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

is that what the law says? are you sure?

 

now up to 17

Trump fires 17 independent watchdogs at multiple agencies in late-night move - ABC News


In a late-night Friday move, President Donald Trump fired at least 17 independent watchdogs -- known as inspectors general -- at multiple federal agencies, sources familiar with the move told ABC News.

The conversations about ousting these government watchdogs began during Trump's transition back to the White House.

While inspectors general can be fired by the president — it can only happen after communicating with Congress 30 days in advance and in 2022 Congress strengthened the law requiring administrations to give a detailed reasoning for the firing of an IG.

 

and you are still incorrect. although a detailed reason can be anything in the eyes of MAGA, a federal judge hopefully will have something to say about cause

there is a reason a man known his whole life as a crooked businessman would want to fire the very people who are supposed to contain corruption in the gubmnt...and you seem fine with that..

wake up man..imagine a world where these rules apply and you are in the minority

edit...i have usually been in the majority for most of my life. i was raised to protect the minority and not allow abuse of power.

 

do you care if the government becomes as corrupt as third world countries? IG's were put into our system to insure that doesn't happen.


Trump fires 17 independent watchdogs at multiple agencies in late-night move - ABC News

"First of all to remind that our Inspector General can't be removed from office until the president, and that's any president, not just Trump. So this is a message to all these presidents you've got to tell Congress a month ahead of time the reasons for removing them," Grassley said.

He added, "And the other thing is that inspector generals are expected to be independent of political pressure, independent of the head of the agency, and to make sure that the law is enforced and money spent appropriately, and there shouldn't be any political pressure against any of his work."

In a letter to the White House Friday, Mike Ware, the Small Business Administration inspector general and chair of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, said the firing of the independent watchdogs over email is not "legally sufficient to dismiss Presidentially Appointed, Senate confirmed Inspectors General."
..................................
"The requirement to provide the substantive rationale, including detailed and case specific reasons, was added to better enable Congress to engage on and respond to a proposed removal of an Inspector General in order to protect the independence of Inspectors General," Ware wrote.

 

do you deal with gubmnt contracts? if so a s buyer / seller or ??

imagine a spec written by a sole supplier so specific that the only way it could be met is if the cpontractor that wrote the spec gets the contract. public money, to the contractor of their choice, with no oversight..sounds like a great plan..oh..don't forget, eliminate the debt ceiling

As part of my job, I have to author/amend/review specs for public bid to meet certain bonding requirements. Those bid specs can easily be tailored to cut the field to a handful of candidates, ie 3 - 4 contractors. That is on a relatively simple bid with nothing taller than a fire hydrant other than maybe a mast arm or light pole. On a complex bid, it would be simple to structure the bid to pick the contractor before the bid is ever put on the street.

In a normal world, that doesn't happen because an IG would eat it up and people would pay. I can jsutify narrowing the fiels, I won't risk my license or my personal ethics to pick the bidder before the bid.

Replace the IG, not so much..tip of the iceberg and just the narrow slice of the pie that I see from my cheap seats

tifwiw

 

does it matter what the law or the constitution says?

 

it will be interesting to see if he goes after the three that voted against the drunk. McConnell in particular. How much abuse will the three of them tolerate while waiting to be primaried or threatened with being primaried. will the ice queen make that tiger change his stripes and let this go or will their opposition harden? he isn't one to compromise or let things go. a solidified block of three to block the egregious issues would only need one more. maybe the IG issue will find one. Certainly the gabbard hearing will

 

the law wasn't ever even contemplated because it was never envisioned that any potus would stock the civil service with highly partisan employees, the entire system is set up to not be subjected to rapid change due to the change in office. can any company, in any industry, tolerate the regulatory whipsaw that would, and may, ensue with each change in office? Imagine the long-term damage to our economy with that kind of inconsistency. business hates inconsistency, it is inefficient. rolling the civil service and rules over to executive whim with each change in election would be disastrous long-term. Now if you just want short term grift..well, that's different.

i'll defer to @GatorLaw to argue the constitutionality of it. Not my field but I know right from wrong and the IG has to be politically independent as does the judiciary in order for our gubmnt to work as intended. I