Of course this is the guy conservatives claim is at the center of the first fake scandal they’re pushing versus the Obama administration. Of course.
Now, in an interview with FOXNews.com. Walpin called the ‘lack of candor’ charge ‘a total lie,’ and repeated his contention that he was fired for daring to go hard after Johnson, an Obama supporter.
As for the explanation that Walpin was confused at a meeting, he responded, improbably, by referencing a verbal slip-up that Barack Obama made during the campaign, which conservatives tried unsuccessfully to make hay out of at the time.
Said Walpin: ‘I would never say President Obama doesn’t have the capacity to continue to serve because of his (statement) that there are 56 states.’ And he added that same is true for Vice President Joe Biden and his ‘many express confusions that have been highlighted by the media.’
And he amped up the level of rhetoric, declaring: ‘I am now the target of the most powerful man in this country, with an army of aides whose major responsibility today seems to be to attack me and get rid of me.’
And who does Gerald Walpin make political contributions to? $1,000 to Rudy Giuliani. $1,000 to John Mccain. $500 to Elizabeth Dole.
Obama’s Chicago roots, Ollie helps with the smear.
Illegal firing of an IG and the Chicgo thugs throw up a smoke screen. I not surprised.
Which part is illegal?
Ah, just a good man doing his job. I knew we could count on the usual suspects to rush to Walpin’s defense. I’m sure everything said about the man is just a big ol’ pack of lies, right boys?
Right, right. And Ms. California was fired for sticking to her principles. Capone’s in the white house!
Didn’t the administration try to fire Walpin immediatly, ignoring that inconvient law which required the President to give Congress 30 days notice before firing an IG?
If you’re going to fire someone who is in an official oversight position, I know I would do a much better job of making sure the termination is done correctly, and that you have the required reasons to do so. Thus far the bulk of the complaints about Walpin have come from people in the agency he investigated and who he found had improperly spent like $800,000.
I remember way back in 2007 when it was wrong for politics to be involved in the firing of appointess. Those were the good ol’ days.
So he’s whack job because he says the President is full of crap about why he got fired and suggests that Obama canned his ass for going after an Obama supporter? I know. A guy schooled in “Chicago way” style politics would NEVER do something like that.
Obama’s reasoning for terminating the guy was lame and it took Obama’s biggest fan, Claire McCaskill, to get on his case about it. When he finally came around, he comes up with lame, unsubstantiated reasoning to cover his arse.
And yet, Walpin is a “whack job.” Unreal.
Obama thinks we have 56 states. Obama should be fired for being confused.
I’ve heard walpon on Laura Ingram twice now. Seemed pretty lucid both times. Your “proof” that Walpon is a whack job is… He defended himself against baseless criticism?!?
OK, ‘wingers, let’s get beyond your knee-jerk victimization bleating and have a look at what Mr. Walpin has been up to, shall we?
Walpin investigated Kevin Johnson’s use of federal AmeriCorps funds and found that Johnson had misused over $800,000. He took the recommended that Johnson be barred from receiving federal funds, pending a criminal investigation — a move that ended up endangering the city’s ability to get federal stimulus money after Johnson took office as mayor early this year.
Walpin publicly announced, during the mayoral campaign, that he was passing his findings on to the US Attorney’s office and suggested that Johnson might be guilty of a crime.
The local US attorney, also a Bush appointee, found no criminal wrongdoing in the case. And his successor, Lawrence Brown, formally complained to an oversight body for inspectors general about Walpin’s work on the St. HOPE probe. Brown charged that Walpin hadn’t even conducted an audit to determine how much money had been misspent by St. HOPE, and that he had withheld key exculpatory evidence.
After the government had reached a settlement regarding the misuse of funds, Walpin refused to leave the matter alone. He announced to the press that he had not been consulted and that the settlement agreement was inadequate.
Sounds like the guy is working with a full set of tinkertoys, doesn’t it?
Oh, and something apparently happened at the May 20 CNCS board meeting that prompted the entire board to ask for a review of his performance. Walpin says he “doesn’t remember.”
Walpin investigated Kevin Johnson’s use of federal AmeriCorps funds and found that Johnson had misused over $800,000. He took the recommended that Johnson be barred from receiving federal funds, pending a criminal investigation — a move that ended up endangering the city’s ability to get federal stimulus money after Johnson took office as mayor early this year.
