GOP's Grassley says Trump's reasoning for IG dismissal 'not sufficient' as Democrats investigate

Authored by theweek.com and submitted by DaFunkJunkie
image for GOP's Grassley says Trump's reasoning for IG dismissal 'not sufficient' as Democrats investigate

President Trump's decision to fire State Department Inspector General Steve Linick on Friday came on the advice of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, a White House official said Saturday.

The move immediately drew sharp criticism Democrats who consider the ouster a retaliatory act; Linick was reportedly looking into Pompeo's alleged misuse of a department appointee to perform personal tasks for him and his wife, and it comes on the heels of several other federal watchdog dismissals in recent months.

It wasn't only Democrats who seemed unsatisfied with Trump's decision, though. While the president said he no longer had confidence in Linick, an Obama appointee, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), co-chair of the Whistleblower Protection Caucus, said Saturday that Congress is entitled to a more thorough explanation, noting that inspectors general are "crucial in correcting government failures and promoting the accountability that the American people deserve." He said Trump's reasoning, as it stands, is "simply is not sufficient."

Grassley's Democratic colleagues, Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), took things a step further. They sent letters to the White House demanding officials hand over all records related to Linick's firing, adding that they plan to "look deeply into this matter." Read more at NBC News and The Associated Press. Tim O'Donnell

IsThereSomethingNew on May 17th, 2020 at 13:12 UTC »

The way I read this the gop is trying to craft a better reason and then claim that was it all along.

bot420 on May 17th, 2020 at 12:38 UTC »

He said Trump's reasoning, as it stands, is "simply is not sufficient."

In other words, give me a better cover story.

cmde44 on May 17th, 2020 at 12:22 UTC »

Hey Chucky, remember the last IG that was ousted and you demanded a legitimate reason? And the one before, and the one before???