Obama fires two more inspector generals who were critical of him?

[petegz28]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-tc-nw-inspectors-0617-0618jun18,0,5718990.story

neral
Removal of 2 inspectors general prompts questions
By Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten | Tribune Newspapers
June 18, 2009
WASHINGTON - -- He was appointed with fanfare as the public watchdog over the government's multi-billion dollar bailout of the nation's financial system. But now Neil Barofsky is embroiled in a dispute with the Obama administration that delayed one recent inquiry and sparked questions about his ability to freely investigate.

The disagreement stems from a claim by the Treasury Department that Barofsky is not entirely independent of the agency he is assigned to examine ¿ a claim that has prompted a stern letter from a Republican senator warning that agency officials are encroaching on the integrity of an office created to protect taxpayers.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, sent the letter Wednesday to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner demanding information about a "dispute over certain Treasury documents" that he said were being "withheld" from Barofsky's office on a "specious claim of attorney-client privilege."

A White House spokesman declined to comment, referring questions to the Treasury Department. Treasury spokesman Andrew Williams said late Wednesday that the agency would read Grassley's letter and respond to the senator before any public comment.


The dispute comes as Grassley, ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, is looking into the abrupt firings within the last week of two other inspectors general ¿ one of whom was fired by the White House and the other by the chair of the International Trade Commission.

Both inspectors general had investigated sensitive subjects at the time of their firings.

Grassley is now concerned about whether a pattern is emerging in which the independence of the government's top watchdogs -- whose jobs were authorized by Congress to look out for waste, fraud and abuse -- is being put at risk.

The first dismissal occurred last week, when the White House terminated Gerald Walpin, inspector general of the service agency AmeriCorps. Walpin claims his dismissal was unjust, the result of political interference.

That controversy deepened with Grassley's complaint Wednesday that the White House wasn't answering questions posed by his staff.

Walpin had led an investigation of Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson of Sacramento, Calif., a former NBA player and Obama supporter. Johnson started a nonprofit education program that Walpin's office alleged had misused federal funds.

In a letter sent late Wednesday to the White House, Grassley charged that a White House lawyer who delivered the news to Walpin and who was summoned to the senator's office, "refused to answer several direct questions" about the dismissal.

The firing drew criticism from Republicans and Democrats, who charged that it violated a new law passed last year to protect the independence of inspectors general by requiring 30 days notice and a full explanation to Congress of the dismissal of any IG.
Separately this week, the International Trade Commission told its acting inspector general, who is not subject to White House authority, that her contract would not be renewed.

Grassley had become concerned about her independence because of a report earlier in the year that an agency employee forcibly took documents from the acting inspector general.

"It is difficult to understand why the ITC would not have taken action to ensure that the ITC inspector general had the information necessary to do the job," Grassley wrote on Tuesday.

Less than three hours after the letter was e-mailed to the agency, the acting IG, Judith Gwynne, was told that her contract, which expires in early July, would not be renewed.

[HonestChieffan]

You cannot question.

[petegz28]

Wow....now both sides are starting to question WTF Obama is doing? And slightly off topic...I am watching both sides right now slam Geithner for Obama's plan to give the Fed even more power and to close down some of the strongest banks\thirfts\ilc's in the country.

[stevieray]

...a bill endorsed by Obama.

[chiefforlife]

This isnt the transparency, I was looking for.

[petegz28]

...a bill endorsed by Obama.

LMAO....excellent point



Rep even

[HonestChieffan]

Wow....now both sides are starting to question WTF Obama is doing? And slightly off topic...I am watching both sides right now slam Geithner for Obama's plan to give the Fed even more power and to close down some of the strongest banks\thirfts\ilc's in the country.

Geitner is a bigger zero than Obama

[Donger]

Move along. Nothing to see here. Besides, I'm sure it is for our own good.

[ClevelandBronco]

Inspectors general, but that's petty.

[blaise]

Hope.

[wild1]

You don't want to be branded an enemy of socialism do you?

[Donger]

You don't want to be branded an enemy of socialism do you?

It isn't Socialism. Obama said so. It just looks, feels and smells like it.

[jiveturkey]

Pretty stupid move if you ask me.

[BigOlChiefsfan]

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

[oldandslow]

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

Eurasia, you idiot.

Didn't you watch the big screen a moment ago.

BEP is one of those women with red scarves and she is reporting you as we speek.

[jAZ]

Is Grasserly questioning the indepence of the two fired and released IGs? Wouldn't it be good to replace IGs who's independence is questionable?

Maybe the article is just confusing to me.

[HonestChieffan]

maybe.

[ClevelandBronco]

...Maybe the article is just confusing to me.

Wouldn't that be a shocker...

[petegz28]

Is Grasserly questioning the indepence of the two fired and released IGs? Wouldn't it be good to replace IGs who's independence is questionable?

Maybe the article is just confusing to me.

