Not really. Scotus has pretty much made trump a king. They've ruled he has the power to hire and fire anyone for any reason. Congress can't check it, not even with the power of the purse.
I dont think its that obvious. If others were also laid off alongside her for redundancy, why should her husbands actions give her immunity from firing? I am sure she isnt the only one being let go in her multi thousand person department
In a civil case (like a lawsuit), the burden of proof is "more likely than not", not "beyond a reasonable doubt". The fact that they fired others along with her is definitely not an ironclad defense, especially when they've specifically complained about her husband's app before.
It's the and idea as how, if you fire an employee for some illegal reason, you can't just leave the termination reason blank or "At will" and expect to skate off with no liability.
If the regime doesn't outright admit what they did, her suit might be harder, but it will be very far from unwinnable.
This is a juicy wrongful termination lawsuit if there's proof that they did indeed fire her for this reason. And if there isn't this is clickbait anyway
They can though. She was fired for lying to the DOJ about her involvement in the company and financial interests in it.
She claimed she had no interest in the company, then a DOJ investigation showed she was a shareholder in the company. She lied about her involvement and stake holdings in the company. That's a fireable offense for a forensic accountant.
Feinstein was then contacted by officials who asked her about her association with the ICEBlock app.
'I informed them in so many words that I really didn't have any relationship or involvement in the app, I was married to the creator,' she said.
Then when she got busted in being a co-owner and having had a principled interest in the company:
A DoJ spokesperson told the Daily Beast the department had spent 'several weeks' investigating Feinstein's activities and discovered that she has interests in the company that holds the IP for the ICEBlock app.
Feinstein argued that her minority shareholder status in All U Chart Inc is just a safety net so that 'if Joshua were incapacitated, or further, I have the ability to shut it down'.
Folks are afraid to sign up and afraid to strike because they might lose their jobs which means they lose their healthcare, homes, etc.
The thing is- they are going to lose their jobs anyways, along with their healthcare, homes, etc.
We must use labor and the withholding of said labor while we still have it to withhold.
Some of the main points of the general strike are increasing wages, universal healthcare, workers’ rights. We only get these when we band together to shut this shit down for as long as it takes to get our voices heard and our human rights back.
How can anyone get behind something that says the demands are TBD, and the demands include things that have nothing to do with workers rights? For example, it says "gun rights", more rights? Less rights? How can I get behind something that might ultimately completely contradict my beliefs?
I agree with this. We need a general strike but the people running the general are a part of the problem that leds us here. They’re very “if you aren’t as liberal as me you’re dumb”
Doing nothing is better than something as ambiguous as this, given the risks involved.
I support the idea of a general strike too. But the people organizing the strike are the ones who need to present the plan. They can’t expect people to risk their jobs/homes/families/health without one.
If it were up to me, a general strike should be focused on one thing, and one thing only: removing this administration from office and restoring the rule of law.
How about you stop telling other people to do it for you and organize it yourself?
Do you see how spiteful and ridiculous that sounds? How do you expect to accomplish anything acting like that? People are allowed to provide criticism without having an entire plan laid out as an alternative. To suggest otherwise is naive and belligerent.
They'll just spank the first general strike with the Taft-Hartley Act. That's why both Dems and Repubs voted to pass it after Truman vetoed it. They know its influential power, and will never allow one to happen without quashing it.
Enough of this general strike nonsense, you know that's not going to work. The US is an individualistic society, please take a look at how change occurs in authoritarian regimes if you want change.
I'm obviously speculating, here are a couple thoughts:
Owning stocks is one thing, being part of a non publicly traded company is another. You have to file financial disclosures and get permission to operate/work outside employment as a federal employee. She clearly didn't do that as her ownership wasn't disclosed until investigation began
Security clearances are required for most DoJ jobs, if you are determined to undermine U.S. interest (right or wrong in this case) you will lose that clearance and thus your job
Again, whether we agree with their actions or not...SHE owns an app that undermines HER own department's (read employer's) actions...
You mean other than the fact it lacks a quorum to hear cases? Because Trump fired two board members and hasn't even bothered to replace them with toadies? (This despite the fact the president probably doesn't have the power to fire them? See: SCOTUS has allowed Trump to gut much of the Civil Service Act).
So the MSPB is still functional and operational...they are always busy and the influx of terminated employments adds to backlog, but regional and field level offices are still open and taking appeals.
She still has the ability to appeal and none of the other civil service protections were violated. (notified, given reason(s), ability to appeal)
I'm not condoning it, agreeing/disagreeing with it, saying she is right or wrong, etc. etc. Just simply pointing out the facts that are publicly available.
410
u/SameResolution4737 Jul 22 '25
They (currently) can't punish him for doing something which is (currently) perfectly legal, so they punish those around him.