Obama violated Federal Law in Firing an Inspector General

Post Reply New Topic

That's the thing, I'm pretty sure that presidents are not just allowed but expected to lie.

It would probably be pretty easy for Obama to argue that this inspector had such a hardon for going after liberals that he had neglected other serious cases. And that would be a solid argument in a court room.

You could also argue that it was the way he blew this whistle and not the fact that he blew it. But that is probably harder to argue in front of a judge.

It probably turns out that a president can terminate an inspector general just because he doesn't personally like him.

Good luck with that argument, because this same gentleman was supporting one of Obama's Supreme Court Nominees, that hardly sounds like he was hyper-partisan.

In all honesty, Obama did break the law though Congress at the time couldn't care less. Also if the reason Obama gave for the firing is false (i.e. the man is losing his marbles when a competitency test proves that the man's reasoning ability is unimpaired), then that breaks an entirely different law.

What is really ironic is Obama is breaking the very law he voted for in 2008 and may also have been a co-sponsor.

Walpin has not identified any text in the IGRA which
explicitly creates a cause of action for an aggrieved Inspector
General, nor has he presented any authority demonstrating that
Congress drafted the IGRA with the intent to give individual
Inspectors General an enforceable right to continued employment.

The defendants argue that even if Walpin could show that the
IGRA creates an individually enforceable right to continued
employment, Walpin has not demonstrated that they have a
ministerial, non-discretionary duty to reinstate him, particularly where he has not shown that the President failed to comply with the IGRA.s notice requirement. Walpin argues that the President removed Walpin on June 10, 2009 when Walpin was placed on administrative leave with no prior 30-day notice to
Congress (Pl..s Opp.n at 18-19), creating a clear duty for
defendants to disregard the President.s notice and re-instate
Walpin.

Also if the reason Obama gave for the firing is false (i.e. the man is losing his marbles when a competitency test proves that the man's reasoning ability is unimpaired), then that breaks an entirely different law.

He did file a wrongful termination suit, and it was dismissed.

That's what usually happens.

As I said, the Congress at the time couldn't care less.

Indeed, congress didn't care, but it was a federal court that dismissed his case.

Basically, the IGRA provides a 30 day window for congress (not the IG) to have a dialog with the president if they have concerns about the termination.

They had some small concerns, but didn't push the issue.

Which means that no law was broken, and the IG is shiat out of luck.

Oh certain congressmen did have an issue with it, however Democrats (whom controlled the House and the Senate) made sure there was no investigation.

Yeah, so? The law Obama voted for and proably sponsored as a senator provides a way for congress to have a dialog with the president if there are concerns regarding a termination of an IG.

It doesn't require a dialog.

This terminiation was legal, and you're just plain wrong.

As I said, the Congress at the time couldn't care less.

So you're telling me President Bush was not allowed to fire lawyers that serve at the pleasure of the President, but Obama can fire an Inspector General for purely political reasons to protect a donor?

Oh certain congressmen did have an issue with it, however Democrats (whom controlled the House and the Senate) made sure there was no investigation.

You're having us argue about news that is already years old, again?

So, what finally happened to this guy? Did he get another job? Is he retired?

I'm actually going to be showing a pattern here, from the New Black Panther case dismissal (after the Feds won the case), to the Chryslar (sp?) bondholders, to the current situation with Boeing, that Obama seems to be trying to rule as a monarch.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has rejected fired AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin's lawsuit seeking reinstatement to his job. In a ruling issued Tuesday morning, the three-judge panel -- one appointed by the first President Bush, another appointed by President Clinton, and the third appointed by the second President Bush -- agreed with a lower-court ruling that Walpin does not have a "clear and indisputable right" to his former job.

...

On June 10, 2009, Walpin received a call from the White House counsel's office in which he was given one hour to resign or be fired. He chose not to resign and was fired. The action alarmed Republicans on Capitol Hill, particularly Sen. Charles Grassley, because it appeared to violate a law designed to protect the independence of inspectors general by requiring the president to give Congress 30 days' notice, plus an explanation, before firing an IG.

Later, the White House told Congress that Walpin had not been summarily fired; he had been placed on "administrative leave" for 30 days and then fired And as a reason for the firing, the White House told lawmakers that the president no longer had the "fullest confidence" in Walpin.

Walpin sued, arguing that his removal clearly violated the law. In June of 2010, Walpin lost his case before U.S. District Court in Washington. Now, he has lost before the Court of Appeals. The three-judge panel ruled that the White House's decision to place Walpin on administrative leave for 30 days (after telling him he was fired) did not violate the law. Further, the judges ruled that Obama's explanation that he no longer had "fullest confidence" in Walpin "satisfies the minimal statutory mandate that the president communicate to the Congress his 'reasons' for removal."

I'm surprised that Mr. Walpin went this route, as he should have foreseen that it would turn out this way.