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

The felon actually appointed some of them. Congress was concerned about his 1st term firings of IG for non-worship. etc so that they passed legislation to curtail taking down this guardrail in 2022. Looks like they were rightly concerned.

 

And it is likely unconstitutional since Congress’ only roll is to advise and consent on political appointees, not notification of their firing.

 

Do you seriously think that this Pres. cares or is cognizant of literally any Constitutional laws?

 

The Dear Leader can do no wrong.

 

Then why are they political appointees? If you do not like them being political appointees, then change the law but there is nothing crazy or unusual about a new Admin replacing political appointees.

 

2 people, including you, responded to my post

 

I suspect the president personally probably doesn’t even know who any of these IGs are. But I think that legal advisors to the administration are certainly aware of the constitutional questions surrounding removal powers, and I expect that some of them are likely eager to try to roll back what they see as legislative encroachments on executive power that were enacted specifically to try to limit what this particular president could do.

 

No POTUS needs to justify it. They are political appointees and it is completely normal for a new POTUS to request their resignation. If you do not think they should be political appointees, change the law. But the current law allows the POTUS to fore them and we are back to you being upset over people electing Trump so now he can exercise normal POTUS.

 

Not really - that both over and understates their role in some regards.

Their job is to investigate and audit waste, fraud, or abuse; it’s not to opine on whether the substantive policies of the agency comply with the agency’s enabling statutes.

 

Funny to watch the cult make excuses for the un-American criminal.

Sad for our country, of course, but funny.

 

I think a lot of the pushback you’re seeing (at least from my end) has very little to do with any particular president, as opposed to the fetishization of the administrative state and the idea that there should be a self-sustained, self-governing, and largely unanswerable aspect of the executive branch empowered to act entirely independent of the elected executive.

 

In a checks and balance system, Congress felt that IG positions should remain out of political winds. One reason their terms don't coincide with new admins.

 

And yet your semantics entirely avoid the thoroughly obvious point that these are the actions of a clearly documented, even adjudicated, criminal who is solely trying to eliminate impartial oversight of future criminal actions.