Sounds like Walpin was — horrors — doing his job! A city’s mayor misuses almost a million bucks, but we shouldn’t “endanger” his ability to get even more money? On what planet is that a bad thing?
Walpin publicly announced, during the mayoral campaign, that he was passing his findings on to the US Attorney’s office and suggested that Johnson might be guilty of a crime.
Obviously going by the Ted Stevens precedent, he should have sat on the information until after the election.
After the government had reached a settlement regarding the misuse of funds, Walpin refused to leave the matter alone. He announced to the press that he had not been consulted and that the settlement agreement was inadequate.
Alternately, he saw that a political fix had been put in, and spoke out — kind of his job description, isn’t it?
Sounds like the guy is working with a full set of tinkertoys, doesn’t it?
Sounds more like some kind of idiot who read his job description and the laws behind it, and actually believed they meant something. Especially since the president who fired him voted for that very law.
Oh, and something apparently happened at the May 20 CNCS board meeting that prompted the entire board to ask for a review of his performance. Walpin says he “doesn’t remember.”
Walpin’s ten years younger than the nutjob who killed the guard at the Holocaust Museum, but I don’t recall ANYONE discussing the possibility that an 88-year-old man might be senile.
Oh, and something apparently happened at the May 20 CNCS board meeting that prompted the entire board to ask for a review of his performance. Walpin says he “doesn’t remember.”
Hmm… could be that the rest of the board got wind that the guy Walpin was nailing to the wall was a big Obama buddy, and wanted to distance themselves from him and any repercussions.
The law says Walpin couldn’t be fired without Obama first giving Congress 30 days’ notice. There was no loophole that says “if enough of his colleagues question him” or “he looks too hard at the president’s buddies” or “he’s a senile old coot,” the rules can be waived. And Obama voted for that law.
But rules are for other people, right? Not for the SPECIAL people, the elites?
J.
A city’s mayor misuses almost a million bucks, but we shouldn’t “endanger” his ability to get even more money?
Mr. Johnson was not the mayor when the misuse occurred. The very unusual step taken by Mr. Walpin would punish an entire city for acts committed by Johnson when he was acting on behalf of a completely different entity.
Obviously going by the Ted Stevens precedent, he should have sat on the information until after the election.
Are you suggesting the Bush Justice Department had a political motive in going after Stevens? That’s quite unlike you, Mr. Tea.
Alternately, he saw that a political fix had been put in, and spoke out — kind of his job description, isn’t it?
The Bush-appointed U.S. attorney found no cause for criminal action. You’re accusing a Bush appointee of a “political fix”? Again, quite unlike you.
Sounds more like some kind of idiot who read his job description and the laws behind it, and actually believed they meant something. Especially since the president who fired him voted for that very law.
Job description…laws…something missing here…I know! Walpin’s job performance maybe?
Walpin’s ten years younger than the nutjob who killed the guard at the Holocaust Museum, but I don’t recall ANYONE discussing the possibility that an 88-year-old man might be senile.
I’m not suggesting he’s senile. I’m suggesting he has convenient forgetfulness.
Hmm… could be that the rest of the board got wind that the guy Walpin was nailing to the wall was a big Obama buddy, and wanted to distance themselves from him and any repercussions.
The rest of the bipartisan board? Now you’re just making stuff up, Mr. Tea.
The law says Walpin couldn’t be fired without Obama first giving Congress 30 days’ notice.
And so it shall be.
The law says Walpin couldn’t be fired without Obama first giving Congress 30 days’ notice.
And so it shall be.
Quaker, try a little math here. It’s really not so hard.
You mentioned a May 20 meeting. Let’s presume that Obama heard about it and chose to fire him immediately, then notified Congress. Today is only day 29, and he’s already been fired.
I understand you probably don’t care for math, especially when it demonstrates that Obama doesn’t respect the law, not even ones he thought were good ideas.
J.
The law says Walpin couldn’t be fired without Obama first giving Congress 30 days’ notice. There was no loophole that says “if enough of his colleagues question him” or “he looks too hard at the president’s buddies” or “he’s a senile old coot,” the rules can be waived. And Obama voted for that law.
