Current Events > Trump fires Gordon Sondland, prominent witness in the impeachment inquiry.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Zeeak4444 posted...

good thing they werent false reports.

Weren't crimes, just an excuse to let the same people that had it out for the man day one to bitch an moan about impeachment after countless failed attempts in the past.

---

Ruvan22 posted...

As a business owner, are you not aware of whistle blower protection laws (federal)?

No, but correct me if I'm wrong, no one knows who the whistleblower is, so its irrelevant in this case.

---

_Rinku_ posted...

It's just pure evil or willful ignorance at this point.

Someone has a different opinion than me. They must be evil!

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1513

---

Tropicalwood posted...

Maliciously filing false reports against your employer is a crime and not at all protected.

Is there evidence of malice? Otherwise it's still protected (make sure you know the law)

ScazarMeltex posted...

You can if you are subpoenaed by the federal government and forced to testify under oath. Are you saying they have refused to testify? Or should they have committed perjury?

Its like you dont even know what Sondland said during his testimony.

---

metallica846 posted...

Why are people so disgusted with this? You can't try to put your boss in jail and then go back to work in the same office.

They're just making a scene like they always do, doesn't matter what the context was.
They did the same thing when he fired the Obama staff.

---

Tropicalwood posted...

Weren't crimes, just an excuse to let the same people that had it out for the man day one to bitch an moan about impeachment after countless failed attempts in the past.

So the GOA was wrong in their assessment? And you are the expert?

masterpug53 posted...

I normally wouldn't bother to engage, but anyone who runs a non-failing business does not have time to shitpost on gamefaqs.

Do you think all (non-failing) businesses are as busy as McDonalds or something?

karlpilkington4 posted...

No, but correct me if I'm wrong, no one knows who the whistleblower is, so its irrelevant in this case.

You claimed (as a business owner) that you could fire anybody for anything as long as it wasn't discriminatory. Also, giving evidence in support of a whistle blower is also protected.

Ruvan22 posted...

So the GOA was wrong in their assessment? And you are the expert?

Gun Owners of America has nothing to do with the same Russian non-sense you've been running your mouth with for years.

---

Ruvan22 posted...

Also, giving evidence in support of a whistle blower is also protected.

Please quote where it says that in the Whistleblower Protection Act


---

Now he's got a reason to be removed. He violated the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Say bye-bye Mr Trump.

---

metallica846 posted...

I don't like Trump at all but

And here it is again. Holy shit, you people need to come up with new lines.

---

DirkDiggles posted...

Now he's got a reason to be removed. He violated the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Say bye-bye Mr Trump.

This time

I'm sure the party of law and order will get right on it.

---

"I don't like Trump but..." is the new "I have a black friend but..."

---

Tropicalwood posted...

Gun Owners of America has nothing to do with the same Russian non-sense you've been running your mouth with for years.

Sorry, meant GAO (Government Accountability Office). Also, please point out where I mentioned Russia a year ago?

karlpilkington4 posted...

Please quote where it says that in the Whistleblower Protection Act

Post 69
Do you still stand by your statement? "Can fire anybody for anything as long as it's not discriminatory"

Being a piece of shit isn't a zero sum game. Trump and Sondland can both be shit. Get him the fuck out of there.

---

Imagine if replace by gordon ramsey?

---

metallica846 posted...

Impeach him!

"I hate Donnie, but....."
---

karlpilkington4 posted...

. As long as you dont violate discrimination laws

https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/3763

(Sec. 1107) Amends the Federal criminal law to establish criminal penalties for intentional retaliation against individuals who provide information to law enforcement officers relating to a Federal offense.

---

karlpilkington4 posted...

Imagine thinking that as a boss you'd face consequences for firing someone. I run a business, it doesnt work that way. As long as you dont violate discrimination laws, you can fire someone for anything.

Imagine thinking this. I've had bosses who didn't have the balls to fire me after they overstepped and I hit back. One of them took half my hours off one week and I showed up and worked my normal shifts and got paid anyway because she didn't have the nerve to send me home and she knew she was in the wrong for taking me off in the first place because she only even did it out spite because her boss pissed her off after I pissed him off after he fucked with me and I fucked with him back. Apparently he isn't really active in his business anymore due to an injury a few years ago (I was long gone then, and I left on my terms fwiw). The manager I was talking about ended up having to swallow her pride because I called her bluff and she swept the whole taking me off the schedule thing under the rug (I acted like I didn't even know or check, and my co workers were mostly on my side too so she folded). She ended up having an incident several months after I left for a new job and was forced to quit as a result. I had always thought that she and I were kinda competing for 2nd and 3rd most crazy people at that workplace (#1 was a dude that ended up ragequitting and going to jail for fracturing another dude's skull in a parking dispute). The fact that I got out unscathed and she ran into those problems tells me I only secured the bronze but I'm good with that :P. Not that any of this matters because you're karlpilkington4 so you'll be suspended again before Monday.........

