Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (225018)	3/22/2007 8:39:34 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Not in this case. These are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President....he does not need a reason to can one or all of them... Err..., then he should just point that out, rather than claiming the WH had nothing to do with it, and it was the Justice department doing it for other reasons.

To: jlallen who wrote (225018)	3/23/2007 10:23:15 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"Not in this case. These are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President....he does not need a reason to can one or all of them..." I agree, in this case a reason is not required; However if one is/was advanced it must be supported, otherwise there is grounds for wrongful termination. IMO... I'm probably wrong or a case would already have been filed. One ought to be IMO, and it ought to be easy to win. We ought not be able to go about alleging things that aren't true about our honored representatives ... ought we not? or is that too knotty/naughty?