posted June 13, 2009 09:10 AM         

In the case of Kommander Korruption, he fired the entire staff of US Attorneys, all 93...not for not doing their jobs but because one of those US Attorneys WAS doing the job of investigating Kommander Korruption..aka Bill Clinton and his insufferable wife Hillary in the White Water scandal. It was necessary to fire all the others to cover up the fact it was the one investigating White Water he really wanted to get rid of and replace that one with one of his cronies. Democrats didn't utter one peep of protest.

Bush fired 8 US Attorneys for not doing their jobs...not prosecuting criminal activity, lax enforcement of US federal laws and also failing to investigate and prosecute ACORN and related ACORN umbrella organizations who were committing voter fraud all across the US. Congressional demoscats went nuts. ACORN is one of the demoscats protected criminal organizations.

So now, the little Chicago thug O'Bomber has fired a Inspector General for doing his job and Inspector Generals do not serve at the pleasure of President. The problem as The Thug O'Bomber sees it is that this Inspector General was doing his job too well and had the goods on one of The Thug O'Bomber's supporters and contributors who was ripping off AmeriCorps money for use in his personal life and also using AmeriCorps funds for political campaigns.

The Thug O'Bomber says he lost confidence in this Inspector General. Let's recap.

This Inspector General had the goods on The Thug O'Bomber's supporter to the degree the little crook agreed to pay back more than $400,000 out of the $800,000+ federal funds the government gave for AmeriCorps. Got it? This little crook agreed to pay back about half of all the money from the AmeriCorps grant he got...but The Thug O'Bomber has lost confidence in the Inspector General of AmeriCorp.

You see, this just isn't the way things are done by the Chicago Thuggery Club of which O'Bomber is a member. Investigators, cops, prosecutors and state law enforcement are supposed to look the other way when members of the Chicago Thuggery Club are involved in crime, graft, kickbacks and other illegal activity. If they fail to look the other way and play ball with members of the Thugs Club, they lose the confidence of the Thugs and get fired or demoted.

That's one of the reasons Chicago is the number one or number two most corrupt cities in the US..along with New Orleans...year in and year out.

Demoscats are still trying to get Rove before one of their trumped up investigating committees over the firing of 8 US Attorneys. They're simply outraged...they say over Bush firing people he had every right to fire...for cause..or for no reason whatsoever because they serve at the pleasure of the President.

Let's see how outraged demoscats are over The Thug O'Bomber firing a Inspector General, who is not an at will employee of the federal government..for recovering 50% of the entire $800,000+ AmeriCorps grant of which 1/2 was misappropriated by the little O'Bomber supporting crook.

It now appears the Chicago Thuggary Club is in charge of the Executive Branch of the federal government and all it's enforcement machinery...in the persons of The Thug O'Bomber, The Thug Rham Emanuel, The Thug Eric Holder and The Thug David Axlerod.

Let it be noted The Thug O'Bomber had one of his US Attorneys issue a statement they have no intention of prosecuting the little crook who ripped off half of the more than $800,000 AmeriCorps federal grant money. Instead, they intend to let the little crook pay it back...over a very long period of time and reinstate the little crook's operation so he can receive even more AmeriCorps money.

Let it be further noted that the Thuggery Club is now in charge of US auto makers, in charge of US banks and in charge of US financial institutions. Now that's where the real money is which can be ripped off by The Thuggery Club and friends of The Thugs from Chicago.

posted June 13, 2009 09:23 AM         

WASHINGTON – An inspector general fired by President Barack Obama said Friday he acted "with the highest integrity" in investigating AmeriCorps and other government-funded national service programs. Gerald Walpin said in an interview with The Associated Press that he reported facts and conclusions "in an honest and full way" while serving as inspector general at the Corporation for National and Community Service.

In a letter to Congress on Thursday, Obama said he had lost confidence in Walpin and was removing him from the position.

Walpin defended his work on Friday. "I know that I and my office acted with the highest integrity as an independent inspector general should act," he said.

Obama's move follows an investigation by 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. Johnson and a nonprofit education academy he founded ultimately agree to repay half of $847,000 in grants it had received from AmeriCorps.

Walpin was criticized by the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento for the way he handled the investigation of Johnson and St. HOPE Academy.

