Trump fires 17 (known) IG's on Friday Night Massacre - Who needs oversight?

Perhaps you're confusing the oversight role of Inspector Generals with the role of US Attorneys?

Sorry, I meant;

Perhaps you're confusing the oversight role of Inspector Generals with the role of US Attorneys?

 

Oh. Good point. So you're making a comparison between two things that are....

...... entirely different.

 

You voted for Trump - certainly you must have been closely observing him, both in office and during the four years after he (maybe, perhaps, lol) lost an election.

Why would you say that he fired 17 Inspector Generals? For the betterment of the country? To eliminate oversight of his own activities?

Do you consider him a criminal, or to have committed criminal activities either as or after being POTUS? Or both? Do you think that had any bearing on this action, such as to personally control oversight of his actions?

 

As I’ve said, I think it’s being targeted because Congress tried to impose more restrictions on the internal operations of the executive branch.

From the time the IG’s offices were first created, the executive branch questioned their constitutionality (there’s an OLC memo from Carter’s DOJ in 1977 asserting that the position would be unconstitutional out there), and administrations of both parties regularly pushed back on the constitutional permissibility of actually independent IGs. The requirement that the President notify Congress of removals and the reason for them was trying to walk the tightrope of Congress’s inability to actually interfere with the ability of the President to nominate and remove executive officers. As a practical matter, that notification requirement didn’t amount to much - presidents of both parties (including both Obama and Trump) fired IGs and simply told Congress they were doing so because the president has to have full confidence in executive appointees and no longer had full confidence in that IG.

To the extent Congress has tried to expand its own role with respect to IGs, they may very well be stepping outside of the (already constitutionally questionable) balancing that was trying to keep the IG role constitutionally permissible. I have no problem with the executive branch facially challenging that.

 

I don't know which sentence is funnier.

 

^ These things are patently obvious.

They're just shilling for their criminal. Sad what the American Trumppublican electorate has become. No standards for anything.

I suppose it should be absolutely no surprise after we watched them shrug off a criminal conspiracy to overturn an election, and a sitting POTUS inciting an attack on our government.

Beyond deplorable.

 

Well, true. But some people only want that if that's what the felon Donald Trump wants.

 

The body that empowers Congress to monitor the executive branch is Congress itself (namely oversight committees).

There can’t be congressional positions within the executive branch, and the reason IGs are appointed either by the president or agency heads is because there constitutionally can’t be congressionally appointed executive officers.

The idea of trying to isolate portions of the executive branch through independent or quasi-independent bodies or roles is a recent development, and has been controversial and subjected to constitutional questions and challenges for as long as it has existed (in part because the Article II vesting clause vests the executive powers of the United States in the President, not in random “independent offices” created by Congress, and in part because the appointments clause expressly and intentionally separates Congress’s power to create offices from the President’s power to fill them).