What is truly remarkable is why would Grassley want the emails from the First Lady?

So Walpin gets fired and this is not getting covered in the media.

The Inspector General has to have a reason for being fired and 30 days notice.

This looks really bad for Obama.

Didn't realize Johnson was a such a crook.

Also known as Walpin-Gate.

Chicago thug, punk-ass motherfucker.

"Change" you can believe in!

So Walpin gets fired and this is not getting covered in the media.

#2 | Posted by MURPHY

Of course it is being covered. It was on all the major services last week. I heard it on MSNBC, and at least one of the network new shows.

So what do you think about it San?

So what do you think about it San?

#6 | Posted by MURPHY

On face value, I would say it needs to be looked into further.

What amazing--yet again is that Obama co-sponsored the bill as Senator.

"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?"

What amazing--yet again is that Obama co-sponsored the bill as Senator.

"I am above the law - even the ones that I sponsor!"

--Barry the Bankrupter

Obama saying that he has "no confidence" is NOT a reason. It's a conclusion. You need REASONS to draw that conclusion. Why won't Obama state his reasons, and why is he breaking his own law?

Hey--I mean he sponsored what 2 bills and he is ignoring this one!!

In fact--he is ignoring the other Ethics Bill as well.

Already hired two or 2 people who needed to have ethic waivers to be hired in the cabinet.

That's batting 1000!!!

And what is going on with the First Lady emails??

Walpin had been referred to the Integrity committee by the US Attorney prior to getting fired. The USA is a Bush appointee, by the way:

Walpin was criticized by Acting US Attorney Brown for his handling of an investigation into the use of AmeriCorps funds by a community group called St. HOPE Academy, founded by Kevin Johnson, former point guard of the Phoenix Suns, who was elected Mayor of Sacramento last November and is an ally of the president's.

In that April 29 letter from Brown to Kenneth Kaiser, chair of the Integrity Committee for the Counsel of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, the Acting US Attorney wrote "to express my Office's concerns about the conduct" of Walpin in the handling of the Johnson case.

Apparently the guy also disobeyed a direct order from the former USA concerning the case...

From the same article:

On August 25 Brown's office met with Walpin and two investigators and "expressed our concerns that the conclusions in their report seemed overstated and did not accurately reflect all the information gathered in their investigation." For example, Brown wrote, Walpin's office had not actually done an audit to establish how much AmeriCorps money was actually misspent.

The next time Brown heard from Walpin's office, Brown wrote, was through the Bee a from a press release in which Walpin advocated to have St. HOPE, Johnson and Gonzales placed on the list of parties suspended from receiving federal funds -- a serious move that Brown suggests his office did not know about until reading it in a press release.

On 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."

Not sure what to think here, there is a lot of rhetorical crap being spit out from around the scene.

One thing I have understood is obama is not interested in ethics when it involves giving money to his contributors.

One thing I have understood is obama is not interested in ethics when it involves giving money to his contributors.

Thank you for stating the obvious.

-swish

*Jeff ducks as TonyRoma takes a swing*

Not sure what to think here, there is a lot of rhetorical crap being spit out from around the scene.

One thing I have understood is obama is not interested in ethics when it involves giving money to his contributors.

#15 | Posted by moneywar

Actually that ABC article have very little rhetoric, and quite a bit of verifiable fact.

I still think this has to be looked into and play itself out, but it isn't like this guy was just some innocent victim who got blindsided. He's been in trouble for not following the rules since before this administration came in.

* have = has

San,

fact? The information given may have some validity but it is easy reading through the lines of information being skated around.

This lack of confidence is because he is going after a major contributor to obama and that is not within obama's ethical corrections.

I am sure obama told walpin to leave this alone behind closed doors and all.

Walpin went after one of Barry's friends, so now he's using whatever underhanded tactics are available to get rid of him. The fact that they tried to get to resign immediately shows that. This will blow up in Obama's face just like when he uses the head of the CIA to attack Cheney because he's too much of a pussy. Hope and change for ya, San Antonio. Hope and change. Suck on it.

This lack of confidence is because he is going after a major contributor to obama and that is not within obama's ethical corrections.

#19 | Posted by moneywar

Maybe - time will tell. Nevertheless, the guy was in trouble with both the current acting USA, and the previous USA, both Bush appointees, and before Obama even took office.

Oh, and Cookie, I do believe the article says Walpin ASKED to be allowed to resign.

Oh, and Cookie, I do believe the article says Walpin ASKED to be allowed to resign.

What is presented to the public isn't always what happened behind closed-doors.

In this case, perhaps the public statement is accurate. Perhaps it isn't.

