Comments on: Obama Fires Americorps Watchdog – Part II

By: walter

walter — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:58:07 +0000

King sez……"walter thinks the CHARGE that Walpin withheld evidence is the same thing as PROOF that Walpin withheld evidence." sactown gives proof that Walprin with held a letter from a principal at an elementry school which for all intents and purpose could be considered evidence.

again, Gassely should have asked about that…..I mean Grassely…….no I mean Gassely

By: Da King

Da King — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:59:17 +0000

walter thinks the CHARGE that Walpin withheld evidence is the same thing as PROOF that Walpin withheld evidence. It isn't.

Walpin has filed a lawsuit.

By: walter

walter — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:39:36 +0000

sactown….the letter was evidence….period

By: sactown

sactown — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:51:06 +0000

Walter- Mr. Walpin addresses Mr. Brown's accusation about witholding evidence. It is about how a principal at an elementary school wrote a letter stating that he knew some students from Johnson's Hood Corps were assigned to tutor at his school but he had no ledger to document the students and had never personally witnessed anyone tutoring at his school. Johnson's attorney said that because Walpin witheld this letter, he was holding back information that would have supported that students tutored at St. HOPE. Mr Walpin said the letter was not included because it was a "non-statement" becuase the principal had never witnessed tutoring and had no records or people tutoring so the letter was pointless. He said just because people were assigned to tutor doesn't mean they actually tutored. If it's not witnessed or documented, by golly, it wasn't done. Anyone in the medical profession who is required to document everything can tell you that. Not documented, not done – period.

By: Da King

Da King — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:03:11 +0000

The parrot continues. Broken record.

You have no proof Walpin withheld evidence. Period.

I'm done. You bring nothing to the table.

By: walter

walter — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 20:01:04 +0000

just saying………..appearently the only people that DO NOT want to talk about the with holding of evidence are republicans

no, I forgot, you're a libertarian……they don't think with holding evidence is a reason for dismissal either. Heh, Heh

By: Da King

Da King — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:41:00 +0000

Keep trying to make Grassley the issue, instead of the real issue – the spurious reasons Obama and company manufactured to fire Walpin. That's what a good little liberal spin doctor would do.

Oh, I forgot. You're a conservative. Heh, heh.

By: walter

walter — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 19:21:42 +0000

King….you got that out of me saying ….."7 reasons…..12 questions It would seem to me each reason would get a question and some reasons would get 2 or 3. 0 questions about the with holding of evidence……strange"?

the other thing must have gone wwaaayyyy over your head………it's like if someone made the claim that Iraq's wmd are in Syria and the proof is they weren't found in Iraq……….got it now?

Grassely not asking about the with holding of evidence is proof that Walpin with held evidence. Of course I wouldn't say that but a republican propagandist like yourself might.

By: Da King

Da King — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 15:03:08 +0000

So, in your view, if accusations are made against an employee, that is reason enough to fire them. The accusations don't have to be proven.

Stalin would have liked you.

By: walter

walter — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:14:48 +0000

this from Fox News……

Removed after unanimous request from the AmeriCorps board of directors

At May, 20, 2009, board meeting Walpin "was confused, disoriented and unable to answer questions and exhibited behavior that led the board to question his capacity to serve."

The U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California complained about Walpin's conduct to the IG oversight board and alleged he withheld exculpatory evidence.

Walpin had "been absent from the Corporation's headquarters, insisting upon working from his home in New York over the objection" of the board.

He "exhibited a lack of candor in providing material information to decision makers."

He "engaged in other troubling and inappropriate conduct."

He "had become unduly disruptive to agency operations, impairing his effectiveness."

7 reasons…..12 questions It would seem to me each reason would get a question and some reasons would get 2 or 3. 0 questions about the with holding of evidence……strange

but hey, I'll be a good republican here just like you……..the absence of proof is all the proof I need

By: walter

walter — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:52:46 +0000

King…..thanks for the laugh

By: Da King

Da King — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 12:28:43 +0000

The fact that the charge that Walpin withheld evidence was way down the list of reasons from the Obama admin should tell you something.

By: walter

walter — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:50:16 +0000

King sez………"Oh, I see. YOU aren't claiming that Walpin withheld evidence….." Finally, you got something right.

I would think that the most serious charge against Walpin was that he with held evidence. Just asking why Grassley didn't ask about it.

By: Da King

Da King — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:15:42 +0000

Oh, I see. YOU aren't claiming that Walpin withheld evidence (you are just bringing it up over and over again). Right.

The burden of proof that Walpin withheld evidence should be on the Obama admin, not Grassley.

can u c dat ?

