On May 3rd, 2019, Kamala Harris tweeted:
I'm calling on the DOJ Inspector General to investigate whether the White House improperly ordered or pressured Barr to investigate the president's perceived enemies.
If there is a discussion about whether the President's "perceived enemies" acted outside of the bounds of the law, and subsequently, AG considers investigating them, what could make such a discussion "improper"?
Surely simply being political "enemies" (I assume she meant "opponents") of the President, in itself, is not enough to make any of their actions unrestricted by laws.
Is there a legal standard for what an IG would have to discover to make such a discussion "improper"?
Edit On, May 19th, 2019, Kamala Harris tweeted regarding this issue again:
The president all but confirmed today that he improperly asked the DOJ to prosecute John Kerry.
So, presumably the President has not yet confirmed it. But I still can't understand the word "improper" in this context. Is that the same as "illegal"? "Unethical"? "Not in accordance with the proper procedure"? What type of determination is DOJ Inspector General expected to make in response to her question?