I really hate to do this.
I mean, god.
Big fish.
Small barrel.
Frickin’ *SAWED OFF SHOTGUN*.
But…
“Has Walpin been fired without 30 days notice being given to Congress”?
A: No.
“Has there been a violation of the law, given that he hasn’t been fired?”
A: No.
Regarding this misuse of federal funds, I’m kind of puzzled by that. I seem to recall something about no charges being filed. Why weren’t there charges filed with that kind of criminal wrongdoing?
Well, I’m sure that there’s an explanation for this.
(I’m not sure it’ll make any sense, but I’m sure there’s an explanation. It probably involves insisting that, if money was returned, it must prove *something*. Because investigations are painless and don’t cost anyone anything, so no one ever returns funds to put an investigation behind them.)
What’s really fascinating is that the wingnuts seem to think that no one is able to conduct investigations properly, and keep their yaps shut during election season, so it’s okay if Walpin continues in his job… there isn’t anyone out there better qualified than an idiot who can’t bother to audit the number of dollars that might have been misspent, and can’t present exculpatory evidence *before* the US Attorney’s office has to learn of it through other channels, thus wasting time and resources.
Today is only day 29, and he’s already been fired.
No, today is day 29 and he has been suspended. Do you ever check your facts, Mr. Tea?
By the way, what do you have against Bush-appointee Lawrence Brown? Did he run over your dog or something?
LongHairedWeirdo thinks Karl Rove is completely 100% innocent in both the whole US Attorney firing kerfuffle and the Valerie Plane outing. After all, charges were never filed …
Same for you, Farris. Why are you suggesting that Lawrence Brown didn’t do his job properly?
Hey, remember a couple of years ago when our right-wing friends here were telling us that the president could fire anyone he wanted for any reason?
It’s great to see them come round to the idea that the president is, indeed, subject to checks and balances in personnel issues. Kinda gives you hope for humanity — like people really can learn the error of their ways and that sort of thing.
But let’s see if they remember this lesson next time a Republican president is in office.
And to avoid this sort of brouhaha in the future, it might be a good idea, in the case of posts where impartiality is a desideratum, for current and future presidents to avoid appointing people who would even think of referring in public to one of the sovereign states of the union as run by the “modern-day KKK … the Kennedy-Kerry Klan.”
The main question with Walpin is not why his job is in trouble but why he got hired in the first place. That question brings us back to GWB and his affirmative action plan for loyal wingnut wackjobs. It will take more than Hercules to clean out the Augean stables Bush left behind in the halls of the executive branch.
WWilber does a fine job of showcasing his knowledge on the finer points of this case.
Actually his suspension was announced 11 June in a letter to Speaker Pelosi. So he still has some time. However 29 May was when President Obama originally tried to relieve him, which caused that whole “President Obama is not following the law” thing.
So, now he gets to use stimulus dollars to pay staffers to wash his car? Good on KJ!
I had hoped Oliver would find something that actually made this guy seem like a whackjob.
Instead, we only get what we knew before: that he uncovered corruption, blew the whistle, and got fired for “mental health reasons”.
Hmmm, I wonder who used to fire people and claim “health reasons” as the cause?
Wow… you mean Karl Rove was actually investigated? I thought he kept claiming executive privilege, and promised he’d testify, but only if he wasn’t under oath, and no record was kept.
Now, SaveFarris, you’ll have to pardon me, but I have better things to do than deal with brainless prevaricators.
J.G.Thayer: “Today is only day 29, and he’s already been fired.”
Quaker in a Basement: “No, today is day 29 and he has been suspended. Do you ever check your facts, Mr. Tea?”
If they do, I see precious little evidence that is has any effect on their accuracy.
Hmmm, I wonder who used to fire people and claim “health reasons” as the cause?
Leona Helmsley?
It’s unfortunate that we are into name-calling here. There is plenty here to look into, and the law that then-Senator Obama co-sponsored, requiring that the reasons for terminating an IG be provided to Congress, should help us get a better understanding.
I am staying open-minded until the day that all the facts and allegations are out on the table. BUT I will say this was badly mishandled, at a minimum, by the administration. And good luck making Walpin look like a hack and/or a whack job. I didn’t know a thing about the man, but made it a point to find out.