---

metallica846 posted...

Why can't someone not like Donald Trump but also not care about these scum bags being fired?

Because it's retaliation in the workplace, which is illegal at the Federal level.

---

_Rinku_ posted...

You guys realize how slimy that makes you look, right?

Post 2016 Trump Supporters have been embracing the slime comfortably. It's disgusting but at least we know what they are.

---

VilliscaMurders posted...

Someone has a different opinion than me. They must be evil!

You support open corruption and authoritarianism if you support Trump. That is evil.

_Rinku_ posted...

You support open corruption and authoritarianism if you support Trump. That is evil.

@VilliscaMurders

---

Ruvan22 posted...

Post 69
Do you still stand by your statement? "Can fire anybody for anything as long as it's not discriminatory"

Congress is not law enforcement, so testifying to them does not even fall under that protection. My point was that Trump firing any of these people is not illegal. No one told Trump who the actual whistle blower even is.

I stand by my statement because firstly, I was quoting someone who was talking about the context of NOT being president and having a normal job. Those protections only apply to federal employees/ federal offenses. Also, its still discriminatory by definition. You're trying to do a "gotcha", instead of moving the conversation forward and you failed.

---

karlpilkington4 posted...

Congress is not law enforcement, so testifying to them does not even fall under that protection

it does fall under that protection.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/2302

(b)Any employee who has authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve any personnel action, shall not, with respect to such authority

(9)take or fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to take, any personnel action against any employee or applicant for employment because of
(A)the exercise of any appeal, complaint, or grievance right granted by any law, rule, or regulation
(i)with regard to remedying a violation of paragraph (8); or
(ii)other than with regard to remedying a violation of paragraph (8);
(B)testifying for or otherwise lawfully assisting any individual in the exercise of any right referred to in subparagraph (A)(i) or (ii);

you're out of your league

---

if you're wondering why there are three or four different laws on the books that make discrimination against whistleblowers illegal in so many overlapping ways

the reason is because it catches people like you and trump who think they found a loophole

there are no loopholes here, only enough rope for you to hang yourself

---

What a fucking shock.

---

We've already seen that Republican's are 100% fine with him breaking laws.

---

DarkChozoGhost posted...

We've already seen that Republican's are 100% fine with him breaking laws.

Guarantee when a dem is president we suddenly have to follow the law again

karlpilkington4 posted...

Imagine thinking that as a boss you'd face consequences for firing someone. I run a business, it doesnt work that way. As long as you dont violate discrimination laws, you can fire someone for anything.

Damn must suck for your workers to live in a third world country with no laws to protect employees.

---

Sackgurl posted...

it does fall under that protection.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/2302

you're out of your league

You conveniently missed this part-

excluded from the coverage of this section by the President based on a determination by the President that it is necessary and warranted by conditions of good administration;

CNN article about this-

The law puts Trump in charge of enforcing whistleblower protections

When that intelligence whistleblower law was written, it put the burden on the President to enforce it, said Kohn. "This is unique," Kohn said. "The reason they put the burden on the President was to protect critical national security secrets."
Kohn added: "If I'm fired for blowing the whistle on securities fraud, I can go before a judge and jury. I don't go before the President. For national security, my judge and jury is ultimately the President of the United States of America."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/05/politics/whistleblower-identity-trump-legal-obligations/index.html

---

your interpretation of that section is flawed. you have to consider the entire subsection, not just the part that says what you want to believe it says.

(B)covered position means, with respect to any personnel action, any position in the competitive service, a career appointee position in the Senior Executive Service, or a position in the excepted service, but does not include any position which is, prior to the personnel action
(i)excepted from the competitive service because of its confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character; or
(ii)excluded from the coverage of this section by the President based on a determination by the President that it is necessary and warranted by conditions of good administration;

as in, the president does not get to retroactively exclude staff from whistleblower protection.

but yes, the president has the responsibility to properly enforce employment discrimination protections relating to national security. he cannot be jailed for breaking this law simply because, despite his guilt, he controls the outcome of such a case.

the founding fathers would tell us that the appropriate solution is to impeach him.

