This is a follow-up to the original blog piece I wrote about President Obama's firing of Gerald Walpin, the Inspector General of the CNCS, the watchdog over Americorps and other national service groups.
It's looking more and more like a political hit job.
From the Washington Examiner:
Walpin had certainly displeased the board by his aggressive investigation into the misuse of AmeriCorps funds by Kevin Johnson, the former NBA star who is now mayor of Sacramento, California and a prominent supporter of President Obama. Prior to his election as mayor, Johnson ran an educational organization called St. HOPE, which received $850,000 in AmeriCorps money. Walpin discovered that Johnson and St. HOPE had failed to use the federal money for the purposes specified in the grant and had also used federally-funded AmeriCorps staff for, among other things, "driving [Johnson] to personal appointments, washing his car, and running personal errands."
Walpin recommended that Johnson be banned from ever receiving any more federal funds. But after the passage of the $787 billion stimulus bill, amid worries that such a ban on the mayor would keep Sacramento from receiving its share of the stimulus cash, the board of the Corporation for National and Community Service reached an agreement with the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento under which Johnson would repay some of the mis-spent money and also be eligible to receive new federal grants in the future. Walpin strongly objected to the agreement. (Knowing his opposition, the board excluded him from the negotiations.)
Walpin's objections were the subject of a now-controversial May 20 meeting in which Walpin, to use his term, "lectured" the board on what he believed was its mistake in approving the Johnson settlement. On the morning of the meeting, the Sacramento Bee reported that a man named Rick Maya, who worked with Kevin Johnson in the St. HOPE project, claimed that Johnson's emails had been deleted during the time of Walpin's investigation. The Maya news suggested that there might have been obstruction of justice in the St. HOPE affair, and Walpin used it to drive home his point that the board should have let his investigation stand.
It appears the discussion of the St. HOPE matter was a turning point not only in the May 20 meeting but in Walpin's tenure at the Corporation. In a recent interview, a Republican member of the Corporation board told me that Walpin told board members at the meeting that he wanted to issue some sort of public statement to the effect that there should be more investigation of the St. HOPE matter. "He said, 'I feel so strongly about this that today I am going to issue a statement to the press calling for further investigation,'" the member said, recalling Walpin's words. "The board members all caught that. Several of us wrote down that he was going to be issuing a statement to the press that afternoon."
It was a distressing scenario for the board. As a favorite program of Barack and Michelle Obama, AmeriCorps was enjoying a higher profile than ever before. The Corporation also stood to receive vast amounts of new funding from the $5.7 billion Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, which would triple the size of AmeriCorps. And in the midst of that, here was the agency's inspector general saying he might re-open an investigation into an embarrassing episode involving hundreds of thousands of mis-spent dollars and a politically prominent supporter of the president.
"Right now, when there is such a great emphasis on service, we did not need any press out there on this St. HOPE matter, which was already settled," the board member told me. "We thought he was going to use the press…He had an issue with the fact that a settlement was reached…and he was doing everything he could to continue to keep the issue at the forefront."
Later in the meeting, members questioned Walpin about his intentions. It was at that point that they say Walpin became confused and disoriented. But whatever Walpin's demeanor, it appears that board members, of both parties, were worried about the possibility of embarrassing new revelations involving a sensational case they thought had been closed. After the meeting, the board began an accelerated effort to remove Walpin, compiling an informal list of grievances against him — he could be difficult, he telecommuted, he was somehow disabled — that the White House would ultimately cite as cause for his firing. But there is no doubt that, whatever the other reasons, the board feared that a revival of a scandal they thought was in the past would be embarrassing to the newly-prominent AmeriCorps.
Sounds like the board might have gotten together to manufacture some reasons to get Walpin fired because they were afraid he'd go to the press, and that's when they decided Walpin was "confused" and "disoriented," among other things. They wanted to dump him because he was a thorn in their side and was going to expose the St. Hope "settlement" (free pass).
As further evidence, 147 people, both Democrats and Republicans, have signed a letter to Congress attesting to the soundness of Walpin's mental state. Here's an excerpt from that letter:
We have known Gerald Walpin as a leading member of the New York Bar for many years. Many of us have seen him and heard him speak, including at this month's meeting of the Second Circuit Judicial Conference and last week's meeting of the Board of the Federal Bar Council.