"It is vital that I have the fullest confidence in the appointees serving as inspectors general," Obama said in the letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Vice President Joe Biden, who also serves as president of the Senate. "That is no longer the case with regard to this inspector general."

The president didn't offer any more explanation, but White House Counsel Gregory Craig, in a letter late Thursday to Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, cited the U.S. attorney's criticism of Walpin to an integrity committee for inspectors general.

"We are aware of the circumstances leading to that referral and of Mr. Walpin's conduct throughout his tenure and can assure you that the president's decision was carefully considered," Craig wrote.

Walpin said he gave the integrity committee "a full and complete response" that was also signed by several people who worked on the case. "I have no question but that we acted totally properly," he said in the interview.

Grassley had written Obama a letter pointing to a law requiring that Congress be given the reasons an inspector general is fired. He cited a Senate report saying the requirement is designed to ensure that inspectors general are not removed for political reasons.

Grassley said Walpin had identified millions of dollars in AmeriCorps funds that were wasted or misspent and "it appears he has been doing a good job."

The inspector general found that Johnson, a former all-star point guard for the Phoenix Suns, had used AmeriCorps grants to pay volunteers to engage in school-board political activities, run personal errands for Johnson and even wash his car.

In August 2008, Walpin referred the matter to the local U.S. attorney's office, which said the watchdog's conclusions seemed overstated and did not accurately reflect all the information gathered in the investigation.

"We also highlighted numerous questions and further investigation they needed to conduct, including the fact that they had not done an audit to establish how much AmeriCorps money was actually misspent," Acting U.S. Attorney Lawrence Brown said in an April 29 letter to the federal counsel of inspectors general.

Walpin's office made repeated public comments just before the Sacramento mayoral election, prompting the U.S. attorney's office to inform the media that it did not intend to file any criminal charges.

In settling the case, the government agreed to lift its suspension of any future grants to the academy and Johnson agreed to immediately repay $73,000 in past grants. The academy was given 10 years to repay the remaining $350,000.

Brown said at the time of the settlement that prosecutors determined there was no fraud, but rather a culture of "sloppiness" in St. HOPE's record-keeping.

Kevin Hiestand, chairman of the board of St. HOPE Academy, said in a statement it was "about time" Walpin was removed. "Mr. Walpin's allegations were meritless and clearly motivated by matters beyond an honest assessment of our program," he said.
***Yeah, the charges by the Inspector General were "meritless". That's why the little crooks agreed to repay half of all the AmeriCorps funds they received...because the charges were "meritless".

Ken Bach, who works in the inspector general's office at the national service corporation, will be acting inspector general until Obama appoints someone to the position.

Walpin, a New York attorney, was appointed by then-President George W. Bush and sworn into office in January 2007 after being confirmed by the Senate, according to a news release on AmeriCorps' Web site. Walpin graduated from College of the City of New York in 1952 and received a law degree in 1955 from Yale Law School. He was a partner with the New York City law firm Katten Muchin and Rosenman LLP for more than 40 years.

posted June 13, 2009 10:51 AM         

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.

"It is vital that I have the fullest confidence in the appointees serving as Inspectors General," the president wrote. "That is no longer the case with regard to this Inspector General."

The 30 day requirement is important because last year Congress passed the Inspectors General Reform Act, which was designed to strengthen protections for IGs, who have the responsibility of investigating allegations of waste, fraud and abuse within federal agencies, against interference by political appointees or the White House. Part of the Act was a requirement that the president give Congress 30 days' notice before dismissing an IG. One of the co-sponsors of the Act was then-Sen. Barack Obama.

The Act also requires the president to outline the cause for his decision to remove an IG. Beyond saying that he did not have the "fullest confidence" in Walpin, Obama gave no reason for his action.

There are two big questions about the president's actions. One, why did he decide to fire Walpin? And two, did he abide by the law that he himself co-sponsored?

According to Republican Sen. Charles Grassley, a strong advocate of inspectors general, Walpin received a call from the White House Counsel's office on Wednesday evening. Walpin was told that he had one hour to either resign or be fired. Senate sources say Walpin asked why he was being fired and, according to one source, "The answer that was given was that it's just time to move on. The president would like to have someone else in that position." Walpin declined to resign.

