Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Original article. You basically have a memo the WaPo obtained and the general confirming that his resignation was accepted and he was out during the inaugural ceremony. Very unusual timing to accept the resignation effective DURING the inaugural ceremony. Without seeing the memo it's really hard say whether that was intentional on Trumps part or not. If the request to stay through the inauguration ceremony came after the WaPo article there's certainly no need to correct anything. If it came before publication and they were not aware of it, perhaps it does.
Tell me where the original article mentions 'resignation.' I don't see it. If you don't see the headline and wording in the article tries to convey the idea that Trump for some bizarre reason decided to fire the guy, so be it.
He wasn't fired and he didn't resign over a change in administration.
It's routine for political appointments to resign upon the inauguration of the new President. Remember the whining about Ambassadors a week or so ago?
In this case Schwartz is past mandatory retirement age but was extended by President Obama. I would imagine the thought process was centered around appointing someone for a couple months who would then submit his resignation upon the inauguration of the new President.
That resignation might or might not be accepted but why do all the hoop jumping?
Others have stated their work ends days before the inauguration.
Is it possible that since Trump cannot put anyone in place until he's been inaugurated, that this position requires the post remain filled until such time that the new administration's pick can take action? It's the National Guard. If this person ended his job days before and something was to happen, we'd be screwed.
No we wouldn't. There is always someone in charge.
It's routine for political appointments to resign upon the inauguration of the new President. Remember the whining about Ambassadors a week or so ago?
In this case Schwartz is past mandatory retirement age but was extended by President Obama. I would imagine the thought process was centered around appointing someone for a couple months who would then submit his resignation upon the inauguration of the new President.
That resignation might or might not be accepted but why do all the hoop jumping?
He was well past the mandatory retirement age. End of story.
Tell me where the original article mentions 'resignation.' I don't see it. If you don't see the headline and wording in the article tries to convey the idea that Trump for some bizarre reason decided to fire the guy, so be it.
The only thing that's particularly bizarre is the decision to ask him to step down (aka resign) during the inauguration ceremony. It's not particularly bizarre that Trump is replacing him. He's a Presidential appointee and serves at the pleasure of the current commander-in-chief. The article does not in anyway suggest it's bizarre that Trump decided to fire the guy. It suggests it's bizarre Trump decided to fire him while the inauguration ceremony is underway seeing as how he's the head of the DC National Guard and the DC National Guard provides security and organizational support for the inauguration ceremony.
The only thing that's particularly bizarre is the decision to ask him to step down (aka resign) during the inauguration ceremony. It's not particularly bizarre that Trump is replacing him. He's a Presidential appointee and serves at the pleasure of the current commander-in-chief. The article does not in anyway suggest it's bizarre that Trump decided to fire the guy. It suggests it's bizarre Trump decided to fire him while the inauguration ceremony is underway seeing as how he's the head of the DC National Guard and the DC National Guard provides security and organizational support for the inauguration ceremony.
He isn't going to fire him while the inauguration ceremony is underway. He will be a bit preoccupied then. It's crazy that you would even write this and think it made any sense.
Legitimate news sources make notation of revisions, they do not go in after publication and make changes without noting that it was updated.
True. And they've made no such revisions. It is still available on the WaPo site here. Why Breitbart didn't link to that directly but rather to Stars and Stripes, who knows.
He isn't going to fire him while the inauguration ceremony is underway. He will be a bit preoccupied then. It's crazy that you would even write this and think it made any sense.
"Do you affirm you will uphold the........."
Hang on a second, I have someone to fire.
Exactly, that's why they let him know in advance that at 12:01 p.m. he's fired.
That might be a few minutes premature because Trump is scheduled to be sworn in at 12:00 and he might actually not be the President yet.
Now, that assumes the memo that said he was effectively fired at 12:01 that the general confirmed is true. If it's not, then it's fake news. If that's the case, probably a good thing that they are ousting him during the ceremony and Obama should probably step in and do it before. Probably not a good idea to have someone perpetuating that kind of a fake story for the purposes of hurting Trump in charge of the DC National Guard during the inauguration at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
