4 Inspector Generals in 2 months

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Last month Trump fired Michael Atkinson. Intel Community IG. Atkinson reffered the whistleblower complaint about UIkraine to Congress which lead to Trump impeachment.

Last month he replaced the Pentagon IG tasked with overseeing the $2 trillion CARES Act.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/07/us/politics/trump-coronavirus-watchdog-glenn-fine.html

Last Friday he fired State Dept. IG who was reportedly looking into misconduct by Pompeo (i.e. throwing lavish parties on taxpayer dime). As well as a recently finished report on a Pompeo aide failing to report workplace violence allegations.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/20/fired-state-department-watchdog-was-probing-protocol-office-270660

He also replaced the Dept. of Transportation IG who was investigating Elaine Chao's (McConnell's wife) potential favoritism in awarding govt. contracts. The replacement is a Trump political appointee and McConnell was reportedly "integral" to the Senate's consideration of the new IG.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/trump-removed-watchdog-investigating-elaine-chao-mcconnell-vetted-replacement/
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
We either want the swamp drained or we don't.

I think some people don't understand just how pervasive and widespread political corruption really is.
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
This requires an ALL CAPS BLUF remark:

I AM ALL FOR EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THESE FIRINGS/REMOVALS AND HOPE TO SEE MORE COMING DOWN THE ROAD.

Having worked as a Dep IG in an IC IG office I can confidently say that if one thinks IGs are apolitical I have a bridge in COVID-19 infested Brooklyn for sale that one might be interested in. Meaning, a President should have an IG who is aligned with the administration's direction and not one who actively works against that administration. Especially when they proclaim to be doing it for apolitical reasons. Because they clearly are not.

Too often what IGs are doing is working FOR the entrenched bureaucracy. Since much of the Fed government leans Left these IGs seem to do quite well when it's a Dem in the WH but all of a sudden get all IG-y when a Repub is in the WH. Not necessarily b/c they are anti-Repub (though it does work out that way), but b/c they are pro-bureaucracy.

--- End of line (MCP)
 
Last edited:

stgislander

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Top
This requires an ALL CAPS BLUF remark:

I AM ALL FOR EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THESE FIRINGS AND HOPE TO SEE MORE COMING DOWN THE ROAD.

Having worked as a Dep IG in an IC IG office I can confidently say that if one thinks IGs are apolitical I have a bridge in COVID-19 infested Brooklyn for sale that one might be interested in. Meaning, a President should have an IG who is aligned with the administration's direction and not one who actively works against that administration. Especially when they proclaim to be doing it for apolitical reasons. Because they clearly are not.

Too often what IGs are doing is working FOR the entrenched bureaucracy. Since much of the Fed government leans Left these IGs seem to do quite well when it's a Dem in the WH but all of a sudden get all IG-y when a Repub is in the WH. Not necessarily b/c they are anti-Repub (though it does work out that way), but b/c they are pro-bureaucracy.

--- End of line (MCP)
So you are saying in a roundabout way is Chris is being... well... Chris.
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
Chris posting more lies..

Weren't two of them filling in, and actually ACTING IG's.. and weren't actually fired??

A new IG had been named and they went back to the jobs they held previously as Deputy IG??
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Too often what IGs are doing is working FOR the entrenched bureaucracy.
On the flip side, without the 2015 (I believe a Dem was in the WH then) Justice Dept. IG's investigation into something else, we likely would never have known DEA agents were banging prostitutes hired by drug cartels in Columbia on taxpayer dime.

Agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration reportedly had “sex parties” with prostitutes hired by drug cartels in Colombia, according to a new inspector general report released by the Justice Department on Thursday.

In addition, Colombian police officers allegedly provided “protection for the DEA agents’ weapons and property during the parties,” the report states. Ten DEA agents later admitted attending the parties, and some of the agents received suspensions of two to 10 days.

