Obama fires Americorps inspector general for uncovering corruption

[Rover]

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama says he has lost confidence in the inspector general who investigates AmeriCorps and other national service programs and has told Congress he is removing him from the position.
Obama's move follows an investigation by IG Gerald Walpin finding misuse of federal grants by a nonprofit education group led by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, who is an Obama supporter and former NBA basketball star.
Walpin was criticized by the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento for the way he handled an investigation of Johnson and St. HOPE Academy, a nonprofit group that received hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal grants from the Corporation for National and Community Service. The corporation runs the AmeriCorps program
......
The IG found that Johnson, a former all-star point guard for the Phoenix Suns, had used AmeriCorps grants to pay volunteers to engage in school-board political activities, run personal errands for Johnson and even wash his car.
In August 2008, Walpin referred the matter to the local U.S. attorney's office, which said the IG's conclusions seemed overstated and did not accurately reflect all the information gathered in the investigation.
"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.
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.
The U.S. attorney's office reached a settlement in the matter. Brown cited press accounts that said Johnson and the nonprofit would repay half of nearly $850,000 in grants it received.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090612/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_national_service_inspector_general



There are a number of unanswered questions today about President Obama's abrupt decision to fire the inspector general of the AmeriCorps program, Gerald Walpin. Obama sent letters to House and Senate leaders yesterday informing them that he was firing Walpin, effective 30 days from the date of the letters.

"It is vital that I have the fullest confidence in the appointees serving as Inspectors General," the president wrote. "That is no longer the case with regard to this Inspector General."

The 30 day requirement is important because last year Congress passed the Inspectors General Reform Act, which was designed to strengthen protections for IGs, who have the responsibility of investigating allegations of waste, fraud and abuse within federal agencies, against interference by political appointees or the White House. Part of the Act was a requirement that the president give Congress 30 days' notice before dismissing an IG. One of the co-sponsors of the Act was then-Sen. Barack Obama.

The Act also requires the president to outline the cause for his decision to remove an IG. Beyond saying that he did not have the "fullest confidence" in Walpin, Obama gave no reason for his action.

There are two big questions about the president's actions. One, why did he decide to fire Walpin? And two, did he abide by the law that he himself co-sponsored?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Whats-behind-Obamas-sudden-firing-of-the-AmeriCorps-inspector-general-47877797.html
Long story, short. Obama fires the IG for finding his buddy and mayor of Sacremento KJ (yes, that former Suns PG) is guilty of misappropriating government funds. First, Obama tried to muscle him into resigning, and then fired him for no stated reason. Both are violations of a new IG law that Obama co-sponsored last year.

Hope and motherfucking Change, bitches.

Remember when Bush fired 3 political appointments and the Democrats wanted to impeach everyone and throw people in jail? Well, Inspectors General are impartial, nonpolitical appointments, who are supposed to uncover governmental abuse and waste, and who can't (technically) be fired for politics.

[hatepoppy]

yah, democrats suck.

[redsox39]

Wow.

I am sure he had a good reason.
Ok, I am totally not sure of that, but maybe that is the "hope" part?

[BIG PIZZLE]

Sounds like he gave a reason. Maybe he wasnt a "loyal Obamie"...

[hatepoppy]

maybe he was a jew.

[Okie Medicvet]

oh brother.

Having been a part of a very serious IG inspection in my life, all I can say is I hope there was a damn good reason for what was done. Sometimes we never find out the real reason why things are done.

[redsox39]

This is a boring thread because it is pretty indefensible, and Bush didn't do it.

The Obama gang-bangers in here have plugged their ears and shut their eyes to this one.

[HAWK]

I'm sure Obama had a fool proof reason.






/sarcasm

[Infotainment]

Long story, short. Obama fires the IG for finding his buddy and mayor of Sacremento KJ (yes, that former Suns PG) is guilty of misappropriating government funds. First, Obama tried to muscle him into resigning, and then fired him for no stated reason. Both are violations of a new IG law that Obama co-sponsored last year.

