The Daily Liberal/Democrat Scandal Log

Shame, shame on you, Michael Moore and Jimmy Carter if this is true.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1641203/posts

The film the world never viewed: Fahrenheit Jimmy Carter
Canada Free Press ^ | May 31, 2006 | Judi McLeod

Posted on 05/31/2006 7:59:00 AM PDT by Quilla

Ex-U.S. President Jimmy Carter is in league with Osama bin Laden.

A paper trail shows that more than $1 million has been funneled from Bakr M. Bin Laden on behalf of the Saudi Bin Laden Group to The Carter Center.

That’s an impressive bit of investigative journalism that comes your way, not courtesy of the New York Times and company, but from Melanie Morgan, Chairman, Censure Carter Committee (Censure Carter Committee ).

"An investigation by the Censure Carter Committee into the financing for The Carter Center of Atlanta, Georgia founded by President Carter and his wife to advance his "Blame America First" policies reveals that over $1,000,000 has been funneled from Bakr M. Bin Laden for the Saudi Bin Laden Group to the Carter Center," says Censure Carter.Com in a mainstream media-ignored recent media release.

"In fact, an online report accuses former President Carter of meeting with 10 of Osama Bin Laden’s brothers early in 2000, Carter and his wife, Rosalyn followed up their meeting with a breakfast with Bakr Bin Laden in September 2000 and secured the first $200,000 towards the more than $1 million that has been received by the Carter Center."

(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...

Democrats, can we come clean about Rep. William Jefferson? Did he or did he not do something illegal here?

Note that even the Republicans are questioning the FBI's moves here... but why? If Jefferson really did something wrong, I feel he should be punished.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20...rLwrEX8B2YD;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

Jefferson's alleged misdeeds may strand Louisiana yet again

By DeWayne WickhamTue May 30, 6:44 AM ET

Days before the official start of this year's hurricane season, an ill wind hit New Orleans. Not another massive storm like the one that devastated the Big Easy nine months ago. This one was no act of Mother Nature. It was man-made.

And the man who made it, federal investigators contend, is Rep. William Jefferson (news, bio, voting record), the Democratic congressman whose New Orleans district was the epicenter of the destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina last year.

Jefferson, Louisiana's most prominent black politician, is the target of a federal criminal investigation. Though he has yet to be charged with a crime, the FBI said in an affidavit used to get a warrant to search his office that the eight-term congressman engaged in widespread criminal conduct. The 83-page document accuses Jefferson, among other things, of fraud and attempting to bribe a foreign official.

The G-men claim to have secretly tape recorded and videotaped some of Jefferson's alleged bad acts.

As a member of the House of Representatives' powerful Ways and Means Committee, Jefferson is well positioned to help the mostly black residents of his congressional district, many of whom have been forced out of their homes - and out of New Orleans - by Katrina's floodwaters. But if the FBI's accusations are true, Jefferson spent a lot of time before and after the hurricane struck New Orleans trying to feather his own nest.

The FBI's account

In the affidavit, the FBI recounts how Jefferson was recorded negotiating an increased share of the expected profits of a company he was helping to establish in Nigeria and Ghana.

While scribbling several figures on a piece of paper during a dinner meeting on May 12, 2005, with the woman who controlled the firm, whom the FBI identified only as a "cooperating witness," Jefferson allegedly revealed his criminal intent.

"I make a deal for my children. It wouldn't be me," Jefferson said as he pushed the woman to give a larger share of her Nigerian business venture to Global Energy & Environmental Services, LLC, a firm owned by his children and run by a son-in-law.

All of this convinced a federal judge to give the FBI a warrant to search Jefferson's Capitol Hill office, an extraordinary action that has enraged both congressional Democrats and Republicans. The search, they say, tramples upon the separation of powers doctrine.

Last week, President Bush ordered the Justice Department to seal the documents seized from Jefferson's office for 45 days to give federal lawyers and lawmakers a chance to avoid a constitutional crisis.

Silence, for now

Jefferson has refused to discuss the facts surrounding his case. "There will be an appropriate time and forum when that can be explained and explicated," he said last week at a news conference.

But that's not good enough.

Jefferson is accused of using his elected office for criminal purposes. The FBI said they have videotape of him accepting a $100,000 bribe last July. They said they later found $90,000 of that money hidden in the freezer of his Washington apartment.