We have never seen Mr. Walpin to be "confused, disoriented, [or] unable to answer questions." While none of us was present at the meeting referred to in Mr. Eisen's letter, we can report only that such an allegation is totally inconsistent with our personal knowledge of Mr. Walpin who has always, through the present day, exhibited a quick mind and a command of the facts (whether we agree with him or not) and eloquence – essentially the opposite of someone who is "confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions."
We note that the signers of this letter include both Democrats and Republicans, voters for both President Obama and Senator McCain, and many who do not agree with Mr. Walpin's personal political views. But all of us are unanimous in affirming Mr. Walpin's integrity and competence.
If it matters, and it shouldn't, Mr. Walpin calls himself a conservative.
Message to Geral Walpin – don't mess with the President's pet projects and friends, peon, or you'll be crushed under the wheels of the Hopenchange Express.
P.S. – As of this writing, the twelve questions Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IOWA) wanted answered by June 24th about Walpin's firing have NOT been answered by the White House.
P.P.S – The FBI is investigating St. Hope and Kevin Johnson for obstructing the investigation into the misappropriation of funds (the obstruction was one of Walpin's biggest objections to the settlement).


{ 36 comments… read them below or add one }
King I think that anything the administration does is a political hit job. Obama and Soros aren't going to let anything get in their way. I love the ACORN/Soros/ABC backed faux townhall meeting on TV last night. Is anyone going to be able to give a cross examination or express other ideas to the people on the subject or will this be another Global Warming "trust us, we would never lie to you" boondoggle.
why would anyone waste their time answering Grassley's 12 questions………they already know that he will vote no to termination
republicans would vote no if it turned out Walpin was a pedophile………of course they got a history of protecting pedophiles…..remember John Boehner and Dennis Hasterts' protection of Mark Foley?
republicans don't need no stinkin' evidence
That's an odd direction to take, walter. Is there something in your past we should know about?
walter is simply making an accurate point. Evidence is of absolutely no value to current Republicans.
And King, I know the crazies in wingnut world are thinking this Walpin thing is the next Monica Lewinsky…..but I'm telling ya', they're wasting their time, there's just nothing there. And there's nothing at all new in your blockquoted material.
King,
The St. Hope scandal is reallly the lesser of the two issues Walprin was investigating. The Americacorps program at the City of New York College is the more important and bigger scam. They will have you focus on the first and let the second go unnoticed. These actions should be of no surprise to anyone that understands S. Alinsky and his tactics. The laws are written by the ruling structure therefore are not binding. It is permissible to take any action or say anything that advances the greater good. What is the greater good? That which the communtiy organier decides benefits the most people.
What benefits the most people? His agenda. Is is all very simple.
Americorps true purpose is to be a totally tax funded version of the Community Organizers International (formally known as ACORN but remeber although it is really the same organiztion under a different name none of the illegal activities or corrupt people in ACORN have anything to do with the activities of the new organization)
walter and Rev,
If it's Republicans who don't care about evidence, why is it that it's YOU fellows who are ignoring the evidence I presented ?
larry,
How can you not see the connection walter is making between walpin and pedophiles ? It's so, so….irrelevant.
walter is also forgetting that the GOP booted Foley, but why let the facts get in the way of a good diversion.
angryc,
You're right about CUNY. That was a bigger fish, and Walpin had just completed a report on them. Walpin was a fly who was irritating the Community Organizer In Chief's agenda, so he got swatted. It's that simple.
joe,
You mean you didn't see how "fair" ABC was in it's health care coverage ?
Neither did I.
But I loved the part at the end where Charles Gibson told Obama that some people were concerned about the cost of his health care reform, and asked if Obama would elaborate on that. As Obama started to respond, Gibson made everyone aware that there was only 30 seconds of program left. There's your balance. Pro-Obama propaganda – 59 1/2 minutes. Opposition concerns – 30 seconds, with 10 seconds of that wasted on Gibson's interruption.
I was hoping Gibson would ask Obama about the Bush Doctrine on health care, and then not explain what he meant when Obama asked "in what respect ?"
"I was hoping Gibson would ask Obama about the Bush Doctrine on health care, and then not explain what he meant when Obama asked "in what respect ?"
Good one King. I could hear the answer now. Obama:"..well…uh…er….umm"(sounds he make while the teleprompter guy is getting ready) after 20 seconds, Gibson: We'll be right back.
I enjoy Obama's infomercial. He needs to get the Sham-wow guy to be the facilitator instead of the usual talking heads. Imagine that: Sham-wow guy speaking "hey do you have cancer? Got congestive heart failure? Do you suffer from COPD? You may not need that chemo, stint or oxygen just take this Obama pain pill. You won't get better but at least you'll be so zoned out it won't hurt. Let Obama take care of you, he knows what's best"
Ridiculous – Here's how to fix it, stop spending money on stupid projects and special interests and use it for the people that pay for the services.