The stunning allegations are part of an investigation by the Justice Department’s inspector general into claims of sexual harassment and misconduct within DEA; FBI; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; and the U.S. Marshals Service. The IG’s office found that DEA did not fully cooperate with its probe.
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/dea-sex-parties-colombia-report-116413

Obama's EPA obstructed an IG investigation into a senior EPA official bilking taxpayers for over $900,000. I don't think the IG appreciated that.

Let's also not forget that the Obama Administration Justice Dept. OLC issued an opinion saying the IG must ask for access to information from the Justice Dept. IGs surely didn't appreciate that opinion.

The Heritage Foundation had this to say about that opinion.
This Administration promised to be the most transparent White House in history. Yet, on July 20, 2015, after 14 months of delay, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) released an opinion from its Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) that DOJ officers could withhold information at their discretion from the DOJ Inspector General (IG), the individual tasked with investigating them and other government officials.

This opinion authorizes DOJ officials to evade audits and investigation of possible misbehavior by claiming that information sought by an IG is protected under the non-disclosure provisions in the Federal Wiretap Act, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/report/the-obama-administrations-defiance-inspectors-general-faulty-opinion-the


Having Inspector Generals only there to rubber stamp decisions should never be applauded. Whether you believe it or not, they are supposed to be independent and just because you think they aren't is not a good reason to advocate essentially saying the Executive should influence "independent" oversight decisions. You can certainly see how a President who may not be the most honest can abuse that authority.
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
Having Inspector Generals only there to rubber stamp decisions should never be applauded. Whether you believe it or not, they are supposed to be independent and just because you think they aren't is not a good reason to advocate essentially saying the Executive should influence "independent" oversight decisions. You can certainly see how a President who may not be the most honest can abuse that authority.
I'm not saying IGs aren't ever good or are always blatantly partisan. To the contrary, they are often good and they are often non-partisan.

But I am also saying (based on my experience working in one and working with other IGs) is that a) IGs tend to be more supportive of the bureaucracy they are supposed to police/hold accountable and b) that the lesser of two evils is an IG picked by the administration in the WH.*

*Along the lines of what Winston Churchill said about democracy; to paraphrase, democracy sucks but it is better than the alternatives.

--- End of line (MCP)
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
I'm not saying IGs aren't good or are blatantly partisan. To the contrary, they are often good and they are often non-partisan.

But I am also saying (based on my experience working in one and working with other IGs) is that a) IGs tend to be more supportive of the bureaucracy they are supposed to police/hold accountable and b) that the lesser of two evils is an IG picked by the administration in the WH.

--- End of line (MCP)
And I think that's something that should be worked on.

But we aren't seeing that. We aren't seeing a President dedicated to "draining the swamp" in that sense. It sure seems like "drain the swamp" means "remove anyone who may make me look bad".

A President should not, ever, have an supposed-independent agency that is "dedicated to their mission". That's openeing the door to corruption and fraud, with no one in the role of oversight.

Remember that you can disagree with what happened on the Ukraine call, and the investigation/impeachment afterward, but you're essentially advocating for a President to be able to have "their guy" in the position who would be less inclined to forward a whistleblower complaint to Congress. Again, dislike it or not, but what Atkinson did during the Ukraine thing was "done by the book" and "consistent with the law".
https://www.inquirer.com/politics/nation/michael-atkinson-fired-trump-ukraine-whistleblower-inspector-general-20200406.html
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
And I think that's something that should be worked on.

But we aren't seeing that. We aren't seeing a President dedicated to "draining the swamp" in that sense. It sure seems like "drain the swamp" means "remove anyone who may make me look bad".

A President should not, ever, have an supposed-independent agency that is "dedicated to their mission". That's openeing the door to corruption and fraud, with no one in the role of oversight.

Remember that you can disagree with what happened on the Ukraine call, and the investigation/impeachment afterward, but you're essentially advocating for a President to be able to have "their guy" in the position who would be less inclined to forward a whistleblower complaint to Congress. Again, dislike it or not, but what Atkinson did during the Ukraine thing was "done by the book" and "consistent with the law".
https://www.inquirer.com/politics/nation/michael-atkinson-fired-trump-ukraine-whistleblower-inspector-general-20200406.html
I agree with what we should hope, but I'm realistic about what we will ever get.

