WalpinGate

[BeAChooser]

What law says that the President cannot threaten to fire an IG?

The Committee's investigation into this matter revealed Mr. Walpin was pressured by White House staff to resign in an apparent attempt to circumvent the requirements of the IG Act as amended. Mr. Walpin was contacted by phone and presented with the choice to resign or be terminated. Mr. Walpin asked for time to consider his options, and was afforded one hour. Forty-five minutes later, he received another phone call asking for his decision. Mr. Walpin declined to tender his resignation. The next day, Mr. Walpin was placed on administrative leave and informed he is not permitted to return to the Office of the Inspector General.

That's not just threatening.

It's of course also his right and duty to threaten to fire IGs who are not performing.

But there is considerable disagreement as to whether he was not performing. In fact, all the sources I've quoted would appear to show he was doing EXACTLY what he was supposed to do as IG.

Now, you may not agree with the allegations against Walpin that he's a racist-promoting hyper-Republican attack dog who abused his title for political gains and who tried to hide politically inconvenient facts in an investigation. Doesn't matter. It's not your judgement that matters, it's the Presidents. He just has to give his motivation to Congress, which he did. The President has a lot of power, and if you don't agree with the President, you're going to dislike some of his decisions. Get over it.

You see folks. Obama's supporters are going to act the same way Clinton's did. But Obama has a lot more power. So beware.

 

[BeAChooser]

The saga continues with more lies by the administration being exposed ...

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...drawn-in-AmeriCorps-IG-scandal--49767217.html

July 3, 2009

... snip ...

at least three board members have told congressional investigators they did not specifically recommend that the administration fire Walpin. Instead, they simply wanted the chairman to express their concerns.

The White House claims it investigated the matter; Eisen told House and Senate aides that officials did an “extensive review” of complaints about Walpin’s performance before deciding to fire him. But there are serious doubts as to whether the White House did, in fact, conduct a serious investigation before getting rid of Walpin.

The three board members have told Congress that the White House did not contact them during the review. (One was told about Walpin’s firing at about the time it happened, and the other two were contacted days later.) No one from the White House contacted Walpin himself, or his top assistant, as part of the review.

All were present at the contentious May 20 meeting. If officials at the White House were really trying to discover what happened at that session, congressional investigators say, it would have wanted to hear their version of events. But no questions were asked.

All in all, the “extensive review” appeared more of a sham review — an exercise designed to support a decision that had already been made. Nor has the White House been open about it. “Information provided to my staff by Mr. Eisen has been incomplete and misleading,” Republican Rep. Darrell Issa wrote in a July 1 letter to White House counsel Gregory Craig.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/07/fired-ig-angered-board-accusations-meeting-notes/

July 07, 2009

... snip ...

A congressional investigator who participated in a three-hour meeting with Trinity on Monday told FOXNews.com that it was clear the board sought Walpin's ouster because of hurt feelings and professional friction, even though inspectors general are supposed to be free to challenge staff at their respective agencies. The investigator, who requested anonymity, argued the White House did not thoroughly review the matter.

"It was the disagreements between the IG and the senior management at the agency that provoked the board to remove Walpin," the investigator said. "The senior people at the agency chafed under Walpin's oversight. ... They communicated this to the board, which rubber-stamped senior management. [The board] took it to the White House, which rubber-stamped the board."

... snip ...

The notes showed Walpin was not satisfied with the settlement reached in the case, in which Johnson and his academy were to repay about half of the federal grants.

The former inspector general warned the board he would not be silent in the face of a "total waste of corporation assets," according to the notes. He complained about allegations that St. HOPE directors destroyed key Johnson e-mails, and said he would be asking for the FBI and a special prosecutor to convene a grand jury to investigate.

"This really alarmed the board," the congressional investigator said, attributing the board's unanimous decision to request a White House review to that friction.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/10/stonewalling-on-walpin-gate/

July 10, 2009

... snip ...

Both the White House and the general counsel at the corporation have been stonewalling congressional investigators. If their actions in firing Mr. Walpin were on the up and up, they wouldn't have anything to hide. It's also curious that they are selectively releasing certain documents to The Washington Post within minutes of The Post's requests after withholding those same documents (and many others) from congressional investigators for days or even weeks.

... snip ...

On July 6, corporation general counsel Frank R. Trinity repeatedly refused to answer congressional investigators' questions about the White House's communications with his office regarding any review of Mr. Walpin's performance.

"It's a White House prerogative," Mr. Trinity told staff members, according to multiple sources. Asked if he was somehow asserting "executive privilege" -- a privilege not his to claim -- Mr. Trinity repeated his "White House prerogative" line. Told that no such prerogative exists in law, Mr. Trinity still declined to answer. Both he and the White House continue to withhold requested, relevant documents.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50875

White House ‘Arrogantly’ Ignored Will of Congress in IG Firing, Top Republican Says

Monday, July 13, 2009

... snip ...

