The Walpin firing
The Walpin firing should be a big big story: heavy-handed executive overreach by the President in order to protect a political supporter from charges against him.
Right now it’s not. The NY Times? So far it’s offering the sound of crickets chirping. Don’t trust me; try doing a search yourself on the Times’s website for “Gerald Walpin.” All you’ll find is this from early April, on Walpin’s investigation of Kevin Johnson. But now that Walpin has been fired, and has alleged that the White House did so to protect supporter Johnson—employing some of the niceties Obama’s learned along the way in Chicago—nary a word is heard from the Times (remember, in contrast, how very eager the paper was to air this all-important piece of flim-flam?).
Do the same for Newsweek. Nada. And here’s a piece on how slow the WaPo has been on the uptake, with the usual empty excuses by editors.
In contrast, the Wall Street Journal has an excellent story on the Johnson case and the related Walpin firing (please read the whole thing). I especially like the Orwellian irony of the fact that the hatchet guy for the termination, Norman Eisen, is the “Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform.”
This White House isn’t just lying here, it’s lying badly and stupidly. Perhaps Obama has never been under such scrutiny before and therefore is sloppy, or perhaps he knows that even now he is effectively immunized from scandal by the protection the mainstream press will give him. But in any event, here’s the trail of deception and coverup as reported by the WSJ:
[Eisen has stated] that it was “pure coincidence” [that Walpin] was asked to leave during the St. HOPE [Johnson] controversy. Yet the Administration has already had to walk back that claim.
That’s because last year Congress passed the Inspectors General Reform Act, which requires the President to give Congress 30 days notice, plus a reason, before firing an inspector general. A co-sponsor of that bill was [watch for another point of irony here] none other than Senator Obama. Having failed to pressure Mr. Walpin into resigning (which in itself might violate the law), the Administration was forced to say he’d be terminated in 30 days, and to tell Congress its reasons.
White House Counsel Gregory Craig cited a complaint that had been lodged against Mr. Walpin by Mr. Brown, the U.S. Attorney, accusing Mr. Walpin of misconduct, and of not really having the goods on Mr. Johnson. But this is curious given that Mr. Brown himself settled with St. HOPE, Mr. Johnson and his assistant, an agreement that required St. HOPE (with a financial assist from Mr. Johnson) to repay approximately half of the grant, and also required Mr. Johnson to take an online course about bookkeeping.
No doubt some will defend President Obama by saying this is politics as usual. I’m not so sure (if you have examples of the Bush Administration doing something similar, please point it out). But I am sure that it’s irrelevant whether it’s typical or not. Obama ran—and won—on the idea that his politics would be more transparent and more honest than the usual. One thing that is unusual about Obama, though, is the depth of his hypocrisy, and the audacity of his reach.
[NOTE: Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has much more on the White House excuses and Walpin’s reaction. It seems to be a bit like the old Soviet-style accusations of dissidents’ mental instability. Is internment in a mental hospital the next step for Mr. Walpin?
And if Walpin really does have some sort of mental or cognitive problem—which his recent statements don’t seem to suggest at all—would threatening to fire him and giving him an hour to resign instead really be the proper way to handle it?
And here’s a lot of background material from Byron York.]
[ADDENDUM: Don’t sit on a hot stove till these questions get answered.]
Obama has never grown up.
First reason I heard was that the president no longer had confidence in Walpin. When more spin was needed I heard they said he was not in full possession of his faculties.
I’ve seen the guy interviewed and it is going to be hard to make that one stand up. This bit seems to be following the normal administration policy of, “Just tell them anything – they’ll believe it” – but I don’t think this one is going away – I really don’t.
Saw Bob Beckel on Hannity the other night and though a staunch liberal interested in pushing the liberal agenda he is normally a pretty genial and humorous gent. This time though, he was very testy and defensive and at one point raised his voice and said, “Lookit – you guys just won’t believe this is the greatest president since Roosevelt.”
Setting aside for now whether Roosevelt was actually a great president or not – I think the old-timers in the democratic party are starting to get nervous, and I think it stems from two things.
1. This administration’s total disregard for the intelligence of the average American and
2. That by trying to shove so much through right now – in spite of the bad economy – they are in danger of not being able to pass a lot of their agenda and losing a lot of seats in the midterm elections.
It’s getting interesting.
This is interesting because it’s a black and white issue – Obama has broken a law he himself co-sponsored, a law that was intended to prevent government coercion of inspectors general.
Given that Walpin was investigating an Obama crony, a seasoned politician would have given Walpin (even if he were a bumbler) a wide berth to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Under the circumstances, firing Walpin peremptorily stinks of corruption.
Color me surprised. Obama has made a serious faux pas here. Even with the MSM giving him tongue-baths, he may regret this stupid decision.
(And before one of resident liberals brings up Bush’s firing of some US Attorneys, let me point out that those are political appointees who serve at the President’s pleasure, and totally different beasts than inspectors general, whose job is to inspect and report on bodies whose conduct they oversee – hence the passage of the Inspectors General Reform Act.)
Someone I know who supported Obama during his campaign, expressed some doubts about him shortly after his inauguration and has been very quiet about him ever since commented to me the other day, about something else he did, “Well, he’s politically brilliant, at least.” Based on this, I’m thinking she’s going to have to revisit even that — if, that is, she ever hears about it. President Obama must think that we’re so dumb and the media’s so thoroughly in his corner that he can get away with anything. I fervently hope that he is wrong.
Neo,
If you didn’t catch it – try to catch rerun of Glenn Beck show on Fox News – he has Walpin on and a little humorous test that hospitals give to see if people are “in possessions of their faculties” to give lie to the assertion by administration that Walpin was in a meeting and acting disoriented, etc.”
Funny. And sad.
Ahh…just tell it on ABC.
We really do need to put some folks up against the wall. Like the Dems used to say in the Bush years: where are the assassins when you really need them?
magna est veritas
et prevalebit; except
in the NYT
It’s the Chicago way of dealing with “problems,” and it has always worked for Zero.
Prediction: if things heat up around this incident, Obama will throw Norman Eisen under the bus and claim Eisen was a rogue acting on his own.
While I think this story is important in the sense that it shows exactly how people who don’t toe the Obama line will be treated, don’t expect the “folks” to respond. They’re not listening, or hearing this.
Every morning the local country station does a “battle of the sexes” contest where two people call in, male and female, and answer questions to get prizes. Last week the question was “Who is Sotomayor?” Neither knew the answer. This stuff is just not on the common people’s radar screen. Maybe eventually something the President does will ignite their interest, but not this one.
neo, I wouldn’t take that bet. But I would bet that the anti-terrorism people at the CIA have made the same calculation, and realized that if the Messiah is in a spot, they can count on him – to hang them out to dry. At this point they’re probably very polite in questioning terrorists, and maybe getting them a nice cup of cocoa and a foot massage. A gentle one, of course.
Obama’s popularity ratings are in the 60’s while these same polls say America is moving in the wrong direction. People are unwilling or unable to make the connection.
The press has done such a fine job equating Republicans with cronyism and corruption that the only voices left bothering to point out stories like the Walpin affair will seem to the public to be sour grapes. It’s going to get much worse before people wake up and realize voting for a guy because he’s a lofty rhetoric spouting black guy wasnt the wisest choice to make.
“And if Walpin really does have some sort of mental or cognitive problem–which his recent statements don’t seem to suggest at all–would threatening to fire him and giving him an hour to resign instead really be the proper way to handle it?”
Obama is such a loving, caring man. I believe him. The IG, poor man, was clearly sick and struggling. Obama was just demonstrating the depth of his empathy and compassion.
By the way, I’m curious if the govt has some established procedure for how to deal with workers who are alleged to be having mental issues. If so, I suspect that this isn’t the procedure.
Come 2012 Obama’s out, or the U.S. is done. It is my belief the former will hold, but not by much. But I am not more hopeful today than I was yesterday.
The battle of the sexes physics guy is talking about is something I see every day. What the government and the mainstream media know, more than those who own computers and go to center and right blogs know, is that the majority of people are battle of the sexes types. They do not know, or at least believe, what is truly happening – minute by minute – to America. We have been getting trained for a very long time. Bush was not trashed day in and day out for 8 years for the reasons we have so far thought. It was to pave the way for what we have now. We now live in an America that is anti-American. After I fully let that sink in, it made me physically ill. I knew my father well. Although he was a life long democrat, I promise you he is spinning in his grave.
Nothing like this has happened in my lifetime. Without the crisis that came before it, there is no way we would be here. I’m telling you, I have to believe it was a long range plan, with some unexpected, but none the less wonderful opportunities that popped up for those putting this in motion. The size and scope of the final bailout we are currently being subjected to, is proof.
