Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Exactly. Someone needs to give them an ethics training so they at least know which laws they are breaking. They're breaking them whether or not they've been informed of their existence, so they should at least be familiarized with them as all other federal employees are.

It's not just the DOGEboys. In this case, USIP's former security contractors had a physical key they had not returned yet that was used to enter the building. That's straight up no doubt about it B&E.

They did it because DOGE threatened to cancel all their federal contracts, $200m worth, so I understand that they were in a precarious situation. But that's not a legal justification. They knew they were no longer authorized or permitted to use that key.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

You have to claim something before you can fire them for that thing. In addition, that specific one has a time requirement. I'm sorry that that this President wants immediate gratification but it didn't meet the requirements and no effort was made to meet the requirements.

By the way, it was the "in consultation with the board" part of (1) that they tried to exploit and there is likely a drafting error with that comma. But even that wasn't met.

What is the time requirement? How long is it? Can you point to the interval in the statute? How you know there wasn't an accusation? There's no requirement to record the accusation.

"persistent"

What's the legal definition of persistent?

It doesn't matter. The plain meaning of the word itself has two elements: repeatedly and over time.

There's no need to focus on whether the standard is over weeks, months or years. There is no circumstance where it means minutes, hours or days.

That's without even getting into what "neglect" means.

This is all hypothetical anyway because that isn't what they claimed. There were ways they could have done this legally, over time, but they chose not to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

You have to claim something before you can fire them for that thing. In addition, that specific one has a time requirement. I'm sorry that that this President wants immediate gratification but it didn't meet the requirements and no effort was made to meet the requirements.

By the way, it was the "in consultation with the board" part of (1) that they tried to exploit and there is likely a drafting error with that comma. But even that wasn't met.

What is the time requirement? How long is it? Can you point to the interval in the statute? How you know there wasn't an accusation? There's no requirement to record the accusation.

That there was not an accusation is not in dispute. It's been acknowledged already in court.

But, to play along, because the people who were illegally fired are the Board and it would have to have gone to them first.

Nothing in the statute says that. The statute is fundamentally that they serve at the pleasure of the President. Sorry, but Congress didn't provide any checks and balances.

If the statute wanted to say that USIP Board members serve at the pleasure of the president, it would say that. It does not. And your contention that it says something it doesn't is WILDLY incorrect and willfully ignorant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

You have to claim something before you can fire them for that thing. In addition, that specific one has a time requirement. I'm sorry that that this President wants immediate gratification but it didn't meet the requirements and no effort was made to meet the requirements.

By the way, it was the "in consultation with the board" part of (1) that they tried to exploit and there is likely a drafting error with that comma. But even that wasn't met.

What is the time requirement? How long is it? Can you point to the interval in the statute? How you know there wasn't an accusation? There's no requirement to record the accusation.

That there was not an accusation is not in dispute. It's been acknowledged already in court.

But, to play along, because the people who were illegally fired are the Board and it would have to have gone to them first.

Nothing in the statute says that. The statute is fundamentally that they serve at the pleasure of the President. Sorry, but Congress didn't provide any checks and balances.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

You have to claim something before you can fire them for that thing. In addition, that specific one has a time requirement. I'm sorry that that this President wants immediate gratification but it didn't meet the requirements and no effort was made to meet the requirements.

By the way, it was the "in consultation with the board" part of (1) that they tried to exploit and there is likely a drafting error with that comma. But even that wasn't met.

What is the time requirement? How long is it? Can you point to the interval in the statute? How you know there wasn't an accusation? There's no requirement to record the accusation.

"persistent"

What's the legal definition of persistent?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

You have to claim something before you can fire them for that thing. In addition, that specific one has a time requirement. I'm sorry that that this President wants immediate gratification but it didn't meet the requirements and no effort was made to meet the requirements.

By the way, it was the "in consultation with the board" part of (1) that they tried to exploit and there is likely a drafting error with that comma. But even that wasn't met.

What is the time requirement? How long is it? Can you point to the interval in the statute? How you know there wasn't an accusation? There's no requirement to record the accusation.

That there was not an accusation is not in dispute. It's been acknowledged already in court.

But, to play along, because the people who were illegally fired are the Board and it would have to have gone to them first.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

You have to claim something before you can fire them for that thing. In addition, that specific one has a time requirement. I'm sorry that that this President wants immediate gratification but it didn't meet the requirements and no effort was made to meet the requirements.

By the way, it was the "in consultation with the board" part of (1) that they tried to exploit and there is likely a drafting error with that comma. But even that wasn't met.

