It's affirmative only if the duties of their office are in question, not if their own actions are in question. If their personal actions are in question, they must pay their own way.
To which I respond that their personal actions have no bearing on the matter because they have no personal obligation to act. If they have an obligation to act, it would only be as an officer of the executive branch. I'm not even sure they have that obligation, but that's another discussion.
Then you say ...
have they fulfilled the obligations and duties of their offices. Are they negligent, partisan or incompetent?
So which is it? Their personal actions are in question? Or their actions as an officer of the executive branch are in question?
OK: Job description says the job of office is “X”. If the person questions that action than the DOJ gets involved.
If person A either does not do “X” because of incompetance, ignorance, bias etc. than they are personally liable and must provide their own counsel.....
If they get the DOJ involved and are found to be at fault than they are abusing the authority of their office.
GET IT?