I'll assume you realize now although you didn't acknowledge it that the President does. Therefore the President would be the top of the hierarchy of the bureaucracy. This suggests to me that he indeed has the power to hire and fire at FEMA. Which you asserted he did not.
I just posted that in a separatepost, because I realized I might have given you too much credit in seeing how what I commented tied in to the President being directly over the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Did you not bother reading my post? Did you not understand it?
Do you not understand how things like conflict of interest arises in the scenario you've painted? Are you completely unaware of the legal ramifications of someone being unfairly dismissed? Or that the President has much more important things to do than run around firing every mid-level employee that does something he doesn't like?
Note that I'm not just talking about Trump here. Unless you think this would somehow magically only relate to him? Imagine if the Democrats could just fire whoever they wanted.
So, to point it out, again, just because the President could eventually work his way down the chain of command to eventually get to the person he wants to fire, that does not mean he has the authority to just fire anyone he wants.
There's a concept called "abuse of power" that you might want to look up.
Please explain what conflict of interest would arise in the President directing his Secretary of Homeland Security to fire a particular employee or group of employees. Assuming he had just cause, of course.
Well, that's a lot of assuming, first off. If there was just cause, then the President wouldn't need to interfere in the first place.
If it's a point of, "Hey, Bob, Marcy down in accounting has been embezzling. Don't know why you haven't noticed, but she needs the heave-ho."...that's one thing.
But if it's "John in HR has been talking shit about me online, so I want them fired. If you won't do it, then I'm going to fire you and hire someone who willl" that's another.
It's simply needlessly putting the President's reputation at risk, if nothing else. And again, huge fucking waste of time. Especially if there is actually just cause in firing them. If there was, then it wouldn't need the President to point that out.
You know I gave you a jumping off point on where to look for an explanation of this stuff.
I can't tell if you don't understand why the President doesn't have the power to hire and fire anyone he likes, or if you just disagree with it.
Because if you disagree with it, ok. I can understand that. But I'm getting more of a "I've never heard of this concept before, so it must not exist" vibe from you.
I did answer it.
I'll assume you realize now although you didn't acknowledge it that the President does. Therefore the President would be the top of the hierarchy of the bureaucracy. This suggests to me that he indeed has the power to hire and fire at FEMA. Which you asserted he did not.
I just posted that in a separatepost, because I realized I might have given you too much credit in seeing how what I commented tied in to the President being directly over the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Did you not bother reading my post? Did you not understand it?
Do you not understand how things like conflict of interest arises in the scenario you've painted? Are you completely unaware of the legal ramifications of someone being unfairly dismissed? Or that the President has much more important things to do than run around firing every mid-level employee that does something he doesn't like?
Note that I'm not just talking about Trump here. Unless you think this would somehow magically only relate to him? Imagine if the Democrats could just fire whoever they wanted.
So, to point it out, again, just because the President could eventually work his way down the chain of command to eventually get to the person he wants to fire, that does not mean he has the authority to just fire anyone he wants.
There's a concept called "abuse of power" that you might want to look up.
Please explain what conflict of interest would arise in the President directing his Secretary of Homeland Security to fire a particular employee or group of employees. Assuming he had just cause, of course.
Well, that's a lot of assuming, first off. If there was just cause, then the President wouldn't need to interfere in the first place.
If it's a point of, "Hey, Bob, Marcy down in accounting has been embezzling. Don't know why you haven't noticed, but she needs the heave-ho."...that's one thing.
But if it's "John in HR has been talking shit about me online, so I want them fired. If you won't do it, then I'm going to fire you and hire someone who willl" that's another.
It's simply needlessly putting the President's reputation at risk, if nothing else. And again, huge fucking waste of time. Especially if there is actually just cause in firing them. If there was, then it wouldn't need the President to point that out.
You know I gave you a jumping off point on where to look for an explanation of this stuff.
I can't tell if you don't understand why the President doesn't have the power to hire and fire anyone he likes, or if you just disagree with it.
Because if you disagree with it, ok. I can understand that. But I'm getting more of a "I've never heard of this concept before, so it must not exist" vibe from you.