---

Sackgurl posted...

your interpretation of that section is flawed. you have to consider the entire subsection, not just the part that says what you want to believe it says.

as in, the president does not get to retroactively exclude staff from whistleblower protection.

but yes, the president has the responsibility to properly enforce employment discrimination protections relating to national security. he cannot be jailed for breaking this law simply because, despite his guilt, he controls the outcome of such a case.

the founding fathers would tell us that the appropriate solution is to impeach him.

"The founding Fathers"

Lmao shut the fuck. You have no clue what they would do. These laws didn't exist back them. There was no such thing as "work place discrimination" in the 18th century.

---

glitteringfairy posted...

"The founding Fathers"

Lmao shut the fuck. You have no clue what they would do. These laws didn't exist back them. There was no such thing as "work place discrimination" in the 18th century.

The whole thing is asinine anyway. These people aren't immune to being fired, only against retaliation for whistleblowing. Trump and his administration can simply fire them for a hundred other reasons legally.

---

Federalist Paper #65 and James Madison's words on the importance of including impeachment as a power of the legislative branch make quite clear their intent.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/what-the-founders-thought-about-impeachment-and-the-president

James Madison saw the Impeachment Clause as indispensable . . . for defending the Community [against] the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate. Elbridge Gerry stated that impeachment was needed as a check against presidential abuse of power. A good magistrate will not fear [impeachments]. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them, he argued. George Mason then refuted Morris argument that only the Presidents assistants should face the impeachment process. No point is of more importance than that the right of impeachment should be continued. Shall any man be above Justice? he asked.
Benjamin Franklin also said, in his unique way, the impeachment was preferable to the more traditional way of removing a monarch in Europe by death.

https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-65

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.

---

karlpilkington4 posted...

Trump and his administration can simply fire them for a hundred other reasons legally.

I'm glad you have abandoned the "they didn't break the law" position.

The "you can't prove it in court" argument, however, is much weaker than you seem to think.

You may be surprised to learn that the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' adversarial legal approach does not apply to legal cases dealing with employer discrimination.

https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/T6Manual6

This section provides an overview of the types of evidence necessary to prove intentional discrimination under Title VI. Much of the discussion in this section relies on judicial precedent developed in private plaintiffs intent claims for damages, and therefore focuses on standards applied in that context. Those standards may not always apply to agency investigations, which often follow a non-adversarial model in which the agency collects all relevant evidence and then determines whether the evidence establishes discrimination. Under this model, agencies do not shift the evidentiary burdens between complainant and recipient when making findings. The burden-shifting framework may nevertheless serve as a useful paradigm for organizing and analyzing the evidence.

Methods that focus on circumstantial evidence
The Arlington Heights mosaic of factors.[6] This method of proof, originally developed for Equal Protection Clause cases, uses a number of different types of circumstantial evidence that, taken collectively, can demonstrate that the recipient acted, at least in part, because of race, color, or national origin. This framework is most commonly applied in cases alleging discrimination against a group. Agencies can use this method for many different types of cases, but will find it particularly useful where the complaint is about the treatment of a group, not individuals, and the investigation reveals many different kinds of evidence. Agencies should be sure to consider this method where a complaint challenges an expressly neutral practice that has an effect on a larger class defined by race, color, or national origin. For instance, a complaint alleging that a state agency adopted a new policy with the purpose of reducing the number of minority participants could be investigated using this method. See Section B.2.
The McDonnell-Douglas framework.[7] Plaintiffs use this framework, originally developed for Title VII employment cases, to show that a defendant treated similarly situated individuals differently because of race, color, or national origin. The framework is most commonly applied in cases alleging discrimination in individual instances. Agencies should consider using this method for investigations involving the selection of individuals, such as for program participation, benefits, or services, particularly where the recipient provides a nondiscriminatory explanation for its decision. This method is most likely to be helpful where the complaint is about one or a few individuals, and involves easily identifiable similarly situated individuals not in the protected class. For instance, a complaint alleging that a state agency denied benefits to a family because of that familys national origin might be investigated using this method. See Section B.3.

In short: circumstances matter, and lying about the reason you fired someone is subject to legal interpretation, not an ironclad defense. It's also perjury if any evidence exists anywhere (such as a cell-phone recorded tape) that contradicts the sworn statement of the employer.

Most legal scholars would view the incredibly short time lapse as major circumstantial evidence and legal precedent is quite clear that such evidence is valid.

---