DOJ Inspector General Report on Fast and Furious: Holder Incompetent but Innocent of wrongdoing

After reading the Executive Summary of the Inspector General's Report on Operation Fast and Furious, I'm struck by one thing. The biggest indictment of Attorney General Eric Holder may just be that he still has a job as Attorney General after these findings, not because the conclusions call for his removal but because Holder shouldn't be able to look himself in the mirror before going to work. Any real leader would literally step aside in utter disgrace or, at best, fall on the sword for his subordinates. If Holder does neither, he shouldn't have the trust of any subordinates.

Yes, Holder was found innocent of wrongdoing but the degree to which others close to him were found culpable makes him look like anything other than a leader.

As it was during the hearings and investigation, a huge stickling point for Holder is that now infamous February 4, 2011 letter in which the DOJ assured Senator Chuck Grassley that no gun-walking was taking place. DOJ didn't rescind that letter until December of 2011. It's clear, apparently even to IG Horowitz, that while the letter itself should not have been written, there is no way it should have taken ten months to rescind it.

From the Executive Summary via AZ Central:

The OIG concluded, as did the Department, that its February 4, 2011, response letter to Senator Grassley contained inaccuracies, particularly its assertion that ATF "makes every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to Mexico."

However, the OIG also found that, by March or April 2011, senior Department officials knew or should have known that ATF had not made "every effort to interdict weapons that [had] been purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to Mexico," either in Operation Fast and Furious or other firearms trafficking investigations and therefore the February 4 letter contained inaccuracies.

Ok, so the IG says "senior Department officials" should have known the February 4th letter was bogus within one to two months of it being signed (not ten months afterward). Once you're talking about "senior Department officials", you're talking about Holder's inner circle. We're left to conclude that members of Holder's inner circle are culpable when it comes to not identifying the February 4th letter for what it was.

As such, shouldn't Holder by culpable as well? In fact, he should step aside before those identified by IG Horowitz do; it would be the most honorable thing to do.

Then again, the only thing Holder and honor have in common is that they both start with the letter "h".

As for the IG's analysis of how the February 4th letter got written...

The OIG found that a poorly executed information gathering and drafting process, as well as questionable judgments by Department officials, contributed to the Department's inclusion of inaccurate information in its February 4 response letter to Senator Grassley.

In preparing this letter, Department officials relied on information provided by senior component officials that was not accurate, primarily from U.S. Attorney Burke, ATF Acting Director Melson, and ATF Deputy Director Hoover. These officials failed to exercise appropriate oversight of the investigation, and to some extent were themselves receiving incorrect or incomplete information from their subordinates about it.

Once again, Holder's direct subordinates are guilty of "questionable judgments" and relying on information that was "not accurate". Horowitz then says theses "officials (Holder's immediate subordinates) failed to exercise appropriate oversight".

This next excerpt indicates a lack of leadership on the part of Holder, not by name, but based on what his immediate subordinates (plural) viewed as a correct course of action:

The OIG further concluded that the Department officials who had a role in drafting the February 4 letter should have done more to inform themselves about the allegations in Sen. Grassley's letter and should not have relied solely on the assurances of senior officials at ATF and the U.S. Attorney's Office that the allegations were false.

Again, Holder's direct subordinates are fingered by Horowitz as being incompetent. Yet, Holder was whistling in blissful and ignorant solitude somewhere while his underlings - whom he hired - were making all of these bone-headed decisions?!

Perhaps most damning was an admission by Horowitz that the DOJ should have corrected the assertions in its February 4, 2011 letter in its May 2, 2011 letter in response to Grassley:

The OIG further concluded that, by the date of its May 2 response letter, senior Department officials responsible for drafting the letter also knew or should have known that ATF had not made "every effort to interdict weapons purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to Mexico," either in Operation Fast and Furious or other firearms trafficking investigations, and that the Department's February 4 letter contained inaccuracies and could no longer be defended in its entirety.

Rep. Darrell Issa's team has been very quick in sending out emails in response to this report. Here is an excerpt from a mass email I received from Frederick R. Hill, Director of Communications for the Oversight Committee:

IG Report’s Findings on why Attorney General Holder was not aware of Crucial Information about Operation Fast and Furious and Other Gunwalking (p. 453):

“We concluded that the Attorney General’s Deputy Chief of Staff, the Acting Deputy Attorney General, and the leadership of the Criminal Division failed to alert the Attorney General to significant information about or flaws in those investigations.”

Shouldn't Attorney General Holder be held accountable for the incompetence of multiple direct reports?

