The Gerald Walpin story continues to hang around.
Redstate leads off with this dubious claim: “Others on this site and elsewhere have done a marvelous job of exposing the fact that Obama almost certainly broke the law in his dismissal of Gerald Walpin (and perhaps other IGs).” I’ve explained multiples times that Obama fully complied with the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008. The Project On Government Oversight found the same conclusion:
“All that’s required now is that the President provide both Chambers of Congress with an explanation no later than 30 days before dismissing or transferring an IG. The law doesn’t say it has to be a good reason. To us, it looks like the President has fulfilled the letter of the law.”
Redstate author Leon H. Wolf must have then realized that Obama didn’t break the law, because he then argues that Obama is a “Unitary Executive Theorist,” and faults him believing he has the power to wield the powers entrusted to the executive branch. I’m not kidding. God knows the fit Wolf would have thrown if he heard Condi’s Nixonian definition of executive power! The Red Pen further admonishes Wolf’s useless piece here.
The Washington Times leads off with insidious speculation as to what motivated President Obama to fire Walpin:
In firing AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin last week, President Obama probably thought he and his wife, Michelle, were the ones “sending the message.”
After all, dispensing petty political retribution on behalf of one’s crooked friends is the “Chicago way,” is it not? And the firing of Mr. Walpin would no doubt have lasting benefits for the Obamas, too, seeing as inspectors general throughout the federal government would get the message that “FOBAMs” - or “Friends of Barack and Michelle” - were not to be touched in the future.
This isn’t “Commentary.” These are the images that populate Bill Wilson’s haunting dreams each night, in which Barry Hussein O’Bomber and Angela Davis secretly plot to destroy America.
The Washington Examiner’s Byron York gives the GOP advice as to how to make the Walpin firing a major scandal. The methods he suggest Republicans employ can be summed up as:
- Pretend you have authority and make a scene.
- Stall the confirmation of the next IG of the CNCS.
- Give the IG greater responsibility to oversee the CNCS (when the president is a Democrat).
- Prevent us from having an ambassador to Spain.
- Retaliate against U.S. attorney Lawrence Brown for taking issue with Walpin’s misconduct.
Politico’s Josh Gerstein offers the account of an unnamed insider who reaffirms the White House’s claims that Walpin was “confused” and “disoriented” at a May 20 meeting with the board of CNCS. Which is fine. But Gerstein does nothing to alter the misconception that the Walpin firing debate should center around the validity of Obama’s reasons for firing him. The question the media should be asking is, did Obama in any shape or form violate the law? The answer is no.
3 Comments until now.
The question the media should be asking is, did Obama in any shape or form violate the law? The answer is no.
Actually, the answer is “yes.” Although the reason doesn’t have to be a good reason, it has to be a TRUTHFUL reason. The President isn’t allowed to withhold his real explanation by giving a false one. That’s the same as giving no reason at all.
In this case, it’s beyond dispute that the administration has given a bunch of phony reasons. We’ve all seen Walpin on TV, so we know the senility charge is nonsense, and since neither the senility excuse nor the telecommuting defense were raised until after the firing, we know they’re both bogus.
All the White House had to do was admit that it fired Walpin to protect a political crony and a facilitate the future wholesale looting of the treasury through Americorps. Why would that have been so hard?
The so called agreement that U S Attorney in CA , Brown, pulled, after pressure from the Sacrament Bee Op-Ed Dept, only got initially $ 73,000–not over $ 400,000. That was mre press P R Bull.
And the source for future payments to the U. S. , will it have a source of funds from grants from the U S, some wash of flows of money, coming from the USA, all illusory as deal, some CA slick one. Guess that –the devil in the detail fine print–won’t be covered in the press.
Another Golden State fast deal, all to make Uncle Sammy the sucker, is this the future of the O Admin..?
Thought you might be interested in this diary over at Daily Kos. Seems Walpin has had problems working with others for a LONG time:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/23/745976/-NYT:-Walpin-an-embarrassment-to-DOJ-for-mishandling-Roy-Cohn-case
Comment!