Hope and motherfucking Change, bitches.

Remember when Bush fired 3 political appointments and the Democrats wanted to impeach everyone and throw people in jail? Well, Inspectors General are impartial, nonpolitical appointments, who are supposed to uncover governmental abuse and waste, and who can't (technically) be fired for politics.

This makes me sick. As an auditor I would be incredibly furious if a company was allowed to fire us based on us finding fraud at their company. All this does is tell the other IG's to not look so hard. Completely wrong message I would want to send to someone whos job is to uncover misappropriation.

[vasili denisov]

You're arguing there's necessarily cause and effect when you have no proof of it; he was fired, he was investigating an Obama supporter, therefore, you say, one is the cause of the other.

It should be mentioned that Obama had full bipartisan support from the other members of the corporation.

Alan Solomont, a Democrat and the board chairman of the government-run corporation, and Stephen Goldsmith, a Republican and the board's vice chair, said they strongly endorsed Obama's decision.
Further, the US attorny last August considered Walpin's allegations overblown.
In August 2008, Walpin referred the matter to the local U.S. attorney's office, which said the watchdog's conclusions seemed overstated and did not accurately reflect all the information gathered in the investigation.
And that poor accounting, rather than fraud, was the issue. Again, this was the US attorney's office under Bush.
[Acting US attorney] 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.
My best guess for why he was fired was because he spoke out during the mayoral election alleging corruption, when there was no basis; making such charges can affect an election and are considered verboten on the part of a current Inspector General; after making the remarks, US attorney Brown had to emphasize that no charges would be filed.

[Feng]

Just a couple of points...

1. A Mayor of Sacramento.... that place is a disgusting shit hole and is corrupt as hell.

2. NBA player..... probably a rapist.

[UNC]

Obama is the anti-christ

[heelsguy]

oh brother.

Having been a part of a very serious IG inspection in my life, all I can say is I hope there was a damn good reason for what was done. Sometimes we never find out the real reason why things are done.

there had better be something else to this. right now on the face of it, it looks really bad.

[redsox39]

Further, the US attorny last August considered Walpin's allegations overblown.

And that poor accounting, rather than fraud, was the issue. Again, this was the US attorney's office under Bush.

My best guess for why he was fired was because he spoke out during the mayoral election alleging corruption, when there was no basis; making such charges can affect an election and are considered verboten on the part of a current Inspector General; after making the remarks, US attorney Brown had to emphasize that no charges would be filed.

I have a hard time believing paying people to wash your car out of government funds is an "accounting problem". $800,000 for personal use is a bit ridiculous...

[Archangel]

This is a boring thread because it is pretty indefensible, and Bush didn't do it.

The Obama gang-bangers in here have plugged their ears and shut their eyes to this one.

Call me when the "Obama gang-bangers" blindly defend his being responsible for 100,000 dead civilians and the utter destruction of America's credibility in the eyes of the world. Yawn.

[Limp]

Call me when the "Obama gang-bangers" blindly defend his being responsible for 100,000 dead civilians and the utter destruction of America's credibility in the eyes of the world. Yawn.
SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT THIS ALREADY! WE GET IT! BUSH FUCKING SUCKS! GOOOOO ARCH FOR POINTING THAT OUT TO US FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME!

[Archangel]

Touchy.

[Limp]

It seems like 6,000 of your 12,000 posts are bashing Bush/Cheny/America. I'd rather read every single post about taters black people being repressed by whitey than ANY of your posts recently.

You've become a one trick pony.

I still love my slanty nazi... just less now.

[redsox39]

Call me when the "Obama gang-bangers" blindly defend his being responsible for 100,000 dead civilians and the utter destruction of America's credibility in the eyes of the world. Yawn.

http://forums.the-dispatch.com/eve/forums/a/ga/ul/7791007088/inlineimg/Y/beating-a-dead-horse.gif

http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2002/20021213l.gif

[Archangel]

Thanks for proving my point, redsox.

