WALPIN-GATE IS STILL CHUGGING ALONG

As if we need another scandal. Yet, the one involving former NBA star / Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson, AmeriCorps (Obama's pet project), and a cast of shady characters continues to develop new plot lines. Turns out accusations that Corporation for National Community Service (CNCS) head, Alan Solomont had conversations with First Lady Michelle Obama's office are true despite his claims to the contrary. CNCS is the parental entity over AmeriCorps.

When Investigator General Gerald Walpin insisted on pressing an issue involving Johnson's misuse of taxpayer dollars, he was abruptly fired by the White House, even though the law states he must be given 30 day notice and congress must be involved. Johnson is a buddy of Barack Obama.

This scandal has many layers but the purpose of this post is to reveal a new one. Specifically, regarding Alan Solomont, Byron York has REPORTED:

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). President Obama fired Walpin on June 10 after an intense dispute over Walpin's aggressive investigation of misuse of AmeriCorps money by Obama political ally Kevin Johnson, the mayor of Sacramento, California.

What? Another Lie? Say it ain't so.

Don't you just love this explanation?

After being presented with the visitor logs, investigators say, Solomont explained that he met with Norris to discuss Corporation business but did not discuss the Walpin matter. When pressed, Solomont said he might have made an offhand comment, or a mention in passing, about the Walpin affair, but that he and Norris did not have a discussion about it.

Meeting with Jackie Norris would have been equivalent to meeting with Michelle Obama, which is why Solomont might not want to list his meetings, of which there three that have been confirmed. These meetings would indicate that the First Lady's interest in AmeriCorps may have been strong enough to reasonably question her level of involvement in the Walipn firing.

Here comes the most unbelievable story.

...Solomont denied talking to Norris. Then, in November, White House visitor logs showed that Solomont had been to the White House 17 times between President Obama's inauguration and the July 15 interview, and had met with Norris on three of those occasions, including June 9. In a follow-up interview conducted December 8, Republican investigators asked Solomont why he had not previously disclosed his meetings with Norris.

So the head of CNCS and by extension, AmeriCorps. met with Michelle Obama's Chief of Staff one day before Walpin was fired and we're to believe the subject never came up?!

Boy, that Joe Wilson character is aging like a fine wine.



Be sure to read the WHOLE THING.

ANOTHER SENATOR WANTS ANSWERS ON WALPIN FIRING

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) has apparently decided to join Charles Grassley (R-IA) in wanting to know specifics about why the Inspector General for Obama's AmeriCorps was fired when all indications are that he was simply doing his job. Gerald Walpin's story has remained consistent while Obama's stories have involved high doses of "change" and stonewalling.

BYRON YORK is back on the case. This time, he features U.S. attorney in Sacramento, Lawrence Brown who seemed to insert himself into the fray once it became apparent that his city may cease receiving stimulus funds due to what Walpin discovered about Kevin Johnson's role in misusing money that was intended for his non-profit organization, St. HOPE.

....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.

Ah, more questions than answers when it comes to a Barack Obama scandal. Say it ain't so.

Kevin Johnson's rights to more stimulus money was reinstated. This coupled with Brown's curious involvement in it appears to have caught the eye of Sessions.

According to a senior Republican aide, Sessions’ interest was piqued by a statement made in a late March television interview by Rep. Doris Matsui, the Democratic congresswoman who represents Sacramento. Asked whether Johnson’s problems could prevent the city from receiving stimulus funds, Matsui said that, at Johnson’s request, she had “been in conversation with officials at the White House and OMB [Office of Management and Budget] and others to ensure that we don’t lose any money at all.”

Within days of Matsui’s statement, a settlement was reached. Johnson was unsuspended, and in a particularly unusual move, acting U.S. Attorney Brown issued a press release hailing the arrival of stimulus funds. “The lifting of the suspension against all parties, including Mayor Johnson, removes any cloud whether the City of Sacramento will be prevented form receiving much-needed federal stimulus funds,” Brown wrote.

Looking more and more like Walpin may have been fired for getting in the way of politicians and their pork.

But we'll reserve judgment until we get Obama's side of the story....

Mr. Obama?

Mr. Obama?

Mr. Obama?

h/t to Hot Air

IG Walpin Goes on Offense - Sues Gov't

Robert McCain refers to it as "The Little Scandal That Could" and it just keeps chugging along. As Inspector General advocate and Senator Chuck Grassley (R - Iowa) learns more about a widening IG scandals involving Amtrak, the International Trade Commission, and another soon-to-be-named IG, we learn that former AmeriCorps IG Gerald Walpin is suing the Federal Government, claiming he was fired unlawfully.

