Obama won the court case that sets precident for this.
(Taken from another post here, I unfortunately did not catch the OP's name)
Here are the applicable laws that apply to President Trumps firing of IG Atkinson. Trump did everything by the books.
posted 4 minutes ago by CarlosDangerrr
Here is the law which was updated upon the passing of the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008 in October 2010 to include the 30-day congressional notice for firing an IG (section b): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5a/compiledact-95-452/section-3
Obama fired IG Walpin in 2009 after IG Walpin discovered and went after corruption of federal grants being given to, Obama friend & donor, the Mayor of Sacramento Kevin Johnson.
After he was fired, IG Walpin sued the Obama administration.
The D.C. Appellate Court said 2 things in their dismissal of IG Walpins lawsuit Link:
30 Day Congressional Notice Requirement - That being placed on administrative paid leave for the 30 days was not in violation of the law. "IGA section 3(b) provides no right to continued duty performance but only to deferral of “removal” until thirty days after notice is given."
Requirement to State a Reason For Firing an IG - The court found that merely stating that the President “no longer” had “the fullest confidence” in him, satisfies the minimal statutory mandate.
"Walpin next contends the President violated his duty under section 3(b) to communicate “the reasons for . . . removal” in the thirty-day notice. The President did, however, provide in the letters to the Congress his reason for removing Walpin—that the President “no longer” had “the fullest confidence” in him. This explanation satisfies the minimal statutory mandate that the President communicate to the Congress his “reasons” for removal. Section 3(b) imposes no “clear duty” to explain the reasons in any greater detail. In fact, the Congress intended that the thirty-day notice requirement provide an opportunity for a more expansive discussion of the President’s reasons for removing an inspector general."
Nobody cares. Literally no one cares. Have fun Nance
The amusing part?
Obama won the court case that sets precident for this.
(Taken from another post here, I unfortunately did not catch the OP's name)
Here are the applicable laws that apply to President Trumps firing of IG Atkinson. Trump did everything by the books.
posted 4 minutes ago by CarlosDangerrr
Here is the law which was updated upon the passing of the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008 in October 2010 to include the 30-day congressional notice for firing an IG (section b): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5a/compiledact-95-452/section-3 Obama fired IG Walpin in 2009 after IG Walpin discovered and went after corruption of federal grants being given to, Obama friend & donor, the Mayor of Sacramento Kevin Johnson. After he was fired, IG Walpin sued the Obama administration. The D.C. Appellate Court said 2 things in their dismissal of IG Walpins lawsuit Link:
30 Day Congressional Notice Requirement - That being placed on administrative paid leave for the 30 days was not in violation of the law. "IGA section 3(b) provides no right to continued duty performance but only to deferral of “removal” until thirty days after notice is given."
Requirement to State a Reason For Firing an IG - The court found that merely stating that the President “no longer” had “the fullest confidence” in him, satisfies the minimal statutory mandate.
"Walpin next contends the President violated his duty under section 3(b) to communicate “the reasons for . . . removal” in the thirty-day notice. The President did, however, provide in the letters to the Congress his reason for removing Walpin—that the President “no longer” had “the fullest confidence” in him. This explanation satisfies the minimal statutory mandate that the President communicate to the Congress his “reasons” for removal. Section 3(b) imposes no “clear duty” to explain the reasons in any greater detail. In fact, the Congress intended that the thirty-day notice requirement provide an opportunity for a more expansive discussion of the President’s reasons for removing an inspector general."
The D.C. court of appeals opinion: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/10-5221/10-5221-1286007-2011-02-28.html
Credit to https://thedonald.win/u/CarlosDangerrr/
I did not realize that I did catch his name in the copy/paste.
They're absolutely desperate to keep him from having a second term.
It's not only about the courts.
If the DOJ is retooled and unleashed, the left will see themselves in prison.
Investigation is a strong word lol