politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
That's the best part: he doesn't have to. He can just order IRS to settle.
No he can't. The IRS legal team isn't an executive function.
Oh you sweet summer child
Oh you infantilizing winter moron. Make an actual argument not a veiled insult.
Yhe irs' leadership is appointed by prez snd can be fired at will. They can order the legal team, and or fimd ways to get them out.
I remimd you he sued parts of the federal government already and they settled with him, what did he Sue again I can't recall at the moment. I think at least two lawsuits one with the FBI was it?
The oig isn't and the oig is who would appoint outside counsel since everyone involved in conflicted.
He didn't, and they didn't. He certainly threatened to I'll give you that.
I presume you are referring to the office of Inspector general, and they can be fired by the president he is fired several already last year.
That would make the oig as conflicted as the IRS commissioner in which case it would dump out to Congress to choose.
That said the oig for Treasury is a very large office for an oig and that's a very tall tree to chop down by millimeters, trump would be dead before all conflictions are litigated.
If you say so, I do not share your faith.
Ok.
Another good news!
Doesn't matter commissioners do not decide settlements.
Who hires the IRS lawyers that do decide them?
The IRS oig.
OMG! The good news just keeps coming and coming
"On September 24, 2025, federal judge Ana C. Reyes ruled that the administration unlawfully fired 17 inspectors general, but refused to reinstate them, noting that Trump could simply re-fire them after providing the congressionally mandated 30 days' notice."
That's not new, he's getting sued by a handful of them.
Didn't you read the part about the judge refusing to reinstate them?
So you still believe the people that decide settlements for IRS are independent of the administration even though Trump can just fire them at will... That's why everyone laughed at you. Now I feel stupid for providing arguments. I should have just laughed as well.
The judge didn't refuse to reinstate them they ordered the white house to and the white house refused, that's why they're being sued.
Wrong:
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/agency-oversight/2025/09/trump-unlawfully-fired-17-agency-igs-judge-finds-but-wont-reinstate-them/
"A federal judge found President Donald Trump unlawfully fired several agency watchdogs early in his second term, but won’t reinstate them to their government oversight jobs."
"Reinstatement would also be challenging, because the Senate has begun confirming some of their successors.
In August, the Senate confirmed Cheryl Mason as the permanent IG for the Department of Veterans Affairs — replacing Michael Missal, the previous VA inspector general and one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Other agency watchdog offices continue to operate with acting IGs."
Maybe the will appeal to the Supreme Court. This one is still independent, right??
The judge can't, it's not that they won't. It's portrayed in the media as refusal but if you actually read what's in pacer you'll find out that's not the case.
Yeah that doesn't change the fact they were removed illegally nor does it have anything to do with the judge being a factor.
They don't need to at this point and it would behoove them to wait as long as possible because back pay is from the time of notice, the judge is technically just helping them make a case for far more backpay.
hahahahahahahaha
That's not an argument.
Dumb people love memes, look at this administration for example.