Questions about McCabe's firing

[RandBlade]

Sorry but that's nonsense. He was due to retire on Sunday with full benefits. On Friday he gets fired for politically motivated reasons costing him from your description immediately seven years of his pension. To describe that as "not vested" is pedantry. He wasn't fired due to normal due process or gross misconduct, he was fired on the day he was fired specifically to take away his pension. That was explicitly mocked by the POTUS with his "racing the clock" Tweet. To say he was fired to take away his pension is accurate.

Had he been fired on a Friday when he was going to retire that Sunday without the pension issue then that would have been fairly moot. What made this so malicious was the pension issue.

[wiggin]

Sorry but that's nonsense. He was due to retire on Sunday with full benefits. On Friday he gets fired for politically motivated reasons costing him from your description immediately seven years of his pension. To describe that as "not vested" is pedantry. He wasn't fired due to normal due process or gross misconduct, he was fired on the day he was fired specifically to take away his pension. That was explicitly mocked by the POTUS with his "racing the clock" Tweet. To say he was fired to take away his pension is accurate.

Had he been fired on a Friday when he was going to retire that Sunday without the pension issue then that would have been fairly moot. What made this so malicious was the pension issue.

Who cares if it was malicious? So it was a dick move. That's just more evidence that Donald Trump is a dick. But I'm not concerned with how much of an asshole Trump is, I'm concerned about democracy. And that leads me to being much more concerned with the fact and manner in which he was fired, not the timing of it.

You're right, if he was fired without an appropriate process or without cause (I haven't seen the IG report but it seems likely), that's a problem. But it's a problem independent of the maliciousness of the timing wrt pension vesting.

I work for a company that awards substantial stock options on a vesting schedule. If I get fired before they vest, I either get nothing or a pre-determined percentage of the original award. Sure, if I get fired the day before they vest, I'm going to look very carefully at their reasons for firing me (it might be at will employment, but they still need a reason for the timing). But assuming they fired me for a decent reason, I have no right to demand the unvested portion of my stock award.

The crime here is not the pension issue - if indeed McCabe had done something fireable, he has no reason to demand the pension that hadn't vested yet. If he hadn't (as seems likely), the real problem is his termination and how it came about, not his pension.

[RandBlade]

Who cares if it was malicious?

I do as does almost everyone else it appears. The tied-in issue as well as a few of us have said is not just what this means for McCabe but more significantly the very loud and clear signal that is being sent to other federal employees that the executive is prepared to go after their personal finances and personal pension rights in such a manner if they act in a manner that upsets the partisans in office. That is without precedent and is worrying.

You're making out as if the firing is the sole issue and the pension issue is a coincidental side-effect like an unintended consequence. It was instead of course the publicised motive behind the firing.

LOL Hazir on agreement