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

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.[/quote]

It says or not and.[/quote]

Then which one was it? [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

Can you show me that in the statute?[/quote]

(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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]
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.[/quote]

Where is this definition of persistent neglect requiring a formal court? [/quote]

That requires an accusation

I thought you were on top of the whole "or" thing?[/quote]

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."[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics