The State Department’s entire senior management team just resigned

According to CNN (don't yell at me), these officials were told to leave by the Trump Administration. Supposedly they turn in letters of resignation whenever a new administration comes in and it's up to the administration whether they accept their resignations or not. This time, they did.

All four, career officers serving in positions appointed by the President, submitted letters of resignation per tradition at the beginning of a new administration.
The letters from the White House said that their resignations were accepted and they were thanked for their service.
The White House usually asks career officials in such positions to stay on for a few months until their successors are confirmed.
"Any implication that that these four people quit is wrong," one senior State Department official said. "These people are loyal to the secretary, the President and to the State Department. There is just not any attempt here to dis the President. People are not quitting and running away in disgust. This is the White House cleaning house."

www.cnn.com...

originally posted by: schuyler
This is great news! The new administration will not have to deal with obstinate senior officials using passive resistance to block every policy and initiative proposed by the administration. By far the biggest problem for any administration is to deal with the dead wood of the entrenched bureaucracy that stays around in the civil service no matter who is elected. THEY are the biggest obstacle to change and it is their inertia that prevents true change from taking place. These guys do things their way because that's the way it has always been done for the last 50 years. To get rid of them all in one fell swoop is a Godsend.

It also means that they own everything that happens. Interesting times.

This is good news actually. The rats are leaving ship and looking for hidey holes!! lololol

Patrick Kennedy.

A little research about PK will tell you a whole lot, especially his Clinton ties.

And in 2010, the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) released e-mail evidence illustrating a close personal relationship between Giesel and Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy, who is now accused of stonewalling the intelligence community’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s classified e-mails.

Read more at: www.nationalreview.com...

a reply to: sirric

actually it's a good thing, bureaucrats are worse than politicians. i say good residence and bring in new blood.

originally posted by: schuyler
This is great news! The new administration will not have to deal with obstinate senior officials using passive resistance to block every policy and initiative proposed by the administration. By far the biggest problem for any administration is to deal with the dead wood of the entrenched bureaucracy that stays around in the civil service no matter who is elected. THEY are the biggest obstacle to change and it is their inertia that prevents true change from taking place. These guys do things their way because that's the way it has always been done for the last 50 years. To get rid of them all in one fell swoop is a Godsend.

I get you, you mean just like congress etc, gave Obama a real bad time tring to get anything done, even to the point of shutting down the country...genius!

originally posted by: AboveBoard

originally posted by: schuyler
This is great news! The new administration will not have to deal with obstinate senior officials using passive resistance to block every policy and initiative proposed by the administration. By far the biggest problem for any administration is to deal with the dead wood of the entrenched bureaucracy that stays around in the civil service no matter who is elected. THEY are the biggest obstacle to change and it is their inertia that prevents true change from taking place. These guys do things their way because that's the way it has always been done for the last 50 years. To get rid of them all in one fell swoop is a Godsend.

It also means that they own everything that happens. Interesting times.

Fair enough! Let them show us their stuff.

a reply to: sirric

Well maybe trump shouldn't have provided such idiotic choices for appointees. I mean come on, Carson as head of housing? No qualifications. Tillerson as Sec of State. Please. Anenergy exec? That's a joke to most well informed people across the world.

a reply to: queenofswords

Kennedy is a real winner.

We can only imagine what decisions he was making when in official capacities.

Rep. Kennedy entering rehab after crash

U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy said Friday that he will enter a rehabilitation program after crashing his car on Capitol Hill a day earlier.

CNN obtained a statement from a congressional source later Friday in which Capitol Hill Police said an initial probe showed supervisors did not handle the accident properly at the scene.

"I know that I need help," the Rhode Island Democrat said at an afternoon press conference, detailing what he called a long-term struggle with depression and addiction.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
a reply to: sirric

Well maybe trump shouldn't have provided such idiotic choices for appointees. I mean come on, Carson as head of housing? No qualifications. Tillerson as Sec of State. Please. Anenergy exec? That's a joke to most well informed people across the world.

I don't think you understand what exactly leadership is and what a Cabinet Secretary actually does.

Tillerson is the PERFECT choice for SOS....perfect. What is a joke is how long the idiot dem politicians are taking to approve Trump's A-list for the Perfect Team. Politicians only have experience in politicking. That's all they know how to do. Jeez!

