Sen. Adam Schiff says Trump 'broke the law' by firing 18 inspectors general

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: NBC News

Jan. 26, 2025, 10:51 AM EST


Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., on Sunday blasted President Donald Trump for his decision to fire 18 inspectors general late Friday night and accused the president of breaking the law. “To write off this clear violation of law by saying, ‘Well,’ that ‘technically, he broke law.’ Yeah, he broke the law,” Schiff told NBC News’ “Meet the Press.”

His comment was responding to Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who earlier in the program told “Meet the Press” moderator Kristen Welker that “technically, yeah,” Trump had violated the Inspector General Act, which Congress amended to strengthen protections from undue termination for inspectors general. “I’m not, you know, losing a whole lot of sleep that he wants to change the personnel out. I just want to make sure that he gets off to a good start,” Graham added.

In a later interview on CNN, Graham defended Trump more forcefully, saying, “Yes, I think he should have done that.” “He feels like the government hasn’t worked very well for the American people. These watchdog folks did a pretty lousy job. He wants some new eyes on Washington. And that makes sense to me,” he added.

But Schiff pushed back on that notion, warning that “if we don’t have good and independent inspector generals, we are going to see a swamp refill.” He added, “It may be the president’s goal here ... to remove anyone that’s going to call the public attention to his malfeasance.”

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/adam-schiff-trump-broke-law-firing-inspectors-general-rcna189327

[Bluethroughu]

1. Trump breaks the law early and often...

Impeach or conviction won't happen because his army aka Republicans go right along with it. Their party hates America. Hates the Constitution. Hates the American people, but love billionaires and Nazis.

[4catsmom]

2. so what will they do?

Strongly slap the wrists of those tiny hands?

[Rebl2]

16. They won't

do shit.

[onenote]

18. What do you think they can do?

He didn't commit a crime (and if he had, he would have immunity). All that can be done is for the terminated IGs to go to court seeking an order enjoining their terminations from taking effect. Assuming they are successful, Trump could simply submit the required notice and after 30 days, the terminations would be effective. Sure, objections could be raised based on the content of the notice -- but litigation is expensive so don't be surprised if some if not all of the terminated IGs ultimately give up the fight. I can't blame them, to be honest.

[choie]

3. Former JAG.Lindsay Graham supports

trump's firing of inspector generals. What a lack of integrity, what a fraud.

[Texin]

4. What else is new, Adam? He broke the law on January 6, 2020 and throughout his miserable life. He's a 34-time convicted

felon and an adjudicated sexual abuser/rapist. He's been breaking laws his entire execrable life and no one and nothing has ever been able to touch him in any meaningful way that even temporarily made him stop. Why would anything be different now?

[bluestarone]

5. He's just doing what the

Supreme court told him he could do. Every day and every day.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

6. This is how you say "go F yourself sideways with a porcupine" in inspector general speak.

This move was illegal

Link to tweet

[cstanleytech]

7. Uh are you sure though? Because I thought that the Constitution gives him the power to fire Federal employees?

If so then he unfortunately didn't break though law but that doesn't mean he isn't a complete and utter bastard who's grave I'd like to piss on.

[cadoman]

15. the problem to me seems like there are no teeth to the act, no "or else"

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5a/compiledact-95-452/section-3

"An Inspector General may be removed from office by the President. If an Inspector General is removed from office or is transferred to another position or location within an establishment, the President shall communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress, not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer. "

Okay, so what if the POTUS doesn't do that? It doesn't say what happens. So yeah, he's broken the law, but what happens as a consequence of that?

[cstanleytech]

21. Probably nothing will actually happen if what he did was within the powers of a President unfortunately.

[sakabatou]

8. His cult will say Dump is in the right

And spineless repukes will say the same.

[DJ Synikus Makisimus]

9. So?

The Biden Administration's Department of Justice had four years to drive a stake through the vampire's heart and drag the corpse into the sun so as to render it ash. Figuratively. They didn't. What they wound up proving is that the coercive power of the court system is to be "applied" only to the Not Rich. It's there to keep us in our place, especially should we come into confrontation with someone above our class. In that regard it's like the police and religion: they are institutions designed to keep the masters masters. The only time justice is applied to the rich is when they commit offenses against each other, as with Bernie Madoff; who, had he stuck to Not Rich people, would most likely never have seen the inside of a jail cell. It's ironic, in a way. Liberals are the ones most dedicated to preserving institutions, to maintaining the status quo; yet this colossal undermining happened on their watch.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

10. Top House Democrats write to Trump rebuking Trump Admin's efforts to fire independent federal inspectors general,

Link to tweet

[Alice B.]