It seems like 6,000 of your 12,000 posts are bashing Bush/Cheny/America. I'd rather read every single post about taters black people being repressed by whitey than ANY of your posts recently.

You've become a one trick pony.

I still love my slanty nazi... just less now.

I dunno, it's just that so many of the people who go "OMG OBAMA DIDN'T KNOT HIS TIE PROPERLY; IS THIS HOPE AND CHANGE???" are the ones who didn't bat an eyelash at, say, Haditha or Alberto Gonzalez, among a million other things: Things which, to me at least, appear to be rather worse than the bullshit Obama's been doing. He's a politician, he's not perfect, and he makes mistakes. But to blast every slip (even though admittedly this could be a big deal) of his as the end of America when your side is responsible for starting a fucking war of aggression is a bit hard to stomach.

Just trying to bring a little perspective into this - namely, that short of genocide, there are very few thing anybody who ever supported Bush should be allowed to criticise these days, until they've shown that they've learned from their mistakes. Imagine Germany in '48 blasting the US for segregation, and you get an idea of what I'm on about - all I'm saying is, a little humility might be in order.

[Archangel]

Short version:

When the guys who cheered war criminals stop putting every bullshit mistake the other side does on blast, I'll stop pointing out their hypocrisy.

[redsox39]

Short version:

When the guys who cheered war criminals stop putting every bullshit mistake the other side does on blast, I'll stop pointing out their hypocrisy.


Besides, it's unpatriotic to question the president.

[Limp]

When the guys who cheered war criminals stop putting every bullshit mistake the other side does on blast, I'll stop pointing out their hypocrisy.
That happens EVERY TIME a new party gains power... in every country in the world.

Get over it, your point has been made 1,000 times. We get it. You "pointing out their hypocrisy" every time they bash Obama for his tie makes you look retarded. Anyone with half a brain knows redsox is a hypocrite, just let the retard lick the windows alone and he will go away.

[Archangel]

And to think, redsox didn't even start this thread.


Good point, though.

[vasili denisov]

I have a hard time believing paying people to wash your car out of government funds is an "accounting problem". $800,000 for personal use is a bit ridiculous...
It doesn't say that the missing $800 000 was for personal use; it says he paid volunteers for some personal work.


[US Attorney] 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.Again, you're arguing that Obama is doing this to provide cover for a fellow democrat; yet somehow a Bush appointed prosecutor provided even more crucial cover by refusing to press fraud charges. Obama is complicit, but the prosecutor isn't. Either Brown is complicit, or there wasn't basis for fraud charges; if there's no basis, you should not be speaking to the media about fraudulent practices before an election. The inspector general shouldn't be speaking publicly anyway; all evidence and conclusions should be there in the report, which will allow for another agency to press charges.

[Whiffleball]

every redsox/hanover fist/rover post in P&C

THE MOVIE

uR2UXmTGK4M

[Archangel]

I wonder what Reagan or Eisenhower would think of this bunch today.

[Morfin]

<Insert Reagan Alzheimer joke.>

[Das Kahlua]

It doesn't say that the missing $800 000 was for personal use; it says he paid volunteers for some personal work.

Actually here is what it said:

The IG found that Johnson, a former all-star point guard for the Phoenix Suns, had used AmeriCorps grants to pay volunteers to engage in school-board political activities, run personal errands for Johnson and even wash his car.

You're correct, it never claims that the entire $800,000 went to pay for personal gains, nor does it even give an accounting as to exactly how much was spent on himself, but if even a single dollar was spent in an improper manner, it's misappropriation. After that, the only issue is to what extent is the fraud.

