State Department inspector general fired; Democrats decry ‘dangerous pattern of retaliation’

[homersapien 11,357]

By

Hannah Knowles 

May 16, 2020 at 8:24 a.m. EDT

State Department Inspector General Steve Linick was fired Friday in a late-night ouster that drew condemnations from Democrats, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi warning of an acceleration in a “dangerous pattern of retaliation” against federal watchdogs.

Linick, a 2013 Obama appointee who has criticized department leadership for alleged retribution toward staffers, will be replaced by Stephen J. Akard, a State Department spokesperson confirmed Friday. It was the latest in a string of weekend removals of oversight officials who have clashed with the Trump administration.

Rep. Eliot L. Engel (D.-N.Y.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, claimed the State Inspector General was fired after opening an investigation into Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and said the timing suggested “an unlawful act of retaliation.” The State Department did not explain Linick’s removal or address criticism, and the White House did not immediately respond to an inquiry Friday night.

A Democratic congressional aide said that Linick was looking into Pompeo’s “misuse of a political appointee at the Department to perform personal tasks for himself and Mrs. Pompeo.”

President Trump said in a Friday letter to Pelosi that the inspector general no longer had his “fullest confidence” and would be removed in 30 days, the required period of advance notice to lawmakers.

The firing came weeks after Trump removed Christi Grimm as principal deputy inspector general for the Department of Health and Human Services, after Grimm’s office criticized the administration’s response to the coronavirus pandemic — detailing “severe shortages” of testing kits, delays in getting coronavirus results and “widespread shortages” of masks and other equipment at U.S. hospitals. Trump had lashed out publicly at Grimm.

Last month the president ousted intelligence community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, who handled the explosive whistleblower complaint that led to Trump’s impeachment. He also pushed out Glenn Fine, the chairman of the federal panel Congress created to oversee his administration’s management of the government’s $2 trillion coronavirus stimulus package.

The president’s critics responded with outrage Friday to the move against Linick. Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) slammed “another apparent act of retaliation and cover up” meant to “shield a loyal Cabinet secretary from oversight and accountability,” while Pelosi said in a statement that Linick was “punished for honorably performing his duty to protect the Constitution and our national security, as required by the law and by his oath.”

Pelosi expressed concern that the move came as the House passed coronavirus legislation that includes funding that the State Department’s inspector general would oversee.

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) called the firing “shameful” in a late Friday tweet. “Another late Friday night attack on independence, accountability, and career officials,” he wrote. “At this point, the President’s paralyzing fear of any oversight is undeniable.”

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), also on Twitter, said “inspectors general are inconvenient, pesky brutes if your goal is turn the government into a cash cow for your friends, cronies and family.”

Linick has previously been critical of alleged misconduct by officials. An August report by the inspector general concluded that leadership of a leading department bureau mistreated and harassed staffers, accused them of political disloyalty to the Trump administration and retaliated against them. Linick’s office also faulted actions by former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

His replacement, Akard, is a former Foreign Service officer who leads the State Department’s Office of Foreign Missions. Akard was nominated in 2017 to become director general of the Foreign Service but withdrew amid opposition.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/16/state-department-inspector-general-fired-democrats-decry-dangerous-pattern-retaliation/

[homersapien 11,357]

Trump’s slow-moving Friday night massacre of inspectors general

By

Aaron Blake 

May 16, 2020 at 10:04 a.m. EDT

The Friday news dump — also known as the Friday night news dump — is a political trick with plenty of precedent. Wait till the vast majority of the news business clocks out for on the week, and announce something you’d rather they not cover as much. People won’t be reading as much news at that point anyway, and perhaps it’ll be dismissed as old news by Monday morning.

Few are as blatant about using this tactic, though, as the Trump White House.

News broke late Friday night that Trump had removed the inspector general for the State Department, Steve Linick. It’s the third time in six weeks that such a move has been announced on a Friday night, with each inspector general having done something to pretty obviously alienate Trump. The unprecedented spate of removals has reinforced how Trump is rather obviously seeking to undermine independent oversight of his administration — and the timing of each of them only reinforces that.

Let’s run through each one (with a fourth thrown in that occurred on a Tuesday and was less obviously politically motivated).

 

State Department inspector general Steve Linick

The action: Fired

When he was removed (first report): Friday, May 15, at about 10 p.m.

What he did:

• Issued a report in August 2019 that alleged that leaders in the State Department had mistreated and harassed staffers and accused them of disloyalty to Trump.
• Gave the House’s impeachment inquiry into Trump documents detailing Ukraine disinformation.
• Was allegedly investigating “misuse of a political appointee at the Department to perform personal tasks for [Secretary of State Mike Pompeo] and Mrs. Pompeo,” according to a Democratic aid.

