JUST the Stolen Documents/Mar-A-Lago/"Judge" Cannon Trial

[old salt]

How many IGs is that now? How many more to go?

Ask Old Salt.... he used to revere them.

Too bad. That guy was a real crime buster, investigating who picked up Pompeo's dry cleaning, Big stuff.

Such big stuff to have the IMPOTUS fire him!

Just an old sycophant

Get your facts straight ladies. Pompeo fired him.

really?
Actually no. Pompeo, who was being investigated, recommended firing him. Trump did it.
At least, according to Fox.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/congre ... or-general

Sen. Chuck Grassley, a longtime advocate for inspectors general who denounced Atkinson's ouster, joined Democrats Saturday in criticizing Trump's latest IG firing.

Grassley, R-Iowa, said the 2008 Inspector General Reform Act requires the president to provide Congress with a written explanation at least 30 days prior to removing an inspector general -- and Trump didn't meet this responsibility.

"As I’ve said before, Congress requires written reasons justifying an IG’s removal," Grassley said in a statement. "A general lack of confidence simply is not sufficient detail to satisfy Congress."

AP & USA Today differ.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 206160002/

WASHINGTON – Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's decision Friday to fire his department's inspector general...

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politi ... story.html

https://nypost.com/2020/05/15/pompeo-fi ... ve-linick/

WASHINGTON (AP) — Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has fired the State Department’s inspector general...

http://www.elpasoinc.com/news/ap_wire/p ... 81a90.html

Pompeo fires State Dept. watchdog critical of Trump moves

WASHINGTON (AP) — Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has fired the State Department’s inspector general, an Obama administration appointee whose office was critical of alleged political bias in the agency’s management.

A senior department official said Pompeo removed Steve Linick from his job Friday but gave no reason for his removal.

[CU88]

'I don't take responsibility at all' - o d

[youthathletics]

So which is it MD.

1 - Were you citing Fox because they were right
OR
2. Because you wanted prove they are always wrong

[MDlaxfan76]

So which is it MD.

1 - Were you citing Fox because they were right
OR
2. Because you wanted prove they are always wrong

Just the first to come up at that moment when I googled.

But they were not alone in asserting that it was Pompeo's recommendation, Trump's final decision.
Their article also covered that there's supposed to be a 30 day notice and explanation of such firing...by the President.

Others:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52688658
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/16/pompeo- ... neral.html
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/15/politics ... index.html

Looks to me like the AP reporting was the basis of several others, and preceded the article from Fox regarding the reaction, as well as the clarification of Pompeo recommending, Trump removing.

In either case (I don't know what did or did not happen other than Trump's own announcement that'd 'lost confidence' in Linick), the fundamental issue is an IG whose bloody job it is to independently investigate wrongdoing within a particular agency shouldn't be getting fired by those he/she's responsible for investigating.

It's supposed to be a Presidential nomination with Congressional acceptance and, in theory, a possible removal by the President with oversight by Congress.

These are post-Watergate era reforms that are being unwound.

[Typical Lax Dad]

So which is it MD.

1 - Were you citing Fox because they were right
OR
2. Because you wanted prove they are always wrong

Nice blocking those shots in front of the goal to keep your goalie looking good.

[youthathletics]

So which is it MD.

1 - Were you citing Fox because they were right
OR
2. Because you wanted prove they are always wrong

Nice blocking those shots in front of the goal to keep your goalie looking good.

#TeamworkMakesTheDreamwork.

[Typical Lax Dad]

So which is it MD.

1 - Were you citing Fox because they were right
OR
2. Because you wanted prove they are always wrong

Nice blocking those shots in front of the goal to keep your goalie looking good.

#TeamworkMakesTheDreamwork.

I am not on a political party team but you can have fun. BTW, NF is getting his work in. It didn’t dawn on me that he would be here during this outbreak.

[youthathletics]

So which is it MD.

1 - Were you citing Fox because they were right
OR
2. Because you wanted prove they are always wrong

Nice blocking those shots in front of the goal to keep your goalie looking good.

