[stupendousman]

...firing US Attorney's and Obama can fire watchdogs for ratting out his cronies who embezzle federal funds?

Ousted AmeriCorps watchdog defends waste probe - Yahoo! News

Do as I say, and not as I do?

[spacefreak]

And Michelle Obama is calling shots as well?

Some decisions about CNCS are being made by First Lady Michelle Obama, according to service advocates (who asked not to be named). Last week, Mrs. Obama announced that her chief of staff, Jackie Norris, would move to CNCS as a senior adviser. Officials said yesterday that Norris is scheduled to arrive on June 22.

The IG audit found that the program misused virtually all its funds and did little of what was outlined in its grant proposal.

Specifically, the audit found that Johnson and other officials of Neighborhood Corps used AmeriCorps volunteers to recruit students for a charter school run by its parent program, improperly paid at two school employees with AmeriCorps funds for duties they did not perform, improperly used volunteers to perform personal errands for Johnson (including washing his car and driving him to personal appearances) and used the AmeriCorps volunteers to engage in political activities in connection with a board of education election.

Walpin will be destroyed by the state-run media now. His family will be harassed. They'll get death threats. Children in the family will get bashed by their teachers. Other family members could get fired from their jobs. All of this because he simply did his job.

That's how the Democrats roll.

http://www.youthtoday.org/publicatio...rticle_id=2949

[stupendousman]

The thing is, the Bush administration was being investigated and castigated by Democrats because they fired people who chose NOT TO pursue corruption that suited them politically.

Here Obama himself is firing a guy without any real explanation, whose major feat was finding that one of Obama's financial backers was embezzling millions from the Federal government.

One thing I think Obama will accomplish in his term in office is to make people wish for the days of Bill Clinton and EVEN GEORGE BUSH. Sad.

[turtle777]

I'm growing sick and sicker everyday about the current administration's bullsh!t.

Latest stunt: pay-go.

WTF ? After spending 2 Trillion $, raised by printing money ?

Fu<king hypocrites.

-t

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I'm growing sick and sicker everyday about the current administration's bullsh!t.

Latest stunt: pay-go.

WTF ? After spending 2 Trillion $, raised by printing money ?

Fu<king hypocrites.

-t

Obama promised pay-go to get elected. He also promised not to raise taxes on anyone but the ultra-rich.

I'm pretty sure Pay-Go is simply a PR lie, or he never intended to keep his tax promise or simply is clueless as to what he's doing.

To keep going the route he's going, he's going to have to break most of his campaign promises, and he can't blame anyone but himself for that. These are the promises that got him elected - the promises that made people think he was a moderate like John McCain. Unless the economy does a 180 turnaround in the next couple of months, 2010 looks to be a Democrat slaughter waiting to happen.

TheHill.com - Obama’s issues crumbling

Obama's entire presidency is built on untruths, and at some point that will come back to bite him on the honches.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The thing is, the Bush administration was being investigated and castigated by Democrats because they fired people who chose NOT TO pursue corruption that suited them politically.

Here Obama himself is firing a guy without any real explanation, whose major feat was finding that one of Obama's financial backers was embezzling millions from the Federal government.

One thing I think Obama will accomplish in his term in office is to make people wish for the days of Bill Clinton and EVEN GEORGE BUSH. Sad.

Was he found to be embezzling? I hadn't read that.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Was he found to be embezzling? I hadn't read that.

Embezzle: verb (used with object), -zled, -zling.
to appropriate fraudulently to one's own use, as money or property entrusted to one's care.

The article states that Johnson used federal funds for political activities and "personal errands for (him) and even wash his car".

A guy find that one of Obama's supporters had his hand in the till, all he had to do was give back half the money, and Obama fires the guy who digs it up?

Makes the Bush Administration look like saints.

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

...firing US Attorney's and Obama can fire watchdogs for ratting out his cronies who embezzle federal funds?

Ousted AmeriCorps watchdog defends waste probe - Yahoo! News

Do as I say, and not as I do?

Perhaps you could make a video along the lines of "Leave Britney Alone!" It would make you a bigger star than you already are! "Leave Bushie alone!!! He's a good man!!! Just leave Bushie alone!!! And Cheney, too!!! The poor guy's in a wheelchair! Just leave Cheney alone!!!
Now THAT would be very entertaining. Your welcome!

