It's Not Just One IG, At Least 3

[Annie]

Remember all the angst over Bush removing the AG's, who served at his pleasure? Where is the outrage from the left regarding this? This is the 'Chicago Way.'

Riehl World View: Not Just Walpin - 3 IG Firings Being Questioned

Not Just Walpin - 3 IG Firings Being Questioned

(Just a note -- Why are we reading about this in the Chicago Tribune? Perhaps his local paper doesn't have an Oba-worship problem?) Just a thought.

Update: Moe Lane with a little more background.

This is interesting. I looked around and perhaps I missed it on another blog, but the Chicago Tribune reports that it isn't just Walpin's firing over which Senator Grassley wants some answers. He's worried about a pattern, as no fewer than three IG's have recently been fired, all while investigating so-called sensitive issues. See Michelle for the latest on Walpin.

The dispute comes as Grassley, ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, is looking into the abrupt firings within the last week of two other inspectors general one of whom was fired by the White House and the other by the chair of the International Trade Commission.

Both inspectors general had investigated sensitive subjects at the time of their firings.

Grassley is now concerned about whether a pattern is emerging in which the independence of the government's top watchdogs -- whose jobs were authorized by Congress to look out for waste, fraud and abuse -- is being put at risk.

One of the other IGs is Neil Barofsky, tasked with watching over the financial stimulus spending. The article raises questions as to whether or not the Obama administration is trying to stymie an investigation with dubious claims of attorney-client privilege.

He was appointed with fanfare as the public watchdog over the government's multi-billion dollar bailout of the nation's financial system. But now Neil Barofsky is embroiled in a dispute with the Obama administration that delayed one recent inquiry and sparked questions about his ability to freely investigate.

The disagreement stems from a claim by the Treasury Department that Barofsky is not entirely independent of the agency he is assigned to examine - a claim that has prompted a stern letter from a Republican senator warning that agency officials are encroaching on the integrity of an office created to protect taxpayers.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, sent the letter Wednesday to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner demanding information about a "dispute over certain Treasury documents" that he said were being "withheld" from Barofsky's office on a "specious claim of attorney-client privilege."

The third instance involves an acting IG for the International Trade Commission, Judith Gwynne, who has been told her contract would not be renewed amid allegations that an ITC employee forcibly took documents from her possession. Just three hours after Grassley sent along his letter asking questions, she was told she'd be hitting the road in July when her contract is up. Well, well, well.

Separately this week, the International Trade Commission told its acting inspector general, who is not subject to White House authority, that her contract would not be renewed.

Grassley had become concerned about her independence because of a report earlier in the year that an agency employee forcibly took documents from the acting inspector general.

"It is difficult to understand why the ITC would not have taken action to ensure that the ITC inspector general had the information necessary to do the job," Grassley wrote on Tuesday.

Less than three hours after the letter was e-mailed to the agency, the acting IG, Judith Gwynne, was told that her contract, which expires in early July, would not be renewed.

 

[Newby]

Yep, the MSM is missing in action again. What a surprise. If Bush had done this, like say firing U.S. Attorneys, it would be on the front page and on every news show for the next 2 months. Hypocrits to the core.

 

[Nik]

Remember all the angst over Bush removing the AG's, who served at his pleasure? Where is the outrage from the left regarding this? This is the 'Chicago Way.'

Riehl World View: Not Just Walpin - 3 IG Firings Being Questioned

Not Just Walpin - 3 IG Firings Being Questioned

(Just a note -- Why are we reading about this in the Chicago Tribune? Perhaps his local paper doesn't have an Oba-worship problem?) Just a thought.

Update: Moe Lane with a little more background.

This is interesting. I looked around and perhaps I missed it on another blog, but the Chicago Tribune reports that it isn't just Walpin's firing over which Senator Grassley wants some answers. He's worried about a pattern, as no fewer than three IG's have recently been fired, all while investigating so-called sensitive issues. See Michelle for the latest on Walpin.

The dispute comes as Grassley, ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, is looking into the abrupt firings within the last week of two other inspectors general one of whom was fired by the White House and the other by the chair of the International Trade Commission.

Both inspectors general had investigated sensitive subjects at the time of their firings.

Grassley is now concerned about whether a pattern is emerging in which the independence of the government's top watchdogs -- whose jobs were authorized by Congress to look out for waste, fraud and abuse -- is being put at risk.