Again, you're arguing that Obama is doing this to provide cover for a fellow democrat; yet somehow a Bush appointed prosecutor provided even more crucial cover by refusing to press fraud charges. Obama is complicit, but the prosecutor isn't. Either Brown is complicit, or there wasn't basis for fraud charges; if there's no basis, you should not be speaking to the media about fraudulent practices before an election. The inspector general shouldn't be speaking publicly anyway; all evidence and conclusions should be there in the report, which will allow for another agency to press charges.

I'm not trying to link Obama to each and every negative story these days, but the IG's job is to look for potential abuses and refer it up the chain for proper action. Should he have not gone public with this, for whatever reason, absolutely no argument there, but whether or not the prosecutor decided to press charges or not, the IG was doing his job, just as the prosecutor was doing his, it's the division of power.

I haven't seen anything in this story that would warrent this man being fired; if anything, this sets a bad precedent. We certainly don't want IGs afraid to report potential fraud with the fear that they might be fired for their efforts. Furthermore, if this story were in a vacuum, it probably wouldn't get that much play, but we're 6 months into Obama's Presidency, and story after story of fraud and corruption keep coming out, eventually we're going to seriously have to ask if there's something bigger at play here.

@ Arch: I understand your (many) points about faults made during the Bush administration, a good portion of which I will agree with you about. That being said, we've had that discussion over and over for the past 8 years, nothing has changed and nothing will so let's move on. Obama is the President now, for better or worse Bush is no longer in power, so Obama is now the one who will get the credit or blame for the country's successes and failures.

You spoke of hypocracy; it was the Democrats who ran for office in 2006 and 2008 promising 'to bring an end to the culture of corruption' and 'to bring transparency and accountability to Washington.' Instead, over the last 2 years, there has been at least as much shady dealing as went on for the decade before. Politicians are all the same, all are human with the same inherent flaws as the next. There is no moral high ground here, and we should treat mistakes made by Obama and his administration the same as we treated Bush and his, or else we're the true hypocrites.

[freegood]

Again, you're arguing that Obama is doing this to provide cover for a fellow democrat; yet somehow a Bush appointed prosecutor provided even more crucial cover by refusing to press fraud charges. Obama is complicit, but the prosecutor isn't. Either Brown is complicit, or there wasn't basis for fraud charges; if there's no basis, you should not be speaking to the media about fraudulent practices before an election. The inspector general shouldn't be speaking publicly anyway; all evidence and conclusions should be there in the report, which will allow for another agency to press charges.

That's the basis for Larry Brown's (part US attorney/part Coach of the Bobcats) complaints against Walpin.

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/brown_kaiser_061609.pdf

Rover even quoted this and I'm surprised he included it: Walpins claims were overstated and the IG didn't perform an audit to gauge the extent of mishandling Americorp funds.

Attorney Brown also didn't like how his office was notified in August 08 despite learning about it from the media in April and June articles of the Bee. Even after telling Walpin to retract an editorial about the case (you know... because Walpin had no audit to account for the severity of his claims or even the fact that it's blatant tampering), he went ahead and got it published anyway [page 3] knowing that it would hurt KJ's chances in the election.

Then there was the mention of the US Attorney's office getting statements from St. Hope's clients that the IG didn't include himself. Which is important because it highlights how not all of the 800k in funds granted from Americorp wasn't frittered away. Only with that nugget did Walpin decide to scrap his day job writing letters to the Bee.

This is an issue about Brown's word vs. Walpin's. Anyone who harps about the impartiality of the IG should pay attention to Brown's allegations because Brown is saying Walpin went out of his way to damage Kevin Johnson's career with sloppy detective work and then decided to leak his preliminary findings to the press.

Let's say the millions in fraud Walpin uncovered all bore fruit. I'm skeptical all were pursued with due diligance by that particular Bush appointee. Don't get me started about Bush appointees. They suck the elephant cock and they'll sell out their mothers to get a head.

Carry on with the beating of dead horses. That bit was gold...

[redsox39]

Oh, gee, Obama is going after MORE IG's...

