I think it would be useful to offer a concise explanation as to why the firing of Gerald Walpin is a total non-story.  Here we go.

President Obama fully complied with the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008, which requires the president to give Congress 30 days notice, plus an explanation of cause, in order to remove an IG. Obama suspended Walpin without pay and informed him his termination would be effective after 30 days. Obama gave Congress notice of this decision.

The president’s explanation for firing Walpin was that he had engaged in “troubling and inappropriate conduct,” had become “disruptive to agency operations,” had overstepped his authority as IG, and compromised his impartiality. These claims are supported by U.S. attorney Lawrence Brown. This, to me, is more than enough reason to fire Walpin. But it doesn’t matter if Congress and Chuck Grassley think this is a terrible reason to fire Walpin. All Obama has to do is give them an explanation. Congress doesn’t have to grade the explanation or like it. They just have to read it.

And again, I’ll remind readers that the Bush administration “quietly forced out” former CSCN Inspector General Luise S. Jordan in 2002 without giving any reason at all, except that they wanted to install someone else as IG there. For Republicans to claim now that firing a person who was either incapable or unwilling to properly do his job was politically motivated - when the Bush administration’s firing of Jordan was certainly political - is laughable.

My earlier post on this topic with citations and more sarcasm is here.