If Holder remains on as Attorney General, it will actually (and paradoxically) be the biggest indictment of him, based on the incompetence of the people who he is directly responsible for.

Video: Valerie Jarrett will not defend Eric Holder as DOJ IG prepares for Hearing

At the Democratic National Convention, Washington Times reporter Kerry Pickett confronted Obama senior advisor Valerie Jarrett and asked her several times if she thought Attorney General Eric Holder should resign. Perhaps what was communicated most was what Jarrett didn't say; she refused to say no.

Via the Daily Caller:



Eric Holder is sure to make news on September 11th because that's the day that the Justice Department's Inspector General (DOJ IG) will be in front of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA).

Here is the hearing announcement that was sent out by Issa's office one day prior to Pickett's attempt to get Jarrett to take a position on Holder:

DOJ Inspector General to Testify Next Week Following Release of Investigative Report on Operation Fast and Furious

WASHINGTON – House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa today announced that Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz, following the release of his report of the investigation into reckless conduct in Operation Fast and Furious, will testify before the Full Oversight Committee on Tuesday, September 11, 2012.   In Operation Fast and Furious, agents failed to interdict firearms destined for Mexican drug cartels while hoping the guns, once recovered at crime scenes in Mexico, would lead them to higher ranking cartel officials.  Guns from the reckless Justice Department program, however, contributed to the deaths of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and an unknown number of Mexican citizens.  It also created an ongoing public safety hazard on both sides of the border.

“For a year and a half, Attorney General Eric Holder has cited the ongoing Inspector General investigation as his reason for declining to hold those responsible for reckless conduct in Operation Fast and Furious to account.  Next week, this excuse for delaying action ends,” said Chairman Darrell Issa.  “Although I am concerned that the Justice Department has not given the Inspector General full and unfettered access to all relevant information, Inspector General Horowitz’s report and testimony should add to the understanding of the operation and numerous related management failures at the Department.”

It looks like Horowitz might be attempting to engage Issa in a game of one-upsmanship. When it was announced that the IG Report was completed and would be released in four weeks, Issa wrote to Horowitz and said it's customary for the release to take place within two weeks. The Oversight committee chairman then proceeded to schedule Horowitz to appear before the committee after three weeks, which would be September 11th.

Earlier this week, the Los Angeles Times reported that Horowitz has written a letter to Issa, in which he appears to be hedging his bets about being ready on Tuesday, the 11th.

Based on how thin Issa's patience has been getting when it comes to this Fast and Furious investigation, Horowitz may be engaging in some ill-advised, petty gamesmanship; there could be a lot more downside than he thinks.

All through this investigation, individuals who have faced tough questions from committee members have chosen to defer to the as yet, unreleased IG Report. Now that the man responsible for it - Horowitz - will be bringing it to the Committee hearing with him, he won't be able to do what those before him have done - defer to the report that isn't released.

In Horowitz's case, he won't be able to defer to the report; he will have to defend it. The buck will stop with him. It might not be a good idea for him to needle Issa at this point. Then again, Horowitz may just need every waking minute to nail his talking points.

Wow: Darrell Issa calls DOJ IG to testify on 9/11... about that Fast and Furious report

The Fast and Furious investigation started in early 2011. It has been both compelling and painfully slow to watch. Ever suspicious of congressional investigations that almost always lead nowhere - unless the subjects are not politicians - I often waffled between believing that Oversight Committee chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Senate Judiciary ranking member, Charles Grassley (R-IA) would give it all they have or succumb to the political pressure that demands little more than dog and pony shows that precede such investigations' fade into the abyss.

When I saw what was billed as the first of three reports to come out of the Oversight committee relative to its Fast and Furious investigation, I'll admit it was discouraging. It appeared that Holder had successfully coughed up his fall guys - five local ATF employees in Arizona. The letter from Issa's committee identified them as the responsible parties; DOJ leadership would escape.

Hang on just a minute. Issa still appears to be fighting despite having limited options. Sipsey Street calls it "three-dimensional chess".

The long anticipated DOJ Inspectors General report that every leader of consequence has deferred to whenever questions from Congress became too uncomfortable, is finally coming out and Rep. Issa is summoning the IG himself - Michael Horowitz - to testify in front of the Oversight Committee on September 11, 2012.

Via Kerry Picket at the Washington Times:

Congressman Darrell Issa, California Republican and House Oversight Committee Chairman, sent a letter on Friday to the Justice Department's Inspector General Michael Horowitz that summoned the IG inspector to a Capitol Hill hearing to testify before the House Oversight Committee on September 11.

According to Mr. Issa's letter, Horowitz already sent a draft of the eagerly awaited for Fast and Furious report to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) as well as Attorney General Eric Holder and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General on August 21.

