Inspector Gen. Walpin improperly fired?

[Bob S.]

How is such a story flying under the radar?

Pres. Obama fired the Americorps Inspector General by telling him, with very little time, to either resign or be fired. Now this is highly improper and against the law if true. Then Sen. Obama voted for a law that requires the president to give 30 days and a written explanation if he wants to fire an Inspector General. Pres. Obama did neither and only gave an explanation when pressed to by a member of Congress, Sen. Claire McCaskill.

Adding to the intrigue is that the Inspector General is denying the allegations and had, in fact, found that an Obama supporter had been misusing Americorps funds.

Bob S.

[Naturist Mark]

How is such a story flying under the radar?

Pres. Obama fired the Americorps Inspector General by telling him, with very little time, to either resign or be fired. Now this is highly improper and against the law if true. Then Sen. Obama voted for a law that requires the president to give 30 days and a written explanation if he wants to fire an Inspector General. Pres. Obama did neither and only gave an explanation when pressed to by a member of Congress, Sen. Claire McCaskill.

Adding to the intrigue is that the Inspector General is denying the allegations and had, in fact, found that an Obama supporter had been misusing Americorps funds.

Bob S.

This has been covered extensively on several political and progressive blogs.

Obama did give Congress the required 30 days notice and a written explanation. In the interregnum Walpin was put on paid leave.

McCaskill initially claimed that the reasons given were too vague to satisfy the law, and frankly that may be so. There appears to have been an attempt to spare Walpin embarrassment (he was even asked to quietly resign first, rather than face dismissal). McCaskill has since accepted the explanation - reports indicate that Walpin had been acting confused and disoriented, was behaving erratically and was causing disruption in agency operations - highly suggestive of early senile behavior. Walpin strongly denies any of that is happening and has alleged political motives.

Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23921.html)
Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/searchG/?cx=partner-pub-3264687723376607%3Atlvacw-gkue&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Walpin&sa.x=0&sa.y=0&sa=Search#945)

[tinhfwv]

I've seen an extensive interview of the man recently. He displayed a sharp and agile mind, and no signs of senility. Regardless, when an IG gets fired right after investigating and busting a friend of the boss, a thorough investigation is needed. The news media has a responsibility to be agressively involved.

[Naturist Mark]

I've seen an extensive interview of the man recently. He displayed a sharp and agile mind, and no signs of senility. And that is exactly how the onset of dementia, such a Alzheimer's usually presents. Periods of befuddlement and confusion interspersed with lucid periods of mental agility.
Regardless, when an IG gets fired right after investigating and busting a friend of the boss, a thorough investigation is needed. The news media has a responsibility to be agressively involved. Agreed, such things do need to be carefully looked into. After 8 years of absolutely no oversite or accountability we shouldn't let such bad habits continue just because some would trust the new administration more. That is why we need Inspector's General who are at the top of their game.

[thestrokes44]

sounds good sounds good

[nakedstudent]

What irritates me is that IG's are supposed to be independent of the administration. It was such a big breach when Bush and Gonzalez let several Attorneys go but one IG says something that differs with "The Chosen One" and he gets the axe? Seems like there may be a double standard here to me.

[Naturist Mark]

What irritates me is that IG's are supposed to be independent of the administration. It was such a big breach when Bush and Gonzalez let several Attorneys go but one IG says something that differs with "The Chosen One" and he gets the axe? Seems like there may be a double standard here to me.

It is only a double standard if he was fired because he differed with "The Chosen One", not if he was fired because of mental disability after being given the chance to retire with honor. Without assuming facts not in evidence we can't pass judgment on that.

I agree that it bears looking in to - we don't want to repeat the thuggery of the last 8 years. But isn't that just what happened in Congress? - They raised the question and got answers.

