[Steve_Seattle]

The issue was confused by an early WaPo article that apparently left out some key facts. As I understand it now, the general - who serves directly under the president - submitted a pro-forma resignation, effective January 20th, 2017, because of the upcoming change in administrations. The Obama administration rejected his resignation, but it was apparently then accepted at the request of the Trump transition team.

Regardless of whether accepting the resignation was a good idea under the circumstances, there was not really anything unusual about the timing, as this sort of thing is normal when there is a change of administration.

To some people - including myself - the original presentation of the facts made it sound like security for the inauguration was being deliberately weakened, perhaps by Obama, to encourage civil disobedience. I no longer think that is the case.

[Reno89519]

Forget the general, the security of the inauguration is at risk when 5,000 national guard are deployed UNARMED. What are they to do if some Islamic or Democratic terrorist attacks the inauguration in the district-wide gun free zone? Stand around and be killed? They don’t help anyone by being unarmed. That is the scandal.

[faucetman]

“The issue was confused by an early WaPo article that apparently left out some key facts. As I understand it now, the general - who serves directly under the president - submitted a pro-forma resignation, effective January 20th, 2017, because of the upcoming change in administrations. The Obama administration rejected his resignation, but it was apparently then accepted at the request of the Trump transition team.”

If this is correct, (source?) It makes total sense. IF, this is due to the Trump administration, then they would have had a transition replacement/placeholder involved in every aspect of this guy’s job for Jan 20th, ready to take over instantly.

Instead of repeating (not to you personally) this article over and over, how about some facts/sources?