The levers of accountability could have been pulled any time, so it stands to say that they were still accountable. Perhaps they weren't held accountable as much as you or I would have liked. But the authority was there.

But either way I don't really see what greater point you're trying to make.

Just that there is no practical difference between "seeming unaccountable" and "being unaccountable", especially if, as you say, "the levers of accountability could have been pulled", but weren't. If the departments aren't being held accountable, they are, by definition, acting unaccountably.

You seemed to disagree, and be trying to make a distinction where no practical difference can be found. You also seem to agree that they haven't been held accountable, which makes this apparent distinction even less coherent! This kind of just comes across as contrarian, or perhaps sophistry to avoid agreeing with an apparent opponent?

> but weren't

Does that imply unaccountable, or does it mean Congress thought they were doing a good job?

Exactly this. People say "unaccountable" but the follow up question is "for what?".

The misinformation era means there's a gulf of frequently incorrect assumptions about what the Federal agencies actually do.

Again, if these agencies are never actually held accountable, this is functionally identical to "unaccountable".

I mean, what if Congress created them to be unaccountable? Then both things would be true!

Are you claiming the fbi has never been called to testify before Congress? or are you claiming that it didn't happen enough? or that it didn't happen for the things you personally wanted it to happen over?

these are very different situations, and it appears you wish to defend the motte and get the bailey for free?

No? I wouldn't consider the FBI to be an "unaccountable organization".

I never said all government organizations are unaccountable? Just that (practically-speaking) some organizations are unaccountable because they rarely (or never) are called to account by those who are supposed to hold them accountable. This could be due to them simply being a low-stakes organization that demands very little attention, for all I know!

Interesting that you call out a specific fallacy whilst bringing your own strawman into play!

The distinction is precisely in the the criteria they're held accountable for, in the context of politics with many differing interests. Your cry about "being unaccountable" pertains to what you personally think they need to have been directed to do but weren't.

The mechanism is there. If Congress is not passing new legislation to change their actions, that de facto means that Congress is content with the current actions. They have been accountable to Congress, and Congress has been content to let them keep doing what they're doing.

I don't think this is mutually-exclusive to what I'm saying?

It's equally plausible that the reason Congress has not called an organization to account is simply because that organization is beneath Congress' notice. Congress has as incredibly broad mandate, and necessarily prioritizes. This means some organizations are simply not enough of a priority to warrant any attention.

It is in this dearth of attention that waste can thrive!