Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

White House: Firing AmeriCorps IG an act of "political courage"
Washington Examiner ^ | June 18, 2009 | By Byron York

Posted on 06/18/2009 11:54:03 AM PDT by MaestroLC

A top White House lawyer called the firing of AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin an act of "political courage," according to House Republican aides who were in a meeting with the lawyer Wednesday.

Norman Eisen, who is the White House Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform, met with staffers for Rep. Darrell Issa, the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on Wednesday. Eisen, along with another White House staffer who accompanied him, "wanted to talk broadly about inspectors general," says a GOP aide familiar with what went on at the meeting. "When we pressed them on specific questions and documents, they said they weren't prepared to give us information on that."

In one exchange, according to the GOP aide, the White House lawyers explained that inspector general Walpin was not working well with the board of the Corporation for National and Community Service, which oversees AmeriCorps, and the administration believed that IGs should work well with the leadership of their agencies. Eisen said he knew that removing Walpin might be seen as an action that would raise questions. "But [Eisen] said that what they did in trying to fix the situation was an act of political courage -- and 'political courage' is the phrase they used," says the aide.

Republicans, along with a few Democrats, have been concerned about the White House's methods in removing Walpin. The law requires the president to give Congress 30 days' notice, plus the cause for the firing of an inspector general. In Walpin's case, the White House called Walpin out of the blue, gave him one hour either to resign or be fired, and only later notified Congress, and then without giving any cause for its action. Only later, after a lone Democrat, Sen. Claire McCaskill, said the White House "failed to follow the proper procedure" and


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 0bamacorruption; 2orwellian4words; agenda; americorp; americorps; bho44; bhofascism; bizarrowolrd; corruption; courage; cultureofcorruption; democratcorruption; democrats; fired; firing; fubo; ig; impeach; newspeak; obama; obamacorruption; orwellwouldbeproud; thekenyan; walpin; white; whitehouse
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-112 next last
To: Ann Archy
I assume Norman Eisen is a CROOK!

I would guess that he is one of those people that live in "gray" territory (where right and wrong are difficult if not impossible to delineate). He probably sleeps well because he believes he is only protecting the President from those who are out to get him.

41 posted on 06/18/2009 12:22:54 PM PDT by SonOfDarkSkies (Obama: "Enough about me, let's talk about you...what do you think of me?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Madame Dufarge
I mean, who'd act on the recommendation of an Alzheimer's sufferer?

evidently, the fbi

there was a thread posted last night that linked to a cbs13 (sacramento) story - the fbi is investigating johnson

42 posted on 06/18/2009 12:23:04 PM PDT by sloop (pfc in the quiet civil war)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: MaestroLC
Sen. Claire McCaskill, said the White House "failed to follow the proper procedure"

When are the Democrats in congress going to figure out that they are as irrelevant as Republicans to Obama ?

43 posted on 06/18/2009 12:23:18 PM PDT by lonestar (Obama is turning Bush's "mess" into a catastrophe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MaestroLC

Just what one should expect from the Chicago thugocracy. The Mafia had the “courage” to wipe out underlings, too, knowing the police would not touch them. BO’s gang knows that the msm is not interested in publicizing his political “hits”, either.


44 posted on 06/18/2009 12:23:37 PM PDT by kittymyrib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SonOfDarkSkies

Probably ACLU member also!


45 posted on 06/18/2009 12:24:46 PM PDT by Ann Archy (Abortion....the Human Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: SonOfDarkSkies
Let's see if I got this right. Bush fires 7 Federal attorneys, who serve at his pleasure, legally, and Conyers and Leahy want investigations'impeachment. Comrade O fires not 1, but according to the American Thinker,3 IGs, in violation of a law he CO-SPONSORED but this is “political courage”? I say give the IGs and Biden the same test for mental acuity and see who scores higher.
46 posted on 06/18/2009 12:25:48 PM PDT by easttennesseejohn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy

Yep!


47 posted on 06/18/2009 12:26:02 PM PDT by SonOfDarkSkies (Obama: "Enough about me, let's talk about you...what do you think of me?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer
-- then why did the MSM get all over Bush for firing just 8 in his second term and no mention of Clinton? --

The Bush administration brought up "but Clinton fired 93" as a distraction. It worked great! But at the start of their first terms, Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II all replaced [almost] all sitting US Attorneys. It's not controversial, so it doesn't make news when it happens. Well, Reno made news by asking Mary Jo White to resign, but other than isolated examples like that, the first year/first term, put in who you want is the way things have been done for 30+ years. Obama will do it too - no big deal.

