Fire every federal bureaucrat/employee caught undermining the administration.

[Contumacious]

To a certain extent. But constitutionally he cannot order them to violate the constitutional, legal, unalienable rights of anybody as the current administration does. The President certainly has the right to call for an investigation of anybody within his jurisdiction when there is obvious evidence of a serious crime.

Certainly federal employees/appointees undermining the legal authority and orders of the President or his agents would classify as a serious crime.

Well . I hope President Trump , Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy will remind the parasites that civil service is not an unalienable constitutional right

 

[Marener]

This is all because the left is corrupting and abusing the legal system.

You can't complain that the issue is complicated when the abusers are the ones complicating it.

So you say, but you’re a biased political hack so I’m not sure how seriously anyone should take you.

I don’t think there’s any role for a president to tell anyone in the DoJ to investigate let alone prosecute. But apparently you do.

 

[Foxfyre]

Didn't Trump in 2016 say that he would appoint a special prosecutor to put Hillary Clinton in jail?

Isn't that political?

No. He said he would order the DOJ to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary's e-mail violations that the FBI had already publicized. That would be a perfectly legitimate action on the part of the President.

But after he was elected, he changed his position on that and said he had no interest in prosecuting Hillary Clinton.

Trump team won't pursue charges against Hillary Clinton

Donald Trump will not investigate Hillary Clinton's emails, to help her "heal", his spokeswoman says.

www.bbc.com

 

[postman]

Did he actually go through with it?

Yes or no.

Interesting. Does that mean if somebody threatens to kill the president, you have to wait until they actually pull the trigger?

Yes or no?

 

[MisterBeale]

If going after carbon is based on a ratified international treaty,

The Senate never gave consent, nor was there a ratified international treaty by the legislature that "goes after carbon."

 

[Foxfyre]

Well . I hope President Trump , Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy will remind the parasites that civil service is not an unalienable constitutional right

That is sort of the point of this thread. Any federal employee who is using his/her civil service position to undermine the President's authority and agenda should be summarily fired at the very least.

 

[postman]

Was the Kyoto treaty ever ratified by the Senate?

What about the Paris Accords?

Those are the carbon treaties you were probably talking about.

Let me make it easier for you, they never were ratified.

Why are you bringing up unratified treaties, when I clearly said based on a ratified treaty.

You're just trying to be argumentative because you misread my "ratified" treaty post.

 

[martybegan]

So you say, but you’re a biased political hack so I’m not sure how seriously anyone should take you.

I don’t think there’s any role for a president to tell anyone in the DoJ to investigate let alone prosecute. But apparently you do.

I am far less biased than you are.

Notice I said I would wait for an indictment before drawing any conclusions.

 

[postman]

No, I don’t think he did. Regardless, he DIDN'T do anything to her.

Trump said it on national television.

Look up presidential debates.

 

[martybegan]

Why are you bringing up unratified treaties, when I clearly said based on a ratified treaty.

You're just trying to be argumentative because you misread my "ratified" treaty post.

There is no ratified Carbon Treaty in the US, so your point is moot.

Are you going with theoreticals, or are you just too full of yourself to admit you didn't know Kyoto and Paris were never ratified by the Senate?

 

[martybegan]

Trump said it on national television.

Look up presidential debates.

He said, he never followed through on it.

 

[Marener]

He said, he never followed through on it.

And you all thought it was perfectly appropriate and reasonable, enough to vote for him.

 

[Marener]

I am far less biased than you are.

Notice I said I would wait for an indictment before drawing any conclusions.

You’re avoiding the issue because you don’t want to deal with it.

Marty, you have absolutely no self awareness. The low level partisan hacks like yourself never see themselves as they truly are.

It’s why you defend basically anything Trump does.

 

[martybegan]

And you all thought it was perfectly appropriate and reasonable, enough to vote for him.

I voted for him because his views on how to move this country forward more closely match mine than Harris' views.

 

[hadit]

I imagine your average humble worker drone is not trying to undermine anything.

No, but if I routinely go to social media and announce that I'm going to do everything I can to obstruct and resist the new CEO, I can expect to get fired.

 

[martybegan]

You’re avoiding the issue because you don’t want to deal with it.

Marty, you have absolutely no self awareness. The low level partisan hacks like yourself never see themselves as they truly are.

I am explaining my views on it, not my fault you are either unwilling or unable to comprehend this.

 

[Marener]

I voted for him because his views on how to move this country forward more closely match mine than Harris' views.

Including his views of politicizing the DoJ and prosecuting political enemies. Gotcha.

 

[martybegan]

You’re avoiding the issue because you don’t want to deal with it.

Marty, you have absolutely no self awareness. The low level partisan hacks like yourself never see themselves as they truly are.

It’s why you defend basically anything Trump does.

Stop editing your posts and adding crap. Take 1 minute and think before you post.

 

[hadit]

I voted for him because his views on how to move this country forward more closely match mine than Harris' views.

And you don't have to agree with everything he says and does. The only candidate who would be that agreeable to you is yourself.

 

[Foxfyre]

+

Interesting. Does that mean if somebody threatens to kill the president, you have to wait until they actually pull the trigger?

Yes or no?

That is even more stupid than the one who tried to equate desegregation with DEI. Do you honestly think a threat against the president's (or anybody else's) life is no different than illegal emails?

The OP is about federal employees who are deliberately undermining the President's authority and agenda. I wonder if it is possible for you to focus on that?