I disagree about Atkinson, though.

--- End of line (MCP)
 

BOP

Well-Known Member
This requires an ALL CAPS BLUF remark:

I AM ALL FOR EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THESE FIRINGS/REMOVALS AND HOPE TO SEE MORE COMING DOWN THE ROAD.

Having worked as a Dep IG in an IC IG office I can confidently say that if one thinks IGs are apolitical I have a bridge in COVID-19 infested Brooklyn for sale that one might be interested in. Meaning, a President should have an IG who is aligned with the administration's direction and not one who actively works against that administration. Especially when they proclaim to be doing it for apolitical reasons. Because they clearly are not.

Too often what IGs are doing is working FOR the entrenched bureaucracy. Since much of the Fed government leans Left these IGs seem to do quite well when it's a Dem in the WH but all of a sudden get all IG-y when a Repub is in the WH. Not necessarily b/c they are anti-Repub (though it does work out that way), but b/c they are pro-bureaucracy.

--- End of line (MCP)
That, and they know the new guy (or gal) is a temp. Kind of like how we in NAVAIR (Naval Air Sys Com) viewed those who filled the hallowed halls of Mahogany Row...temps. From our PM on up, most of them are in for 3 years, then on to ruin someone else's lives.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
I disagree about Atkinson, though.
Just want to point out that opinion came from:

Michael Horowitz, the chairman of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, and the Justice Department inspector general, said in a statement Saturday that Atkinson is known throughout the inspector general community for his "integrity, professionalism and commitment to the rule of law and independent oversight. That includes his actions in handling the Ukraine whistle-blower complaint, which the then-Acting Director of National Intelligence stated in congressional testimony was done 'by the book' and consistent with the law.
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
Just want to point out that opinion came from:
Again, fair enough. Again, having worked in an IG office and watching how these politically-appointed IGs work I am more sanguine about their actual level of professionalism, independence, and apolitical/non-partisan views. Every way I look at the issue I keep coming back to what I said earlier in this thread: IGs support the bureaucracies they work in. Yes, they provide oversight, but often (again, seeing it with my own eyes) the oversight is in the service of protecting those bureaucracies (and sometimes (often?) not in the way we tax payers hope for).

I do agree with you/applaud your desire for something better; it's just that I guess I have become too jaded/cynical from my experience(s).

--- End of line (MCP)
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
On the flip side, without the 2015 (I believe a Dem was in the WH then) Justice Dept. IG's investigation into something else, we likely would never have known DEA agents were banging prostitutes hired by drug cartels in Columbia on taxpayer dime.
Something that did FAR less damage to the country as a whole than all the espionage the Magic Mulatto directed against the incoming administration.

Not that you'd recognize the difference.
 

Louise

Active Member
PREMO Member
Yes, Chris is being Chris. Just like everyone else on this forum are being themselves and have their own opinions. What is the children’s rhyme that ends with ‘words will never hurt me”? An anon forum doesn’t hurt anyone. JMO.
 
Last edited:

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
I do agree with you/applaud your desire for something better; it's just that I guess I have become too jaded/cynical from my experience(s).
Do you not want the same? Does everyone who agrees with draining the swamp want the same? Wasn't Trump elected because people wanted something better?

Something that did FAR less damage to the country as a whole than all the espionage the Magic Mulatto directed against the incoming administration.

Not that you'd recognize the difference.
One story is related to the importance of the IG investigations, which aligns with the topic of the thread. You, on the other hand, bring in in a point of argument completely irrelevant to the conversation.

So, yes, there is a difference because the point you are trying to compare to has absolutely no bearing on the discussion.

In another sense, there is no difference in the larger point of the executive wielding ever-increasing power. The difference related to that is the political party of the person in power and how you're willing to adjust your outrage with the party in power. You don't actually care about the damage itself, you only care if Democrats do it.
 
Top