Wouldn't it be good to follow the law when you fire them? What part of 30 dyas noticed and consultation with Congress confuses you?

[orange]

Wouldn't it be good to follow the law when you fire them? What part of 30 dyas noticed and consultation with Congress confuses you?

They gave him a choice - resign or be fired. He chose to be fired. They then gave him the 30 days notice.

The only "consultation with Congress" the law requires is to give them the reason for the firing. They did send that notification. The Congressional committee wasn't happy with that information, so they sent more.


The administration complied with the law. You are assigning that law more authority than is actually there.


White House Plays Hardball; Says Fired IG Walpin Was "Confused, Disoriented" Engaged in "Inappropriate Conduct" June 16, 2009 10:58 PM

In a letter to Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, the Chairman and Ranking Republicans on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Norm Eisen, the Special Counsel to the President, outlined a number of reasons why President Obama fired Inspector General Gerald Walpin.

"Mr. Walpin was removed after a review was unanimously requested by the bi-partisan Board of the Corporation," Eisen writes in the letter, a copy of which was sent to Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., a key Obama ally who today expressed concern that President Obama did not abide by a law she wrote -- and he supported as a senator -- requiring 30 day notice to Congress before an Inspector General could be terminated.

In the letter, Eisen paints a less-than-flattering picture of Walpin, whose controversial tenure as Inspector General of the Corporation for National and Community Service ended last week with President Obama taking the extraordinary measure of firing him.

Eisen charged that at a May 20, 2009 board meeting Walpin "was confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve."

Eisen writes that the President decided to take the step after learning that the Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of California, Lawrence Brown, "a career prosecutor who was appointed to his post during the Bush Administrator, had filed a complaint about Mr. Walpin's conduct with the oversight body for Inspectors General, including for failing to disclose exculpatory evidence."

The Obama administration "further learned that Mr. Walpin had been absent from the Corporation's headquarters, insisting upon working from his home in New York over the objections of the Corporation's Board; that he had exhibited a lack of candor in providing material information to decision makers; and that he had engaged in other troubling and inappropriate conduct. Mr. Walpin had become unduly disruptive to agency operations, impairing his effectiveness and, for the reasons stated above, losing the confidence of the Board."

Eisen said he looks forward to "discussing the statutory requirements more fully" with the senators.

- jpt

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/white-house-plays-hardball-says-fired-ig-walpin-was-confused-disoriented-engaged-in-inappropriate-co.html

[Donger]

I wonder what the excuse is going to be for these two being fired. Bad breath?

[petegz28]

I wonder what the excuse is going to be for these two being fired. Bad breath?

Exactly....and of course the regular Obots will defend this crap regardless.

[Pitt Gorilla]

Wouldn't it be good to follow the law when you fire them? What part of 30 dyas noticed and consultation with Congress confuses you?They didn't follow the law? Where did you see that?

[HC_Chief]

Heh, tasty hypocrisy. Much handwringing and gnashing of teeth on the left when Bush fired US Attorneys; even though it was well within his right to do so as they serve at the pleasure of the executive branch. No such hand wringing and gnashing of teeth when BHO does it; nope, explanations and justifications abound in this instance.

Also tasty hypocrisy on the right; as this is a reversal of the last dog & pony show. Politics as usual.

[irishjayhawk]

Exactly....and of course the regular Obots will defend this crap regardless.

Moderates - I guess depending on how you define them since it seems based on the other thread that it's now a worthless word - don't usually use such partisan language. If this was a first time offense, I might let it slide but it's one of many.

[wild1]

I wonder what the excuse is going to be for these two being fired. Bad breath?

I doubt they will be able to come up with anything so concrete.

[BucEyedPea]

It isn't Socialism. Obama said so. It just looks, feels and smells like it.

Sounds like our resident socialists. If it ain't the soviet model it ain't socialism. ROFL

[BucEyedPea]

:BEP is one of those women with red scarves and she is reporting you as we speek.
Be careful or I may sick a rat on you. :evil:

[petegz28]

Moderates - I guess depending on how you define them since it seems based on the other thread that it's now a worthless word - don't usually use such partisan language. If this was a first time offense, I might let it slide but it's one of many.

You seem to attribute moderate politics with not taking shots at either side. Again proving you don't know shit.

[irishjayhawk]

You seem to attribute moderate politics with not taking shots at either side. Again proving you don't know shit.

Perhaps I put too much stock into moderates. Silly me, I thought most of them were above the fray of Retardicans and Dumbocrats or what have you. I stand corrected.

[SHTSPRAYER]

Awesome! /moonbat off

http://spraypaintstencils.com/a-zlistings/fidel-castro-image.gif

[petegz28]

Perhaps I put too much stock into moderates. Silly me, I thought most of them were above the fray of Retardicans and Dumbocrats or what have you. I stand corrected.

