You promised I'd learn, "What happens when agencies don’t comply with investigations?" It sounds like, not much. They, "access information." But no teeth. No prosecutions. And, the, "information" might be knowingly false. Do they not have prosecutors?
I'm not smart about this, but I suspect that the key thing is that GAO is part of the legislative branch, and they are auditing executive branch agencies. My understanding, and I think this matches with the article, is that GAO is supposed to tell the truth to Congress, and either Congress has a forceful conversation with a non-compliant agency, or has a forceful conversation with responsible agency heads, who at some level are confirmed by Congress and can be impeached by Congress, or (if the situation goes all the way down the toilet) Congress refers the problem to DoJ, which has enough prosecutors to move on any problematic situation.
I wouldn't be a bit surprised to discover that at least some of the Trump-era agency heads who were installed specifically to hobble their agencies, didn't comply with requests for information, but I think what said is the way it works when the president isn't trying to dismantle their government
Do you believe they are actually auditing? Or merely that auditing other executive branch agencies is their job? Don't confuse the 2: Sometimes, hijackers work within an organization to thwart its function.
I have learned a lot from this series, but the GAO article has been the most helpful. When I was finishing college in the mid 1970s, I had some awareness of the GAO, and even briefly considered applying there. Now I REALLY wish I'd pursued that.
You promised I'd learn, "What happens when agencies don’t comply with investigations?" It sounds like, not much. They, "access information." But no teeth. No prosecutions. And, the, "information" might be knowingly false. Do they not have prosecutors?
I'm not smart about this, but I suspect that the key thing is that GAO is part of the legislative branch, and they are auditing executive branch agencies. My understanding, and I think this matches with the article, is that GAO is supposed to tell the truth to Congress, and either Congress has a forceful conversation with a non-compliant agency, or has a forceful conversation with responsible agency heads, who at some level are confirmed by Congress and can be impeached by Congress, or (if the situation goes all the way down the toilet) Congress refers the problem to DoJ, which has enough prosecutors to move on any problematic situation.
I wouldn't be a bit surprised to discover that at least some of the Trump-era agency heads who were installed specifically to hobble their agencies, didn't comply with requests for information, but I think what said is the way it works when the president isn't trying to dismantle their government
Does that make sense?
Do you believe they are actually auditing? Or merely that auditing other executive branch agencies is their job? Don't confuse the 2: Sometimes, hijackers work within an organization to thwart its function.
Making a statement that is sometimes true, with no evidence that it's true in the specific case we're discussing, is just trolling.
I have learned a lot from this series, but the GAO article has been the most helpful. When I was finishing college in the mid 1970s, I had some awareness of the GAO, and even briefly considered applying there. Now I REALLY wish I'd pursued that.
This was amazing!!!!