Why IG Walpin is fired?

[Ame®icano]

Looks like, whoever finds irregularities with Obama's special interests is getting fired.

Yet, as Associated Press noted, "Obama's move follows an investigation by IG Gerald Walpin finding misuse of federal grants by a nonprofit education group led by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, who is an Obama supporter and former NBA basketball star." Further, "The IG found that Johnson ... had used Americorps grants to pay volunteers to engage in school-board political activities, run personal errands for Johnson and even wash his car."

Walpin-gate - Washington Times

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Looks like, whoever finds irregularities with Obama's special interests is getting fired.

Yet, as Associated Press noted, "Obama's move follows an investigation by IG Gerald Walpin finding misuse of federal grants by a nonprofit education group led by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, who is an Obama supporter and former NBA basketball star." Further, "The IG found that Johnson ... had used Americorps grants to pay volunteers to engage in school-board political activities, run personal errands for Johnson and even wash his car."

Walpin-gate - Washington Times

Tip of the ICEBERG!

If an objective investigation of this herd ever comes to pass, there is no end ot the corruption that it will uncover.

ACORN ALONE is little more than culltural subversion and that isn't even a respectable SLIVER of this guys spear...

 

[Full-Auto]

It turns out not all democrats are low life, just the majority.


McCaskill takes aim at Obama IG firing | Political Fix | STLtoday

 

[Just A Man]

It's Chicago-style politics.

 

[American Horse]

It's Chicago-style politics.

Bottom line: The AmeriCorps IG accuses prominent Obama supporter of misusing AmeriCorps grant money. Prominent Obama supporter has to pay back more than $400,000 of that grant money. Obama fires AmeriCorps IG.

Byron York | Washington Examiner Story Updates

At Wednesday's meeting, Sen. Grassley's staffers wanted to know more about the White House review. "Unfortunately," Grassley writes in a letter sent late Wednesday afternoon to White House counsel Gregory Craig, "Mr. Eisen refused to answer several direct questions posed to him about the representations made in his letter." Grassley says that since Eisen refused to answer the questions in person, Grassley would submit a dozen of them in writing. Here they are:

1) Did the [Corporation for National and Community Service] Board communicate its concerns about Mr. Walpin to the White House in writing?

2) Specifically, which CNCS Board members came forward with concerns about Mr. Walpin’s ability to serve as the Inspector General?

3) Was the communication about the Board’s concerns on or about May 20, 2009 the first instance of any communications with White House personnel regarding the possibility of removing Mr. Walpin?

4) Which witnesses were interviewed in the course of Mr. Eisen’s review?

5) How many witnesses were interviewed?

6) Were any employees of the Office of Inspector General, who may have had more frequent contact with Mr. Walpin than the Board members, interviewed?

7) Was Mr. Walpin asked directly during Mr. Eisen’s review about the events of May 20, 2009?

8) Was Mr. Walpin asked for his response to the allegations submitted to the Integrity Committee by Acting U.S. Attorney Lawrence Brown?

9) What efforts were made during Mr. Eisen’s review to obtain both sides of the story or to afford the Office of Inspector General an opportunity to be heard?

10) In addition to the claim that Mr. Walpin was “confused” and “disoriented,” the letter also says he exhibited “other behavior” that led to questions about his capacity. What other behavior was Mr. Eisen referencing?

11) If the initial and primary concern had to do with Mr. Walpin’s capacity to serve for potential health reasons, why was he only given one hour to decide whether to resign or be fired?

12) If Mr. Walpin’s telecommuting arrangements since the beginning of this year were a major concern, then why was Mr. Walpin not simply asked to stop telecommuting?

Grassley asks the White House for a response in writing by Wednesday, June 24.

 

[garyd]

Walpin's been on several talk shows of late. He doesn't show any signs of senility that I've seen yet.

One of the things I said before the election was that the first thing Obama would nationalize would be Chicago style politics. I hate t say I told you so but I told you so.

Not mind you that the Obamaphiles care how much their beloved and his cronies rip them off. After all he reads so well...

 

[Navy1960]

Inspector General Reform Act of 2008
A bill to amend the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) to enhance the Offices of the Inspectors General, to create a Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, and for other purposes...
S.2324: Inspector General Reform Act of 2008 -... OpenCongress

WASHINGTON - -- 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."
Senator asks about firings of watchdogs -- chicagotribune.com

The IG's office is there to hold the Govt. accountable on behalf of the American people. This tactic on behalf of the Obama Administration especially in light of it's condemnation of the Bush Administrations firing of several Justice Dept. Attys. is at least a "double standard". However, the firing of Mr. Walpin who at the time investigating a notable Obama supporter as well as Americorps. The IG should not be subject to the Presidents whims as they represnt the American peoples interests in keeping Govt. honest. This is a tactic that I'm sure that Mr. Obama has learned quite well from Mr. Daily in Chicago as has been pointed out.

 

[American Horse]

Inspector General Reform Act of 2008
A bill to amend the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) to enhance the Offices of the Inspectors General, to create a Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, and for other purposes...
S.2324: Inspector General Reform Act of 2008 -... OpenCongress

<SNIP>

Transparency huh?

Honesty from government huh?

It's gotten so that when Obama says one thing I tend to think he really means just the opposite, in some cryptic way.

 

[Navy1960]

Im sure A.H. it's the other purposes clauue that it all falls under for them. It reminds me of the Ward Bosses of the 19th Century or corrupt mayors, who when they didnt like someone who mught expose them they just up and replaced them. As I mentioned above the IG should NOT be sudject t or report to the White House and his position should be an appointment that is made by Congress and reports to Congress. IMO.

 

[editec]

Sounds bad to me, too.

Why was Walpin fired?

Aye there's the rub.

Did he go outside usual channels by announcing what he found?

Was he setting out to embarrass Obama, or what?

And if he did, and if he was, it seems like a boneheaded thing to do to fire the guy.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Im sure A.H. it's the other purposes clauue that it all falls under for them. It reminds me of the Ward Bosses of the 19th Century or corrupt mayors, who when they didnt like someone who mught expose them they just up and replaced them. As I mentioned above the IG should NOT be sudject t or report to the White House and his position should be an appointment that is made by Congress and reports to Congress. IMO.

In theory, cool. But unconstitutional. Congress can investigate and so on, but Executive authority is entirely the Presidents.

Thing is, 0bama is very much the kind of scamster and low life that the whole separation of powers thing was supposed to prevent getting anywhere. And by and large it is working. But so many holes have been driven through the constitution over the years that it really is kind of doubtful that it will prevent much in the way of the march of 0bama.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Inspector General Reform Act of 2008
A bill to amend the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) to enhance the Offices of the Inspectors General, to create a Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, and for other purposes...
S.2324: Inspector General Reform Act of 2008 -... OpenCongress

WASHINGTON - -- 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."
Senator asks about firings of watchdogs -- chicagotribune.com

The IG's office is there to hold the Govt. accountable on behalf of the American people. This tactic on behalf of the Obama Administration especially in light of it's condemnation of the Bush Administrations firing of several Justice Dept. Attys. is at least a "double standard". However, the firing of Mr. Walpin who at the time investigating a notable Obama supporter as well as Americorps. The IG should not be subject to the Presidents whims as they represnt the American peoples interests in keeping Govt. honest. This is a tactic that I'm sure that Mr. Obama has learned quite well from Mr. Daily in Chicago as has been pointed out.

Exactly right...

Of course the Hussein Regime, as has been repeated her so often, feels VERY strongly that "THEY WON THE ELECTION;" meaing that they feel that, like in FRANCE... they're entitled to "REMAKE America"... to form a NEW REPUBLIC and set aside the antiquated limitations of the 'old thinking.'

But that is the nature of the idiot left... they've no means to compete within the rules; so as they change the rules, and they continue to fail to bring about Nirvana, they change the rules again and AGAIN, blaming the former regimes for their own continuous and incessant failures; which stems from a failure of the reasoning which IS the left...

A species of ideological reasoning which needs to defy nature itself to have a chance; and there is NO chance, that one can consistantly defy nature. Thus left-think is doomed to failure with every attempt; with every 'experiment'... Leftism has always and WILL always... FAIL!