What Trump has said: Retweeted this tweet suggesting Linick should have come forward earlier if he had such information about Ukraine:

So State Department inspector general asks for 'urgent' briefing on Capitol Hill. Trump and Ukraine! Then admits he's had 'urgent' material since May. After seeing it, Dem lawmaker declares 'completely irrelevant.' https://t.co/LCS09PiuPq

— Byron York (@ByronYork) October 3, 2019

Replaced with: Stephen J. Akard, a former Foreign Service officer and former aide to Vice President Pence dating back to his days in Indiana

 

Acting Health and Human Services inspector general Christi Grimm

The action: Removed in favor of a permanent replacement

When she was removed (announcement): Shortly after 8 p.m. on Friday, May 1

What she did: Issued an April report finding “severe shortages” of coronavirus testing kits, delays in results and “widespread shortages” of equipment like masks.

What Trump has said: Of her report, Trump said on April 6, “It’s just wrong. Did I hear the word ‘inspector general’? Really? It’s wrong. And they’ll talk to you about it. It’s wrong.” He added on Twitter the next day:

Why didn’t the I.G., who spent 8 years with the Obama Administration (Did she Report on the failed H1N1 Swine Flu debacle where 17,000 people died?), want to talk to the Admirals, Generals, V.P. & others in charge, before doing her report. Another Fake Dossier!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 7, 2020

Replaced with: Assistant U.S. Attorney Jason Weida

 

Intelligence community inspector general Michael Atkinson

The action: Fired

When he was removed (first reported): Friday, April 3, around 10 p.m.

What he did: Forwarded the Ukraine whistleblower complaint to Congress after finding it to be “credible” and “urgent.” The complaint, which was overwhelmingly confirmed by impeachment witnesses, led to Trump’s impeachment.

What Trump has said: Trump repeatedly attacked the whistleblower complaint as being without merit and part of an alleged partisan campaign to remove him as president. After removing Atkinson, he specifically cited that action.

“I thought he did a terrible job. Absolutely terrible. He took a whistleblower report, which turned out to be a fake report … and he brought it to Congress with an emergency. Not a big Trump fan, that I can tell you.”

He also questioned Atkinson’s actions:

House Republicans investigating origins of the Ukraine Whistleblower complaint. ICIG Michael Atkinson facing serious questions. “The Democrats know the ICIG is a major problem-didn’t release his testimony. Looks so much like everything else we’ve seen, from the Russia Hoax, to...

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 12, 2020

Atkinson later alleged in an extraordinary letter that he had been targeted for dong his job appropriately.

And finally, in a non-Friday night announcement ...

 

Acting Defense Department inspector general Glenn Fine

The action: Removed in favor of a permanent replacement

When he was removed: Tuesday, April 7

What he was set to do: Oversee the Trump administration’s handling of the new $2 trillion coronavirus stimulus package, which was signed into law a week and a half earlier.

What Trump has said: “We have a lot of IGs in from the Obama era,” he said the day of the announcement. “And as you know, it’s a presidential decision. And I left them, largely. I mean, changed some, but I left them. . . . But when we have, you know, reports of bias and when we have different things coming in. I don’t know Fine. I don’t think I ever met Fine.”

Replaced with: Environmental Protection Agency Inspector General Sean W. O’Donnell, who would serve in an acting capacity at Defense until the announcement of a permanent replacement.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/16/trumps-slow-moving-friday-night-massacre-inspectors-general/

[wdefromtx 3,159]

I still want to know how many Twitter "Tweet Delete Persons" have been fired for getting rid of his tweets when he goes nuts tweeting. 

[homersapien 11,357]

Fired watchdog was investigating Trump administration arms sales to Saudi Arabia

"It’s troubling that Secretary Pompeo wanted Mr. Linick pushed out before this work could be completed," says Eliot Engel.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/18/linick-administration-arms-sales-saudi-arabia-265024

[jj3jordan 2,049]

Retaliation against someone trying to undermine you sounds reasonable.  Not really a bad pattern.

[homersapien 11,357]

15 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Retaliation against someone trying to undermine you sounds reasonable.  Not really a bad pattern.

That's insane.

You apparently have no more regard for proper governance - including checks and balances - than does Trump.

[Mikey 16,568]

Why can't the opposition understand "serves at the pleasure of the President"? Every low-level government employee with more than six weeks on the job knows how this works in the political appointee positions. When you no longer please the President, you are gone. Standard Operating Procedure. If you don't like the rules, don't accept the appointment. A good friend of mine once accepted one of these appointed positions. He told me that when he did the administrative paperwork to take the job, he also signed an un-dated letter of resignation. It was put in his personnel folder to use if or when they didn't want him on the job any more. Truing to make issues out of these comings and goings is nothing but partisan silliness.