Moderate does not mean "above the fray" by default. An Obot is still an Obot. A Bushie is still a Bushie. A Neocon is still a Neocon.

[irishjayhawk]

Moderate does not mean "above the fray" by default. An Obot is still an Obot. A Bushie is still a Bushie. A Neocon is still a Neocon.

No, certainly it does not mean one is "above the fray" by default. Typically, IME, it is.

[petegz28]

No, certainly it does not mean one is "above the fray" by default. Typically, IME, it is.

I know, you have a vast amount of experience with politics.:)

[Hydrae]

They gave him a choice - resign or be fired. He chose to be fired. They then gave him the 30 days notice.

The only "consultation with Congress" the law requires is to give them the reason for the firing. They did send that notification. The Congressional committee wasn't happy with that information, so they sent more.


The administration complied with the law. You are assigning that law more authority than is actually there.


White House Plays Hardball; Says Fired IG Walpin Was "Confused, Disoriented" Engaged in "Inappropriate Conduct" June 16, 2009 10:58 PM

In a letter to Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, the Chairman and Ranking Republicans on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Norm Eisen, the Special Counsel to the President, outlined a number of reasons why President Obama fired Inspector General Gerald Walpin.

"Mr. Walpin was removed after a review was unanimously requested by the bi-partisan Board of the Corporation," Eisen writes in the letter, a copy of which was sent to Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., a key Obama ally who today expressed concern that President Obama did not abide by a law she wrote -- and he supported as a senator -- requiring 30 day notice to Congress before an Inspector General could be terminated.

In the letter, Eisen paints a less-than-flattering picture of Walpin, whose controversial tenure as Inspector General of the Corporation for National and Community Service ended last week with President Obama taking the extraordinary measure of firing him.

Eisen charged that at a May 20, 2009 board meeting Walpin "was confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve."

Eisen writes that the President decided to take the step after learning that the Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of California, Lawrence Brown, "a career prosecutor who was appointed to his post during the Bush Administrator, had filed a complaint about Mr. Walpin's conduct with the oversight body for Inspectors General, including for failing to disclose exculpatory evidence."

The Obama administration "further learned that Mr. Walpin had been absent from the Corporation's headquarters, insisting upon working from his home in New York over the objections of the Corporation's Board; that he had exhibited a lack of candor in providing material information to decision makers; and that he had engaged in other troubling and inappropriate conduct. Mr. Walpin had become unduly disruptive to agency operations, impairing his effectiveness and, for the reasons stated above, losing the confidence of the Board."

Eisen said he looks forward to "discussing the statutory requirements more fully" with the senators.

- jpt

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/white-house-plays-hardball-says-fired-ig-walpin-was-confused-disoriented-engaged-in-inappropriate-co.html

Just curious, does anyone have any idea if Walpin was disciplined in any fashion before being fired? I am sure IG's are treated differently than most "regular" people in regards to the job but most places will have some forms of discipline that can lead up to termination. I don't see anything in the above article that sounds like it should lead to termination without this kind of disciplinarian action happening first to try to alleviate the problem before having to go to the expense of training someone new for the position.

[stevieray]

Just curious, does anyone have any idea if Walpin was disciplined in any fashion before being fired? I am sure IG's are treated differently than most "regular" people in regards to the job but most places will have some forms of discipline that can lead up to termination. I don't see anything in the above article that sounds like it should lead to termination without this kind of disciplinarian action happening first to try to alleviate the problem before having to go to the expense of training someone new for the position.screw that article...it's common sense.


it's a duck..Kevin Johnson, who made tons of money in the NBA, becomes mayor of Sacremento..he gets a ton of money for Americorp..he gets busted abusing 800k, he gives back 400K...he was using the money for personal reasons for him and others..plus, he's hoop buddies with the Prez.

IG Walpin brings it to light, they try to play the senile card, and fire him.

It's like the Chicago Mob moved to Washington.

[SHTSPRAYER]

It's like the Chicago Mob moved to Washington.

Like?

Cook County is bad, it's nationwide.

[BigOlChiefsfan]

"They pull a knife, you pull a gun. They pull an inspector general, you pull an attorney general and have him removed without cause. They send one of your's to the hospital, you send one of theirs to Barney Frank for an evening of B&D. It's the Chicago way."

[MadMax]

"They pull a knife, you pull a gun. They pull an inspector general, you pull an attorney general and have him removed without cause. They send one of your's to the hospital, you send one of theirs to Barney Frank for an evening of B&D. It's the Chicago way."



ROFLROFLROFL Nice!

[Mr. Kotter]

Gosh....and I only thought Bush did stuff like this....I'm shocked. :(



LMAO

[HonestChieffan]

The IG didn't have respect. You gotta give a little here and a little there, ya know, work together so everybody gets a little piece of the pie. The folks on Michigan Ave get a little. The folks on Cicero get a little. Everybody wins.