 

[Navy1960]

Im sure A.H. it's the other purposes clauue that it all falls under for them. It reminds me of the Ward Bosses of the 19th Century or corrupt mayors, who when they didnt like someone who mught expose them they just up and replaced them. As I mentioned above the IG should NOT be sudject t or report to the White House and his position should be an appointment that is made by Congress and reports to Congress. IMO.

In theory, cool. But unconstitutional. Congress can investigate and so on, but Executive authority is entirely the Presidents.

Thing is, 0bama is very much the kind of scamster and low life that the whole separation of powers thing was supposed to prevent getting anywhere. And by and large it is working. But so many holes have been driven through the constitution over the years that it really is kind of doubtful that it will prevent much in the way of the march of 0bama.

True, and I completely understand that, however there is no reason as the IG's Office is a post especially held to keep Govt. honest cannot be subject to congressional oversight under the "Seperation of Powers" .Further, I wonder if the actual termination cannot be seen as one that would need congressional approval under that same venue? Just a thought! I do undertand the constitutional issue involved here however.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

The whole deal with opposition to 0bama should be on constitutional principles. The whole argument against him is that he makes it up as he goes along.

We should not get into the position that his violation justifies another violation in return.

We really need to stay on dry land on this and not get into that swamp.

It is a tough problem though.

 

[Tech_Esq]

What Obama knows is that he will never be able to fund and use the Ameri Corps as his "brown shirts" with guys like Walpin around busting him out.

The ground work has to be laid now to clear the way for future abuses. Time is short. The brown shirts need to be in place before the next election. (At least the beginnings of them).

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Sounds bad to me, too.

Why was Walpin fired?

Aye there's the rub.

Did he go outside usual channels by announcing what he found?

Was he setting out to embarrass Obama, or what?

And if he did, and if he was, it seems like a boneheaded thing to do to fire the guy.

ROFL... WRONG! The issue is NOT "WHY" he was fired, but "THAT" and more to the point "HOW" he was fired...

They needed to fire him BEFORE HIS REPORT was finalized and in such a way that prevented him from forming a substantial means to prove his findings through the evidence he had gathered.

Look, this administration is FILLED to the rhetorical GILLS with the same SHILLS that made the Clinton administration what History has and will always show it to be... The most corrupt US Executive of the Late 20th Century... and one of the top 5 in US History...

This in terms of everything from Felony convictions of key Administration officials, to the number of key administration officials who realized an unfortunate and untimely demise, JUuuust ahead of pending subpoenas...

Thus this administration is as "Crooked as a Chicago Politician..."

 

[Just A Man]

Obama will skate on this dastardly act. The reason is because the liberal media will cover for him.

Remember when Clinton fired the White House Travel office?
Remember when Clinton fired all the U.S. attorney generals?
Nothing from the liberal media or the republicans.

Remember when Bush fired 8 U.S. attorney generals?
The liberal media went to full attack mode and congress wanted Rove to testify.

The liberal media will cover for Obama and the republicans don't have the backbone to seek an investigation.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The whole deal with opposition to 0bama should be on constitutional principles. The whole argument against him is that he makes it up as he goes along.

We should not get into the position that his violation justifies another violation in return.

We really need to stay on dry land on this and not get into that swamp.

It is a tough problem though.

Who in this thread, or anywhere else, is advocating to return a violation?

Just curious...

 

[Baruch Menachem]

What Obama knows is that he will never be able to fund and use the Ameri Corps as his "brown shirts" with guys like Walpin around busting him out.

The ground work has to be laid now to clear the way for future abuses. Time is short. The brown shirts need to be in place before the next election. (At least the beginnings of them).

Careful, these are Blue shirts!


Interesting little noticed case from the last election where some 0bama thugs stood outside a precienct with clubs to make sure only the right voters got in... They were arrested on civil rights charges and they had a plea deal, but even after conviction was assured, the 0bama justice department dropped the case.

Ein Reich, ein 0mbamafurer.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

The whole deal with opposition to 0bama should be on constitutional principles. The whole argument against him is that he makes it up as he goes along.

We should not get into the position that his violation justifies another violation in return.

We really need to stay on dry land on this and not get into that swamp.

It is a tough problem though.

Who in this thread, or anywhere else, is advocating to return a violation?

Just curious...

This is from a discussion up topic where someone was advocating greater congressional control over executive appointments.