Good riddance. Those warmongers and interventionists won't be missed.

a reply to: St Udio

escape the planned Chaos/civil hostility for the unprotected & poorer USA residents)

I think this is it. Basically as far away from the masses as they can comfortably afford.

perhaps I am laying a heavy coat of being guilty on the group.... but since there are few purely coincidental events... it follows the state department mass exodus has a root cause... and these independent thinkers probably conspired & small talked around he water cooler to pull off the STUNT against Trump

Surely they talked this over and exited as a group. Yet, by thinking them independent thinkers I hold short of your assumption that

...ergo Obama loyalists !

Again, they served under both R and D administration. Career diplomats. And if we condsider them survivalists, it is more than likely that they their plans to 'evacuate' have been close at hand, sitting in a top drawer for a while waiting for the right time to bolt.

I think that too much blame is being put on people who oppose Trump as being Obama fans or loyalists. I for one oppose Trump but am no where near an Obama loyalist or even supporter.

originally posted by: EartOccupant
This kind of news makes me wonder ... many options !

This is the official narrative... and who am i to rebut that.

But ...with a little knowledge of politics.. .. it could also be:

- They were given a choice, either resign gracefully else we will fire you .
- They were not there for the job, only because of agenda's and "friends"
- They have so much to hide and be ashamed of... and decided that running in a group might be safer
- They don't represent the country, only their own ideology. Willing to disrupt the country because they can not handle democracy.
- They got a pension from Sorros, he pays anyone who can disrupt the current office.

Time will tell.

. Well put.. unfortunate it is being spun as a mass exodus because of Trump when in fact all the variables you mentioned above could very well have a play in this. There is more to this story ... and not sure if time will ever reveal the truth to the average citizen. Then again.. maybe it will.

Even though these folks had served under Rs and Ds, they were scrutinized for several failures over the last several years:

- failed policy in Libya
- failed policy in Syria
- failed policy in Ukraine
- loss of 4 Americans in Benghazi (some say Kennedy bares a lot of responsibility for not increasing security)
- failed reset in relationship with Russia
- Iranian Nuclear Deal

I am sure there is more than this short list, but the 4 that were "asked" to leave were found to be instrumental in all of these policy decisions. This is part of draining the swamp that Trump was talking about.

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: schuyler
This is great news! The new administration will not have to deal with obstinate senior officials using passive resistance to block every policy and initiative proposed by the administration. By far the biggest problem for any administration is to deal with the dead wood of the entrenched bureaucracy that stays around in the civil service no matter who is elected. THEY are the biggest obstacle to change and it is their inertia that prevents true change from taking place. These guys do things their way because that's the way it has always been done for the last 50 years. To get rid of them all in one fell swoop is a Godsend.

I get you, you mean just like congress etc, gave Obama a real bad time tring to get anything done, even to the point of shutting down the country...genius!

No, not like Congress, which is composed of elected officials, who are charged specifically with running the country at a policy level. But as far as Congress resisting Obama--good for them. When Dems were in charge, like during the passage of the ACA, they shut out the GOP completely from any negotiations. They didn't think THAT was unfair. But as soon as the tide turned, in part BECAUSE of that behavior, they start whining. I wouldn't call that "genius" (but, of course, you are attempting to be sarcastic.) but I'm glad they did it and the country was never "shut down." That's absurd.

Bureaucrats, on the other hand, may be appointed, or they may just rise up in the bureaucracy by being good at it. THey are not accountable to any constituency and are protected by civil service rules that ensure their longevity. And being good at traversing the bureaucracy pretty well means they are not particularly innovative. They are very good at maintaining the status quo and extremely good at resisting any sort of change whatsoever. If you've ever worked in a bureaucracy you will know that real change is extremely difficult to implement. You pretty well must clean house at the top level to have a hope of implementing the policies you desire.

To a high level bureaucrat the Presidency is a revolving door of people who will be here today and gone tomorrow where the bureaucracy remains forever. You may have heard of Obama "converting" appointee jobs to civil service jobs as he left the presidency, a last ditch effort to get his policies in permanent place. What I hope Trump does is find and rescind those positions. This action by Obama is proof enough that my take on the bureaucracy is correct.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire


Again, they served under both R and D administration. Career diplomats. And if we condsider them survivalists, it is more than likely that they their plans to 'evacuate' have been close at hand, sitting in a top drawer for a while waiting for the right time to bolt.
I think that too much blame is being put on people who oppose Trump as being Obama fans or loyalists. I for one oppose Trump but am no where near an Obama loyalist or even supporter.

