Well, howdy there, Internet people, it's Bell again.

So today, we're going to talk about the ruling in Trump's bid to oust the head of the Office of Special Counsel.

A federal judge in D.C. has ruled that Trump's removal of Hampton Dillinger, who heads up the independent agency was unlawful.

Just a quick note, because it's causing some confusion.

The Office of Special Counsel is not the same as a special counsel like Jack Smith, which is under DOJ.

The Office of Special Counsel is independent and handles things like the Hatch Act, Civil Service Reform Act, and protects whistleblowers. It's that last part that requires independence. Dillinger said, if I don't have

independence, if I can be removed for no good reason, federal employees are going to have no good

reason to come to me. The judge agreed,

saying, quote, the special counsel's job is to look into and expose unethical or unlawful practices

directed at federal civil servants and to help ensure that whistleblowers who disclose fraud, waste, and abuse

on the part of government agencies can do so without suffering reprisals.

It would be ironic, to say the least, and inimical to the ends furthered by the statutes

if the special counsel himself could be chilled in his work

by fear of arbitrary or partisan removal. Dillinger argued that federal law says that he can

only be fired for, quote, inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.

Dillinger was fired via an email, and in the lawsuit, he said, quote,

that email made no attempt to comply with the special counsel's for-cause removal protection.

It stated simply, on behalf of President Donald J. Trump, I am writing to inform you that your position

as special counsel of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel is terminated, effective immediately.

The judge appeared to agree with that as well, saying, quote, the elimination of the restrictions

on plaintiff's removal would be fatal to the

defining and essential feature of the Office of Special Counsel, as it was conceived by Congress

...