Fire every federal bureaucrat/employee caught undermining the administration.

[Foxfyre]

So when Trump suggested dropping nukes on hurricanes. The national security team shouldn't have opposed it?

Suggestions, opinions, questions, thinking out loud are not orders.and/

I do wish the left could make that distinction.

Nobody should be fired for saying they think something is a bad idea.

But do you or do you not agree that those who refuse legitimate ORDERS--that is ORDERS and not suggestions, opinions, questions, thinking out loud--and/or otherwise use their jobs to undermine the President's legitimate authority, policies, agenda should be fired?

 

[Foxfyre]

Show me the judicial decision that the raid was illegal?

Individuals are arrested by SWAT teams all the time. I’ve never seen any case that would demonstrate such arrests are illegal and cannot think of any case to be made against it.

Friend is merely a partisan who refused to carry out the agenda of the elected administration.

The answer to your question is maybe.

So let's go with maybe. What would be a legitimate reason to fire a federal employee?

 

[Foxfyre]

How about the some-odd thousand J6 people either in jail, or about to be in jail.

Non responsive to the question. Try again.

 

[postman]

Again, however, Friend should have had a legitimate hearing and determination that he refused to obey a LEGAL order. If he did he should be fired.

We don't have enough judges to hold hearings for the tens or hundreds of thousands of federal employees who do that.

 

[Marener]

So let's go with maybe. What would be a legitimate reason to fire a federal employee?

If that employee is engaging in political conduct, like refusing to properly investigate and prosecute criminals whose politics you agree with.

Among many other reasons, obviously.

 

[postman]

Suggestions, opinions, questions, thinking out loud are not orders.and/

I do wish the left could make that distinction.

Do you think if Trump ordered them to drop nuclear weapons on a hurricane, they would have done so?

 

[postman]

Non responsive to the question. Try again.

They each had the opportunity to say their arrest was illegal. And many of them tried, and the judge ruled 100% legal.

So there is absolutely no evidence any of the FBI's or prosecutions actions were illegal.

 

[Marener]

They each had the opportunity to say their arrest was illegal. And many of them tried, and the judge ruled 100% legal.

So there is absolutely no evidence any of the FBI's or prosecutions actions were illegal.

Even if the judge said their arrest was illegal, there’s a whole new bar to set in order to claim the act of arresting them was illegal.

 

[postman]

If that employee is engaging in political conduct, like refusing to properly investigate and prosecute criminals whose politics you agree with.

Among many other reasons, obviously.

How do you define properly?

You could say that Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden didn't properly investigate the O.J. Simpson case.

And for that they should have been fired?

 

[Foxfyre]

If that employee is engaging in political conduct, like refusing to properly investigate and prosecute criminals whose politics you agree with.

Among many other reasons, obviously.

Can you give a specific example, however hypothetical, of what you mean by that?

 

[Marener]

How do you define properly?

You could say that Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden didn't properly investigate the O.J. Simpson case.

And for that they should have been fired?

In the case of Friend, he refused to participate in all investigations of January 6th rioters, so that’s an easy one.

 

[Marener]

Can you give a specific example, however hypothetical, of what you mean by that?

Yes. Stephen Friend. He clearly had political alignment with January 6th rioters and refused to participate in their arrests or prosecutions. Claiming these were illegal is a phony excuse.

On the other hand, if the employee is given an order they is clearly political, they should refuse to do so. If Trump were to tell the FBI to drop the investigation into Michael Flynn, they should refuse and should be protected.

 

[postman]

In the case of Friend, he refused to participate in all investigations of January 6th rioters, so that’s an easy one.

It's like someone passes a class but gets a "D" for effort.

And someone getting an "F" because they never showed up.

 

[Foxfyre]

Do you think if Trump ordered them to drop nuclear weapons on a hurricane, they would have done so?

In a hypothetical--Trump would never order anything like that without solid science behind it--no, I think they probably would not. And that would be justification for a proper hearing to determine if they were proper in refusing. And it would almost certainly be ruled that they were proper to refuse because of the strong possibility that it could endanger people while not accomplishing what was intended.

However, if it was widely believed that such would do no harm, even if not effective, yes, they should follow the President's orders.

You get into the same kinds of situations when the President orders something bombed or other kinds of military retaliation/action. If the President is offended by something somebody in Denmark said and ordered the military to bomb Denmark, of course they must refuse and take their chances in court.

If Trump orders them to take out Al-Baghdadi or Soleimani, known instigators of terrorism targeting Americans among others, they legitimately do that. And they did. But that was also with the advice and consent of the Military. If they thought that immoral or unjustified they again can refuse and take their chance in court. The world is much better off that they chose to do the President's bidding.

 

[rightwinger]

So let's go with maybe. What would be a legitimate reason to fire a federal employee?

Insurrection

 

[postman]

In a hypothetical--Trump would never order anything like that without solid science behind it-

That's not the question.

The question is. If Trump ordered them to drop a nuke on a hurricane, Would they carry out that order?

 

[Mac1958]

So when Trump suggested dropping nukes on hurricanes. The national security team shouldn't have opposed it?

And, bingo.

He doesn't deserve blind allegiance either constitutionally or temperamentally.

 

[postman]

And, bingo.

He doesn't deserve blind allegiance either constitutionally or temperamentally.

Our nuclear doctrine gives the president the sole, and unqualified use of nuclear weapons authority.
Even the secretary of defenses role is purely ministerial.
He only authenticates the order came from the president, not the wisdom of the order.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes. Stephen Friend. He clearly had political alignment with January 6th rioters and refused to participate in their arrests or prosecutions. Claiming these were illegal is a phony excuse.

On the other hand, if the employee is given an order they is clearly political, they should refuse to do so. If Trump were to tell the FBI to drop the investigation into Michael Flynn, they should refuse and should be protected.

You are giving me examples of what you think employees should be allowed to refuse to do.

I asked you for an example of an employee refusing to follow an order or otherwise undermining the authority of the President and/or his policies and agenda that would be justification for that employee to be fired.

If you want to use Stephen Friend as that example, how does refusing to do something he believed was illegal justify his firing?

 

[Foxfyre]

Insurrection

That's it? Nothing else?