if any of them is any better than Boris or Priti.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

There's no earthly reason why they would leave if they don't want to.
Our govt has a massive majority. We are stuck with the Tories for years. And it's hardly as if any of them is any better than Boris or Priti.

 

I'm thinking new faces alone would help reset UK's international relations, even if they are otherwise unremarkable. Hoping Boris ends up as their next sacrificial PM when things go sideways and Priti goes with.

Imagine Boris vs anyone else asking for Biden's help on something like undoing the Scotch tariff, for example.

 

Edited by Endy0816

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These 'oversight mechanisms' are common in many Governments ( even Canada ), but they don't usually have any power over the Government.
They are there primarily to 'shame' the Government for having breached certain standards of behaviour, in the eyes of the voters.

I don't know about the situation with B Johnson in the UK, Stringy, but I'm sure you realize the Trump Administration has no shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, MigL said:

These 'oversight mechanisms' are common in many Governments ( even Canada ), but they don't usually have any power over the Government.
They are there primarily to 'shame' the Government for having breached certain standards of behaviour, in the eyes of the voters.

I don't know about the situation with B Johnson in the UK, Stringy, but I'm sure you realize the Trump Administration has no shame.

It is a brilliant way to dismantle this type of oversight. Use media to make folks ignore those accounts (now easier than ever) and then do whatever you want. Time-tested technique of autocrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.