Then in September, five days after Katrina hit, Jefferson had the Louisiana National Guard take him through the flooded streets of New Orleans so he could recover some items from his home, which the FBI had searched earlier. Whether this had anything to do with his criminal investigation is unclear.

But this much is certain: Jefferson owes the voters of his district an explanation. And he should speak up before they go to the polls in November to fill the congressional seat he holds. If he chooses to remain silent, then he should quit the race.

The people of Louisiana, especially those in his district, are still reeling from the lingering effects of Katrina. What they need now is a tireless champion. What they have instead is Jefferson, whose effectiveness has been severely damaged by bad judgment and, possibly, criminal conduct.

DeWayne Wickham writes weekly for USA TODAY.

LovingTongue said:

Ex-U.S. President Jimmy Carter is in league with Osama bin Laden.

A paper trail shows that more than $1 million has been funneled from Bakr M. Bin Laden on behalf of the Saudi Bin Laden Group to The Carter Center.

Click to expand...

Pretty sure that bin Laden's family disowned Osama bin Laden long ago.

MechaBlade said:

Pretty sure that bin Laden's family disowned Osama bin Laden long ago.

Click to expand...

Perhaps. The facts will come out.

LovingTongue said:

Perhaps. The facts will come out.

Click to expand...

The bin Laden family is huge and Osama is the black sheep. They want nothing to do with him or his politics. The family is very rich and have interests all over the world. It is unfortunate that the name has come to personify evil when it's just one guy out of many.

LovingTongue said:

Democrats, can we come clean about Rep. William Jefferson? Did he or did he not do something illegal here?

Note that even the Republicans are questioning the FBI's moves here... but why? If Jefferson really did something wrong, I feel he should be punished.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20...rLwrEX8B2YD;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

Jefferson's alleged misdeeds may strand Louisiana yet again

By DeWayne WickhamTue May 30, 6:44 AM ET

Days before the official start of this year's hurricane season, an ill wind hit New Orleans. Not another massive storm like the one that devastated the Big Easy nine months ago. This one was no act of Mother Nature. It was man-made.

And the man who made it, federal investigators contend, is Rep. William Jefferson (news, bio, voting record), the Democratic congressman whose New Orleans district was the epicenter of the destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina last year.

Jefferson, Louisiana's most prominent black politician, is the target of a federal criminal investigation. Though he has yet to be charged with a crime, the FBI said in an affidavit used to get a warrant to search his office that the eight-term congressman engaged in widespread criminal conduct. The 83-page document accuses Jefferson, among other things, of fraud and attempting to bribe a foreign official.

The G-men claim to have secretly tape recorded and videotaped some of Jefferson's alleged bad acts.

As a member of the House of Representatives' powerful Ways and Means Committee, Jefferson is well positioned to help the mostly black residents of his congressional district, many of whom have been forced out of their homes - and out of New Orleans - by Katrina's floodwaters. But if the FBI's accusations are true, Jefferson spent a lot of time before and after the hurricane struck New Orleans trying to feather his own nest.

The FBI's account

In the affidavit, the FBI recounts how Jefferson was recorded negotiating an increased share of the expected profits of a company he was helping to establish in Nigeria and Ghana.

While scribbling several figures on a piece of paper during a dinner meeting on May 12, 2005, with the woman who controlled the firm, whom the FBI identified only as a "cooperating witness," Jefferson allegedly revealed his criminal intent.

"I make a deal for my children. It wouldn't be me," Jefferson said as he pushed the woman to give a larger share of her Nigerian business venture to Global Energy & Environmental Services, LLC, a firm owned by his children and run by a son-in-law.

All of this convinced a federal judge to give the FBI a warrant to search Jefferson's Capitol Hill office, an extraordinary action that has enraged both congressional Democrats and Republicans. The search, they say, tramples upon the separation of powers doctrine.

Last week, President Bush ordered the Justice Department to seal the documents seized from Jefferson's office for 45 days to give federal lawyers and lawmakers a chance to avoid a constitutional crisis.

Silence, for now

Jefferson has refused to discuss the facts surrounding his case. "There will be an appropriate time and forum when that can be explained and explicated," he said last week at a news conference.

But that's not good enough.

Jefferson is accused of using his elected office for criminal purposes. The FBI said they have videotape of him accepting a $100,000 bribe last July. They said they later found $90,000 of that money hidden in the freezer of his Washington apartment.

