It seems to be different from Vindman in that there is here the belief that something is done contrary to a specific law. If you have a different interpretation of a law, you might feel compelled to comply with the law as you see it. If you feel that strongly about it, you might even try to recuse yourself from the specific case or, if you feel you have to…resign.
Now if this had been a difference over a criminal law, then that is where a legitimate whistle blower action should come into play.
But this was just a budget bill. Everybody in the agency doesn’t get to be the general legal counsel. What if McCusker had halted the hold on the funds and then someone who worked for her had gone ahead and reversed her decision because they disagreed with her interpretation. What do you think McCusker would have done to them? Congratulated them for standing up for their own viewpoint?
“We need to continue to give the WH has [ sic ] much decision space as possible, but am concerned we have not officially documented the fact that we can not promise full execution at this point.”
NO, it looks like the email is doing more than advising, it is refusing to comply.
i look forward to president sanders jailing people like trump,barr and the rest of the criminals in the administration.
send them to gitmo. after all as far as trumpers are concerned things like the rule of law are meaningless.
so president sanders will be free to jail his opponents.
Its even funnier when you learn her point is that the government need to issue official documentation of what they are doing… and she was fired for suggesting that they follow the ■■■■■■■ basic number one rule of governmental business.
She said that they cannot promise full execution. Execution of what? That sounds like more than an email suggestion.
“We need to continue to give the WH has [ sic ] much decision space as possible, but am concerned we have not officially documented the fact that we can not promise full execution at this point.” That is, she was trying to do everything in her power to give White House officials room to set the policy as they saw fit, without violating the law.
Now if she was making a suggestion, then good for her. But how would she have reacted if someone beneath her had disagreed with her interpretation of the law and gone ahead on their own?
It is not clear to me from the article if she was required to approve the obligation or holding back of funds or was just making a recommendation. If the latter, then I don’t see the problem with what she did, especially since the GAO agreed. But…not my call.
