Oh look, a “well no duh” incident. lol
And that’s all she did.
How many more posts are you going to make without even reading the story of what she actually did?
It doesn’t have to be followed, or agreed with - but contrary to what you’ve said, it is absolutely her job to provide it.
So not fired after all. Imagine that.
The law only requires that under some circumstances.
This was and is a policy dispute and nothing more. The same exact thing happened under Obama and other Presidents who all argued that the requirement in the law did not apply because it interfered with the Presidents conduct of foreign policy. Even the GAO said that, and concluded the law does not allow the hold up for “policy” only for programatic reasons. This administrations arguments are the same as others.
and then when the decision is made to promptly follow the guidance she’s given.
The law clearly requires documentation of the reasons why aid was being held up…which the Trump Administration did not do.
McCusker’s “sin” was pointing that out to the Trump Administration.
Still haven’t read the article I see.
What guidance was she given that she did not follow?
So in the past couple of days…
-
Trump fired two people who testified against him, and the brother of one who did not, despite pleas from Senators who acquitted him not to
-
Fired a Pentagon official just because she stated her opinion in an email
-
His DoJ is interfering in the Roger Stone case, and Trump has declared he has the “absolute right to tell the DoJ what to do”
-
Trump is pressing the Army to bring up Vindman for disciplinary action
-
His Attorney General has set up a “special arrangement” to allow the President’s personal attorney to feed him dirt on Joe/Hunter Biden, while not affording anyone representing the Bidens an avenue to look at the evidence or provide their own.
And Trump supporters, of course, will say this is all just fine.
2 Likes
Maybe you should actually read the GAO report instead of some leftists propoganda?
The GAO report clearly states that under the law the administration is NOT always required to provide documentation. They say it doesn’t apply in this instance because the hold up is based on policy which the law does not allow. The administration argues that the delay was programatic and in any event involved the Presidents conduct of foriegn policy which is his to conduct. It’s the same argument Obama used.
I read the Impoundment and Control Act…is that what you think is “leftist propaganda?”
ive read it too, and the gao report, and the administrations reply.
its a policy dispute, just like every other policy dispute
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?
You see. When you are President they let you grab them by the…
All McCusker did was write an email. She made no effort to hold up what the Administration was doing.
For this she must of course be made to pay.
Fine? Legal.
“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.
Where in that email did she say she was refusing to comply with anything?
now that you say it all out loud sounds kinda bad.
