Acting Secretaries: Easy to appoint, easy to dismiss, serving at Trump's pleasure only. What could go wrong?

Trump is scared of the Senate approval process? The process that has seen the confirmation of countless federal judges, two supreme court justices and a Republican controlled Senate body that Democrats couldn't stop an appointment if they wanted to.

Just taking Trump's own words at face value and applying a tiny bit of analysis, as this article from The Hill:

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/438660-trump-learns-to-love-acting-officials

“I like acting because I can move so quickly. It gives me more flexibility,' Trump said in a February interview with CBS's 'Face the Nation.'

"The use of acting officials gives Trump even more power over those who serve him since they haven't been through a Senate confirmation process.

"Some who hope to win permanent positions might even be more likely to back the president on controversial moves."

Your analysis, as standard is banal. Its perfectly legal to appointing actings. Your own article declares this obvious point.

Further, there is no explanation for this statement: ""The use of acting officials gives Trump even more power over those who serve him since they haven't been through a Senate confirmation process."

There is no discussion as to how there is "more power" or how less power is afforded the President because someone went through a confirmation process. In the end, they still work the President, the President can decide to let them go at any time.

--Further, there is no explanation for this statement: ""The use of acting officials gives Trump even more power over those who serve him since they haven't been through a Senate confirmation process."

The explanation you seek is provided in the very next sentence of the article: "Some who hope to win permanent positions might even be more likely to back the president on controversial moves."

What Trump self-servingly characterizes as "flexibility," can also be viewed as "leverage." The prospect of one day being officially nominated for and securing a permanent appointment to the position is an enticement to make acting officials more compliant.

They serve at the pleasure of the President either way, but having gone through an official confirmation process, it's a bigger deal if they're later let go.

Bahahaha...the next statement is a non-explanatory. The appointee still works for the President. And can be fired without Congressional oversight. There is no more power afforded the President, the power structure remains the same.

"The prospect of one day being officially nominated for and securing a permanent appointment to the position is an enticement to make acting officials more compliant."

There is no PERMANENT appointment. You are just making this up. For instance, Gordon Sondland went through the Senate confirmation process, and yet he was somehow let go? Huh? I thought you said it was permanent? But here you are, on the same thread, bemoaning Sondland's dismissal.

You're being pedantic.

Trump's not "permanently" president, either. Nothing in life is permanent.

In about one billion years, the earth will inevitably be consumed by the expanding sun, and a few billion years after that, the sun will burn out.

Eventually, galaxies themselves will burn out and we'll be left with only black holes.

And then through Hawking radiation over trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions of years, black holes themselves will evaporate. And then matter itself will disintegrate.

If you have time, watch this excellent YouTube video which compresses the journey of our universe until "the end of time" into a mere 30 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD4izuDMUQA

All things must pass, eventually.

LOL...accuses someone of being "pedantic" then proceeds to pedantically explain the ontological impermanence of the galaxy.

Again, there is no more level of permanence afforded a nominee whether appointed as acting agent or one who goes through the Senate approval process. In the end, the Executive's power over his appointee remains the same.

Yes: in order to sarcastically demonstrate the absurdity of your taking issue with my use of the word "permanent."

Why aren't these IG dismissals causing national scandals?

Simple answer: Because we're all too exhausted from prior scandals, and too damn busy and concerned with coronavirus.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/why-trumps-inspector-general-purge-not-national-scandal

--"Trump, in explaining Atkinson’s removal, made no secret that it came in response to Atkinson’s having gotten Trump in trouble.

--"'I thought he did a terrible job. Absolutely terrible,' Trump said over the weekend. 'He took a whistleblower report, which turned out to be a fake report—it was fake. It was totally wrong. It was about my conversation with the President of Ukraine. He took a fake report and he brought it to Congress, with an emergency. Okay? Not a big Trump fan—that, I can tell you.'

--"Nor did Atkinson himself doubt that the move was retaliatory. In a statement, he said that “[i]t is hard not to think that the President’s loss of confidence in me derives from my having faithfully discharged my legal obligations as an independent and impartial Inspector General, and from my commitment to continue to do so.'"

In other words: This is retaliation, plain and simple.

But! Sondland's & Vindman's previous dismissals 2 days after impeachment have already forced Trumpists into the position of considering any retaliation by Trump as all fine and dandy, because it technically "doesn't break the law."

So these Trump cultists (and at this point, it's not inappropriate to start using that word) will only turn against Trump if he's proven to be a lawbreaker. But that's not possible either, because sitting Presidents cannot be criminally indicted per OLC guidance, and Trump otherwise stonewalls investigations to the maximum extent possible (and the GOP Senate lets him).