One of the other IGs is Neil Barofsky, tasked with watching over the financial stimulus spending. The article raises questions as to whether or not the Obama administration is trying to stymie an investigation with dubious claims of attorney-client privilege.

He was appointed with fanfare as the public watchdog over the government's multi-billion dollar bailout of the nation's financial system. But now Neil Barofsky is embroiled in a dispute with the Obama administration that delayed one recent inquiry and sparked questions about his ability to freely investigate.

The disagreement stems from a claim by the Treasury Department that Barofsky is not entirely independent of the agency he is assigned to examine - a claim that has prompted a stern letter from a Republican senator warning that agency officials are encroaching on the integrity of an office created to protect taxpayers.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, sent the letter Wednesday to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner demanding information about a "dispute over certain Treasury documents" that he said were being "withheld" from Barofsky's office on a "specious claim of attorney-client privilege."

The third instance involves an acting IG for the International Trade Commission, Judith Gwynne, who has been told her contract would not be renewed amid allegations that an ITC employee forcibly took documents from her possession. Just three hours after Grassley sent along his letter asking questions, she was told she'd be hitting the road in July when her contract is up. Well, well, well.

Separately this week, the International Trade Commission told its acting inspector general, who is not subject to White House authority, that her contract would not be renewed.

Grassley had become concerned about her independence because of a report earlier in the year that an agency employee forcibly took documents from the acting inspector general.

"It is difficult to understand why the ITC would not have taken action to ensure that the ITC inspector general had the information necessary to do the job," Grassley wrote on Tuesday.

Less than three hours after the letter was e-mailed to the agency, the acting IG, Judith Gwynne, was told that her contract, which expires in early July, would not be renewed.

Wait, I thought that they served at the pleasure of the president and it was A OK to do shit like this?

Isn't this what you all claimed when Bush did it? And now you want to whine and bitch about it when Obama does it? Sorry, you gave up your claim to that when you gave Bush a free pass for doing it.

 

[Newby]

Remember all the angst over Bush removing the AG's, who served at his pleasure? Where is the outrage from the left regarding this? This is the 'Chicago Way.'

Riehl World View: Not Just Walpin - 3 IG Firings Being Questioned

Not Just Walpin - 3 IG Firings Being Questioned

(Just a note -- Why are we reading about this in the Chicago Tribune? Perhaps his local paper doesn't have an Oba-worship problem?) Just a thought.

Update: Moe Lane with a little more background.

This is interesting. I looked around and perhaps I missed it on another blog, but the Chicago Tribune reports that it isn't just Walpin's firing over which Senator Grassley wants some answers. He's worried about a pattern, as no fewer than three IG's have recently been fired, all while investigating so-called sensitive issues. See Michelle for the latest on Walpin.

The dispute comes as Grassley, ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, is looking into the abrupt firings within the last week of two other inspectors general one of whom was fired by the White House and the other by the chair of the International Trade Commission.

Both inspectors general had investigated sensitive subjects at the time of their firings.

Grassley is now concerned about whether a pattern is emerging in which the independence of the government's top watchdogs -- whose jobs were authorized by Congress to look out for waste, fraud and abuse -- is being put at risk.

One of the other IGs is Neil Barofsky, tasked with watching over the financial stimulus spending. The article raises questions as to whether or not the Obama administration is trying to stymie an investigation with dubious claims of attorney-client privilege.

He was appointed with fanfare as the public watchdog over the government's multi-billion dollar bailout of the nation's financial system. But now Neil Barofsky is embroiled in a dispute with the Obama administration that delayed one recent inquiry and sparked questions about his ability to freely investigate.

The disagreement stems from a claim by the Treasury Department that Barofsky is not entirely independent of the agency he is assigned to examine - a claim that has prompted a stern letter from a Republican senator warning that agency officials are encroaching on the integrity of an office created to protect taxpayers.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, sent the letter Wednesday to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner demanding information about a "dispute over certain Treasury documents" that he said were being "withheld" from Barofsky's office on a "specious claim of attorney-client privilege."

The third instance involves an acting IG for the International Trade Commission, Judith Gwynne, who has been told her contract would not be renewed amid allegations that an ITC employee forcibly took documents from her possession. Just three hours after Grassley sent along his letter asking questions, she was told she'd be hitting the road in July when her contract is up. Well, well, well.

Separately this week, the International Trade Commission told its acting inspector general, who is not subject to White House authority, that her contract would not be renewed.

Grassley had become concerned about her independence because of a report earlier in the year that an agency employee forcibly took documents from the acting inspector general.

