Obama's 'confidence' in IG questioned

Washington Times Editorial:

Congress ought to open an investigation, New York Times editorialists should be in a state of apoplexy, and MSNBC hosts ought to be frothing at the mouth. Without appropriate documentation or good reason, President Obama has fired a federal investigator who was on the case against a political ally of the president's. Mr. Obama's move has the stench of scandal.

On June 11, Mr. Obama fired Gerald Walpin, inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service. He offered no public reason for doing so other than that he "no longer" had "the fullest confidence" in Mr. Walpin. Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, is rightly questioning the firing and the explanation for it.

The senator noted that the Inspector General Reform Act requires the president to "communicate in writing ... the reasons for any such removal." Losing one's "fullest confidence" hardly qualifies as a justifiable reason. The Senate report language attached to the act explains: "The requirement to notify the Congress in advance of the reasons for the removal should serve to ensure that Inspectors General are not removed for political reasons."

Yet, as Associated Press noted, "Obama's move follows an investigation by IG Gerald Walpin finding misuse of federal grants by a nonprofit education group led by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, who is an Obama supporter and former NBA basketball star." Further, "The IG found that Johnson ... had used Americorps grants to pay volunteers to engage in school-board political activities, run personal errands for Johnson and even wash his car."

Sacramento U.S. Attorney Larry Brown criticized Mr. Walpin for publicly announcing the investigation rather than more quietly cooperating with federal prosecutors. Clearly, though, there was merit to Mr. Walpin's charges: Mr. Brown's office reached a settlement ordering the nonprofit organization to repay half of the $850,000 in grant money it received - with $72,836.50 of that repayment coming from Mr. Johnson's own pocket.

...

Obama's problem is that his story does not make much sense and especially so when you consider the conflict he has with the case brought against one of his supporters. That is the kind of thing where the Supreme Court just said a judge should recuse himself.

Why shouldn't Obama be held to the same standard. You know the Democrats would be investigating a Republican. They wasted all sorts of efforts on the firings of US attorneys by Bush which was wholly within his discretion unlike this case.

The Washington Examiner looks at the firing as does their chief political reporter Byron York.

...

The method of Walpin's firing could be a violation of the 2008 Inspectors General Reform Act, which requires the president to give Congress 30 days' notice, plus an explanation of cause, before firing an inspector general. Then-Sen. Barack Obama was a co-sponsor of that legislation. In the case of Walpin, Eisen's efforts to force Walpin to resign could be seen as an effort to push Walpin out of his job so that the White House would not have to go through the 30-day process or give a reason for its action. When Walpin refused to quit, the White House informed Congress and began the 30-day countdown.

...

It sounds like the Chicago way is at work. Can the Washington Times and the Examiner raise the public profile of this abuse of office by Obama? Perhaps with the help of conservative blogs it will become too big of a story to ignore.

Update: Sen. Grassley is digging into this potential scadal according to ABC's Jake Tapper. He is exploring whether Michelle Obama may have played a roll too.