She was given a memo informing her of the firing, two sources said. According to one source, the memo stated in part that she was being dismissed pursuant to Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which is the portion of the Constitution that lays out the president's powers.
Because the DOJ, FTC, and FCC are all headed by Trump appointees and if the appointees don't do what he wants, he nixes them out of their positions.
Oh, so he can’t legally do that; he can only coerce the heads of those departments to do what he wants under pain of firing.
Got it; thanks.
Leading up to the November election a lot of idiots would say stupid crap like the country survived one Trump term, we'd survive a second. The flaws in that being numerous, the relevant one here is the first Trump administration was filled with people who were supposed to be competent since all indications are he was caught off guard by winning instead of pivoting from the loss to starting Trump TV. The result was he spend the better part of his first term being told no and firing people in a volatile chaotic mess of organisational tug of war. His loyalist cabinet was barely falling into place in December 2020 after his loss though they managed to almost allow the insurrection other than his VP was one of the few holdouts with even a shred of concern about rule of law. Project 2025 and his own experience meant his entire current cabinet was vetted for one thing only - loyalty. DOGE effectively began eliminating disloyal federal workers, heads of departments were quickly replaced with loyalists, and Project 2025 is almost fifty percent implemented.
Project 2025 and his own experience meant his entire current cabinet was vetted for one thing only - loyalty. DOGE effectively began eliminating disloyal federal workers, heads of departments were quickly replaced with loyalists, and Project 2025 is almost fifty percent implemented.
You don't understand the situation. At all.
In that case, and in light of your explanation, please explain how the sentence . . .
Project 2025 and his own experience meant his entire current cabinet was vetted for one thing only - loyalty. DOGE effectively began eliminating disloyal federal workers, heads of departments were quickly replaced with loyalists, and Project 2025 is almost fifty percent implemented.
You don't understand the situation. At all.
In that case, and in light of your explanation, please explain how the sentence . . .
Oh, so he can’t legally do that; he can only coerce the heads of those departments to do what he wants under pain of firing.
. . . equates to me not understanding the situation. At all.
I think the problem is that honorentheos read your statement that "[Trump] can’t legally do that" as implying that in your view Trump will be unable to carry out his program of filling top jobs with people whose main qualification is loyalty to him, because the actions he needs to take in order to carry out that program are illegal.
However, it seems that Trump's reaction to the known illegality of those actions is simply to carry them out anyway, and given (amongst other things) the attitude of the Supreme Court, it also seems that there is no legal authority likely to take action that might stop him doing what he wants.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
I Think it is likely that Trump would even sign an executive order declaring that the world is flat if he thought it would gain him enough additional voters. He already obstinately denies the reality and the probable adverse consequences of anthropomorphic climate change if we fail to transition to green technology, despite the conclusions of nearly 99% of the world's climate scientists. This is approximately on the same cognitive level as denying that the world is a rotating globe that is a relatively tiny component of a vast heliocentric solar system.
No precept or claim is more suspect or more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