"It is difficult to understand why the ITC would not have taken action to ensure that the ITC inspector general had the information necessary to do the job," Grassley wrote on Tuesday.

Less than three hours after the letter was e-mailed to the agency, the acting IG, Judith Gwynne, was told that her contract, which expires in early July, would not be renewed.

Wait, I thought that they served at the pleasure of the president and it was A OK to do shit like this?

Isn't this what you all claimed when Bush did it? And now you want to whine and bitch about it when Obama does it? Sorry, you gave up your claim to that when you gave Bush a free pass for doing it.

Every time you open your mouth, you show how lacking you are in education. Do you even understand what happened here? Obviously not.

 

[Nik]

Remember all the angst over Bush removing the AG's, who served at his pleasure? Where is the outrage from the left regarding this? This is the 'Chicago Way.'

Riehl World View: Not Just Walpin - 3 IG Firings Being Questioned

Wait, I thought that they served at the pleasure of the president and it was A OK to do shit like this?

Isn't this what you all claimed when Bush did it? And now you want to whine and bitch about it when Obama does it? Sorry, you gave up your claim to that when you gave Bush a free pass for doing it.

Every time you open your mouth, you show how lacking you are in education. Do you even understand what happened here? Obviously not.

Are you going to address the issues, or just run your mouth off and prove that you are a whiny little bitch with nothing to say?

 

[Annie]

Remember all the angst over Bush removing the AG's, who served at his pleasure? Where is the outrage from the left regarding this? This is the 'Chicago Way.'

Riehl World View: Not Just Walpin - 3 IG Firings Being Questioned

Not Just Walpin - 3 IG Firings Being Questioned

(Just a note -- Why are we reading about this in the Chicago Tribune? Perhaps his local paper doesn't have an Oba-worship problem?) Just a thought.

Update: Moe Lane with a little more background.

This is interesting. I looked around and perhaps I missed it on another blog, but the Chicago Tribune reports that it isn't just Walpin's firing over which Senator Grassley wants some answers. He's worried about a pattern, as no fewer than three IG's have recently been fired, all while investigating so-called sensitive issues. See Michelle for the latest on Walpin.

The dispute comes as Grassley, ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, is looking into the abrupt firings within the last week of two other inspectors general one of whom was fired by the White House and the other by the chair of the International Trade Commission.

Both inspectors general had investigated sensitive subjects at the time of their firings.

Grassley is now concerned about whether a pattern is emerging in which the independence of the government's top watchdogs -- whose jobs were authorized by Congress to look out for waste, fraud and abuse -- is being put at risk.

One of the other IGs is Neil Barofsky, tasked with watching over the financial stimulus spending. The article raises questions as to whether or not the Obama administration is trying to stymie an investigation with dubious claims of attorney-client privilege.

He was appointed with fanfare as the public watchdog over the government's multi-billion dollar bailout of the nation's financial system. But now Neil Barofsky is embroiled in a dispute with the Obama administration that delayed one recent inquiry and sparked questions about his ability to freely investigate.

The disagreement stems from a claim by the Treasury Department that Barofsky is not entirely independent of the agency he is assigned to examine - a claim that has prompted a stern letter from a Republican senator warning that agency officials are encroaching on the integrity of an office created to protect taxpayers.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, sent the letter Wednesday to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner demanding information about a "dispute over certain Treasury documents" that he said were being "withheld" from Barofsky's office on a "specious claim of attorney-client privilege."

The third instance involves an acting IG for the International Trade Commission, Judith Gwynne, who has been told her contract would not be renewed amid allegations that an ITC employee forcibly took documents from her possession. Just three hours after Grassley sent along his letter asking questions, she was told she'd be hitting the road in July when her contract is up. Well, well, well.

Separately this week, the International Trade Commission told its acting inspector general, who is not subject to White House authority, that her contract would not be renewed.

Grassley had become concerned about her independence because of a report earlier in the year that an agency employee forcibly took documents from the acting inspector general.

"It is difficult to understand why the ITC would not have taken action to ensure that the ITC inspector general had the information necessary to do the job," Grassley wrote on Tuesday.

Less than three hours after the letter was e-mailed to the agency, the acting IG, Judith Gwynne, was told that her contract, which expires in early July, would not be renewed.

Wait, I thought that they served at the pleasure of the president and it was A OK to do shit like this?

Isn't this what you all claimed when Bush did it? And now you want to whine and bitch about it when Obama does it? Sorry, you gave up your claim to that when you gave Bush a free pass for doing it.

