« previous | MUCK HOME | next »

McCaskill: Reasons For Firing IG Are "Well Founded"
We asked earlier today whether Sen. Claire McCaskill would be satisfied with the White House's explanation of its reasons for firing AmeriCorps IG Gerald Walpin. And it looks the answer is yes.
McCaskill said in a statement, reports CNN, that the White House was now in full compliance with the law, and added: "The reasons given in the most recent White House letter are substantial and the decision to remove Walpin appears well founded."
The Missouri senator had been the first Democrat to join Republicans in asking the White House for a fuller explanation of the dismissal. She contended that the law required the White House to fully explain to Congress the rationale for such a decision.
Earlier McCaskill had tweeted: "The letter from the White House late yesterday is certainly compliance with the law as to reason for removal."
Of course, the White House's explanation -- that Walpin was "confused" and "disoriented" at a recent meeting, and that he was often absent from the office, among other things -- may not satisfy Republicans and their allies. Walpin himself appeared on Glenn Beck's show on Fox News this afternoon to keep pushing the notion that he was fired for going after an Obama ally, Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson.
But McCaskill's response may serve to temporarily ease the pressure on the White House. As for Sen. Charles Grassley, who has led the GOP charge on the issue, we'll keep you posted on his response.

















are you not using the republico spin on this? as i understand it, the 'disorientation' was not the reason for the dismissal, it was the reason for the review. the meme about him being fired for being flustered at a meeting needs to be nipped in the bud.
June 17, 2009 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
"She (Sen. Claire McCaskill) contended that the law required the White House to fully explain to Congress the rationale for such a decision."
Who decides whether or not a "full" explanation is given? And does the "law" in question allow any Senator to withhold approval of the firing if they personally think the explanation is not "full"?
Sounds like political posturing without any real substance.
June 18, 2009 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink