WalpinGate

[BeAChooser]

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=49856

Inspector General Fired by Obama Wants Congressional Hearing on His Case
Monday, June 22, 2009

 

[corplinx]

He served at the pleasure of the president.

Nuff said. Under every administration we get a story like this. Under Bush we had the usual suspects here complaining about it. Under Clinton we didn't have this forum but there was plenty of buzz about Clinton firing the travel office and replacing them with Arkansas cronies.

LIFE ISNT FAIR. The president can and will crap-can you for someone politically connected in a heartbeat if he doesn't like the way you knot your tie.

To the winner go the spoils.
To the whiner go the QQ.

 

[Damien Evans]

That's only your biased, uniformed opinion.

Do you know that the democrat who wrote the articles of impeachment against Nixon went on the record after Clinton's impeachment trial saying that Clinton should have been impeached a second time because of his abuse of the IRS and FBI? In fact, he said what Clinton did there was far worse than what Nixon did.

Do you know that the life long democrat (who voted for Clinton, btw) who investigated the allegations against Clinton during the impeachment for the House Managers completely disagrees with you? He called Clinton's administration a criminal enterprise and said that the country was sold out by the democrats AND republicans in the Senate when they limited the impeachment to accusations about lying under oath concerning a sexual affair. He even said that had the statute of limitations not expired he would have personally charged Clinton with the rape of Juanita Broaddrick and investigated the deaths of Foster and Brown.

The fact is that each and every time I've tried to debate Chinagate, CampaignFinanceGate, Filegate, FosterGate and BrownGate with liberals on this forum, your side of the aisle has refused to do battle, with but few exceptions (and those folks were been proven wrong concerning "facts" they claimed over and over). And anyone can browse this forum looking for threads on these topics to verify that what I say is absolutely true. Which is why I point this out.

Not that anything I post is going to change your views.

You're right, nothing you everpost is going to change anyones views. You know why? You have a history of lying longer than Yao Mings arm.

 

[332nd]

I gather you don't think any harm was done to national security during Chinagate and CampaignFinancegate? I gather you see no harm in foreigners contributing millions of dollars in illegal contributions to candidates (as long as they are democrats ) in our national elections in exchange for access to restricted technology and secrets. I gather you deny that over a hundred people fled the country to avoid questioning in the matter. I gather you deny that numerous people admitted to such illegal contributions and were convicted of doing so. I guess you've never heard of names like John Huang, Charlie Trie, Johnny Chung and James Riady. I gather that you deny that numerous Clinton administration members and democrat party supporters were implicated, under oath, in those illegalities ... despite the control Clinton and the democrats had of the Department of Justice and FBI. And I gather you never heard of the Cox Report and La Bella Memo.

I gather you see nothing wrong with the Whitehouse illegally obtaining thousands of raw FBI data files on it's political opponents and illegally loading the contents of those files on DNC computers. This is not myth, Redtail, but established fact. It is also established fact that the person Clinton's corrupt Attorney General picked to supposedly investigate the matter, Kenneth Starr, outright lied when he assured the American public that the files had been returned to the FBI. His successor admitted on TV years later that the files were STILL in Whitehouse hands.

I gather you don't find it troubling that well regarded military pathologists said the wound in Ron Brown's head looked suspiciously like a bullet wound and that the WhiteHouse, instead of honestly investigating those concerns, destroyed the careers of those pathologists. In fact, even the pathologist who conducted the examination of Brown's body and ruled it an accidental death (and who was caught on live TV lying about the facts in the case to justify that ruling), now says there should have been an autopsy, that what he saw as a "red flag". I gather you don't find it suspicious that this was the first time in US Air Force history (other than one instance of friendly fire) where the Air Force skipped the phase of the investigation where the cause of the plane crash is determined. I gather you don't find it suspicious that sworn testimony by confidants of Ron Brown indicates that Brown confronted Clinton shortly before his death and told Clinton he was going to turns state's evidence in Chinagate and CampaignFinanceGate.

I gather you have no difficulty accepting Starr's claims about the oven mitt in Vince Foster's car (that curiously wasn't there when the police photographed the inside of the car and recorded it's contents) and the bullet hole in the back of Foster's head (that curiously none of the many eyewitnesses at the scene saw). I gather you have no problem with the government refusing to release photos showing the back of Foster's head (which would silence those who say there was foul play) or the fact that Starr's own top investigator, Miquel Rodriquez, quit the investigation, charging that it was coverup and that he himself had seen a photo of Foster that showed a wound in the neck that the government account denied was there. I guess you find nothing suspicious about witnesses who claimed Foster was depressed only saying that after a meeting in the Whitehouse a week after he died, when prior to that they had all vehemently denied he was depressed. I guess you don't find the *suicide note*, that even the government now doesn't want to talk about, suspicious.

You know what I think, Redtail? I think your beliefs, if not stupid, show a certain lack of skepticism.

... Wow... That was like Bugs Bunny Hawaiian for "No most of them haven't been proven."

I see you want to avoid the facts I noted about the views of the Democrat who wrote the articles of impeachment against Nixon.

I see that you don't see the irony in who was controlling the DOJ and FBI at the time all those scandals occurred and were basically ignored.

And as to why congress didn't didn't jump on those crimes, perhaps Filegate is the answer. It's all explained here, by the life long democrat, David Schippers, who investigated Clinton's activities for the House Managers: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_1_17/ai_72273372 .

Perhaps if Santa existed there'd be no more war.

Well "sparky", I see you suddenly don't even trust life long democrats who voted for Clinton.

Hmmm... Let me thi... NO!

I see you aren't challenging my statement about the "facts". Again, your side just refuses to do battle.

I see you put facts in quotes. Meh... I've been Poe'd before.

As to why Bush and company did nothing about all those crimes after Bush became President, ask yourself why Obama isn't going after Bush, given all the crimes your side claims he committed? Perhaps because Obama doesn't want to hold accomplishing his agenda hostage to the divisiveness that would result if he did? The same logic applied to Bush ... in fact, he told the American public he was going to "move on" even before he was elected. And Obama even has more control of Congress and the support of the mainstream media than Bush did. The mainstream media, as high as they regard their idol Clinton, would have attacked Bush no end had he gone after the "gates". Even so, I think he should have investigated and prosecuted because if he had, we might not have Obama and so many Clinton administration members in power right now. The fact is that I've addressed this complaint of yours many times on this forum in those threads I mentioned. And each and every time your side in the debate has simply ignored what I said or ran. And I see you did one of the two. And anyone who would like to verify that need only find and browse those threads.

Ahhhhh... I see. The "your side" remarks tell it all. You're incapable of understanding that there are people who don't have an /s like (as in D/s) devotion to a political party. Ah well...

I would say that while Bush did many things wrong, they weren't illegal. Wait a tick! That's pretty much what I said about Bush and Clinton!!!!


(It's like he's a truther.)

 

[332nd]

Because republican lawmakers are gutless for the most part.

I thought it was because Bill would spill the beans about 9/11?

 

[oldhat]

BAC thinks Bill Clinton and Ken Starr conspired together to kill Vince Foster.

...run out of smileys yet, BAC?

 

[BeAChooser]

He served at the pleasure of the president.

Nuff said.

No, a law co-sponsored by Obama stated that the President can only fire an IG "for cause" and he must give the IG 30 days notice. Obama neither showed cause or gave the Walpin 30 days notice before attempting to fire him. And it is going to get interesting if Obama fails to answer the written questions submitted to him by the other co-sponsors of that law.

Under Clinton we didn't have this forum but there was plenty of buzz about Clinton firing the travel office and replacing them with Arkansas cronies.

Travelgate wasn't just "buzz". It turned out to indeed have been illegal and exactly what the critics said it was. The Clinton White House ended up having to reinstate most of the fired employees and remove Clinton's associates from the travel office. They ended up having to pay all their court costs. Of course, Ken Starr concluded that Bill Clinton had no roll in the matter. But then we know Ken Starr was co-opted by the President because he lied to the public about the disposition of the Filegate files. And Robert Ray only concluded that while Hillary Clinton made false statements UNDER OATH (he said, contrary to her statements, that she "ultimately influenced" the decision to fire the employees), there was insufficient evidence to prosecute her "beyond a reasonable doubt". Yeah. Sure.

The fact is that Travelgate was the first of what would be many scandals and violations of law during the Clinton Whitehouse. Are we getting a warning of what's to come here, folks? By the way the Obama administration has handled this? By Michele's involvement? Are we not seeing that the mainstream media is going to protect Obama the same way they protected the Clintons? Remember, they made the story about Bush firing US attorneys a front page *scandal* for weeks and weeks, even though US attorneys, unlike IGs, can indeed be "fired at will". Yet in this case the same media has mostly ignored what's happening, even though IGs cannot be "fired at will". I tell you this is a warning of what's to come.

 

[BeAChooser]

BAC thinks Bill Clinton and Ken Starr conspired together to kill Vince Foster.

I've never said any such thing. Why do you misrepresent my stated views, oldhat? Are your arguments against the charges I've actually leveled that thin?

 

[Robster FCD]

(It's like he's a truther.)

No. I've converted two truthers to reality, but conspiracy conservatives? I really don't think its possible.

If Ken Starr had anything he could have used that was even passingly legitimate, he would have used it, instead of a perjury trap completely unrelated to the investigation at hand.

 

[BeAChooser]

If Ken Starr had anything he could have used that was even passingly legitimate, he would have used it, instead of a perjury trap completely unrelated to the investigation at hand.

Can you tell us why Ken Starr lied to the American people and told them that the FBI files had been returned to the FBI, even though they were still in Whitehouse hands for years after that lie?

 

[oldhat]

Step 1

BAC thinks Bill Clinton and Ken Starr conspired together to kill Vince Foster.

Step 2

I've never said any such thing. Why do you misrepresent my stated views, oldhat? Are your arguments against the charges I've actually leveled that thin?