#TeamworkMakesTheDreamwork.

I am not on a political party team but you can have fun. BTW, NF is getting his work in. It didn’t dawn on me that he would be here during this outbreak.

No surprise, he is always locked in and has a great work ethic.

[Typical Lax Dad]

So which is it MD.

1 - Were you citing Fox because they were right
OR
2. Because you wanted prove they are always wrong

Nice blocking those shots in front of the goal to keep your goalie looking good.

#TeamworkMakesTheDreamwork.

I am not on a political party team but you can have fun. BTW, NF is getting his work in. It didn’t dawn on me that he would be here during this outbreak.

No surprise, he is always locked in and has a great work ethic.

Hopefully there is college lacrosse next year.

[get it to x]

So which is it MD.

1 - Were you citing Fox because they were right
OR
2. Because you wanted prove they are always wrong

Just the first to come up at that moment when I googled.

But they were not alone in asserting that it was Pompeo's recommendation, Trump's final decision.
Their article also covered that there's supposed to be a 30 day notice and explanation of such firing...by the President.

Others:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52688658
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/16/pompeo- ... neral.html
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/15/politics ... index.html

Looks to me like the AP reporting was the basis of several others, and preceded the article from Fox regarding the reaction, as well as the clarification of Pompeo recommending, Trump removing.

In either case (I don't know what did or did not happen other than Trump's own announcement that'd 'lost confidence' in Linick), the fundamental issue is an IG whose bloody job it is to independently investigate wrongdoing within a particular agency shouldn't be getting fired by those he/she's responsible for investigating.

It's supposed to be a Presidential nomination with Congressional acceptance and, in theory, a possible removal by the President with oversight by Congress.

At the risk of being accused of “whataboutism” you do know there was no IG at the State Department for the first four years of the Obama administration. Just when HRC was using her unsecured server.

These are post-Watergate era reforms that are being unwound.

[MDlaxfan76]

So which is it MD.

1 - Were you citing Fox because they were right
OR
2. Because you wanted prove they are always wrong

Just the first to come up at that moment when I googled.

But they were not alone in asserting that it was Pompeo's recommendation, Trump's final decision.
Their article also covered that there's supposed to be a 30 day notice and explanation of such firing...by the President.

Others:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52688658
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/16/pompeo- ... neral.html
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/15/politics ... index.html

Looks to me like the AP reporting was the basis of several others, and preceded the article from Fox regarding the reaction, as well as the clarification of Pompeo recommending, Trump removing.

In either case (I don't know what did or did not happen other than Trump's own announcement that'd 'lost confidence' in Linick), the fundamental issue is an IG whose bloody job it is to independently investigate wrongdoing within a particular agency shouldn't be getting fired by those he/she's responsible for investigating.

It's supposed to be a Presidential nomination with Congressional acceptance and, in theory, a possible removal by the President with oversight by Congress.

At the risk of being accused of “whataboutism” you do know there was no IG at the State Department for the first four years of the Obama administration. Just when HRC was using her unsecured server.

These are post-Watergate era reforms that are being unwound.

I highlighted in red what I think you added.

No, I didn't know that.
But what I do know is that this particular IG is the one that flagged Clinton's use of a private server as out of bounds.
Sounds like he needed to be there sooner!

[old salt]

But what I do know is that this particular IG is the one that flagged Clinton's use of a private server as out of bounds.
Sounds like he needed to be there sooner!

What's your source for that ? Are you sure it was him, rather than the IC IG &/or the Benghazi committee who originally discovered it ?

[MDlaxfan76]

But what I do know is that this particular IG is the one that flagged Clinton's use of a private server as out of bounds.
Sounds like he needed to be there sooner!

What's your source for that ? Are you sure it was him, rather than the IC IG &/or the Benghazi committee who originally discovered it ?

Good question, I'll look for the source, heard it, read it multiple times...Clinton was at State, not IC.

googled:
https://nypost.com/2020/05/18/hillary-c ... -by-trump/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 204743002/

yup, lots and lots of reporting...