Grassley fired off a letter to the president on Thursday saying that, "I was troubled to learn that [Wednesday] night your staff reportedly issued an ultimatum to the AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin that he had one hour to resign or be terminated," Grassley wrote. "As you know, Inspectors General were created by Congress as a means to combat waste, fraud, and abuse and to be independent watchdogs ensuring that federal agencies were held accountable for their actions. Inspectors General were designed to have a dual role reporting to both the President and Congress so that they would be free from undue political pressure. This independence is the hallmark of all Inspectors General and is essential so they may operate independently, without political pressure or interference from agencies attempting to keep their failings from public scrutiny."

Grassley's version of events suggests that the White House first tried to muscle Walpin out of his job without having to go through the 30-day process. It was only when Walpin refused to resign that the White House then notified Congress of the president's intention to fire Walpin.

The bigger question is why the president is doing this and why he is attempting to do it so quickly. Senate sources now believe Obama is firing Walpin over Walpin's investigation of Kevin Johnson, a former NBA star and a prominent supporter of the president.

Johnson, now the mayor of Sacramento, California, started a non-profit organization called St. Hope. The group's mission, according to its website, is "to revitalize inner-city communities through public education, civic leadership, economic development and the arts." As part of its work, St. Hope received a grant of about $850,000 from AmeriCorps.

Last year, Walpin began an investigation of how Johnson's group spent the money. According to the Associated Press, "[Walpin] found that Johnson, a former all-star point guard for the Phoenix Suns, 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 asked federal prosecutors to investigate. In April, the U.S. attorney in Sacramento, a Bush holdover, declined to file any criminal charges in the matter and also criticized Walpin's investigation.

That might suggest that St. HOPE was OK, and it was Walpin who was in the wrong. But at the same time prosecutors decided not to file any charges against St. HOPE, the U.S. attorney's office also entered into a settlement with St. HOPE in which the group also agreed to pay back about half of the $850,000 it had received from AmeriCorps.

In his letter to the president, Grassley defended Walpin's performance. "There have been no negative findings against Mr. Walpin by the Integrity Committee of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE), and he has identified millions of dollars in AmeriCorps funds either wasted outright or spent in violation of established guidelines," Grassley wrote. "In other words, it appears he has been doing his job. "

The bottom line is that the AmeriCorps IG accused a prominent Obama supporter of misusing AmeriCorps grant money. After an investigation, the prominent Obama supporter had to pay back more than $400,000 of that grant money. And Obama fired the AmeriCorps IG.

UPDATE, 1:55 PM Friday:

There are a number of new developments since my post above was published. First, the White House is confirming that it decided to fire IG Walpin because of the Kevin Johnson/St. HOPE affair. In a letter sent Thursday night to Sen. Charles Grassley, White House counsel Gregory Craig cited a complaint lodged by the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento, Lawrence Brown, accusing Walpin of misconduct in the St. Hope investigation. "The Acting United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California, a career prosecutor who was appointed to his post during the Bush Administration, has referred Mr. Walpin’s conduct for review by the Integrity Committee of the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE)," Craig wrote. "We are aware of the circumstances leading to that referral and of Mr. Walpin’s conduct throughout his tenure and can assure you that that the President’s decision was carefully considered." This is the White House's first public statement of its reason for firing Walpin.

In the referral which Craig mentioned, which was sent April 29, Lawrence Brown accused Walpin of conducting a biased investigation and seeking "to act as the investigator, advocate, judge, jury and town crier." Brown was particularly angry that Walpin's office had talked with the press at various times in the St. HOPE investigation. Brown asked AmeriCorps to investigate Walpin's behavior. In a stinging response, Walpin wrote that several of Brown's points were flat-out wrong.

More importantly, Walpin's response sheds light on the process by which St. Hope will allegedly return to the government about half of the $850,000 grant it received from AmeriCorps. Walpin accused the U.S. attorney's office of undermining Walpin's attempt at "suspension and debarment" -- that is, from taking action that prevents an organization that has engaged in misconduct from receiving any other federal money.

According to Walpin, the U.S. attorney's office resisted efforts to get St. HOPE to repay the money. Even though AmeriCorps inspector general officials had found "six specific instances of diversion and misuse of [AmeriCorps] grant funds," and even though Kevin Johnson never "submitted a single fact to dispute those findings," the U.S. attorney, according to Walpin, insisted that the settlement agreement forbid suspension or debarment.

Further, according to Walpin, even with the settlement agreement as it now exists, there is little hope the government will ever get any of its money back. "As St. HOPE is insolvent, the absence of any obligation imposed on…[Kevin Johnson], and the absence of any guarantee or security to ensure payment, makes the settlement a farce," Walpin wrote.

"Mr. Brown knows," Walpin concluded, "that the settlement agreement was carefully drafted so that no obligation is imposed on Mr. Johnson to pay to [AmeriCorps] a single penny of the amount supposedly to be paid to [AmeriCorps] by St. HOPE."

Walpin's response has led congressional investigators to want to know more about Brown, the acting U.S. attorney. I referred to him earlier as a "Bush holdover." That's not entirely accurate. Brown is now the acting U.S. attorney, and he was in the office during the Bush years, but he is a career official, not a Bush appointee. In the days to come, congressional investigators will be weighing Brown's claims versus Walpin's. A lot is going on with the story, and it is happening very quickly.

UPDATE, 4:55 PM Friday:

On Wednesday night, after the White House counsel's office called AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin on his cell phone to tell him he had one hour to resign or be fired, Walpin sent an extensive e-mail account of the call to the man who had phoned him, Norman Eisen, the Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform. In the e-mail, Walpin explained that he would not make a decision in such a short period of time. He also noted that Eisen had said any appearance of a connection between Walpin's firing and recent conflicts over Walpin's handing of high-profile investigations was "coincidence." Here is the whole e-mail, sent from Walpin to Eisen at 7:32 p.m. on June 10:

My email responds to your telephone call to me while I was in a car driving on a highway, at about 5:20 p.m. I have now reached a destination and therefore can write you this email.

In your telephone call, you informed me that the President wishes me to resign my post as IG of CNCS [Corporation for National and Community Service, which includes AmeriCorps]. You told me that I could take no more than an hour to make a decision.

As you know, Congress intended the Inspector General of CNCS to have the utmost independence of judgment in his deliberations respecting the propriety of the agency's conduct and the actions of its officers. That is why the relevant statute provides that the President may remove the IG only if he supplies the Congress with a statement of his reasons--which is quite a different matter than executive branch officials who serve at his pleasure and can therefore be removed for any reason and without notification to Congress.

I take this statutorily-mandated independence of my office very seriously, and, under the present circumstances, I simply cannot make a decision to respect or decline what you have said were the President's wishes within an hour or indeed any such short time. As you are aware, I have just issued two reports highly critical of the actions of CNCS, which is presently under the direction of the President's appointee and, I am advised, someone with a meaningful relationship with the President.

Chairman Solomont and I have had significant disagreements about the findings and conclusions contained in these reports. It would do a disservice to the independent scheme that Congress has mandated--and could potentially raise questions about my own integrity--if I were to render what would seem to many a very hasty response to your request.

I heard your statement that this request that you communicated on behalf of the President and the timing of our reports and disagreement with the CNCS Board and management are "coincidence," as you put it on the phone, but I would suggest there is a high likelihood that others may see it otherwise.

I suspect that, when presented with the circumstances I have just discussed, the President will see the propriety of providing me additional time to reflect on his request. If however he believes that my departure is a matter of urgency, then he will have to take the appropriate steps toward ordering my removal, without my agreement.

Gerald Walpin

Below are my original posts and updates from Thursday night:

Some strange and potentially suspicious events tonight concerning the Obama White House and the AmeriCorps program. I've been told that on Wednesday night the AmeriCorps inspector general, Gerald Walpin, received a call from the White House counsel's office telling him that he had one hour to either resign or be fired. The White House did not cite a reason. "The answer that was given was that it's just time to move on," one Senate source told me tonight. "The president would like to have someone else in that position."

Inspectors General are part of every federal department. They are given the responsibility of independently investigating allegations of waste, fraud, and corruption in the government, without fear of interference by political appointees or the White House. Last year Congress passed the Inspectors General Reform Act, which added new protections for IGs, including a measure requiring the president to give Congress 30 days prior notice before dismissing an IG. The president must also give Congress an explanation of why the action is needed. Then-Sen. Barack Obama was one of the co-sponsors of the Act.

Now, there is the hurried attempt to dismiss Walpin, without the required notice or cause. After last night's call, Walpin got in touch with Congress, and it appears the White House has backed off, at least for now. This afternoon, Republican Sen. Charles Grassley, who is something of a guardian angel for inspectors general, fired off a letter to the White House about the affair.

"I was troubled to learn that last night your staff reportedly issued an ultimatum to the AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin that he had one hour to resign or be terminated," Grassley wrote. "As you know, Inspectors General were created by Congress as a means to combat waste, fraud, and abuse and to be independent watchdogs ensuring that federal agencies were held accountable for their actions. Inspectors General were designed to have a dual role reporting to both the President and Congress so that they would be free from undue political pressure. This independence is the hallmark of all Inspectors General and is essential so they may operate independently, without political pressure or interference from agencies attempting to keep their failings from public scrutiny."

Grassley said he was "deeply troubled" by the Walpin matter and closed by asking the president "to review the Inspector General Reform Act you cosponsored and to follow the letter of the law should you have cause to remove any Inspector General."

UPDATE 1: I've been trying to discover the real reason for Obama's move, and it's still not clear. I'm told that it could be a combination of the normal tensions that surround any inspector general's office, or the president's desire to get his own people in IG positions, or a dispute over a particular investigation. "Bottom line," one source wrote, "getting rid of a tough, Republican-appointed IG who has been aggressively going after waste and fraud gives Obama a chance to replace that IG with a more compliant team player."

I'm also told that a number of inspectors general around the government have been expressing concerns to Congress recently about threats to their independence.

UPDATE 2: More information now, from the Associated Press. The White House is going ahead with firing Walpin. The firing apparently stems from Walpin's investigation of a non-profit group, St. HOPE Academy, run by Kevin Johnson, the former NBA star who is now mayor of Sacramento, California (and a big Obama supporter). "[Walpin] found that Johnson, a former all-star point guard for the Phoenix Suns, had used AmeriCorps grants to pay volunteers to engage in school-board political activities, run personal errands for Johnson and even wash his car," the AP reports. In April, the U.S. attorney declined to file any criminal charges in the matter and criticized Walpin's investigation. But at the same time Johnson and St. HOPE agreed to repay about half of the $850,000 it had received from AmeriCorps.

posted June 13, 2009 03:15 PM         

"Walpin's response has led congressional investigators to want to know more about Brown, the acting U.S. attorney. I referred to him earlier as a "Bush holdover." That's not entirely accurate. Brown is now the acting U.S. attorney, and he was in the office during the Bush years, but he is a career official, not a Bush appointee."
http://www.washingtone xaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Whats-behind-Obamas-sudden-firing-of-the-AmeriCorps-inspector-general-47877797.html

Always in protection mode for THE ONE, THE MESSIAH O'Bomber, eh katatonic?

It's clear there a direct cause and effect in operation in this case.

The Inspector General gets the goods on an O'Bomber supporter...not because he's an O'Bomber supporter but because he committed federal felony offenses...and O'Bomber fires the IG. Not supposed to go after corrupt friends and supporters of The Thug from Chicago...or else.

posted June 13, 2009 04:15 PM         

you are the one that put the misleading information out there...i was asking you what the problem was and how you knew what obama is thinking - or anyone else for that matter, whom you judge without thorough examination. turns out your info was off a bit. so no one is perfect. surprise surprise.

the only thing i am trying to protect, jwhop is that old saw about innocent till proven guilty. and you have judged before the facts and in the face of the facts plenty of times since i came across your little campaign.

you have every right, in fact you have been invited, to submit your opinion and ideas to the man you think is the source of all our ills. never mind he walked into a hornets' nest. i am not defending him, but objecting to your tunnel vision. its not i who calls him the ONE. what horseswill! he is however the elected president of the country.

the fact that you think it is okay for private citizens to execute someone because you don't agree with what they do, write off all of europe because they have agreed to try a democratic type of socialism mixed with free market rights, and think obstruction of the muleish brand is the way to make america more american...that is what i am against. and argue against. the fact that you are on a vendetta against obama, who is after all only one man in the setup, results in my arguing with your attacks on him. when you point your trigger-happy finger at someone else, i object to that too.

posted June 13, 2009 05:40 PM         

Now there's this.

"you are the one that put the misleading information out there"..katatonic

please be specific and state what misleading information I "put out there".

Oh, and for your information katatonic; Inspector Generals do not have the authority to prosecute anyone for anything. All prosecutions are commenced by the US Attorney or the Justice Dept.