Then in September, five days after Katrina hit, Jefferson had the Louisiana National Guard take him through the flooded streets of New Orleans so he could recover some items from his home, which the FBI had searched earlier. Whether this had anything to do with his criminal investigation is unclear.

But this much is certain: Jefferson owes the voters of his district an explanation. And he should speak up before they go to the polls in November to fill the congressional seat he holds. If he chooses to remain silent, then he should quit the race.

The people of Louisiana, especially those in his district, are still reeling from the lingering effects of Katrina. What they need now is a tireless champion. What they have instead is Jefferson, whose effectiveness has been severely damaged by bad judgment and, possibly, criminal conduct.

DeWayne Wickham writes weekly for USA TODAY.

Click to expand...

What is interesting about this case is what is in those seized items. It seems to me whatever is in there is pretty sensitive because I was reading about people threatening to resign if these items are turned over.

http://www.bet.com/News/JusticeChie...ferrer={03CE5360-2620-42CB-AD7E-77E4249C5FB7}

Why?

KRCummings said:

The bin Laden family is huge and Osama is the black sheep. They want nothing to do with him or his politics. The family is very rich and have interests all over the world. It is unfortunate that the name has come to personify evil when it's just one guy out of many.

Click to expand...

Well said. This is exactly why I never made much of the Bush/bin Laden connection. I don't think this Carter thing means much more than the Bush thing did.

I know that sounds kinda like conservatives who relate everything to Clinton, but that's not what I mean. I genuinely mean I don't think a relationship with the name "bin Laden" is indicative of much.

What LT, there isn't enough corruption on the right for ya? Whose side are ya on here?
While your at it, don't forget to mention Harry's fight with boxing tix.

~hellbaby~ said:

What LT, there isn't enough corruption on the right for ya? Whose side are ya on here?
While your at it, don't forget to mention Harry's fight with boxing tix.

Click to expand...

LOL! I knew I forgot one of them. It sounds like he's turning down the tickets.

None of these combined add up to Abu Ghraib... but hey, you know, Whitewater=Watergate and all that jazz.......

Bump for Cade Is Here.

LovingTongue said:

Bump for Cade Is Here.

Click to expand...

Why does Cade matter?

http://www.startribune.com/587/v-print/story/1222407.html

http://www.startribune.com/media/2006/01/24/article_label.source.gif

House Democrats sidestep their own rule to hide pork projects from scrutiny

After promising unprecedented openness regarding Congress' pork barrel practices, House Democrats are moving in the opposite direction as they draw up spending bills for the upcoming budget year.

By Andrew Taylor, Associated Press

Last update: June 03, 2007 – 5:46 PM
WASHINGTON - After promising unprecedented openness regarding Congress' pork barrel practices, House Democrats are moving in the opposite direction as they draw up spending bills for the upcoming budget year.

Democrats are sidestepping rules approved their first day in power in January to clearly identify "earmarks'' - lawmakers' requests for specific projects and contracts for their states - in documents that accompany spending bills.

Rather than including specific pet projects, grants and contracts in legislation as it is being written, Democrats are following an order by the House Appropriations Committee chairman to keep the bills free of such earmarks until it is too late for critics to effectively challenge them.

Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., says those requests for dams, community grants and research contracts for favored universities or hospitals will be added to spending measures in the fall. That is when House and Senate negotiators assemble final bills to send to President Bush.

Such requests total billions of dollars.

As a result, most lawmakers will not get a chance to oppose specific projects as wasteful or questionable when the spending bills for various agencies get their first votes in the full House in June.

The House-Senate compromise bills due for final action in September cannot be amended and are subject to only one hour of debate, precluding challenges to individual projects.

Obey insists he is reluctantly taking the step because Appropriations Committee members and staff have not had enough time to fully review the 36,000 earmark requests that have flooded the committee.

The committee has been absorbed with writing a catchall spending bill cleaning up unfinished budget business from last year and the just-completed Iraq war spending bill.

"It's going to take weeks to get that screening done and I'm the person that has to sign off,'' Obey told his colleagues at a committee meeting just before Memorial Day. "As long as I'm in charge, I'm going to make doggone sure that we do everything possible to screen every project.''

Obey also says many lawmakers requested additional time to get their official requests for back-home projects submitted for review.

