Dem
47
GOP
53
Some massacres occur on a Saturday night (e.g., Richard Nixon trying to fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, which prompted AG Elliot Richardson and his deputy to resign). But if you are in a hurry and can't wait until Saturday then, in a pinch, you can do it on a Friday. Donald Trump chose that option Friday ult. and fired (at least) 17 inspectors general. Surprisingly, so far, DoJ IG Michael Horowitz has escaped the axe, but Trump is not a detail guy. There is always tomorrow. Was this legal? No, but in Trump v2.0, laws are for suckers.
Let's start with a simple question: What is an inspector general? Many (federal) departments and agencies have an internal office led by a person called the inspector general, whose mission is to ferret out wrongdoing within their particular part of the bureaucracy. This includes misconduct, fraud, theft, embezzlement, waste and other outright illegal activity. Over 70 federal agencies (and departments) have an inspector general. They are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Nevertheless, they are not considered partisan and usually continue across administrations. By law, the president can fire an IG, but only after giving both chambers of Congress warning 30 days in advance and specifying the reasons for the upcoming termination. Trump has not complied with the law and is likely to lose the resulting lawsuits. Of course, once they are over, he can give Congress 30 days' notice and then do it again.
Trump fired the IGs by sending them e-mails announcing that they were fired immediately. One of them, Cardell Richardson Sr., who is the State Dept. IG, said his firing was illegal, so he planned to show up in the office Monday to continue his investigations. Diana Shaw, a former acting IG, said: "If legal, and I think that's an open question under the law requiring 30-day congressional notification prior to the firing of an IG, it risks changing forever what we have historically valued most about IGs—their independence, objectivity, and non-partisanship."
Why would Trump want to get rid of some IGs? Could it be that he wouldn't mind a little (or a lot of) lawbreaking in some departments or agencies and doesn't want any gumshoes nosing around trying to sniff it out? He didn't say. In fact, he didn't even announce it. Some of the IGs went to the media. When word got out and reporters asked Trump about it, he lied, saying "It's a very common thing to do." That's a baldfaced lie. It is very rare. Joe Biden fired just one, the IG of the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, after an investigation showed that he had created a hostile work environment. In his whole first term, even Trump fired only five IGs. What is somewhat ironic is that most of Friday's firees were appointed by Trump in his first term. They were not Democratic appointees. Yup, he will definitely surround himself with the best people, as he promised. These firings are sure to end up in court, probably the Supreme Court, given that Trump clearly violated the law. If a Democratic president had done this while there was a Republican House, there would undoubtedly have been members who moved to start impeachment proceedings for a clear violation of a law Congress passed to prevent precisely what Trump just did—and secretly in the middle of the night, no less.
Could this be another power play, to beat Congress into submission and make it realize how toothless it really is? Kind of like shoving a Fox News host down the Senate's throat as Secretary of Defense to make them eat dirt and then say "Yummy, dirt! Thank you so much Your Majesty!" It's certainly within the realm of possibility.
Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Chuck Grassley (R-IA) was perturbed by the firings and said: "There may be good reason the IGs were fired. I'd like further explanation from President Trump. Regardless, the 30-day detailed notice of removal that the law demands was not provided to Congress." So Grassley is clearly aware that Trump broke the law. The big question is: What is he going to do about it? On the other hand, Sen. Tommy Tuberville sucked up to Trump with: "We need to clean house. I mean, if they're not for this country to move on down the road." We greatly doubt that Tuberville has any idea at all what an IG does or why the position exists or what the law says. A legal scholar he is not. Heck, even his comment is barely comprehensible. Democrats were livid. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) called Trump's action "a purge of independent watchdogs in the middle of the night. President Trump is dismantling checks on his power and paving the way for widespread corruption."
In the end, Trump's goals (which exist over a 4-year timeframe, and that's it) and the goals of many Congressional Republicans (who hope to keep their jobs for decades) are substantially in conflict. We wonder if the legislature will eventually draw a line in the sand. Will that be this week? This month? This year? We'll see. But don't hold your breath. (V & Z)