As is the case with regard to other positions where I, as president, have the power of appointment, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, it is vital that I have the fullest confidence in the appointees serving as inspectors general. That is no longer the case with regard to this inspector general.
I suppose Atkinson's firing was a small price for the Dems to pay for all the turmoil they were able to put the country through with their Ukraine Hoax Impeachment Theater--thanks to Atkinson's shenanigans. Still, with Richard Grenell cleaning house as Director of National Intelligence and with Bill Barr's DoJ breathing down the necks of the coup plotters, they may yet regret losing another key operative who was able to protect the likes of Eric Ciaramella. We can hope so.
Alternate Theory - It's trolling to Pelosi about the threat of more investigations. Probably a combination of clean house and trolling.
ReplyDeleteGood news. I’d have given him the 30 days’ pay and walked him off the property. He caused more trouble than just the fake “whistleblower” fiasco.
ReplyDeleteSeems that Atkinson in a previous role was involved in FISA, and the latest FISA IG Report shows his incompetence.
ReplyDeletePuts Trump in a win win situation. If the Dems make a big thing about this, Trump will expose more of the corruption in FISA and of Atkinson. If the Dems just do a few sound bites, Trump cleans house.
https://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/2019/10/oh-my-michael-k-atkinson-icig.html
Deletetest,,, using MS Edge
ReplyDeleteI look forward to seeing Atkinson's HPSCI testimony that Schiff has been refusing to release since last Summer. According to GOP members who were there, Atkinson was exposed, or refused to answer question about how he handled things.
ReplyDeleteGOP needs to take House for that to happen, right?
DeleteWell, that would be the straightforward way to do it.
DeleteBut I have a sneakier, faster plan (though I cannot prove that it would work):
Sen Committee (run by GOP) opens a hearing into Atkinson's firing, then subpoenas the Atkinson transcript from the HPSCI!
The transcript is necessary to determine if there is a legitimate basis for the POTUS to have "lost trust" in IG Atkinson.
I don't see a Constitutional basis on which the House can deny a Senate Committee access to a public record, classified or not. There is no "separation of powers" issue because BOTH the House and Senate are part of the legislative branch, and the testimony is a public record, albeit classified.
Might end up in Court, but unless there is a preexisting precedent that allows one house of Congress to tell the other "You can't see our public records," I think Schiff loses in the end.
I'm doubtful of that.
DeleteFirst of all, the Senate Committee would be the Intel committee and they wouldn't do it. Moreover, in the Senate I believe subpoenas have to be approved by both sides.
Second, the transcript isn't a public record--it's a record of House business.