• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama fires IG for investigating supporter, breaks law in doing so.

Renae

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,244
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
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.
Click to expand...
What's behind Obama's sudden attempt to fire the AmeriCorps inspector general? | Washington Examiner


That's right folks, Obama need not follow the laws he himself help make.

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.
Click to expand...
 
The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room Gerald Walpin

Walpin was criticized by a U.S. Attorney for his finding in an investigation of Johnson's organization's use of funds it received through AmeriCorps. Walpin's report alleged that they were used for political purposes.

Walpin went public with his findings right before the mayoral election, raising the specter of political motivations. The U.S. Attorney's office also clarified Walpin's remarks at the time, saying it was not pressing charges against Johnson.
Click to expand...
The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room Gerald Walpin

So, let's see. An IG, who is suppose to be non-political, announces at a crucial point in the Sacramento mayoral race that he is investigating the mayor for Americorps fraud. And the U.S. attorney's office in the area censures him for that behavior.

More...

The IG 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 IG'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.
Click to expand...
Gerald Walpin: Obama Removes AmeriCorps's IG

And we're surprised when he's fired? Do you think this is appropriate behavior, grandstanding politically right before a mayoral race?

I don't.
 
Last edited:
Interesting article from the Sacramento Bee:

Official at agency that gave grants calls St. HOPE settlement ‘a farce’ - Sacramento News - Local and Breaking Sacramento News | Sacramento Bee

So, this IG conducted an investigation. The U.S. Attorney in the area asked that he be investigated by the FBI based upon the way that the investigation was conducted, and refrained from filing charges against the target of the investigation. Walprin responded by publishing a 29-page diatribe on the Corporation for Public Service's website.

And we're surprised he's fired?

What would YOUR company do if you did something like this?
 
More....

Editorial: The case of the suspended mayor - Sacramento Opinion - Sacramento Editorial | Sacramento Bee

The case of St. HOPE Academy's Hood Corps, which led to Johnson's suspension, is different. In Johnson's case, Inspector General Gerald Walpin decided to act before any legal body determined whether irregularities in the administration of grants from 2004-2007 reflected inadvertent errors and ignorance of regulations or actual fraud.

Walpin recommended that during the investigation, St. HOPE Academy, Johnson and former Hood Corps director Dana Gonzalez be suspended from receiving federal funds for up to a year. A "debarment official" at the Corporation for National and Community Service followed Walpin's recommendation, issuing a suspension letter in September 2008.

We asked Walpin's office what other organizations and individuals he had recommended for such serious action of suspension since becoming inspector general in January 2007. His spokesman said, "We don't keep those kinds of records." Further inquiries revealed that since its beginning in 1994, the corporation has suspended only two other organizations and three other individuals.
The inspector general has found irregularities at Hood Corps similar to those found in investigations of other nonprofits (that were not suspended). Johnson has admitted "administrative errors." The U.S. attorney in Sacramento found no criminal conduct in November. The usual remedy in such cases is repayment and, rarely, a fine.
Click to expand...

So, Mr. Walprin, Esq. seems to have treated Larry Johnson differently than other grantees have normally been treated. Perhaps, even, acting with political motivation.

shockers.

I can't imagine that a Bush appointee would single out a Democratic mayor and attack him for partisan reasons.

:shock:

Can you?

This really concerned me because of the work that I do. In doing a little digging (and it really took me about 10 minutes), I found that Mr. Walprin appears to have so exceeded the boundaries of his role that the local U.S. Attorney called for the FBI to investigate his actions.

Perhaps he deserved to be fired.
 
Last edited:
The marching orders blasted out well on this one. I was just asking myself as I was driving around "I wonder which of our typical Limbaughites is going to rush in and post the examiner story."

Its an interesting story that will be intriguing to see how it goes forward. Its far to early in my mind to really make a judgement call on this, much like my feeling in regards to the attorny scandal under Bush.

Both sides look like they may've done something off and due to cronisim. There's accusation he was fired for taking action against an Obama supporter and then there's accusations he was going after an Obama supporter wrongfully because of his own politics. It goes even further with the fact that the WAY he was fired may in and of itself been illegal, ironically enough due to law Obama may've cowrote.

