Another patriot fired for obeying the law and doing his duty.

Trump hopes you won’t notice or care about this outrage in the midst of the pandemic crisis his failed leadership has deepened beyond measure.

17 thoughts on “Another patriot fired for obeying the law and doing his duty.

  1. I find this extremely concerning.

    He has an impeccable reputation for competency and non partisan honesty and apparently followed the “rules” to a “T”.

    Oh, never mind,

    Liked by 1 person

  2. For all you military wannabes, although unfortunate, the captain did not follow the chain of command. At that level in the military, this kind of panic will get you relieved of duty. And the Navy, not Trump, fired him. Clueless long haired dope smokers and lefty extremists need not reply.


    1. LOL, Bob, you dumb fuck.

      Talk about clueless….

      The post is about the IG fired last night.

      Guess it’s hard to see when you read with your knuckles on the ground.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. My bad. Kind of hard keeping up with YOU dumb fucks constantly carping about inane BULLSHIT all of the time. My comment still applies in this case too about not following the chain of command. Suck it up cupcake….

        Liked by 1 person

    2. From my time in the Navy back in the sailing days, a captain is given a lot of direct responsibility for the ship and its crew. And with that comes a lot of discretionary control

      I think he erred on the part of crew safety which is truly sad. With 4000 men and 100 of them infected, I am sure he was concerned that expeditious action was warranted. I do believe he did follow the chain of command, but with immediate follow ups to express his urgency about the safety, and lives, of his men.

      That someone leaked the message, and no one seems to know who, was unfortunate.

      The rapid firing, however, probably means someone was really scared up the line. Not even an inquiry.

      It just smells like low tide in Naples to me.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Oops. My bad. I was answering Smith’s post.

        The IG firing is just a pure power grab. Trump doesn’t want anyone watching how he spends the people’s money.

        “Move along now, nothing more to see here. Only I can fix it.”

        Except I get the feeling that “fix” is as in “the fix is in”.

        “Ok, no shoving. Big donors over here, medium donors over there and Democratic donors line up at the porta-potty.”

        “Oh, don’t forget, a party afterwards at Mar a Lago. Cash bar.”

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Damn. Still have the wrong IG.

          GEEZ Trump is firing so many folks that he appointed it is hard to keep score.

          One day it’s “Ive known him for a long time, he’s a helluva guy, great man.”

          Then it’s “l don’t even know who he is. I’ve never seen him.”

          Liked by 1 person

  3. Would this be the IG who, when told by his department head, that the whistleblower complaint did not meet the qualifications for reporting directly to Congress went ahead and did it anyway?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. @Tabor

      The law is specific. He followed it. Period.

      There is no legitimate reason for any formal whistle blower complaint to be illegally withheld from the Congress. Duh!


      1. No, he did not follow the law.

        Bypassing the administrative chain of command requires that the matter be urgent and that it involve an employee within the jurisdiction of the intelligence community. His superiors ruled that the complaint met neither of those requirements.

        You may think the law should be different, but it is not and he violated the law.


        1. @Tabor

          “No, he did not follow the law.”

          THAT is a LIE. There is no provision in the law for the judgment of the IG to be reviewed by ANYBODY. There is no “administrative chain of command” to by-pass. The IG is independent on such matters. By design. The White House sending it to Barr to make that bogus ruling was part of the cover-up.


          1. @Tabor

            I stand corrected. I confused the IG with the DNI. However, the DNI has no obligation to consult with political bosses nor any requirement to get the AG to opine on it. His only legitimate role is to ensure that classified materials are not compromised.


          2. “His superiors ruled that the complaint met neither of those requirements.“

            By superiors I presume you mean the Cabal of Maguire, AG, and WH.?

            Ironic that you use the blatant cover-up as justification for firing the only patriot in this mess who insured that the law was followed as intended.

            Micheal Atkinson is a hero who will be lauded as the history of this corrupt Administration is written.

            Liked by 1 person

        2. “However, some [Republicans] expressed concerns over the firing. Burr touted Atkinson’s “professionalism” in office, while Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), usually a staunch ally of the White House, said an explanation was needed.“
          “Inspectors general play a critical role in protecting against fraud, waste, abuse and misconduct, and their work helps ensure the government efficiently serves the people. And they often serve as an outlet to whistleblowers who shine a light to problems in government,” said Grassley. “They help drain the swamp, so any removal demands an explanation.”
          “Congress has been crystal clear that written reasons must be given when [inspectors general] are removed for a lack of confidence,” he added. More details are needed from the administration.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s