Family had meager education and resources; he put himself through CCNY (student body president), Yale Law (Managing Editor of Law Review), cum laude, clerked for Federal Judges, prosecuted Roy Cohn (Joe McCarthy’s henchman), prosecuted Watergate criminals, took on mobsters in NY and Vegas, highly successful private attorney in NY for decades where he did work on SEC matters, honored with the Professionalism Award by the American Inn of Courts in 2003, where he is pictured with Supreme Court Justices Ginsburg and Stevens at the award ceremony. Married for 52 years.
If that’s the profile of a whack job, I’d like to be one. Think he needed that IG job? Think he is trying to “advance his career” as was (pitifully) suggested by some government or agency flak whose name I forgot.
Interesting little factoid: when the call came to him about the choice of resigning or being fired (”you have one hour to decide”; that’s really amateur hour stuff), Walpin said he thought the incoming call, based on the number calling, would be another discussion about his involvement in the Sotomayor nomination push — which he has actively promoted.
Mr. Willis, I would surmise, has spent maybe 20% of the hours I have in reading about this matter— because I have been very plugged in via Google Alerts and have at least skimmed every single thing that has come in that way … and I would guesstimate it’s more than a hundred citations so far with no sign of it losing steam.
Now that Mr.Walpin has been discredited in a very dramatic way, and really has nothing to lose by being candid, and considering his bona fides and how well he comes across in interviews, my hunch is that he is FAR from being kicked to the curb. I think he will be one tough cookie to bring down.
But don’t worry. Oliver will call him a whackjob for the simple reason that he angered the King.
my hunch is that he is FAR from being kicked to the curb
Less than 30 days away, actually. The notice to Congress is in. That’s all the law requires.
I don’t think there’s going to be any legal issue here. But unless Obama can explain to the public why he fired a guy after he uncovered corruption, it will further erode the sheen on his reputation.
Remember, Obama came into office as someone different. Every day we find out that he isn’t really any different.
Every day we find out that he isn’t really any different.
“We”? Got an invisible friend?
And the “sheen on his reputation” is sitting at 63 percent, thankyouverymuch.
Oh, silly Terry. Why did you bother with all that research? Oliver presented all the information you needed — Walpin had donated $2,500 to Republicans, so OBVIOUSLY he’s senile and evil and partisan and incompetent.
Whoops, there I go again trusting Oliver to present all the relevant information. Silly me. Walpin gave $1,000 to McCain, $1,000 to Giuliani, $500 to Elizabeth Dole, and (for some reason Oliver omitted this one) $500 to Arlen Specter.
Why did Oliver omit Specter, one has to wonder…
Oh, and over at Hot Air they featured a segment from Glen Beck’s show where he gave Walpin the standard government test for senility, and he passed with flying colors. One has to wonder how Biden, or Byrd, or Kennedy, or even Obama would do with such a test…
J.
“And the “sheen on his reputation” is sitting at 63 percent, thankyouverymuch.”
He’s personally popular. I like him too. But he’s not a change from previous Democratic administrations. If you look inside the numbers, he’s losing support from independents. You know, the people for whom “just another Democrat” wasn’t what they were looking for.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama sits at 65% and is reelected in a landslide in 2012. But it certainly won’t be as the guy who brought change to Washington, other than a simple party switch.
Man oh man don’t times change quickly or what? Just last year if someone who worked in the Bush Adminstration who was fired and spoke out about it was dubbed a ‘hero’ etc by the nutroots and the Democrats. Of course when someone speaks out against Obama-heaven forbid-they are ‘crazy’ sounds logical to me.
[...] Oliver Willis [...]
OK, so Walpin is a senile old coot. That’ll win a lot of support with the AARP. What’s the excuse for firing Neil Barofsky, the IG overseeing stimulus spending? Or Judith Gwynne, the IG of the International Trade Commission?
Why, it’s almost as if Obama is getting rid of the watchdogs who oversee his biggest cash cow for funding to reward his supporters…
J.
Tell me, Mr. Tea…have you read any of Mr. Walpin’s “Special Reports”?
Run along and do so, then come back and tell us what a sober fellow he is.
Tinkertoys.
OK, so Walpin is a senile old coot.
