What are you believing that tells you the contrary, hyperventilating headlines?And you believed him? What a sucker.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What are you believing that tells you the contrary, hyperventilating headlines?And you believed him? What a sucker.
The fact that he’s appointing project 2025 people to positions of high authority and that he’s embraced schedule F.What are you believing that tells you the contrary, hyperventilating headlines?
That doesn't mean he embraces everything in which they believe. In fact, they are supposed to align with him, not he with them.The fact that he’s appointing project 2025 people to positions of high authority and that he’s embraced schedule F.
They can still be prosecuted if they commit future crimes. They can still be called in to testify against their co-conspirators. They can still be investigated by the Senate, the House, and the Bondi DOJ.They have been pardoned so that trump will not harass them. They have broken no laws.
In fact, they can now be brought in to testify without being able to plead the 5th.They can still be prosecuted if they commit future crimes. They can still be called in to testify against their co-conspirators. They can still be investigated by the Senate, the House, and the Bondi DOJ.
But if they commit no further crimes, they have nothing to fear from any of that, of course.
He embraces using executive fiat to remove civil servants which is what matters.That doesn't mean he embraces everything in which they believe. In fact, they are supposed to align with him, not he with them.
Civil servants who publicly state they will do everything in their power to obstruct anything the president is doing SHOULD be removed. That's not even controversial.He embraces using executive fiat to remove civil servants which is what matters.
Civil servants who publicly state they won't comply with politicization of the DoJ shouldn't be removed. That's not even controversial.Civil servants who publicly state they will do everything in their power to obstruct anything the president is doing SHOULD be removed. That's not even controversial.
There are whistleblower avenues for things like that. IOW, going public with negative opinions of your boss just because you think he's a poopyhead is not a smart thing to do.Civil servants who publicly state they won't comply with politicization of the DoJ shouldn't be removed. That's not even controversial.
Being a whistleblower won’t protect them.There are whistleblower avenues for things like that. IOW, going public with negative opinions of your boss just because you think he's a poopyhead is not a smart thing to do.
There are many ways to retaliate against them, but by going the official route, they have some protections. Blabbing that the new boss is a poopyhead on FB is not, however, a smart thing to do.Being a whistleblower won’t protect them.
They'd only get protections as civil servants. Once Trump strips those protections, being a whistleblower does nothing.There are many ways to retaliate against them, but by going the official route, they have some protections. Blabbing that the new boss is a poopyhead on FB is not, however, a smart thing to do.
Free speech just prevents the government from taking legal action against you for speaking your mind. Military personnel, for example, are restricted in what they can say, and I can say the president is a poopy head with a lot more freedom than a civil servant could say it in the context of their job. Hey, if you want them to not face getting fired, at least it would alert management of whom to scrutinize whenever anything goes wrong.They'd only get protections as civil servants. Once Trump strips those protections, being a whistleblower does nothing.
Free speech isn't your thing, is it.
Free speech does a lot more than that.Free speech just prevents the government from taking legal action against you for speaking your mind. Military personnel, for example, are restricted in what they can say, and I can say the president is a poopy head with a lot more freedom than a civil servant could say it in the context of their job. Hey, if you want them to not face getting fired, at least it would alert management of whom to scrutinize whenever anything goes wrong.
The point is, just being a civil servant does not grant you blanket immunity to saying anything you want to with no fear of consequences. Management has or should have the right to terminate an employee openly stating they will defy instructions or obstruct or hamper the operation of their office.Free speech does a lot more than that.
Military personnel have different rules when it comes to their personal freedoms.
Should they terminate people who say they won't follow the orders of anyone politicizing the government?The point is, just being a civil servant does not grant you blanket immunity to saying anything you want to with no fear of consequences. Management has or should have the right to terminate an employee openly stating they will defy instructions or obstruct or hamper the operation of their office.
Are they qualified to make that call or are we just opening the door to anyone refusing to do their job or worse, obstructing because they think the president is a poopyhead? At the very least, they should be willing to accept the target they paint on themselves to be the first in line for questioning should anything go wrong. IOW, should any office be forced to keep employees who make it known publicly that they will hamper the operation of the office because they disagree with the president?Should they terminate people who say they won't follow the orders of anyone politicizing the government?
I hear it told that all these last moment pardons require the new Trump DOJ to process and deliver them.But interestingly, the Idiot-in-Chief forgot to pardon himself.
Now the people he pardoned have lost their Fifth Ammendment rights (since they can't be prosecuted), and they can be compelled to testify under oath.
The Buttercups need to buckle up!!!![]()
![]()
Why wouldn't they be qualified to make that call? If they're not, who is?Are they qualified to make that call or are we just opening the door to anyone refusing to do their job or worse, obstructing because they think the president is a poopyhead? At the very least, they should be willing to accept the target they paint on themselves to be the first in line for questioning should anything go wrong. IOW, should any office be forced to keep employees who make it known publicly that they will hamper the operation of the office because they disagree with the president?