[OldManMac]

So, this is now a religious issue, where people are trying to persecute Bush, as opposed to a civil issue, where they're suggesting he be prosecuted?

[Chuckit]

It seems pretty fair to me to say that Bush has been persecuted a more than a few occasions.

[OldManMac]

As he should be, as well as being prosecuted.

[stupendousman]

All fair enough. I have no problem with them going after Bush. I think he should be thrown out of office. I think we should treat Obama the same. Do you think that Obama should be treated differently than Bush if he's doing the same sorts of things?

Now if only we could get the "Fourth Estate" to agree. The media aren't really interested all that much in corruption if Obama is directly involved. Too messy. Too "political",

[0157988944]

When/what was Bush EVER prosecuted for?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by adamfishercox 

prosecuted

Are you sure that's the word you were looking for?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by adamfishercox 

When/what was Bush EVER prosecuted for?

All the crimes he's committed.

They've also tried to make a federal case out of people in his administration firing political appointees when they apparently didn't do what they wanted.

[OldManMac]

[QUOTE=stupendousman;3850678]All the crimes he's committed.[/qoute]


You can't be serious. Bush has never been prosecuted for anything, unless you, with all your expertise in logic and language, don't know what the word means, which I'm thinking is obviously the case.

[Wiskedjak]

It sounds, after reading beyond the first half of the article, as though this particular inspector general may have been a little over-zealous in his investigation of this particular "Obama cronie".

Originally Posted by Second half of the article

"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.

...

Brown said at the time of the settlement that prosecutors determined there was no fraud, but rather a culture of "sloppiness" in St. HOPE's record-keeping.

[stupendousman]

[QUOTE=OldManMac;3850691]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

All the crimes he's committed.[/qoute]


You can't be serious. Bush has never been prosecuted for anything, unless you, with all your expertise in logic and language, don't know what the word means, which I'm thinking is obviously the case.

No. He's been prosecuted for all the crimes he's ever committed. If you're saying that he's never been prosecuted, then I guess you can follow the next logical step in determining how many crimes he's committed.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

It sounds, after reading beyond the first half of the article, as though this particular inspector general may have been a little over-zealous in his investigation of this particular "Obama cronie".

I didn't see that. What part was "over-zealous", given that his job was to find exactly the sort of stuff he did on this guy?

[turtle777]

A Republican / Conservative taking other people's money = stealing
A Democrat / Liberal taking other people's money = spreading the wealth around

I love the Obama change

-t

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I didn't see that. What part was "over-zealous", given that his job was to find exactly the sort of stuff he did on this guy?

Except that he didn't seem to find anything that the US Attorney felt could be prosecuted as fraud.

[0157988944]

So if he's never been prosecuted, by the OPs logic, Obama shouldn't be either? And assuming they MEANT persecuted, well I think he gets that every day.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Except that he didn't seem to find anything that the US Attorney felt could be prosecuted as fraud.

So the Justice Department doesn't think that taking taxpayer money to wash your car and have people do errands for you isn't defrauding the government?

Oh, yeah. I forgot. This is the same justice department that over-ruled US Attorney's and let people engaged in voter intimidation go free to intimidate another day.

Dept. Of Justice Drops New Black Panthers Case - The Philadelphia Bulletin Archives

Up is down, right is left. Gotcha.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by adamfishercox 

So if he's never been prosecuted, by the OPs logic, Obama shouldn't be either? And assuming they MEANT persecuted, well I think he gets that every day.

My point was twofold.

A. If Bush did a bad thing, then surely those who claim it think that Obama did a bad thing.

B. Given the fact that the media went on and on reporting this "bad thing" Bush's administration did, do you think it's inconsistent to not give this "bad thing" equal weight in reporting?

I'm willing to accept consistency wherever the chips may fall. The left and the media just need to pick a stand and stick with it.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Here Obama himself is firing a guy without any real explanation, whose major feat was finding that one of Obama's financial backers was embezzling millions from the Federal government.

Is that what you got from that article? That's not what I got from that article.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The article states that Johnson used federal funds for political activities and "personal errands for (him) and even wash his car".

