DC police help DOGE force its way into office of Institute of Peace

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Following the agency's "noncompliance" with the executive order, the Trump administration fired 11 members of USIP's board on Friday, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told Axios Monday.

However, the authorizing statute (https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/2017-03/usip_act.pdf) says:
A member of the Board may be removed by the
President—
(1) in consultation with the Board, for conviction of a felony, malfeasance in office,
persistent neglect of duties, or inability to discharge duties;
(2) upon the recommendation of eight voting members of the Board; or
(3) upon the recommendation of a majority of the members of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs and the Committee on Education and Labor of the House of Representatives and a
majority of the members of the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate.

These conditions were clearly not met so the firing of the Board members was illegal.

It says or not and.

Then which one was it?

The statute doesn't mention that you have to supply the public with a reason. Talk to Congress if you don't like the President following the current laws.

It does require a formal vote or formal accusation. Neither of which was done or given. There is nothing to indicate that the law was followed. Therefore the involvement of MPD was inappropriate.

Can you show me that in the statute?

(2) and (3) both have a quantitative requirement.

(1) requires specific assertions. Malfeasance is corruption. Persistent neglect has a time requirement. Inability to discharge is a health requirement.

[Anonymous]

Bowser has turned completely MAGA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bowser has turned completely MAGA.

Bowser wants RTO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What?

New York Times:

Aishvarya Kavi
March 17, 2025, 6:21 p.m. ET3 hours ago
Aishvarya Kavi

Elon Musk’s cost-cutting team, known as DOGE, has forced its way into the offices of the U.S. Institute of Peace with the help of Washington’s Metropolitan Police Department, a lawyer for the institute said.

“DOGE just came into the building — they’re inside the building — they’re bringing the F.B.I. and brought a bunch of D.C. police,” said Sophia Lin, a lawyer with the firm Picard Kentz and Rowe. She was speaking on the phone from the street outside the institute’s building after she, her co-counsel and the institute’s chief security officer were forced out, she said.


Lin said that the U.S. Institute for Peace called the D.C. police on the Musk team members in an effort to stop them from trespassing because the institute has control of its own building and the land it sits on. But instead, the D.C. police allowed them to enter and kicked out the institute’s officials.

Before the D.C. police arrived, the Musk team had tried for hours to enter the building. They attempted to enter on Friday, but that effort was unsuccessful.

Is DCPD trying to avoid antagonizing Ed Martin?

[Anonymous]

The Institute of Peace is suing and their lawsuit includes the names of the DOGE employees (who try to hide their identities) trying to shut them down:

Amy Gleason
James Burnham
Jacob Altik
Nate Cavanaugh
Chris Young

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Following the agency's "noncompliance" with the executive order, the Trump administration fired 11 members of USIP's board on Friday, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told Axios Monday.

However, the authorizing statute (https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/2017-03/usip_act.pdf) says:
A member of the Board may be removed by the
President—
(1) in consultation with the Board, for conviction of a felony, malfeasance in office,
persistent neglect of duties, or inability to discharge duties;
(2) upon the recommendation of eight voting members of the Board; or
(3) upon the recommendation of a majority of the members of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs and the Committee on Education and Labor of the House of Representatives and a
majority of the members of the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate.

These conditions were clearly not met so the firing of the Board members was illegal.

It says or not and.

Then which one was it?

The statute doesn't mention that you have to supply the public with a reason. Talk to Congress if you don't like the President following the current laws.

It does require a formal vote or formal accusation. Neither of which was done or given. There is nothing to indicate that the law was followed. Therefore the involvement of MPD was inappropriate.

Can you show me that in the statute?

(2) and (3) both have a quantitative requirement.

(1) requires specific assertions. Malfeasance is corruption. Persistent neglect has a time requirement. Inability to discharge is a health requirement.

Where is a formal vote or accusation required?

(1) is a list of assertions which are not all required. Note the use of or. "persistent neglect of duties" is a single assertion that doesn't need to be formally charged because there is no formal requirement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much cash were the cops paid? And why?

