‘I’m Hung Up On This—’ CNN Anchors Stunned By Trump ‘Breaking The Law’ With Firing Spree — But Nothing Really Happens

CNN anchors John Berman and Kate Bolduan were stunned by President Donald Trump “breaking the law” with his firing spree — but without more than “shrugging and moving on” as a consequence.

Trump conducted a late-night purge Friday of at least 17 inspectors general, federal watchdogs who are protected by a law requiring notice and a clear rationale for their removal by a president — which Trump did not provide.

The firings were the subject of intense scrutiny over the weekend, with Fox News anchor Shannon Bream asking a guest if this amounts to “President Trump signaling he’s just going to, you know, observe which laws he wants to, not others.”

And on NBC’s Meet the Press, Trump ally Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) casually admitted Trump broke the law, but only “technically.”

The law they’re referring to is USC Title 5 Section 403(B).

On Monday’s edition of CNN News Central, Berman and Bolduan asked CNN legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Jennifer Rodgers what happens when that law is broken by the president — and the answer was essentially not a helluva lot:

JOHN BERMAN: Chuck Grassley helped write the law. And I just read the law. I’m not going to read it now because it’s a little boring.

BOLDUAN: Oh.

BERMAN: But it’s crystal clear!

RODGERS: Yes.

BERMAN: I’m just hung up on this whole, the White House is breaking the law thing! What happens when the White House –

BOLDUAN: Right, like, and shrugging, and we move on, right?

BERMAN: Yes, Yes. I mean, so, they’re breaking the law.

RODGERS: So, you can sue. You can go to court. Congress can investigate.

The problem is, the law isn’t that strong because of how much power the president has to fire executive branch employees. So, all the law says is you have to give 30 days’ notice and give reason. So, at best, you get 30 days more in the chair and you get some reasons for your firing, but it’s not going to keep them in their places.

So, I think Mark Greenblatt and others are more concerned about what happens now. Like, why is he cleaning house and doesn’t want any eyes on fraud, waste, abuse, mismanagement and corruption in his administration, and who is he going to put into those positions? People who are probably more loyal to him and are going to look the other way, as opposed to the independent watchdogs we have now.

BOLDUAN: So, then what is the next – like, forget – not even the – you can – you can sue. The next is they announce new inspectors general and then it just moves on.

RODGERS: So –

BOLDUAN: I mean, this – how.

RODGERS: Hopefully what happens is Congress pushes back. They demand reasons for the firing of these people.

They’ll give us some reasons. I mean they’re not going to be satisfactory because they’re supposed to be specific, fact-based, case-related reasons, right?

BOLDUAN: That’s why – that’s why more than a dozen in one fell swoop makes absolutely no sense.

RODGERS: Exactly.

BOLDUAN: It has to be substantive rationale.

RODGERS: Right. So, we’re not going to get good reasons. But let’s say that they satisfy the Republican Congress, right, let’s at least hope that as he nominates new people and these people have to go through Senate confirmation that there is pressure on him to nominate people who are actually independent, who come from the inspector general community, who have a history of not being political one way or the other, but actually investigating wherever the facts and the law lead them and they really push back on who these nominees are going to be in the confirmation process.

BERMAN: And I just want to go back, if I can, one last time to the law itself, because actually the bar is really low in some ways for – for – but what that speaks to is the idea that this White House doesn’t even think it needs to address the low legal bars that exist in some cases. Just bigger picture, what does that tell us about what they might do in other cases?

RODGERS: Yes, so, politically, this seems to me to be a real slap in the face to Congress, right? I mean they worked on this law. And I remember at the time there’s not much that they could do, right, to strengthen these protections because of the power the president has. This is the most they could do. And even that, they’re just brushing away and the White House is ignoring it.

So, I don’t know if I’m the Senate, Senator Grassley, maybe I want to draw a line in the sand here and say, we’re not going to stand for this. We’re going to at least require that you do comply with this very low bar. And as you bring forward your new nominees, we’re going to require that they be independent in the historical and very important traditions of inspectors general.

BOLDUAN: Yes, I mean, that – that’s a good idea.

Watch above via CNN News Central.

New: The Mediaite One-Sheet "Newsletter of Newsletters"
Your daily summary and analysis of what the many, many media newsletters are saying and reporting. Subscribe now!