[homersapien 11,357]

22 hours ago, Mikey said:

Why can't the opposition understand "serves at the pleasure of the President"? Every low-level government employee with more than six weeks on the job knows how this works in the political appointee positions. When you no longer please the President, you are gone. Standard Operating Procedure. If you don't like the rules, don't accept the appointment. A good friend of mine once accepted one of these appointed positions. He told me that when he did the administrative paperwork to take the job, he also signed an un-dated letter of resignation. It was put in his personnel folder to use if or when they didn't want him on the job any more. Truing to make issues out of these comings and goings is nothing but partisan silliness.

That has never been the accepted convention concerning inspector generals, many of whom have served long terms under varying administrations. 

These aren't political or partisan positions, they are professionals with backgrounds in accounting or auditing.

Trump is clearly trying to stack the deck to avoid personal accountability for his malfeasance.

 

[homersapien 11,357]

House probes Trump’s quiet removal of inspector general amid investigation into Elaine Chao

Ousted official was probing allegations of special treatment to allies of Chao's husband, Mitch McConnell, Dems say

https://www.salon.com/2020/05/20/house-probes-trumps-quiet-removal-of-inspector-general-amid-investigation-into-elaine-chao/

[IronMan70 3,277]

On 5/19/2020 at 3:57 PM, Mikey said:

Why can't the opposition understand "serves at the pleasure of the President"? Every low-level government employee with more than six weeks on the job knows how this works in the political appointee positions. When you no longer please the President, you are gone. Standard Operating Procedure. If you don't like the rules, don't accept the appointment. A good friend of mine once accepted one of these appointed positions. He told me that when he did the administrative paperwork to take the job, he also signed an un-dated letter of resignation. It was put in his personnel folder to use if or when they didn't want him on the job any more. Truing to make issues out of these comings and goings is nothing but partisan silliness.

 

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

That has never been the accepted convention concerning inspector generals, many of whom have served long terms under varying administrations. 

These aren't political or partisan positions, they are professionals with backgrounds in accounting or auditing.

Trump is clearly trying to stack the deck to avoid personal accountability for his malfeasance.

 

Then I bet you and the Dems were REALLY pissed when Obama fired IG's. Heck, you were probably even writing letters to the editor and chit.

 

https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2009/06/18/obama-has-fired-2-igs-in-2-weeks-leashed-another/

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/05/18/flashback-obama-illegally-fired-an-inspector-general-to-protect-a-sexual-predator-n398683

https://freebeacon.com/2020-election/biden-forgets-obama-fired-inspector-general/

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/31325894/ns/us_news-giving/t/obama-fires-americorps-inspector-general/#.XsWwn8ApDIU

[SaltyTiger 7,777]

On 5/18/2020 at 12:15 PM, homersapien said:

Fired watchdog was investigating Trump administration arms sales to Saudi Arabia

"It’s troubling that Secretary Pompeo wanted Mr. Linick pushed out before this work could be completed," says Eliot Engel.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/18/linick-administration-arms-sales-saudi-arabia-265024

 Have no real problem with Pompeo using appointees to walk his dog or run a few a errands. Have no concern over the arms sale. Do have a bit of  concern with Trump firing IG's . From my understanding these guys are not popular and with good reason.

This Linick is once again an Obama appointee. Trump should have released all day one. Big mistake by Trump.

Trump on Monday reiterated that Pompeo requested that he fire Linick and said he “never even heard of” him.

“It happens to be very political whether you like it or not. And many of these people were Obama appointments. So I just got rid of him,” Trump said.

[jj3jordan 2,049]

On 5/19/2020 at 12:51 PM, homersapien said:

That's insane.

You apparently have no more regard for proper governance - including checks and balances - than does Trump.

Proper governance??? Seriously?  What world do you live in Homer. Comey Brennan Clapper Biden and Obama tried to take down Trump illegally and immorally. They are all dirty and guilty.  Only an idiot could not see that.  You are full of hooey if you think for a second that Trumps actions are not justified. Those guys should be in jail. 

[jj3jordan 2,049]

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

That has never been the accepted convention concerning inspector generals, many of whom have served long terms under varying administrations. 

These aren't political or partisan positions, they are professionals with backgrounds in accounting or auditing.

Trump is clearly trying to stack the deck to avoid personal accountability for his malfeasance.