Just sayin'

What is presented to the public isn't always what happened behind closed-doors.

In this case, perhaps the public statement is accurate. Perhaps it isn't.

Just sayin'

#22 | Posted by JeffJ

Jeff - read the ABC article. This whole thing took place last year, before Obama took office. The only thing that happened after was the US Attorney's determination of the disposition of the case.

Why would Obama take this guy "behind closed doors" to tell him to lay off when it was already over?

Walpin did not ASK to be allowed to resign!

"Walpin learned his fate Wednesday night. He was driving to an event in upstate New York when he received a call from Norman Eisen, the Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform. "He said, 'Mr. Walpin, the president wants me to tell you that he really appreciates your service, but it's time to move on,'" Walpin recalls. "Eisen said, 'You can either resign, or I'll tell you that we'll have to terminate you.'"

You can either resign or be fired--that was the ultimatum.

Walpin did not resign--so they started the 30 day notice to fire him.

So where is the reason?

And the trouble was over this same case? It started before the election of Johnson last year.

And if Walpin wasn't right--why were there talks of settling the matter by Johnson paying off the 850k that was given to his St. Hope outfit?

Give back the 850k and they would drop the suspension to Johnson.

Walpin said NO to that as well.

Like Jerry Brown wouldn't do anything for Obama. Career politician who would do anything to make sure he got to another gov't job.

Rogue,

My only point was that official news should be taken with a grain-of-salt and a degree of skepticism.

For the time being, I am cool with accepting your provided source as accurate. Having said that, I ALWAYS remain skeptical - 8 years of Bush can do that to someone.

And if Walpin wasn't right--why were there talks of settling the matter by Johnson paying off the 850k that was given to his St. Hope outfit?

"And if Walpin wasn't right--why were there talks of settling the matter by Johnson paying off the 850k that was given to his St. Hope outfit?"

Nobody is arguing whether or not he was right.

"Walpin said NO to that as well."

Walpin had nothing to say about it. It was up to the US Attorney to make a determination. He did so.

"Like Jerry Brown wouldn't do anything for Obama."

It isn't Jerry Brown, Murphy - It is Lawrence Brown, Acting US Attorney appointed by George Bush.

Walpin did not resign--so they started the 30 day notice to fire him.

So where is the reason?

#24 | Posted by MURPHY

Well, there are multiple reasons cited in the ABC article - not following the rules, overstepping his authority, disobeying a direct order from the US Attorney.

Dang--it is Larry Brown--sorry..

And Larry is not the one to give a reason--Obama does.

And Larry is not the one to give a reason--Obama does.

#29 | Posted by MURPHY

And you don't think disciplinary action and reprimands by the current acting US Attorney, and the previous US Attorney might provide him with those reasons?

Thus far, this story seems wildly overblown by the right-wing media, particularly in the relationship between Kevin Johnson and President Obama.

Johnson isn't an Obama crony. They met once. Just because a politician is black and likes basketball, it doesn't mean he and the president are best friends.

rcade

PLEASE.....its not overblown on this side..its undercovered on the other for more than obvious reasons.
for the left to talk about it they would have to remove thier tongues from obamas black ass.
I watched cnn for an hour and a half on monday and there was not ONE SINGLE WORD ABOUT IT.

and AS ALWAYS...just imagine if the letters were reversed on the players names...

HOLY SHIT

wolf blitzer would have talked his beard off about it

and mccafferty would have blown a gasket

I am sure though that when they see that they HAVE to cover it I am sure that all of you here who attacked AG gonzales and bush for the firing they did....AS THEY HAD EVERY RIGHT TO>....that you will all join me in wanting to see justice prevail but you will excuse me if I dont hold my breath waiting

I watched cnn for an hour and a half on monday and there was not ONE SINGLE WORD ABOUT IT.

#32 | Posted by afkabl2

Maybe because it was covered last week, and there hasn't been anything new?

Even MSNBC had the story last week.

that you will all join me in wanting to see justice prevail but you will excuse me if I dont hold my breath waiting

#33 | Posted by afkabl2

Please read the article I linked in #13

This guy was in trouble with the current, and former US Attorneys (both Bush appointees) for this before Obama even took office... abuse of authority, failure to follow the rules, disobeying a directive from the US Attorney, etc.

Take a look at both sides before you continue to spew.

I watched cnn for an hour and a half on monday and there was not ONE SINGLE WORD ABOUT IT.

He was fired on Friday. We don't even know that he didn't deserve to be fired yet. These stories take time, dude. The attorney scandal didn't blow up overnight. It took weeks to become a scandal in the press.

May God uphold the righteous (Walpin) and deal harshly with the corrupt leaders of our nation.