I’m surprised you think so. I haven’t suggested it.
So Quaker is it your position that there is no link between the dismissal of Walprin and and an attempt by the administration to muffle critisism of an Obama crony with questionable accounting practices?
News flash, Quaker: it ain’t all about you.
Last night, the White House sent a letter to Congress explaining why it fired Walpin. Ethics counsel Norm Eisen wrote Walpin, 78, was “confused” and “disoriented” at a recent board meeting, that he had been absent from the office, and that he had shown a “lack of candor” in providing information to decision-makers.
When a 78-year-old man is called “confused” and “disoriented” and a “whack job,” that’s code for “senile.”
So no, you didn’t have to say it. The Obama administration said it for you.
J.
Wow… that’s… that’s amazing. That proves – I mean, proves that he couldn’t make overblown accusations, with insufficient fact finding, flap his yap during an election, and end up … with a case where the most that’s alleged is sloppy record keeping.
Or does it?
Is that your position?
That he couldn’t blow a high profile investigation with that background? That we’re dealing with an extremely clever impostor, and the real Walpin is hidden somewhere, in need of rescue?
Or are you just throwing out irrelevancies to distract from the real issue?
is it your position that there is no link between the dismissal of Walprin and and an attempt by the administration to muffle critisism of an Obama crony
It is my position that those hawking “evidence” of such a connection are distributing taffy to rubes.
Also, Mr. Tea, shall I take your evasiveness as a sign that you have not reviewed any of Mr. Walpin’s recent work product?
What’s the excuse for firing Neil Barofsky, the IG overseeing stimulus spending?
Barfsky was fired? When did that happen?
What’s the excuse for firing Neil Barofsky, the IG overseeing stimulus spending?
Barofsky was fired? When did that happen?
Quaker in a Basement does an excellent job pointing out that Republican Gerald Walpin “withheld key exculpatory evidence” in a political trial that is easily perceivable as being a burrowing Republican Bushie trying to misuse the law to attack a Democratic politician (cough, Republican US Attorneys scandal).
Republican Walpin went out of his way to make an unsubstantiated attack on a Democratic politician even while Walpin possesed exculpatory evidence during an election.
Exculpatory evidence is evidence “to clear from alleged fault or guilt” and Republican Walpin is accused of withholding exculpatory evidence: evidence that would have cleared the accused.
“Wilbur1138’s” comment is especially interesting: “Hey, remember a couple of years ago when our right-wing friends here were telling us that the president could fire anyone he wanted for any reason?”
Yeah, good times….
But as always: Republican’s First Rule: Rules Are For Other People
This comment by “Wilbur1138″ wins him the Hero of the Day Award:
“The main question with Walpin is not why his job is in trouble but why he got hired in the first place. That question brings us back to <b?GWB and his affirmative action plan for loyal wingnut wackjobs. It will take more than Hercules to clean out the Augean stables Bush left behind in the halls of the executive branch.”
Right Wingnut Welfare = Affirmative Action
Quaker,
Your tinkertoy comment earlier implies, to me at least, that you put more faith in the senility theory as opposed to the Obama is muffling crony critisism idea. Would it be correct to assume by your taffy remarks that you find it unlikely that there was an effort by the Obama administration to silence an outspoken critic of an Obama favorite?
Obama campaign scandal = Let’s talk about Walpin…
Operation Deflection is a success!
Heh
FarrisI’ve heard walpon on Laura Ingram twice now. Seemed pretty lucid both times. Your “proof” that Walpon is a whack job is…?
I think you answered your own question.
I’m not suggesting he’s senile. I’m suggesting he has convenient forgetfulness.
Kind of like that other guy, Alberto something or other.
Zachary Roth at TPM did a great timeline on Gerald Walpin’s (mis)use of his office under Republican President Bush where even “US attorney McGregor Scott, a Bush appointee, announced that the investigation [by Walpin] into the misuse of funds did not warrant criminal charges.”
As Roth points out in a separate post about Gerald Walpin, “In short, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that Walpin overstepped his authority in going after Johnson. And his background hardly suggests that he’s the kind of politically independent, non-partisan watchdog the IQ job requires. He’s a member of the conservative Federalist society, and once introduced Mitt Romney at a meeting of the group by saying that Romney’s state, Massachusetts, is run by “modern-day KKK … the Kennedy-Kerry Klan.”"
