• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

White House Survivor

If Kelly has any self-respect, he made a demotion of the Mooch (demoochen) a condition of taking the Chief of Staff helm.

Kelly also ought to have other conditions. One being: Mr. President, stop shooting off your brainfarts unchecked! A WP comment suggested the following: Make it clear to the President that Kelly will step down immediately the moment Trump twitters the first demonstrable lie.

And because Trump cannot be counted on to keep promises and show some of the discipline a general would expect, I say Kelly is next.
 
Last edited:
Scaramouche's departure must just about be setting a record for being mentioned in the most ISF threads, including at least two new ones. Only the best for Trump!
 
acbytesla said:
Please explain how such a law would be constitutionally dubious. I also don't see how he could take him off the case or fire him. Also Constitutionally speaking enforcement power is entrusted to Congress. Congress has empowered the President to nominate an Attorney General with consent of the Congress. This is NOT in the Constitution. If Congress wanted it could remove the President entirely from the process. It would just have to pass legislation.
Click to expand...

It's constitutionally dubious because the Justice Department (and any special prosecutors appointed under its authority) is part of the Executive branch, for which the President has constitutional authority to fire appointees. And your misunderstanding notwithstanding, the appointment of the Attorney General, and the requirement that the appointment be approved by the Senate (not the full Congress) is covered by Article II of the Constitution.
 
I'm betting Kushner will go back to run the family business. He won't adjust well to Kelly and more will come out about his talks with the Russians. Between Kelly running the show and a soon to come series of revelations about Jared and Russia he'll leave or get forced out.
 
Craig4 said:
I'm betting Kushner will go back to run the family business. He won't adjust well to Kelly and more will come out about his talks with the Russians. Between Kelly running the show and a soon to come series of revelations about Jared and Russia he'll leave or get forced out.
Click to expand...

Who will do all the work if he leaves? The Orange Menace put him in charge of almost everything.
 
Craig4 said:
I'm betting Kushner will go back to run the family business. He won't adjust well to Kelly and more will come out about his talks with the Russians. Between Kelly running the show and a soon to come series of revelations about Jared and Russia he'll leave or get forced out.
Click to expand...
Interesting choice, given the broad scope of Jared's portfolio.
 
ponderingturtle said:
I think Tillerson. I think there are enough people to talk trump out of firing Sessions for having pretending to have some ethics. So unless maybe his kids get indicted I don't see Sessions going anywhere
Click to expand...

FTFY.

Sessions was dragged kicking and screaming into his (sort of) recusal. I don't think he deserves a lot of credit for the ethical virtue of the decision.
 
Craig4 said:
But the Hair doesn't think about the consequences of his actions. If he did, he wouldn't have colluded with the Russians.
Click to expand...

What consequences? Jared spent his time so far learning about the Middle East, and recently reported that he has by now figured out that it is a very complex situation.

The replacement might conceivably know this already, and thus pick up where Kuchner leaves.
 
I'm actually a bit sad about Yates and Comey. [emoji26]

1d8b602e3f16f0365e0da2e216ae4f28.jpg
 
CORed said:
It's constitutionally dubious because the Justice Department (and any special prosecutors appointed under its authority) is part of the Executive branch, for which the President has constitutional authority to fire appointees. And your misunderstanding notwithstanding, the appointment of the Attorney General, and the requirement that the appointment be approved by the Senate (not the full Congress) is covered by Article II of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
History begs to differ here. In the wake of Watergate and the Saturday Night Massacre, Congress instituted the Office of Independent Counsel, which existed until 1999:
The prosecutor, who was appointed by a special panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, could investigate allegations of any misconduct, with an unlimited budget and no deadline, and could be dismissed only by the Attorney General for "good cause" or by the special panel of the court when the independent counsel's task was completed. As the president could not dismiss those investigating the executive branch it was felt that the independence of the office would ensure impartiality of any reports presented to Congress. However, there have been many critics of this law including Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.[1] Many argued the new Independent Counsel's office was a sort of "fourth branch" of government that had virtually unlimited powers and was answerable to no one. However, the constitutionality of the new office was ultimately upheld in the 1988 Supreme Court case Morrison v. Olson.
Click to expand...
All Congress has to do is to re-instate the provisions from the Ethics in Government Act which instituted it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom