Except, that is, if they get permission from Obama political appointees, who apparently do have the authority to override nondisclosure provisions. So the IG's can continue to make "independent" investigations, provided that they are approved by Obama political operatives.
So in fact, for the target of an Obama-desired investigation, nothing has changed. The only thing that has changed is that the administration now asserts a veto power over any investigation it dislikes.
Am I leaving anything out?
I suppose the question that needs to be asked at the next White House presser is where in the statute do the Obamites find authority for political appointees to make this decision? My naïve layman's understanding was that the IG statute was designed specifically to keep this kind of power OUT of the hands of the politicos. Not that career bureaucrats are beyond reproach, but at least they are not institutionally hotwired to the party in power.
In 1978, the post-Watergate Congress was two-thirds Democratic in both the House and Senate. Those Dems were pretty radical in their day. In passing this kind of legislation, they had Richard Milhous in mind. I wonder if any of our media superstars will raise a question about administratively dismantling a core post-Watergate reform?
They're trying to run out the clock by going into the four corners offense in the 3rd quarter. With today's Supreme Court there is no shot clock.