He certainly doesn’t strike me as impartial.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/11/11/romney_rips_sjcs_justices_on_values/
that Romney’s state, Massachusetts, is run by “modern-day KKK … the Kennedy-Kerry Klan.””
That is beyond the pale. Or pail. I’d fire his ass too.
Oh, Quaker, “Newsy,” you’re reading the wrong talking points. They aren’t getting rid of Walpin because of bias, they’re getting rid of him because he’s senile.
Or have the folks from Journolist come up with a fresh spin? “The prior statements about Walpin are no longer operative. These new statements are the operative ones.”
J.
Zachary Roth at TPM adds that the US Attorney charged that Gerald Walpin, “hadn’t even conducted an audit to determine how much money had been misspent by St. HOPE, and that he had withheld key exculpatory evidence”, the US Attorney even accused “Walpin of acting “as the investigator, advocate, judge, jury and town crier” in the case.”
Republican Walpin made accusations of financial impropriety without even doing the basic legwork of a financial audit.
That might fly in the closed right wing infotainment bubble, but outside of that bubble it seems clear that this is the wrong horse for right wingers to bet on to create one of their famous fake scandals.
Oh, Quaker, “Newsy,” you’re reading the wrong talking points.
And you’re evading my question: When was Barofsky fired?
Answer: He wasn’t. Once again, Mr. Tea has left home without his facts on.
Obama campaign scandal = Let’s talk about Walpin…
Operation Deflection is a success!
Frank? It’s not the Obama folks who want to talk about Walpin.
Of course, an actual investigation into all these charges would be rather pointless. Someone has dared to cast aspersions at an FOB (Friend Of Barack), so all negative accusations MUST be true, and any and all defenses of him MUST be false. Especially those accusations not cited by the White House when they said why they were getting rid of the guy.
I hope someone is keeping track of the ever-changing rationales for getting rid of Walpin. Incompetence? Senility? Bias? Misconduct?
My, one wonders why none of this came to light before Walpin started scrutinizing Obama’s hoops buddy…
(And let’s not mention that Johnson admitted to misusing almost a million dollars in federal funds, and offered — quite generously — to repay half of it…)
J.
Would it be correct to assume by your taffy remarks that you find it unlikely that there was an effort by the Obama administration to silence an outspoken critic of an Obama favorite?
An assumption of that sort would be off-topic and an unwarranted extrapolation. I am speaking about the heralding of “evidence” of wrongdoing.
It’s like this:
Illogical conservative crackpot: “The moon was created by the CIA! This photo of the moon over CIA headquarters is proof!”
Quaker in a Basement: “Your proof is bunk.”
ICC: “You don’t believe there’s a moon?”
No? Then who entitled this thread, Gerald Walpin, Wack Job ?
OK, ‘wingers, let’s get beyond your knee-jerk victimization bleating and have a look at what Mr. Walpin has been up to, shall we?
Job description…laws…something missing here…I know! Walpin’s job performance maybe?
Still haven’t read Mr. Walpin’s “Special Report” Mr. Tea?
And let’s not mention that Johnson admitted to misusing almost a million dollars in federal funds
Yet another instance of Mr. Tea misstating basic facts.
Quaker,
Would that be similar to;
Extremely evenhanded liberal blogger: IG is a whackjob, probably senile, the Prez does a good thing by giving him 1 hour’s notice to resign or be fired.
Illogical conservative crackpot: Gee that’s funny, that’s contrary to a new law and incidently it looks like
the man had investigated a black man who apparently misused some of the free federal money that is being handed out like candy. A logical conclusion would be this is politically motivated.
Quaker: Your proof is bunk.
Illogical conservative crackpot: You don’t believe in political retribution?
Quaker: Oh no, I never make up my mind without all of the facts and would never assume the worst of anyone until a court has rendered a verdict. Like for example OJ, I didn’t reach a conclusion until the court rendered it’s verdict, then there was proof.
Extremely evenhanded liberal blogger: Racist! The president is black, Phillie’s mayor is black, the IG is white, and a Republican political donar. The commentator mentioned that the Philly mayor was a black man. He mentioned the OJ case which has nothing to do with this except that OJ was a black man. Racist! Racist!