Here is a copy of the letter. Note that in addition to calling Horowitz to testify, Issa is doing so prior to the 30-day window the IG has given for the report to be released after DOJ leadership has had a chance to review. Issa points out that 30 days is not customary; two weeks is. Perhaps that's why Issa has decided to split the difference and request Horowitz to appear three weeks after completion of the report.

Issa addresses this concern in the letter.

These committee members have got to be F-E-D U-P with the number of times they've heard testimony that included deferrals to the IG. On September 11th, they'll be grilling a guy that has no one to defer to.

I'm back to believing Issa has no interest in dog and pony shows.

Should be big.

Video: Rep. Louie Gohmert smacks down Janet Napolitano

Rep. Louie Gohmert is one of the five signatories - including Michele Bachmann - to five letters to various Inspectors General about the stealth infiltration of the U.S. Government by Muslim Brotherhood agents. One of those June 13th letters was addressed to the IG for Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

In that letter, the name Mohamed Elibiary is identified as someone who used his security clearance to access classified information that he subsequently shopped to news reporters to be used against Texas Governor Rick Perry. This caught the attention of Gohmert last year and he is apparently still getting stonewalled by Napolitano and at this July 19th House Judiciary Committee hearing, it's clear he's had about enough of it.

A must-watch:



Here is Gohmert grilling Napolitano on the same subject last November:

Grassley asking why DOJ IG report on Fast and Furious taking so long

Senator Chuck Grassley is rightfully demanding to know where the DOJ IG's report on Fast and Furious is. It's been well over a year since Cynthia Schnedar was allegedly asked to investigate the operation. Considering that Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer's deputy, Jason Weinstein, referred to the drafting of the now infamous February 4, 2011 letter as being more difficult than the "Magna Carta," perhaps we already know the answer to Grassley's question. If the two page letter was so difficult to draft - and was later proven to have been demonstrably false - perhaps the IG's report is more difficult than calculating Einstein's theory of relativity.

Anyway, via the Washington Times:

The ranking Republican on the SenateJudiciary Committee says a Justice Department investigation into the botched “Fast and Furious” gunrunning operation has taken “an awfully long time to finish” and, as a result, “should meet the highest standards of accuracy and independence.”

“Operation Fast and Furious failed to live up to the standards set by the American people, and we need to know how that could ever happen,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who first questioned the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) operation more than a year ago.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. asked the inspector general’s office at the Justice Department in February 2011 to investigate the operation after Mr. Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican and chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, discovered that ATF had allowed more than 2,000 weapons - including AK-47 assault rifles - to be “walked” across the border to drug smugglers in Mexico.

The origins of this operation have been narrowed down to a group of people that is not all that large so there's really no logical explanation for why it's taking so long. Then again, as the Times points out, the acting IG is not only a Holder lackey but she hasn't even been confirmed by the Senate yet:

Jay Lerner, spokesman for the inspector general’s office, said “the review is ongoing,” but declined to elaborate.

Mr. Grassley initially expressed concern that the investigation was being conducted without an independent Senate-confirmed inspector general running the office. Acting Inspector General Cynthia A. Schnedar has not been through the Senate confirmation process and Mr. Grassley questioned whether she could “challenge senior officials with tough questions.”

President Obama’s nominee as inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, is awaiting Senate confirmation.

Rep. Ted Poe, Texas Republican and a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said the inspector general’s review has “taken longer than the Warren Commission report on the Kennedy assassination.” He said the inquiry “comes across that it is being stonewalled until after the election.”

I don't think Holder will be able to wait that long to release the report. In fact, I seem to remember him saying it would only be a couple of months or so when he testified back on February 2nd.

One month down.

As Suspected, DOJ IG and Eric Holder Quite Cozy with One Another

Ever since the Department of Justice or White House first had to start answering questions about the Fast and Furious scandal earlier this year, there has been ONE default response when those questions got a little uncomfortable. That response is that the DOJ Inspector General has been assigned the task of conducting an investigation. In essence, the IG was appointed sentry in front of the stonewalls. Yes, the IG is supposed to be independent but it rarely seems to work that way, especially in this administration (think Gerald Walpin).

Last month, reason for increased suspicion about acting DOJ IG Cynthia Schnedar reared its head when it was learned that she sent recorded audio tapes that implicated the ATF, to the Arizona's US Attorneys office without ever listening to the tapes herself. This act demonstrated that she was likely more interested in aiding the DOJ than in investigating it.

