LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

As the DOGE turns.

I can't think of a single reason why the Government ACCOUNTING Office or the INSPECTOR Generals offices would need any accountants. Probably needs congressional action and the various courts permission to get some. :rolleyes:
 

Judge gives go-ahead for the Trump administration to gut USAID's workforce​

The decision comes after the judge had temporarily paused efforts to place thousands of USAID employees on administrative leave following a lawsuit by labor groups.

Feb. 21, 2025, 2:01 PM PST / Updated Feb. 21, 2025, 3:42 PM PST
By Zoë Richards

A federal judge on Friday paved the way for the Trump administration to move forward with plans to remove thousands of U.S. Agency for International Development workers from their jobs.

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols denied a request from labor groups to issue a preliminary injunction after the Trump administration said thousands of USAID employees would be placed on administrative leave and ordered agency personnel abroad to return to the U.S. within 30 days.

“Weighing plaintiffs’ assertions on these questions against the government’s is like comparing apples to oranges. Where one side claims that USAID’s operations are essential to human flourishing and the other side claims they are presently at odds with it, it simply is not possible for the Court to conclude, as a matter of law or equity, that the public interest favors or disfavors an injunction,” Nichols wrote.

“Plaintiffs have presented no irreparable harm they or their members are imminently likely to suffer from the hypothetical future dissolution of USAID,” Nichols wrote. “And it is not clear why the speed of proceedings in the relevant agencies would be insufficient to address the only actions that have already happened and are presently ripe for review: administrative leave placements, expedited evacuations, and other changes to working conditions of the sort those bodies routinely confront.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/tr...go-ahead-trump-gut-usaid-workforce-rcna193262

Democrats do not understand the law or the Constitution.
 
Rightguide said:

Judge gives go-ahead for the Trump administration to gut USAID's workforce​

The decision comes after the judge had temporarily paused efforts to place thousands of USAID employees on administrative leave following a lawsuit by labor groups.

Feb. 21, 2025, 2:01 PM PST / Updated Feb. 21, 2025, 3:42 PM PST
By Zoë Richards

A federal judge on Friday paved the way for the Trump administration to move forward with plans to remove thousands of U.S. Agency for International Development workers from their jobs.

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols denied a request from labor groups to issue a preliminary injunction after the Trump administration said thousands of USAID employees would be placed on administrative leave and ordered agency personnel abroad to return to the U.S. within 30 days.

“Weighing plaintiffs’ assertions on these questions against the government’s is like comparing apples to oranges. Where one side claims that USAID’s operations are essential to human flourishing and the other side claims they are presently at odds with it, it simply is not possible for the Court to conclude, as a matter of law or equity, that the public interest favors or disfavors an injunction,” Nichols wrote.

“Plaintiffs have presented no irreparable harm they or their members are imminently likely to suffer from the hypothetical future dissolution of USAID,” Nichols wrote. “And it is not clear why the speed of proceedings in the relevant agencies would be insufficient to address the only actions that have already happened and are presently ripe for review: administrative leave placements, expedited evacuations, and other changes to working conditions of the sort those bodies routinely confront.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/tr...go-ahead-trump-gut-usaid-workforce-rcna193262

Democrats do not understand the law or the Constitution.
Click to expand...
I posted that here earlier in brief form.

In all of the legalese in his opinion the judge did opine that only under the most extraordinary of circumstances should the courts interfere with Executive Branch prerogatives.
 

C.I.A. Plans Largest Mass Firing in Nearly 50 Years​

The possible purge of officers working on recruiting and diversity comes as the agency moves to comply with the spirit of an executive order banning efforts to diversify the federal work force


Expanding the diversity of the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies was a priority of William J. Burns, the former C.I.A. director.Credit...Jason Andrew for The New York Times
https://archive.is/eOash/2a75fee5062c1bcc80afe85d73d9d8c945325368.png
By Julian E. Barnes
Reporting from Washington
  • Feb. 20, 2025, 2:34 p.m. ET

The C.I.A. has moved to dismiss an unspecified number of officers who were working on recruiting and diversity issues, according to former officials, in what would be one of the largest mass firings in the agency’s history.

The possible purge of the officers comes as the agency moves to comply with the spirit of President Trump’s executive order banning efforts to diversify the federal work force.

The C.I.A. on Friday began calling in officers who had been put on administrative leave and telling them to resign or be fired, but a federal court soon halted that action. A judge in the Eastern District of Virginia is scheduled to hold a hearing on Monday to consider a temporary restraining order against the agency.

