5 ms·

USDA Inspector General Who Refused to Leave Escorted from Office by Security

84 points by itronitron 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
cocacola1 2y ago
> Phyllis Fong was heading up an investigation into Elon Musk's Neuralink. > Last Friday, President Donald Trump purged several agencies of their inspectors general, demanding that at least 17 people in the role immediately turn in their work laptops and ID badges. One of those IGs, Phyllis Fong at the US Department of Agriculture, decided not to leave, believing the order to be illegal. According to a report from Reuters, she was escorted from the building today by security. Never mind a long four years, it’s been a long two weeks. Unfortunately, the law is too slow dealing with things like this. And even if it was ruled illegal, who’s going to enforce it. The White House?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > even if it was ruled illegal, who’s going to enforce it The court that ruled it such. She would not only be entitled to back pay, anything her replacement does wouldn’t have legal force. That means anything they do can be challenged by anyone who doesn’t like it. We’re seeing the limits of Congressional checks on the executive. But we still have an independent judiciary. (If that collapses it will be a good time to be a billionaire in America.) The judiciary’s advantage is its patient; it can exact consequences after 2028 in a way the executive and even the Congress cannot.
  - clessg 2y ago
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the courts essentially powerless to enforce? If memory serves, the judicial branch merely interprets the law and Constitution, but they lack an enforcement mechanism - it is up to the Executive Branch (the president) to administer and enforce the law. If they decide they don't feel like listening to the courts, it's unclear anybody could actually do anything. (Other than impeachment perhaps? But of course that isn't going to happen anytime soon.) Besides, even if they did have the power to enforce the law, I can't say I exactly trust the Supreme Court to even try reining in Trump (except in minor ways) based on their recent track record. But who knows.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > it's unclear anybody could actually do anything Sure, if we get down to mechanics like that, the courts require someone else to enforce. But at that mechanistic level, so does the President. He isn’t personally escorting her out of the office.
      - clessg 2y ago
        > But at that mechanistic level, so does the President. He isn’t personally escorting her out of the office. Fair enough, I strongly hope a good number of folks within the government show a backbone and resist unlawful or abusive orders however they can. Unfortunately those same people can easily be fired and replaced with somebody appropriately loyal (as is already happening). So, unfortunately, I'm not terribly optimistic. Popular backlash seems to be fairly effective so far at least, so there is some hope. (For example the federal funding freeze which ended almost immediately after a flurry of confusion and outrage. Allegedly ended, anyway - it's not exactly clear in reality.)
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > resist unlawful or abusive orders These firings don’t appear to be unlawful or abusive. They’re sloppy. But he has the power to fire them.
        clessg 2y ago
        Inspectors General have a special provision in the law regarding removal or relocation: > The removal procedure for presidentially appointed IGs is found in Title 5, Section 403(b), which reads in part An Inspector General may be removed from office by the President. If an Inspector General is removed from office or is transferred to another position or location within an establishment, the President shall communicate in writing the substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress (including the appropriate congressional committees), not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit a personnel action otherwise authorized by law, other than transfer or removal. So it's illegal because he didn't notify Congress in advance. That statute was enacted in 2022 specifically to prevent abuses of power such as this.
  - distortionfield 2y ago
    We do not have an independent judiciary, they have already shown their allegiance to the President.
  - ainiriand 2y ago
    Eh... When was not a good time to be a billionaire in USA? You mean like now? Is it not a good time now?
- INTPenis 2y ago
  I love the use of the word purge here, makes me think of Stalin.
  - catigula 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - wslh 2y ago
      People should be very careful with words and comparisons. Stalin's purges resulted in assassinations numbering in the millions. Comparing Trump to Stalin is an exaggeration, even considering Trump’s policies that warrant criticism.
      - catigula 2y ago
        It's a comical comparison. Similar to the left using the word "fascism" with no real grasp on the actual meaning. It's just name-calling.
        _yb2s 2y ago
        I’m not on the left but I know what fascism is, and this is both the same strategy and same ideology. The only reason I can think of to say it’s not is if you genuinely want fascism- but are worried the negative connotations of the label might prevent it from succeeding. They’re openly using the publicly disclosed strategies of fascist blogger and author Curtis Yarvin for example- he was invited to the inauguration as a guest of honor.
        coder4life 2y ago
        Just learned about that guy Curtis Yarvin and his "Butterfly Revolution" today "DARK GOTHIC MAGA: How Tech Billionaires Plan to Destroy America" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RpPTRcz1no https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RpPTRcz1no
- distortionfield 2y ago
  > who’s going to enforce it? This is the real danger of where we’re at right now. We are currently at a point where the President has a stacked Supreme Court that had already showed they’re willing to take his side almost no matter what. There is now effectively no check against the executive branch because of that. Papers are already running stories about how Congress is just letting him loose, with these Inspectors General firings as a prime example of how Congress has just thrown their hands up without even a fight.
  - _yb2s 2y ago
    We are on the brink of a fascist dictatorship and hardly anyone is noticing or taking it seriously.
    - b59831 2y ago
      [dead]
    - anon84873628 2y ago
      Really? It seemed to me that people were shouting it from the rooftops prior to the election. And then the Democrats were accused of only taking about the threat to Democracy instead of the price of eggs.
    - anthonygd 2y ago
      It is extremely difficult to take seriously.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > with these Inspectors General firings as a prime example of how Congress has just thrown their hands up without even a fight From what I can tell, the IGs do serve at the pleasure of the President. The only thing he didn’t do is notify the Congress. Is that true?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
layer8 2y ago
Already discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42902355 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42902355

