Replies

Walpin's run in with the acting US Attorney in Sacramento is critical to any understanding of what's going on.

Mr. Brown, the acting prosecutor, said Walpin hadn't come up with a prosecutable offense on the part of the major Obama donor.

Now, what's a prosecutable offense? When it comes to the DOJ that means the US government isn't going to go to court for something (other than a violent crime within federal jurisdiction) that doesn't reach a certain dollar value. Years ago I had a problem with them when they wanted to kick a multi million dollar claim against AARP back to 10 cents on the dollar ~ that would take it under the then standard of $250,000 and no court time would be needed.

I believe the standard is higher these days. So what Mr. Brown did was real quick wrap up the $800,000 (app) claim against the major donor by accepting a deal. The donor would pay $400,000 now and $400,000 later (over time).

By leaving only $400,000 outstanding Mr. Brown effectively took the amount at dispute below the level of current DOJ standards whatever they are.

Mr. Walpin undoubtedly thought this was not kosher and continued to protest ~ in public.

Brown then filed an ethics complaint against Walpin. A committee charged with the responsibility for doing such things met (bunch of Eric Holder's buddies by now), said Mr. Walpin was elementally evil and trashed him.

Obama took the opportunity to fire another Republican buried in his regime.

No doubt Obama's "truth squad" thugs are busy looking for such people ~ they even come into FR and try to engage us in debates with their talking points so that they can trip up any current federal employees.

At the same time I don't think Obama went looking for Walpin on behalf of his buddy ~ although his wife undoubtedly wanted him to do that ~ but he seems to have not had to do that.

Mr. Brown and Mr. Walpin are apparently both Republicans. However, Mr. Brown is the President of an association of Prosecutors (et al) in the Eastern District of Northern California, that is, Sacramento, and has a political life, albeit not in partisan affairs. Still, I'd bet in that position he gets news on all the cases involving the rich and famous in that district long before others, and he knew this was about a major Obama donor.

Mr. Walpin probably believes Mr. Brown to be a major league a$$ki$$er (which is where all the evidence points as well).

It's the circular firing squad we should be worried about. Walpin and Brown should have been working together to drag Obamista donors into court.

I fault Mr. Brown in this dispute.

Apparently in retaliation for having put the heat on an Obama supporter, the President had Norman Eisen, a Special Counsel to the President, telephone Walpin and demand that he resign within an hour.
Walpin, pointing out that he is not a political appointee and does not serve at the President's pleasure, declined to do so. So Obama fired him. By statute, Obama is required to give Congress 30 days' written notice of his intention to fire an inspector general and set forth his reasons for doing so. Obama failed to comply with that aspect of the statute, merely saying that Walpin no longer has the President's "fullest confidence."

That would be sufficient reason to replace a political appointee, but not to fire an inspector general. The Obama administration first denied, but now admits, that the President is firing Walpin because of the St. Hope affair.