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/18/obama-has-fired-2-igs-in-2-weeks-leashed-another/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/18/obama-has-fired-2-igs-in-2-weeks-leashed-another/)

remember the big deal made about Bush firing US attorneys?

you know, those people that serve at the pleasure of the POTUS?

and here we have IG's, which are supposed to be independent, being fired and reigned in.

guess it must be a partisan thing.

IGs work independently to protect taxpayers from corruption and abuse from its own government agencies. A coordinated attack on IGs certainly suggests hostility to that mission, which isn’t the Hope and Change Obama promised on the campaign trail.

[redsox39]

So are these guys crazy too? Or is this just another Republican trick?

[HAWK]

This just proves what I've been saying all along... In the end, Republicans and Democrats are pretty much the same.

[vasili denisov]

Oh, gee, Obama is going after MORE IG's...

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/18/obama-has-fired-2-igs-in-2-weeks-leashed-another/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/18/obama-has-fired-2-igs-in-2-weeks-leashed-another/)

There's no information on Gwynne, other than what's on partisan blogs, but this is apparently what happened with Barofsky:

Barofsky asked for papers on a TARP recipient, the request was turned down. Treasury then tried to find out whose bailiwick the organization fell under. According to Treasury spokesman Williams, no documents were refused based on attorney-client privilege and all documents requested by the entity have been turned over.

Along with confirming the DOJ request, Williams also said tonight that "no documents have been withheld from the SIGTARP based on the attorney-client privilege."
But Williams did not say that no documents have ever been withheld from the watchdog. Williams did note that ultimately "all documents requested by the SIGTARP have been produced to date."

As freegood has ably pointed out, the Wallin firing involved an individual going to the media rather than keeping observations and conclusions to the IG report, he went to the media in an attempt to influence the possibility of prosecution as well as an election.

There may be many motives for why I'm refuting your penny ante charges; there may be many motives for why you keep bringing up such penny ante charges. Maybe it's because of a deep concern for the republic. Maybe it's seeing a black man on TV every night with more money and power than you'll ever have in your life. Maybe who gives a fuck.

[Okie Medicvet]

This just proves what I've been saying all along... In the end, Republicans and Democrats are pretty much the same.

Yah, but with the world situation the way it is, I would still far rather have Obama at the helm, even if he is perceived by some to be nothing but a figurehead behind some conspiracy so vast it transcends parties. Now, I don't buy that ultra mega conspiracy, but yes, both parties have their share of corruption.

[Das Kahlua]

As freegood has ably pointed out, the Wallin firing involved an individual going to the media rather than keeping observations and conclusions to the IG report, he went to the media in an attempt to influence the possibility of prosecution as well as an election.

I don't disagree with you, the fact that he went to the media is certainly 'involved' in his firing, but it is by no means the whole story.

Regardless of one's political affiliation or opinion of Obama, it would be hard for anyone to say that, to this point, Obama has some claim to integrity and honesty amongst the people he has associated with.

Whether or not Obama fired the IG for reporting on a friend and political contributor to Obama, it certainly has at least the hint of suspicion. 'Casesar's wife must be beyond reproach.' It does no one any good to be suspicious of the President and his motivations, and when situations like this arise, it can be hard not to be.

Did the IG deserve to be fired, or was he simply a little over zealous in doing his job? I guess that's open to interpretation, but regardless the whole situation could have and should have been handled better.

[freegood]

There may be many motives for why I'm refuting your penny ante charges; there may be many motives for why you keep bringing up such penny ante charges. Maybe it's because of a deep concern for the republic. Maybe it's seeing a black man on TV every night with more money and power than you'll ever have in your life. Maybe who gives a fuck.

