Sen. Chuck Grassley fumed after the White House’s top lawyer “failed” in his view to explain the reasoning behind President Trump’s firing of the inspectors general for the State Department and Intelligence Community adequately.
Grassley, an Iowa Republican who has established a long-running reputation for defending agency watchdogs and whistleblowers, demanded answers from the White House over the past two months after Trump removed Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, followed by State Department Inspector General Steve Linick.
He found the five-page letter he received from White House counsel Pat Cipollone on Tuesday to be lacking.
“Though the Constitution gives the president the authority to manage executive branch personnel, Congress made clear that if the president is going to fire an inspector general, there ought to be a good reason for it. The White House Counsel’s response failed to address this requirement, which Congress clearly stated in statute and accompanying reports,” Grassley said in a statement. “I don’t dispute the president’s authority under the Constitution, but without sufficient explanation, it’s fair to question the president’s rationale for removing an inspector general. If the president has a good reason to remove an inspector general, just tell Congress what it is. Otherwise, the American people will be left speculating whether political or self interests are to blame. That’s not good for the presidency or government accountability.”
Cipollone, who joined the Trump administration in October 2018 and led Trump’s impeachment defense in the Senate, told Grassley that Trump understood the senator’s thinking but argued at length that the president had the constitutional right to remove inspectors general, propped up by historical precedents set by past presidents.
“President Trump appreciates and respects your longstanding support for the role that inspectors general play. The president is similarly committed to supporting inspectors general. … President Trump expects that inspectors general, like all other executive officers, will fulfill their proper role as defined by Congress and ultimately as constrained by the Constitution,” Cipollone told Grassley. “When the president loses confidence in an inspector general, he will exercise his constitutional right and duty to remove that officer — as did President Reagan when he removed inspectors general upon taking office and as did President Obama when he was in office.”
Cipollone said Trump removed Atkinson and Linick “consistent with these principles.” In Linick’s case, he noted, “as the secretary of state has said publicly … the president exercised this authority at the secretary’s recommendation.” The Trump lawyer added that “in both cases, the president did so in a manner that was consistent with the requirements of the Constitution and of federal law.”
Atkinson’s action last year led up to what became an impeachment investigation run by the Democratic-led House.
He received a whistleblower complaint from a CIA analyst about a phone call Trump had with Ukraine’s president in which he spoke about a CrowdStrike conspiracy theory and pressed for Ukraine to announce an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden. Atkinson determined the complaint was “urgent” and “credible” before forwarding it to then-acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire, who didn’t give Atkinson permission to share it with Congress but did allow him to notify lawmakers of its existence. An impeachment investigation run by the Democratic-led House ensued.
The president was impeached by the House in December but was acquitted on both articles of impeachment by the Senate in February.
In April, Trump called Atkinson “a disgrace to IGs” and suggested he fired the watchdog as payback for impeachment.
Linick’s firing caused an uproar this month as it was soon revealed he was investigating matters related to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Still, Republican senators said they were given good reason for Linick being tossed, though that explanation still hasn’t been made public. Grassley has criticized Linick in the past for not fully assessing the State Department’s role in spreading British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s dossier within the U.S. government.
In making the White House’s case, Cipollone cited Trump’s constitutional authority under Article 2, his powers under the Inspector General Act of 1978, and actions taken by President Barack Obama related to the removal of Gerald Walpin as inspector general of the Corporation for National and Community Service.
The Trump lawyer also argued that “the president complied fully with the statutory mandate to provide advance notification before removal as a matter of accommodation and presidential prerogative, notwithstanding the burden the Inspector General Act places on the president’s authority to remove an executive officer.”
He cited former Presidents Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush when noting that “Executive Branch officials of both parties have long believed that the act’s notification requirement raises serious constitutional concerns.”
Asserting that “Congress established inspectors general to serve the American people — to be independent and objective watchdogs, not agency lapdogs,” Grassley insisted “that’s the only way they can help drain the swamp of waste, fraud, and abuse entrenched within unelected bureaucracies.”
“Acting inspectors general should not be political appointees in order to preserve the independence required of the office, and I’m working with colleagues on legislation to codify this principle,” the senator added.
Cipollone argued that “there can be no serious question that President Trump made an appropriate and qualified pick in designating Thomas A. Monheim to be the acting inspector general of the Intelligence Community” as he highlighted his prior role as general counsel of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and his distinguished military career. He added, “President Trump made an equally appropriate and qualified pick in designating Stephen J. Akard to serve as acting inspector general for the Department of State” as he pointed to Akard’s long career in the State Department, including his current position as director of the Office of Foreign Missions.
The Iowa Republican was not satisfied.
“Government accountability isn’t only a Republican issue or a Democrat issue. Inspectors general shouldn’t be politically motivated or politically targeted. And those of us in Congress have a duty to promote accountability, regardless of who is in office,” Grassley said. “Oversight’s been important in past administrations, and it will continue to be in the future. I hope the new-found appreciation for inspectors general by some of my colleagues and those in the media doesn’t sunset at the end of this administration.”
