The curious firing of Gerald Walpin gets … curiouser

posted at 3:15 pm on June 15, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Senator Charles Grassley has demanded records from the Obama administration over the dismissal of the Inspector General for Americorps and raises the possibility that Barack Obama broke a law he co-sponsored in the Senate that protects the independence of the IGs.  The firing comes as the Obama administration cut a sweetheart deal with a major Obama backer that allows him to receive federal funding as mayor of Sacramento, and fails to repay taxpayers for the money Kevin Johnson admittedly took illegally:

In an email and fax sent late Friday, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, demanded that Alan D. Solomont, the chairman of the Corporation for National and Community Service, provide “any and all records, email, memoranda, documents, communications, or other information, whether in draft or final form” related to President Obama’s firing of CNCS Inspector General Gerald Walpin. …

“For reasons that I do not yet understand, the OIG was excluded from this proceeding and the settlement lifting the suspension, was done in complete disregard of the OIG’s findings, as well as the previous determination of wrong doing identified in the Notice of Suspension,” Grassley wrote. “Perhaps the settlement agreement was reached without any input from the OIG, because less than half of what was misused by the Corporation grantees is being returned to the taxpayer and the OIG would not have agreed to this arrangement.  In fact, an argument can be made that not even half of the misused funds is being returned, because the settlement does not require that payment in full be made.  Rather the settlement places the grantees on a type of payment plan that will occur over a decade; to date less than 10% of the misused money has been recovered.”

Byron York interviewed Walpin and got more information on how the Obama administration froze him out of negotiations with Johnson:

As this was happening, the matter was also under consideration by the local U.S. attorney’s office after Walpin referred the matter to the office for a criminal inquiry. Since January of this year, the office has been headed by an acting U.S. attorney, Lawrence Brown, a career prosecutor who took over after the departure of the previous, Bush-appointed U.S. attorney.  The office decided not to pursue criminal charges against Johnson, but also entered into settlement talks with Johnson and St. HOPE.  What resulted was, according to Walpin, highly unusual.

Settlement talks would normally cover the issue of whether Johnson would be required to give the misused federal funds back to the government.  But amid the frenzy surrounding the possible denial of federal stimulus funds, Brown wanted to negotiate not only some sort of repayment scheme but also an end to Johnson’s suspension.  Walpin learned about that during a March telephone conversation with Brown.  “He said he wanted to settle,” Walpin recalls, “and he said that lifting the suspension had to be part of it because that was the 800-pound gorilla in the way of a settlement.”

Walpin was adamantly opposed to a lifting of the suspension; after all, he had recommended that Johnson not only be suspended but be barred for receiving future federal funds.  Walpin says that after that, he was cut out of the settlement talks; Brown worked directly with top officials of the Corporation, who seemed eager to work out a deal in a case involving a high-profile Obama supporter and lots of stimulus money.  (The Corporation is now headed by Alan Solomont, a philanthropist and Democratic fundraiser appointed by President Obama.)

Together, Brown and the top Corporation brass negotiated a deal.  Johnson and St. HOPE would pay back about half of the $850,000 in AmeriCorps grant money it had received, and the suspension against Johnson would be lifted.

Walpin was very unhappy.  First of all, he said it was a terrible deal for the U.S. government, because St. HOPE was essentially insolvent and would never pay the money back.  Second, he felt lifting Johnson’s suspension would dilute the effectiveness of future investigations; why should grant recipients worry about their misconduct if any sanctions can be so easily lifted?  In the end, Johnson was not suspended, not debarred, and was probably not going to pay the vast majority of the money back.

Hope and change!  It looks very suspicious.  The administration has overtly interfered with the IG in his investigation, and now has tried to fire him, apparently for reporting to Congress.  If so, then the White House has abused its power on behalf of a campaign contributor and political ally — an act that would make Richard Nixon blush. I doubt this Congress will hold Obama accountable for it, but kudos to Senator Grassley for not letting it go.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Incompetency is just a liable as Malevolence…

Doctors are held accountable for incompetence…so should those in Government.

workingclass artist on May 17, 2013 at 2:29 PM

“…and it’s important to note that they universally claim that any errors or missteps did not cost lives…”

Here is the crux of the matter. The Obysmal administration was so intent on portraying Libya as a great success in the flourishing of democracy and that Al Qaeda was “on the run” that they hadn’t prepared for the jihadists’ attack. Sending in help or a rescue might have cost even more lives, and they didn’t want the body count to even go higher. The O-team was content to keep the “collateral damage” relatively small for their own cynically political purposes.

onlineanalyst on May 17, 2013 at 2:31 PM

I consider them both but if they are publicly saying this as their excuse, then you can bet they are worried that the actual info is about to come out. For all those not paying attention, that would be Fast and Furious 2; The benghazi edition.

Boehner should step up and say, “ok, we are all in agreement that you are idiots, now we are going to find out just what the hell you were doing over there!”

can_con on May 17, 2013 at 2:32 PM

Regarding the Rush caller near the end of his program just now wondering why all the focus on the coverup of the Benghazi matter and not the cause of it: it’s because if you look at the factors that led to the attack you’ll find McCain, Rubio and Graham were promoters and the GOP establishment would prefer people only focus on the aftermath and Democrat coverup rather than the bi-partisan cause.