It sounds like Walpin, a GWB appointee, might also have been engaging in some political activities that raised questions about the conduct of his investigation (as in, he ticked off the U.S. attorney):

Originally Posted by That Yahoo! article

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.

Heavens, could he have been terminated for cause? I guess we'll never know...

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Is that what you got from that article? That's not what I got from that article.

Which part of him having to return a huge sum of money that was misappropriated did you not get?

Either he did what he was accused of or he did not. If he did not, then it would be fair to fire the guy. If the guy did indeed misappropriate the funds, then they guy can't rationally be fired unless Obama is playing politics with corruption investigations.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So the Justice Department doesn't think that taking taxpayer money to wash your car and have people do errands for you isn't defrauding the government?

Oh, yeah. I forgot. This is the same justice department that over-ruled US Attorney's and let people engaged in voter intimidation go free to intimidate another day.

Dept. Of Justice Drops New Black Panthers Case - The Philadelphia Bulletin Archives

Up is down, right is left. Gotcha.

Oh, I see. So, we've got two different stories here and you're choosing to believe the one that most closely matches what you want to believe. Personally, I'd take the word of an Attorney General over that of a political appointee from the opposing party.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Either he did what he was accused of or he did not.

Except, according to the Attorney General, there's a third state here: poor record keeping resulting in funds being inappropriately spent.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If the guy did indeed misappropriate the funds, then they guy can't rationally be fired unless Obama is playing politics with corruption investigations.

Perhaps it's Walpin who's been playing politics?

Originally Posted by from your original article

Kevin Hiestand, chairman of the board of St. HOPE Academy, said in a statement it was "about time" Walpin was removed. "Mr. Walpin's allegations were meritless and clearly motivated by matters beyond an honest assessment of our program," he said.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Which part of him having to return a huge sum of money that was misappropriated did you not get?

Either he did what he was accused of or he did not. If he did not, then it would be fair to fire the guy. If the guy did indeed misappropriate the funds, then they guy can't rationally be fired unless Obama is playing politics with corruption investigations.

Maybe you can clarify your position. Because what you said before was: "Here Obama himself is firing a guy without any real explanation, whose major feat was finding that one of Obama's financial backers was embezzling millions from the Federal government."

I think the explanation is quite clear if you actually read the article (see mine and Wiskedjak's other posts) . I think it's interesting that you are also ignoring the part where the Republican vice-chair of the National Service Corporation "strongly endorsed" Obama's decision.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Except, according to the Attorney General, there's a third state here: poor record keeping resulting in funds being inappropriately spent.

I believe we are talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars which was used inappropriately and for Johnson's personal expenses. I'm sure that's the excuse JOHNSON used when he was caught. What was he going to say, "yeah, you caught me?"

Again, this is the Attorney General who decided that the career attorneys and former civil rights poll watchers where wrong and those big guys with clubs intimidating people at election sights didn't do anything wrong.

Gotcha.

Again, if Johnson didn't do anything wrong, then he shouldn't have had to give back almost a HALF A MILLION DOLLARS.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Maybe you can clarify your position. Because what you said before was: "Here Obama himself is firing a guy without any real explanation, whose major feat was finding that one of Obama's financial backers was embezzling millions from the Federal government."

I think the explanation is quite clear if you actually read the article (see mine and Wiskedjak's other posts) . I think it's interesting that you are also ignoring the part where the Republican vice-chair of the National Service Corporation "strongly endorsed" Obama's decision.

Actually, I see almost nothing that implicates Walpin in doing anything wrong. I hear a lot of noise, but nothing substantive. On the other hand, we know that Johnson has to return half a million dollars, some of which was spent on HIS PERSONAL EXPENSES. THIS IS NOT BEING REFUTED BY ANYONE.

How exactly do you sloppily have your personal expenses and political activism picked up on the taxpayer dole? At what point does being in charge of wasting half a million dollars in taxpayer money (and some taken for his own use) not something that should cost you your job, and potentially cause you jail time?

No, instead the fire the guy who uncovered the waste giving vague reasoning with veiled political implications. I'm still looking for a credible explanation. Apparently Mr. Grassley is too. I've yet to really see one.

