President Required By Law To Inform Congress 30 Days Before Dismissing IG

[Monk-Eye]

" President Required By Law To Inform Congress 30 Days Before Dismissing IG "

* Spending Audits Versus Explicit Laws Passed By Congress *

What could ignoring the explicit law passed by congress , requiring the president to inform congress 30 days before dismissing an IG , cause to happen ?

There are other threads covering this topic , however the OPs do not inquire as to what the consequences could be ?

Grassley, Durbin Seek Presidential Explanation for IG Dismissals | United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary

WASHINGTON – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ranking Member Dick...

www.judiciary.senate.gov

WASHINGTON – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ranking Member Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) are requesting President Trump provide the lawfully-required substantive rationale behind his recent decision to dismiss Inspectors General (IGs) from 18 offices.
...
IGs are nonpartisan watchdogs responsible for identifying and rooting out waste, fraud and abuse at federal agencies. IGs serve at the President’s disposal. However, a Grassley-authored amendment signed into law as part of the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) requires the President to provide written, detailed communication informing Congress of the President’s decision to dismiss or transfer an Inspector General at least 30 days before taking action to do so.

 

[pknopp]

Trump doesn't believe he needs to ask or inform anyone of anything.

 

[1srelluc]

The IGs were running cover for congresses out of control spending.

Those "laws" were made to cover the IGs so the reckless spending could continue with no real oversight.

That's why those old heads are pissed.....They were found out.

Scotus will rule, in about 2.5 years.

 

[JGalt]

Trump doesn't believe he needs to ask or inform anyone of anything.

Trump doesn't have to ask me what to do, he knows exactly what I want him to do, and he's doing it. And based on the number of press conferences President Trump has held so far, I'd say he's being very transparent. Far more than Biden/Harris ever was.

 

[pknopp]

Trump doesn't have to ask me what to do, he knows exactly what I want him to do, and he's doing it. And based on the number of press conferences President Trump has held so far, I'd say he's being very transparent. Far more than Biden/Harris ever was.

My statement had nothing to do with you.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Procedural Requirements "

* Ignorance Or Flagrance Of The Law Are Not An Excuse *

The IGs were running cover for congresses out of control spending.
Those "laws" were made to cover the IGs so the reckless spending could continue with no real oversight.
That's why those old heads are pissed.....They were found out.
Scotus will rule, in about 2.5 years.

Those accusations are not being questioned , the question has to do with the procedural requirement to inform congress 30 days before dismissing the inspector generals .

What could the consequences be for taking an action that flagrantly or ignorantly bypasses those procedural requirements set in place as law by congress ?

 

[luiza]

Trump doesn't have to ask me what to do, he knows exactly what I want him to do, and he's doing it. And based on the number of press conferences President Trump has held so far, I'd say he's being very transparent. Far more than Biden/Harris ever was.

Another thread from a Loser and Cry Baby.

Make a note of these Troll Bots, Mr Salt , ready to present as prime candidates for re-education at the especially prepared FEMA camps .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" What The Consequences Could Be "

* Partisan Hack Seemingly Too Stupid To Know Better *

Another thread from a Loser and Cry Baby.
Make a note of these Troll Bots, Mr Salt , ready to present as prime candidates for re-education at the especially prepared FEMA camps .

Why are you blabbering about like a dumb bitch ?

This moniker supports figuring out the corruption and kleptocracy that is seeking to destroy us as a nation state through crippling debt , and the objective has been initiated by the likes of List of Bilderberg participants - Wikipedia .

There is an actual inquiry and the OP links to senate judiciary dot gov and this thread is inquiring as to what the consequences could be .

 

[Darkwind]

" Procedural Requirements "

* Ignorance Or Flagrance Of The Law Are Not An Excuse *

Those accusations are not being questioned , the question has to do with the procedural requirement to inform congress 30 days before dismissing the inspector generals .

What could the consequences be for taking an action that flagrantly or ignorantly bypasses those procedural requirements set in place as law by congress ?

A pathetic attempt at delay. The President must inform the Congress 30 days before firing the IG, but the IG will be fired regardless. Congress cannot stop it.

 

[luiza]

*


This moniker supports figuring out the corruption and kleptocracy that is seeking to destroy us as a nation state through crippling debt , and the objective has been initiated by the likes of List of Bilderberg participants - Wikipedia .

There is an actual inquiry and the OP links to senate judiciary dot gov and this thread is inquiring as to what the consequences could be .

Carry on Cry Baby and Loser .
Prove me right if you insist

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Executive Betting On Beating A Charge "

* Consequences Depending On Constitutional Challenge *

A pathetic attempt at delay. The President must inform the Congress 30 days before firing the IG, but the IG will be fired regardless. Congress cannot stop it.

Certainly , it may only be procedural , but what is 30 days ?

The following article states that the requirement to notify congress is not likely constitutional , which means there will not be consequences .

