PJ Media

Hi there DellDolly. This is your recent acquaintance from Media Matters on the subject of Gerald Walpin. Nice to be able to respond to your note, after finding out that Media Matters has closed the comment feature. Here goes:
_______________

Keep serving up those talking point lobs so I can bat them back. Obviously YOUR mind is made up, and I grant you the technical legal points have been covered off by those opposing Walpin’s positions; cannot fight city hall easily. But there’s lots more to know and consider before we get to the bottom of this. So far, tracks have been covered as much as possible, except for the firing having violated Federal Law procedurally until it was given cosmetic surgery. As I learned more, it became apparent that this is a guy that one should not mess with, and wondered why the administration was willing to bring on the predictable counter punch. They may have figured a lot was at stake or else they they underestimated (misunderestimated?) the importance to him of his honor, reputation, and the influence and effectiveness of his chosen role. Clearly it is not about power, money, or status.

Came across the photo when checking out “who IS this Walpin, so undesirable as to be abruptly fired by phone and didn’t see it coming? Some whacko or doofus friend of W?” With the photo was a detailed bio referencing his humble beginnings and subsequent achievements over decades, and I started to think, “Huh, what’s up?” A little later on I found a letter…..

On June 23, 2009, a bipartisan group of 145 current and former public officials, attorneys, and legal scholars signed a letter that was sent to the White House, and to others in key positions relative to the matter, which said the criticisms of Mr. Walpin were inconsistent with their knowledge of the man. Signers of the letter included Michael Mukasey (former Attorney General), Bernard Nussbaum (President Clinton’s former counsel), former U.S. Attorneys Otto Obermaier, John Martin, Zachary Carter, and Andrew Maloney, and six former and current presidents of the Federal Bar Council. Here:

“We have known Gerald Walpin as leading member of the NY Bar for many years. Most of us have seen him and heard him speak, including at this month’s meeting of the Second Circuit Judicial Conference and last week’s meeting of the Board of The Federal Bar.

“We have never seen Mr. Walpin to be “confused, disoriented [or] unable to answer questions”. While none of us was present at the meeting referred to in Mr. Eisen’s letter, we can only report that such an allegation is totally inconsistent with our personal knowledge of Mr. Walpin, who has always, through the present day, exhibited a quick mind and a command of the facts (whether we agree with him or not) and eloquence — essentially the opposite of someone who is “confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions”.

“We note that the signers of this letter include both Republicans and Democrats, voters for President Obama and Senator McCain, and many who do not agree with Mr. Walpin’s personal political views. But all of us are unanimous in affirming Mr. Walpin’s integrity and competence.

“The following have authorized the use of their names as signatories of this letter.”

Your reply stresses “judge” versus “non-judge”, as if that qualifies one versus the other to have a legitimate opinion. Scalia. Thomas. Alito. Etc. They are as pure and impartial as the day is long, right? Surely there is NO chance a judge would calibrate his/her decision to conform with preferences of the White House instead of the arguments proffered by a 78-year-old formerly retired guy with no useful connections and no power except his word. That kind of thing used to happen in the Bush era, but certainly is no more. Note: Bridge for sale; easy terms.

Amusing to be exposed as actually BEING Walpin. Love it, but frankly I never heard of the guy before his head was severed. There are some similarities: I am a great-grandfather, retired (but not interested in coming out of retirement to do public service), and believe the impartiality and career protection of IGs is critically important. Both of us are apparently workaholics, though I am trying to reform. But I am NOT old enough to be a Magna Cum Laude 1955 graduate of Yale Law, nor would I be selected as Editor of the Yale Law Review as Walpin was. From what I know of the man I admire him, but I am not his equal much less his alter ego or hissownself.