Two nearly identical notices to Congress of intent to remove an IG.

Both generic: lost confidence.

5 days after Obama's, the WH had to send a more specific one ( https://wapo.st/3aL6ax9 ) b/c Senators said law requires actual reasons in notice. 1/5

Here is a link to the staff report of the investigation looking into President Obama's removal of the AmeriCorps IG. https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/report/the-firing-of-the-inspector-general-for-the-corporation-for-national-and-community-service/ 2/5

Differences:

a. Obama failed to send notice until after @ChuckGrassley learned WH gave ultimatum to IG to quit or else.

b. It was unclear why Obama wanted to remove the IG until Congress inquired, but seems everyone thinks they know the "why" behind last night's notice. 3/5

To remove an IG, the law requires a president to tell Congress why. Congress cannot stop the removal, even if it thinks the reasons aren't good enough. But, the statute requires written notice of "the reasons for"--not merely fact of the removal. 4/5

Nothing in the law says the reason has to be for cause, like misconduct or poor performance. It can be for any reasons so long as those reasons are communicated in writing 30 days before the removal. 5/5