This is what happens with thinking in a two party system, everybody is shiite on the other side, there is no trust in anybody, yet these are basically civil servants who are needed by everyone, they keep the wheels turning. Now Trump has done it again. He's let them go one way or another it doesn't matter, CNN says they were fired, probably Trump will say they were fired, in muscle flexing and ego, the individuals will have signed resignations anyway, and it will be interesting to see what they say, but here in a blog we have people shouting their mouths off painting everyone concerned with the same brush, and yet they know feck nothing.
What is true though, Trump has no one to take their place as yet, and expertise possibly lost. He's done the same with all the American ambassadors gone bar three, (he's kept his man in China though) and again he has no replacements as yet, instead of a civilised handover during a period of time. Spicer will be having more sweats in meet the press, (which will possibly become a recording instead of live through time) it's all a bit whacko.

originally posted by: schuyler
No, not like Congress, which is composed of elected officials, who are charged specifically with running the country at a policy level. But as far as Congress resisting Obama--good for them. When Dems were in charge, like during the passage of the ACA, they shut out the GOP completely from any negotiations. They didn't think THAT was unfair. But as soon as the tide turned, in part BECAUSE of that behavior, they start whining. I wouldn't call that "genius" (but, of course, you are attempting to be sarcastic.) but I'm glad they did it and the country was never "shut down." That's absurd.

Yes it would, stone walling is stone walling. And Yes the Government was shut down in 2013,

*From October 1 through 16, 2013, the United States federal government entered a shutdown and curtailed most routine operations because neither legislation appropriating funds for fiscal year 2014 nor a continuing resolution for the interim authorization of appropriations for fiscal year 2014 was enacted in time. Regular government operations resumed October 17 after an interim appropriations bill was signed into law.

During the shutdown, approximately 800,000 federal employees were indefinitely furloughed, and another 1.3 million were required to report to work without known payment dates. Only those government services deemed "excepted" under the Antideficiency Act were continued; and only those employees deemed "excepted" continued to report to work.

That was due very much in part to John Boehner's antics, and he tried again in 2015, but that was too much, and he had to step down...the man was an embarassment.
*various sources.

a reply to: St Udio


Yes I am in New Zealand and have been noticing more and more American accents these days.

a reply to: sirric

What this says to me is that the senior management were there for partisan reasons, rather than to serve ALL the citizens who pay their salaries. It's proof in fact.

It disturbs me greatly that any of the agencies have devolved into partisan puppets rather than public servants.

Single Party rule is not a desirable thing and attempts to fill the government with only those who agree with a single mindset is dangerous.

It troubles me to look at the registration maps and see that our seat of power is populated by 90%+ one Party, including the surrounding area's outside of DC. That tells me something bad is going on and one Party is attempting to take control by means other than elections.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: sirric

What this says to me is that the senior management were there for partisan reasons, rather than to serve ALL the citizens who pay their salaries. It's proof in fact.
I

What the hell do you think Trump's actions are if not partisan...or better still just a protect Trump act? and they will be replaced by whom?
Washington and surrounding areas also have a deal of people below the poverty line 17% + is one given, while the average age is quite young in Washington, and most surrounding areas at 33 years old.
Just because Trump doesn't want these old hands, is proof of nothing.
Let's remember Trump is no fan of laws and people of the law for instance, unless they work in his favour.

originally posted by: EartOccupant
This kind of news makes me wonder ... many options !

This is the official narrative... and who am i to rebut that.

But ...with a little knowledge of politics.. .. it could also be:

- They were given a choice, either resign gracefully else we will fire you .
- They were not there for the job, only because of agenda's and "friends"
- They have so much to hide and be ashamed of... and decided that running in a group might be safer
- They don't represent the country, only their own ideology. Willing to disrupt the country because they can not handle democracy.
- They got a pension from Sorros, he pays anyone who can disrupt the current office.

Time will tell.

Really? Cause I just picture it like the people who abandoned King Joffrey when they realized he was a lunatic.