Not how it works. Bribery is thankfully rare.

Lmao. Did you see all the $1M "donations" to the Inaug fund by big tech?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bowser has turned completely MAGA.

Bowser wants RTO.

Yep and will be crying when the area collapsed from firings, contractors imploding, and people leaving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Following the agency's "noncompliance" with the executive order, the Trump administration fired 11 members of USIP's board on Friday, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told Axios Monday.

However, the authorizing statute (https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/2017-03/usip_act.pdf) says:
A member of the Board may be removed by the
President—
(1) in consultation with the Board, for conviction of a felony, malfeasance in office,
persistent neglect of duties, or inability to discharge duties;
(2) upon the recommendation of eight voting members of the Board; or
(3) upon the recommendation of a majority of the members of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs and the Committee on Education and Labor of the House of Representatives and a
majority of the members of the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate.

These conditions were clearly not met so the firing of the Board members was illegal.

It says or not and.

Then which one was it?

The statute doesn't mention that you have to supply the public with a reason. Talk to Congress if you don't like the President following the current laws.

Yes it does and trumps not king

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Following the agency's "noncompliance" with the executive order, the Trump administration fired 11 members of USIP's board on Friday, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told Axios Monday.

However, the authorizing statute (https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/2017-03/usip_act.pdf) says:
A member of the Board may be removed by the
President—
(1) in consultation with the Board, for conviction of a felony, malfeasance in office,
persistent neglect of duties, or inability to discharge duties;
(2) upon the recommendation of eight voting members of the Board; or
(3) upon the recommendation of a majority of the members of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs and the Committee on Education and Labor of the House of Representatives and a
majority of the members of the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate.

These conditions were clearly not met so the firing of the Board members was illegal.

It says or not and.

Then which one was it?

The statute doesn't mention that you have to supply the public with a reason. Talk to Congress if you don't like the President following the current laws.

It does require a formal vote or formal accusation. Neither of which was done or given. There is nothing to indicate that the law was followed. Therefore the involvement of MPD was inappropriate.

Can you show me that in the statute?

(2) and (3) both have a quantitative requirement.

(1) requires specific assertions. Malfeasance is corruption. Persistent neglect has a time requirement. Inability to discharge is a health requirement.

Where is a formal vote or accusation required?

(1) is a list of assertions which are not all required. Note the use of or. "persistent neglect of duties" is a single assertion that doesn't need to be formally charged because there is no formal requirement.

There is no way to meet quantitative requirements without some sort of formal count.

"Persistent neglect" requires multiple (non) acts (neglect) over an extended (persistent) period of time and refers to truancy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Following the agency's "noncompliance" with the executive order, the Trump administration fired 11 members of USIP's board on Friday, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told Axios Monday.

However, the authorizing statute (https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/2017-03/usip_act.pdf) says:
A member of the Board may be removed by the
President—
(1) in consultation with the Board, for conviction of a felony, malfeasance in office,
persistent neglect of duties, or inability to discharge duties;
(2) upon the recommendation of eight voting members of the Board; or
(3) upon the recommendation of a majority of the members of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs and the Committee on Education and Labor of the House of Representatives and a
majority of the members of the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate.

These conditions were clearly not met so the firing of the Board members was illegal.

It says or not and.

Then which one was it?

The statute doesn't mention that you have to supply the public with a reason. Talk to Congress if you don't like the President following the current laws.

It does require a formal vote or formal accusation. Neither of which was done or given. There is nothing to indicate that the law was followed. Therefore the involvement of MPD was inappropriate.

Can you show me that in the statute?

(2) and (3) both have a quantitative requirement.

(1) requires specific assertions. Malfeasance is corruption. Persistent neglect has a time requirement. Inability to discharge is a health requirement.

Where is a formal vote or accusation required?

(1) is a list of assertions which are not all required. Note the use of or. "persistent neglect of duties" is a single assertion that doesn't need to be formally charged because there is no formal requirement.

There is no way to meet quantitative requirements without some sort of formal count.

