trillion bill. >> joining us the executive director for the project of government oversight talking about the presidents decision to fire the inspector general let's begin with a rule of the federal government and his role why do we have them and

when did they first begin? >> after watergate hearings that's when viewers were informed on history investigations into wrongdoing in the intelligence community especially the fbi congress passed a law that what was creating these inspectors general which now expanded to 78 across the federal government. they are part of the executive branch that also reports to the congress. >> so what sort of training do they need to have? how do you become in inspector general? >> that's a good question and there is confusion about that in 2008 reform act they

formalized a system where the inspector general has to go through a vetting process to look at potential candidates with the proper law enforcement background or legal background or auditing background but also they are not historically politically motivated and can demonstrate they are independen independent. >> so where do they come from? >> often it will work up to the system beginning and small agencies their small commissions and agencies and you get skills that way and then you work your way up to these giant agencies with massive ig staff.

>> what kind of power do you have? >> in some cases not much you can only make recommendations to lawth enforcement or to the congress that has to take on those recommendationsns whenever they are recommended by those ig's. >> do you serve at the pleasure of thee president? is that the president's decision about who is an ig during his administration? >> yes. you serve at the pleasure of the president but that congress made clear in 2008 there is a role to be played by informing the congress to justifye why an ig needs to be removed there has been a number of ig's that should have been removed because of inaction or misconduct themselves so i would never suggest they should be unaccountable but they do have a dual role congress is required to be involved and to

be aware of and to justify to them why the ig should be removed. they are in the unusual role unlike anything else in the federal government because their job, if they do it well is to bring about evidence ofr wrongdoing so if you're doing your job well you will not be making friends. >> how do they do their job? >> all have some law enforcement powers to look into evidence to subpoena documents and i have such a range of responsibilities you have seen one that you've only seen one. but to be part of that inspectors general job those when have delinquent child support payments.

and with that misconduct. >>oi. >> and to be presidentially appointed. and to be the heads of commissions and those ig's come to those groups and to be appointed by the president and so if there is an it is senate confirmed to take their place so in the last couple of months that we move the acting. . . . .

>> i want to talk more about these cases but first let's invite viewers to call in and join the conversation, democrats 748, 8000, republicans, 8001. we will get your calls for start dialing in. let's talk about steve in the state department inspector general position. his firing. >> guest: not only is he fired

in a similar fashions to the other when the president gives notice to thee congress only tht hislo -- there is no explanation why he was removed and then immediately had him leave. the law requires a 30 day notice and that was a violation. on top of that, rather than allowing the process of the work, the number two in charge is put in place for some other trump political appointee. and to add insult to injury, that person is going to retainy, their jobs as a political appointee in the state department. so you have this enormous conflict. as we mentioned before, inspectors general are to be independent of the agency so they can eat receiving a complaint and looking into that misconduct but now you have a political appointee that is the

part of the administration acting as well as an independent inspector general which is a flagrant conflict of interest.ct >> this was the first sort of warning shots of the concern. the inspector general who received the allegation from the ukraine whistleblower and handles complaints properly. while there are efforts from informing the congress of the complaint, he went through the chain of command, the head of the agency, and they reported it to the congress as it should be. and what appears to be clear, the retaliation he removed the ig and has still never given any explanation for it other than she didn't like how he handled

things. >> host: you write in today's "washington post" it is past time to get inspectors general additional protection. here's the argument. they need to be shielded against the ability to fire them at will for removing inspector general of ththe administration should e required to demonstrate the office was unwilling to conduct oversight. this would allow the inspectors general to conduct reviews without fear of retaliation and present the presidenprevent them removing someone without a legitimate reason. why don't they have that protectionti now? now? >> guest: the house passed those protections. in other words, you can only be removed for certain things, and we named them in the op-ed. but the point is not just as it is seen here, i've lost confidence. that isn't a reason. getting the reason the congress

can evaluate is important and essential in protecting the use insightheseinside agency watchd. >> host: before we get to the calls, what is your group mission and how are you fun that? >> guest: the mission is to investigate production, wrongdoing and waste fraud and abuse in thewr federal governmet and work to fix the problems that we uncovered. our funding comes from individuals as well as family foundations. we do not take anything from the corporations or labor union for anyone that has a financial interest in the investigations they conduct.ca >> host: salmon, democratic caller. >> caller: i have a few comments regarding the ig and in general. number one, i think people are starting to confuse the opinion from facts like there've been