The whole things a bit to messy at this point to figure out, but I'm sure it'll become a bit more clear over the next few days as more facts come out.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Perhaps he deserved to be fired.
Click to expand...

Focus on that word "perhaps". Chew on it, think on it.

Perhaps.

Walpin was a political zealot who overstepped the boundaries of his office.

Perhaps.

Walpin was a conscientious IG who took a stand against the very corruption inspectors general are meant to combat.

Perhaps.

The law, fully endorsed by Dear Leader when he was but the junior Senator from Illinois, mandates that clear reason be given for firing an Inspector General. The law precludes "perhaps", requiring certainty in its stead.

What disturbs about this turn of events is that Dear Leader, despite supporting a law mandating specificity and certainty, chooses to overlook that law and give us "perhaps."

Perhaps Walpin deserved to be dismissed. Certainly Dear Leader dismissed him in the wrong fashion.
 
celticlord said:
Focus on that word "perhaps". Chew on it, think on it.

Perhaps.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's too early for the OP to conclude that this firing was political in nature.

Perhaps the original article was politically biased and irresponsible.

Perhaps it only represented a small percentage of the facts in the matter.

Perhaps the firing was precipitated by some politically-motivated actions on the part of the firee.

Perhaps I'm simply providing additional information to supplement the original post.

Chew on that.

;)
 
Last edited:
Catz Part Deux said:
Chew on that.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Unless you are asserting the above statement from the article to be false, there is nothing to chew on.

Dear Leader owes an explanation by law. Your additional information, while interesting and worthy, does not excuse Dear Leader from his obligation in this regard.

While the substance of the reasoning is a matter of speculation and "perhaps", the lack of substantive explanation by Dear Leader is not--he didn't explain, and he is required to explain.

Perhaps your research can illuminate why Dear Leader feels free to disregard the law he himself endorsed while in the Senate?
 
celticlord said:
Dear Leader owes an explanation by law. Your additional information, while interesting and worthy, does not excuse Dear Leader from his obligation in this regard.

While the substance of the reasoning is a matter of speculation and "perhaps", the lack of substantive explanation by Dear Leader is not--he didn't explain, and he is required to explain.
Click to expand...

Well, hopefully he will do so shortly. I wonder why he hasn't done so already.

I'm not going to jump to conclusions about his motivations (as the original post did) until I hear something. However, if he does not follow the law, he should be held accountable, by congress.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Well, hopefully he will do so shortly. I wonder why he hasn't done so already.
Click to expand...
As do I, particularly since the explanation should be attached to the notice of intent to fire.
 
If it is found that Mr. Walpin did, in fact, overstep his bounds and that his actions were personally and/or politically motivated, then he deserves to be fired. That said, President Obama, under the law, should provide a clear reason for his termination.

Regardless, I'd say that as Mr. Walpin's boss, the President can fire anyone he wants under his congnizants for cause even if the rational behind the termination is he just wants to hire someone whom he thinks can do the job better at the position. (Of course, in this case under the law, he should provide a better reason than, "'cuz I want to".)
 
Zyphlin said:
The marching orders blasted out well on this one. I was just asking myself as I was driving around "I wonder which of our typical Limbaughites is going to rush in and post the examiner story."

Its an interesting story that will be intriguing to see how it goes forward. Its far to early in my mind to really make a judgement call on this, much like my feeling in regards to the attorny scandal under Bush.

Both sides look like they may've done something off and due to cronisim. There's accusation he was fired for taking action against an Obama supporter and then there's accusations he was going after an Obama supporter wrongfully because of his own politics. It goes even further with the fact that the WAY he was fired may in and of itself been illegal, ironically enough due to law Obama may've cowrote.

The whole things a bit to messy at this point to figure out, but I'm sure it'll become a bit more clear over the next few days as more facts come out.
Click to expand...

I kinda have no ability to listen to rush right now...

Kids think it's boooring.

So, that being said, the important part for me, is Obama not following the LAW he helped make happen.
 