"Persistent neglect" requires multiple (non) acts (neglect) over an extended (persistent) period of time and refers to truancy.

Where is this definition of persistent neglect requiring a formal court?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Following the agency's "noncompliance" with the executive order, the Trump administration fired 11 members of USIP's board on Friday, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told Axios Monday.

However, the authorizing statute (https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/2017-03/usip_act.pdf) says:
A member of the Board may be removed by the
President—
(1) in consultation with the Board, for conviction of a felony, malfeasance in office,
persistent neglect of duties, or inability to discharge duties;
(2) upon the recommendation of eight voting members of the Board; or
(3) upon the recommendation of a majority of the members of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs and the Committee on Education and Labor of the House of Representatives and a
majority of the members of the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate.

These conditions were clearly not met so the firing of the Board members was illegal.

It says or not and.

Then which one was it?

The statute doesn't mention that you have to supply the public with a reason. Talk to Congress if you don't like the President following the current laws.

It does require a formal vote or formal accusation. Neither of which was done or given. There is nothing to indicate that the law was followed. Therefore the involvement of MPD was inappropriate.

Can you show me that in the statute?

(2) and (3) both have a quantitative requirement.

(1) requires specific assertions. Malfeasance is corruption. Persistent neglect has a time requirement. Inability to discharge is a health requirement.

Where is a formal vote or accusation required?

(1) is a list of assertions which are not all required. Note the use of or. "persistent neglect of duties" is a single assertion that doesn't need to be formally charged because there is no formal requirement.

There is no way to meet quantitative requirements without some sort of formal count.

"Persistent neglect" requires multiple (non) acts (neglect) over an extended (persistent) period of time and refers to truancy.

Where is this definition of persistent neglect requiring a formal court?

That requires an accusation

I thought you were on top of the whole "or" thing?

[Anonymous]

I think don't DOGE staff are protected by the limited immunity elected officials get.

If they keep acting like this, some of them may end up with very expensive legal bills and or even prison sentences.

[Anonymous]

This thread is quite something. DOGE threatened and blackmailed the suspended security firm to gain access to the USIP.

https://bsky.app/profile/joshtpm.bsky.social/post/3lkqpwv3ios2l

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Following the agency's "noncompliance" with the executive order, the Trump administration fired 11 members of USIP's board on Friday, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told Axios Monday.

However, the authorizing statute (https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/2017-03/usip_act.pdf) says:
A member of the Board may be removed by the
President—
(1) in consultation with the Board, for conviction of a felony, malfeasance in office,
persistent neglect of duties, or inability to discharge duties;
(2) upon the recommendation of eight voting members of the Board; or
(3) upon the recommendation of a majority of the members of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs and the Committee on Education and Labor of the House of Representatives and a
majority of the members of the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate.

These conditions were clearly not met so the firing of the Board members was illegal.

It says or not and.

Then which one was it?

The statute doesn't mention that you have to supply the public with a reason. Talk to Congress if you don't like the President following the current laws.

It does require a formal vote or formal accusation. Neither of which was done or given. There is nothing to indicate that the law was followed. Therefore the involvement of MPD was inappropriate.

Can you show me that in the statute?

(2) and (3) both have a quantitative requirement.

(1) requires specific assertions. Malfeasance is corruption. Persistent neglect has a time requirement. Inability to discharge is a health requirement.

Where is a formal vote or accusation required?

(1) is a list of assertions which are not all required. Note the use of or. "persistent neglect of duties" is a single assertion that doesn't need to be formally charged because there is no formal requirement.

There is no way to meet quantitative requirements without some sort of formal count.

"Persistent neglect" requires multiple (non) acts (neglect) over an extended (persistent) period of time and refers to truancy.

Where is this definition of persistent neglect requiring a formal court?

That requires an accusation

I thought you were on top of the whole "or" thing?

Where does it require an accusation? I don't see that word anywhere in the text. I'm sorry that Congress can't manage to write legislation that doesn't just cede authority to the President in the basis of "we hope he never does anything."