84 points by itronitron 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

> Phyllis Fong was heading up an investigation into Elon Musk's Neuralink. > Last Friday, President Donald Trump purged several agencies of their inspectors general, demanding that at least 17 people in the role immediately turn in their work laptops and ID badges. One of those IGs, Phyllis Fong at the US Department of Agriculture, decided not to leave, believing the order to be illegal. According to a report from Reuters, she was escorted from the building today by security. Never mind a long four years, it’s been a long two weeks. Unfortunately, the law is too slow dealing with things like this. And even if it was ruled illegal, who’s going to enforce it. The White House?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> even if it was ruled illegal, who’s going to enforce it The court that ruled it such. She would not only be entitled to back pay, anything her replacement does wouldn’t have legal force. That means anything they do can be challenged by anyone who doesn’t like it. We’re seeing the limits of Congressional checks on the executive. But we still have an independent judiciary. (If that collapses it will be a good time to be a billionaire in America.) The judiciary’s advantage is its patient; it can exact consequences after 2028 in a way the executive and even the Congress cannot.
- clessg 2y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the courts essentially powerless to enforce? If memory serves, the judicial branch merely interprets the law and Constitution, but they lack an enforcement mechanism - it is up to the Executive Branch (the president) to administer and enforce the law. If they decide they don't feel like listening to the courts, it's unclear anybody could actually do anything. (Other than impeachment perhaps? But of course that isn't going to happen anytime soon.) Besides, even if they did have the power to enforce the law, I can't say I exactly trust the Supreme Court to even try reining in Trump (except in minor ways) based on their recent track record. But who knows.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > it's unclear anybody could actually do anything Sure, if we get down to mechanics like that, the courts require someone else to enforce. But at that mechanistic level, so does the President. He isn’t personally escorting her out of the office.
    - clessg 2y ago
      > But at that mechanistic level, so does the President. He isn’t personally escorting her out of the office. Fair enough, I strongly hope a good number of folks within the government show a backbone and resist unlawful or abusive orders however they can. Unfortunately those same people can easily be fired and replaced with somebody appropriately loyal (as is already happening). So, unfortunately, I'm not terribly optimistic. Popular backlash seems to be fairly effective so far at least, so there is some hope. (For example the federal funding freeze which ended almost immediately after a flurry of confusion and outrage. Allegedly ended, anyway - it's not exactly clear in reality.)
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > resist unlawful or abusive orders These firings don’t appear to be unlawful or abusive. They’re sloppy. But he has the power to fire them.
        clessg 2y ago
        Inspectors General have a special provision in the law regarding removal or relocation: > The removal procedure for presidentially appointed IGs is found in Title 5, Section 403(b), which reads in part An Inspector General may be removed from office by the President. If an Inspector General is removed from office or is transferred to another position or location within an establishment, the President shall communicate in writing the substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress (including the appropriate congressional committees), not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit a personnel action otherwise authorized by law, other than transfer or removal. So it's illegal because he didn't notify Congress in advance. That statute was enacted in 2022 specifically to prevent abuses of power such as this.
- distortionfield 2y ago
  We do not have an independent judiciary, they have already shown their allegiance to the President.
- ainiriand 2y ago
  Eh... When was not a good time to be a billionaire in USA? You mean like now? Is it not a good time now?
INTPenis 2y ago
I love the use of the word purge here, makes me think of Stalin.
- catigula 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - wslh 2y ago
    People should be very careful with words and comparisons. Stalin's purges resulted in assassinations numbering in the millions. Comparing Trump to Stalin is an exaggeration, even considering Trump’s policies that warrant criticism.
    - catigula 2y ago
      It's a comical comparison. Similar to the left using the word "fascism" with no real grasp on the actual meaning. It's just name-calling.
      - _yb2s 2y ago
        I’m not on the left but I know what fascism is, and this is both the same strategy and same ideology. The only reason I can think of to say it’s not is if you genuinely want fascism- but are worried the negative connotations of the label might prevent it from succeeding. They’re openly using the publicly disclosed strategies of fascist blogger and author Curtis Yarvin for example- he was invited to the inauguration as a guest of honor.
        coder4life 2y ago
        Just learned about that guy Curtis Yarvin and his "Butterfly Revolution" today "DARK GOTHIC MAGA: How Tech Billionaires Plan to Destroy America" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RpPTRcz1no https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RpPTRcz1no
distortionfield 2y ago
> who’s going to enforce it? This is the real danger of where we’re at right now. We are currently at a point where the President has a stacked Supreme Court that had already showed they’re willing to take his side almost no matter what. There is now effectively no check against the executive branch because of that. Papers are already running stories about how Congress is just letting him loose, with these Inspectors General firings as a prime example of how Congress has just thrown their hands up without even a fight.
- _yb2s 2y ago
  We are on the brink of a fascist dictatorship and hardly anyone is noticing or taking it seriously.
  - b59831 2y ago
    [dead]
  - anon84873628 2y ago
    Really? It seemed to me that people were shouting it from the rooftops prior to the election. And then the Democrats were accused of only taking about the threat to Democracy instead of the price of eggs.
  - anthonygd 2y ago
    It is extremely difficult to take seriously.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > with these Inspectors General firings as a prime example of how Congress has just thrown their hands up without even a fight From what I can tell, the IGs do serve at the pleasure of the President. The only thing he didn’t do is notify the Congress. Is that true?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

layer8 2y ago

Already discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42902355 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42902355