So here's some more -trump- stuff Tropical Soulvangelical wants to expound on, though right now as of me the Happy Bachelor writing this, he mostly remembers the bit about the Inspectors General and not that second thing he wanted to talk about. So of course, generally speaking, it's a -bad- thing to have fired the IGs, but for some reason TSV's observed that only Lawrence O'Donnell and just about no-one else has pointed out that the firing was done illegally, and hence the IGs seem to TSV to have legal grounds to file proper lawsuits. The law calls for a firing of an IG to take place at least 30 days after announcement of such, which in turn has to contain actual substantive reasons for the firing. Both TSV and LOD failed to see either occur. But TSV has observed the fired IGs using BABVA on TV in response instead of filing a lawsuit, because he hasn't heard whether they filed lawsuits. Of course filing a lawsuit does kind of behoove the plaintiff to watch what they say in public just in case it can be held against them, and it's certainly possible that BABVA can be used against them, he's thinking. But even worse for the IGs TSV has observed is that the firings put the IGs themselves under an uncomfortable microscope. He's thinking that they could be taken to task for not adequately reined in -trump- during -trump's- first term, particularly those first two years before Congress switched party control, and hence the spotlight was mostly then taken off the IGs until recently. The reason why I the Bachelor believe this to be the case is solely because TSV doesn't remember the IGs weighing in on matters after 2018 when Congress was doing so, or at least there wasn't coverage. But the most serious unanswered question of all is, why didn't the IGs protest the undemocratically ousting of Biden in 7/24 by his own party? The expected answer is, not my jurisdiction, which TSV finds unfathomable because the IGs are just as American as -he- is, so how can they not have an opinion about it and not talk about it? Do they really think that condemning the overthrow of Biden is necessarily a serious overstep of their job descriptions? TSV's starting to have the same questions regarding Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger and TLP. Looking back, he's heard roaring silence from them regarding what happened to Biden in 7/24, and he also finds that inexplicable. Sure the undemocracy of -trump- is terrible, but so is the undemocracy of Schumer and Schiff in overthrowing Biden. You can't condemn one form of undemocracy, TSV thinks, and let another just slide like the way they seemed to have. Also, even though he sees AOC as being the one who will challenge Schumer in 2028 for the Senate, he still sees AOC as having the progressive stains of Ed Snowden and accusations of antisemitism during the crisis in Gaza. There being a ceaseful that has apparently held, or at least TSV hasn't heard otherwise on audio, hasn't made those kinds of unanswered questions go away. But while we're talking about audio, TSV -vaguely- remembers the BBC talk about the IG situation on Saturday morning, because the firings took place Friday evening. But he doesn't remember anyone else talking about it till -Monday- evening, so he's wondering why most outlets sat on it for a full 3 days, an entire weekend. Maybe they were mostly finding out who's going to be in the Superbowl. Maybe the Superbowl matchup was more important for pretty much everybody than the IG issue. But, dang, what was that second thing TSV wanted to talk about where he saw more holes than swiss cheese in people using BABVA in talking about it? Help him out here, people.