Now I understand that some people will never be satisfied with the answers. They will reject any evidence that doesn't fit their meme - just ask the 'birthers'. (http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/2009/01/for-inauguration-day-birther-platonic.html)

[nakedstudent]

It is only a double standard if he was fired because he differed with "The Chosen One", not if he was fired because of mental disability after being given the chance to retire with honor. Without assuming facts not in evidence we can't pass judgment on that.

I agree that it bears looking in to - we don't want to repeat the thuggery of the last 8 years. But isn't that just what happened in Congress? - They raised the question and got answers.

Now I understand that some people will never be satisfied with the answers. They will reject any evidence that doesn't fit their meme - just ask the 'birthers'. (http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/2009/01/for-inauguration-day-birther-platonic.html)

I echo things already mentioned here. I saw Walpin on TV. I believe Glenn Beck even had somebody 3rd party administer an IQ test. Anybody can forget a name or date which leads "confusion" to be rather loosely defined. Just because he allegedly had a moment of confusion doesn't mean he's senile. Certainly finding out for sure with conventional performance evals, etc would take much longer than the 2 to 3 months it took the administration to give him the boot.

[Naturist Mark]

I echo things already mentioned here. I saw Walpin on TV. I believe Glenn Beck even had somebody 3rd party administer an IQ test. Anybody can forget a name or date which leads "confusion" to be rather loosely defined. Just because he allegedly had a moment of confusion doesn't mean he's senile. Certainly finding out for sure with conventional performance evals, etc would take much longer than the 2 to 3 months it took the administration to give him the boot.

Obviously they should have given the IQ test to Beck. IQ has absolutely nothing to do with dementia.

The definitive diagnosis of Alzheimer's requires a post-mortem examination of brain tissue. But the medical condition is not really at issue. Under law, medical conditions cannot be used as grounds for firing as long as the worker is able to perform their duties. What was at issue (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/mass_of_new_docs_support_white_house_reasons_for_f .php) is job performance (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/white-house-plays-hardball-says-fired-ig-walpin-was-confused-disoriented-engaged-in-inappropriate-co.html).

Walpin can pursue his claims through proper channels, or in a court and have his private job evaluations and medical information made public - something the administration can't do right now due to confidentiality rules even though Walpin is 'prosecuting' his case in the press.

The fact that Walpin is making hay in the press rather than pursuing his claims by proper channels is pretty strong evidence that his goal is propaganda. Which is why he is all over Fox, the Moonie Times and little else.

Claims that the job action were taken for political reasons because Walpin was investigating someone too close to the President should be taken seriously. And every indication is that it was.

[Fitz1980]

I wouldn't trust anything that Beck "reports" on seriously. That's like asking Michael Moore to be an impartial reporter. Beck probably knows that IQ has nothing to do with dimentia, but he's not trying to find out real facts. He's trying to fan the flames of Obama hatred. And wouldn't anyone look sane if they were getting interviewed by Glen Beck?

Like Mark said the man is free to pursue this through proper channels but anyone who automatically throws their lot in behind a 77 year old man being sharp as a tack sight unseen just because they distrust the president risks ending up with egg on their faces if it comes out in a few years that the man does have some condition.

Remember the Terri Schivo case and how the right wingers who tried to argue that he was not vegetative had to back peddle after her autopsy was completed? How about Wayne DuMond? The convicted rapist who became a cause celeb for right-wingers in the 90s who alleged that he was unfairly targeted because one of his victims was a 3rd cousin of Bill Clinton. He ended up getting released from jail and raped and murdered again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_DuMond

I'm certainly not comparing a rapist and murder to an old man who's mind may be going. I'm just saying that if you are going to play six-degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon for Obama supporters every time anything happens it's going to be a long 4 years because Obama had a lot of supporters in the 2008 election.

[Bob S.]

Senility is a serious charge to bring on someone, especially as a reason for firing someone in a political job. The more he is in the public light in interviews, the more of a chance to see how well he is doing.

Bob S.

