Let's see.
A Democrat (Johnson) receives government money for a nonprofit, and misuses it. An extremely partisan republican IG (Walpin) gets on the case and bombards the local attorney (Brown) with carefully selected evidence.
Walpin is not content and injects himself into the elections campaign, accusing Johnson of criminal wrongdoing.
Brown finds gross negligence but no criminal wrongdoing, and releases a scathing report about Johnson.
The President decides to replace the IG, as is his right and duty.
Let's see, here are a few facts you failed to mention:
1) Said democrat (Johnson) is a good friend of Obama. He admitted that earlier then denies it later (see the video I linked).
2) Said nonprofit (St. Hope) was getting funding from Americorp, one of Obama's darlings through which he hopes to spread "social justice". Americorp and Acorn are notoriously (and I don't use that word lightly) good friends. In fact, a "Report on the Activities of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities During the 104th Congress," Report 104-875, January 2, 1997, found that, "AmeriCorps members of AHC raised funds for ACORN, performed voter registration activities, and gave partisan speeches. In one instance, an AmeriCorps member was directed by ACORN staff to assist the [Clinton] White House in preparing a press conference in support of legislation."
3) Michelle Obama apparently wanted her chief of staff, Jackie Norris, to have more control over Americorp. Walpin stood in the way of that because he was the IG for the Corporation for National and Community Service which oversees AmeriCorp. Norris recently arrived at the Corporation as a "senior advisor".
4) It was the Corporation that in 2008 asked Walpin to investigate reports of irregularities at St. Hope. This was not something Walpin instigated on his own. It was Walpin's investigators who discovered that the money given to Johnson for tutoring Sacramento-area students, the redevelopment of several buildings, and theater and art programs had been used instead to pad staff salaries, meddle politically in a school-board election, and have AmeriCorps members perform personal services for Mr. Johnson, including washing his car. Again, Walpin wasn't alone in finding these irregularities.
5) When Walpin's office recommended Johnson and St Hope be suspended from receiving federal funds, the Corporation agreed. Of course, at that time the Corporation wasn't yet under the control of Obama's friends and supporters.
6) Whether Walpin is a staunch conservative is beside the point. He investigated (as was his job) allegations of misconduct and indeed found crime that apparently the Obama administration wanted to sweep under the rug. Simple as that.
7) City Attorney Brown, who you say found no "criminal" wrongdoing, was under considerable pressure not to file any criminal complaint against Johnson since Mr Johnson is the mayor and the city was under threat of loosing stimulus funds (Obama's darling) due to Johnson's suspension.
8) Mr Brown cut off contact with Mr Walpin's office and started working directly with the Corporation, whose board was now chaired by one of Obama's top fundraisers. They worked out a deal where Johnson and St Hope would only have to repay half of the grant money Johnson stole and where Johnson would be cleared allowing him to once again manage federal funds. But I ask you, Merko, why would Johnson have to repay anything if he did nothing illegal? Obviously, Brown's claim is specious.
9) Mr Walpin at this point objected to the deal, going so far at to submit a report, signed by two other senior members of his office, to Congress. Whereupon, he got a phone call from Norman Eisen, the Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform, telling him to resign within an hour or be fired.
10) The President may have the right to fire an IG, but according to a law that Obama himself co-sponsored, he has to show cause. Saying it it time to "move on" (which is what Eisen originally told Walpin was the reason) is not sufficient cause. Citing "loss of confidence" is not sufficient cause. Claiming that Walpin's charges had no merit, when Johnson is having to repay half the funding that he clearly stole, is not sufficient cause. And the newest claim, that Walpin is senile when obviously he is not ... see the interviews he's done on TV and with reporters like Byron which I linked, is also not sufficient cause.
11) Also, the President is required by that same law he co-sponsored to give an IG 30 days notice under the law. Obviously, he did not. In fact, Obama violated the law in trying to pressure Walpin into resigning in the manner he did.
12) You also forgot to mention that Chuck Grassley, another co-sponsor of the IG Reform Act, is demanding the Corporation hand over it's communications on this matter. He also wants to see any contact they've had with Michelle Obama. And the Corporation and the White House are refusing to supply either. What are they hiding?
You know what I think? This sounds like Travelgate. But worse.
Here's another video on the matter that explains the issue and shows the lies by the Obama administration, Brown and Mr Johnson in this matter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0-T...ald-walpin-situation/&feature=player_embedded
And you might interested in this:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...Obama-over-AmeriCorps-IG-firing-48196202.html
Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill has become the first Democrat to question the White House over the firing of AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin. McCaskill, who, like Republican Sen. Charles Grassley, is a champion of inspectors general, co-wrote the 2008 legislation requiring the president to give 30 days' notice, and cause, before firing an inspector general. In a statement released this afternoon, McCaskill says that the reason the president gave for firing Walpin -- that the president no longer has "the fullest confidence" in Walpin -- is, in McCaskill's words, "not sufficient."
McCaskill goes on to say that Obama's administration failed to follow the proper procedures, which is a nice way of saying
they broke the law that Obama himself co-sponsored. Does the law not apply to Obama? Can we rely on Obama's Attorney General to investigate this? Or will his Attorney General, like Clinton's, simply ignore the crimes of a democrat administration?
) 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.