Budget watchdog groups who "scrub'' appropriations bills for questionable provisions are outraged.

"Who appointed him judge and jury of earmarks?'' Tom Schatz, president of the Citizens Against Government Waste. "What that does is leave out the public's input.''

What Obey is doing runs counter to new rules that Democrats promised would make such spending decisions more open. Those rules made it clear that projects earmarked for federal dollars and their sponsors were to be made available to public scrutiny when appropriations bills are debated.

The rules also require lawmakers requesting such projects to provide a written explanation describing their requests and a letter certifying that they or their spouse would not make any financial gain from them.

The greater transparency was supposed to lead to more self-discipline on the part of lawmakers. While the great majority of home-state projects are easy to defend, there are often clunkers. For example, the "bridge to nowhere,'' a $223 million span in Alaska to link Ketchikan and Gravina Island, which has a population of about 50.

Ultimately, after the bridge was widely mocked in news account, Congress decided to dump it.

Obey has promised to cut congressional earmarks - which the White House says totaled almost $19 billion in 2005 - in half.

Democrats, he says, will follow the new rules when earmarks are added to the bills, which in most cases will not be until House-Senate talks in September.

Republicans say Democrats are skirting the new disclosure rules. Rep. Jerry Lewis of California, the Appropriations Committee's former chairman and now its top Republican, said Obey's move represents "a complete lack of transparency.''

Conservatives say they will employ guerrilla tactics during debates in the full House to push their point.

"This is not more sunlight. This is actually keeping earmarks secret until it's too late to do anything about it,'' griped Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. "It will be impossible for anybody to challenge any of what will be thousands and thousands and thousands of earmarks.''

Some Senate Republicans, meanwhile, are threatening to block appropriations bills from going to House-Senate conference talks if that is when lawmakers' projects are going to be added.

Democrats in the Senate - including Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., who heads the Senate Appropriations Committee - also are unhappy about Obey's move. Many do not like the prospect of waiting until September or October to learn which hometown projects they will get.

Granted, the Democrat scandal log ain't growing as fast as the Republican scandal log was.

KRCummings said:

The bin Laden family is huge and Osama is the black sheep. They want nothing to do with him or his politics. The family is very rich and have interests all over the world. It is unfortunate that the name has come to personify evil when it's just one guy out of many.

Click to expand...

The guy could be named GooGoo Ibn-Fred's Motors and it wouldn't make any difference. If the report is true, Carter is basing his public statements based on cash received.

Melanie Morgan
From SourceWatch

Melanie Morgan gained national notoriety in the summer of 2006 when she suggested that Bill Keller, an editor of the New York Times, be killed in a "gaschamber" for the crime of "treason" after the Times' reporting on US government spying on Americans. [1]

Morgan works with the Russo Marsh & Rogers public relations firm which specializes in electing Republican candidates; with help from the Pentagon, ran "Truth Tours" to Iraq for right-wing US media personalities; and receives funding from Iraqi Kurds to run advertisements on American television stations thanking the United States for the war. Morgan is chairwoman of the Russo Marsh & Rogers-run pro-war lobby Move America Forward.

Morgan is a "frequent guest on Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, and CBS, she has appeared on the BBC and in newspapers and broadcasts worldwide." She "also spearheaded the 'You Don't Speak for Me, Cindy!' tour and the campaign to recall" Governor Gray Davis. [2]

She is a columnist for WorldNetDaily, co-author with Catherine Moy of the book America Mourning (ISBN 1581825404), and is also a conservative radio talk personality at KSFO in San Francisco, California.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Melanie_Morgan

SeanH said:

Melanie Morgan
From SourceWatch

Melanie Morgan gained national notoriety in the summer of 2006 when she suggested that Bill Keller, an editor of the New York Times, be killed in a "gaschamber" for the crime of "treason" after the Times' reporting on US government spying on Americans. [1]

Morgan works with the Russo Marsh & Rogers public relations firm which specializes in electing Republican candidates; with help from the Pentagon, ran "Truth Tours" to Iraq for right-wing US media personalities; and receives funding from Iraqi Kurds to run advertisements on American television stations thanking the United States for the war. Morgan is chairwoman of the Russo Marsh & Rogers-run pro-war lobby Move America Forward.