As far as the claim that Walpin was a Bush appointee and may have been playing "politics"... the proof is in the pudding. If Walpin didn't find anything, then Johnson doesn't have to give anything back. Or are you saying that if people in charge of government investigations choose to go after or not go after certain crimes that they should be dismissed? Like if the Attorney General tells you to go after pornographers and you don't, then it's okay to fire them? Because, I think that's the excuse some used for the Bush Justice Department as well.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Actually, I see almost nothing that implicates Walpin in doing anything wrong. I hear a lot of noise, but nothing substantive. On the other hand, we know that Johnson has to return half a million dollars, some of which was spent on HIS PERSONAL EXPENSES. THIS IS NOT BEING REFUTED BY ANYONE.

How exactly do you sloppily have your personal expenses and political activism picked up on the taxpayer dole? At what point does being in charge of wasting half a million dollars in taxpayer money (and some taken for his own use) not something that should cost you your job, and potentially cause you jail time?

No, instead the fire the guy who uncovered the waste giving vague reasoning with veiled political implications. I'm still looking for a credible explanation. Apparently Mr. Grassley is too. I've yet to really see one.

As far as the claim that Walpin was a Bush appointee and may have been playing "politics"... the proof is in the pudding. If Walpin didn't find anything, then Johnson doesn't have to give anything back. Or are you saying that if people in charge of government investigations choose to go after or not go after certain crimes that they should be dismissed? Like if the Attorney General tells you to go after pornographers and you don't, then it's okay to fire them? Because, I think that's the excuse some used for the Bush Justice Department as well.

Do you understand that the two positions being argued here are not mutually exclusive? Walpin uncovered financial irregularities that led to St. HOPE Academy having to replay some of the AmeriCorps funds it received. It's entirely possible that he did so in a way that caused the Obama administration to question his motives and/or methods, as in the relationship of his activities to the San Francisco mayoral election. Remember the Republican vice-chair of the National Service Corporation endorsed the firing.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Walpin uncovered financial irregularities that led to St. HOPE Academy having to replay some of the AmeriCorps funds it received.

Correct. Some of the funds where found to have been converted for personal use of Mr. Johnson and for illegal political activities.

It's entirely possible that he did so in a way that caused the Obama administration to question his motives and/or methods, as in the relationship of his activities to the San Francisco mayoral election. Remember the Republican vice-chair of the National Service Corporation endorsed the firing.

Could you quote him, and give me his rationale? I still can't seem to find anything substantive that Walpin did wrong or that he's even been accused of. All I get are vague political accusations. You know, the sort of things that the Bush Justice Department used when they fired those attorneys.

Nobody debates the fact that Johnson converted taxpayer funds for his own use illegally, unless you really believe someone can accidentally embezzle money upwards to half a million dollars? Where you born yesterday?

[SpaceMonkey]

I'll repeat: do you understand that the two positions being argued here are not mutually exclusive? Harping on the one thing that no one has disputed makes you look like a shill.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Could you quote him, and give me his rationale? I still can't seem to find anything substantive that Walpin did wrong or that he's even been accused of. All I get are vague political accusations. You know, the sort of things that the Bush Justice Department used when they fired those attorneys.

From the AP story:

In a written statement, Solomont and Goldsmith said: "We strongly endorse the president's decision with respect to Inspector General Gerald Walpin. We look forward to working with a new inspector general."

I assume they agree with the general complaints raised by the U.S. Attorney, Lawrence Brown, which were "overstating conclusions in his investigation, withholding information to the U.S. attorney's office and for publicizing the case in the press when he should have keep matters confidential. "
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009...-on-sotomayor/

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Again, if Johnson didn't do anything wrong, then he shouldn't have had to give back almost a HALF A MILLION DOLLARS.

Given that the Acting US Attorney decided not to prosecute Johnson, it would appear that Johnson didn't do anything wrong, other than spend money that was incorrectly accounted for by the St. Hope Academy (without criminal intent, according to the Acting US Attorney).

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

From the AP story:

In a written statement, Solomont and Goldsmith said: "We strongly endorse the president's decision with respect to Inspector General Gerald Walpin. We look forward to working with a new inspector general."