FloatingRock on May 17, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Their best defense: We’re horribly incompetent and shouldn’t be allowed to run a hamburger stand. But we still don’t think our incompetence caused anyone to die.”

And even there, we can point to 4 people who died, and many more that would have died if 2 of those 4 hadn’t responded without waiting for orders and staged a rescue action.

So it’s not really, “incompetence that didn’t cost any lives.” It’s “incompetence that cost 4 lives.

And this is their best defense. Which almost certainly means they’re lying, and there really was deliberate malice and/or neglect behind it.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 17, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Here’s a crazy thought. Earlier in the day, the Cairo embassy had been besieged. Why not put fast-response forces on standby THEN?

Basically the U.S. response on 9/11/12 was the same as a rabbit when it notices a nearby wolf. Hold very still and hope the threat passes by.

hawksruleva on May 17, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Do a google map search of Sigonella and tell me what type of aircraft (and the number) that you see there.

blink on May 17, 2013 at 2:41 PM

That’s definitely a non-zero number of aircraft. For that matter, I hear there are aircraft all over the world. I’m thinking if the US REALLY wants to get somewhere, we can probably pay enough to charter a flight/commandeer a helicopter, etc.

Too bad we don’t have any naval capabilities available in the Middle East. Or an air base in the Middle East. Or a friendly well-prepared regional ally who could send in some forces on our behalf.

hawksruleva on May 17, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Is that going to be Hillary’s campaign slogan?

Hillary 2016: “I’m Not Corrupt, Just Incompetent!”

AZCoyote on May 17, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Is that going to be Hillary’s campaign slogan?

Hillary 2016: “I’m Not Corrupt, Just Incompetent!”

AZCoyote on May 17, 2013 at 4:05 PM

“I can’t answer the god*!mn 3am phone call…cause I’m too drunk to find the f*#kin’ phone…@#$%&*$#@!!…” – Hillary Clinton

workingclass artist on May 17, 2013 at 4:18 PM

“We’re portrayed by Republicans as either being lying or idiots,” said one Obama administration official who was part of the Benghazi response. “It’s actually closer to us being idiots.”

The GOP should use that quote in every political ad against Dems from here on out.

Of course they won’t…they don’t want to “alienate moderates” or something limp-wristed akin to that.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 17, 2013 at 4:19 PM

Weapons To Syria.

Libyan weapons to Syria, Mali and Gaza Strip – US Security Council Report.

We were in Benghazi for the weapons.

oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 4:39 PM

“US” – Should be UN Security Council

oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 4:39 PM

So it seems that the real clusterfark of idiocy is that no accounting was made for how to deal with Libyan weaponry and we have essentially armed a whole region of terrorists militias and rebels.

oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 4:51 PM

Stevens was probably in Benghazi to review weapons “applications” from different bidders. As long as you didn’t have anything like “Tea Party” in your militias name, you could buy sell or trade weapons.

oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 4:55 PM

OK let’s see

An idiot would say here, “I was an idiot”

A liar would say here … “I was an idiot”

In other words, these remarks are devoid of any information content

rightmind on May 17, 2013 at 1:11 PM

If I remember the logic puzzle correctly, the right question to ask would be something like “If I asked you yesterday whether you were an idiot or a liar, which would you have answered?”. Idiot still says “idiot”, liar would have said “idiot” yesterday, but must now lie about that so must say “liar”.

WTF, correct answer is “progressive”.

bofh on May 17, 2013 at 4:59 PM

WTF, correct answer is “progressive”.

bofh on May 17, 2013 at 4:59 PM

Correct answer is “Regime Changer without a plan to deal with 40 years of Quackadaffy weapons left behind.”

oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 5:02 PM

Oops.

oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 5:02 PM

When incompetence merges with complete corruption you have a perfect storm.

MaiDee on May 17, 2013 at 6:09 PM

Do a google map search of Sigonella and tell me what type of aircraft (and the number) that you see there.

blink on May 17, 2013 at 2:41 PM

Those maps are old, but ok, One sec…

Ok I did that. There are a number of jets on the tarmac. I knew there would be.

That’s definitely a non-zero number of aircraft. For that matter, I hear there are aircraft all over the world. I’m thinking if the US REALLY wants to get somewhere, we can probably pay enough to charter a flight/commandeer a helicopter, etc.

Too bad we don’t have any naval capabilities available in the Middle East. Or an air base in the Middle East. Or a friendly well-prepared regional ally who could send in some forces on our behalf.

hawksruleva on May 17, 2013 at 3:07 PM

That was my point. Any adult would know this. There is no excuse for letting those men die.

dogsoldier on May 17, 2013 at 6:27 PM

hawksruleva on May 17, 2013 at 3:07 PM

We can either charter one or if necessary we have people that can borrow one.

dogsoldier on May 17, 2013 at 6:29 PM

I think “lying idiots” pretty well covers it!

