Congress should establish a clear mechanism within the executive branch for investigating instances of inappropriate interference with law enforcement for political or personal ends.  We recommend that Congress utilize an oversight mechanism that already exists: agency inspectors general. In 1978, Congress established inspectors general as independent, nonpartisan watchdogs housed within the executive branch.  Their traditional areas of authority relate to financial integrity, with a mandate to eradicate fraud, waste, and abuse.  They are empowered to conduct investigations and issue reports relating to the administration of their agencies’ programs and operations, and they have a staff of investigators.  Some inspectors general are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate “without regard to political affiliation and solely on the basis of integrity and demonstrated ability in accounting, auditing, financial analysis, law, management analysis, public administration, or investigations,” while others are appointed by agency heads.  All inspectors general report to and submit operating budget requests to agency heads.  Inspectors general are subject to removal by the president, with the president required to communicate in writing the reasons for the removal to both houses of Congress within 30 days of that action.  Congress should expand the jurisdiction of agency inspectors general to expressly include investigations into improper interference in law enforcement functions. Inspectors general arguably already have that authority under existing law, which empowers them to investigate “abuse” and violations of agency policies.  But a clear mandate, subject to clear standards, is needed for such an important and sensitive function.  Under this proposal the inspectors general would investigate whether improper White House contacts influenced a specific law enforcement matter at their agency; it would not install an inspector general in the White House or empower an inspector general to go on open-ended, and potentially partisan, witch hunts. Inspector general investigations are also constrained by DOJ guidelines, professional standards published by the Council of Inspectors General for Integrity and Efficiency, and other controls in the Inspector General Act.  Congress should also direct the attorney general to issue guidelines outlining the standards and procedures by which inspectors general are to investigate improper interference.  This proposal also has the benefit of efficiency. It does not reinvent the wheel.  Inspectors general are already familiar with the roles and missions of their own agencies. They already have investigators. They know their way around the building. Therefore, we can add this important feature of democratic accountability without creating — and paying for — a whole new bureaucracy.

 

Ensure No One Is Above the Law

 

Political leaders and their powerful allies present a special challenge to impartial enforcement of the law. When those in charge of law enforcement are the subject of law enforcement, there is a risk of abuse.  Abuse sends a message that there are two sets of rules: a lenient one for the politically well-connected and a far more unforgiving one for everyone else. That is why our system has built-in safeguards to ensure that no one is above the law, from recusal rules to special prosecutor laws. But when the president is involved, the system has two vulnerabilities that merit attention: the possibility of abuse of the pardon power and the possibility of political interference into investigations of the president, senior political aides, and close personal associates. The following recommendations would help protect against such abuse.