You quoted a press release which apparently had two men speaking in unison, giving no rationale for their supposed stand. I asked for a quote from the Republican giving his rationale. I'd like to see if possibly the guy in question has some sort of conflict of interest given the fact that NO ONE seems to be able to say what it is that Walpin did wrong, given the fact that he found corruption engaged in by the person in question.

I assume they agree with the general complaints raised by the U.S. Attorney, Lawrence Brown, which were "overstating conclusions in his investigation, withholding information to the U.S. attorney's office and for publicizing the case in the press when he should have keep matters confidential. "
Bush-era IG fired after advising on Sotomayor - Washington Times

Sounds like they are crying foul at a "whistleblower". That "confidential" business is always what they use when a "whistleblower" goes over the head of someone in order to put pressure on them to act in the manner the law requires. When they don't do it on their own, a "whistleblower" will go over their heads and make sure people know what's going on. Had Walpin "kept matters confidential", we would never know that Obama's supporter had been using federal funds for personal gain and was never charged for it. We'd never had known that despite having to return half a million dollars that was used illegally, Johnson got no punishment because apparently there are ways to embezzle hundreds of thousands of dollars just by not doing your paperwork right.

Walpin's misdeeds are apparently that he really thought that Johnson should be prosecuted for stealing the money in question, but the Obama justice department things that people helping them politically shouldn't be prosecuted, and they didn't like the fact that he was exposing a Democrat supporter to that kind of scrutiny. There's already been precedent set for this regarding the black panthers who used clubs and vocal intimidation at the polls who were set free despite it being clear that they were guilty of what they were being accused of.

Gotcha!

Again, the proof is in the pudding. They need to explain how shoddy paperwork forced Johnson to use government funds for his personal and political gain or admit they railroaded Walpin.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Given that the Acting US Attorney decided not to prosecute Johnson, it would appear that Johnson didn't do anything wrong, other than spend money that was incorrectly accounted for by the St. Hope Academy (without criminal intent, according to the Acting US Attorney).

Again, this is a Democrat US Attorney deciding not to prosecute a Obama supporter because he decided to accept Johnson's excuse that the money was "incorrectly accounted for". Again, how exactly do you take federal funds, use it for your personal expenses, then claim that you just didn't correctly "account" for the money?

If I misspend 500k of my employers money, a lot of which went to my own personal use, do you think that any prosecutor would accept the excuse that I just didn't "account" for the money properly unless they were playing politics? WHERE YOU just born yesterday? How exactly do you spend government funds for your own gain, not spend your own money, and then just claim it was a clerical error? Couldn't EVERY crook who stole from the government make the same claim?

This is beyond the "appearance of impropriety" that should be the standard. The fact that the Obama administration steps in, and it's a supporter, and instead of rewarding the guy who found the waste firing him? Please - give me a break.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You quoted a press release which apparently had two men speaking in unison, giving no rationale for their supposed stand. I asked for a quote from the Republican giving his rationale. I'd like to see if possibly the guy in question has some sort of conflict of interest given the fact that NO ONE seems to be able to say what it is that Walpin did wrong, given the fact that he found corruption engaged in by the person in question.

Guess what? I don't think that quote exists. Sorry. I guess you'll just have to assume without any evidence a conflict of interest on the part of the Republican vice-chair, even though you are completely unwilling to grant that there might be a conflict of interest on the part of Walpin, despite actual complaints made by the U.S. attorney's office. You see what you want to see. That's why there is never any point in debating you. You are a hack.

As for the rest of your diatribe, no, it sounds like the U.S. attorney's office thought that Walpin was preventing them from doing their job -- you know, withholding information. In addition, that "confidential" business is usually quite important to prosecuting attorneys, not only because it's often not a good idea to tip off the subject of an investigation, but also because if there ends up being not enough evidence to prosecute, but the subject of the investigation has been dragged through the mud in the media then the subject can sometimes sue the prosecutor's office for defamation. It's particularly dicey with public figures like mayoral candidates.

