My take on NY times/Rosenstein

[jfish26]

Maybe "expedient?" I use "pragmatic" in the sense that Trump firing Rosenstein is MUCH more dangerous, for Trump, than Rosenstein resigning, in the "will the rest of his life play out in comfortable exile, or in prison" manner.

[DCHawk1]

I knew what you meant. But neither of us should pretend that Trump shares our forethought. or even has the capacity for it.

[jfish26]

I knew what you meant. But neither of us should pretend that Trump shares our forethought. or even has the capacity for it.

Sure, but would this sequence of events really surprise you:

1. Paranoid over NYT reports, Trump instructs Kelly to ice Rosenstein while Trump is away from DC.

2. Rosenstein says "you'll have to fire me."

3. Someone - shit, Alan Dershowitz for all I know - tells Trump that if he fires Rosenstein, he would probably need Congressional confirmation of a new appointee.

4. Trump backs off.

[Geezer]

If you think breaking the law would deter Trump.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/24/why-it- ... signs.html

[DCHawk1]

Again, lulz.

long-held practice

It's a good practice, IMO, but whether or not it's "the law" has yet to be determined.

[Geezer]

The replacement of government appointees is largely governed by the rules set forth in the 1998 Federal Vacancies Reform Act. This law gives the president the authority to temporarily move any one of his Senate-confirmed political appointees into a position that is vacant, provided the person who leaves the positions "dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office."

The law specifically does not say "dies, resigns or is fired."

[DCHawk1]

And?

There's a reason why VoteVets had to sue. The definition of "is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office" has not been officially established. And until it is, we're talking about a "long-held practice" and nothing more.

[japhy]

Well, as I understand it, when it comes to replacing Rosenstein, there's a critical distinction between Rosenstein's exit being a firing or a resignation. So, in that light, I think there are quite pragmatic reasons Trump does not want to fire him.

You say that like the words "Trump" and "pragmatic" have any business being in the same sentence together.

good job good post