 

Like the IC IG? The one who changed the rules to allow second hand information and allowed an employee that was not in his chain of command to file a complaint?  Oh yeah real professional.   Happens all the time.

[Mikey 16,568]

9 hours ago, homersapien said:

House probes Trump’s.......

House? They keep on bringing up one hoax after another. We won't be done with this silliness until the Pubbies take the House back in November.

[homersapien 11,357]

Mike Pompeo offers another defense in his IG controversy — then immediately undercuts it

By

Aaron Blake 

May 20, 2020 at 12:32 p.m. EDT

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued his latest comments Wednesday in the growing controversy over his recommendation that President Trump fire an inspector general who has been investigating Pompeo.

Pompeo’s defense basically boiled down to this: It couldn’t possibly have been retaliation, because I didn’t know what he was investigating.

Except then Pompeo acknowledged that he might well have known that he was under investigation. And his explanation glosses over other ways in which the firing could have been retaliatory.

Pompeo in his comments said that he should have pushed for Inspector General Steve Linick’s removal “some time ago.” Then he laid out his case for why this isn’t problematic.

“I have no sense of what investigations were taking place inside the inspector general’s office,” Pompeo said. “I couldn’t possibly have retaliated for all the things I’ve seen — the various stories that someone was walking my dog to sell arms to my dry cleaner. It’s all just crazy.”

Pompeo’s summary of what Linick was investigating was clearly meant in jest and dismissively. He lumped Linick’s probe of Pompeo allegedly using State Department staff for personal errands with a separate probe of an arms deal with Saudi Arabia that Pompeo approved.

“I didn’t have access to that information,” Pompeo said, “so I couldn’t possibly have retaliated.”

Except then, in almost the same breath, Pompeo admitted he knew about Linick’s probe of the arms deal the Trump administration struck with Saudi Arabia. That’s a deal in which Linick was examining whether it illegally bypassed a congressional block on arms sales to the country. The New York Times reported Tuesday that Pompeo had declined an interview in the probe but instead offered written responses to Linick’s questions.

“There’s one exception: I was asked a series of questions in writing,” Pompeo said. “I responded to those questions with respect to a particular investigation. … I don’t know the scope. I don’t know the nature of that investigation — of what I would have seen from the nature of the questions that I was presented.”

That’s a pretty substantial caveat. Pompeo one moment says he had “no sense of what investigations were taking place,” and then acknowledged he did in fact know about one of the two big ones.

Pompeo insisted that he did not glean clues about the thrust of the investigation based on the questions received, but it’s difficult to believe they didn’t involve probing his personal actions and knowledge — given that would be the only real perspective he could offer. And if, in fact, Pompeo might be worried about anything related to that arms deal, he wouldn’t even need to know specifically what Linick was after; the presence of the investigation itself would be enough.

That doesn’t mean Linick was indeed targeting Pompeo in the probe. But Pompeo’s suggestion that he couldn’t possibly retaliate because he would have had no idea about the scope of that investigation is pretty difficult to swallow. When an inspector general probes something controversial — as the Saudi arms deal was, so much so that Congress tried to block it — it doesn’t take a legal expert to deduce that trouble might lie ahead.

And then there are the other investigations. Retaliation doesn’t just mean for something that involves Pompeo personally; it’s also possible it could be for something that makes the broader State Department, the broader administration or White House look bad.

And that could certainly be deduced not just from the Saudi arms deal probe, but also from a pair of reports Linick issued last year. One of them alleged harassment by top State Department officials and that employees were politically targeted. Another involved an ally of White House senior adviser and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner.

In other words, Linick’s history of issuing tough reports was no secret. Even if we take Pompeo at his word that he didn’t know about the probe involving staff doing personal errands, that doesn’t erase all these other things Pompeo knew about — and for which Linick’s firing could logically be construed as retaliatory. (There’s also the fact that Trump has made pretty clear that two other removals of inspectors general were indeed retaliatory.)

So the idea that this couldn’t possibly have been retaliatory just doesn’t hold up. That doesn’t mean it’s a scandal; it just means Pompeo’s defense remains rather suspect.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/20/mike-pompeo-offers-another-defense-his-ig-controversy-then-immediately-undercuts-it/

 

[homersapien 11,357]

11 hours ago, Mikey said:

House? They keep on bringing up one hoax after another. We won't be done with this silliness until the Pubbies take the House back in November.

Not all that familiar with the constitution, huh?

I'll make it easy for you - you won't even have to read it!

 

 

[homersapien 11,357]

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/20/fired-state-department-watchdog-was-probing-protocol-office-270660

Fired State Department watchdog was probing protocol office

The investigation may have contributed to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s push to oust Steve Linick.