Meanwhile, the House Republican leading the probe into the firing of Gerald Walpin as the inspector general of the Corporation for National and Community Service, the agency that oversees the youth volunteer program AmeriCorps, said “we’re going to continue to push” the investigation.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), ranking member on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said that such abuse of power from the White House is one of the reasons why the oversight committee exists.

“An IG was fired for doing his job just because the person he was going after is a friend of the president,” Issa told CNSNews.com at a Heritage Foundation event Tuesday.

 

[boloboffin]

Are you really so desperate to avoid discussing the substance of the complaints that the only remark you can make is about my spicing my comments with an occasional face?

Occasional????

 

[BeAChooser]

Occasional????

Trying to avoid the substance of my last post?

 

[BeAChooser]

The latest:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...clues-in-AmeriCorps-IG-scandal--52109667.html

Probe finds new clues in AmeriCorps IG scandal

By Byron York

July 31, 2009

After seven weeks of trying, investigators looking into President Barack Obama’s abrupt firing of AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin are still unable to answer the most basic question of the whole affair: Why did the president do it?

... snip ...

During the time his case was under review, did Johnson, or anyone acting on his behalf, ever get in touch with the White House? Did the White House get in touch with him? And did Johnson’s relationship with Obama, plus the Sacramento political establishment’s desire to get the stimulus cash, play any role in Brown’s actions?

Those are the key underlying questions in the AmeriCorps affair, but investigators have been stymied by the White House’s refusal to answer any inquiries about any communications or other dealings it might have had on the subject. Brown has also refused to answer questions.

Now, investigators are trying a new route, examining the role of the Justice Department. Sen. Jeff Sessions, ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has asked the committee chairman, Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, for a hearing on the AmeriCorps/Walpin affair, focusing specifically on the role of Brown and his bosses at Justice.

... snip ...

So far, Brown has refused to answer any questions. In June, Rep. Darrell Issa, the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, sent a list of 20 questions to Brown and received no response. A follow-up in July was similarly ignored. “Your unwillingness to be cooperative with our investigation raises further questions about your role in this matter,” Issa wrote Brown.




 

[BeAChooser]

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/08/return-of-walpin-gate/#

EDITORIAL: Return of Walpin-gate

When last we left Gerald Walpin, the unfairly fired inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service, he had filed a lawsuit on July 17 protesting his dismissal. He submitted technical amendments to his complaint on July 24, and the government was supposed to respond within 60 days. Seventy-five days later, the government still is stonewalling.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

... snip ...

Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican and longtime supporter of government whistleblowers, has been so angered at the refusal of the White House and the Corporation for National and Community Service board to turn over documents related to the strange firing of Mr. Walpin that he put an official hold on the nomination of corporation board chairman Alan D. Solomont to be ambassador to Spain. The hold is entirely justified. The White House's defenestration of an honest IG, without adequate explanation, is a scandal.

 

[oldhat]

 

[BeAChooser]

What's wrong, oldhat? Afraid you might have another ACORN-like fiasco on your hands?

 

[sugarb]

Um...I've read this entire thread and it seems to me that there was clear wrong-doing taking place. First, the 30 day congressional notification thing? It didn't happen before the pressure to resign or be terminated happened...a clear violation. It is disturbing to me that this is still unresolved, and I cannot see a clear reason, if there was no wrong-doing, for this to still be an issue.

BeAChooser, you laid this one out well. I wonder what will happen.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...ny-ladys-ex-aide-walpin-case/?test=latestnews

White House Blocks Testimony by First Lady's Ex-Top Aide in Walpin Case

... snip ...

The White House counsel's office has blocked Republican investigators from interviewing Jackie Norris, former chief of staff for the first lady, about President Obama's dismissal of former AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin.

Republican investigators from the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform have wanted to question Norris -- who is now senior adviser to the Corporation for National and Community Service, the organization that oversees AmeriCorps -- since they discovered earlier this month that she met with Alan Solomont, chairman of CNCS on June 9, the day before Walpin was fired.

Solomont was heavily involved in the Walpin firing, according to the Washington Examiner, which first reported the response by the first lady's office.

Since Michelle isn't President, how can Obama claim executive privilege?

Here's more on this:

http://www.the-two-malcontents.com/...ut-possible-michelle-obama-link-to-ig-firing/

Congressional investigators looking into the abrupt firing of AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin have discovered that the head of AmeriCorps met with a top aide to First Lady Michelle Obama the day before Walpin was removed.

According to Republican investigators, Alan Solomont, then the chairman of the Corporation for National and Community Service, which oversees AmeriCorps, had denied meeting with Jackie Norris, at the time the First Lady’s chief of staff. But recently-released White House visitor logs show that Solomont met with Norris on June 9 of this year (as well as on two earlier occasions).

... snip ...

Solomont was asked specifically back in July if he had talked to Norris and said no. Then the White House visitor logs were released and it showed him meeting with the Norris, who was then Michelle Obama’s chief of staff. ... snip ...

In a follow-up interview conducted December 8, Republican investigators asked Solomont why he had not previously disclosed his meetings with Norris.

According to a number of sources, White House staff who accompanied Solomont objected to the question, accusing investigators of trying to create a "gotcha" situation. "Cutting short the questioning on this issue indicated an unusually defensive posture on the part of White House staff, including a lawyer from the Counsel’s office," wrote Issa in the letter to Solomont. At that point, according to Issa, Solomont insisted he had mentioned his meetings with Norris during that first interview with investigators on July 15. The Republicans were flabbergasted. "This is simply false," Issa wrote to Solomont. "The notes and recollections of multiple staff in the room at the time are clearly contrary to your recollection."

... snip ...

We haven’t hit bottom yet on this scandal.

I keep telling you folks. This scandal has legs.

What is the Obama administration hiding? Aren't you the least bit curious? All you *skeptics* out there.

 

[Piscivore]

This one might be serious, folks.

Wait, is this an admission that all of your anti-Obama posts are just shotgunning mud to see what sticks?

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...-former-top-aide-to-First-Lady--79891752.html

The White House counsel's office has barred congressional investigators from interviewing Jackie Norris, former chief of staff for First Lady Michelle Obama, about events leading to the firing of AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin.

... snip ...

Republican investigators do not know the legal basis for the White House decision declining to make Norris available for an interview. The White House counsel's office has also declined to hand over some documents requested by GOP investigators, but has never made a claim of executive privilege. White House officials have long said that neither the First Lady nor anyone in her office had anything to do with the Walpin firing. "The White House has averred that you had no role whatsoever in the president's decision to remove Mr. Walpin," Issa wrote to Norris. "In light of these representations, it is hard to understand a decision to prevent your testimony. If the information provided by White House officials is true, it follows that no colorable claim of executive privilege should impede your cooperation with the committee."

... snip ...

UPDATE: Issa has just released a statement vowing to continue the investigation. "Try as they might, this investigation is not going to disappear and we will continue to press the White House for answers until the truth comes out," Issa said in the statement. "The removal of an IG who was conducting an investigation of one of the President’s staunchest allies is no different than when President Bush fired a number of U.S. Attorney’s for political reasons igniting a chorus of criticism and concern – the question is – where is the outrage now that President Obama is doing the same thing?"

 

[Gangularis]

How does Obama have time to do all of these nasty things, and still do everything else? It's amazing what you can do with a blackberry.

 

[332nd]

How does Obama have time to do all of these nasty things, and still do everything else? It's amazing what you can do with a blackberry.

You never watch sports? Black guys are fast.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/16/walpin-gate-gets-rusty/

Lawyers learn early that if they are in danger of losing a case, their best strategy is to delay it. With the help of a friendly judge, that seems to be the Obama administration's strategy in the case of fired AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin.

… snip ...

Mr. Walpin originally filed suit in July demanding reinstatement to his job. The suit still languishes, seven months later, without the benefit of a single preliminary hearing. First the Obama administration asked for an extension of the ordinary time period to respond to the suit. Then, rather than addressing the merits of the case, the administration made a motion to dismiss without a hearing or trial. Mr. Walpin countermoved on Dec. 16 for summary judgment in his favor. One week later, the administration filed another motion to delay. Briefs went back and forth on that motion for another month, but Federal District Judge Richard W. Roberts has ruled on nothing.

Finally, noting that a scheduling hearing should by law be held no later than 90 days after the defense's first "notice of appearance" and that 90 days expired on Dec. 15, Mr. Walpin on Feb. 3 filed a motion demanding a scheduling conference. Still no answer from the judge. However, on Friday, the administration moved to block all legal discovery on the numerous outstanding motions. Through all these delays, the Obama administration wards off the day when Mr. Walpin can use the legal discovery process to unearth documents or other evidence that might embarrass the White House.

Everything thus far calls attention to dirty tricks by the Obama team. The administration cited an ethical complaint against Mr. Walpin of which he was fully exonerated and suggested that the fired IG was losing mental capacity, which he quite clearly is not. Meanwhile, several of Mr. Walpin's major contentions against Obama allies have been shown to have real substance.

 

[leftysergeant]

I've never said any such thing. Why do you misrepresent my stated views, oldhat? Are your arguments against the charges I've actually leveled that thin?

You would probably be more widely respected if all your sources were not wrapped in tinfoil. I checked out that "CNSnews" site. What a bunch of drooling right-wing morons! No wonder your views have so little to do with this time/space continuum.

 

[novice skeptic]

You would probably be more widely respected if all your sources were not wrapped in tinfoil. I checked out that "CNSnews" site. What a bunch of drooling right-wing morons!