Illogical conservative crackpot: “The moon was created by the CIA! This photo of the moon over CIA headquarters is proof!”
Quaker in a Basement: “Your proof is bunk.”
ICC: “You don’t believe there’s a moon?”
Like for example OJ, I didn’t reach a conclusion until the court rendered it’s verdict, then there was proof.
Now see what I mean? That’s a great example of the “unwarranted extrapolations” I was talking about.
I have never written here about my opinion on whether or not Mr. Simpson killed his wife. I have written on why Mr. Simpson did not serve time in connection with her death.
And speaking of unwarranted extrapolations, we come to this:
Illogical conservative crackpot: Gee that’s funny, that’s contrary to a new law and incidently it looks like
the man had investigated a black man who apparently misused some of the free federal money that is being handed out like candy. A logical conclusion would be this is politically motivated.
Of course, this “logical conclusion” is based on nothing more than proximity. It ignores complaints made about the IG by the board members of the corporation he was hired to protect and the Republican-appointed U.S. attorney who followed up on his investigation. It relies primarily on the word of perpetually outraged political operators that where there’s smoke there must be an unseen fire breathing dragon.
In short, the “logical conclusion” is anything but.
Just checking Quaker, I admire your ability to never get pinned down.
You just ask the wrong questions, that’s all.
Oliver’s Dictionary defines whackjob as “anyone who pisses of Dear Leader.”
Oliver’s Dictionary defines whackjob as “anyone who pisses of Dear Leader.”
Internet tradition fail.
Mr. Bush was “Dear Leader.” Mr. Obama is “The Messiah,” or “The One.”
Tell you what, AO. I’m feeling charitable today. I’ll show my cards–but just once.
You wrote:
Now your construction leaves my several ways to parry on the premise of your question.
Your tinkertoy comment earlier implies, to me at least, that you put more faith in the senility theory as opposed to the Obama is muffling crony critisism idea.
1) I can deny intending any implication
2) I can call false choice
3) I can plead non sequitor because my previous comment addressed neither of the possibilities you raise.
You could use a more direct formulation: “Do you think Mr. Walpin was fired in retaliation for his investigation of Kevin Johnson?” That would be a much more difficult question to parry. However, I would probably still reply with, “How should I know?” and return to my original point: those who keep insisting that the proximity of the Johnson investigation to Mr. Walpin’s firing is evidence of nefarious action by the Obama administration are ignoring all parts of the story that don’t fit their conclusion.
What I believe about the Mr. Walpin’s firing isn’t relevant to that assertion.
Sorry. Cut and paste fail on my part. The second passage quoted from your earlier comment should have also been part of the blockquote. Not sure how I managed that.
Most people, Quaker, feel a tiny bit of shame when they evade a question on semantics or other technicalities. You seem to positively revel in it…
J.
Most people, Quaker, feel a tiny bit of shame when they evade a question on semantics or other technicalities.
Your poor comprehension skills are on display again. I evade by neither. I simply stick to my point. Noticing that you (yes, you) have no evidence to support your fantastic claims in no way obligates me to express an opinion on separate questions.
Further, I am under no obligation to repair AO’s faulty reasoning for him.
“Quaker in a Basement”: “Further, I am under no obligation to repair AO’s faulty reasoning for him.”
It’s an inoperable defect.
Right wing “Amused Observer” uses logical fallacies and manipulative deceit the way some people breath.
He’s in the running for the most deceitful poster here. Considering the competition some of the right wingers here give him for that position, that’s quite an accomplishment.
I’ve reluctantly and genuinely concluded that the only way a really intelligent right winger can operate is through outright deceit and manipulation.
It leaves my conservative streak deeply appalled.
Most people, Quaker, feel a tiny bit of shame when they evade a question on semantics or other technicalities.
Does the shame go away when you evade questions by ignoring them altogether?
‘Wingers:
Just to make sure we’re clear: The investigation of Kevin Johnson was complete. By alleging political motivation, you’re suggesting that Mr. Obama fired Mr. Walpin not to stop the investigation, but in retaliation for the investigation.
Do I have that right?