Nope, the AGs do, not IG. That would be Congress.

 

[Newby]

Wait, I thought that they served at the pleasure of the president and it was A OK to do shit like this?

Isn't this what you all claimed when Bush did it? And now you want to whine and bitch about it when Obama does it? Sorry, you gave up your claim to that when you gave Bush a free pass for doing it.

Every time you open your mouth, you show how lacking you are in education. Do you even understand what happened here? Obviously not.

Are you going to address the issues, or just run your mouth off and prove that you are a whiny little bitch with nothing to say?

Waste my time educating someone who can't be educated? I don't think so. Maybe you should do a little reading?

 

[Newby]

Remember all the angst over Bush removing the AG's, who served at his pleasure? Where is the outrage from the left regarding this? This is the 'Chicago Way.'

Riehl World View: Not Just Walpin - 3 IG Firings Being Questioned

Wait, I thought that they served at the pleasure of the president and it was A OK to do shit like this?

Isn't this what you all claimed when Bush did it? And now you want to whine and bitch about it when Obama does it? Sorry, you gave up your claim to that when you gave Bush a free pass for doing it.

Nope, the AGs do, not IG. That would be Congress.

See Nik, education is a good thing. Get off of the Huffington post and really understand the issues, maybe you'll learn something.

 

[Nik]

Remember all the angst over Bush removing the AG's, who served at his pleasure? Where is the outrage from the left regarding this? This is the 'Chicago Way.'

Riehl World View: Not Just Walpin - 3 IG Firings Being Questioned

Wait, I thought that they served at the pleasure of the president and it was A OK to do shit like this?

Isn't this what you all claimed when Bush did it? And now you want to whine and bitch about it when Obama does it? Sorry, you gave up your claim to that when you gave Bush a free pass for doing it.

Nope, the AGs do, not IG. That would be Congress.

The IG's don't serve at the pleasure of the president? Are you claiming they serve under Congress?

 

[Annie]

Wait, I thought that they served at the pleasure of the president and it was A OK to do shit like this?

Isn't this what you all claimed when Bush did it? And now you want to whine and bitch about it when Obama does it? Sorry, you gave up your claim to that when you gave Bush a free pass for doing it.

Nope, the AGs do, not IG. That would be Congress.

The IG's don't serve at the pleasure of the president? Are you claiming they serve under Congress?

Office of Inspector General | U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Mission

The mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), as mandated by Public Law 95-452 (as amended), is to protect the integrity of Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) programs, as well as the health and welfare of the beneficiaries of those programs.

OIG has a responsibility to report both to the Secretary and to the Congress program and management problems and recommendations to correct them. OIG's duties are carried out through a nationwide network of audits, investigations, evaluations and other mission-related functions performed by OIG components.

 

[Nik]

Wait, I thought that they served at the pleasure of the president and it was A OK to do shit like this?

Isn't this what you all claimed when Bush did it? And now you want to whine and bitch about it when Obama does it? Sorry, you gave up your claim to that when you gave Bush a free pass for doing it.

Nope, the AGs do, not IG. That would be Congress.

See Nik, education is a good thing. Get off of the Huffington post and really understand the issues, maybe you'll learn something.

Then perhaps you should educate yourself before speaking, eh?

IG's are appointed by the president. They are fired by the president. They serve at his pleasure.

 

[Nik]

Nope, the AGs do, not IG. That would be Congress.

The IG's don't serve at the pleasure of the president? Are you claiming they serve under Congress?

Office of Inspector General | U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Mission

The mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), as mandated by Public Law 95-452 (as amended), is to protect the integrity of Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) programs, as well as the health and welfare of the beneficiaries of those programs.

OIG has a responsibility to report both to the Secretary and to the Congress program and management problems and recommendations to correct them. OIG's duties are carried out through a nationwide network of audits, investigations, evaluations and other mission-related functions performed by OIG components.

Oh, well, then of course Congress can fire one of they want...can't they?

 

[Newby]

Nope, the AGs do, not IG. That would be Congress.

See Nik, education is a good thing. Get off of the Huffington post and really understand the issues, maybe you'll learn something.

Then perhaps you should educate yourself before speaking, eh?

IG's are appointed by the president. They are fired by the president. They serve at his pleasure.

Aren't you even capable of doing a simple google search? Why don't you read up on how Obama voted on this situation whenever he was a senator? Do you even realize what the situation is here? I'm guessing not.