According to the right wing pundits, IG's are flawlessly impartial by default. Therefore the underlying facts to a firing doesn't matter. Heck, Bush appointed some whoppers, but none of the wingers batted an eye. Once you appoint them, you can't undo them even if they're not doing a great job or..or...the president's corrupt... no uhhh.... the terrists have won.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/05/federal_watchdo.html

Federal Watchdogs Facing New Scrutiny

May 08, 2007 2:18 PM

Federal_watchdo_mn Four of the federal government's top watchdogs have found themselves under investigation recently, a trend experts call unprecedented and troubling.

The men are inspectors general, known in Beltway parlance as "IGs" -- special senior political appointees who serve at each federal agency to expose and remedy instances of government waste, fraud and abuse.

Instead, they have found themselves facing investigations into allegations including fraud, wasteful spending and abuse of power.

Four IGs under simultaneous investigation "would be a record," confirmed Paul Light, a professor of government at New York University who wrote the definitive tome on the role and history of inspectors general. "They're supposed to be a bulwark against this stuff."

Click Here for Full Blotter Coverage.

The four men are:

- Robert "Moose" Cobb, the IG at the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA), under investigation by the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE) for charges of interfering with investigations, improper ties to NASA leadership;

- Johnnie Frazier, the IG at the Commerce Department, investigated by PCIE, the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) and a congressional committee for charges of wasteful spending, contracting abuse, discriminatory employment practices, fraud;

- Stuart Bowen, the Special IG for Iraq Reconstruction, investigated by PCIE as well as congressional Republicans for charges that include wasteful spending and misleading reporting;

- Bill Roderick, the IG at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), investigated by a congressional committee for his controversial plan to cut 60 investigators from his staff and give himself a $15,000 bonus.

Cobb has not commented publicly on his investigation, which concluded last month with the determination that he deserved disciplinary action. Frazier's office issued a statement last week saying it was "cooperating fully" with investigators. Bowen has said the charges against him are without merit. Roderick did not respond to a request for comment.

"It's very troubling," said Beth Daley of the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), a non-profit, non-partisan group that independently investigates waste, fraud and abuse in government. "If they're breaking all the rules they're supposed to be enforcing, then obviously we've got a problem."

Daley noted that three other Bush administration IGs have been the subjects of controversy:

- Janet Rehnquist, former Health and Human Services Department (HHS) IG and the daughter of late Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Janet Rehnquist resigned in 2003 in the face of a PCIE investigation into charges of interfering with an investigation and mismanagement;

- Karla Corcoran, former U.S. Postal Service IG, also resigned in 2003, after a congressional investigation into her spending practices; and

- Joseph Schmitz, former Defense Department IG, who resigned in 2005 amid a congressional investigation into whether he interfered with investigations into Bush administration officials.

Rehnquist, Corcoran and Schmitz have denied wrongdoing.

Johnnie Frazier's photo is courtesy of the Department of Commerce.

[Das Kahlua]

According to the right wing pundits, IG's are flawlessly impartial by default. Therefore the underlying facts to a firing doesn't matter. Heck, Bush appointed some whoppers, but none of the wingers batted an eye. Once you appoint them, you can't undo them even if they're not doing a great job or..or...the president's corrupt... no uhhh.... the terrists have won.

Wow. If I wanted facts to take a backseat to hypebole I never would have gone to you first. I guess you learn something new everyday.

I hope to God that you know that what you just wrote is as much crap as it is. I never heard or read any 'right-winger' say that 'all IGs are flawless,' as you claim, I have only seen them bring up a lot of questions that the left-wingers should be bringing up as well.

The comparison that I have seen/heard was between this and Bush firing a couple AGs in a few districts, something that is only comparable when the media is as left-wing as ours is, since Bush fired about 3 and Clinton fired all but 2, and no one said shit to Clinton and all of a sudden George Washington was rolling over in his grave about Bush.

freegood, I have always liked and respected you because while we didn't always agree, you knew what you were talking about. Please don't fall into the trap of using blogs and talking points in lieu of actual facts.

[vasili denisov]

Regardless of one's political affiliation or opinion of Obama, it would be hard for anyone to say that, to this point, Obama has some claim to integrity and honesty amongst the people he has associated with.