Is Lawrence G. Brown, the acting U.S. attorney whose office made the complaints about Walpin overstating conclusions, withholding information, and publicizing the case, actually a Democrat? I'm not sure. He's "acting" because the Obama administration hasn't filled that U.S. attorney position yet with a nominee, but his bio says he has been in that office as first assistant U.S. attorney since 2003. It's possible that he's a Republican, too, although I don't think he's a political appointee.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Again, this is a Democrat US Attorney deciding not to prosecute a Obama supporter because he decided to accept Johnson's excuse that the money was "incorrectly accounted for". Again, how exactly do you take federal funds, use it for your personal expenses, then claim that you just didn't correctly "account" for the money?

Why do you think the Acting US Attorney would decide that?

What makes you think he's a Democrat? Just because he didn't support the position of an inspector general appointed by Bush? Near as I can tell, Brown was appointed to the position of Acting US Attorney on January 9, 2009 by the Department of Justice, not the President.
UC Davis School of Law - News and Events - News

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Again, the proof is in the pudding. They need to explain how shoddy paperwork forced Johnson to use government funds for his personal and political gain or admit they railroaded Walpin.

Another false dichotomy. You seem easily distracted, so I'll repeat myself again: Johnson being a crook and Walpin inappropriately conducting his investigation are not mutually exclusive. It's possible that both are true.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Why do you think the Acting US Attorney would decide that?

Um..because people often times act in partisan ways? Especially when they see someone as a threat to their political power?

What makes you think he's a Democrat? Just because he didn't support the position of an inspector general appointed by Bush? Near as I can tell, Brown was appointed to the position of Acting US Attorney on January 9, 2009 by the Department of Justice, not the President.
UC Davis School of Law - News and Events - News

Do you not know how the Justice Department works?

You do realize that Presidents often ask for the resignations of all former US Attorneys when they take office, and the Justice Department fills those spots with people whose ideology more closely matches that of the incoming President. If you are suggesting that Eric Holder is appointing conservative Republicans to spots as US Attorney's, I'm asking you to stop pulling my leg.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Another false dichotomy. You seem easily distracted, so I'll repeat myself again: Johnson being a crook and Walpin inappropriately conducting his investigation are not mutually exclusive. It's possible that both are true.

The problem is that if both are true, then the Obama Justice department is still engaging in a cover-up given the fact that Johnson wasn't prosecuted and he only has to give back half of the money he illegally stole (on accident, of course ) and most of it won't have to be paid back for years.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Guess what? I don't think that quote exists. Sorry. I guess you'll just have to assume without any evidence a conflict of interest on the part of the Republican vice-chair, even though you are completely unwilling to grant that there might be a conflict of interest on the part of Walpin, despite actual complaints made by the U.S. attorney's office. You see what you want to see. That's why there is never any point in debating you. You are a hack.

Again - there's no debate that almost a million dollars of taxpayer funds where used in a way that is not legal. Despite that fact, nothing was done to punish those involved. Walpin continued to issue negative reports when the board helped take part in a cover-up by offering the deal where all that has to happen is that half the money is eventually repaid whenever it's gotten around to, and when he did so the board went after him.

There is a HUGE conflict of interest here in the Obama administration sacking this guy who showed great temerity in going after one of Obama's friends who'd engaged in funny business, and them doing it in a way that isn't legal in the first place. The burden is on them here. Even some Democrats are crying foul about this.

I've yet to see SPECIFIC ACCUSATIONS of anything Walpin is said to have done wrong, unlike what I've seen with Johnson. As well, unlike US ATTORNEY'S who are political appointees and serve at the pleasure of the President, there are laws which require specific rules to be applied when removing an inspector general specifically so there is no appearance of impropriety which the Obama administration ignored.

It's possible that Walpin did something wrong and there is no conflict. I'M STILL WAITING for that information to be released. The best we've got is a set of really vague, non-specific charges and the Obama administration violating the law which requires there be 30 days notice be given before firing an Inspector General.

I'm sorry, but the burden of proof here falls on the Obama administration since a reasonable person could see at the very least an appearance of possible impropriety given that it involves an Obama supporter who was found to have illegally spent a million dollars of taxpayer revenue who got no punishment, and the guy pushing for punishment was fired via illegal means. When pressed, they made up all sorts of silly unprovable and deficient accusations like that he was confused at a meeting. Here's what Walpin says in his defense:

Fired IG Calls White House Explanation 'Baseless,' Says He's Being Targeted - Political News - FOXNews.com

The government watchdog President Obama canned for allegedly being "confused" and "disoriented" fired back sharply Wednesday, saying the White House explanation for removing him was "insufficient," "baseless" and "absolutely wild."

