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 â â â â â â â 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.
âWe 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.â 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 donât see the problem with what she did, especially since the GAO agreed. ButâŚnot my call.