Impeachment in this day and age is constitutional dead-letter. "Let the voters decide!" was the rallying-cry of many moderate GOP Senators voting against firsthand witnesses in the impeachment trial.

Indeed, only voters can decide if they want to put up with 4 more years of this.

Sondland and Vindman are in the employ of the Executive Branch. They serve the President. Its the President's call. You don't have to agree with it, but its legal and his right to fire and hire whoever he wants.

"Trump otherwise stonewalls investigations to the maximum extent possible (and the GOP Senate lets him)."

Hahah. And no administration prior never has done this before. Nope, its a Trump original tactic. Oh wait...what about how the Obama Administration stone walled the investigation into the Fast and Furious gun running operation? Remember that? Congress issued subpoenas for documents from the Justice Department, and what did Holder do? He refused to comply. He was then held in contempt by Congress. Then what happened? Obama declared Executive Privilege thereby ending any investigation.

And what did KylieFan do? Nothing.

Just more faux outrage liberal hypocrisy.

Uh no. He didn't vet the report and was fired for dereliction of duty. If he'd done due diligence the report would have never gone to congress.

The other one was an Obama era holdover that was obstructing.

Most presidents fire half the people and replace them with people that are loyal. More fake news from the left.

There's a distinction to be drawn between the routine changing-of-the-guard that always happens at the outset of a new Administration, and a retaliatory dismissal midway through a term because one of those appointed officials witnessed misconduct and testified against the President.

If you view those two things as essentially the same, then I'm not sure I can help you.

Important to note that Sondland was not an Obama-era holdover. He was a $1 million donor to the Trump campaign. Ambassadorships are often filled this way -- typically career diplomats take the really important positions (Ambassador to China, etc.) but "less important" ambassadorships go to campaign donors. That's a somewhat troubling practice to begin with, but it's a discussion for another day.

Not sure why Ukraine was apparently deemed a lesser-importance country, since it's pretty large and geopolitically sensitive especially ever since Russia invaded, but again, not really my concern right now.

Point being that Sondland was no kind of Obama loyalist or Leftist looney-tune. It's hard to attribute a political motive to him.

Is it possible to entertain the idea that he witnessed misconduct and reported it through appropriate channels as was his duty as a Senate-confirmed Officer of the United States?

At the end of the day, ambassadors and other officials are (or should be) loyal to the United States above all, not the President, and the very existence of a Senate confirmation process to begin with underscores that.

You seem almost rational, so I'll engage. Trump tried to pull a George Washington by filling all positions with people from all sides of the aisle in the hope of having a balanced view of things. This of course failed because most leftist politicians will immediately do things considered immoral or backstabbing by the rest of us. So about half of Trumps employees and appointments actively work against him.

I agree that people should be appointed according to ability, but both sides are guilty of this.

Lots if things are possible. I tend to only believe something when I find evidence of it. Aliens could be puppeting our politicians, but I'm not going to believe that unless I see some evidence.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/06/obama-team-fast-and-furious-documents-are-privileged/1#.Xo4kT8hKjZt

Fast & Furious scandal: Yes, I remember. And I didn't do anything about this because I was not memeing in 2012.

I don't necessarily defend the Obama Administration's invocation of Executive Privilege in that instance, either. I favor the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Nixon (1974), where SCOTUS unanimously decided that President Nixon could not claim executive privilege over the Watergate tapes. He resigned shortly thereafter rather than face impeachment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon

In the decades since, it seems there's been a dramatic expansion in Executive Branch power. Presidents will continue to take and take whatever they can, and it won't end unless the other branches of government stand up and do their jobs.

And sadly, all I'm seeing is a whole bunch of whiffing from both the judiciary and the legislative branch, House Democrats excepted.

Yes, House Democrats! Pelosi's crew. They are the real heroes here.

Despite holistic obstruction from the Trump Administration, they were still able to gather enough evidence to put together this 658-page report on the Ukraine impeachment. Dissenting viewpoints included in the interests of fairness and balance. https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20191216/CRPT-116hrpt346.pdf

A document basically tossed into the garbage can by the GOP Senate, Romney excepted.

658 pages, and no crime was listed. Obstruction of Congress not a crime. The Executive Branch is afforded the legal right to challenge subpoenas in court. Period.

The Obama Administration, after running a gun programs that sold weapons to drug cartels which resulted in death of an American border patrol agent, hid behind executive privilege and stonewalled congressional investigatory activities. And liberals said nothing.

Welcome to the hypocrisy.