people calling in giving opinions and numbers and keep going on. but when you try to give numbers you have to go based on facts. you can't give an opinion and then tell a story and try to make sense of it when basically everything you said was a lie. i feel that a lot of republicans, and i'm sorry to say that, a lot of them when they called obama did this and obama did not, trump is doing this, if you are so great that they claim he is, you don't have to brag about the things you do. >> host: let's take that, fact and opinion. >> guest: i think the caller icolor ismaking an important pot we have to make the conversations based on fact, what the law says and doesn't say and what the evidence is. we have to inspectors general that were removed without

adequate justification or explanation and we have the two actingng inspectors general but also removed. in all four cases there are nsrious concerns about them being removed because of political retaliation. >> host: role in the maryland, republican. >> caller: talking about the president firing the ig, my question is why can't the presidentrn do that, and second, what we've heard [inaudible] >> guest: i agree. the rolee of the inspector general is to be one of the most important checks and balances systems in the federal government.

and you are right that in this case there were two investigations that the state department inspector general was conducting a. one was specifically whether the secretary and his wife were misusing federal funds in this case the diplomatic security service and its much more substantively an investigation by the house chairman on foreign affairs whether the state department was improperly or illegally connecting with saudi arabia. those are very important issues and really for the inspector general to be conducting. that is why we have grave concern about removing him and putting in his place in acting and political appointee. here's what they said about the firing of steve linick the inspector general. >> i have seen the story,

someone was walking my dog to sell arms, it's all crazy stuff. >> i didn't have access to the information so i could possibly have been retaliated. one exceptionpo i was asked a series of questions in writing and responded to questions with respect to a particular investigation that was sometimes earlier this year and the best i can recall i responded to the questions that i don't know the skill or the nature or what i would have seen for the nature of the questions in was presented. i don't know if that investigation is continuing or if it has been closed out. it isn't possible to further have retaliation. here's the last thing as you see the stories that have been linked. this is all coming through senator menendez. i don't get my ethics guidance from amman who was criminally

prosecuted case number 15 -- 155 new jersey federal district court. a man who colleagues said basically he was taking bribes. that is an isn't someone i lookr ethics guidance. i continue to do the right thing to make sure the state department is served by every employee including the inspector general and we will make sure they continue on behalf of the american people. >> host: let's dig into what he said about how this investigation by the fire ig was working. he says he doesn't know the nature of that investigation because he was, he responded to a series of written questions. explain that more. >> guest: i can't because it makes no sense. it says nothing that i answered questions pursuant. it's really not a credible response.

tim and minnesota, independent. the way that i understand the ig is they are supposed to be a type of internal watchdog, and to me transparency is key to democracy. i don't think that they have any business appointing them. this guy has fired four of them believe i understand it, and i kind of get the feeling i don't know if he said it actually, but i think he wants people more in line with him and that is completely contrary to a democracy. my lastac comment is i've really

uproar the comment serves at the plpleasure of the president. it sounds rather kingly timmy. so, anyway that's what i have to say. thank you. >> host: thanks for that call. i would take a little exception to the idea the senate confirmation process at least it shouldn't be, but there've been many examples of really good congressional oversight of the inspector general's overtime. i think it's a really important part of the process, and the argument for why you want to have an inspector general presidentially appointed, is because that elevates the status and the federal government, and being appointed by the president elevates your stature so that people take them more seriously. it has its pluses and minuses, but on balance it's important.

as long as the system is functioning properly, and as long as the congress is doing its job in upholding the law and requires, they clearly are getting the notice by. but i still do think ultimately we've got to change the law and enhanced protections so we don't have these kind of what appear to be very clearly politically motivated removal and nothing being done about it right now. >> host: nelson in hollywood, republican. >> caller: good morning. i just want to say that i'm really concerned about the fact that there seems to be inspectors and investigators everywhere in the government and the unitednt states. we have a president that was duly elected and if it is at his

pleasure to let people go then is that hiit is not his pleasurt them know. if you don't like that, that against him. but there seems to be a lot of investigations against him and not very many against the corrupt democrats particularly in the house of representatives. so, your concern about the due process, and i'm concerned about overprocessed investigations and a constant knocking against the presidency by people who are against this particular administration, and that would include inspector general's. i respectfully disagree with your analysis that these inspector general's are somehow natural when it comes to policy and investigations.

it seems to me that there are just too many of them into letting some of them go if part of the process. >> host: okay, no sin. >> guest: i would say the system isn't a monarchy. we don't believe inrc this couny in absolute power. the idea that absolute power corrupts, and you need to have checks and balances to ensure we do not have corruption and the only way we can do that is with the kind of systems that are protected so that when one does find misconduct, they can move forward with evidence and in inspector general himself doesn't have that much power. all they can do is bring forward the effort in and make recommendations. but they need to be protected so they can do that and the congress can find the facts. >> host: democratic line.

