Whenever Democratic politicians don’t like a decision, their default response is to launch an investigation. An investigation gives them the opportunity to bully their opposition, give the illusion as though something may have been improper, and wasting time and money instead of doing their job is simply icing on the cake. The latest faux investigation launched has been to show discontent that President Trump fired the inspector general of the State Department on Friday, Steve Linick.
Democrats lunged at the decision, asserting outrage that Trump was acting to protect Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. PJ Media reminds Democrats of their hypocrisy with a walk down memory lane. In 2009 there was zero feedback when Barack Obama fired the inspector general of the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), Gerald Walpin.
Comparisons between the two scenarios, however, show something much worse than hypocrisy was at play. To begin with, “Gerald Walpin was in the middle of an investigation when he was called by White House counsel Norman Eisen, who informed him that he had an hour to resign or be fired.” The action against Walpin “was in violation of the Reform Act, which Obama co-sponsored as a U.S. senator.”
Walpin refused to resign, after which Obama wrote a letter to Congress demanding his removal for this reason: “It is vital that I have the fullest confidence in the appointees serving as Inspectors General. That is no longer the case with regard to this Inspector General.” Democrats were sufficiently satisfied. President Trump only abided by the Reform Act with a similar letter to Congress which was deemed so horrific by Democrats they launched an investigation.
Trump fired “the inspector general…in accordance with the 2008 Inspector General Reform Act, which protects inspectors general from being fired without cause, Trump informed Congress in writing about the intent to fire Linick, expressing that he no longer had the ‘fullest confidence’ in Linick, who was appointed to that position in 2013 by Barack Obama” according to PJ Media.
Here comes the moral difference between the two cases: “Obama broke the law to protect a donor and ally who had misused federal grant money and sexually abused three underage girls, then he and his appointees misled and stonewalled Congress in an attempt to cover up his own illegal behavior.” Walpin had the misfortune of doing the right thing by investigating Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson for misusing federal grant money from AmeriCorps.
Johnson is a former NBA star and Obama supporter. Walpin found that Johnson “gave $850,000 of AmeriCorps grant money to a nonprofit organization he founded called St. HOPE Academy.” He also used funds improperly to “pay AmeriCorps volunteers for political activity, to wash his car, and to run his personal errands.” That’s the tip of the iceberg. Walpin uncovered that Johnson had used the grant money as “hush money to underage girls, who were students at St. HOPE Academy, that he had sexually assaulted and then staged a cover-up.”
Walpin called for Johnson to be criminally prosecuted, but instead, he avoided prosecution with the promise to pay the money back. “This deal was approved by Alan Solomont, a major Democratic fundraiser who was also the chairman of the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS). According to PJ Media, “Walpin was furious about the deal and made it known, prompting his illegal firing” after which “the Obama White House waged a smear campaign against Walpin.”