Thanks. I suspected he served at the pleasure of the President much like the Attorneys General do.
Very similar, but also somewhat different. The IG is basically "eyes of Congress," to insure that appropriated funds go where they are supposed to. Naturally, they are also "eyes of the executive," as he is charged with upholding fraud laws.
As a basic proposition, it's politically dangerous to terminate either a US Attorney or an IG that is handling cases "close to home." Clinton/Reno took lots of heat for asking for a resignation from Jay Stephens, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. He was investigating allegations against Dan Rostenkowski and other House Democrats.
So, in the same vein, removing Walpin before the investigations of Obama croneys is done is politically hazardous; and Obama is also -personally- short-circuiting a set of findings from the group that renders findings and opinions on the ethics of IG's.
Acting US Attorney Brown has filed a complaint against Walpin, and I think Brown's complaint is a matter of self-preservation (playing Chicago politics for "the boss," cover for the target of an investigation and be promoted, or don't play ball and be fired), rather than a legitimate complaint. I'll look around some, but as far as I know, it is unprecedented for a US Attorney and an IG to go at each other's throats over protecting a target - usually, a US Attorney and an IG are a tag team on the same side, saving government money, rooting out fraud, etc.
If Congress, and Senator Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa are carrying the challenge and demanding good reasons for Walpin's termination. The media will bury the story as it develops, so it will take effort to keep oneself apprised.
Meanwhile, Brown has managed to bury the wrongdoing in the St. HOPE Academy case - with Walpin submitting a special report to Congress on that front, and that front meriting its own Congressional investigation.