1w ago

GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley says Trump isn't following the law

www.huffpost.com GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley Says Trump Isn't Following The Law

The Iowa Republican said the president needs to notify Congress before firing watchdogs in charge of rooting out waste, fraud and corruption.

Summary

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) criticized Donald Trump for illegally firing inspectors general without giving Congress 30 days' notice.

Trump recently dismissed the USAID inspector general after a report exposed the administration’s mismanagement of foreign aid, putting $489 million in food assistance at risk.

Grassley, a longtime watchdog advocate, said Trump could still remove officials legally by placing them on administrative leave.

You're viewing a single thread.

64 comments

Doesn't matter. Official acts. Even apart from that, who's going to investigate or prosecute? DoJ?
- Someone who hates their job…cause they’ll end up being fired as soon as Trump finds out the investigation
  
  Nobody at DoJ is going to investigate a sitting president without full approval from AG.
  
  I agree with this statement, but even if an attorney general did approve the investigation what would happen if they found out Trump really did break the wall? They can’t teach him with the Republicans control in the house and the Senate wouldn’t convict even if the house did impeach.
  Gotta find some way to pray that guy at the office without relying on the Senate or the Congress.
  
  I mean articles of impeachment have already been started for Gaza, which will lose, but he is being sued by an outside group for this, and I think that's why he's mentioning it, to see which other Congress members may be interested in filing articles about this as well.
- In theory an illegal act would have Congress impeach him, and the Senate hold a trial to find him guilty or innocent, if found guilty he is removed. In theory if he refuses to step down the U.S. military would remove him under their oath of office as well. For which since he was removed by the Senate he would be guilty of unknown (likely treason)
  The truth is that the Senate will not vote to find him guilty. But yeah, what also is interesting there is while treason is charged in a civilian court, an acting commander in chief is a member of the military, and thus could likely be held for treason charges as acting military as well. Both treason charges have a maximum sentence of death. Minimum sentence is likely dishonorable discharge minimum 5 years prison. (For a 78 year old man with court times, pretty much life in Prison). Being that he is a high profile case and it is military based, one would hope they would use the money his administration put towards Guantanamo to hold him their without bail until conviction.). That is but a dream of justice though.
  
  an acting commander in chief is a member of the military, and thus could likely be held for treason charges as acting military as well.
  No he's not. The president is C-in-C of the military but he is explicitly still a civilian. The founding fathers wanted to ensure the military was always under the command of a civilian government.
  
  Makes sense, I figured it would fall under this, but re-reading the wording and yours it makes sense that he isn't working FOR them.
  "Civilians working for the military. This includes contractors, employees of defense companies, and other civilians who are working for the military. Any of these individuals can find themselves subject to military law and in a military tribunal depending on the circumstances."
  So yeah, minimum 5 years and max death still. But it would never happen

64 comments