I read a thought somewhere that sat me down. Ford eluded bailout money. However, the majority of Ford’s employees are now Ford’s competition. The unions own GM and Chrysler. What in the hell is that going to do to the quality of Ford’s assembled vehicles? That being the case, Ford should now be allowed to have a non-union work force. Ha!…..right.
Reading Whitaker Chambers’s Witness now.
Just seemed appropriate.
Stan, yes there is a procedure, a long and very lengthy one for dismissing Gov’t employees, you are correct, this ain’t it.
I see this as the MSMs Dan Rather moment, I am glad Occam brought up the US Attorneys, that is still going on today, isn’t Karl rove being called to testify in the matter?
The hypocrisy is naked and disgusting, every day I see more and more items that are equal to or much worse than anything the Bush administration did, all the frothing at the mouth for special prosecutors etc. is just silent. That is amazing and sickening.
This will not end well, because of what I believe and think, I am now an enemy of the state, normal written rules and laws do not apply to me or any of the people that share these thoughts, if you don’t conform then there is no equality under the law.
This article hit home for me, http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2009/jun/17/ig-witness-blows-white-house-excuse/
I have been in this position with hostile crowds many times, having to brief negative feedback and will be tomorrow as a matter of fact. What is happening to this man is scary and indicative of a much larger issue, they are above the law and rules, aided and abetted by the MSM.
We really need to revive the House Un-American Activities Committee, or something of the ilk, to investigate the media. They’re obviously communist-infested.
The Wall Street Journal and other conservative media sources that are reporting this conveniently leave out the fact that Walpin breached Justice Department protocol by publicly announcing that Johnson may be guilty of a crime right before an election, effectively tampering with an election. And then the (Bush appointed) US Attorney McGregor Scott decided not to prosecute Johnson. Later, Lawrence Brown, the acting US Attorney (Brown was not appointed by Obama, but was the first assistant to the US Attorney. I assume he was hired by Scott) accused Walpin of acting “as the investigator, advocate, judge, jury and town crier” in the case.
Not to mention Walpin being on record saying Massachusetts is run by “modern-day KKK … the Kennedy-Kerry Klan.” It is pretty clear that Walpin was on a political vendetta against Johnson in this case and could not be trusted to objectively investigate the Corporation for National and Community Service. The conservative media conveniently doesn’t objectively analyze this case, instead relying on direct interviews from Walpin.
Tim: Nothing of the sort is clear.
You mean to say that if someone is being investigated and there is serious evidence that the person is guilty of abuses of the public trust, there is a duty to hold back until after the election? Tell it to ex-Senator Stevens.
Funny thing, too—the folks discussing the Walpin case at Volokh (a great many of them are lawyers) don’t mention any legal problem with Walpin announcing the charges against Johnson during the election last fall. If this is against Justice Department rules as you claim, could you provide a link? I would think if it were so, President Obama could easily have stated this and explained it was the reason for Walpin’s firing. He has never done so. Instead he has come up with a bunch of other, much more difficult-to-prove-or-disprove reasons. Wonder why that is so, if Walpin so clearly violated the Justice Department’s own rules by making the announcement during Johnson’s campaign run.
Here is an article that goes into the facts you’re referring to. That “Kennedy-Kerry-Klan” joke about Massachusetts was cited by Johnson as an example of Walpin being biased. What does it actually show? It is a typical unfunny joke about Massachusetts politics that has nothing to do with this case, except to indicate that Walpin is no good as a stand-up comic, and that he is a Republican and not a supporter of Senators Kennedy and Kerry. It obviously was meant to be a joke about the repetitive “K” initials in Kerry and Kennedy, not some sort of allegation that they are racists or actual members of the Klan.
Here is the rest of the article that’s relevant:
But in the thick of Johnson’s mayoral run last September, Walpin announced that Johnson, St. HOPE Academy, and former St. HOPE executive director Dana Gonzalez, were suspended from participating in federal contracts or grants until the investigation was complete.
Walpin said in a statement at the time that his initial report “cited numerous potential criminal and grant violations, including diversion of federal grant funds, misuse of AmeriCorps members and false claims made against a taxpayer-supported Federal agency.”
The Inspector General investigated whether any of the AmeriCorps funds had been diverted and misused, among them: that AmeriCorps members had been used to recruit students for St. HOPE Academy, for non-AmeriCorps clerical and other services, and for political activities in connection with the Sacramento Board of Education election. AmeriCorps members performed services “personally benefiting… Johnson,” such as “driving [him] to personal appointments, washing [his] car, and running personal errands.”