The now-fired State Department inspector general had recently wrapped up an investigation into two other top aides to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, determining that they had likely failed to report allegations of workplace violence, a person familiar with the issue told POLITICO.

The probe into Cam Henderson, who leads the department’s Office of Protocol, and a deputy of hers, Mary-Kate Fisher, could have been another factor in what Pompeo and his deputies have described as mounting frustration with the inspector general, Steve Linick, and might have contributed to the secretary’s push to oust him.

The Pompeos worked closely with the Office of Protocol on a series of intimate, hush-hush dinners that featured influential conservatives, administration officials and Wall Street financiers in what some critics have viewed as the improper use of taxpayer dollars.

President Donald Trump fired Linick on Friday night, acting on what the president said was Pompeo’s recommendation. Linick was one of several government watchdogs Trump has sidelined in recent weeks, infuriating Democrats who say he is trying to evade oversight and accountability.

Pompeo’s role in the ouster has come under growing scrutiny, with a slew of sudden reports about ways in which the inspector general was looking into his actions, those of his wife, Susan, as well as some of his aides. In a news conference Wednesday, Pompeo decried many of the allegations as “crazy.”

Henderson took over as the chief of the Office of Protocol last summer, after her former boss, Sean Lawler, was pushed out. Some in that office accused Lawler of intimidating and harassing his staffers, and even carrying around a whip on the job.

The inspector general had investigated further claims that Henderson and Fisher, while working under Lawler, had violated State Department policy by not reporting allegations involving Lawler and workplace violence to higher-ups. The person said Linick’s office had determined that Henderson and Fisher likely had violated regulations and that the State Department should take appropriate action.

According to the person familiar with the issue, the probe was finished about two weeks ago and Linick’s office was awaiting a response from the department. A second person, who was briefed on the matter, confirmed that the inspector general’s office was nearly finished with a probe of Henderson’s activities. A State Department official, meanwhile, confirmed that Fisher was also under scrutiny as part of the investigation.

Henderson has worked in the past as an aide to former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Although already serving as the chief of protocol, she still faced a confirmation hearing in the Senate amid efforts to give her the rank of ambassador, which at times comes with the chief’s job.

Fisher previously had worked in the first lady’s office at the White House and also for Christie in the past.

The State Department official described Henderson as a generally likable person who nonetheless may not have always acted in the best interest of the protocol office. Fisher was not experienced enough for the position she held, the official contended.

State Department spokespeople did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Wednesday. The Office of Protocol referred POLITICO to the spokespeople when asked to be connected to Henderson and Fisher. Lawler, however, did weigh in.

“There was no workplace violence. All of those accusations were exaggerated and/or false,” Lawler told POLITICO on Wednesday.

Appearing Wednesday at a news conference at the State Department, Pompeo declined to elaborate on the circumstances that led to Linick’s firing. But the secretary emphasized it was he who recommended the inspector general be terminated, saying, “I frankly should have done it some time ago.”

Pompeo dismissed as “patently false” accusations that the ouster represented an act of political retaliation, claiming he had “no sense of what investigations were taking place inside the inspector general’s office” and alluding to recent reports about his alleged misconduct.

“I’ve seen the various stories that someone was walking my dog to sell arms to my dry cleaner. I mean, it’s all just crazy. It’s all crazy stuff,” Pompeo said. He did concede, however, there was “one exception.”

“I was asked a series of questions in writing. I responded to those questions with respect to a particular investigation. That was some time earlier this year, as best I can recall,” Pompeo said, appearing to refer to the revelation in a New York Times story that he had responded to written questions about his handling of arms sales to Saudi Arabia.

“I responded to those questions. I don’t know the scope, I don’t know the nature of that investigation, other than what I would have seen from the nature of the questions that I was presented,” Pompeo continued. “I did what was right. I don’t know if that investigation is continuing. I don’t know if that investigation has been closed out. I don’t have any sense of that.”

The secretary went on to accuse Sen. Bob Menendez, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, of leaking damaging stories to members of the media, and invoked the New Jersey lawmaker’s 2015 indictment on federal corruption charges. The Justice Department dropped its case against Menendez in 2018.

“I don’t get my ethics guidance from a man who was criminally prosecuted. … A man for whom his Senate colleagues, bipartisan, said basically that he was taking bribes,” Pompeo told reporters. “That’s not someone who I look to for ethics guidance. And so I’ll continue to do the right thing to make sure the State Department is served by every employee, including our inspector general.”