There's much more and Ronald Kolb over at American Thinker has found it:

It turns out that Ms. Schnedar has long and close ties to Mr. Holder. According to her biography on the Justice Department website, she became assistant U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C. in 1994. Eric Holder had become the U.S. attorney in Washington the previous year, so he in effect was Schnedar's boss from 1994 until 1997, when he left to become President Clinton's deputy attorney general. Holder would become a key player in the scandalous pardons of fugitive billionaire Marc Rich and members of the Puerto Rican nationalist terrorist group known as FALN.

But during Ms. Schnedar's tenure before Holder had departed, it happened that they had ended up working a number of cases together. According to the LexisNexis website, there were at least fourteen of them, usually at the appellate level. For Holder, it was more than just "in name only"; in some of those cases, they apparently co-filed legal briefs.

In one case, they had represented the ATF. In another, they represented both the ATF and DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration), an agency that has now also been linked to Fast and Furious.

As mentioned, whenever someone in authority at DOJ or the Administration is asked tough questions, they defer to Schnedar. Even Obama has done this more than once. Are we to believe the president doesn't know about this conflict of interest? Kolb interestingly raised four very salient points relative to Schnedar:

There are several questions about Ms. Schnedar that beg to be answered.

First, as she well knew, the U.S. attorney's office in Phoenix was also a target of the investigation. Both the U.S. attorney and the assistant U.S. attorney have since left because of the scandal.

Second, should Ms. Schnedar have immediately recused herself from the Fast and Furious investigation because of her long and deep ties to Mr. Holder?

Third, when Ms. Schnedar began her employment as assistant U.S. attorney in Washington in 1994, was it Mr. Holder (then the U.S. attorney) who hired her?

Lastly, Federal Election Commission records show that Schnedar donated to the Democratic National Committee in 2005. Does she now think that was proper?

On a related note: I recently contacted Ms. Schnedar to ask those very questions. She angrily told me to call her office. No answers have been forthcoming from either source, including her spokesman, Jay Lerner.

There is an air of invincibility when someone reaches the level of Attorney General. Erich Holder has demonstrated in the past that he has it. As this scandal continues to unravel, he may be in the process of losing it, as well he should be. His coziness with Ms. Schnedar is a big concern but it is by no means the biggest relative to Holder and this scandal. In fact, we may be witnessing the early stages of him being thrown under the Obama bus. It's that bad.

Read it all.

House Judiciary Chairman sends Letter to Obama, calls for Special Counsel

A huge chunk of the Justice Department stonewall relative to Operation Fast and Furious appears to be in the process of being dislodged. Whenever administration officials, to include DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, FBI Director Robert Mueller, Asst Attorney General Robert Weich, Attorney General Eric Holder, and even Barack Obama are asked questions about the operation that allowed guns to 'walk' into Mexico, the default response has been that the DOJ IG has been assigned the task of investigating. That all changed with the release of memos that seem to implicate Eric Holder in the commission of perjury in front of the House Judiciary Committee on May 3rd.

Now House Judiciary committee chairman Lamar Smith, has sent Obama a letter, calling for a special independent counsel to investigate.

These events are significant on many levels. Here is video of an interview Obama gave to Univision's Jorge Ramos earlier this year during which the president said that neither he nor Eric Holder authorized the program that led to the death of hundreds of Mexican civilians and at least one Federal US agent (Brian Terry). Obama also said he had not been informed about the operation. Assuming he was telling the truth (I know, it's a stretch), he should want Holder fired immediately.



By the way, the New York Times has actually picked up on this story but seems to have a difficult time printing Brian Terry's name, referring to him only as 'border agent.'

There's one aspect to all of this I keep coming back to. If Holder's defense is that he didn't read the memos he received on Fast and Furious, what does that say about the person who authored them? The implication is that Asst Atty General Lanny Breuer knew about the operation but Holder did not. By claiming he didn't read the memos, isn't Holder throwing Breuer under the bus?

h/t Sipsey Street

Video: Why Holder's IG Investigation of ATF over Gunrunner Scandal Not OK

In response to charges that the ATF allowed guns to 'walk' into Mexico and that a congressional investigation needs to take place, both Attorney General Eric Holder and President Obama have said the case is being investigated by the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General. The case of Jay Dobyns should provide the perfect example for why such a course should be 100% unacceptable. Dobyns worked undercover for the ATF and became a star witness against Hell's Angels. He needed ATF's protection from the gang but never got it. His house was burned to the ground.

An 'internal investigation' took place courtesy of the Inspector General. Those found to have dropped the ball are still there.

h/t Sipsey Street

Ruh Roh: Inspector General says Climategate Needs More Investigation

There is actually more to this story than just the findings of the Inspector General, whose report clearly stated that the emails from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 'warant further investigation.' However, that's not the way the liberal media is reporting the story. Since no wrongdoing was conclusively determined, the narrative coming from the mainstream media is that NOAA is off the hook after the investigation. Not so fast, Libs.

The investigation was spearheaded by Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe (R), who released this report in response to the IG's findings. Here are some highlights via Watts Up With That:

Highlights from the IG Report

Emails ‘Warrant Further Investigation’

“We found eight emails which, in our judgment, warranted further examination to clarify any possible issues involving the scientific integrity of particular NOAA scientists or NOAA’s data. As a result, we conducted interviews with the relevant NOAA scientists regarding these eight emails, and have summarized their responses and explanations in the enclosure.”

Potential Breach of NOAA Contracting

“In addition to the foregoing, we also found two other emails that raised questions, one regarding a 2002 contract NOAA awarded to the CRU…”

“This email, dated June 24, 2003, captioned ‘NOAA Funding,’ was sent by a visiting fellow at CRU, a NOAA contractor, to another researcher (affiliated with a research institution in Vietnam) stating the following:

‘NOAA want[s] to give us more money for the El Nino work with IGCN [Indochina Global Change Network). How much do we have left from the last budget? I reckon most has been spent but we need to show some left to cover the costs of the trip [name omitted] didn’t make and also thec fees/equipment/computer money we haven’t spent otherwise NOAA will be suspicious.’

“Auditing NOAA’s contracting with CRU was not within the scope of our inquiry, but in light of these circumstances it is important for NOAA to be assured that CRU fully complied with the applicable U.S. contracting rules and requirements. Moreover, NOAA could not tell us the universe of climate-related contracts it has issued over the past ten years to parties and institutions such as CRU.” [Emphasis added]

Clearly, there are some unanswered questions and this is not over. The IG's report also calls into question NOAA's handling of FOIA requests. Yet, HERE is how the liberal media reported the IG's findings:

A Commerce Department inspector general investigation into the “Climategate” controversy finds that government scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration did not manipulate climate change data.

It’s the latest investigation to clear scientists of manipulating climate data after thousands of e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit were leaked in 2009.

While the Hill did provide a link to the entire report, you'd think after reading their post that the issue is dead and buried, which is patently misleading.

Read WUWT's post.

NICE: INSPECTOR GENERAL TO INVESTIGATE DOJ SECTION

This is potentially very big news; then again, how often is that said these days? Nonetheless, it is nice to see people in positions of authority take on the establishment after being subjected to repeated stonewalling. Michelle Malkin has posted a letter written by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine, addressed to Reps. Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Frank Wolf (R-VA). In that letter, Fine explains that the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) does not have jurisdiction over how the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case was litigated - he explains that distinction belongs to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR).

To this point, the OPR has been apparently led by a bunch of foot-draggers. The good news is that Fine has decided to assert his office's authority by investigating how the Voting RIghts section of the Civil RIghts division within the DOJ enforced the laws. This would be a huge turn of events because it's at the heart of the argument of J. Christian Adams, the trial attorney who resigned over this.

Via Michelle Malkin: Here is Part 1 of the letter; click on the image to enlarge.

To read pages two and three of the letter, go to Malkin's site. More here.

As we all know, the Obama administration has demonstrated outright contempt for Inspectors General; Gerald Walpin comes to mind first but as Malkin reminds us, there are many other examples.

Another interesting angle to this story may involve the not-so-subtle hint from J. Christian Adams in an interview with Megyn Kelly at Fox News earlier this year, that Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil RIghts division, Thomas Perez may have given provably false testimony - under oath - to the U.S. commission on civil rights. Making that web even more tangled is that Perez is the man leading the lawsuit against Maricopa county sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona.

As this OIG investigation unfolds, it will be interesting to see if reports that the voting rights section was informed by Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes never to bring a case against a black, are substantiated. If that's found to be the case, great political damage could reach Perez.

More at Michelle Malkin

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

Robert Stacy McCain to be on Barrack Show July 19th

Known as "The Other McCain", Robert Stacy McCain has been all over the Inspectors General scandals involving AmeriCorps, Amtrak, and the International Trade Commission. We'll talk to him about all of them on the show. McCain also has claimed that a 4th IG has contacted congress and that "The name of Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) was mentioned in an indirect way."

We'll see what he can tell us about that AND the newly filed lawsuit by AmeriCorps IG Gerald Walpin, who is claiming he was unlawfully fired.

McCain writes for the American Spectator and maintains his own blog.

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.

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.