By: walter

walter — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:06:48 +0000

King sez……"Again, do you have ANY proof that the claim that Walpin withheld evidence is true ?" Why do I have to prove it? I didn't make the claim that Walpin with held evidence. All I have ever said is that one of the reasons given for Walpin's termination was that he with held evidence.

kin u c da deerfrence?

you should be asking the same question that I am asking…….why isn't Grassley asking about the with holding of evidence claim

I guess that would make too much sense

By: Da King

Da King — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:35:29 +0000

Again, do you have ANY proof that the claim that Walpin withheld evidence is true ? I have submitted ample proof that the other claims against him were not.

By: walter

walter — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:23:14 +0000

again, one of the reasons given for Walpin's dismissal was that he with held evidence……..why didn't one of Grassely's 12 questions deal with that?

By: Da King

Da King — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:52:27 +0000

Oy vey.

By: walter

walter — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 00:28:54 +0000

joe…….to be honest…..I have no idea what you are talking about

and what….Walpin wasn't in our govmint?

By: averagejoe5

averagejoe5 — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:02:37 +0000

No Walt, that's the point. You guys aren't seeing the forest for the trees. There is more corruption in our govt now than ever yet you throw your allegiance behind the biggest group of conspirators in our history.

By: walter

walter — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:07:27 +0000

so because nobody said he was senile you had to make something up?

He was accused of with holding evidence……just pointing out Grassley didn't touch on that with his 12 questions

so let me understand your argument here …..Walpin didn't do anything wrong because look at all what all these other people did. Is that about right?

By: Da King

Da King — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:00:04 +0000

walter,
I posted no quote from anyone saying Walpin was senile. We've already covered this. I was saying that by calling Walpin "disoriented" and "confused," they made the implication that he was "senile." (The quotes indicated satire on my part). He isn't, as I've illustrated over and over.

Do you have ANY proof that Walpin withheld evidence about anything ?

Because I have already posted the evidence about St. Hope withholding evidence and obstructing Walpin's investigation, which is why Walpin disagreed with the settlement and was making a stink (which is why he was fired).

walter says, "King, don't get me wrong…..defending and making excuses for republicans is what a good republican does. Probably the same could be said for a good pedophile"

Or for someone who pretends to be a conservative while he trashes a fellow conservative (Walpin) who was fired under false pretenses for political reasons by the Obama administration for doing his job.

And all I said was that Foley got booted by the GOP. That is a fact. No excuses necessary for the truth. Btw, did Barney Frank get booted by the Dems when it was discovered that a prostitution ring was being run out of his apartment ? NOPE. He got promoted. Did William Jefferson get booted when $90,000 in cash was found in his freezer ? NOPE. Did Gary Stubbs get booted for having an affair with an underage congressional page ? NOPE. Did Pat Leahy get booted for leaking classified information on multiple occasions ? NOPE. Did Ted Kennedy get booted for killing a girl, leaving the scene, and trying to cover up his involvement ? NOPE. Did Harry Reid get booted for funneling taxpayer dollars to his family members ? NOPE. Did Charlie Rangel get booted for his raft of ethical violations ? NOPE. Did John Murtha get booted for being an unindicted co-conspirator in the ABSCAM mess ? NOPE. Did the impeached judge Alcee Hastings get booted ? NOPE. Did Dick Durbin get booted for insider trading ? NOPE.

By: walter

walter — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 12:10:08 +0000

on the prevoius Walpin thread I wondered if Walpin ended up being fired will he have to return the pay he recieved during his suspension?

anybody know?

By: walter

walter — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 11:57:54 +0000

we know that both Hastert and Boehner knew of Foley e-mailing young boys and did absolutely nothing and only acted when they became public. If it was up to Boehner, Foley would still be there…..damn that media.

King, don't get me wrong…..defending and making excuses for republicans is what a good republican does. Probably the same could be said for a good pedophile.

larry…..it's King who's defending and excusing republicans who tried to cover-up Foley being a pedophile……maybe you should be asking that question of King

King, in the previous Walpin thread you posted a quote from someone that said Walpin was senile. Who made that quote.

Nothing in Grassely's 12 questions about with holding evidence……..if anything that is going to sink Walpin's ship, it's going to be that

By: roysoldboy

roysoldboy — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:21:46 +0000

AverageJoe5, I wonder why so many people fail to connect either of the Rathke brothers to all this. I guess it is because Glenn Beck keeps talking about that pair when he discusses the Community Organizers International group. I get to hear Beck talk about the Rathkes in that context every day.

Hey did you see the that other member of the main six members of COI when he was on with Beck a couple of weeks ago. I can't remember his name but Beck got him to admit that his only real jobs have been union organizer and community organizer. He looked like the stereotypical union organizer and acted just like those in the movies act. Anyway there are 6 very wealthy men in COI and they are all white. The other day one of the black board members of ACORN who was tossed said that they ran a plantation kind of organization. Blacks do all the work and whites get all the goodies.

I wonder what happens when Beck or someone connects Ayers to ACORN. That should make them scurry very much like mice on the floor when a man walks among them.