Here is a new name we should discuss. Add him to the Ayers, Soros group. His name is Wade Rathke, founder of ACORN, they make the mafia look like girl scouts whe it comes to things like money laundering, inciting violence and causing general chaos. I can't beleive the left has the audacity to talk bad about CHristians when they are run by a group like this. These people are stealing from the very people they are claiming to help.
AverageJoe5, I wonder why so many people fail to connect either of the Rathke brothers to all this. I guess it is because Glenn Beck keeps talking about that pair when he discusses the Community Organizers International group. I get to hear Beck talk about the Rathkes in that context every day.
Hey did you see the that other member of the main six members of COI when he was on with Beck a couple of weeks ago. I can't remember his name but Beck got him to admit that his only real jobs have been union organizer and community organizer. He looked like the stereotypical union organizer and acted just like those in the movies act. Anyway there are 6 very wealthy men in COI and they are all white. The other day one of the black board members of ACORN who was tossed said that they ran a plantation kind of organization. Blacks do all the work and whites get all the goodies.
I wonder what happens when Beck or someone connects Ayers to ACORN. That should make them scurry very much like mice on the floor when a man walks among them.
we know that both Hastert and Boehner knew of Foley e-mailing young boys and did absolutely nothing and only acted when they became public. If it was up to Boehner, Foley would still be there…..damn that media.
King, don't get me wrong…..defending and making excuses for republicans is what a good republican does. Probably the same could be said for a good pedophile.
larry…..it's King who's defending and excusing republicans who tried to cover-up Foley being a pedophile……maybe you should be asking that question of King
King, in the previous Walpin thread you posted a quote from someone that said Walpin was senile. Who made that quote.
Nothing in Grassely's 12 questions about with holding evidence……..if anything that is going to sink Walpin's ship, it's going to be that
on the prevoius Walpin thread I wondered if Walpin ended up being fired will he have to return the pay he recieved during his suspension?
anybody know?
walter,
I posted no quote from anyone saying Walpin was senile. We've already covered this. I was saying that by calling Walpin "disoriented" and "confused," they made the implication that he was "senile." (The quotes indicated satire on my part). He isn't, as I've illustrated over and over.
Do you have ANY proof that Walpin withheld evidence about anything ?
Because I have already posted the evidence about St. Hope withholding evidence and obstructing Walpin's investigation, which is why Walpin disagreed with the settlement and was making a stink (which is why he was fired).
walter says, "King, don't get me wrong…..defending and making excuses for republicans is what a good republican does. Probably the same could be said for a good pedophile"
Or for someone who pretends to be a conservative while he trashes a fellow conservative (Walpin) who was fired under false pretenses for political reasons by the Obama administration for doing his job.
And all I said was that Foley got booted by the GOP. That is a fact. No excuses necessary for the truth. Btw, did Barney Frank get booted by the Dems when it was discovered that a prostitution ring was being run out of his apartment ? NOPE. He got promoted. Did William Jefferson get booted when $90,000 in cash was found in his freezer ? NOPE. Did Gary Stubbs get booted for having an affair with an underage congressional page ? NOPE. Did Pat Leahy get booted for leaking classified information on multiple occasions ? NOPE. Did Ted Kennedy get booted for killing a girl, leaving the scene, and trying to cover up his involvement ? NOPE. Did Harry Reid get booted for funneling taxpayer dollars to his family members ? NOPE. Did Charlie Rangel get booted for his raft of ethical violations ? NOPE. Did John Murtha get booted for being an unindicted co-conspirator in the ABSCAM mess ? NOPE. Did the impeached judge Alcee Hastings get booted ? NOPE. Did Dick Durbin get booted for insider trading ? NOPE.
so because nobody said he was senile you had to make something up?
He was accused of with holding evidence……just pointing out Grassley didn't touch on that with his 12 questions
so let me understand your argument here …..Walpin didn't do anything wrong because look at all what all these other people did. Is that about right?
No Walt, that's the point. You guys aren't seeing the forest for the trees. There is more corruption in our govt now than ever yet you throw your allegiance behind the biggest group of conspirators in our history.
joe…….to be honest…..I have no idea what you are talking about
and what….Walpin wasn't in our govmint?