Morgan is a "frequent guest on Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, and CBS, she has appeared on the BBC and in newspapers and broadcasts worldwide." She "also spearheaded the 'You Don't Speak for Me, Cindy!' tour and the campaign to recall" Governor Gray Davis. [2]

She is a columnist for WorldNetDaily, co-author with Catherine Moy of the book America Mourning (ISBN 1581825404), and is also a conservative radio talk personality at KSFO in San Francisco, California.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Melanie_Morgan

Click to expand...

Nasty.

But still, should Republican scandals even be bothered with now that they've been kicked out of power?

The Democrats are taking power, it's time to hold their feet to the fire.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=42C49375-18FE-70B2-A812D91D36832C95

http://images.politico.com/global/v3/homelogo.gif

Nepotism Nation: Dems embrace dynasty politics
By: Charles Mahtesian
December 17, 2008 09:07 AM EST

Barack Obama's path to the presidency included beating what had been one of the nation's most powerful families. But, in an unusual twist, his election last month is helping accelerate the trend toward dynasty politics.

His secretary of state will be Hillary Clinton, the wife of the former president. The Senate seat she’ll vacate is being pursued by Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of a president and the niece of two senators. Joe Biden’s Senate seat may go to his son Beau. Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar, Obama’s pick for interior secretary, could end up being replaced by his brother, Rep. John Salazar.

And Obama’s own seat could go to the son of the Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. – less likely now in light of developments in the Rod Blagojevich scandal – or to the daughter of Illinois’ current House speaker.

The U.S. Senate could end up looking like an American version of the House of Lords – and Republicans have begun to take notice.

“Democrats seem to lack a common man who can just win a good, old-fashioned election,” said Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-N.Y.), the former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. “They’ve got seat-warmers, seat-sellers and the making of pillows for the seats of royalty. No wonder the public wonders what’s going on in Washington.”

While Obama’s election and subsequent Cabinet appointments may have accelerated the trend toward dynasty, he’s hardly responsible for it. There is a rich bipartisan history of dynasty in American politics that dates all the way back to the Founding Fathers; Obama-Biden actually represents the first winning ticket since 1976 without a son or a grandson of a U.S. senator on it.

In 2008, the storied Udall clan, sometimes referred to as the Western Kennedys, saw two members elected to the Senate— Mark from Colorado and Tom from New Mexico. In 2010, they could be joined in the Senate by Florida’s Jeb Bush, the son and brother of presidents and the grandson of a senator.

All told, it’s entirely possible that the Senate will be comprised of nearly a dozen congressional offspring by the end of Obama’s first term as president.

“It’s a very interesting American phenomenon, even though there is a line in the Constitution that says no title of nobility may be granted by the United States,” says Stephen Hess, a senior fellow emeritus at the Brookings Institution and the author of “America’s Political Dynasties.” “Given where we started, it’s interesting that this has developed.”

Almost everyone agrees that the high cost of elections is making the world’s most exclusive club seem even more exclusive. According to some estimates, the cost of winning Clinton’s New York Senate seat in the special election in 2010 and the general election in 2012 will be in the neighborhood of $70 million.

“There are three issues behind this trend,” said Bob Edgar, the president of Common Cause and a former Pennsylvania congressman. “Money is issue number one, money is issue number two and money is issue number three.”

“It’s an enormously expensive process to run for the United States Senate,” added Edgar, who ran unsuccessfully for the Senate in 1986. “And once someone runs for a Senate seat, there is a sense of ownership.”

At the moment, the Senate includes six sons or daughters of congressmen.

And the House – the “people’s House” – isn’t exactly bereft of hereditary influence, either.

In the 111th Congress next year, there will be 21 House members with a parent who also served in Congress – plus five wives who currently hold their late husbands’ seats.

If Caroline Kennedy is appointed to the New York Senate seat — once held by her uncle, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy — she would be joined in Congress not only by another uncle, Sen. Ted Kennedy, but also by his son, Rhode Island Rep. Patrick Kennedy .

Caroline Kennedy picked up support Tuesday from Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), but Kennedy’s relative inexperience has some other New York Democrats feeling wary – even if she does come wrapped in a legendary political name.

Republican New York Rep. Peter King – who is considering his own run for the seat – asked why New Yorkers would feel more comfortable with Kennedy “than with people who have worked in the trenches and worked their way up.”

Then he answered his own question.

“Americans always say they don’t like royalty and hereditary connections,” he said. “On the other hand, they really like families like the Kennedys.”