As people become targets of hardcore left wingers and Chicago Way politics, the appear to be much more willing to go on offense. I believe it's a motivator for Walpin much like it's been for Sarah Palin.

Byron York reports in the Washington Examiner:

Walpin's suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, is against the Corporation for National and Community Service, which oversees AmeriCorps. Also named are Nicola Goren, the acting CEO of the Corporation, Frank Trinity, its general counsel, and Raymond Limon, the Corporation's "chief human capital officer." The suit asks the court to declare Walpin's firing unlawful and restore him to his position as the Corporation's inspector general.

I can't help wondering if reports about what Frank Trinity reportedly told investigators about Walpin helped to push the latter over the edge. York reported that Trinity cited a parody magazine Walpin had no part in writing as being racially insensitive and played a part in Walpin's firing.

More of the lawsuit article:

On June 10, Walpin received a call from Norman Eisen, the Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform, giving Walpin an hour either to resign or be fired. Eisen's ultimatum appeared to be a violation of the Inspectors General Reform Act, which requires the president to give Congress 30 days' notice, plus an explanation of the reasons for his action, before firing an inspector general. (Then-Sen. Barack Obama was a co-sponsor of that legislation.) It also appeared that Eisen's call to force Walpin to resign was an effort to push Walpin out of his job so the White House would not have to go through the 30-day process, or give a reason for its action. When Walpin refused to quit, the White House informed Congress and began the 30-day countdown.

In its first explanation of the firing, the White House wrote a letter to Congress on June 11 claiming that President Obama no longer had "the fullest confidence" in Walpin. When lawmakers of both parties demanded a more detailed reason, the White House wrote another letter on June 16 accusing Walpin of being "confused, disoriented [and] unable to answer questions" at the May 20 meeting.

In the suit, Walpin alleges that all three actions were violations of the job protections given to inspectors general. "There have been at least three attempts to unlawfully remove Mr. Walpin from his post," the suit says, "the first orally on June 10; the second by writing on June 11; and the third by writing on June 16."

Be sure to Read York's Entire Article.

A very interesting side note is that the IGs' most strongest advocate in the Senate is Chuck Grassley (R - Iowa) and he appears to be digging into all of these IG scandals, including Amtrak, the International Trade Commission, and another one soon to be named. The preponderance of all of them together likely has a compounding effect.

Then, just for added measure, it appears that Grassley doesn't like how he's being treated by the Obama White House relative to Obama-Care.

Check out Kimberly Strassel's article in WSJ.

h/t to Hot Air for providing the link to York's article.

Walpin-Gate going Bi-Partisan?

There are two writers who seem to be doing most of the legwork in reporting on the Unjustly-fired Inspector General story. Byron York at the Washington Examiner and Robert Stacy McCain at American Spectator. They seem to be taking turns reporting on the story, which seems to be keeping it fresh.

The latest installment comes from McCain, who reports that the investigation is revealing raised bi-partisan eyebrows, which can't be all that pleasing to Obama.

In his piece, The Little Scandal that Could, McCain points out that Lieberman, who once showed reticence to question the Walpin firing actually appeared to backtrack after the Washington Times reported that fact.

....when accused by the Washington Times of "punting" the Walpin case, Lieberman responded that he was "committed to conducting an independent review to make sure Mr. Walpin's termination was not arbitrary, capricious, punitive, or political." And the suspicious circumstances surrounding that termination continue to be investigated.

AmeriCorps is under the Corporation for National Community Service (CNCS), which secured taxpayer money for AmeriCorps, who issued to St. HOPE, a non-profit organization under Sacramento Mayor and former NBA star Kevin Johnson.

$850k was, to put it kindly, allegedly squandered and the settlement between CNCS and AmeriCorps was to give Johnson a slap on the wrist and allow him to continue receiving taxpayer money.

Walpin protested and that's apparently when the trouble started (why 100% of the American people aren't applauding Walpin is beyond me but oh, well).

In any case, McCain is right about this story continuing to chug along.

CHUG! CHUG! CHUG!

CHUG A LUG!



h/t to Michelle Malkin

IG Walpin Now Fired for being Racist?

We all remember Gerald Walpin, right? The Inspector General for AmeriCorps, Barack Obama's pet project, who was fired when he wouldn't play ball with the White House relative the settlement with Obama's buddy, former NBA star and current Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson. Johnson was found to have misused taxpayer money intended for his non-profit organization called St. HOPE. Basically, Johnson got a slap on the wrist that Walpin thought was too lenient. Walpin was subsequently fired.