He's the guy who criticized Clinton strongly in a 2016 report. Clinton was very PO'd.
Accused his office of leaking it to press and Congress.

This guy is NOT a partisan.

[cradleandshoot]

But what I do know is that this particular IG is the one that flagged Clinton's use of a private server as out of bounds.
Sounds like he needed to be there sooner!

What's your source for that ? Are you sure it was him, rather than the IC IG &/or the Benghazi committee who originally discovered it ?

Good question, I'll look for the source, heard it, read it multiple times...Clinton was at State, not IC.

googled:
https://nypost.com/2020/05/18/hillary-c ... -by-trump/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 204743002/

yup, lots and lots of reporting...

He's the guy who criticized Clinton strongly in a 2016 report. Clinton was very PO'd.
Accused his office of leaking it to press and Congress.

This guy is NOT a partisan.

" Clinton was very PO'd"

If Clinton was PO'd at you you should be lucky you are still breathing.

[old salt]

But what I do know is that this particular IG is the one that flagged Clinton's use of a private server as out of bounds.
Sounds like he needed to be there sooner!

What's your source for that ? Are you sure it was him, rather than the IC IG &/or the Benghazi committee who originally discovered it ?

Good question, I'll look for the source, heard it, read it multiple times...Clinton was at State, not IC.

googled:
https://nypost.com/2020/05/18/hillary-c ... -by-trump/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 204743002/

yup, lots and lots of reporting...

He's the guy who criticized Clinton strongly in a 2016 report. Clinton was very PO'd.
Accused his office of leaking it to press and Congress.

This guy is NOT a partisan.

Flagged or piling on ? Was he the State Dept IG when the Benghazi committee discovered that Clinton was using a private server. They then called in the IC & State Dept IG's. I don't think he was on the job as IG yet.

[old salt]

But what I do know is that this particular IG is the one that flagged Clinton's use of a private server as out of bounds.
Sounds like he needed to be there sooner!

What's your source for that ? Are you sure it was him, rather than the IC IG &/or the Benghazi committee who originally discovered it ?

Good question, I'll look for the source, heard it, read it multiple times...Clinton was at State, not IC.

googled:
https://nypost.com/2020/05/18/hillary-c ... -by-trump/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 204743002/

yup, lots and lots of reporting...

He's the guy who criticized Clinton strongly in a 2016 report. Clinton was very PO'd.
Accused his office of leaking it to press and Congress.

This guy is NOT a partisan.

Flagged or piling on ? Was he the State Dept IG when the Benghazi committee discovered that Clinton was using a private server. They then called in the IC & State Dept IG's. I don't think he was on the job as IG yet.

Found it. Linick was called in after Guccifer & the Benghazi Comm unearthed it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_C ... ontroversy

Emails sent to Clinton's private clintonemail.com address were first discovered in March 2013, when a hacker named "Guccifer" widely distributed emails sent to Clinton from Sidney Blumenthal, which Guccifer obtained by illegally accessing Blumenthal's email account.[30][31][32] The emails dealt with the 2012 Benghazi attack and other issues in Libya and revealed the existence of her clintonemail.com address.[30][31][32]

Blumenthal did not have a security clearance when he received material from Clinton that has since been characterized as classified by the State Department.[33][34]

In the summer of 2014, lawyers from the State Department noticed a number of emails from Clinton's personal account, while reviewing documents requested by the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

[old salt]

Now on the Big Stick -- TR will get underway this wk with 3000 crew aboard, 1800 on the beach in Guam. 2 wks in vicinity of Guam doing landing requals for air wing flight crews, then back into Guam to embark the rest of the crew. Will probably hang around in W Pac just long enough to be relieved by the Nimitz strike group which is currently at sea conducting final predeployment exercise in SoCal op areas.

Tough duty for Navy crews. Deployments with minimal or no port calls. Isolation when ashore awaiting deployment. Staying at sea & deploying immediately after pre-deployment workups. Tough on Navy families.

https://apnews.com/0ad85bd579341d186acfe6dc7d8e8716

[MDlaxfan76]

But what I do know is that this particular IG is the one that flagged Clinton's use of a private server as out of bounds.
Sounds like he needed to be there sooner!

