Bob Woodward getting the Gerald Walpin treatment

During a February 27th appearance on Morning Joe, Watergate icon Bob Woodward said that the action / inaction of Barack Obama relative to not sending a carrier to the Persian Gulf because of the sequestration cuts was a 'kind of madness'. It didn't take long for the White House to pull out the long knives and go after Woodward. Remember, this administration will say or do whatever it wants in order to protect and defend the progressive agenda.

One of those tactics involves impugning Woodward's mental faculty by implying that he is too old to remain relevant as a journalist. David Plouffe - one of Obama's hatchet men - used twitter to attack Woodward, saying (via Twitchy):

"Watching Woodward last 2 days is like imagining my idol Mike Schmidt facing live pitching again. Perfection gained once is rarely repeated."

Even Media Matters' Eric Boehlert went after Woodward's age for the same reason, despite having praised the former Watergate reporter ten days earlier (via Breitbart):

"funniest/saddest part is porr Bobby Woodward STILL doesn't seem to understand what sequester means"

Boehlert posted that tweet with the hash tag, timetoretire.

So, because Woodward made an intellectually honest critique of Obama, he had suddenly become senile. This is not a new technique from the Obama camp.

Does anyone remember a guy named Gerald Walpin who was the Inspector General for AmeriCorps back in 2009? That scandal unfolded when Walpin wouldn't back down relative to charges that Obama friend and Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson had misused taxpayer funds. Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) pressed for more information about Walpin's abrupt firing by the White House, which was required by law to give Congress a 30 day notice of its intention to terminate any IG.

Guess what rationale the White House gave for firing Walpin. Yep, his age.

Via Hot Air at the time:

The Obama administration has tried to justify its firing of Inspector General Gerald Walpin by strongly implying that the 77-year-old attorney suffers from senility.  Norman Eisen, the White House lawyer who drafted a required notification to Congress, accused Walpin of being “confused and disoriented” at a May 20th meeting of the Corporation for National and Community Service.

Check out what the Washington Examiner's Byron York had to say about Walpin's firing:

Walpin and the management of the corporation clashed repeatedly over his investigations into AmeriCorps projects. The disagreements came to a head at a May 20 board meeting when Walpin, by his own account, "lectured" board members for going along with the corporation's politically appointed management and closing out his investigation of Kevin Johnson's educational organization, St. HOPE, which received about $850,000 in AmeriCorps money and misused at least half of it.

"Jerry can never get to the point where you can agree to disagree," the board member said of Walpin. "You either agree with him, or he keeps beating you up."

The board member says at one point in the meeting, Walpin seemed to have trouble concentrating. "There were long pauses on his part," the board member says. "He clearly was not able to answer the questions we were putting to him."

The White House later accused Walpin of being "confused, disoriented [and] unable to answer questions" at the meeting. Walpin concedes he was not feeling well but does not recall serious problems.

The Obama administration will stop at nothing to get what it wants. Had Walpin backed down, he would have been completely sane. Ditto for Woodward not the 69 year-old icon not challenged the president. It's beyond obvious that this administration is more than willing to assassinate someone's character if that someone says or does something the administration doesn't like, to include exercising one's first amendment right, as was the case with Woodward.

In Walpin's case, it was apparently just for doing his job.

INSPECTOR GENERAL GERALD WALPIN NOT GOING QUIETLY

The story of Inspector General Gerald Walpin being fired made some significant waves in the summer of 2009 as far as political scandals go. It's not over apparently. In June of 2009, Walpin was fired by the Obama administration after given 45 minutes notice. A law designed to protect IGs, which Obama voted for when a Senator, states that Inspectors General must be given 30 days notice before getting fired pending congressional review. This was written into the law to afford IGs protection against politically motivated firings - IGs often uncover uncomfortable truths when allowed to do their jobs.

That's exactly what Walpin claims happened to him. So he filed a lawsuit demanding his job back. Small problem. The judge assigned to the case - U.S. District Judge Richard Roberts - appears to have quite a cozy back-scratching relationship with Attorney General Eric Holder.

The Washington Times reported on September 1st:

''I've got your back." That's what U.S. District Judge Richard Roberts said to his decades-long friend, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., in introducing the AG at an April 22 speech at Vassar College. At that time, Judge Roberts was ignoring several legal deadlines to the benefit of Mr. Holder's administration on numerous motions and countermotions in a key lawsuit for which Mr. Holder's underlings effectively were acting as defense attorneys.

Pressed by a higher court to justify his delays, Judge Roberts two months later ruled completely in the administration's favor - tossing out the suit, without trial, of Gerald A. Walpin, the AmeriCorps inspector general whose investigations had embarrassed several of President Obama's friends.

Now Walpin is not only demanding that his case be reinstated but that it be put in front of a new judge. The relationship between Roberts and Holder is quite extensive and goes back many years. Based on Roberts' stalling and ultimate dismissal of Walpin's case given obvious reasons to allow it to proceed, the argument that Roberts should have recused himself appears well-founded.

WND reported:

Roberts dismissed Walpin's suit on June 17 of this year, on the grounds that the act does not guarantee that even an illegally fired inspector general will get his job back.