>> caller: i disagree with the gentleman that just spoke from florida. i was working at the agency on the task force appointed by the inspectors general with regards to the iran contra. it was done in a professional way, and it was done with regard to what the judge was doing on the outside of the iran contra affair. so, i think that it's been professionally. if the people who are living outside of washington and have never worked for the government, they need to go ahead and step back and listen to some of the professionals who work in or debated to keeping our government safe. the only reason trump is removing these people as he does not want the truth to come out on c various subjects or investigations.

the inspector generals that perform a very good duty that keeps the government in check. there are three branches and a lot of people do not seem to realizeth that we are three branches of government and each one should be able to keep the othernt one in check. >> inspectors generals are also human beings that need to be held accountable, so it's important for us not to say they should never be removed, but there shouldd be clear explanations and standards for when they can be, and evidence that they are not being removed for the wrong reasons. that's what we think is so important now. it is important to make sure the standards of conduct by the inspector generals, but there's no effort in any way or any evidence that there was wrongdoing in the case of either of the two that were fired or

the two acting inspectors general that were removed. >> host: let's listen to the speaker of the house at the news conference she addressed the firing of the state department inspectors general. here's what she had to say. >> now again, this is unfolding with the secretary one thing and another, the parties and public expense, all that stuff. but i'm very concerned about the public policy aspects. congress passed a law about sales to saudi arabia, arms sales too saudi arabia, and in a department they declared it to initiate the sales and then that may have been part of the investigation. that's what i'm very concerned noout, because not only did they do something wrong in declaring an emergency that was a fake emergency, but they undermined the will of congress. so, again, let's see how this

unfolds. it's just in the last 24 hours or 36 hours that we are seeing what thisou is. what it is that we know so far is scandalous. >> host: danielle? >> guest: i think this is exactly right. it's been more than 24 hours and we don't have any evidence to the contrary death. it's important as the house and minority in the senate have to guide investigations and there are some republicans in the senate as well who are starting to raise concerns about the process. this historically has been a bipartisan issue, and i worry when i become so politicized and changes bipartisanship, this is about a process of checks and ssbalances. it's not about democrat or republican's winning and losing. and it's really important for republicans to remember that in the democratic administration they want to be able to have confidence that inspector generals in the agency have to protections to do their job as

well. it's just as important to remove partisan politics from the conversation. >> host: you said earlier though nothing is being done the firing of these ig's. what do you mean by that, and what can congress do? >> guest: at the time the earlier firings of mike atkinson, the intelligence community inspector general, senator grassley had a bipartisan letter commanding from the president an explanation, and senator lankford and senator portman also sent a letter asking the same. the president hasn't responded. it's been more than 30 days, i think well more, and they are ignoring that. to me that is a sign where the congress has got to step up and say now wait a minute, we gave you your y chance, you are not doing what the law is demanding of you. so now we need to pass a law that ensures that when you fire or want to fire, we have recourse.

>> host: what then would the recourse be? >> guest: that's what they are talking about having specific standards for when a president can remove in inspector general, and also guessing that inspector general some rights in the courts. this is also for the caller that was concerned it's just about the trump administration and obama administration, president obama early in his first term removed in inspector general, and at that time there was real bipartisan outrage over it, and that inspector general took the case to court. the court ruled he didn't have standing. this is the kind of thing that can be resolved in legislation if we can get something passed. >> host: he didn't have standing because there was nothing written ont the books o protect them. >> guest: that is right. >> host: sean in arizona, independent. >> caller: i can't believe the lack ofts common sense in this. the president has the option to fire anyone who works for him.