© 2008 Capitol News Company, LLC

Peregrinator said:

Well said. This is exactly why I never made much of the Bush/bin Laden connection. I don't think this Carter thing means much more than the Bush thing did.

Click to expand...

Oh, the Bush thing means a lot more: His family has zero connection to Osama bin Laden but very deep and long-standing connections to the House of Saud, and that warped the foreign policy of both Bush Administrations in multiple ways.

KingOrfeo said:

Oh, the Bush thing means a lot more: His family has zero connection to Osama bin Laden but very deep and long-standing connections to the House of Saud, and that warped the foreign policy of both Bush Administrations in multiple ways.

Click to expand...

Sure as hell did.

This issue further opens up the problem that there may not even be a solution to campaign funding. How do you get the world to know you without spending a ton of money? This creates dynasties... and the Democrats are vulnerable to all the corruption that brings.

Not, of course, that it's anywhere near as bad as what the Bushes did to us.

Does the White House have an explanation for this?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...house-explanation-baseless-says-hes-targeted/

Fired IG Calls White House Explanation 'Baseless,' Says He's Being Targeted
Gerald Walpin, who until last week was the inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service, tells FOXNews.com that part of President Obama's explanation for firing him was a "total lie" and that he feels he's got a target on his back for political reasons.

By Judson Berger

FOXNews.com

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

The government watchdog President Obama canned for allegedly being "confused" and "disoriented" fired back sharply Wednesday, saying the White House explanation for removing him was "insufficient," "baseless" and "absolutely wild."

Gerald Walpin, who until last week was the inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service, told FOXNews.com that part of Obama's explanation was a "total lie" and that he feels he's got a target on his back for political reasons.

"I am now the target of the most powerful man in this country, with an army of aides whose major responsibility today seems to be to attack me and get rid of me," Walpin said.

Facing bipartisan criticism for the firing, Obama sought to allay congressional concerns with a letter to Senate leaders Tuesday evening explaining his decision. In the letter, White House Special Counsel Norman Eisen wrote that Walpin was "confused" and "disoriented" at a May board meeting, was "unduly disruptive," and exhibited a "lack of candor" in providing information to decision makers.

"That's a total lie," Walpin said of the latter charge. And he said the accusation that he was dazed and confused at one meeting out of many was not only false, but poor rationale for his ouster.

"It appears to suggest that I was removed because I was disabled -- based on one occasion out of hundreds," he said, adding that the administration is grasping at "non-existent straws" to explain its actions.

"I would never say President Obama doesn't have the capacity to continue to serve because of his (statement) that there are 56 states," Walpin said, adding that the same holds for Vice President Biden and his "many express confusions that have been highlighted by the media." Obama mistakenly said once on the campaign trail that he had traveled to 57 states.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Wednesday that the administration stands by the letter, and reiterated that board members shared the concerns expressed in it.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who had raised questions about the firing Tuesday, released a statement Wednesday in light of the letter saying the president's reasons are "substantial" and the decision to remove Walpin "appears well-founded." She said the letter puts the White House in "full compliance" with the law, which requires the president to provide an explanation before firing an inspector general.

Walpin, though, concluded that his firing stems from bad blood between him and the board, as well as with Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson -- an Obama supporter whom he had investigated for alleged misuse of federal funds. He said his performance at the May meeting drew criticism because he issued two reports critical of the board. In one, he criticized the settlement reached in the Johnson case; in the other, he criticized the use of millions of dollars for a program at the City University of New York.

"The board at that meeting was clearly angry at my temerity," he said.

The White House, in its rationale for giving Walpin the boot, also complained that Walpin was "absent" from the corporation's headquarters, "insisting" on working from home in New York over the "objections" of the board.

Walpin, though, said he reached an agreement with the agency early this year that would allow him to work from home. The former inspector general, who was appointed by George W. Bush, said he originally was going to resign before Obama took office because his wife of 52 years was not happy with their "commuting marriage" -- he was commuting weekly from New York to Washington. He notified Bush of his intention to leave, but said his staff convinced him to reconsider.

In the end, Walpin said he worked out an agreement with corporation leaders under which he would travel to Washington two or more times a week, and spend the rest of the time working from home in New York. He said some board members had initial reservations, but they were resolved.

"I never had a single objection" before reading Tuesday's letter from the White House, he said.