LOL Quaker,
I’m used to you moving the goalposts. I understand what you are doing and enjoy the challenge. This is just the internet after all, none of this is very serious. Nobody here is changing anyones mind. There is a large cultural divide in this country and for the most part we stand glaring at each other across the void.
Progressives have done a few things right but have done many things wrong. Conservatives have done a few things wrong and helped preserve a great many things progressives would destroy if given the chance. The pendulum swings back and forth as it always has. The voters who show up in red counties and states for the most part hold to a more traditional set of values then the blue voter. On somethings our red americans lag thier city cousins in accepting. In other things progressive values erode what has made this country great.
The pendulumm swings back and forth but it ratchets more left than right. Sad but that is the way it is. Hubris and overreach are common human failings that are bipartisan in nature and help push the pendulum.
Leftists being on the whole younger than thier conservative counterparts are much more given to crudity and profanity than those on the right. They are much shriller and less tolerant as a whole. More liberals turn conservative as they get older and wiser than conservatives turn liberal with the wisdom age brings.
The old saw attributed to Winston Churchill ( there is some doubt but he generally gets the credit) goes something like
“A boy at tweny that is not a liberal has no heart, a man at forty who is not conservative has no brain.”
In closing Obama has been Dear Leader on the right side of the political spectrum since his cult following started to overwhelm the “smartest woman in the world”.
We didn’t notice your use of it towards Bush because we were focused on the Chimpy Bushhitler thing. I suppose we owe the left an apology for use of your trademarked term, but you won’t get it. But OMG use the monkey meme on that skinny jug eared fella in the Whitehouse now and you sure get a lot of knashing of the teeth.
This is a typical tactic of the left, be they communists, socialists, or Democrats: Eliminate your opponents, show no mercy. The Clintons wanted some friends in the Travel Office, so they went after poor Billy Dale with a vengeance. They could have fired him, but no, they tried to have him imprisoned, which even the judge found disgusting. History repeats itself, though less cruelly here. Gerald Walpin is called senile, perpetuating stereotypes about the elderly. Oliver, you’re black, so how would you like it if a president said an IG couldn’t be trusted because he was lazy, dumb, and stealing from people in the office? Yet you’re right behind this ugly discrimination of an older man. There is no evidence he is senile, and supporting this idea is as bad as being a racist.
I’m used to you moving the goalposts.
No goalpost moving. I’m asking a question. Are you suggesting political retaliation is Mr. Obama’s motive for firing Mr. Walpin? Yes? No?
Not too difficult, is it?
It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.
Evading? Well, there you have it.
No specific allegation, no evidence–just an implication based on the proximity of the firing to one investigation.
Does Walpin have a drinking problem? Side effects from medication? Walpin supporters protesting too much?
Do you have a card, Quaker? If I ever need representation, I want to call you first.
Haw!
Let’s put the last nail in this discussion, shall we?
The timing of the firing was wrong for stopping the investigation of Kevin Johnson–the investigation was complete and a repayment settlement had already been struck.
The timing of the firing was wrong for political retaliation–too soon! A firing immediately after the conclusion of the investigation begs for attention. Every “Chicago thug” knows that revenge is best when served cold.
So the firing was either too early or too late to fit wingnut theories.
The firing was too soon because it doesn’t dovetail with Quaker’s notions about revenge?
Talk about an egocentric interpretation: “That can’t be what happened, because that’s not the way I would have done it”
Amazing!
If it were me, Quaker, I wouldn’t have been messing around with an IG at all … So I guess Walpin was never fired .
Talk about an egocentric interpretation: “That can’t be what happened, because that’s not the way I would have done it”
I suppose that’s one way to interpret what I wrote. Not the correct way, though.
To interpret the firing as political payback, one must assume that Mr. Obama (or his staff) had no fear at all of being called on it, no matter how soon the firing came following Mr. Walpin’s investigation of an Obama ally.
Which are you assuming, Frank? Stupidity or arrogance?
Walpin should be used to controversy by now.
Back when he was a federal prosecutor, his own department denounced him in the New York Times for “mishandling” the Roy Cohn case:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/23/745976/-NYT:-Walpin-an-embarrassment-to-DOJ-for-mishandling-Roy-Cohn-case
Note that he had a reputation for playing fast and loose with the facts even then.