this ig people say he just decided to get rid of him and it's that simple. obama did it and now president of trump. it doesn't matter if obama did it first or if president trump does it now. as much as i respect c-span, and i do respect your mission of informing people and everything like that, but you have the latest people on here like this lady that is clearly politicizing this, and the fact of the matter is if you continue to usese things like "the new yk times" and "washington post" that are not credible than c-span will not be credible. >> host: we do have people on with opinions, and that is part of the conversationn with all of you. you get to call up and say your opinions to the guests that we have on. danielle, your response. >> guest: my response is also i wish you were around when weaver criticizing the obama administration for the same thing. from my perspective it is giving the executive branch in check.

and it isn't about whether it is president trump or obama. it's a very important part of the checks and balances, and we have to ensure thatnt they are protecting these people that they are asking to get a good job. let's remember we have dozens of inspectors general who are now still getting up every morning and looking around thinking if i do my job well, am i going to get fired. so this isn't just about the people that have already been removed, but what are they doing to protect those that are still expected across the federal government to be doing their job commercially interesting. >> host: >> caller: good morning. i have a question for danielle. i'm curious about her outfit. during her time in the job did they look at hillary clinton's misdeeds and smashing cell

phones and the pakistani government and all the crazy things we don't seem to hear about on tv, all these things swept under the rug. i've never heard of calling in five major players on the testimony for hillary clinton and giving them i get immunity so you can'tmm call up on any investigationat. that is insane to me, and i wonder what your guest, how she feels about such an outrageous thing to happen in the investigation. thank you. >> guest: what i can say is i honestly have some regrets that the only learned because of the freedom of information act lawsuit by the judicial watch about some of the misconduct while secretary clinton was the secretary of state and what appeared to be an improper dealing with the clinton foundation. i do regret that we didn't know about it earlier. it is i think something that was

a real problem flare as she was secretary, she was being confirmed and commented that they were going to be receiving funds from federal and foreign governments or entities in the clinton foundation and they did, and i think it is a problem. >> host: georgia next, democratic caller. >> caller: good morning. the only comment i wish to make is president trump, why did you fire that inspector general. he says i don't even know the man, i don't know what he did, but i think pompeo told me to vefire him and i did, and i have the right to. if there was nothing going on, why would likeif pompeii a want him twantingto fire him, that me to me. you can't fire him when the only reason you gave is because somebody told you to. that's ridiculous. that's like hiring a detective

at the police department because the person that is investigating comes alongse and says hi therei don't want an investigating me, fire him. so you just fire him. i don't know anything about it. have never seen him, don't know his name, but i will fire him because they want me to. >> host: okay, danielle? >> guest: i think what she's pointing to is the problem that all of inspectors general face when they are bringing forward information -- sometimes it isn't going to be rising to the level of the secretary of the agency being concerned, but sometimes it might be if the it chooses to do something that gets to the point of the investigating the head of the agency. and if we allow the president or the head of the agency to decide we are just going to remove them when they do that, essentially we are creating a class of untouchables and the political

system that is absolutely anathema to the system of checks and balances in a democracy. >> host: donna in knoxville, tennessee. welcome to the conversation. >> caller: thank you, good morning. i wanted to say i do think there should be senate oversight on these ig's being fired. the reason that they are there is to find wrongdoing, so if the person is doing or finding wrongdoing and can be fired for no reason, then that's why we never learn anything until then we spend millions on investigations. i think that's a problem in the government have so much money is spent on investigation after investigation and they are supposed to be there working for the people, not just investigating each other which leads to what i think is the larger point in the problem with government today that we have the same people that are elected over and over again and have been there for 40 years, 30 years. we need term limits on these senators and congressmen so we

can get new ideas, new people and stop going through this hamster wheel of investigating each other through the years. which is why i supported donald trump to start with, but he wasn't a career politician. i am tired of the same people. joe biden has been in government of his life. enough already. if he's so great, why didn't all these things he says he will change having all these years ago? i just get frustrated with the same people.ge >> host: okay, donna. danielle? >> guest: i don't think term limits are a good idea in the congress. i have seen over time that it takes a long time for members to actually develop the skills and knowledge about how the government works. many of them are coming from outside, which is a good thing. but they need to learn about the functioning of government and want to fix.

i found people that are immune to the congress are much less effective. i think that there are other things we can do that would help to include the functioning of the congress and including making sure they don't have to spend all their time raising money. ira don't think term limits is e answer. >> host: richard in colorado. independent. >> caller: thank you. i'm just wondering why there is not some sort of separation of powers act to keep awayom from this. that was the other comment i would like to make, but this president has been nothing but corruption, obstruction and extortion. it's like he's the dictator of the country. it isn't presidential what he does. and it's the same as the president [inaudible] i wish we could have a truly independent presidentde of the states. this has been just so much

nonsense. we are going to get more of the same with whoever is the president, but this is just total dictatorship. >> host: okay, richard. >> guest: it is called the constitution and it does lay out the balance of powers. the problem that we have been seeing is the congress hasn't been acting to its potential as a check on the executive branch and that is why we are seeing so many overreaches by the end us to get his branch. >> host: visa from georgia. democratic caller. you are next with the director of the program on government oversight talking about the firing of inspectors general in the trump administration. go ahead. >> caller: [inaudible] >> host: you have to listen and talk through your phone and turneturn on your television, p. >> caller: yes, i called because i just want to make a comment on checks and balances. people have to understand that

our government is a democracy, not a dictatorship. now checks and balances is very important to keep production out of ourim government. if the president fires in inspector general because they are investigating an official and they are investigating for corruption, and that' then thata problem. we all have jobs. we all work for corporations. what if we go to our jobs and we are fired for doing our job, just fired because the way we were, you know, just for no reason at all? we just have to understand that this government is a democracy, and we cannot allow this to continue to happen. president trump made a statement

-- he lies all the time -- but one statement that he said if he uen stand in the middle of fifth avenue and he can shoot somebody and won't lose a single vote. i'm telling you, these people that are protecting donald trump, that is the only true statement that has rolled off the tongue of this man. >> host: we will leave it there. danielle. >> guest: i think what we are talking about is it's really important in our democracy the checks and balances, the role of the congress and ensuring that theree isn't absolute power in the executive branch. the real eyes and ears for the congress are inspectors general at whistleblowers, and those are the two classes of people that we need to be doing more to protect dan we are doing right now. >> host: here is a comment from one of the viewers on twitter. when a whistleblower reports something that turns out to be

false and is known to be false by the whistleblower, should align whistleblower be protected havethis come and you also lisa who sends us this on twitter. ask the guest who investigates the investigators. >> guest: so the first one is pretty clear. being a whistleblower has mostly negative consequences. to be a whistleblower is already taking tremendous risks. if you are doing something that you know to be wrong, there's nothing that is going to protect you. so there is no benefit whatsoever for that. and i agree very much, the investigators do need to be investigated and it's important to hold them accountable. so that is why the president needs to be presenting a reason for why they would be removed so that it can be evaluated by the congress. >> host: pleasant valley, new york. republican. >> caller: good morning, daniel. i was just listening to you here and wanted to get a call.

the one e-mail that came in about investigating the investigators, i don't understand. we have the biden's making money overseas. he got a prosecutor fired. he has a sexual assault case pending. congress is doing nothing. they went overboard on the trump administration and the kavanagh thing. i've watched this for the last five years on tv. this is ridiculous. you are sitting there talking about investigations. there's the meat to movement and she's claiming there was a problem. nothing is being done. it's all being swept under the carpet. the vitamins, and he set himself, the prosecutor is fired. where are these people, nobody's doing anything. >> host: you watched yesterda'

the homeland security government affairs committee, they voted on and improved subpoena in the charisma biden story. did you watch that? >> guest: yes and it's about time. they need to change around here. >> host: today 10 a.m. the senate judiciary committee is going to vote on a subpoena for 53 officials most of them in the obama administration into the origins of the russian investigation . danielle, your thoughts on what the caller had to say. >> guest: i think he made the point pretty clear. there's plenty of investigations in those matters that are ongoing, so i don't think there is a concern that those matters aren't being looked into by the senate. >> host: pleasantville, new york. republican. >> caller: i'm still here. i want to just make sure that we are not all one-sided.

going all the way back to hillary clinton, she should have ulver ran for president. this started from benghazi and all the stuff being shuffled under theca carpet, the e-mails come in nothing being done. >> host: we will leave it there. what are you watching for next? >> guest: i'm watching for the congress to work together to pass protections for inspectors general to make sure there are standards before mig can be removed and show that these watchdogs are being protected to do their job well. >> host: to learn more about this organization you can go to pogo.org. we thank you for your time. >> guest: thank you.

on thursday in the senate texas congressmanas