Next? Doofus Donny fires Sessions, hires Giuliani, fires Mueller. Will Congress then act to impeach The Doofus? What will it take?

Where, exactly, in the US Constitution is the President prohibited from issuing a presidential pardon to himself (or as was speculated when Hil-LIAR-y was in that horse race, herself). Seems to me that would lead to a nearly automatic impeachment and trial because accepting a pardon is tantamount to a confession of guilt. And if impeachment does happen, and is successful, that cannot be pardoned.

Don't know if you've had a job interview lately but that's generally the way it works these days, at least in higher management positions. One is "interviewed" by the entire management staff (like the Senate holding confirmation hearings). If that muster is passed one may then get a job offer. But after being hired the boss has sole discretion to fire that person, "for any reason or for no reason at all". Sorry, but that's the way the world works.

I appreciate the analogy, although I disagree with the comparison. In the case of presidential appointments, isn't it more like the boss hires someone, then the company's security team conducts extensive background checks and IQ and personality tests? 

While I'm sure they do exist, I'm sure there are very few positions where an employee can be fired for no reason at all. Well, they could be fired for no reason, and they would then (justly) win a large settlement, or at the very minimum, be awarded unemployment at the company's expense. Thankfully, that's the way it works in, in the US, at least. 

As to appointments in the Executive branch you're basically saying the same thing that I'm saying. And yes, background checks are run (if the appointee does not already have a sufficient security clearance) but usually not IQ and "personality" testing (both of which are extremely subjective).  "Advice and Consent of the Senate" is that "interview by other department heads". (We are talking upper management here.) But the President still has the power to terminate any of his underlings without "the advice and consent of the Senate. President Obama did that multiple times (how may Secretaries of Defense did he have?) 

And you're very naive about continuation of employment. Most of the several States consider continued employment to be "at the pleasure of either party". An employee can resign at a moments notice so an employer can also terminate an employee "for any reason, or for no reason at all". There may be exception when certain cases of discrimination are present, but even that's not a home run. For example, the Supremes overturned that "age 55, or older" discrimination thing a few years back so if if you're over 55 and your employer fires you you're probably out of luck. 

And yes, you can sue. You can sue anyone at any time for any reason unless there's a personal services contract in place that they're attempting to violate (and then they can still fire you so long as they pay the terms of the contract). But chances are you don't have the cake to bankroll such a lawsuit in the face of an almost certain loss. (Unless blatant discrimination is involved most ethical attorneys won't take your money and if it is involved they will take the case on a contingency basis.) 

Don't take my word for it though. Check it out for yourself. 

I was using "IQ and personality tests" as an analogy for the confirmation hearing process. I didn't mean it literally. 

I find you to be a bit unpleasant to correspond with. In this short exchange your tone has been rather condescending (e.g.- "Don't know if you've had a job interview lately....; "You're very naive..."). So, to be clear, I'm terminating my participation in this dialogue not "at will", but "for cause". 

I was using "IQ and personality tests" as an analogy for the confirmation hearing process. I didn't mean it literally. 

If you didn't mean it literally then that should have been made clear. I doubt that anyone can read your mind.

I find you to be a bit unpleasant to correspond with. In this short exchange your tone has been rather condescending (e.g.- "Don't know if you've had a job interview lately....; "You're very naive..."). So, to be clear, I'm terminating my participation in this dialogue not "at will", but "for cause". 

By "unpleasant" and "condescending" I think you mean that you don't like that I disagree with you on the points that you took a condescending attitude towards me to begin with. The fact that I actually have province (actual experience) for my points-of-view seems to be irrelevant.

It hasn't happened officially yet SA. I'm just reading the handwriting on the wall as best I can. I'm unsure about Giuliani though his name was floated to be AG. The appointee will surely be someone who will do exactly what The Doofus tells him to do.  The Donald has excoriated/humiliated Sessions as a precursor to getting rid of him. He cannot forgive Sessions for recusing himself. Once that's done a Trump worshipper sycophantic braindead replacement will fill the slot. Now the AG is supposedly the top boss to enforce the rule of law. Trump wants someone to enforce the rule of Trump. So we will have a new AG who will have the power to fire Mueller which is what Trump will do if he can get away with it. Just look at how he operates. He wants all investigations shut down NOW. Knowing that the feds are looking at his financial dealings/business entanglements is more than he can bear. Knowing that Mueller has access to his tax returns which may already be in Mueller's hands  is what is making him so frantic. So stay tuned. Let's see how this part of the tragic comedy plays out. Jared made a statement when he was done answering questions in the Senate on M onday. It was that he never colluded with Russians nor did anyone else in the Trump administration. Today he answers questions in the House. Closed door session once again. I expect he will give the same "testimony". I hope to he** I'm dead wrong. Thank you for your reply SA and Happy Tuesday! :)

Thankfully, whoever he nominates as a replacement will also have to go through the confirmation process. But I guess that's not much consolation, considering that Sessions and Devos (OMG!!!!) made it through. Seems like more and more republicans are stepping up and speaking out against DT, though, so maybe there is hope for us yet! 

I almost wish that I hadn't replied, considering the completely unprovoked rudeness I encountered from Mr/Ms Condiments! I guess it's no surprise that a cheetoh worshiper tries to rewrite history, even as the "proof" stares them in the face. ;-)

Happy almost Wednesday! :)

Could you please share with us how many of his own (confirmed) appointees Obama fired? I'm quite curious. 

Thank you in advance. 

Keep in mind that at that management level people are seldom outright "fired", either in government or in business, as it shows that the person doing the initial hiring made a keen error in judgment. It's usually done by "negotiated" resignation. The general public is unaware of the true reason for the departure(s). (Apparently Mr. Trump doesn't concern himself with such "niceties".)

But let's start with the Secretary of Defense. First there was Robert Gates, then Leon Panetta, followed by Chuck Hagel and finally Ashton Carter (what was up with that?). For Secretary of State Hillary was "replaced" by John "gigolo" Kerry. Steven Chu unceremoniously departed as Secretary of Energy to be replaced by Ernest Moniz. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius was shown the door after some controversy and replaced by Sylvia Mathews Burwell. And Secretary of Education Arne Duncan "resigned" and was replaced by John King, Jr.

Huh. So the answer is none? 

No, the answer is all of the ones that departed. Sheezzze.