Read on Twitter
What I wrote in 2009 when Obama fired an IG: "Last session, Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN) sponsored an important provision in the House version of the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008 that would allow the President to remove IGs only for cause, specifically: https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2009/06/lessons-learned-from-obamas-removal-of-cncs-inspector-general/
(1) Permanent incapacity; (2) Inefficiency; (3) Neglect of duty; (4) Malfeasance; (5) Conviction of a felony or conduct involving moral turpitude; (6) Knowing violation of a law, rule, or regulation; (7) Gross mismanagement; (8) Gross waste of funds; or (9) Abuse of authority.
When the bill passed, however, this provision lay on the cutting room floor. All that's required now is that the President provide both Chambers of Congress with an explanation no later than 30 days before dismissing or transferring an IG.
The law doesn't say it has to be a good reason. To us, it looks like the President has fulfilled the letter of the law. So, if the Congress is annoyed because they think the President's reason for dismissal
(that he no longer has "the fullest confidence" in Walpin) [NB SAME EXCUSE TRUMP MADE RE ATKINSON] is not good enough, they only have themselves to blame. Teachable moment for Congress: Congress should fix the IG Act
to include the "removal for cause" provision so that in the future, there are no doubts. (See POGO's 2008 IG report, recommendation #7.)" https://www.pogo.org/report/2008/02/inspectors-general-many-lack-essential-tools-for-independence/
and that is why POGO filed an amicus brief this year in the Seila Law LLC vs CFPB Supreme Court case. For our system of checks and balances to work properly, certain offices -- especially Inspectors General - need for cause removal protections. END OF RANT https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2020/03/whose-removal-is-it-anyway/