“The facts speak for themselves,” Menendez fired back in a statement. “Secretary Pompeo now faces an investigation into both this improper firing and into his attempt to cover up his inappropriate and possibly illegal actions. Not surprisingly, he has lashed out at me and others conducting congressional oversight. The fact that Secretary Pompeo is now trying diversion tactics by attempting to smear me is as predictable as it is shameful. The secretary should focus on answering questions and getting his story straight as to why he wanted to target IG Linick.”

Pompeo did not directly address concerns about the protocol office, which handles a variety of tasks related to diplomatic engagements and encounters, ranging from handling gift giving involving foreign leaders to explaining the proper behavior U.S. officials should display in other countries.

On Tuesday, NBC News reported that State Department officials had growing concerns about a series of events called “Madison Dinners” — named after former President James Madison, and the diplomatic reception room at State Department headquarters that bears his name — that have been hosted by Pompeo and his wife since he took over as secretary in spring 2018.

Some U.S. diplomats felt the dinners were an extravagant use of taxpayer dollars that were more aimed at bolstering Pompeo’s political connections ahead of a potential future run for office. Some noted that if the dinners were designed to improve the stature of the department, they should have been publicized. And if they were genuinely focused on foreign policy, then State Department diplomats with knowledge of the subject matters should have been invited, some said.

The person familiar with the issue said that the inspector general’s office was aware of concerns about the dinners, but that at first glance they appeared to be carefully organized to meet any legal requirements.

The dinners had come up as part of Linick’s look into the activities of another State Department official, Toni Porter, a longtime confidante who has accompanied Pompeo from his days as a Kansas congressman to the CIA to Foggy Bottom.

State Department officials have raised concerns about whether Porter was appropriately spending her time on government matters, as opposed to topics that were more personal or political in nature when it came to the Pompeos.

Porter did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Wednesday that Pompeo should testify before Congress, describing both Trump’s pattern of firing inspectors general and the reports coming out about Pompeo in recent days as “scandalous.”

“He should come up and testify, but he should be coming up here to testify in general,” Pelosi told reporters of Pompeo. “Let’s see how this unfolds. It’s just in the last 24 hours or 36 hours that we’re seeing what this is. But what it is, what we know so far, is scandalous.”

Pelosi conceded that hearing from Pompeo was unlikely given Trump’s icy relationship with her and other Democrats. The White House has made a show of blocking other high profile administration officials from testifying in the House while allowing them to appear before the Republican-controlled Senate.

“It’s very hard to get the administration to honor its responsibilities to the American people by testifying before Congress,” Pelosi said. “As you see, they’ve sort of cut out the House all together.”

[Mikey 16,568]

20 hours ago, homersapien said:

Not all that familiar with the constitution, huh?

I'll make it easy for you - you won't even have to read it!

I'm very familiar with the Constitution. I'm also well aware that the House has done nothing but perpetrate one hoax after another for the past three years and four months. That will end after Pelosi & co. bite the dust in November. As usual, when cornered, you go off on a weird tangent. What does your lame post about separation of powers have to do with the discussion?

Here, I'll make it easy for you: Nothing.

[homersapien 11,357]

4 hours ago, Mikey said:

I'm very familiar with the Constitution. I'm also well aware that the House has done nothing but perpetrate one hoax after another for the past three years and four months. That will end after Pelosi & co. bite the dust in November. As usual, when cornered, you go off on a weird tangent. What does your lame post about separation of powers have to do with the discussion?

Here, I'll make it easy for you: Nothing.

Trump is clearly dismantling one of the key components that ensure good governance by firing independent Inspector Generals and replacing them with sycophants. 

The IGs are the ones who provide the basic facts to Congress who have the ultimate responsibility for providing a check on executive abuse, in accordance with our constitution.  Trump is therefore undermining our system of checks and balances  at the very base. 

That you are so dismissive of that means you either don't understand the significance of it, or you a Trump sycophant yourself. 

Trump cares nothing about the country.  All Trump cares about is himself.  He is perfectly willing to destroy any mechanism the promotes good governance if it benefits him personally. 

You are enabling him to do so simply by being one of his useful fools.   

[homersapien 11,357]

Trump’s purge of inspectors general is alarming. His replacements may be worse.

By David C. Williams 

May 21, 2020 at 5:03 p.m. EDT

David C. Williams served as inspector general of the U.S. Postal Service, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Treasury Department, Internal Revenue Service, Social Security Administration and Nuclear Regulatory Commission during four presidential administrations.

President Trump’s spate of inspector general removals this spring is alarming, and every American should be concerned about the state of federal government oversight. But the problem with Trump’s actions is not simply removing the watchdogs — it’s also the chilling effect left on those who remain and the fact that the president is replacing some of the ousted officials with thinly credentialed political loyalists.

