Wednesday, June 24, 2009
MAJOR SCANDAL (Or, a bit of snark for your enjoyment)
Noble Public Servant Gerald Walpin was fired - yes, *fired* - for daring to investigate one of Obama's supporters, leading to CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS
This is terrible, because Walpin,
There is no other reason for firing Walpin. The only possible reason for firing Walpin was that he investigated an Obama supporter.
Look... some members of the so-called "reality based community" will say he made overstated claims that could not be supported by the subsequent investigation... but hey, he got some money returned, so what's the big deal that he claimed a lot more than could be proven?
And they'll harp on that tired old allegation that he withheld exculpatory evidence from the US Attorney's office. But come on; prosecuting attorneys just *love* surprises!
And, sure, he didn't bother to do an audit to determine how much money might have been mis-spent, but what's more important, a few facts, or making some loud, newsworthy accusations against a person who's running for political office?
And come on... we all know that talking to the media during the election about an investigation
And, yes, yes, Walpin pushed to have Johnson barred from receiving or dealing with federal funds - a rare sanction, invoked (per the IG's office) "If we find really egregious stuff and we want to stop the bleeding" - which could have barred him from carrying out his duties as mayor, and Walpin vociferously fought to keep that suspension in place despite the damage that could do to the city of Sacramento, CA, but after his clear objectivity and fairness in other parts of the investigation, why should this count against him?
Anyway, as you can see, this is clearly a purge, and a warning. Obama is saying to people working for the government that if you
You know how we know that?
Because Obama had one of his people call Walpin up, ask him if he was going to resign, and told him he had *one hour* - ONE HOUR - to resign, or he'd be fired.
Clearly, this phone call was an attempt to get around a law that said that if Obama wants to fire an Inspector General, he has to send a letter to both houses of Congress, saying that he is firing the IG, and why.
Even more egregiously, although the law doesn't dictate what reasons Obama can give for firing an IG, *HE SAID HE WAS FIRING WALPIN BECAUSE HE NO LONGER HAD CONFIDENCE IN WALPIN*.
So, clearly, he was quite possibly violating that law, by sending that letter, saying Walpin was fired 30 days after the letter was sent. Oh, maybe not the *letter* of the law, since the law just says he has to send a letter, but the *spirit*. Because the law was intended to provide oversight, giving Congress 30 days to act! And, you see, Obama claiming he lost confidence in Walpin denies Congress the power to engage in oversight, because if it doesn't, *OBAMA WOULDN'T HAVE VIOLATED THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW*. And we know that's not possible.
In any case, calling Walpin up and asking him to resign must be a manner of dodging that oversight.
Because, you know, that call was a threatening one. Resign - or be *FIRED*.
*Quit your job* - or you'll lose it anyway.
I'm sorry; I know that's so threatening that some folks reading this are probably having palpitations, but I need to drive home the truth. Besides, can you imagine something more bullying?
Oh, sure, some dirty stinking liberal who insists on giving Obama the "benefit of the doubt" will surely say that it's common courtesy to give a guy a chance to say he's decided to pursue other interests, rather than to say he's being fired. But how on earth are you supposed to believe that Barack Obama - a Chicago pol! - could have acted out of common courtesy?
Look, none of this proves anything... I'll be the first to admit that. But it bears watching. Because if we keep ignoring the atrocious acts of Walpin, and slant the story really heavily, we can make it sound like this makes Obama look really bad!