Gerald Walpin fired for doing his job

[top gun]

I have watched the man a number of times and I can find nothing about him unfit or crazy. But ok I guess this is one thing we have to agree to disagree on.

I am wondering, do you feel Keven Johnson should be investigated by the new person or should we drop it where he is concerned?

Well neither you or I are part of the bi-partisan Board of the Corporation and are not privy to all they have discovered. Sounds like it's the bi-partizan's call to make.

As far as anything that was being looked at about anybody I see no problem with the newly appointed person reviewing the cases and deciding what is and is not of any value to pursue.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

it would not matter, Pandora will only listen to those agree with what she wants to hear anyway...if they dont she will find a new way to make the same claims. facts be damned, blame obama!

 

[Pandora]

As far as anything that was being looked at about anybody I see no problem with the newly appointed person reviewing the cases and deciding what is and is not of any value to pursue.

Is this "bi Partisan" board reviewing the case? or did they close it?

I am under the impression they just closed it.

 

[Bob the Builder]

Is this "bi Partisan" board reviewing the case? or did they close it?

I am under the impression they just closed it.

They did. They didn't want to have to deal with it, and tried to sweep it under the rug, got caught doing it, and instead of the taking a chance on embarrassing a friend of the Kenyan illegal immigrant, they illegally fired the AG.

Of course the salient fact that they ILLEGALLY FIRED the AG totally escapes the resident liberals, mainly because they don't care about silly things like the constitution or the laws of the land unless they're the one being inconvenienced by them. If a conservative is being inconvenienced, they simply don't care, and resort to their standard mantra of "blame the victim" or "ignore it and it'll go away", but under no circumstances will they ever, EVER, deal with anything honestly.

 

[top gun]

Is this "bi Partisan" board reviewing the case? or did they close it?

I am under the impression they just closed it.

I would presume that being a bi-partisan board and they closed it then there must not have been anything to pursue.

Or I suppose they could have thought the other guy was so looney tunes that they just decided it best to start over fresh. I have no idea which it is but being bi-partisan tells me they made a nonpolitical decision..

 

[Bob the Builder]

And as usual, the liberals continue in their LIES and MISDIRECTION!

Top gun et. al. refuse to acknowledge that it wasn't the alleged "bi-partisan" board that fired Mr. Walpin, the call came from White House, specifically Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform Mr. Norman Eisen, who gave him 24 hours to either resign or be fired, in direct contradiction of the very law the the Kenyan illegal immigrant voted in favor of which requires that the President give Congress AT LEAST 30 days notice, and that he provide CAUSE for the firing in order that CONGRESS have time to review any claims against the AG to ensure that it's not a situation like...oh, I don't know...maybe the person being investigate being a PERSONAL FRIEND OF THE PRESIDENT!

 

[Pandora]

And as usual, the liberals continue in their LIES and MISDIRECTION!

Top gun et. al. refuse to acknowledge that it wasn't the alleged "bi-partisan" board that fired Mr. Walpin, the call came from White House, specifically Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform Mr. Norman Eisen, who gave him 24 hours to either resign or be fired, in direct contradiction of the very law the the Kenyan illegal immigrant voted in favor of which requires that the President give Congress AT LEAST 30 days notice, and that he provide CAUSE for the firing in order that CONGRESS have time to review any claims against the AG to ensure that it's not a situation like...oh, I don't know...maybe the person being investigate being a PERSONAL FRIEND OF THE PRESIDENT!

That is how I understood it.

 

[top gun]

And as usual, the liberals continue in their LIES and MISDIRECTION!

Top gun et. al. refuse to acknowledge that it wasn't the alleged "bi-partisan" board that fired Mr. Walpin, the call came from White House, specifically Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform Mr. Norman Eisen, who gave him 24 hours to either resign or be fired, in direct contradiction of the very law the the Kenyan illegal immigrant voted in favor of which requires that the President give Congress AT LEAST 30 days notice, and that he provide CAUSE for the firing in order that CONGRESS have time to review any claims against the AG to ensure that it's not a situation like...oh, I don't know...maybe the person being investigate being a PERSONAL FRIEND OF THE PRESIDENT!

Well there's a couple just plain and published facts here.

First: I posted the EXACT publically printed statements by the people who fired Walpin and why... that would be the bi-partizan board.

Secondly: Mr. Walpin serves at the pleaser of the President so the President can fire him anytime he wants... even if it was just because he didn't care for his demeanor or professional abilities.

As far as the "Congressional Review" they can review that all they want. That doesn't mean that a President of the United States must keep a person with Walpins "problems" on the job while they do so. Obviously the bi-partisan board found some pretty serious reasons why his individual should be removed in this quick fashion.

Let's make a bet right here.

It seems to be your contention that the President of the United States, President Obama, went along with this high profile widely reported firing without any legitimate reasons or grounds whatsoever... just like the bi-partizan board had no grounds whatsoever.

And that this is all a big conspiracy to stop some investigation of someone the President knows. Granted this firing only brings a million times more public & press scrutiny to this decision... but hey the President just never thought of that???

Let's see who's right. Let me know when this firing is proven to NOT be totally justified... ain't gonna happen my friend... move on to your next attempted antiAmerican smear of our President.

 

[Pandora]

I would presume that being a bi-partisan board and they closed it then there must not have been anything to pursue.

Or I suppose they could have thought the other guy was so looney tunes that they just decided it best to start over fresh. I have no idea which it is but being bi-partisan tells me they made a nonpolitical decision..

Try and imagine if the president was George Bush and the man fired exactly in the same way were some democrat some place who claimed to have proof that a very close friend of George Bush had done something illegal.

Would you honestly feel the same way? I know I would.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Try and imagine if the president was George Bush and the man fired exactly in the same way were some democrat some place who claimed to have proof that a very close friend of George Bush had done something illegal.

Would you honestly feel the same way? I know I would.

you mean if they where fired by a non partison board? you would have been mad at Bush?

 

[top gun]

Try and imagine if the president was George Bush and the man fired exactly in the same way were some democrat some place who claimed to have proof that a very close friend of George Bush had done something illegal.

Would you honestly feel the same way? I know I would.

I'd say the bi-partisan board shouldn't stipulate that the new head of the dept. couldn't look into any specific case.

But that also doesn't mean there was really anything to look at in the first place or that the previous dept. head didn't have his own special set of personal problems.

Bottom line... nothing sinister is going on here at all.

 

[n0spam4me]

Just my bit on the subject

ARREST the "emperor" for indecent exposure!

 

[Bob the Builder]

Well there's a couple just plain and published facts here.

First: I posted the EXACT publically printed statements by the people who fired Walpin and why... that would be the bi-partizan board.

The "bi-partisan" board doesn't have the authority to fire the AG, only the President can do that, and then only with Congressional approval.

Secondly: Mr. Walpin serves at the pleaser of the President so the President can fire him anytime he wants... even if it was just because he didn't care for his demeanor or professional abilities.

No, he may not "fire him anytime he wants", he is required by the very law that Obama voted for to give 30 days notice, and to present cause. The fact that he was NOT given 30 days notice, and that no cause was presented means that he very clearly violated the law....AGAIN!

As far as the "Congressional Review" they can review that all they want. That doesn't mean that a President of the United States must keep a person with Walpins "problems" on the job while they do so. Obviously the bi-partisan board found some pretty serious reasons why his individual should be removed in this quick fashion.

There is no evidence of Mr. Walpin having any "problems", on the job or off. Your "bi-partisan" board simply wished to have their illegalities kept secret in order to ensure that further federal funding could flow to them. Mr. Walpins report of their illegal activities would have meant that no such funding would be forthcoming, and because it was a friend of Obamas that is directly responsible for such illegal activities, thereby becoming another in a long line of embarrassing incidents by the illegal Kenyan immigrants associates, he too chose to attempt to "sweep it under the rug", thereby becoming complicit in the illegal activities.

Let's make a bet right here.

Nope, because once again you have crafted a proposed arrangement that heavily suits your side, and puts mine at a distinct disadvantage of having to rely on the criminals (Obama, the Board, the Mayor, et al) to do the "right thing".

 

[top gun]

The "bi-partisan" board doesn't have the authority to fire the AG, only the President can do that, and then only with Congressional approval.

It's the bi-partizan board that requests the official termination for good cause.

No, he may not "fire him anytime he wants", he is required by the very law that Obama voted for to give 30 days notice, and to present cause. The fact that he was NOT given 30 days notice, and that no cause was presented means that he very clearly violated the law....AGAIN!

The President of the United States can (obviously DID) fire him anytime he wants if he is sure the grounds will hold up during any subsequent investigation and especially after being requested to do so for the sake of the importance of the position by the bi-partisan board.

What exactly do you see happening here? The President lays out a myriad serious, legitimate and time sensitive reasons why the bi-partisan board urgently requested this employee to be removed for his position of authority and the Congress says... nope... he's still got the job and how dare you remove this dangerous person so quickly. PLEEEEEASE!

The 30 days is the procedural time period but I'm a bettin' there's some really explosive stuff about this guys behavior that's actually being held back right now.

Nope, because once again you have crafted a proposed arrangement that heavily suits your side, and puts mine at a distinct disadvantage of having to rely on the criminals (Obama, the Board, the Mayor, et al) to do the "right thing".

I'll await the full report and the Congress forcefully reinstating this employee that serves at the pleaser of the President no matter what he did or how bonkers he had become.

HINT: Ain't gonna happen...

 

[Bob the Builder]

It's the bi-partizan board that requests the official termination for good cause.

FINALLY!! An absolutely honest statement of fact, I'm so proud of you! Unfortunately in this case, there was no "good cause" for the termination, unless you consider an attempt to conceal patently illegal activities to be "good cause".

The President of the United States can (obviously DID) fire him anytime he wants if he is sure the grounds will hold up during any subsequent investigation and especially after being requested to do so for the sake of the importance of the position by the bi-partisan board.

Well, that didn't last long. No, he may NOT fire him any time he wants to, which is exactly the purpose of the law that Obama himself voted in favor of is designed to prevent! In order to fire an AG, the first thing that must happen is that notification of intent to fire him must be presented to Congress along with the specifications of cause for the firing (and having a bad day is NOT sufficient grounds), whereupon Congress will have 30 days to either concur or disagree with the assessment, and ONLY if Congress agrees may the IG be fired.

What exactly do you see happening here? The President lays out a myriad serious, legitimate and time sensitive reasons why the bi-partisan board urgently requested this employee to be removed for his position of authority and the Congress says... nope... he's still got the job and how dare you remove this dangerous person so quickly. PLEEEEEASE!

There were no "serious, legitimate" or "time sensitive reasons" to fire Mr. Walpin. The board only sought to fire him because he discovered the seriously ILLEGAL activities of the Mayor and the "bi-partisan" board, and they were afraid that his report would result in a loss of federal funds for AmeriCorps, and yet another in a loooonnnngggg line of embarrassing activities on the part of Obama's friends and associates, and particularly those he has either appointed, or assisted to achieve, higher office.

The 30 days is the procedural time period but I'm a bettin' there's some really explosive stuff about this guys behavior that's actually being held back right now.

Unless you have PROOF of any such "explosive stuff", you are engaged in pure politically motivated speculation, which is nothing but intellectual dishonesty.