Comments on: Obama and the IG Firing

By: eric k

eric k — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 02:54:14 +0000

The entire oversight committee including the republican member recommended firing him. The Bush appointed US Attorney recommended firing him.

It could very well be they didn’t release all the details about why because they wanted to let the guy save some face. Now he is forcing them to air all his dirty laundry.

By: Mnemosyne

Mnemosyne — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 23:02:05 +0000

And in more chilling news, the Obama cabal has now written a letter to Congress saying that the reason for his firing is that Walpin appeared “confused” and “disoriented” at a meeting once (awesome, just like Khruschev would’ve done! To the Psikhushka with the crazy man!).

I guess the Bush-appointed US attorney’s formal ethics complaint against Walpin is all part of the big Obama cabal, right? Have they gotten the Illuminati to join yet, or are they still holding out for a bigger slice of the international drug trade out of Mena … uh, Midway Airport?

By: Mnemosyne

Mnemosyne — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:59:52 +0000

@Bender:

Because Obama’s “reason” was “shut up, that’s why” and not a real reason—no, it didn’t qualify under the law.

So enlighten us. Under the law you’re quoting, what reasons are allowed? Name at least two.

By: LongHairedWeirdo

LongHairedWeirdo — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:57:17 +0000

Bender:

I got it.

Because Obama is a popular President, and sent a letter that you don’t like, he violated the law, because if he didn’t violate the law, you’re going to throw a tantrum and then sit in the corner and suck your thumb.

Well, I hope that thumb tastes good. Don’t suck too hard; you can pull off the nail.

By: Bender

Bender — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:41:50 +0000

Okay… so, by sending his letter to Congress with his reasons, he’s violating the law saying he has to send his letter to Congress…

Because Obama’s “reason” was “shut up, that’s why” and not a real reason—no, it didn’t qualify under the law. Kind of defeats the purpose of the transparency aspect if the President can just say, “I lost confidence in him” when he investigated one of my big backers.

And in more chilling news, the Obama cabal has now written a letter to Congress saying that the reason for his firing is that Walpin appeared “confused” and “disoriented” at a meeting once (awesome, just like Khruschev would’ve done! To the Psikhushka with the crazy man!).

Look, anyone who’s seen this dude on TV can tell you that he’s not “confused.” In fact, he got off a zinger about Obama’s “confusion” about there being 57 states and Joe Biden’s “confusion” about, well, just about everything.

Which displays the real point of Obama firing him—Walpin isn’t an Obot, and Obama must have cronies all around him.

By: LongHairedWeirdo

LongHairedWeirdo — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:25:42 +0000

The firing sounds justified, but Obama is definitely not following the law he co-sponsored.

The law says that if the President wants to fire an IG, he has to give Congress a statement of his reasons 30 days in advance. The reason, of course, is that IGs investigate intergovernment corruption and thus we don’t want the President to be completely unaccountable in firing them. He at least needs to explain his reasons.

Okay… so, by sending his letter to Congress with his reasons, he’s violating the law saying he has to send his letter to Congress…

No, wait.

Okay, so by telling Walpin he could resign, or Obama would send the letter to Congress to fire him, Obama violated the law saying he had to send a letter to Congress if he wanted to fire him…

No, wait.

AH! I’ve got it!

By being a popular Democratic President, Obama violated the law; in particular, he fired Walpin, which could smell vaguely political if Walpin hadn’t been flapping his yap during an election and overstating the potential criminality of charges, while seeking stronger sanctions than warranted…

No, wait.

By: Bender

Bender — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:21:38 +0000

Bender and beachrat:
That’s it? That’s your A-game?
Pathetic.

And that’s what passes for your “response?”

I suppose you thought it was brilliant banter, eh? Not so much.

By: Laura

Laura — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:03:06 +0000

I haven't commented in a while (like a year or two), but as a Sacramentan, I can tell you that Obama blew it. Walpin may be a right wing nutter, but Kevin Johnson is as ethically challenged as they come. Sure, he's a Democrat, but he's the union busting, anti-gay marriage, in the pocket of wealthy developers kind of Democrat. He's got far more enemies on the left than on the right in this town. Seeing him get away with crap for years had most good liberals in Sacramento cheering Walpin on. What Johnson did with Americorps was pure fraud. Having worked in the nonprofit sector, including an Americorps program, I know it's not just a mis-crossed T (Johnson's excuse) that led to the misuse of nearly a million dollars of Americorps funds. First off, Johnson's Hoodcorps was faith based. His corpsmembers were required to go to church every Sunday. That alone made them ineligible for the funding. The fact that they got funded tells me they weren't exactly honest on their application. Later, they enrolled teachers at their charter school in Americorps so they could pay part of their salaries with Americorps funding. More than a tad illegal, there. And then he had Americorps kids canvassing for his preferred school board candidates, which was totally against Americorps policy. He also had them scrubbing his private school toilets when they were supposed to be tutoring kids. If I recall, that's not part of the Americorps mission. He totally misused these funds, intentionally, and Walpin had every reason to nail his ass. And it's not the first time. His organization has had to give back hundreds of thousands of dollars to at least one private grant that I know of. Not as illegal as misusing federal grant money, but just as unethical. I could go on and on about Johnson (which I obviously am), including how his thug attorney has intimidated teachers who have stood up to Johnson, students who have complained about him and any critic who had the balls to call him out. Today, on the front page of the Sacramento Bee, we learn that Johnson and his organization is under investigation by the FBI for deleting emails (sound familiar?). If you're bored, you might you read the resignation of the Exec. Director of Johnson's organization. Americorps is just the tip of the iceberg. That Obama would even give the impression of firing someone for political reasons is bad enough. That he may have done it to protect someone like Johnson really stinks.

By: Mary

Mary — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:08:48 +0000

Bender and Beachrat:

Careful what you wish for. It’s a trap that Walpin has fallen into and he is only making his troubles worse by giving press interviews trying to explain his disorientation and moaning that maybe they are discriminating against him for being disabled.

If the full report on Walpin is released to the public, which it now looks like it will after all the stink that has been raised, it won’t be pretty and Walpin will end up losing his law license as well as being totally discredited.

It may end up being a blessing for Walpin that there are allegations of disorientation and confusion which he may be able to use in his defense when he is called to fully account for his full perfidy. At that point, he won’t be giving interviews. His supporters will instead be saying, “Leave this poor feeble man alone!”

By: satby

satby — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:44:54 +0000

Bender and beachrat:
That’s it? That’s your A-game?
Pathetic.

By: gwangung

gwangung — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:21:56 +0000

And, of course, The Zero can count on you Obots to say “What? This is no big deal! This is a distraction. Can’t he just eat his waffles? Can’t he just eat his motherfuckin’ waffles?”
But when Bush fired attorneys, it was The End Of Democracy.

Yes, it is.

The exercise is left to the student.

By: Zuzu's Petals

Zuzu's Petals — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:18:57 +0000

Shorter Bender and beachrat.

By: beachrat

beachrat — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:38:05 +0000

I didn't see a link to the Washington Examiner stories, which as far as I know present the original and most complete backstories: original follow-up with links to other follow-ups latest at the moment

By: Bender

Bender — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:28:24 +0000

And, of course, The Zero can count on you Obots to say “What? This is no big deal! This is a distraction. Can’t he just eat his waffles? Can’t he just eat his motherfuckin’ waffles?”

But when Bush fired attorneys, it was The End Of Democracy.

By: Bender

Bender — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:24:32 +0000

Obama has a mean man-crush on Kevin Johnson (a young black Democrat politician who was—gasp! be still, my heart!—an NBA star!). When the IG started to expose KJ’s corruption in Sac’to, Obama had him fired. As far as reasons for dismissal and 30 days notice (a bill he co-sponsored while he was a mere mortal Senator), Obama said, “I am the state. I won. Shut up, that’s why.”

Because nothing says transparency and Most Ethical Government Ever like firing an IG for exposing fraud in your friends!

Hope and Change and Chicago Politics!