 

[Newby]

Nope, the AGs do, not IG. That would be Congress.

See Nik, education is a good thing. Get off of the Huffington post and really understand the issues, maybe you'll learn something.

Then perhaps you should educate yourself before speaking, eh?

IG's are appointed by the president. They are fired by the president. They serve at his pleasure.

And if I took an educated guess, I'd be willing to bet that you were one of the leftie loons screaming for months after Bush fired several of his?

 

[Nik]

See Nik, education is a good thing. Get off of the Huffington post and really understand the issues, maybe you'll learn something.

Then perhaps you should educate yourself before speaking, eh?

IG's are appointed by the president. They are fired by the president. They serve at his pleasure.

Aren't you even capable of doing a simple google search? Why don't you read up on how Obama voted on this situation whenever he was a senator? Do you even realize what the situation is here? I'm guessing not.

Yes, I'm aware. The president has to give a reason to Congress as to why he fired the IG. Congress can like the reason, dislike the reason, but really can't do all that much about it.

Here is the specific language.

An Inspector General may be removed from office by the President. The President shall communicate the reasons for any such removal to both Houses of Congress.

Does it say anywhere that Congress can object?

 

[Nik]

See Nik, education is a good thing. Get off of the Huffington post and really understand the issues, maybe you'll learn something.

Then perhaps you should educate yourself before speaking, eh?

IG's are appointed by the president. They are fired by the president. They serve at his pleasure.

And if I took an educated guess, I'd be willing to bet that you were one of the leftie loons screaming for months after Bush fired several of his?

Let me guess....you were defending it tooth and nail, eh?

 

[Newby]

Then perhaps you should educate yourself before speaking, eh?

IG's are appointed by the president. They are fired by the president. They serve at his pleasure.

Aren't you even capable of doing a simple google search? Why don't you read up on how Obama voted on this situation whenever he was a senator? Do you even realize what the situation is here? I'm guessing not.

Yes, I'm aware. The president has to give a reason to Congress as to why he fired the IG. Congress can like the reason, dislike the reason, but really can't do all that much about it.

Here is the specific language.

An Inspector General may be removed from office by the President. The President shall communicate the reasons for any such removal to both Houses of Congress.

Does it say anywhere that Congress can object?

Why don't you post the entire law? Why don't you explain why Obama didn't follow any of it? Why don't you see how Obama himself voted on this while he was Senator?

 

[Newby]

Then perhaps you should educate yourself before speaking, eh?

IG's are appointed by the president. They are fired by the president. They serve at his pleasure.

And if I took an educated guess, I'd be willing to bet that you were one of the leftie loons screaming for months after Bush fired several of his?

Let me guess....you were defending it tooth and nail, eh?

Why weren't you defending it? You just said that 'they serve at the president's pleasure', you apparently understood that he is not required to even give a reason or a notice, but yet you joined the leftie bandwagon in yet another attempt at lynching him in the press about it. I bet you don't even see how transparent you and those like you are.

 

[Nik]

Aren't you even capable of doing a simple google search? Why don't you read up on how Obama voted on this situation whenever he was a senator? Do you even realize what the situation is here? I'm guessing not.

Yes, I'm aware. The president has to give a reason to Congress as to why he fired the IG. Congress can like the reason, dislike the reason, but really can't do all that much about it.

Here is the specific language.

An Inspector General may be removed from office by the President. The President shall communicate the reasons for any such removal to both Houses of Congress.

Does it say anywhere that Congress can object?

Why don't you post the entire law? Why don't you explain why Obama didn't follow any of it? Why don't you see how Obama himself voted on this while he was Senator?

I tried posting the entire law. And this is what I got.

The text that you have entered is too long (140025 characters). Please shorten it to 100000 characters long.

Retard. The entire law is pages and pages long. I posted the relevant part. If you want to find more parts, feel free to go here Inspector General Act of 1978, As Amended

Exactly what parts did Obama not follow?

And Obama voted for the law.

Any more stupid questions?

 

[Nik]

And if I took an educated guess, I'd be willing to bet that you were one of the leftie loons screaming for months after Bush fired several of his?

Let me guess....you were defending it tooth and nail, eh?

Why weren't you defending it? You just said that 'they serve at the president's pleasure', you apparently understood that he is not required to even give a reason or a notice, but yet you joined the leftie bandwagon in yet another attempt at lynching him in the press about it. I bet you don't even see how transparent you and those like you are.

Why didn't you attack it then, since you are attacking it now?