While presidents often order policy changes at the agency, it is rare for career officers who carried out the priorities of a previous administration to be fired, the former officials said. Former President Barack Obama, for example, ended the C.I.A. interrogation program started under former President George W. Bush but did not fire the officers accused of torturing Al Qaeda prisoners.

https://archive.is/eOash
 
The author of that article, Julian Barnes, is a reporter for the New York Times. He continually refers to the CIA employees as "officers." They are NOT officers. Federal officers are badge carrying entities with powers of arrest as well as being officers of the court, virtually none of which applies to CIA employees.

Another case to the leftoids bastardizing the language.
 
Rebel5soul said:
The author of that article, Julian Barnes, is a reporter for the New York Times. He continually refers to the CIA employees as "officers." They are NOT officers. Federal officers are badge carrying entities with powers of arrest as well as being officers of the court, virtually none of which applies to CIA employees.

Another case to the leftoids bastardizing the language.
Click to expand...
There is federal statutory law regarding who has the the title of "officer" in the federal government:

Statutory Definitions of "Officer" in Federal Law​

5 U.S.C. § 2104 – "Officer" Defined for Civil Service​

  • Defines an officeras someone who:
    1. Is appointed by the President, a court of law, or the head of an executive agency;
    2. Is engaged in exercising significant authority under U.S. law; and
    3. Holds a continuing position established by law (as opposed to temporary employees).

5 U.S.C. § 2105 – Employee vs. Officer​

  • Differentiates between federal employees and officers, stating that officers hold a position of authority under law, while employees serve under their direction.

18 U.S.C. § 201 – Definition of "Public Official" (Includes Officers)​

  • Defines public officials, including officers, as those with authority to act on behalf of the U.S. government.

10 U.S.C. § 101 – Military Officers​

  • Defines military officers as commissioned officers of the U.S. Armed Forces.
There is the following SCOTUS jurisprudence as well:

Supreme Court Decisions Interpreting "Officer"​

  • Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)
    • The Court held that an "officer of the United States" must be appointed in accordance with the Appointments Clause and must exercise significant authority under federal law.
  • Lucia v. SEC, 585 U.S. ___ (2018)
    • Ruled that SEC Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) are officers rather than employees because they exercise significant discretion and power.
  • United States v. Germaine, 99 U.S. 508 (1879)
    • Distinguished between officers (who have ongoing, legally established duties) and mere employees (who serve a temporary or subordinate role).
 
Rightguide said:
There is federal statutory law regarding who has the the title of "officer" in the federal government:

Statutory Definitions of "Officer" in Federal Law​

5 U.S.C. § 2104 – "Officer" Defined for Civil Service​

  • Defines an officeras someone who:
    1. Is appointed by the President, a court of law, or the head of an executive agency;
    2. Is engaged in exercising significant authority under U.S. law; and
    3. Holds a continuing position established by law (as opposed to temporary employees).

5 U.S.C. § 2105 – Employee vs. Officer​

  • Differentiates between federal employees and officers, stating that officers hold a position of authority under law, while employees serve under their direction.

18 U.S.C. § 201 – Definition of "Public Official" (Includes Officers)​

  • Defines public officials, including officers, as those with authority to act on behalf of the U.S. government.

10 U.S.C. § 101 – Military Officers​

  • Defines military officers as commissioned officers of the U.S. Armed Forces.
There is the following SCOTUS jurisprudence as well:

Supreme Court Decisions Interpreting "Officer"​

  • Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)
    • The Court held that an "officer of the United States" must be appointed in accordance with the Appointments Clause and must exercise significant authority under federal law.
  • Lucia v. SEC, 585 U.S. ___ (2018)
    • Ruled that SEC Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) are officers rather than employees because they exercise significant discretion and power.
  • United States v. Germaine, 99 U.S. 508 (1879)
    • Distinguished between officers (who have ongoing, legally established duties) and mere employees (who serve a temporary or subordinate role).
Click to expand...
None of which apply to the individuals the author is referencing.
 
icanhelp1 said:
It was a discussion about why isn't the SS converting to new computer systems. I will try to find that discussion.
Click to expand...
Do you have any idea what the scale of this undertaking would be? How about the money to pay for it. I'd guess it at close to a Trillion dollars. How the hell is either party going to justify allocating those kinds of dollars, with tax cut whiners like you around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Trump hints that Musk and DOGE may be coming to the end of the road
Replies
9
Views
316
LLCox
LLCox
P
Musk wants to leave politics because he’s tired of ‘attacks’ from the left
Replies
8
Views
277
Saint_Ann
Saint_Ann
P
14 states file a lawsuit arguing Elon Musk's authority at DOGE is unconstitutional
Replies
10
Views
338
Politruk
P
P
Elon Musk Has Conflict of Interest at Over 70% of DOGE’s Targets
Replies
1
Views
157
Politruk
P
P
Same day as the DC military parade: The "No Kings" protests -- nationwide
2
Replies
29
Views
551
Politruk
P
Back
Top