Trump Fired 17 Inspectors General—Was It Legal?
The Trump administration has a pretty strong argument that the notice provision is unconstitutional. The Court has recognized the president’s “unrestricted removal power” over executive branch officials, subject to only “two exceptions.”

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Ad-hominem Bitching By Misguided Partisan Goof Balls"

* No Respect For Mentally Deficient With Arrogance *

Carry on Cry Baby and Loser .
Prove me right if you insist

Anyone that uses the term right as you did is ignorant - Applying THe Term Rights As A Descriptor For Articles Of Constitution Is Slang And A Profound Error In Diction .

 

[Darkwind]

" Executive Betting On Beating A Charge "

* Consequences Depending On Constitutional Challenge *

Certainly , it may only be procedural , but what is 30 days ?

The following article states that the requirement to notify congress is not likely constitutional , which means there will not be consequences .

Trump Fired 17 Inspectors General—Was It Legal?
The Trump administration has a pretty strong argument that the notice provision is unconstitutional. The Court has recognized the president’s “unrestricted removal power” over executive branch officials, subject to only “two exceptions.”

Well, Trump is past his 20-day mark. He fires them retroactively to his start date and then puts in some real reform in terms of IG's that WILL do their job.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Will Vacancies Help Or Hurt Or Are The Positions Irrelevant "

* Will Mitigation Of Significant Vulnerabilities Be Sideline *

Well, Trump is past his 20-day mark. He fires them retroactively to his start date and then puts in some real reform in terms of IG's that WILL do their job.

How relevant are the inspector general positions in ensuring waste fraud and abuse are identified and mitigated ?

Trump Fired 17 Inspectors General—Was It Legal?

Probably so, but Congress has lawfully constrained the president’s authority to replace the fired IGs.

www.lawfaremedia.org

The IG removal issue is not the biggest of deals, since President Trump had clear statutory authority to remove the IGs if he had provided the easy-to-satisfy substantive rationale and thirty days notice. The much more important issue concerns who replaces the removed IGs. On this issue the 2022 IG law has more bite. The law narrows the definition of the “first assistant” who, under the FVRA, presumptively takes over for the removed IG. It also authorizes the president to replace the first assistant only with another Senate-confirmed IG or a GS-15 or higher employee who was in office for more than 90 days during the year prior to the vacancy.

The practical bottom line is that a career official high up in the office of each IG will by law become the acting IG, and Trump can replace that person only with someone already in the IG cadre.

We do not yet know how Trump plans to replace the fired IGs within these constraints. He might nominate new IGs, but they must be confirmed by the Senate, and that likely will not happen this year. The important question is thus whether Trump can find a lawful and congenial replacement for the first assistant under the 2022 law.

 

[Pastelli]

Forum outcast infamous RACIST motivated posting:
'Luiza' - Nazism:
(luiza.86585)

• Pro Jihad child killing.
• Admitting Jews today are the same ethnicity as Jesus . But often tries to lie about it.
• Advocates for genocide.
• Pro Jihad entities use of its children.
• Promoting Hitler garbage.
• Spamming the forums with despicable wording.

---

Gas chambers or Ovens - Nazi Luiza asks?



Exterminating J.




Against all Jews.



And more...



And more...

Responding to thread by Islamist quoting a fake piece by infamous CJ Werleman.
30 Jan 2024

View attachment 962915



Today's Jews are as Jesus ethnicity she admits. But racist Luiza still hates via ancient lies canards stereotypes.




In whitewashing HER-Hitler and Nazis' worshipping, Luiza claimed to "deny" Kristallnacht .(Feb 5, 2024).




More from the horrific Luiza on WW2, IT wrote:
The disabled , Roma and Jews were probably top of the list which was fiendishly brilliant.... .(Mar 6, 2023).




On the Jewish 'race' - Nov 10, 2024:



Luiza
Justifying, promoting Nazi or radical Arab-Islamic antisemitism:
Feb 11, 2025.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

" President Required By Law To Inform Congress 30 Days Before Dismissing IG "

* Spending Audits Versus Explicit Laws Passed By Congress *

What could ignoring the explicit law passed by congress , requiring the president to inform congress 30 days before dismissing an IG , cause to happen ?

There are other threads covering this topic , however the OPs do not inquire as to what the consequences could be ?

Grassley, Durbin Seek Presidential Explanation for IG Dismissals | United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary

WASHINGTON – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ranking Member Dick...

www.judiciary.senate.gov

WASHINGTON – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ranking Member Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) are requesting President Trump provide the lawfully-required substantive rationale behind his recent decision to dismiss Inspectors General (IGs) from 18 offices.
...
IGs are nonpartisan watchdogs responsible for identifying and rooting out waste, fraud and abuse at federal agencies. IGs serve at the President’s disposal. However, a Grassley-authored amendment signed into law as part of the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) requires the President to provide written, detailed communication informing Congress of the President’s decision to dismiss or transfer an Inspector General at least 30 days before taking action to do so.

Trump is safe, nothing can stop him other than being impeached and even that might no longer be possible such is his grip on the country and "congress".