It's Not Just One IG, At Least 3

[Newby]

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.



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?

Maybe you should google it and educate yourself some more? I see you failed to address why Obama has failed to comply with a law that he voted for, what a surprise.

 

[Newby]

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?

Because, moron, the two situations are entirely different. Two people have now tried to explain that to you, but apparently you're not capable of comprehending the situation. Sucks to be you.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Exactly what parts did Obama not follow?

The 30 days notice to Congress, for one.

And Obama voted for the law.

He actually was one of the sponsors. It was HIS law he's clearly breaking.

You don't find it even a least little bit alarming that he's systematically and without due lawful process removing anyone who's investigating one of his cronies?

 

[Nik]

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?

Maybe you should google it and educate yourself some more? I see you failed to address why Obama has failed to comply with a law that he voted for, what a surprise.

I have. Which is why I'm asking you to prove your point, since its complete bullshit. I'm not going to prove your point for you, especially since you are just talking out of your ass.

 

[Newby]

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



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?

Maybe you should google it and educate yourself some more? I see you failed to address why Obama has failed to comply with a law that he voted for, what a surprise.

I have. Which is why I'm asking you to prove your point, since its complete bullshit. I'm not going to prove your point for you, especially since you are just talking out of your ass.

You are worse than I thought.

 

[Nik]

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?

Because, moron, the two situations are entirely different. Two people have now tried to explain that to you, but apparently you're not capable of comprehending the situation. Sucks to be you.

Oh? I posted the law for you, so why don't you try and find the part that says that the president can't fire IG's. Good luck with that.

 

[Newby]

Exactly what parts did Obama not follow?

The 30 days notice to Congress, for one.

And Obama voted for the law.

He actually was one of the sponsors. It was HIS law he's clearly breaking.

You don't find it even a least little bit alarming that he's systematically and without due lawful process removing anyone who's investigating one of his cronies?

I'm sure you're just 'talking out your ass' as well, MM, but nice try.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

I have. Which is why I'm asking you to prove your point, since its complete bullshit. I'm not going to prove your point for you, especially since you are just talking out of your ass.

The law you linked us to is the OLD law. Not the new one Obama co-sponsored.

 

[Newby]

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

Because, moron, the two situations are entirely different. Two people have now tried to explain that to you, but apparently you're not capable of comprehending the situation. Sucks to be you.

Oh? I posted the law for you, so why don't you try and find the part that says that the president can't fire IG's. Good luck with that.

So you approve of the president protecting one of his supporters that was also stealing/embezzling money by firing the Inspector General that was investigating his 'buddy'?

 

[Nik]

Exactly what parts did Obama not follow?

The 30 days notice to Congress, for one.

And Obama voted for the law.

He actually was one of the sponsors. It was HIS law he's clearly breaking.

You don't find it even a least little bit alarming that he's systematically and without due lawful process removing anyone who's investigating one of his cronies?

Really? He did not follow the 30 days notice to Congress?

06/11/09 8:14 PM EDT

There are a number of unanswered questions today about President Obama's abrupt decision to fire the inspector general of the AmeriCorps program, Gerald Walpin. Obama sent letters to House and Senate leaders yesterday informing them that he was firing Walpin, effective 30 days from the date of the letters.

What's behind Obama's sudden attempt to fire the AmeriCorps inspector general? | Washington Examiner

Hey. Funny, he gave Congress 30 days notice. Next?

 

[Nik]

Because, moron, the two situations are entirely different. Two people have now tried to explain that to you, but apparently you're not capable of comprehending the situation. Sucks to be you.

Oh? I posted the law for you, so why don't you try and find the part that says that the president can't fire IG's. Good luck with that.

So you approve of the president protecting one of his supporters that was also stealing/embezzling money by firing the Inspector General that was investigating his 'buddy'?

Nope. But then your just making that up with no evidence.

 

[Nik]

I have. Which is why I'm asking you to prove your point, since its complete bullshit. I'm not going to prove your point for you, especially since you are just talking out of your ass.

The law you linked us to is the OLD law. Not the new one Obama co-sponsored.

My bad. Try here.

US CODE: Title 5a,INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT OF 1978

 

[Nik]

Exactly what parts did Obama not follow?

The 30 days notice to Congress, for one.

And Obama voted for the law.

He actually was one of the sponsors. It was HIS law he's clearly breaking.

You don't find it even a least little bit alarming that he's systematically and without due lawful process removing anyone who's investigating one of his cronies?