What's your source for that ? Are you sure it was him, rather than the IC IG &/or the Benghazi committee who originally discovered it ?

Good question, I'll look for the source, heard it, read it multiple times...Clinton was at State, not IC.

googled:
https://nypost.com/2020/05/18/hillary-c ... -by-trump/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 204743002/

yup, lots and lots of reporting...

He's the guy who criticized Clinton strongly in a 2016 report. Clinton was very PO'd.
Accused his office of leaking it to press and Congress.

This guy is NOT a partisan.

Flagged or piling on ? Was he the State Dept IG when the Benghazi committee discovered that Clinton was using a private server. They then called in the IC & State Dept IG's. I don't think he was on the job as IG yet.

Found it. Linick was called in after Guccifer & the Benghazi Comm unearthed it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_C ... ontroversy

Emails sent to Clinton's private clintonemail.com address were first discovered in March 2013, when a hacker named "Guccifer" widely distributed emails sent to Clinton from Sidney Blumenthal, which Guccifer obtained by illegally accessing Blumenthal's email account.[30][31][32] The emails dealt with the 2012 Benghazi attack and other issues in Libya and revealed the existence of her clintonemail.com address.[30][31][32]

Blumenthal did not have a security clearance when he received material from Clinton that has since been characterized as classified by the State Department.[33][34]

In the summer of 2014, lawyers from the State Department noticed a number of emails from Clinton's personal account, while reviewing documents requested by the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

you are correct, "flagged" wouldn't be the right term, in so far as it means 'discovered'. Generally IG's have complaints brought to them which they then investigate, as opposed to going around hunting for corruption or misdeeds. What's clear was that he took it up as worth investigating further and ripped her hard for the activity in the report, ticking her off big time. Point being he wasn't partisan, as any IG should not be partisan.

[MDlaxfan76]

Now on the Big Stick -- TR will get underway this wk with 3000 crew aboard, 1800 on the beach in Guam. 2 wks in vicinity of Guam doing landing requals for air wing flight crews, then back into Guam to embark the rest of the crew. Will probably hang around in W Pac just long enough to be relieved by the Nimitz strike group which is currently at sea conducting final predeployment exercise in SoCal op areas.

Tough duty for Navy crews. Deployments with minimal or no port calls. Isolation when ashore awaiting deployment. Staying at sea & deploying immediately after pre-deployment workups. Tough on Navy families.

https://apnews.com/0ad85bd579341d186acfe6dc7d8e8716

Is it just me or are the TR's movements awfully public?...I thought it was such a big deal when it was let out that folks were sick...

[old salt]

Now on the Big Stick -- TR will get underway this wk with 3000 crew aboard, 1800 on the beach in Guam. 2 wks in vicinity of Guam doing landing requals for air wing flight crews, then back into Guam to embark the rest of the crew. Will probably hang around in W Pac just long enough to be relieved by the Nimitz strike group which is currently at sea conducting final predeployment exercise in SoCal op areas.

Tough duty for Navy crews. Deployments with minimal or no port calls. Isolation when ashore awaiting deployment. Staying at sea & deploying immediately after pre-deployment workups. Tough on Navy families.

https://apnews.com/0ad85bd579341d186acfe6dc7d8e8716

Is it just me or are the TR's movements awfully public?...I thought it was such a big deal when it was let out that folks were sick...

It has become a public issue. At this point, saying nothing would make it look worse & cast doubt upon the ship's ability to get underway & fight.
It will have been nearly 2 mos before it gets underway. Every release stressed that they could get underway if they had to.

I wonder if the extraordinary restrictions they've incorporated will be the new norm for all warships or is just to allow the TR to limp home with 3000 aboard. There's not room for a full 4800 ship's crew + air wing with those restrictions. We can't operate & fight a carrier with that small of a crew.