An inspector general fired by Donald Trump was reportedly investigating Mike Pompeo over accusations he forced a subordinate to walk his dog, pick up his dry cleaning and make dinner reservations for him and his wife.
The removal of the State Department’s top watchdog, Steve Linick, was announced late on Friday. He became the fourth inspector general fired in just six weeks by the US president.
Details of the investigation’s contents were revealed by NBC News, which said it had spoken with two officials assigned to different congressional committees.
The officials said Mr Linick had been probing those three alleged demands, as well as other personal errands. They said it was possible Mr Linick had other ongoing investigations into the secretary of state.
The subordinate, the officials said, is a political appointee who was serving as a staff assistant.
Democratic House speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Sunday Mr Trump’s firing of Mr Linick “could be unlawful” if it was intended as retaliation for the Pompeo probe.
“The president has the right to fire any federal employee, but the fact is if it looks like it's in retaliation for something the IG, the inspector general, was investigating, that could be unlawful,” Ms Pelosi said on CNN's State of the Union.
The top Democrats on the House and Senate foreign relations committee on Saturday began a probe into the firing, saying it was their understanding Mr Pompeo personally recommended Linick's sacking because the inspector general “had opened an investigation into wrongdoing by Secretary Pompeo himself”.
A State Department spokesperson confirmed Mr Linick had been fired but did not comment on Mr Pompeo's role in the dismissal.
White House adviser Peter Navarro, meanwhile, downplayed the firing, saying that what Mr Trump terms the “deep state” has caused problems and those who are not loyal must go.
“We've had tremendous problems with, some people call it the 'Deep State'. And I think that's apt. So I don't mourn the loss,” Mr Navarro, the director of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, said in an interview on ABC's This Week.
“There's a bureaucracy out there. And there's a lot of people in that bureaucracy who think they got elected president and not Donald J Trump.”
Mr Navarro did not offer any evidence to back up his claim.
Mr Trump and his allies have long pushed conspiracy theories that target what they denounce as the “deep state”, career civil servants meant to be nonpolitical who, they say, are working to undermine Mr Trump.
Mr Navarro's comments are likely to further inflame tensions with Democrats who have sounded alarms over what they call an escalating pattern by Mr Trump of firing watchdogs whom he views as a threat to his presidency.
In April, Mr Trump removed a top coronavirus watchdog, Glenn Fine, who was to oversee the government's financial relief response to the pandemic.
He also notified Congress that he was firing the inspector general of the US intelligence community, Michael Atkinson, who was involved in triggering the impeachment investigation.
After Mr Atkinson's firing, a bipartisan group of senators, including Republicans Charles Grassley, Susan Collins and Mitt Romney, called on Mr Trump to provide a detailed written explanation for his decision.
Then earlier this month, Mr Trump ousted Christi Grimm, who led the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General, after accusing her of having produced a “fake dossier” on American hospitals suffering shortages on the frontlines of the coronavirus outbreak.
Experts say the pattern threatens the independent oversight function that inspectors general provide, particularly if watchdogs feel pressure to do the president's political bidding or risk being fired for refusing.
The system itself is now “weakening to the point of ineffectiveness”, said Dan Meyer, a former executive director of Intelligence Community Whistleblowing and Source Protection.
Some Republicans in Congress have rushed to defend Mr Trump's decision to oust Mr Linick.
In an interview on CNN's State of the Union, Senate homeland security and governmental affairs committee chairman Ron Johnson said he felt “not all inspector generals are created equal” and noted they “serve at the pleasure of the president”.
Here’s what Russia’s 2020 disinformation operations look like, according to two experts on social media and propaganda. By DARREN LINVILL & PATRICK WARREN Internet trolls don’t troll. Not the professionals at least. Professional trolls don’t go on social media to antagonize liberals or belittle conservatives. They are not narrow minded, drunk or angry. They don’t lack basic English language skills. They certainly aren’t “somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds,” as the president once put it. Your stereotypical trolls do exist on social media, but the amateurs aren’t a threat to Western democracy. Professional trolls, on the other hand, are the tip of the spear in the new digital, ideological battleground. To combat the threat they pose, we must first understand them — and take them seriously. MORE: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/russia-troll-2020-election-interference-twitter-916482/ Posted by Jamie B.
The Nightmare Scenario That Keeps Election Lawyers Up At Night -- And Could Hand Trump A Second Term (Photo: Photos: Getty Images) Americans will almost certainly go to bed on Nov. 3 without knowing who won the presidential election. Since millions of people will vote by mail, constraints on time and resources will slow ballot counting into potentially a weeks-long process. Voting patterns suggest it’s likely that President Donald Trump could end Election Day in the lead in certain key states, only to be overtaken by Democratic opponent Joe Biden when more votes are tallied. This could create a nightmare scenario during the three months stretching from Election Day to the Jan. 20 inauguration: a battle on the state and congressional level over who is the legitimate winner. This could include Congress reconvening on Jan. 6, presided over by Vice President Mike Pence , with no consensus over its potential role in choosing the next president. This is arguably the most likely of th
Here is an interesting question in my list of philosophical questions: 1.) Should governments have penalties for those who live unhealthy lifestyles? A list of unhealthy lifestyles would include things like smoking, drinking, illegal drugs, prostitution, and other “vice” type activities. I guess the “government penalties” would be referring to monetary punishments, withholding medical treatments (insurance companies would love that), possibly imposing/regulating very high (exorbitant) prices on things considered unhealthy in order to cut down on their use, and other possibilities. 2.) Or, would you say that living an unhealthy lifestyle, likely resulting in a LOT of eventual personal pain and suffering, should be punishment enough for unhealthy lifestyles? When people make bad choices in life, often in their youth where ignorance and immediate gratification takes them over, 3.) Should a society be obligated to help "fix" them, by way of tax money? Is that part of
Comments
Post a Comment