The deal in 2005 is a second term. Some US Attorneys were asked to resign - that was not precedented for a start of second term, although the president obviously has the power to remove them. Beside the fact that resignations were asked at the start of a second presidential term is one "newsworthy" point. The other one, as I mentioned once already but will repeat, is that the president didn't fire them. Some unnamed and so far unknown person decided certain US Attorneys had to go. That ought to be troubling, because it prevents accountability; and may be pushing firing decisions too far down the chain of command. There was another event rolled in there, whereby somebody in the WH managed to get the statutes changed, so replacement US Attorneys could be put by the Attorney General, with no nomination from the president and no confirmation by the Senate. That provision was short-lived.

48 posted on 06/18/2009 12:26:22 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: MaestroLC

Their excuses get lamer and lamer!


49 posted on 06/18/2009 12:27:19 PM PDT by airborne (Congratulations to the Stanley Cup Champions! PITTSBURGH PENGUINS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MaestroLC

In the world of the 0Bamaide drinkers; up is down, black is white, night is day, and the truth is whatever the great leaders says it is.

Gunner


50 posted on 06/18/2009 12:27:33 PM PDT by weps4ret (Where is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Ok, thanks for clearing that up ....


51 posted on 06/18/2009 12:28:14 PM PDT by SkyDancer ('Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not..' ~ Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: MaestroLC

I prefer to think of it as more of an “act of political corruption”...


52 posted on 06/18/2009 12:30:12 PM PDT by Czar ((Still Fed Up to the Teeth with Washington))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MaestroLC

Whay would it be an act of “political courage” to fire someone who was combative, uncooperative, incompetent, senile, and incoherent, as Eisen has claimed.

Seems to me it would be a no brainer to pink slip someone like that. No courage needed for something so obvious.


53 posted on 06/18/2009 12:30:38 PM PDT by randita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MaestroLC
So now "political courage" means not following the law that Obama himself got passed?

I've always said that one day, the rule of politics will trump the rule of law. That day has come. Our politicians are now completely and totally above the law and unaccountable for any actions.

-PJ

54 posted on 06/18/2009 12:31:11 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (This just in... Voting Republican is a Terrorist act!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MaestroLC

Working well with the organization you’re overseeing is not in the job description of an IG. It’s not even a close call.

This is corruption and conspiracy to protect corruption.

Abuse of power is an impeachable offense. Obama should be impeached. Fat chance.


55 posted on 06/18/2009 12:31:27 PM PDT by savedbygrace (You are only leading if someone follows. Otherwise, you just wandered off... [Smokin' Joe])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MaestroLC

Political courage my ass. Obama and his administration are CORRUPT, this is just the first real hard core public showing of it. Just wait, there will be more.They can’t disguise themselves forever, actions speak louder than words.


56 posted on 06/18/2009 12:32:42 PM PDT by Danae (Amerikan Unity My Ass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MaestroLC
Firing AmeriCorps IG an act of "political courage"

What the hell are they smoking in this administration. What a bunch of laughing stocks they are.

57 posted on 06/18/2009 12:32:51 PM PDT by jersey117
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MaestroLC

Real political courage will come when people have the guts to confront and impeach Obama for his violations and corruption regarding his oath as POTUS.


58 posted on 06/18/2009 12:35:27 PM PDT by dforest (Anyone dumb enough to have voted for him deserves what they get.. No Pity!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer
Not AG's, U.S. Attorneys. Besides which, the U.S. Attorneys are policitical appointees and serve at the pleasure of the President. There was never any question of legality in their firing.

Bush fired them for "political" reasons, actually policy reasons, they were not putting emphasis on the kinds of cases Bush wanted pursued. It would have been at least irresponsible for Bush not to have fired them. It is the President's job to set priorities and make policy.

59 posted on 06/18/2009 12:36:10 PM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (AGWT is very robust with respect to data. All observations confirm it at the 100% confidence level.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

Already answered in previous post to me but thanks ....


60 posted on 06/18/2009 12:39:22 PM PDT by SkyDancer ('Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not..' ~ Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-112 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson