Report: Trump Preparing to Restore Integrity in the Intelligence Community… Signals Nomination of Seven New IG’s

No one knows for sure who is on the immediate hotseat.  Are they acting IG’s, Obama holdovers, or his own appointees – like Michael Atkinson – who failed miserably in his role.

Regardless, you really have to give credit to the narrative engineers in the mainstream media for the manner in which they castigate President Trump for acting within the law…

(Bloomberg)  In the shadow of the coronavirus pandemic, President Donald Trump is taking ever bolder steps to gut the government structures designed to ensure the rule of law in the United States.

In the last week alone, he’s fired two prominent inspectors general: the intelligence community inspector general who received the whistleblower complaint that sparked Trump’s impeachment; and the Defense Department inspector general who had just been named by a group of other inspectors general to oversee the coronavirus bailout effort.

Technically, firing IGs is within the president’s constitutional ambit. They’re executive officials appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Yet these firings fundamentally undercut the constitutional idea that the president and his appointees are governed by the law, not above it.

The purpose of the 70-odd federal inspectors general is to provide rigorous scrutiny and oversight for federal agencies. That’s why the IGs are typically embedded in the agencies they supervise.

‘Technically’, that may be true.  But their collective silence while the Obama administration ran roughshod over the Constitution undermines that argument.

Worse, or perhaps fruit of the same tree, has been their active participation in plots to undermine Obama’s successor.

So save the crocodile tears.

Inspector Generals are primarily responsible for reporting illicit operators and illegal schemes within the departments and agencies that they oversee that are intended to undermine innocent people…

Examples are wrongly tying up two branches of government by knowingly conducting, worse concocting, a phony investigation into colluding with a foreign power.  Or, creating a bogus premise for impeaching a president who provably did nothing wrong.  

Or appointing a special counsel whose sole reason for existence was to harass the president and his associates, using the most heavy-handed tactics available to him, to entice the president to commit obstruction…

The same leftist’s now calling for yet another investigation of President Trump over his decision to nominate 7 new inspectors general didn’t raise an eyebrow when Sen. Ron Johnson, (R-WI), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, held a hearing in 2015 to address “why this White House, who claimed to want to be the most transparent administration in history, has taken so long to fill so many positions of inspectors general.” 

Even where inspectors general were in place, Manchurian President Obama’s minions blocked them from providing oversight as Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates did when she blocked Michael Horowitz from oversight of the DOJ-NSD, the epicenter of the Russian collusion coup attempt. 

So save the crocodile tears.

Inspectors General serve at the pleasure of the president.  

Once the president loses confidence in one, the president has the right to remove him or her.  Those who claim this is an example of a tyrant dismiss the fact that Senate approval is required to confirm the president’s nominee.

So save the crocodile tears.

Take a look at this UPI report from January 21, 1981 — the second day of the Reagan administration – that appeared in Talking Points Memo on June 22, 2009:

Wasting no time in cleaning his administration of Democratic appointees, President Reagan Wednesday fired most of the nation’s inspectors general and asked 200 other officials to resign.

”We want people who are meaner than a junkyard dog at ferreting out fraud, waste and mismanagement,” said press secretary James Brady in explaining the dismissal of the inspectors general, who are in charge of internal agency investigations.

Six of the total of fifteen IGs were rehired a short time later. Still, the Reagan example suggests there’s ample precedent for a president removing an IG in whom he’s lost confidence.

So save the crocodile tears.

Then there’s this…

“Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community; they have six ways to Sunday in getting back at you.”