In an August 30 brief, attorneys representing Walpin asked the district court of the District of Columbia to reinstate the case, and either reassign it to another judge or order Roberts to adjudicate it swiftly and fairly.

The brief argues that Roberts repeatedly ignored deadlines, denying Walpin swift justice and dragging the case out for nearly a year, to the benefit of the Obama administration. Conversely, it also points out that Roberts took less than 24 hours to reject Walpin's nearly 500-page motion for a preliminary injunction.

As Walpin's attorneys pointed out, the motion constituted "a volume realistically impossible to digest in that short time."

Roberts rejected the motion in one terse sentence: "Plaintiff had failed to make an adequate showing that he risks suffering irreparable injury."

Be sure to read both the WND piece as well as the Washington Times piece if you need a refresher on the details surrounding Walpin's firing, which included his contention that Obama friend, former NBA basketball star, and Sacramento mayor, Kevin Johnson misused government money.

Also more HERE and HERE.

WALPIN-GATE CONTINUES TO PERCOLATE

The Obama administration has this uncanny knack of being involved in slow-burn scandals, like sores that won't heal. The Black Panthers case involving voter intimidation has been going since November, 2008; the Sestak / Romanoff actually started in September, 2009 when the Denver Post first reported the offer to Romanoff.

Now we're learning that the scandal involving Investigator General Gerald Walpin, who was allegedly fired illegally and without good reason last year, is making news again. Unfortunately for the Obama administration, Walpin filed a lawsuit very early on, calling for his reinstatement. The administration went into panic mode over another individual at the heart of the scandal, Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson.

Via the Washington Times:

On June 9, 2010, The Washington Times broke the story that AmeriCorps' parent, Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), ignored its own sanctions against Mr. Johnson for infractions admitted by the mayor by featuring him in an honored speaking slot at the upcoming National Conference on Volunteering and Service June 28 through 30 in New York. By June 11 - the anniversary of the firing - CNCS executives made a series of frantic phone calls that resulted in Mr. Johnson being scrubbed from the list of speakers and removed from the website. The remaining questions are: Who invited Mr. Johnson in the first place, and why?

On the same day Mr. Johnson withdrew as a speaker, Mr. Walpin filed a final summation in a federal appeals court explaining why the court should order expedited action on his lawsuit. Even though he filed suit on July 17, and even though his suit is time sensitive because the administration already has nominated a would-be replacement, Judge Richard W. Roberts of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has sat on numerous motions and countermotions for expedited judgment, thus stalling the case. Mr. Walpin's petition for a writ of mandamus asks the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to issue an order for Judge Roberts to rule on all pending motions.

We've all seen our share of judges that do inexplicable things in favor of those in power; Paul v. Clinton is the quintessential example. The judge in Rod Blagojevich's trial denying the defense's motion to subpoena Barack Obama's testimony is another, especially after reading the redacted portions of that motion, which came available to the public due to a software glitch. This judge in Gerald Walpin's case is yet another.

Read it all.

REMEMBER WALPIN-GATE? IT'S BAAAAACK

Believe it or not, there was a time in this country when a story like this would be earth-shattering. Unfortunately, it's been languishing in relative obscurity since it broke last summer. That said, Byron York at the Washington Examiner is doing an excellent job of peeling the onion, one layer at a time.

This story does have many layers that I won't get into but if you'd like to read up, feel free to go here, here, and here.

The latest development involves Walpin, the mayor of Sacramento Kevin Johnson, Johnson's attorney, and Lawrence Brown who, at the time was the U.S. Attorney in Sacramento. In short, Walpin exposed Johnson as mis-using taxpayer dollars and wasn't backing down.

Johnson's attorney, Matthew Jacobs appears to have had some correspondence with Brown who confronted Walpin and helped the White House justify its decision to fire Inspector General Walpin, who discovered that former NBA star Kevin Johnson - a friend of Barack Obama - was mis-using government funds for his personal benefit.

New revelations, thanks to York, show that Brown very likely could have had a motive when it came to opposing Walpin. The former apparently had his eye on a job requiring a presidential appointment:

Republican investigators for the Senate Finance Committee and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform have released a supplement to the 62-page report on the Walpin case they filed last November, and it shows that, at the same time he was blocking Walpin, Brown was seeking an appointment from the Obama White House as the permanent U.S. Attorney. In other words, when Brown let Obama ally Kevin Johnson off the hook, he was hoping to get a job from the Obama White House.

York's piece goes on to quote Brown's letter specifically but the deeper story at this point, appears to be the Obama administration's willingness or unwillingness to reward Brown for doing its bidding with respect to protecting Obama's friend, Kevin Johnson.

In matters like this, one seeks poetic incarnations of justice wherever they can be found. It would seem that even if this case dies here - not likely, considering how long it's been percolating - Walpin may just be able to take some solace in the fact that he made enough of a stink that Brown didn't get that position he so coveted.

Walpin was later cleared of all the charges against him. In the end, Brown did not get the U.S. Attorney job. He is now a judge on the Sacramento Superior Court.

If this story is as it appears, how comfortable should we feel knowing that someone like Brown is now a judge?

Be sure to Read it All

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