Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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?
Do you even read what you post? Today is June 17th, not July 17th. Can you read?
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?
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.Try asking a question that doesn't have a massive amount of doubtful, if not clearly false, premises if you want an answer.
(Sec. 3) Requires the President, the heads of designated federal entities, the Librarian of Congress, the Capitol Police Board, and the Public Printer to communicate to Congress in writing the reasons for removing or transferring an IG no later than 30 days before such removal or transfer.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
Yes, he has fired him. He has been removed from office and barred from entering.You do know that Obama hasn't actually fired Walperin, yes? Only that he is going too?
(Sec. 3) Requires the President, the heads of designated federal entities, the Librarian of Congress, the Capitol Police Board, and the Public Printer to communicate to Congress in writing the reasons for removing or transferring an IG no later than 30 days before such removal or transfer.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
Which means, he CANNOT remove an IG until AFTER the 30 day's notice!
He does not have a job. He was fired. They informed him of this by telephone and told him his shit was packed, and he could come pick it up.(Sec. 3) Requires the President, the heads of designated federal entities, the Librarian of Congress, the Capitol Police Board, and the Public Printer to communicate to Congress in writing the reasons for removing or transferring an IG no later than 30 days before such removal or transfer.
Which means, he CANNOT remove an IG until AFTER the 30 day's notice!
Walperin still, at this very moment, has a job. He just won't in 30 days. (well 25 or something now)
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.
And this is EXACTLY what the 2008 amendment co-sponsored by Obama himself, was supposed to PREVENT.Bit of a difference here. The AG's serve at the president's pleasure (Horrible thought during the Clinton years) but the Inspector Generals are a different kettle of fish. They are supposed to be independent and in order to remove them 0bama has to give good reason in a letter to congress. I don't remember what 0bama actaully sent to the congress in this case, but it amounted to "I felt like it."
And the IGs are specificly tasked to ferret out issues like they have been doing, especially with the first one. He found a good buddy of the 0ne was on the take, started investigating, and got slapped down.
In the letter, Eisen paints a less-than-flattering picture of Walpin, whose controversial tenure as Inspector General of the Corporation for National and Community Service ended last week with President Obama taking the extraordinary measure of firing him.
Eisen charged that at a May 20, 2009 board meeting Walpin "was confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve."
Eisen writes that the President decided to take the step after learning that the Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of California, Lawrence Brown, "a career prosecutor who was appointed to his post during the Bush Administrator, had filed a complaint about Mr. Walpin's conduct with the oversight body for Inspectors General, including for failing to disclose exculpatory evidence."
The Obama administration "further learned that Mr. Walpin had been absent from the Corporation's headquarters, insisting upon working from his home in New York over the objections of the Corporation's Board; that he had exhibited a lack of candor in providing material information to decision makers; and that he had engaged in other troubling and inappropriate conduct. Mr. Walpin had become unduly disruptive to agency operations, impairing his effectiveness and, for the reasons stated above, losing the confidence of the Board."
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.
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.
Bit of a difference here. The AG's serve at the president's pleasure (Horrible thought during the Clinton years) but the Inspector Generals are a different kettle of fish. They are supposed to be independent and in order to remove them 0bama has to give good reason in a letter to congress. I don't remember what 0bama actaully sent to the congress in this case, but it amounted to "I felt like it."
And the IGs are specificly tasked to ferret out issues like they have been doing, especially with the first one. He found a good buddy of the 0ne was on the take, started investigating, and got slapped down.
Yes, it does matter. The POTUS cannot remove these IGs until after the 30 days has expired. The law is clear, counselor.If he's still being paid for the next 30 days, it doesn't matter that his stuff was packed, IMO. And if this is true, then one would understand why he'd be out....
The POTUS HAS unrestricted power to fire those. Every President has exercised that power, be it Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and both Bush's.Actually AG's are supposed to be independent as well.
Yes, it does matter. The POTUS cannot remove these IGs until after the 30 days has expired. The law is clear, counselor.If he's still being paid for the next 30 days, it doesn't matter that his stuff was packed, IMO. And if this is true, then one would understand why he'd be out....
And as to the smears Obama has put out on Walprin being "confused" and maybe even senile? No dice, he passed the test on that just yesterday.
And even if so, Jillian, he now has a ADA claim does he not? Yes, he does.
Yes, it does matter. The POTUS cannot remove these IGs until after the 30 days has expired. The law is clear, counselor.If he's still being paid for the next 30 days, it doesn't matter that his stuff was packed, IMO. And if this is true, then one would understand why he'd be out....
And as to the smears Obama has put out on Walprin being "confused" and maybe even senile? No dice, he passed the test on that just yesterday.
And even if so, Jillian, he now has a ADA claim does he not? Yes, he does.
Walprin took the standard test the APA used to diagnose senility, confusion, and dementia and passed with flying colors.Yes, it does matter. The POTUS cannot remove these IGs until after the 30 days has expired. The law is clear, counselor.If he's still being paid for the next 30 days, it doesn't matter that his stuff was packed, IMO. And if this is true, then one would understand why he'd be out....
And as to the smears Obama has put out on Walprin being "confused" and maybe even senile? No dice, he passed the test on that just yesterday.
And even if so, Jillian, he now has a ADA claim does he not? Yes, he does.
Umm, care to provide proof that Walperin has been locked out and can't enter?
How exactly did Walperin prove that he wasn't confused?
And no, he doesn't have an ADA claim.
Yes, it does matter. The POTUS cannot remove these IGs until after the 30 days has expired. The law is clear, counselor.If he's still being paid for the next 30 days, it doesn't matter that his stuff was packed, IMO. And if this is true, then one would understand why he'd be out....
And as to the smears Obama has put out on Walprin being "confused" and maybe even senile? No dice, he passed the test on that just yesterday.
And even if so, Jillian, he now has a ADA claim does he not? Yes, he does.
I see a lot of assertions from you without any evidence. I'm afraid I can't offer any opinions without that. I'm kind of funny that way.
As for an ADA claim, how do you figure?
The POTUS HAS unrestricted power to fire those. Every President has exercised that power, be it Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and both Bush's.Actually AG's are supposed to be independent as well.
Walprin took the standard test the APA used to diagnose senility, confusion, and dementia and passed with flying colors.Yes, it does matter. The POTUS cannot remove these IGs until after the 30 days has expired. The law is clear, counselor.
And as to the smears Obama has put out on Walprin being "confused" and maybe even senile? No dice, he passed the test on that just yesterday.
And even if so, Jillian, he now has a ADA claim does he not? Yes, he does.
Umm, care to provide proof that Walperin has been locked out and can't enter?
How exactly did Walperin prove that he wasn't confused?
And no, he doesn't have an ADA claim.
He not only SAYS he is locked out, he also has a termination letter which is quite clear.
What about the other two IGs who have been dismissed? Aren't you getting maybe just a LITTLE bit suspicious? Maybe just a tiny bit curious? Maybe even just a smidgen cynical?
No wonder there are so many lunatics running around loose.
