No one is saying it's factually false. Why is it relevant/notable that it's "his own" agency? Are agency inspector generals normally loyal to their appointed di

No one is saying it's factually false. Why is it relevant/notable that it's "his own" agency? Are agency inspector generals normally loyal to their appointed directors? To the point where it goes without saying, I was supposed to assume that? The headline seems to invoke clues towards betrayals and alliances which humans' general hopeless fascination towards potentially in excess of veridicality is frequently exploited by clickbait