Step 3

Step 4
May 14, 2009:

I've already provided various hard evidence suggesting [Ken Starr and Robert Fiske] were involved in a coverup. What else can I say, if you won't even attempt to challenge that evidence?

Every one of your other posts on that insipid Vince Foster Was Murdered conspiracy theory thread was dedicated to the idea that Starr conspired with Clinton, you lying little troll.

Please be civil in your posts and remember to attack the argument and not the arguer.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

Do NOT undo or otherwise change edits made by Moderators. If you object to Moderation action, please see your Membership Agreement on how to file an Appeal.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[Skeptic]

We have the "boy who cried wolf" problem here. So many people have blamed so many politicians (left and right) of "hiding scandals" all the time, that nobody believes any such claims anymore, regardless of whether or not they are true.

 

[BeAChooser]

Oldhat, as you note, I've said on occasion that

"I've already provided various hard evidence suggesting [Ken Starr and Robert Fiske] were involved in a coverup."

But tell us how that translates into the claim that

BAC thinks Bill Clinton and Ken Starr conspired together to kill Vince Foster.

It does not. All you've done is prove you you can't comprehend what you read.

 

[oldhat]

Do NOT undo or otherwise change edits made by Moderators. If you object to Moderation action, please see your Membership Agreement on how to file an Appeal.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[BeAChooser]

We have the "boy who cried wolf" problem here. So many people have blamed so many politicians (left and right) of "hiding scandals" all the time, that nobody believes any such claims anymore, regardless of whether or not they are true.

No, Skeptic, that's not what is going on here. Most of these people are not "believing" because they support Obama more than they value skeptism or the truth. Just like the Clinton supported didn't believe Clinton did anything wrong for very partisan reasons. Despite the fact that in that case, as in this case, plenty of hard evidence from credible sources was offered to support the allegations of wrong doing. As I said, the supporters of Clinton, just like the supporters of Obama, don't want to debate the issues. Don't want to explore them. They simply run from them while throwing out adhominems, strawmen and red herrings. As they are doing on this thread.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...tom-of-the-AmeriCorps-IG-firing-48810047.html

Getting to the bottom of the AmeriCorps IG firing
By: BYRON YORK

06/23/09

... snip ...

In addition, there seems no question that the White House's handling of the firing -- calling Walpin on the evening of June 10 and telling him that he had one hour to resign or be terminated -- ignored the law that requires the president to give Congress 30 days' notice, and cause, before firing an inspector general. "I'm not going to comment on the process," the Republican board member said. He was open in saying that he agreed with the merits of the case against Walpin but repeated that wouldn't discuss "issues surrounding the process."

"You can draw your own conclusion," he said.

The conclusion is that there are still a lot of questions surrounding the firing of Gerald Walpin.

 

[linusrichard]

What's Obama hiding, folks? Who is he protecting? Why is he acting like Bill Clinton? Where's all that vaunted transparency?

If you actually believe this story is true - that the president is abusing his power, why are we seeing this thread peppered with , with nary a or a ? I mean, and are how I feel when I start to think that my government officials are betraying the public trust.

OP starts out with "This one might be serious, folks," but doesn't appear to take the issue seriously at all. And really, a president accused of politically motivated firings is compared to Bill Clinton? Where was BAC for the past eight years?

The only thing I can conclude is that BAC is not or because he doesn't actually care about government officials obeying the law; instead, he's because he sees this as an opportunity for somebody to "get" Obama. Which makes me feel a little .

I feel like BAC sees the law as kind of like the basket in a basketball game. No real extrinsic purpose, simply there as a standard by which we can determine which team is winning and which team is losing. Here's a hint: if the president is breaking the law (and I'm not saying he is or isn't in this case), we're all losing.

 

[Skeptic]

If you actually believe this story is true - that the president is abusing his power, why are we seeing this thread peppered with , with nary a or a ?

 

[BeAChooser]

OP starts out with "This one might be serious, folks," but doesn't appear to take the issue seriously at all.

Oh I take the issue very seriously, lr. Otherwise, I wouldn't have raised it and said I think it's serious. Can't you tell that from the content of my posts? Are you really so desperate to avoid discussing the substance of the complaints that the only remark you can make is about my spicing my comments with an occasional face? Surely you understand the reason I add them in the locations I do? Or are you simply obtuse to that, too?

Here's a hint: if the president is breaking the law (and I'm not saying he is or isn't in this case)

Why not? Did the IG get 30 days notice before he was told he'd be fired? Was the IG provided with cause for the firing when the IG was first told to either resign or be fired? Apparently not, so I don't see how it's in doubt that either the President or someone in his administration broke the law (the law that Obama co-sponsored and has those two requirements).

 

[EvilSmurf]

He even said that had the statute of limitations not expired he would have personally charged Clinton with the rape of Juanita Broaddrick and investigated the deaths of Foster and Brown.

Wow, I didn't know there was a statute of limitations on murder.