What is the time requirement? How long is it? Can you point to the interval in the statute? How you know there wasn't an accusation? There's no requirement to record the accusation.

"persistent"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

You have to claim something before you can fire them for that thing. In addition, that specific one has a time requirement. I'm sorry that that this President wants immediate gratification but it didn't meet the requirements and no effort was made to meet the requirements.

By the way, it was the "in consultation with the board" part of (1) that they tried to exploit and there is likely a drafting error with that comma. But even that wasn't met.

What is the time requirement? How long is it? Can you point to the interval in the statute? How you know there wasn't an accusation? There's no requirement to record the accusation.

That's an interesting statement. Especially in light of the other details that came out today.

Bowser and MPD desperately need to come up with an SOP for all this stuff to try and stay out of it.

MPD (statement linked and copied below) says the USAO for DC called them in and told them to get rid of the staff who were "unlawfully refusing to leave". https://mpdc.dc.gov/release/mpd-statement-response-call-service-united-states-institute-peace

On Monday, March 17, 2025, at approximately 4 p.m., the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) was contacted by the United States Attorney’s Office (USAO) regarding an ongoing incident at the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), located at 2301 Constitution Ave, NW.

The USAO advised MPD that they had been made aware that at least one person was refusing to leave the property at the direction of the acting USIP President, who was lawfully in charge of the facility. The USAO provided the contact information for the acting USIP President, so MPD members could speak directly with him.

MPD members met with the acting USIP President, and he provided the MPD members with documentation that he was the acting USIP President, with all powers delegated by the USIP Board of Directors to that role. The acting USIP President advised MPD members that there were unauthorized individuals inside of the building that were refusing to leave and refusing to provide him access to the facility. MPD members went to the USIP building and contacted an individual who allowed MPD members inside of the building. Once inside of the building, the acting USIP President requested that all the unauthorized individuals inside of the building leave.

Eventually, all the unauthorized individuals inside of the building complied with the acting USIP President’s request and left the building without further incident, and no arrests were made.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought the DC police worked for Bowser - who is supposed to be a democrat and presumably a voice of reason?

“LET”? I’m eager to learn how a mayor — in a city without the support of either a state governor or even voting members in Congress is supposed to magically stop Presidents Musk, Trump and DOGE with her “voice of reason”. PP, do tell! Walk me through this! So, agency calls the cops, cops call the mayor — who just happens to be available, who then calls Trump, who also just happens to be available.Trump then calls whoever he needs to to say : “Call it off. This is not a program under my jurisdiction. I don’t want to take over this liberal city with a Black female mayor. I’m really sorry about the slip up. Now that I’ve heard the voice of reason, I’ll play like a normal president instead of a tough guy megalomaniac.” Is that how it goes PP?

I'm eager to learn how the MPD received a call from USIP staff concerned about DOGE trying to enter their premises unlawfully and instead let DOGE in and escorted the USIP staff out. That's not how it's supposed to work with a normal police call absent some directive from above to let DOGE enter wherever they like. You don't let the intruders in and kick the inhabitants out.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Exactly. Someone needs to give them an ethics training so they at least know which laws they are breaking. They're breaking them whether or not they've been informed of their existence, so they should at least be familiarized with them as all other federal employees are.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I'm talking about bribery of the MPD. Not bribery in general.

Anonymous wrote:I thought the DC police worked for Bowser - who is supposed to be a democrat and presumably a voice of reason?

“LET”? I’m eager to learn how a mayor — in a city without the support of either a state governor or even voting members in Congress is supposed to magically stop Presidents Musk, Trump and DOGE with her “voice of reason”. PP, do tell! Walk me through this! So, agency calls the cops, cops call the mayor — who just happens to be available, who then calls Trump, who also just happens to be available.Trump then calls whoever he needs to to say : “Call it off. This is not a program under my jurisdiction. I don’t want to take over this liberal city with a Black female mayor. I’m really sorry about the slip up. Now that I’ve heard the voice of reason, I’ll play like a normal president instead of a tough guy megalomaniac.” Is that how it goes PP?

Anonymous wrote:

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."

You have to claim something before you can fire them for that thing. In addition, that specific one has a time requirement. I'm sorry that that this President wants immediate gratification but it didn't meet the requirements and no effort was made to meet the requirements.

By the way, it was the "in consultation with the board" part of (1) that they tried to exploit and there is likely a drafting error with that comma. But even that wasn't met.