Unlike the White House, Walpin hasn't changed his story one time. After getting pressed by congressional investigators to explain the termination, at one point, the White House said Walpin appeared "confused and disoriented" at a May 20th Board Meeting for Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), which is the parent company of AmeriCorps.

Ever since being asked to respond, in writing, by Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley to 12 specific questions about Walpin's firing, the White House appears to have chosen the somewhat interesting strategy known as stonewalling.

Possibly playing a significant role in the White House's decision to zip its lips may be those twelve questions (which went unanswered). Here are the questions Grassley issued to White House counsel Gregory Craig back on June 17th he wanted answered by June 24th:

1) Did the [Corporation for National and Community Service] Board communicate its concerns about Mr. Walpin to the White House in writing?
2) Specifically, which CNCS Board members came forward with concerns about Mr. Walpin’s ability to serve as the Inspector General?
3) Was the communication about the Board’s concerns on or about May 20, 2009 the first instance of any communications with White House personnel regarding the possibility of removing Mr. Walpin?
4) Which witnesses were interviewed in the course of Mr. Eisen’s review?
5) How many witnesses were interviewed?
6) Were any employees of the Office of Inspector General, who may have had more frequent contact with Mr. Walpin than the Board members, interviewed?
7) Was Mr. Walpin asked directly during Mr. Eisen’s review about the events of May 20, 2009?
8) Was Mr. Walpin asked for his response to the allegations submitted to the Integrity Committee by Acting U.S. Attorney Lawrence Brown?
9) What efforts were made during Mr. Eisen’s review to obtain both sides of the story or to afford the Office of Inspector General an opportunity to be heard?
10) In addition to the claim that Mr. Walpin was “confused” and “disoriented,” the letter also says he exhibited “other behavior” that led to questions about his capacity. What other behavior was Mr. Eisen referencing?
11) If the initial and primary concern had to do with Mr. Walpin’s capacity to serve for potential health reasons, why was he only given one hour to decide whether to resign or be fired?
12) If Mr. Walpin’s telecommuting arrangements since the beginning of this year were a major concern, then why was Mr. Walpin not simply asked to stop telecommuting?

Grassley wanted answers in writing by June 24th. He's still waiting. Here's York's piece from the 17th.

That leads us to the name Frank Trinity, a top official with CNCS who after meeting with congressional investigators, has decided to do a good impression of a mime that wants to be left alone.

Byron York, who has been following this particular IG story since the beginning has the full story

Now, more on that part about those behind Walpin's firing changing their stories while Walpin has been thoroughly consistent with his. Since the "confused and disoriented" defense hasn't served Obama well, it appears that the race card may now be getting played. Historically speaking, it's often a last line of defense.

(The reason for Walpin's firing) is particularly important to investigators, who believe the Obama administration may be constructing an after-the-fact rationale for canning Walpin.

What on earth for? Obama's people say Walpin appeared to be a few cards short of a full deck at a meeting. Doesn't that sufficiently cover it?

Who's appearing confused and disoriented now? Well, apparently the White House is because its story is not matching the story of Frank Trinity.

Now, the story has shifted again, to emphasize allegations of racial and gender insensitivity in a parody newsletter produced to mark the retirement of a worker in Walpin's office in May 2008.

When backed into a corner, scream 'RACISM', right?

Here's a link to the newsletter.

Truly problematic here is that Walpin DIDN'T WRITE ANYTHING IN THAT NEWSLETTER and its contents are actually rather innocuous to boot (see York's piece for quotes)!

If the White House's latest reason for firing Walpin is that he is guilty of vicariously exhibiting racism through the writer of a hokie (is 'hokie' racist?) newsletter, Obama should be starting to feel some significant heat.

Did I mention he's at -8 on the Presidential Approval Index?

h/t to PowerLine for posting the story

White House Stonewalling on Walpin Investigation

When the president oversteps his bounds and fires an Inspector General without following the law he co-signed, damage control is sure to follow.

It did.

The firing of Gerald Walpin, by law, necessitated specific reasons be issued in writing and sent to congress. After telling Walpin via phone on June 10th that he had an hour to quit or be fired, White House counsel Norman Eisen found himself in front of investigators on Senator Chuck Grassley's staff defending the assertion that Walpin was "confused" and "disoriented" at a Board Meeting on May 20th.

Not satisfied with Eisen's answers, Grassley submitted questions to the White House in writing that sought answers by Wednesday, June 24th. Those answers weren't given and it now appears the White House has whipped out the "Executive Privilege" defense.

Byron York is once again all over it.

There are basically two possible short term outcomes.
1.) Republican Investigators, led by Grassley will dig in their heels and see how far they can push it

2.) It will be dropped, a fate far too many injustices inside the beltway seem to share.