Grant-funded AmeriCorps members were taken “to New York to promote the expansion of St. HOPE operations in Harlem,” Walpin charged.
“When you instead take the AmeriCorps members to New York for a purpose not within the grant, you are misusing the members and diverting the funds from the purposes intended,” Walpin told The New York Sun’s Josh Gerstein.
Johnson called the charges politically motivated….
There’s more, much more, at the same article. I read it very carefully and can find no evidence (other than Johnson’s claim) that Walpin was guilty of any sort of political vendetta. Sounds like he was doing his job and trying to protect the public, and that he had evidence. In fact, no one is disputing the fact that Johnson actually committed the abuses in question.
No, I am saying that it is not appropriate for the Inspector General, responsible for investigating potential fraud, to suggest that Johnson is guilty of committing a crime prior to handing the case to the US Attorney, who chose not to prosecute, finding ‘no criminal wrongdoing’, instead finding a ‘culture of sloppiness’. Here (http://www.ignet.gov/igs1.html) you will find information on Inspector General protocol, though I am referring to reporting by TPM: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/white_house_explains_ig_firing_–_will_it_be_enoug.php?ref=fpb
Since there is an active investigation of Walpin’s performance during this case, (http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/story/1879743.html) much information on this case is not available. It should be noted that both chairs of the Corporation Alan Solomont, a Democrat, and Stephen Goldsmith, a Republican, strongly endorsed the President’s decision, so it appears that there was a consensus in questioning Walpin’s performance.
Heres a link for that last claim: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31325894/
What? Jokes about Massachusetts are unfunny?! I have to rethink my entire concept of humor?
So, a Rabbi, a Priest, and Ted Kennedy walk into a granola bar in Vermont…
What we have here is an incompetent and dogmatic Bush leftover shown the door – completely legal. The right wing, as usual, desperate for anything, turns EVERYTHING into the ‘end of the world,” scenario – the meme shifts from week to week – is he a socialist? a fascist? a Manchurian? A Muslim? is he even American? is he even a legit president? Over and over, the right resorts to SUCH overreach, that when you may have a hint of impropriety – such as this particular case, it comes off – as usual, as more right-wing back biting. Good luck making a case…
From TPM: “A quick re-cap: Walpin was appointed to his job by President Bush in 2007. As part of an investigation into Johnson’s use of federal AmeriCorps funds — dating to when Johnson ran St. HOPE Academy, a Sacramento non-profit — Walpin found that Johnson had misused over $800,000. He took the rare step of recommending that Johnson be barred from receiving federal funds, pending a criminal investigation — a move that ended up endangering the city’s ability to get federal stimulus money after Johnson took office as mayor early this year. Walpin also publicly announced, during the mayoral campaign, that he was passing his findings on to the US Attorney’s office and suggested that Johnson might be guilty of a crime — an apparent breach of protocol. The local US attorney, also a Bush appointee, found no criminal wrongdoing in the case. And his successor, Lawrence Brown, formally complained to an oversight body for inspectors general about Walpin’s work on the St. HOPE probe. Brown charged that Walpin hadn’t even conducted an audit to determine how much money had been misspent by St. HOPE, and that he had withheld key exculpatory evidence. Brown accused Walpin of acting “as the investigator, advocate, judge, jury and town crier” in the case.
In short, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that Walpin overstepped his authority in going after Johnson. And his background hardly suggests that he’s the kind of politically independent, non-partisan watchdog the IQ job requires. He’s a member of the conservative Federalist society, and once introduced Mitt Romney at a meeting of the group by saying that Romney’s state, Massachusetts, is run by “modern-day KKK … the Kennedy-Kerry Klan.”
This isn’t like the firing of US Attorneys. In those cases, the evidence suggests that at least some were fired for their unwillingness to do the partisan bidding of the White House. Here, by contrast, Walpin himself appears to have acted in a partisan, or at least an irresponsible, manner in his pursuit of Johnson. The evidence that Walpin performed poorly dwarfs the evidence that any of the fired US Attorneys did.
Legally, too, the situation is different. Yes, US Attorneys serve, like the CNCS IG, at the pleasure of the president. But because the threat of a politicized system of justice is so grave, there are specific laws and protocol governing when — aside from at the start of his term — a president can remove a US Attorney. That’s simply not the case to the same extent when it comes to agency IGs. As McCaskill pointed out, the law requires the president to notify Congress about why he’s removing one — and now he has done so — but it doesn’t significantly constrain his ability to fire an IG.