11. "We urge you to withdraw your unlawful action?"

Or whatever it said to that effect.

*facepalm*

[Turbineguy]

12. The only thing trump does that's not against the law

is golf. And there he cheats.

[andym]

13. This could rise to the level of an impeachable offense

The SC may even agree that impeachment is the appropriate punishment. But lots of luck having it prosecuted in the House or getting a conviction in the Senate.

[Polybius]

14. While you are correct, he won't be impeached for this, nor should he imo

There will be many, many worse things that he will do in the coming months. Impeaching him for something like this will only make him stronger. Once he does something truly impeachable (invading Greenland), then you can impeach him and the public will turn against him.

[charliea]

17. A question for the OP

Why are there quotes around "he broke the law"? He gave no 30 day notice to Congress, no written presentation of reasons as required by law so that sounds like a statement of fact.

My question is if he is immune from consequences of any official acts, as stated by SCOTUS, and hiring and firing personnel surely is, is he constrained by laws (rules) or does his word alone prevail over the will of the people (rule of law)?

I'm seriously concerned that the currently corrupt SC will find that laws constraining a unitary executive authority are really only guidelines, just like the president is currently pretending they are.

[onenote]

19. The supreme court's immunity decision is not relevant.

It prevent criminal prosecutions. But many many things that are 'unlawful' -- including not giving the required notice before terminating IGs -- are not criminal violations. The courts can and should enjoin the terminations assuming any of the terminated IGs go to court. But they may opt not to do so since Trump could simply give the required notice and fire them again. Suing is expensive and I suspect its not worth the cost for an IG to go to court beyond getting one more month's pay.

[BumRushDaShow]

20. "Why are there quotes around 'he broke the law'?"

Because they are directly quoting a statement that Schiff made and included that in their headline?

In the first paragraph was this taken from Schiff's comments -

“To write off this clear violation of law by saying, ‘Well,’ that ‘technically, he broke law.’ Yeah, he broke the law,”

I don't think they were trying to decide if what he said was true or not but are actually using the quote marks because they are literally quoting him!

[everyonematters]

22. The law says he has to give a 30-day notice and give a reason.

This is another case where law makers didn't envision anyone like Trump who would so blatantly act the way he does. inspector generals serve a very important role in our government, ensuring integrity and efficiency.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

23. Trump wants to replace the watchdogs with lapdogs

[LetMyPeopleVote]

24. Why Trump's personnel purges are likely to end up in court

There are legal constraints in place that are designed to prevent many of the president's recent firings. So why is Trump making the moves anyway?

Why Trump’s personnel purges are likely to end up in court www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddo...

— Rick Cooley (@rcooley123.bsky.social) 2025-01-30T21:42:23.901Z

Link to tweet

Why Trump’s personnel purges are likely to end up in court

Late last week, Donald Trump fired as many as 17 inspectors general without cause. These government watchdogs are responsible for investigating internal wrongdoing, possible ethical…”

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trumps-personnel-purges-are-likely-end-court-rcna189850

The so-called “midnight massacre” was controversial for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that Trump’s move appears to be at odds with federal law. The New York Times report explained, “The firings defied a law that requires presidents to give Congress 30 days’ advance notice before removing any inspector general, along with reasons for the firing. Just two years ago, Congress strengthened that provision by requiring the notice to include a ‘substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons” for the removal.’”

Trump evidently didn’t care about the legal constraints....

As the week progressed, the list of firings grew. The Washington Post reported on the president firing “Democratic members of two independent federal commissions,” which represented “an extraordinary break from decades of legal precedent.”

On Monday night, he dismissed two of the three Democrats on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — Jocelyn Samuels and Charlotte Burrows, formerly the chair, the White House confirmed Tuesday. He also fired the chair of the National Labor Relations Board, Gwynne Wilcox, a Democrat, an NLRB spokesperson confirmed Tuesday. Trump also removed the EEOC’s general counsel, Karla Gilbride, who oversaw civil actions against employers on a range of issues, including discrimination claims from LGBTQ+ and pregnant workers. And he terminated Jennifer Abruzzo, the NLRB’s general counsel.

It might be tempting to think a new administration is going to make all kinds of personnel changes, so no one should be too surprised by widespread firings.....

There’s also a larger concern about whether the White House wants to do away with the very idea of independent commissions and boards, centralizing even more power and authority in the Oval Office.

But I'm also struck by the through-line: There are legal constraints in place that are designed to prevent many of these firings. The question is why the president appears indifferent to these limits

There will be some fun lawsuits to watch due to these illegal terminations