Another Drew on May 17, 2013 at 6:35 PM

I keep going back to Hillary’s 3:00 A.M. Phone Call ad. It seems that everybody in the administration failed that test. They’ve sunken below even my lowest expectations, and I don’t see anyone in the GOP bullpen likely to rise above ideological squabbles and lead us out of this.

flataffect on May 17, 2013 at 7:06 PM

The challenge was issued above by an obvious Obama apologist, to look at a Google map of Sigonella and report whether any aircraft were seen there.

The question would be, “why not”. Actually, if there are no aircraft there now, there soon will be because the Italian government has just reported that 200 U.S. Marines plus two aircraft are being based at the joint U.S. Italian base at Sigonella, Sicily. (Just across a short stretch of water from Benghazi.) “Quick, the horse is galloping down the lane, close the barn door.”

Oldflyer on May 17, 2013 at 7:48 PM

Let’s just ponder that a moment. We took our quick-response team offline on the anniversary of 9/11? Who made that call?

This is why I do not believe it was stupidity. I believe whoever left the ambassador isolated, wanted to make sure he was not covered

I am a minority, but I believe there was to be an event to lead to a glorious hostage exchange – but it was foiled by the brave men who refused to stand down. Whoever started the evil chess game was left hanging and they had to run with the video fast, precisely because no one, no one, would be able to explain withholding cover from the victims. If I am right, I will never be vindicated, because the scandal will be too great so they have to fall back on stupidity

IMHO stupidity in such a case implies a total contempt for the lives of the victims. This is why we need an IRS scandal.

In any case, there is no way Obama can justify flying off the next day to a fund raiser. That in itself demands an IRS scandal. Since the Whistleblowers were coming, the guilty ones had to start a chicken dance, fast.

AP scandal was the one and only way to get the MSM willing to beat up on Obama’s IRS

entagor on May 17, 2013 at 10:11 PM

My vote goes to: you are lying idiots.

ghostwalker1 on May 17, 2013 at 11:18 PM

One theory has it that the whole thing was a charade to set up a prisoner exchange – Stevens for the Blind Sheik. It would explain:

1. Why there was reduced security.

2. Why the platoon on the way within Libya was told to stand down.

3. Why it was called a hostage situation.

The men who fought back apparently weren’t in on the plan. This enraged the attackers, who thought they’d been lured into a trap or betrayed. So they went and got more friends and made a second attack.

Akzed on May 17, 2013 at 12:58 PM


This is a theory that makes all the pieces fit. It’s true they’re incompetent, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t also up to no good.

Cara C on May 18, 2013 at 1:05 AM

Wonderful article by Sharyl A. The administration appears to be conceding they have lost the debate and are plea bargaining for the lesser charge of idiocy over malice. This won’t do. In the entire piece, no explanation was given for the arrival of the video onto the scene.

Don’t fall for that hangdog expression, Repubs. Those watery eyes are shifting about.

MaxMBJ on May 18, 2013 at 3:30 AM

The challenge was issued above by an obvious Obama apologist, to look at a Google map of Sigonella and report whether any aircraft were seen there.

The question would be, “why not”. Actually, if there are no aircraft there now, there soon will be because the Italian government has just reported that 200 U.S. Marines plus two aircraft are being based at the joint U.S. Italian base at Sigonella, Sicily. (Just across a short stretch of water from Benghazi.) “Quick, the horse is galloping down the lane, close the barn door.”

Oldflyer on May 17, 2013 at 7:48 PM

There were people in Tripoli, who could have gotten to Benghazi. All of that came out in direct testimony from a variety of sources.

dogsoldier on May 18, 2013 at 10:26 AM

Wonderful article by Sharyl A. The administration appears to be conceding they have lost the debate and are plea bargaining for the lesser charge of idiocy over malice. This won’t do. In the entire piece, no explanation was given for the arrival of the video onto the scene.

Don’t fall for that hangdog expression, Repubs. Those watery eyes are shifting about.

MaxMBJ on May 18, 2013 at 3:30 AM

You are correct, but it’s malice when you deliberately leave someone in a precarious position ( I mean 9/11 really? ) and ignore their pleas for help<<<<< And then HE.WENT.TO.BED.

That is the most malicious thing ever. Oh wait! Then HE.LIED.ABOUT.IT

Then he got everyone around him to lie about it. And go on five shows to lie about it and he made a lying ass commercial about it and had some poor slob who made a youtube video locked up and lied about it.

Geez he's STILL lying about it.

dogsoldier on May 18, 2013 at 10:31 AM

I’m surprised that the Regime is claiming the “idiot defense”. I thought Team Obama were the smartest guys in the room. The MSM has told us Obama is the best thing since sliced white bread. What happened to his 2008 campaign slogan “Judgement To Lead”? But I guess in their minds, claiming to be idiots is better that self identifying as marxist enemies of America.

SpiderMike on May 18, 2013 at 11:23 AM

Hillary 2016: “I’m Not Corrupt, I’m Just an Idiot!”

AZCoyote on May 18, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Comment pages: 1 2