[Naturist Mark]

Like Mark said the man is free to pursue this through proper channels but anyone who automatically throws their lot in behind a 77 year old man being sharp as a tack sight unseen just because they distrust the president risks ending up with egg on their faces if it comes out in a few years that the man does have some condition.

Let's be fair here, nobody has actually said Walpin is suffering from dementia, they only complained of behavior that is suggestive of it. That suggestion was actually a rather backhanded attempt to excuse his behavior. It could be he has all his marbles and is as sharp as he ever was, but just happens to be a tool.

By the way, the people who complained about Walpin were not Obama and people from his new administration, they are Walpin's coworkers, a Republican US Attorney, and the bi-partisan board of the Corporation for National and Community Service - a board appointed during the Bush Administration - who unanimously requested (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/white-house-plays-hardball-says-fired-ig-walpin-was-confused-disoriented-engaged-in-inappropriate-co.html) his dismissal.

<blockquote>Pres. Bush fired two Inspector's General without cause in Feb 2002 which is what makes the right wing outrage aver the Walpin firing so ironic. Bush fired Luise S. Jordan, the IG at the Corporation for National and Community Service (Walpin's predecessor) & Roberta L. Gross, the IG at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration . Both were IGs with good service records for over 5 years. Both were thanked for their service & simply told that the White House was in the process of selecting someone else. These were legal firings as the White House has the right to change appointments. This is in part what led to the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008 which state that an IG must be given 30 days and the congress must be given notification of the reasons for dismissal. What everyone fails to understand is that the Congress doesn't have to agree with the reasons. They don't have the right to vote or veto the reasons. They don't get to grade how good the reasons are. They only have to be notified. This is why Walpin wasn't fired outright, but was suspended with pay. He won't be fired until the 30 days are passed. The reasoning behind the termination may or may not be political (as the Bush firings obviously were) but the White House hasn't broken any laws. They are within their rights to dismiss any IG so long as they give their reasons to congress and don't actually suspend pay until the 30 days are passed. </blockquote>

[Fitz1980]

By the way, the people who complained about Walpin were not Obama and people from his new administration, they are Walpin's coworkers, a Republican US Attorney, and the bi-partisan board of the Corporation for National and Community Service - a board appointed during the Bush Administration - who unanimously requested (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/white-house-plays-hardball-says-fired-ig-walpin-was-confused-disoriented-engaged-in-inappropriate-co.html) his dismissal.


WOW! Funny how we didn't see any of that in the Liberal Media (TM).

So how do the Republican US Attorney and the bi-partisan board figure into this whole "Obama fired him without cause for investigating the Mayor of Sacramento" thing? Are they in on the conspiracy or did Obama play them too in some Machiavellian scheme?

[nakedstudent]

WOW! Funny how we didn't see any of that in the Liberal Media (TM).

So how do the Republican US Attorney and the bi-partisan board figure into this whole "Obama fired him without cause for investigating the Mayor of Sacramento" thing? Are they in on the conspiracy or did Obama play them too in some Machiavellian scheme?

ROTF

You could find a way to make Bo the Portie defecating on an Oval Office rug George W. Bush's fault couldn't you?

[jagers]

Thanks for bring this to light for the US voters on here to think about. It is my personal opinion that there have been many strange "removals" just like in the Carter and Clinton years.

That is my 2 cents - no need to comment.

[Fitz1980]

ROTF

You could find a way to make Bo the Portie defecating on an Oval Office rug George W. Bush's fault couldn't you?

When did I mention George W Bush?

Interesting that rather than answer my question you change the subject to GW Bush?


Thanks for bring this to light for the US voters on here to think about. It is my personal opinion that there have been many strange "removals" just like in the Carter and Clinton years.

That is my 2 cents - no need to comment.

What strange removals happened in the Carter and Clinton years?

[Baron Lake]

Actually, "student" if the rug in question is still the one Bush had installed, then pooping
on it could be justified on aesthetic grounds not just as a political statement. (Sorry Laura)

BTW, where were you when Bush was crapping all over the Constitution everyday?