It’ll be up to Congress to decide whether the White House’s explanation is detailed enough. We’ve got a call in to McCaskill’s office to ask whether she’s satisfied with what the White House has put out, and we’ll keep you posted…”
Another right-wing epic fail…
Warpublican:
None of what you have said explains why Walpin was given an hour’s notice to quit, or be fired. Nor does any of what you’ve said explain why, instead of being accused of procedural improprieties, or partisan bias adversely affecting his performance, he was fired — so says the Obama White House — for being confused and disoriented, for telecommuting too much, and so forth. Nor have you addressed the irony of President Obama, by all appearances, making an end-run around a law he himself co-sponsored last year!
What you have said is that Walpin may have breached protocol, by accusing someone publicly of a crime before going through channels, and that he is outspokenly partisan. You have not explained why this provides adequate grounds for his summary dismissal, in apparent defiance of the Inspectors General Reform Act. You also accused Walpin of trying to influence the outcome of an election — but you have not explained why, if this is the case, the Obama Administration did not press charges against him in January.
More to the point: as Neo keeps pointing out, the appearance of impropriety is very important in politics, and President Obama ran on a campaign of putting an end to “politics as usual”. This looks exactly like machine politics being its usual nasty self.
I don’t know if President Obama will pay a political price for all this; he’s weathered worse accusations than this. I do know, however, that there are millions of Americans who voted for Obama precisely because they thought he was above dirty politics. They will not be happy to hear an Obama White House say, in effect, “Who do you believe, me or your lying eyes?”
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
just curious, Warpublican, are you part of Axelrod’s “astroturfing ‘ cabal ?
I hear they get paid for that…..
Tim wrote: http://neoneocon.com/2009/06/17/the-walpin-firing/#comment-112920
Then he wrote: http://neoneocon.com/2009/06/17/the-walpin-firing/#comment-112927
First time Tim wrote, “breached Justice Department protocol by publicly announcing that Johnson may be guilty of a crime”
Second time Tim wrote, “it is not appropriate for the Inspector General, responsible for investigating potential fraud, to suggest that Johnson is guilty of committing a crime”
Time outs a liberal. 🙂
The Walpin firing gives the strong appearance of impropriety. The behavior of the White House—giving him an hour to resign, and then terminating him without giving any real reason to Congress, is also suspicious. If Walpin was really terminated for some sort of just cause, the Obama administration should have fired him and explained fully in their notice to Congress. Period.
What’s more, the allegation of Walpin’s being confused and disoriented is absurd on the face of it. Clearly, he is not. And if on a certain day he seemed that way, obviously a person is not terminated for that—the proper avenue is to determine if he is ill and if it’s a temporary thing or if it really is a more chronic problem. Obviously the administration was looking for an excuse (or making one up) to fire him.
The bottom line: Obama did not comply with some very important protections and regulations built into a law that he himself had sponsored when a Senator. And that is the main reason the firing is suspicious, in addition to the fact that the White House’s subsequent excuses are inconsistent and some seem incorrect.
This sort of thing should raise suspicions in all Americans, Right or Left, and make them want to know more. The newspapers should be all over this—not to conclude there has been wrongdoing on the part of Obama, but to require more information because of the strong appearance of impropriety. The fact that Obama supporters don’t care about this or excuse it, and that most of the press doesn’t either, is another example of partisanship gone mad.
Clinton will advise a wag the dog situation to move the news…
I saw your prediction Neo. But because Hillary’s crowd is present in some positions we might see that influence.
None of what you have said explains why Walpin was given an hour’s notice to quit, or be fired.
thats easy.. 2 reasons… cant think on your feet and you cant copy enough evidence and take it with you in either conditional state…
such a mans findings would not be on a napkin. so it stops destruction of stuff, but also the ability to think of what to do. he might have been stupid enough to panic and copy something, or walk out with something and then they would have somthing ligitimate on him. the fact they did that to him then could be buried in the scandal.
also… i will bet that when your thrown out there is a limit on what you can talk about that when your in office and acting you have more choice to.
and maybe last… you look better mounting a defense from the office and job you have than on the street. so by putting him on the street, the fight becomes the man against the presidency, not the office of the acting IG.
there may be other reasons… none may apply…