Oy vey.
again, one of the reasons given for Walpin's dismissal was that he with held evidence……..why didn't one of Grassely's 12 questions deal with that?
Again, do you have ANY proof that the claim that Walpin withheld evidence is true ? I have submitted ample proof that the other claims against him were not.
King sez……"Again, do you have ANY proof that the claim that Walpin withheld evidence is true ?" Why do I have to prove it? I didn't make the claim that Walpin with held evidence. All I have ever said is that one of the reasons given for Walpin's termination was that he with held evidence.
kin u c da deerfrence?
you should be asking the same question that I am asking…….why isn't Grassley asking about the with holding of evidence claim
I guess that would make too much sense
Oh, I see. YOU aren't claiming that Walpin withheld evidence (you are just bringing it up over and over again). Right.
The burden of proof that Walpin withheld evidence should be on the Obama admin, not Grassley.
can u c dat ?
King sez………"Oh, I see. YOU aren't claiming that Walpin withheld evidence….." Finally, you got something right.
I would think that the most serious charge against Walpin was that he with held evidence. Just asking why Grassley didn't ask about it.
The fact that the charge that Walpin withheld evidence was way down the list of reasons from the Obama admin should tell you something.
King…..thanks for the laugh
this from Fox News……
Removed after unanimous request from the AmeriCorps board of directors
At May, 20, 2009, board meeting Walpin "was confused, disoriented and unable to answer questions and exhibited behavior that led the board to question his capacity to serve."
The U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California complained about Walpin's conduct to the IG oversight board and alleged he withheld exculpatory evidence.
Walpin had "been absent from the Corporation's headquarters, insisting upon working from his home in New York over the objection" of the board.
He "exhibited a lack of candor in providing material information to decision makers."
He "engaged in other troubling and inappropriate conduct."
He "had become unduly disruptive to agency operations, impairing his effectiveness."
7 reasons…..12 questions It would seem to me each reason would get a question and some reasons would get 2 or 3. 0 questions about the with holding of evidence……strange
but hey, I'll be a good republican here just like you……..the absence of proof is all the proof I need
So, in your view, if accusations are made against an employee, that is reason enough to fire them. The accusations don't have to be proven.
Stalin would have liked you.
King….you got that out of me saying ….."7 reasons…..12 questions It would seem to me each reason would get a question and some reasons would get 2 or 3. 0 questions about the with holding of evidence……strange"?
the other thing must have gone wwaaayyyy over your head………it's like if someone made the claim that Iraq's wmd are in Syria and the proof is they weren't found in Iraq……….got it now?
Grassely not asking about the with holding of evidence is proof that Walpin with held evidence. Of course I wouldn't say that but a republican propagandist like yourself might.
Keep trying to make Grassley the issue, instead of the real issue – the spurious reasons Obama and company manufactured to fire Walpin. That's what a good little liberal spin doctor would do.
Oh, I forgot. You're a conservative. Heh, heh.
just saying………..appearently the only people that DO NOT want to talk about the with holding of evidence are republicans
no, I forgot, you're a libertarian……they don't think with holding evidence is a reason for dismissal either. Heh, Heh
The parrot continues. Broken record.
You have no proof Walpin withheld evidence. Period.
I'm done. You bring nothing to the table.
Walter- Mr. Walpin addresses Mr. Brown's accusation about witholding evidence. It is about how a principal at an elementary school wrote a letter stating that he knew some students from Johnson's Hood Corps were assigned to tutor at his school but he had no ledger to document the students and had never personally witnessed anyone tutoring at his school. Johnson's attorney said that because Walpin witheld this letter, he was holding back information that would have supported that students tutored at St. HOPE. Mr Walpin said the letter was not included because it was a "non-statement" becuase the principal had never witnessed tutoring and had no records or people tutoring so the letter was pointless. He said just because people were assigned to tutor doesn't mean they actually tutored. If it's not witnessed or documented, by golly, it wasn't done. Anyone in the medical profession who is required to document everything can tell you that. Not documented, not done – period.
sactown….the letter was evidence….period
walter thinks the CHARGE that Walpin withheld evidence is the same thing as PROOF that Walpin withheld evidence. It isn't.
Walpin has filed a lawsuit.
King sez……"walter thinks the CHARGE that Walpin withheld evidence is the same thing as PROOF that Walpin withheld evidence." sactown gives proof that Walprin with held a letter from a principal at an elementry school which for all intents and purpose could be considered evidence.
again, Gassely should have asked about that…..I mean Grassely…….no I mean Gassely