Ummm... this is a bit off topic isn't it? OK. In the future I'll promise to try and stay on on topic if you will NS.

b.l.

[Naturist Mark]

ROTF

You could find a way to make Bo the Portie defecating on an Oval Office rug George W. Bush's fault couldn't you?

No ... I think you missed the point. He wasn't blaming Bush for firing Walpin, he was just commenting on the fact that the media has completely failed to report that ALL of the people who were complaining about Walpin and asking Obama to dismiss him were people who worked for Bush before Obama came to office. They allowed the impression of an Obama administration conspiracy to silence an IG to fester by failing to report that the dismissal was completely instigated by people who preceeded the Obama administration.

That's kind of the opposite of a "Bo incident", it is more akin to how Fox News began to call the economic downturn the "Obama Recession" back in November.

[nakedstudent]

Actually, "student" if the rug in question is still the one Bush had installed, then pooping
on it could be justified on aesthetic grounds not just as a political statement. (Sorry Laura)

BTW, where were you when Bush was crapping all over the Constitution everyday?

Ummm... this is a bit off topic isn't it? OK. In the future I'll promise to try and stay on on topic if you will NS.

b.l.

No arguments from me about Bush doing bad things for the country. I find it rather comical that both R's and D's pretend to wrap themselves in the constitution while they rape it.

R and D politics is nothing but a shell game. With the rhetoric, you would think that they are mortal enemies. However at the end of the day, they are all at the same cocktail parties and taxpayer subsidized water holes.

Though I do find it a little confusing. Many claim that there is a "right to privacy" in the Constitution. I've read it a few times and haven't been able to highlight it yet... could somebody point it out for me?

I mean I am human and it's entirely possible that I missed the words...

You want to know what a real "trashing" of the constitution is that I've seen people defend the massive government and it's bloated entitlement programs with the words "promote the general welfare". In a document with the size and scope of the constitution, how in the world can you justify the size and actions of the government with 4 words?

[Naturist Mark]

Though I do find it a little confusing. Many claim that there is a "right to privacy" in the Constitution. I've read it a few times and haven't been able to highlight it yet... could somebody point it out for me?

The 9th Amendment says "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," so rights do not have to be explicitly listed in order to be protected.

The 14th Amendment prohibits making or enforcing "any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," and from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Usually when people are talking about a constitutional "right to privacy", they are talking about sexual privacy, although the concept is not be limited to that. In Griswold (birth control) the court found the concept of a zone of privacy to be fundamental to the prohibitions against unreasonable searches an seizures and compelled testimony in the 4th and 5th Amendments. This placed "privacy" within the gamut of fundamental rights, privileges and immunities retained by the people (9th and 14th Amendments).

Under the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment, unenumerated fundamental rights can be restricted, but those restrictions must pass the "strict scrutiny" test that requires that they only be restricted for a very "compelling interest" and using the "least restrictive means" possible.

The freedom that nudists have to legally enjoy nude recreation in private settings - with the family at home, in nudist parks - stems from the right to privacy. Arguably that right is fundamental in the non public sphere and any restriction should pass the strict scrutiny test. But not in public - case law has shown that a mere public interest - not just a compelling one - can restrict non sexual nudity, and the least restrictive means need not be employed. Thus the State of California can shut down San Onofre's nude beach because of of rumors of "unsavory" activities even though nudism is not the cause and outlawing it is not the least restrictive means of addressing the problem - so a federal appeal of California's overturning of the Cahill policy on the basis of strict scrutiny is unlikely.

The days of a "right to privacy" may be numbered. Over 70% of the federal judiciary is now composed of judges appointed by Reagan and the two Bushes who are largely drawn from the ranks of the Federalist Society, which opposes a Constitutional right to privacy. They are bound to uphold it (mostly) under stare decisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis) (legal precedent set by higher courts), but that does not bind the Supreme Court, which has at least 4 justices actively hostile to the right of privacy.