So her public reputation means nothing? And she doesn’t have to worry about harassment or violence from right wing fanatics, that’s good to know.
I am laughing that every time one of the Republicans starts questioning Ambassador Yovanovitch, they start off by praising her.
Respectfully, I do not endorse that conclusion.
~Max
Ms. Speier advanced a bribery argument that I haven’t heard before - if it was laid out here, I missed it. She is implying that a certain Mr. Parnas directly bribed the President to remove Ambassador Yovanovitch, and the bribe was a significant monetary contribution to the President’s re-election campaign.
That’s quite an allegation, to be differentiated from the soliciting-a-bribe-by-asking-for-an-investigation charge from the July 25 phone call. It is much easier to understand in plain language, and certainly impeachable if true.
~Max
Do you think she has grounds to file a workplace harassment case against the President and his agents?
I realize “workplace harassment” may seem trivial in the grand scheme of things. But it’s something that the federal government does [del]take seriously[/del] have a formal legal process for. I wonder if that’s something that carries weight in the impeachment process.
Thanks for the correction. I thought she was working at Georgetown. Is her new position one of those “at the pleasure of the President” gigs or one of those almost-impossible-to-fire fed.gov career positions?
As a government employee, I’d certainly feel like there was an attempt to intimidate me, if I was criticized publicly by the President while I was testifying with information that might be damaging to him.
Why the concern of her employment status? She was already removed from her previous position at the president’s behest. Do you believe that she should have no reason of fear of further reprisals because she’s managed to find a soft landing at FedForLife.gov gig?
And your post just reminded me of something I’ve been thinking for quite some time: if while under the employment of the Federal government, if I had a phone call in which I engaged in anything like what Trump said, I would 100% expect to be fired and prosecuted. There isn’t even a tiny speck of me that would expect to get away with it. Not in a million years.
I’m not going to make a judgement right now because I don’t know enough about federal workplace harassment procedures, etc.
~Max
Not unless you had one of those cushy almost-impossible-to-fire fed president.gov positions.
‘Yes, yes. I know you have the body. And the murder weapon. And multiple eyewitnesses. But my client is INNOCENT because we don’t know who called 9-1-1.’
No, we DO know who dialed 911. But we need to get him out in the public to prove to potential jurors that he talked to a cop friend before calling 911.
Impossible to fire federal employees? Really?
The Houston Chronicle seems to disagree. With facts and everything. It seems the article is “facts” heavy and “feels” light.
And maybe get the boys to have a “chat” with him so that any other snitches get the message.
I’m waiting for the Trump tweet: “Don’t forget - snitches get stitches”
I am not sure whether she is still considered a “principle officer” that the President can fire at will. Nonetheless Mr. Trump is still her nominal boss.
~Max
If you go back and read the original post, you might notice that it uses the word “almost”. That word was included for a reason. Your fact-heavy article notes:
I think we’re talking about firing at will.
~Max
If you put on your thinking cap like I did, it makes sense that federal employees have extra protection from arbitrary termination specifically so that Mr. Evil Demon-Rat president doesn’t just arbitrarily fire Republican Joe Schmo Federal Employee because he was hired during King Regan’s reign. Especially if he had no performance issues or personnel issues. Random arbitrary politically motivated firings of federal employees is generally regarded as a bad thing in functional democracies.
Its been a few years, but when I worked shoulder to shoulder with the federal employees I worked with, they were for the most part Republicans. I would think that you would want “your own” to have protections from political shenanigans from those dangerous Democrat elected and appointed officials.
The fact that you are concerned for this poor woman’s job is admirable, though.
My comment wasn’t advocating that those civil-servant-employment-protections be removed, it was merely noting that they do, in fact, exist. As for the political leanings of the federal workforce, it’s slightly dem overall:
The State Department appears to be something of a bastion of liberalism though: