[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Just another hypocritical democrat. Heaven forbid someone would ask about why Barry wanted to break his own law?

please save all this bs and do a little reading about this affair. really, if you want to continue this multitude of silly posts that reflect a lack of knowledge go ahead and do it...but the information that contradicts articles (such as posted above) has already been provided.

Can Republicans in Congress get to the bottom of President Obama's sudden -- and suspicious -- decision to fire AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin? The answer is no -- unless some. Democrats show interest in what could possibly be the first scandal, or at least mini-scandal, of the Obama administration.

first, "sudden and suspicious"??

In that email, as well as other documents surrounding Walpin's termination obtained by ABC News, a picture emerges of an ambitious and aggressive inspector general whose actions repeatedly offended officials of the US Attorney's office, to the point that the Republican-appointee in the US Attorney's office filed an official complaint against the Republican-appointed Inspector General.

clearly not sudden nor suspicious if one takes "an official complaint" as evidence of the severity of the inspector general's past conduct into account.

In dismissing Walpin, the president seemed to trample on the law -- a law he himself had co-sponsored as a senator -- that protects inspectors general from political influence and retribution.

not accurate at all. the president gave notice to the inspector general that he was going to follow the guidelines in the law on replacing the inspector general, but gave the inspector general the opportunity to resign and therefore avoid what could be a very embarrassing public expose of the inspector general's conduct which motivated the president o seek his replacement.

Walpin had an hour to make up his mind as to whether he was going to resign or have the president seek his suspension and termination, as indicated in email from Walpin to Eisen obtained by ABC News.

(A White House official tells ABC News that on Wednesday afternoon, "Walpin was informed, as a courtesy, of the president's decision to replace him. Mr. Walpin asked for time to consider resigning. He was told the decision to replace him was final, but for logistical reasons having to do with preparing the Congressional notifications, he could call back within the hour if he chose to resign.")

so the opportunity for the inspector general to avoid the congressional process by resigning was given, and the inspector general took that opportunity.

one must ask the question of if the inspector general believed that his actions and conduct were not deserving of his being replaced, and that if the inspector general could show to congress that his actions were above reproach, why would he respond so quickly to accept the chance to resign?

apparently he himself knew that the facts and the evidence, complete with the official complaint from a republican us attorney, was too damning foer him to overcome.

In addition, it appears that at least part of the reason Walpin was fired was for the tenacity he showed in investigating misuse of AmeriCorps money by a friend and supporter of the president, Kevin Johnson, the mayor of Sacramento, California. Walpin got the goods -- evidence of Johnson's serious misuse of federal dollars -- and the inspector general ended up getting fired for his troubles.

not in the least bit accurate nor factual. it was not "the tenacity" of the inpsector general which produced the official complaint or the lack of confidence by the president, it was the inspector general continued ignoring of instructions by the us attorney to not publically comment on an ongoing investigation, as well as the inspector general's decision to pick and choose the facts/details of the investigated organization's actions that led to his dismissal.

September 26, Brown said, the then-US Attorney McGregor Scott "emphatically informed Mr. Walpin that under no circumstance was he to communicate with the media about a matter under investigation and that his acts "were hindering our investigation and handling of this matter."

Ultimately the US Attorney's office determined that "a significant portion of the AmeriCorps grant funds were appropriately expended." They concluded that Walpin's investigation was wanting. For instance, Walpin's referral of his investigation to the US Attorney's office concluded that St. HOPE AmeriCorps members performed no tutoring," but the principal of an elementary school told the US Attorney's office that wasn't true, that St. HOPE AmeriCorps members had performed tutoring at his school. Upon further investigation, Brown wrote, the US Attorney's office found that Walpin had received a similar statement from the principal "but did not include it in their report or disclose it" to his office.

it's really clear what the right wing is using as their mantra on this story, that being "damn the facts, we have an agenda to pursue!"

articles such as this that ignore the facts, distort the situation, and make unfounded conclusions reflect poorly on the author rather than the current administration's handling of the affair.