Inspectors general were established to conduct independent, dogged investigations into federal government agencies and report their findings freely to Congress and the public. Yet at the very time we need thorough oversight of the federal government’s expansive coronavirus relief spending, the president is conducting a war on those tasked with holding him accountable.

Trump’s removal of inspectors general has a deleterious impact on the entire inspector general community. Particularly with the removals of Michael Atkinson as inspector general for the intelligence community and Steve Linick as inspector general for the State Department, there’s a strong indication that the president fired them simply because of their involvement in investigations that cast the administration in a negative light.

And it is hard to interpret Trump’s decision to replace acting Defense Department inspector general Glenn Fine, chosen to lead a panel of inspectors general overseeing the coronavirus relief funds. Fine represents the best of the best within the IG community. He has a long history of successes in ferreting out sophisticated frauds and wrongdoing. That’s a reason to keep him, not replace him.

The inspectors general who remain have every reason to be concerned for themselves and their subordinates as they embark on investigations that could turn up unwelcome findings or evidence of a crime or misconduct. They will worry that they will be damned if they do — and allowed to remain only if they don’t.

But perhaps more concerning are the individuals the president has named to replace some of the career civil servants that he has removed.

The new acting inspectors general at the State and Transportation departments are both political appointees chosen from within their departments, and both will reportedly remain in their current roles at their respective departments. This presents a number of issues.

Appointing an official to investigate an agency while still reporting to that agency head presents a huge conflict of interest and runs contrary to the rule of law. It should be explicitly barred. These officials will also be privy to confidential information and the complaints and identities of whistleblowers. This is disturbing and could leave whistleblowers afraid to come forward if they witness wrongdoing.

It’s also worrisome that these nominees might lack the proper qualifications since they were pulled from the ranks of the departments. Inspectors general typically have a background in investigations or auditing.

We need experienced inspectors general who are committed to conducting rigorous oversight, now more than ever. The federal government is poised to spend trillions of dollars in coronavirus relief aid, and the inspectors general face the daunting task of monitoring that spending and holding the administration accountable.

In fact, several of the ousted inspectors general would have held seats on the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee, a panel of inspectors general established to conduct oversight over the coronavirus relief spending. To conduct effective oversight and speak freely about sensitive matters, members of the PRAC will need to trust one another. I have a hard time imagining the career investigators on the committee will feel comfortable discussing sensitive matters with political appointees still working in other roles within the administration. Without this necessary trust, the PRAC could be of limited value.

Given these troubling circumstances, Congress needs to step in and protect the independence of inspectors general. It must hold hearings with top State Department officials and intelligence community officials to get to the bottom of the Linick and Atkinson firings. Some members have requested more information on the reasoning behind these removals, but they must also push for depositions and testimony from the top officials involved in the decision-making process.

After the Watergate scandals, Congress passed the Inspector General Act to reassure the nation. It represented a visible sign that we remained a great and confident republic committed to self-scrutiny and clean government. There could not be a worse moment to break that pact with our citizens.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/21/trumps-widespread-removal-inspectors-general-is-alarming-so-are-his-appointments/

Read more:

Andrew Bakaj, John Tye and Mark Zaid: Trump’s purge of inspectors general is a crisis. Alarm bells should be going off everywhere.

David Ignatius: Trump’s dismissal of competent officials is an attack on accountability

The Post’s View: This is Trump’s vilest act of retribution yet

 

[homersapien 11,357]

 

 

Trump shreds another Republican’s life’s work

By

Dana Milbank 

Columnist

May 27, 2020 at 7:12 p.m. EDT

It has become a hallmark of the Trump era: the shameful end to a distinguished career.

Now it’s Sen. Chuck Grassley’s turn. For 40 years in the Senate, the Iowa Republican has been a champion of accountability, defending the oversight that exposes government corruption. But now the 86-year-old is watching, weakly, as President Trump shreds Grassley’s life’s work.

In just two months, Trump has:

• Fired the inspector general at the State Department who was looking into possible improprieties by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
• Replaced the acting inspector general at the Transportation Department who was investigating allegations of favoritism by Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao benefiting her husband, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
• Dismissed the inspector general of the intelligence community who forwarded to Congress the whistleblower complaint that kicked off impeachment, while firing or punishing others who participated in the inquiry.
• Ousted the inspector general of pandemic relief spending and replaced him with a loyalist from the White House legal staff who developed the White House strategy of denying information to Congress during the impeachment probe.
• Replaced the acting inspector general at the Department of Health and Human Services after publicly blasting her report documenting critical shortages of protective equipment at hospitals.