Whether or not Obama fired the IG for reporting on a friend and political contributor to Obama, it certainly has at least the hint of suspicion. 'Casesar's wife must be beyond reproach.' It does no one any good to be suspicious of the President and his motivations, and when situations like this arise, it can be hard not to be.

Did the IG deserve to be fired, or was he simply a little over zealous in doing his job? I guess that's open to interpretation, but regardless the whole situation could have and should have been handled better.
I don't think there's a single solid fact in your entire post.

My problem with what Wallin did has nothing to do with ideology. If you're a part of an investigative probe, you do your work and put observations and conclusion in a report. To leak allegations to the media, to make allegations where you have no basis, I don't think is overzealotry. I consider that abuse of power. I think that's the case if the investigation involves an associate of Obama or Trent Lott's boyfriend. That such an abuse of power could have affected an election, only makes the action more unconscionable.

I have no problem with such an action responded to with termination. Others seem to share the same view, since Wallin's fellow IGs, one a democrat, one a republican, both supported the firing.

[Das Kahlua]

I don't think there's a single solid fact in your entire post.

It's called my opinion, which last time I checked, I'm still entitled to, and I never portrayed it as anything different.

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama says he has lost confidence in the inspector general who investigates AmeriCorps and other national service programs and has told Congress he is removing him from the position.
Obama's move follows an investigation by IG Gerald Walpin finding misuse of federal grants by a nonprofit education group led by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, who is an Obama supporter and former NBA basketball star.
Walpin was criticized by the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento for the way he handled an investigation of Johnson and St. HOPE Academy, a nonprofit group that received hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal grants from the Corporation for National and Community Service. The corporation runs the AmeriCorps program
......
The IG found that Johnson, a former all-star point guard for the Phoenix Suns, had used AmeriCorps grants to pay volunteers to engage in school-board political activities, run personal errands for Johnson and even wash his car.
In August 2008, Walpin referred the matter to the local U.S. attorney's office, which said the IG's conclusions seemed overstated and did not accurately reflect all the information gathered in the investigation.

This is from the original story, and seems to be pretty consistent with what I've been saying all along, so I'm not sure where you think 'hard facts' come from otherwise.

My problem with what Wallin did has nothing to do with ideology. If you're a part of an investigative probe, you do your work and put observations and conclusion in a report. To leak allegations to the media, to make allegations where you have no basis, I don't think is overzealotry. I consider that abuse of power. I think that's the case if the investigation involves an associate of Obama or Trent Lott's boyfriend. That such an abuse of power could have affected an election, only makes the action more unconscionable.

I just find it rather ironic that Washington politicians have the chutzpah to act as if leaking information to the media to possibly affect an election is somehow unconscionable, and worthy of firing. If that's the case, they should all be run out of town and replaced.

I said from the start that I believed that was the wrong course of action on the part of the IG, but that's all that I fault him for. Whether or not it turns out that there was fraud or simply 'sloppiness,' it's the IG's job to investigate these sorts of things and refer them up the chain if he believes it deserves further inquiry. If he's fired for leaking this to the media, then fine, as long as we're going to hold everyone who leaks things to the media for political gain to the same standard.

I have no problem with such an action responded to with termination. Others seem to share the same view, since Wallin's fellow IGs, one a democrat, one a republican, both supported the firing.

Frankly, I couldn't care less who supports this firing or what their political ideologies are. I just don't see this as the egregious sin that it's being made out to be; these days, policy and politics are inexorably linked, and it doesn't look like anything will change that.

If nothing else, as I understand it, Obama is required by law to give Congress the reason for his firing of an IG to ensure that the firing is not done for political reasons; I don't find Obama's 'loss in confidence' as sufficiently explanatory, especially because despite whatever this IG may or may not have done, it does seem that Obama may very well have done this for political reasons.[/my opinion]