I don't know if this was reported on here before but his friend Johnson and Obama supporter had to pay back 100's of thousands of dollars. Seems like Walpin is doing a good job to me. A true whistle-blower. Last night Obama only gave Walpin one hour to resign or be fired. What's he in such a hurry for, eh?;)



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.


Ousted AmeriCorps watchdog defends waste probe - Yahoo! News
 
The IG was doing his sworn duty and Obama didn't like having a black supporter caught with his hand in the cookie jar. I wonder if he was also a either a Black Muslim or a member in good standing of the Black Panthers. Obama's record of ignoring the law and acting as America's first African Born dictator is still in tact.
It's sad when the Pres. is the biggest racist on the land and his followers are so involved in saying amen to his every word the either don't care or blinded by the light. What light, you say? I agree I don't see it my self. But it must be there the way the all bow down.
 
I'm waiting for all the lefty liberals on here that spent sooo much energy going after Bush for firing those what, 6, 7 IG's....



Where are ye hypocrites?
 
MrVicchio said:
I'm waiting for all the lefty liberals on here that spent sooo much energy going after Bush for firing those what, 6, 7 IG's....



Where are ye hypocrites?
Click to expand...

You are right. He should have waterboarded the IG.
 
MrVicchio said:
No no no, Obama can't waterboard, he outlawed that. I know... he should have to listen to a recording of Hillary singing Christmas Carols
Click to expand...

Dude, I'd rather listen to dying cats.
 
MrVicchio said:
I'm waiting for all the lefty liberals on here that spent sooo much energy going after Bush for firing those what, 6, 7 IG's....



Where are ye hypocrites?
Click to expand...

I'm waiting for all the evidence to come out, are you?
 
Councilman said:
The IG was doing his sworn duty and Obama didn't like having a black supporter caught with his hand in the cookie jar. I wonder if he was also a either a Black Muslim or a member in good standing of the Black Panthers. Obama's record of ignoring the law and acting as America's first African Born dictator is still in tact.
It's sad when the Pres. is the biggest racist on the land and his followers are so involved in saying amen to his every word the either don't care or blinded by the light. What light, you say? I agree I don't see it my self. But it must be there the way the all bow down.
Click to expand...

So, this show called "Intervention." You heard of it?
 
TheNextEra said:
I'm waiting for all the evidence to come out, are you?
Click to expand...
The legal question arises because we are having to wait.

The law precludes the delay.

The scandal arises because we have waited. The unlawful delay makes the question of this being arbitrary, capricious, and politicized firing all the more reasonable.

Your continued "waiting" is merely another disingenuous and deluded apology for Dear Leader's political hackery and cronyism.
 
MrVicchio said:
I kinda have no ability to listen to rush right now...

Kids think it's boooring.

So, that being said, the important part for me, is Obama not following the LAW he helped make happen.
Click to expand...

Wow. Must've just been an outstanding coincidence that your post came down on the exact same topic, with the exact same source, as Rush's minutes after he was talking about it. My apologizes. Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to run and grab some lottery tickets.

I think this should definitely be looked at but to early to make a call. On the surface it seems the IG possibly did wrong, but Obama may've done wrong in firing him straight out.
 
celticlord said:
Your continued "waiting" is merely another disingenuous and deluded apology for Dear Leader's political hackery and cronyism.
Click to expand...

It's called exactly what it is called, waiting until all the evidence is presented.

You want to jump the gun and cry illegal, be my guest. I'm waiting to see what evidence is presented.
 
Zyphlin said:
Wow. Must've just been an outstanding coincidence that your post came down on the exact same topic, with the exact same source, as Rush's minutes after he was talking about it. My apologizes. Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to run and grab some lottery tickets.

I think this should definitely be looked at but to early to make a call. On the surface it seems the IG possibly did wrong, but Obama may've done wrong in firing him straight out.
Click to expand...

drudegereport.com.

This isn't the first time some of you have accused me of playing off Rush. If I hear it on Rush I'll say so. I haven't heard Rush for the last 10 days aside short snippets. In this case, he and I BOTH appear to have Drudge as our homepages.

Amazing thing this internet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom