Trump's latest firing is a blatant attempt to shield Pompeo from accountability

[Zorro]

STATE DEPARTMENT Inspector General Steve Linick was asked by House Democrats last year to investigate whether Secretary of State Mike Pompeo abused his authority in declaring an emergency to ram through arms sales to Saudi Arabia in spite of congressional opposition. Mr. Linick was also reportedly probing Mr. Pompeo’s use of an aide to perform personal errands for himself and his wife. Mr.?Pompeo asked President Trump to fire Mr. Linick — and late on Friday, the president did just that, in a blatant attempt to shield the secretary of state from accountability.

The blunt dismissal of a nonpartisan official whose job it is to provide an independent evaluation of just the sort of allegations Mr. Pompeo was facing would be shocking — if it were not just the latest step in a campaign by Mr. Trump to eliminate accountability across the federal government. Mr. Linick is one of four inspectors general fired or replaced by Mr. Trump since April 3, when he ousted the intelligence community IG who forwarded a whistleblower’s account of his wrongdoing on Ukraine to Congress.

The purge makes a mockery of Congress’s attempt to protect the independence of inspectors general, including a legal requirement that they not be removed without written justfication. In the case of Mr. Linick, Mr. Trump dispatched a vague letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) saying he “no longer” had “the fullest confidence” in the IG. But Mr. Pompeo did not hesitate to blurt out the real reason Monday: Mr. Linick was not doing his bidding. He “wasn’t performing a function in a way that we had tried to get him to,” Mr. Pompeo said in an interview. But it is not the inspector general’s job to do what the secretary of state demands — especially when it comes to investigating his own behavior.

Mr. Linick, who had held his post since 2013, had a record of holding secretaries of state of both parties to account. In 2016, he issued a critical report on Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, fueling a controversy that helped get Mr. Trump elected. But he also reported last year on the harassment of career staff in the State Department accused of disloyalty to Trump, and he cooperated with the House’s impeachment inquiry.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/trumps-latest-firing-is-a-blatant-attempt-to-shield-pompeo-from-accountability/2020/05/18/506d0424-991c-11ea-89fd-28fb313d1886_story.html

[machoneman]

1. The dog walking is a cover to the real story: arms sales to the Saudis in defiance of Congress.

Ah, but his fellow Republiscums will bleat, for awhile, like they were stuck with hot branding irons, then fall silent.

Bets, anyone?

[Igel]

2. The requirement for 30-day written notice dates to 2009.

In a letter to Pelosi, the president used this language:

It is vital that I have the fullest confidence in the appointees serving as inspectors general. That is no longer the case with regard to this inspector general."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52688658
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/31325894/ns/us_news-giving/t/obama-fires-americorps-inspector-general/#.XsP-JGhKhGM


Yes, it is vague. Oddly, it's language both 11 years old and 3 days old. But to say the language itself shows an utter contempt for the role the IG plays winds up as a rebuke to Obama. (Of course, if you forget the past, then obviously Obama never wrote such a thing. I assume that the problem was that the non-profit in 2009 was shamed instead of just having everything worked out behind the scenes. That's how one appointee referred to the IG when he was in charge of some chunk of the executive--if there was a problem, they worked together to solve it.)

The WaPo, course, also covered Walpin's firing.

[world wide wally]

3. S O S

Same Old Shit