Well there is a well-thought out and logical argument.

BTW I did check out that site and it is indeed very partisan and one-sided, which may call into doubt the truthfulness and accuracy of their reporting.

However, that doesn't negate every point or claim or serve as an automatic refutation of any 1 particular claim.

 

[BeAChooser]

You would probably be more widely respected if all your sources were not wrapped in tinfoil. I checked out that "CNSnews" site. What a bunch of drooling right-wing morons!

So you are claiming that this,

Inspector General Fired by Obama Wants Congressional Hearing on His Case
Monday, June 22, 2009

isn't true because it was published by cnsnews?

Would you believe the "The Plum Line" (which … ahem … leans to the left) and which is published by the Washington Post?

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/p...general-i-want-congressional-hearings-dammit/

Fired Inspector General: I Want Congressional Hearings, Dammit!

So are you claiming that this,

White House ‘Arrogantly’ Ignored Will of Congress in IG Firing, Top Republican Says

Monday, July 13, 2009

... snip ...

Meanwhile, the House Republican leading the probe into the firing of Gerald Walpin as the inspector general of the Corporation for National and Community Service, the agency that oversees the youth volunteer program AmeriCorps, said “we’re going to continue to push” the investigation.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), ranking member on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said that such abuse of power from the White House is one of the reasons why the oversight committee exists.

“An IG was fired for doing his job just because the person he was going after is a friend of the president,” Issa told CNSNews.com at a Heritage Foundation event Tuesday.

isn't true, because it was reported by cnsnews?

Well here's a quote attributed to Issa reported by USAToday:

http://content.usatoday.com/topics/...es/Darrell+Issa/05Xpe2pfvva4e/028hdFW7luf0Y/1

The allegations uncovered by the Inspector General were very serious, and they deserved to be fully investigated, not swept under the rug ... It seems a lot of people might have been interested in protecting the AmeriCorps program and the Mayor of Sacramento from an IG who was discovering some unpleasant facts. I'm not sure whether the IG was fired for political reasons. The evidence points in that direction, but since the White House is asserting privilege over its decision-making process, we can't be sure.

Looks consistent with with CNS reports it got Issa to say.

Here's something else Issa was involved in producing … a report on the matter:

http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/images/stories/Reports/20091120JointStaffReport.pdf "The Firing of the Inspector General for The Corporation for National and Community Service"

X. Conclusion

… snip…

Because the White House failed to comply with the requirements of the IG Act in its initial letter to Congress, and because there were no findings from a thorough investigation to fall back on in response to congressional inquiries, the White House Counsel’s Office orchestrated an after-the-fact smear campaign to justify the President’s action. That approach ultimately led to a controversial public relations battle in the media and a federal lawsuit by the former Inspector General. … snip … Because Norman Eisen’s investigation was incomplete and the White House has withheld hundreds of pages of documents from Congress, the claim that Gerald Walpin was removed for legitimate, non-political reasons is unsupported and unpersuasive. There is simply insufficient evidence to conclusively reject the notion that the removal may have been motivated by a desire to exert greater control over the Corporation without interference from an aggressive, independent IG.

Sure looks consistent with the substance of what CNS reports Issa said.

 

[A'isha]

Yes, it certainly seems to be true that CNS News reported Republican Representative Issa's accusation correctly. And given Issa's completely non-partisan, even-handed attitude towards President Obama, obviously just the mere accusation coming from a man of Issa's bipartisan reputation means it's pretty much the plain truth of the matter, right?

After all, Issa himself has never been the target of repeated investigations himself or garnered a reputation for launching multiple investigations of his political enemies that almost never bear fruit, so you just know he's a bastion of truth and integrity!

In other words, if there's meat to this story about why Obama really fired Walpin, you'll have to post more evidence for it than a WND-esque article quoting a Republican who's been levelling all kinds of accusations and rhetoric at Obama and who apparently has a history of launching investigations that never go anywhere or do anything but tie up his enemies during the process.

 

[tyr_13]

Yes, it certainly seems to be true that CNS News reported Republican Representative Issa's accusation correctly. And given Issa's completely non-partisan, even-handed attitude towards President Obama, obviously just the mere accusation coming from a man of Issa's bipartisan reputation means it's pretty much the plain truth of the matter, right?

After all, Issa himself has never been the target of repeated investigations himself or garnered a reputation for launching multiple investigations of his political enemies that almost never bear fruit, so you just know he's a bastion of truth and integrity!

In other words, if there's meat to this story about why Obama really fired Walpin, you'll have to post more evidence for it than a WND-esque article quoting a Republican who's been levelling all kinds of accusations and rhetoric at Obama and who apparently has a history of launching investigations that never go anywhere or do anything but tie up his enemies during the process.

Wow. I'm convinced.