Soooo katatonic, the little crook friend and supporter of THE ONE, THE MESSIAH O'Bomber could not possibly have been strong-armed by the Inspector General...and katatonic, the US Attorney declined to prosecute a federal felony...misappropriation of federal funds.

posted June 13, 2009 05:58 PM         

and asked a question

"what does bush's attorney have to do with obama?? "

directly relating to that. now where on earth did you get that other garbage you pretend to be paraphrasing from what i said?

if trying to get at the facts is your idea of defending obama, then at least try to represent what i said, not your roshomon-type version of it.

posted June 13, 2009 07:38 PM         

Listen katatonic, the elements of the stories I posted are true and not in the least misleading.

The Bush holdover statement was corrected in the next story. Further, Brown is an "acting US Attorney". The logical conclusion to draw was that Brown was an appointed US Attorney, appointed by Bush since these appointments expire. Brown is NOT an appointed US Attorney but I'll just bet he would like O'Bomber to appoint him to the job. US Attorney appointments are for 4 year terms so it would seem at first glance Brown was a Bush appointee holdover. That's not the case and the statement was corrected.

posted June 13, 2009 08:35 PM         

the fact that a politician would want to be surrounded by people who do things in a way that makes sense to him is hardly new or surprising. but the gist of your complaint was about how this guy was summarily fired, when in fact he has been given notice. i know plenty of bosses who would much prefer an employee quit and get it over with than have to drag out a notice; but when the bait is not taken they have to go the prescribed route, just like obama is doing now. i had someone try to get me to quit once but when i threw it in his face he had to back down. in my case there were no actual grounds so the whole thing was dropped. here they are going ahead as per regulations.

you often act like a fiction writer assuming knowledge of your antagonist's thoughts when you know nothing of the kind. in fact lots of people do this with famous figures and they have no more knowledge than you do. different people swear obama (or someone else) is doing what he does for whatever reason they see fit. this is not criticism it is invention. the very same act is seen as wonderful by some and criminal by others.

a lot of the things you put out here are not invented by obama at all, but democrats who think this is the way to do what people said they wanted. or run their own program and pay off the people who fund them. i am not completely naive and i don't think obama is the saviour of the human race. nor do i think anything washington does is straightforward or necessarily for our benefit.

i've said this before. some of the bills and programs you object to worry me too. but YOU decided BEFORE you saw them that obama was going to ruin the country. and you attribute to him motives that i don't see. your objections to these bills often hinge on the fact that hitler will pop out from behind this guy's face any minute.

in short i don't worship him but i think your fear of him is taking over your logical objections. and if ever there was a president to whom you could voice those objections this one has INVITED comment and feedback, but you prefer to complain and worry about being locked up because you own a gun.

we live in a democratic republic. different presidents have interpreted their roles in different ways, and indeed the times they found themselves in have shaped them and the job differently. this argument about too much or too little government (remember jefferson and hamilton?) has been going on for a couple of centuries and actually makes people think and keeps them on their toes.

i'm not here to convert you. i don't align with any party or method in fact it will be very unlikely for me to ever wholly trust anyone with enough ego to run for president.

so not only do you not know what obama is thinking, you really don't know what i am thinking either. but the days of monochrome government styles are gone. no more ALL this or all that, but a blend of ideologies and methodologies, is about the best we can hope for until we grow up enough to govern ourselves cooperatively without pushing the little guy's face in the mud or burning the rich man's castle.

posted June 13, 2009 11:13 PM         

You have a skewed version of the facts in this case.

In the first place, this Inspector General doesn't serve at the pleasure of The Thug O'Bomber. This Inspector General is not an "at will employee" of the federal government. In fact, this Inspector General is in a job protected by laws legislated by the Congress with dual responsibilities to report to both the President and the Congress.

Trust me, neither you nor The Thug O'Bomber have heard the last of this attempted firing.

Your idea that he was given notice is a non starter in attempting to absolve The Thug O'Bomber of liability for firing an Inspector General who did his job very well. This is not a political appointment and not a political position.

posted June 14, 2009 12:24 PM         

that constitutes notice and gives plenty of time for reason to be given. you're right, he hasn't given any real reason and i would expect congress to point that out and demand some substantial backup.

but the bit about giving someone a choice of quitting on the spot is just a little ploy to go around the need for firing that a ten year old could see through - and obviously the inspector did too.

but you are interpreting circumstantial facts and closing the case before it has started.

sorry, jwhop, if your methods were less hysterical and more judicial, if you put the facts forward before the sermons from the pulpit, you might find people including me agreed with you more than you think. but you insist on putting the cart before the horse and condemning a man before the trial. when that is done in the real world it is called lynching...

posted June 14, 2009 01:22 PM         

First, THE THUG O'Bomber, fired this non political office holder for political reasons. Those political reasons being the fact this crooked political supporter of THE THUG president was caught ripping off half of the federal funds from the AmeriCorps funding he received to run an AmeriCorps program. This non political office holder was fired for doing his job.

Second, THE THUG O'Bomber fired this non political office holder "without the required 30 day notification" to the Congress of the United States as required by law.

Third, THE THUG O'Bomber was sending a clear message to other Inspector Generals, investigators US Attorneys and prosecutors to lay off investigations and prosecutions of his corrupt supporters...or else.

Fourth, the excuse for firing this non political office holder was that THE THUG O'Bomber had lost confidence in the Inspector General. That doesn't fulfill the requirements of stating a reason. There must be alleged wrongdoing, misfeasance, malfeasance, bias, wrongful allegations or some other legitimate reason. We do not rely on mere accusations to dismiss people from their jobs in America...unless you're THE THUG O'Bomber from THUG CENTRAL in Chicago.

Fifth, THE THUG O'Bomber is guilty of "Abuse of his office" and "Malfeasance in Office" both of which are exactly the stuff of impeachment under the "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" provisions of the impeachment clause of the US Constitution.

Kommander Korruption was impeached for perjury in an Arkansas Court. THE THUG O'Bomber is guilty of perjury in lying to Congress about his reasons for firing a non political office holder.

Obama fires watchdog who barked at his crony
Rush Limbaugh calls action illegal, 'bigger' than Alberto Gonzales fray
Posted: June 13, 2009
7:25 pm Eastern
By Drew Zahn

Former Inspector General Gerald Walpin filed two reports exposing gross misappropriation of federal AmeriCorps funds by a prominent Barack Obama supporter and was shortly thereafter fired by the White House, circumstances he told WND are likely linked and others have called an outright illegal action by the administration.

"I think you have to look at the facts and the circumstances and reach your conclusions," Walpin said in a WND interview. "I will tell you that [my firing] came only after we had issued those two reports to Congress, and I don't think that's a coincidence."

Further, Walpin said, "I am convinced that I and my office are not guilty of any impropriety. In essence, I was fired for doing my job."

Independent, federal inspectors general are supposed to be granted special protection from political interference – thanks in part to a law co-sponsored by the then-Senator Barack Obama – to ensure that they are free to investigate waste and fraud uninfluenced by political cronyism.

But after Walpin dared to push for action against the St. HOPE Academy program – run by Obama supporter and former NBA star Kevin Johnson – which had misappropriated hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal AmeriCorps funds, he nonetheless found himself fired by the White House under circumstances that have led some to wonder if Obama has violated his own co-sponsored law in retaliation.

"There are two big questions about the president's actions," writes Byron York, chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner. "One, why did he decide to fire Walpin? And two, did he abide by the law that he himself co-sponsored?"

Discover how government is grinding away Americans' individual liberties in "Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws."

Radio talk host Rush Limbaugh fired off an answer to York's questions on his program yesterday:

"Firing an inspector general is a big deal. If you'll remember, Alberto Gonzales as attorney general fired a couple of U.S. attorneys. He took hell for it. This is bigger. Inspectors general are supposed to be completely above politics," Limbaugh commented. "This is big. This is political cronyism, power and so forth. … I'm telling you, firing an I.G., because they're not political, it is a much bigger deal than replacing United States attorneys."

Furthermore, Limbaugh stated, the unusual circumstances surrounding the night before Walpin's dismissal constitutes a clear violation of the very law Obama helped to pass as a senator.

"The Obama administration did it overnight," Limbaugh stated. "[It] broke the law firing the AmeriCorps I.G."

According to the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008, co-sponsored by Obama, inspectors general do not serve at the president's pleasure and therefore cannot be fired without 30 days notice and written cause for the decision sent to Congress.

The firing of Walpin, however, took on a very different form.

Walpin confirmed to WND that on Wednesday evening earlier this week, he received a sudden and unexpected ultimatum from White House counsel Norman L. Eisen: Resign with the hour or suffer being fired.

Walpin refused to resign, replying in an email, "It would do a disservice to the independent scheme that Congress has mandated – and could potentially raise questions about my own integrity – if I were to render what would seem to many a very hasty response to your request."

The next day the administration nonetheless fired Walpin and sent a letter to Congress citing as its only reason for the dismissal, "It is vital that I have the fullest confidence in the appointees serving as inspectors general. That is no longer the case with regard to this inspector general."

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who also co-sponsored the Inspector General Reform Act, immediately protested the White House's action.

"I was troubled to learn that last night your staff reportedly issued an ultimatum to the AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin that he had one hour to resign or be terminated," Grassley stated in a letter to the president. "Inspectors General were designed to have a dual role reporting to both the President and Congress so that they would be free from undue political pressure. This independence is the hallmark of all inspectors general and is essential so they may operate independently, without political pressure or interference from agencies attempting to keep their failings from public scrutiny."

Grassley's letter reminded Obama of the statute requiring the president to submit 30-days notice to Congress of an inspector general's dismissal and stated, "No such notice was provided to Congress in this instance."

"We cannot afford to have inspector general independence threatened," Grassley concluded. "In light of the massive increases in federal spending of late, it is more critical than ever that we have an inspector general community that is vigorous, independent and active in rooting out waste, fraud and abuse. I urge you to review the Inspector General Reform Act you co-sponsored and to follow the letter of the law should you have cause to remove any inspector general."

The White House then clarified two issues, explaining that Walpin was not immediately fired, but suspended for 30 days of paid leave as a countdown to his official release, and that his dismissal, indeed, was related to the Johnson investigation.

In a written response to Sen. Grassley, White House counsel Gregory Craig cited an ethics complaint filed against Walpin by the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento, Lawrence Brown.

Brown had had declined to file criminal charges against Johnson, who was elected in November as mayor of Sacramento, or the St. HOPE Academy, but did reach a settlement requiring the organization to pay back over $400,000 of $850,000 in grants it was given through the AmeriCorps program.

Both Grassley's letter and Walpin, however, pointed out that the inspector general has not been found guilty of any misconduct, and the charges are disputed.

"I have been performing – and my office has been performing – its work with the highest integrity, in the spirit of an independent office, calling the shots as it sees them," Walpin told WND. "The integrity committee will decide the merits of the complaint, but what troubles me is that the White House is apparently relying on the complaint. At this point, it is before an adjudicatory body, and if the White House felt it couldn't wait for that decision, it should have at least waited for me to come in and provide my factual response, so it could consider it. It did not."

And while Walpin has been guarded in responses to the media, refraining from commenting on his future plans or even accusing the president of firing him for political reasons, he did share with WND that he believes Obama has compromised the independent integrity of the office of inspector general.

posted June 14, 2009 01:35 PM         

oh dear. once again a man is condemned by your interpretation of his motives. he has given notice. true he has not given a good reason and yet you have supplied one for him. well done! you remember that old school phrase "he who smelt it dealt it?" you remind me of that all the time!

notice has been given. congress has plenty of time to deal with it. the man is still working. and you still don't know all the facts. just uncle rush's interpretation of them.

"The White House then clarified two issues, explaining that Walpin was not immediately fired, but suspended for 30 days of paid leave as a countdown to his official release, and that his dismissal, indeed, was related to the Johnson investigation.

In a written response to Sen. Grassley, White House counsel Gregory Craig cited an ethics complaint filed against Walpin by the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento, Lawrence Brown. "

the fact that walpin asserts his integrity is maybe true, but did you really expect him to say otherwise? this is one word against another, hardly solid proof of anything.

again, congress has time to deal with this and it looks like they are doing so. and they have the framework to dispute it from a bill obama signed. we shall see.

posted June 14, 2009 02:50 PM         

Further, there is a mechanism for determining whether the IGs conduct in going after the little crook O'Bomber supporter is ethical and legal.

O'Bomber jumped the gun and sent a message to other IGs, prosecutors and US Attorneys. The message was...Don't mess with any of my crook supporters..or else.

Limbaugh is right.

THE THUG O'Bomber's motives are clear as glass..clear glass.