I'm sure you're just 'talking out your ass' as well, MM, but nice try.

Still waiting for you to provide me with evidence he broke the law.

 

[Newby]

Oh? I posted the law for you, so why don't you try and find the part that says that the president can't fire IG's. Good luck with that.

So you approve of the president protecting one of his supporters that was also stealing/embezzling money by firing the Inspector General that was investigating his 'buddy'?

Nope. But then your just making that up with no evidence.

Yeah, you go with that. Stupid is as stupid does.

 

[Nik]

So you approve of the president protecting one of his supporters that was also stealing/embezzling money by firing the Inspector General that was investigating his 'buddy'?

Nope. But then your just making that up with no evidence.

Yeah, you go with that. Stupid is as stupid does.

Oh, then do please prove me wrong. Cite evidence. Or are you incapable of that?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Exactly what parts did Obama not follow?

The 30 days notice to Congress, for one.He actually was one of the sponsors. It was HIS law he's clearly breaking.

You don't find it even a least little bit alarming that he's systematically and without due lawful process removing anyone who's investigating one of his cronies?

Really? He did not follow the 30 days notice to Congress?

06/11/09 8:14 PM EDT

There are a number of unanswered questions today about President Obama's abrupt decision to fire the inspector general of the AmeriCorps program, Gerald Walpin. Obama sent letters to House and Senate leaders yesterday informing them that he was firing Walpin, effective 30 days from the date of the letters.

What's behind Obama's sudden attempt to fire the AmeriCorps inspector general? | Washington Examiner

Hey. Funny, he gave Congress 30 days notice. Next?

Do you even read what you post? Today is June 17th, not July 17th. Can you read?

And, you keep avoiding the central question:

You don't find it even a least little bit alarming that he's systematically and without due lawful process removing anyone who's investigating one of his cronies?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

I have. Which is why I'm asking you to prove your point, since its complete bullshit. I'm not going to prove your point for you, especially since you are just talking out of your ass.

The law you linked us to is the OLD law. Not the new one Obama co-sponsored.

My bad. Try here.

US CODE: Title 5a,INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT OF 1978

That's no better. Newest amendments to that are 1994 and doesn't include the 30 day notice clause he's violating.

 

[Nik]

The 30 days notice to Congress, for one.He actually was one of the sponsors. It was HIS law he's clearly breaking.

You don't find it even a least little bit alarming that he's systematically and without due lawful process removing anyone who's investigating one of his cronies?

Really? He did not follow the 30 days notice to Congress?

06/11/09 8:14 PM EDT

There are a number of unanswered questions today about President Obama's abrupt decision to fire the inspector general of the AmeriCorps program, Gerald Walpin. Obama sent letters to House and Senate leaders yesterday informing them that he was firing Walpin, effective 30 days from the date of the letters.

What's behind Obama's sudden attempt to fire the AmeriCorps inspector general? | Washington Examiner

Hey. Funny, he gave Congress 30 days notice. Next?

Do you even read what you post? Today is June 17th, not July 17th. Can you read?

Yes, I'm away that today is June 17th. Your point?

And, you keep avoiding the central question:

You don't find it even a least little bit alarming that he's systematically and without due lawful process removing anyone who's investigating one of his cronies?

Try asking a question that doesn't have a massive amount of doubtful, if not clearly false, premises if you want an answer.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

What's behind Obama's sudden attempt to fire the AmeriCorps inspector general? | Washington Examiner

Do you even read what you post? Today is June 17th, not July 17th. Can you read?

Yes, I'm away that today is June 17th. Your point?

Read the emboldened and enlarged portions. He cannot, under the law, fire any of the IGs until AFTER the 30 day notice expires.

And, you keep avoiding the central question:

You don't find it even a least little bit alarming that he's systematically and without due lawful process removing anyone who's investigating one of his cronies?

Try asking a question that doesn't have a massive amount of doubtful, if not clearly false, premises if you want an answer.

There are no false premises there. If you don't want to answer the question, that is okay just say so. I know for you cult followers, anything The Obama does is fine. Even if it clearly breaks the law.

 

[Nik]

The law you linked us to is the OLD law. Not the new one Obama co-sponsored.

My bad. Try here.

US CODE: Title 5a,INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT OF 1978

That's no better. Newest amendments to that are 1994 and doesn't include the 30 day notice clause he's violating.

S.2324: Inspector General Reform Act of 2008 -... OpenCongress