• But don’t worry. Chuck Grassley has written a letter!

  In fact, he has written two. And they contain stern phrases about how the administration “appears to have circumvented Congress’s role” and its “obvious conflicts that unduly threaten the statutorily required independence of inspectors general.”

  Trump predictably ignored Grassley, then finally had the White House counsel respond Tuesday by telling Grassley to pound sand. Grassley noted that the response did not offer a “good reason” for Trump’s actions and said “the American people will be left speculating whether political or self interests are to blame.”

  Ya think?

  But Trump can safely stiff Grassley because he knows the senator won’t back up his words. He’ll support fig-leaf legislation (blocking political appointees from serving as acting IGs) that won’t prevent Trump from firing inspectors who hold him to account.

  Grassley, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, could stop Trump in his tracks by blocking his nominees or threatening to discontinue his investigation, at Trump’s behest, into the Bidens.

  But few Republicans can withstand the public abuse that comes with defying Trump, and Grassley says he might run for reelection in 2022, when he’ll be 89. In a moment that demands courage, Grassley so far is choosing political self-interest.

  “I truly was fooled by Grassley into thinking he cared about this stuff,” Walter Shaub, who resigned as head of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics after clashing with Trump, told me Wednesday. “He would have ended his career as a true defender of inspectors general and now he’s going to end his career being complicit in the greatest purge of inspectors general of all time.” And now the White House counsel is “sticking his thumb in Grassley’s eye.”

  It’s hard to believe this is the same man who, when President Barack Obama fired the inspector general of AmeriCorps (Obama’s highest-profile IG dismissal and the one most comparable to Trump’s) railed against the White House even after it gave an exhaustive justification, and led a months-long investigation.

  Now Trump is coercing acting inspectors to refrain from investigating his administration, dismissing them if they do. The Project on Government Oversight counts 15 inspector-general vacancies, which are filled by acting officials. When the Department of Homeland Security’s acting IG issued reports critical of the administration, Trump replaced her with an inspector who scaled back the office’s audits and reports by about 75 percent.

  Worse, Trump’s choices for the IG positions at Transportation and State are senior managers in those departments who would continue in their previous roles — allowing them to police themselves, with the power to learn the identity of whistleblowers.

  The attempt to skirt accountability goes further. The administration demoted Rick Bright, who had led the government’s vaccine research, when he raised concerns about the pandemic response. Trump forced out two national intelligence directors in an effort to find a more pliant one and he ousted an FBI director and an attorney general because they didn’t block probes of his advisers. The White House attacked one of the president’s own ethics appointees for recommending Kellyanne Conway’s dismissal for violating the Hatch Act.

  During impeachment, Republicans upheld the White House refusal to provide documents and testimony to Congress, and the Supreme Court has delayed a decision on Congress’s demands for information from the administration until after the election.

  This leaves the fate of government accountability to Grassley. He says the White House has “failed” to meet the IG statute’s requirements, and he protests the “glaring conflict of interest” that could make watchdogs “agency lapdogs.”

  Good words. But they mean nothing if Grassley won’t risk political heat to protect his 40-year legacy.

  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/27/trump-shreds-another-republicans-lifes-work/

[toddc 13,194]

On 5/20/2020 at 1:57 PM, homersapien said:

House probes Trump’s quiet removal of inspector general amid investigation into Elaine Chao

Ousted official was probing allegations of special treatment to allies of Chao's husband, Mitch McConnell, Dems say

https://www.salon.com/2020/05/20/house-probes-trumps-quiet-removal-of-inspector-general-amid-investigation-into-elaine-chao/

Oh, the Dems said it! You should’ve started with that.

[homersapien 11,357]

On 6/9/2020 at 8:57 PM, toddc said:

Oh, the Dems said it! You should’ve started with that.

As the opposition party it's their responsibility and duty.

I'm sure you would would prefer there was no opposition at all to the Trump administration, but thankfully, we're not there.

Feel free not to read any of my posts since you aren't interested in any sort of accusations of corruption and malfeasance from the Trump administration.  I understand.

[toddc 13,194]

On 6/10/2020 at 8:14 PM, homersapien said:

As the opposition party it's their responsibility and duty.

I'm sure you would would prefer there was no opposition at all to the Trump administration, but thankfully, we're not there.

Feel free not to read any of my posts since you aren't interested in any sort of accusations of corruption and malfeasance from the Trump administration.  I understand.

When it comes from the Dems, or their media lapdogs, it’s almost always overblown or an outright lie! So forgive me if I’m a little skeptical when you quote them as a source. Hope you understand!