(04-10-2019, 02:13 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(04-10-2019, 01:55 PM)B2hibry Wrote: Resignation letter: https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/07/politics/...index.html

Your reading comprehension is severly lacking. I will say again...the Secretary of DHS is an at-will employee. When applicable, this means they can be let go for both any reason or for no reasonat all. They may also be impeached (more of that pesky congressional oversight). In addition, they can walk at anytime. She was not hired nor was she fired by the POTUS. You seem to wrongly equate hiring and firing as boss specific. Not the case in government and nearly equally reflected in the business world.

I didn't miss it the first time. I know what at-will means.  I'm glad you said it again.  You're at least in touch with reality on those points.

Where you jump on the train to crazy town is where you say that the person who can fire her for any reason or no reason isn't her boss.  That's nuts. The President is her boss.  But she also has to follow the law and answer questions from Congress if asked.  Guess what: both of us also have to follow the law and answer questions from Congress if asked! I have a boss who can fire me, and you probably do too.  We are the same as her, except her boss is the President.

The issue here is most likely that the President has asked her to do her job in a way that she doesn't feel is lawful.  He has demanded her resignation so he can find someone who doesn't think his orders are unlawful, or doesn't care.  Or maybe you're right, maybe she went through the pain of a Senate confirmation just to give up and leave public service after just 17 months.  Guess what: most people in her position write their resignation letters without mentioning whether they were asked to leave.  The letter on its own proves nothing.  She will be more free to speak once she actually steps down.

Have u been paying attention to anything?  I mean literally ANYTHING?  

@ THE heart of this whole issue is something called the Flores settlement.  It's an unconstitutional act of judicial supremacy where some 9th circuit lunatic tried to enact policy that was never passed by Congress and limit the amount of time a minor can be detained by the state, and the libs extrapolated this to defacto mandate catch and release of family units and thus we've seen an unprecedented influx of family units @ the border.  

The president's position is, in the meantime, detain the adults release the children to relatives or other custodians and challenge the flores decision in the long run.  Nelson wasn't on board with the optics and PR of family separation so she's out.  As DHS SECRETARY her political function in the administration is to advocate publicly and implement practically the policies of the chief executive. If she couldn't do that then she's out.  

A.) I see u have no issue with clear judicial overreach ( long standing that the president basically has universal power to ban any class or group of migrant from the country that he sees fit, and that the judiciary subordinates decisions on national security to the branches that actually answer to voters and, I don't know, actually get security briefings.)

B.) The whirlwind misdirection that any dismissal of a cabinet official is because they were the lone voice of reason against the mad tyrant is both childish and asinine.  Jeff sessions got pushed into a refusal by a comedian from Minnesota.  As a result, 30 million dollars 2 years and people's lives were wasted to grill the biggest nothing burger this side of Wisconsin.  

Never trumped derangement syndrome might be the more virulent of the two strands.

---