""Trump removes watchdog tapped for $2T virus rescue oversight"

It’s interesting to watch the US government slowly unwind into a banana republic. I never understood how it happened in other countries, but all it takes is a cult of personality and a crisis.

 

Only after the IG changed the whistle blower rules so he could proceed with an otherwise improper if not illegal whistle blower complaint.

 

The two IG's changed the rules? When can an IG change procedural rules? And if they did, why didn't the AG have something to say about it?

 

They are, appointed by Trump, doesn't that tell you something, like having the Fox protect the chicken coup

 

You are kidding right? Have you forgotten who is AG? It is the same guy who believes Trump can not be charges with a crime, who has used the DOJ to act as Trump's attorney in Trump's own personal lawsuits, who has attacked those criticizing Trump, and you think he is capable of oversight of Trump?

You can't be that naive

 

It only took one to change the rules.

I don't know. I didn't think they could but I was evidently wrong.

I dunno.

 

I'm dead serious and no Barr never said that a special prosecutor could not bring charges against a President. There was never a whistleblower, there was a complainer and his complaints were reviewed and found not only to be factually incorrect but of no merit by the CAREER people at the DOJ and OLC.

 

Actually reassuring the law and the Constitution are being upheld and Democrat coups shot down.

 

Close your eyes for a second. Think about everything Trump has done.

Now imagine it was Obama doing them.

I'm going to call bull crap on your post.

 

They didn't change any rules, the complaint was filed and investigated, deemed valid enough to be passed on to the next level IG, which was unnecessary but done, again found valid, sent to the AG and WH, a very unusual move, and then truned over to Congress per law. Nothing illegitiamte nor against procedures, no rule changes

 

None of that is accurate.

Barr has stated a siting President could not be indited for a crime while acting as President, meaning, Barr feels the President is above the law, and you think he is going to oversee Trump?

There was a whistleblower, and his/her complaint was investigates by two separate IG's and found valid enough to pass on to Congress as per the law. And if it was what you say why didn't the AG hold it up?

 

All IGs are appointed by a President. That's nothing new. There are 8 other IGs that are on the Committee overseeing the funds...this was one guy, who will be replaced. Actually he already has, by Sean O'Donnell, another career civil servant who was the IG of the EPA

Who actually prior to being the IG of the EPA, worked for 15 years at the DOJ prosecuting white collar crimes like money laundering...seems like he has experience

 

It is 100% accurate and Barr even went so far as to state neither he nor Rosenstein or the OLC even considered it in their decisions. And note you have now moved the goal post from charged with crimes in the report to presenting an indictment and prosecuting. Mueller had a DUTY to bring any criminal charges he found to the AG, he reported none. Had he, the grand jury having issued indictments, then that would have been presented to Congress for their consideration for removal. Once removed the indictments then presented or they await the President leaving office when their term expires as happened with Bill Clinton. The idea that Mueller could not state clearly and concisely backed by the evidence that the President had committed crimes is a canard he and the left tried to use when in fact he found no crimes as confirmed by the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General and the Office of Legal Counsel.

There was no whistle blower the person and the complaint did not qualify.

 

Seems like a BETTER choice.

 

Sorry. Any whistle blower had to attest on the complaint form that he had first-hand knowledge of the questionable action. The IG changed that requirement to allow second-hand information. Without that the whistle blower's complaint would have not been allowed. And, IIRC, this changed was made specifically for the Ukraine phone call "whistle blower" case and has not been used since. There is also strong indications, albeit unproven, that the change was made in consultation with Chairman Schiff. The AG reviewed the complaint, which is normal procedure, but the WH did not get an advanced copy.

Another problem is that a whistle blower can complain about illegal actions done only in his department; he cannot complain about policy disagreements, and there is serious questions if a whistle blower can complain at all about president actions.

 

But why would a lib actually look beyond the headline?

 

Exactly. We are on a very slippery slope....

 

Actually the folks that said a President can't be charged with a crime...were back in the 70s, and again in 2000....

What personal lawsuit?

 

We've been on a slippery slope ever since we began considering considering what a friggin' alternative fact was.