Gerald Walpin, who until last week was the inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service, told FOXNews.com that part of Obama's explanation was a "total lie" and that he feels he's got a target on his back for political reasons.

"I am now the target of the most powerful man in this country, with an army of aides whose major responsibility today seems to be to attack me and get rid of me," Walpin said.

Facing bipartisan criticism for the firing, Obama sought to allay congressional concerns with a letter to Senate leaders Tuesday evening explaining his decision. In the letter, White House Special Counsel Norman Eisen wrote that Walpin was "confused" and "disoriented" at a May board meeting, was "unduly disruptive," and exhibited a "lack of candor" in providing information to decision makers.

"That's a total lie," Walpin said of the latter charge. And he said the accusation that he was dazed and confused at one meeting out of many was not only false, but poor rationale for his ouster.

"It appears to suggest that I was removed because I was disabled -- based on one occasion out of hundreds," he said.

"I would never say President Obama doesn't have the capacity to continue to serve because of his (statement) that there are 56 states," Walpin said, adding that the same holds for Vice President Biden and his "many express confusions that have been highlighted by the media." Obama mistakenly said once on the campaign trail that he had traveled to 57 states.

Walpin concluded that his firing stems from bad blood between him and the board, as well as with Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson -- an Obama supporter whom he had investigated for alleged misuse of federal funds. He said his performance at the May meeting drew criticism because he issued two reports critical of the board. In one, he criticized the settlement reached in the Johnson case; in the other, he criticized the use of millions of dollars for a program at the City University of New York.

"The board at that meeting was clearly angry at my temerity," he said.

The White House, in its rationale for giving Walpin the boot, also complained that Walpin was "absent" from the corporation's headquarters, "insisting" on working from home in New York over the "objections" of the board.

Walpin, though, said he reached an agreement with the agency early this year that would allow him to work from home. The former inspector general, who was appointed by George W. Bush, said he originally was going to resign before Obama took office because his wife of 52 years was not happy with their "commuting marriage" -- he was commuting weekly from New York to Washington. He notified Bush of his intention to leave, but said his staff convinced him to reconsider.

In the end, Walpin said he worked out an agreement with corporation leaders under which he would travel to Washington two or more times a week, and spend the rest of the time working from home in New York. He said some board members had initial reservations, but they were resolved.

"I never had a single objection" before reading Tuesday's letter from the White House, he said.

Sounds like a classic "railroading".

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Again - there's no debate that almost a million dollars of taxpayer funds where used in a way that is not legal.

You are overreaching. Lawrence G. Brown, the acting U.S. attorney, seems to debate this (and as I mentioned before, he is not an Obama appointee). You also appear to be confusing noncompliance with AmeriCorps grant conditions (a legal agreement) with a criminal violation (embezzlement). The first is cause for the return of funds, but it's not necessarily sufficient to prove the second.

It's not worth arguing over what Walpin says versus what Obama says because at this point we can't prove anything. My point is merely that there are explanations that you are dismissing only because they do not fit your preconceived views.

I agree that there is definitely the appearance of conflict of interest on the part of the Obama administration. I think that the explanations already offered by U.S. attorney's office go a long way in satisfying those concerns.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The problem is that if both are true, then the Obama Justice department is still engaging in a cover-up given the fact that Johnson wasn't prosecuted and he only has to give back half of the money he illegally stole (on accident, of course ) and most of it won't have to be paid back for years.

If both are true, then everything you wrote after "then the Obama Justice department..." doesn't matter with respect to Walpin's firing. There's still cause to fire him.

Perhaps you'd like to create a separate thread on the Johnson matter so we can concentrate on the relevant issue?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

You are overreaching. Lawrence G. Brown, the acting U.S. attorney, seems to debate this (and as I mentioned before, he is not an Obama appointee).

So he disputes that Johnson used the money in a way that wasn't legal? He then is allowing his organization to keep the money, right?

You also appear to be confusing noncompliance with AmeriCorps grant conditions (a legal agreement) with a criminal violation (embezzlement). The first is cause for the return of funds, but it's not necessarily sufficient to prove the second.

