Select Page

Critics would find a black spot in anything Trump does, including the transfer of power.

Trump’s latest order is taking Obama’s ambassadors to leave their position by January 20.

This is a standard procedure, but Trump’s critics are so unhappy about this that they claim it to be unfair.

The New York Times has the details about this:

The mandate — issued “without exceptions,” according to a terse State Department cable sent on Dec. 23, diplomats who saw it said — threatens to leave the United States without Senate-confirmed envoys for months in critical nations like Germany, Canada and Britain. In the past, administrations of both parties have often granted extensions on a case-by-case basis to allow a handful of ambassadors, particularly those with school-age children, to remain in place for weeks or months.

 

Some say that there is nothing abnormal about this, and that the media are setting up a play. John Podhoretz said that the ambassadors knew that they would have to leave, and that the Times is publishing an absolute nonsense.

READ  Trump wants $4 billion more for missile defense, citing North Korea

Associated Press diplomatic writer Matt Lee took tweeted his opinion about the transition of power, and the issue of these ambassadors.

 

“This is a non-story,” Lee tweeted. “Presidents choose their own ambassadors. None, especially non-career ones, should expect to stay post-transition.”

What do you think about this? Do you think that these ambassadors should leave?

Shares

Share This

Share this post with your friends!