I'm not confusing anything. If Johnson did not abide by the "legal agreement" in regards to how the funds must be used, and instead used converted funds for his own use, that's by definition EMBEZZLEMENT. The misuse in question wasn't some kind of "gray area" where there should be confusion as to whether or not it complied with the law in regards to how the money could be spent.

Unless the Attorney can explain how anyone with a brain could accidentally use taxpayer funds so that people could run their personal errands and do things like have their cars washed (not to mention outright political activism), let's hear the details. The problem is that those involve refuse to give the details. We are left with non-specific allegations and vagaries regarding the guy who uncovered the misappropriation of funds and no explanation on how the accused accidentally spent a million dollars in taxpayer funds for illegal personal or political gain. We are also left with the Obama administration violating the law which requires thirty days notice to remove an Inspector General. THAT unto itself is a troubling sign that it's not Walpin who is acting inappropriately.

It's not worth arguing over what Walpin says versus what Obama says because at this point we can't prove anything. My point is merely that there are explanations that you are dismissing only because they do not fit your preconceived views.

My problem is that there are NO real explanations that I can find. I can find vague, non-specific allegations and apparent illogical excuse making, but no explanations that make sense.

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

If both are true, then everything you wrote after "then the Obama Justice department..." doesn't matter with respect to Walpin's firing. There's still cause to fire him.

Which would also require the prosecution of Johnson. Given that's not happening, it's clear that your scenario isn't likely.

Perhaps you'd like to create a separate thread on the Johnson matter so we can concentrate on the relevant issue?

This thread IS about the Johnson matter. Did you not read the OP?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So he disputes that Johnson used the money in a way that wasn't legal? He then is allowing his organization to keep the money, right?

I'm not confusing anything. If Johnson did not abide by the "legal agreement" in regards to how the funds must be used, and instead used converted funds for his own use, that's by definition EMBEZZLEMENT. The misuse in question wasn't some kind of "gray area" where there should be confusion as to whether or not it complied with the law in regards to how the money could be spent.

Unless the Attorney can explain how anyone with a brain could accidentally use taxpayer funds so that people could run their personal errands and do things like have their cars washed (not to mention outright political activism), let's hear the details. The problem is that those involve refuse to give the details. We are left with non-specific allegations and vagaries regarding the guy who uncovered the misappropriation of funds and no explanation on how the accused accidentally spent a million dollars in taxpayer funds for illegal personal or political gain. We are also left with the Obama administration violating the law which requires thirty days notice to remove an Inspector General. THAT unto itself is a troubling sign that it's not Walpin who is acting inappropriately.

My problem is that there are NO real explanations that I can find. I can find vague, non-specific allegations and apparent illogical excuse making, but no explanations that make sense.

Which would also require the prosecution of Johnson. Given that's not happening, it's clear that your scenario isn't likely.

This thread IS about the Johnson matter. Did you not read the OP?

Did you not read my repeated statement that Johnson being a crook and Walpin acting inappropriately are not mutually exclusive? I'm talking about Walpin acting inappropriately as the rationale for firing him, which is the subject of this thread. You're talking about Johnson being a crook. The decision to fire Walpin is related but logically not contingent on a decision to prosecute Johnson. If we're talking about whether or not the Obama administration was justified in firing Walpin, then please set aside the issue of whether Johnson is a crook. It's clearly interfering with your comprehension skills and I'd like you focused.

Incidentally, however, no, the criminal charge of "embezzlement" does not necessarily fit Johnson's activities, even if he did not abide by the legal agreement in regards to how the funds must be used. However, if he did not abide by the legal agreement then his organization would have to return the funds, regardless of whether a crime was committed. You're talking about the dictionary definition of embezzlement. I'm talking about what the U.S. attorney would actually prosecute. Perhaps this same confusion on the part of Walpin is what caused the U.S. attorney's office to believe that he was acting inappropriately, given that they felt the need to make a public statement during the mayoral election that they didn't plan to charge Johnson with a crime. I guess we'll never know...

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Um..because people often times act in partisan ways? Especially when they see someone as a threat to their political power?

So, do you admit that *Walpin* could have been acting in a partisan way?