Desperately looking for something, anything, to discredit the Obama White House, Republicans have been trying to promote the story about how the White House summarily dismissed AmeriCorps' inspector general, Gerald Walpin as a politicized firing.
I first read about this last week when Talking Points Memo summarized what happened:
So here's what it sounds like: Johnson and his non-profit ran a very loose operation, which deserved some kind of sanction. But Walpin's action -- in publicly suggesting, without much apparent evidence, that Johnson might have committed a crime, and having Johnson barred from receiving federal funds, ultimately jeopardizing the fortunes of the city as a whole after Johnson became mayor -- was out of all proportion to the wrongdoing. (That's especially true given that it could have affected the outcome of a closely fought election -- which is exactly why the FBI has specific policies forbidding public comments about ongoing investigations during political campaign season.) Then, even once the relevant authorities had determined that no crime had been committed and agreed on an appropriate remedy, Walpin worked to undermine that agreement by appealing to Congress.
Obama Removes AmeriCorps IG Who Clashed With Ally: Politicized Firing, Or Just Dessert?
Having read that article, I figured that it was a non-story that would lead nowhere. But, the Republicans are trying desperately to make it stick as a black mark against the Obama Administration.
According to Walpin, he was completely blindsided by a call he received from White House ethics chief Norm Eisen last Wednesday giving him one hour to decide whether to resign. He was told that if he didn't resign, then he would be terminated. Of course, he is also claiming that his termination is politically motivated.
"I am the victim of being fired because I was doing my job and doing it properly," Walpin told FOX News Tuesday. He said he could not let concern for "political pressure" interfere with his staff's pursuit of the investigation -- noting that it was his staff, not him personally, that pursued the inquiry.
He also defended the findings, saying AmeriCorps requested the investigation in the first place.
Walpin said the probe revealed that Johnson "misused" AmeriCorps volunteers for "personal purposes," by having them help in political campaigns and even wash his car.
"They never disputed it whatsoever," Walpin said. "And indeed the agency itself found that our statements were correct and our findings were correct."
Walpin, though, drew criticism elsewhere. After Walpin referred the matter to prosecutors in late 2008, the local U.S. attorney's office questioned Walpin's findings, saying they seemed overstated and did not accurately reflect all the information gathered.
Former AmeriCorps Official Says Obama Removed Him for 'Doing My Job'
On Friday, Sen. Charles Grassley, (R-IA) started asking questions:
In an email and fax sent late Friday [PDF], 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.
Seeking Answers on IG Firing, Sen. Grassley Asks About Possible Role of First Lady's Office
Not wanting to leave any stone unturned, Grassley (as the title of the above article indicates), also specifically wants to know what role First Lady's office played in Walpin's firing. The source of that seems to be from a story in a Youth Today newsletter,
Some decisions about CNCS are being made by First Lady Michelle Obama, according to service advocates (who asked not to be named). Last week, Mrs. Obama announced that her chief of staff, Jackie Norris, would move to CNCS as a senior adviser. Officials said yesterday that Norris is scheduled to arrive on June 22.
Obama Fires CNCS Watchdog
The White House responded to that report:
Josh Earnest, Deputy White House Press Secretary, says: "The anonymous source quoted by Youth Today suggesting that the First Lady was somehow involved in the decision to replace Mr. Walpin is false and uninformed. Mrs. Obama is an energetic advocate for the mission of the Corporation for National and Community Service, but is not involved in the day-to-day management of the agency."
Seeking Answers on IG Firing, Sen. Grassley Asks About Possible Role of First Lady's Office
Now a question has arisen as to whether or not the White House followed proper protocol in the handling of Mr. Walpin's dismissal. The Inspectors General Reform Act was past last year and requires that before firing an inspector general, the President has to give Congress 30 days notice and a reason. Then Senator Obama was a co-sponsor of the bill. It is now being reported that Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) is the one questioning the method used. Within the last few hours the fact that a Democrat is questioning the firing is the top of the screaming headlines:
Politico
The first Democratic lawmaker has broken with President Barack Obama over his firing of the Americorps Inspector General, Gerald Walpin.
Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), known as a clean government advocate and early backer of Obama's presidential bid, said in a written statement tonight that Obama did not abide by a law he co-sponsored requiring the president to give Congress a substantive explanation when an inspector general is removed.
"The White House has failed to follow the proper procedure in notifying Congress as to the removal of the Inspector General for the Corporation for National and Community Service," McCaskill said. "The legislation which was passed last year requires that the president give a reason for the removal. ‘Loss of confidence’ is not a sufficient reason. I’m hopeful the White House will provide a more substantive rationale, in writing, as quickly as possible."
1st Dem lawmaker breaks with Obama on IG firing
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — A Democratic senator on Tuesday joined several Republicans in questioning President Barack Obama's firing of the internal watchdog for the federal AmeriCorps program.
Gerald Walpin, the national service agency's inspector general, was dismissed over his handling of an investigation of the mayor of Sacramento, Calif., Kevin Johnson.
Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said the president failed to follow a law she sponsored, which requires that he give Congress 30 days advance notice of an inspector general's dismissal, along with the cause for the firing. Obama merely said he lost confidence in Walpin.
"Loss of confidence is not a sufficient reason," McCaskill said. "I'm hopeful the White House will provide a more substantive rationale, in writing, as quickly as possible."
Democratic senator questions AmeriCorps firing
The White House has reported its intention to fire Mr. Walpin to Congress. He is currently on 30 days paid leave. Then he will be terminated. Another article reports that the White House is cooperating with Congress concerning questions about the firing:
A committee aide said there have been "near daily" discussions with White House officials, most recently on Monday, regarding the timing of the Obama administration's notice to Congress that Walpin would be fired, as well as the underlying reasons for Walpin's removal.
"The White House has been forthcoming," said the aide. "They're trying to work with us on this."
(snip)
The administration points to concerns raised by acting U.S. Attorney Lawrence Brown -- a Bush administration appointee -- about Walpin's conduct during an investigation involving Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, an Obama friend.
Walpin, named to his post in 2007 by then-President George W. Bush, accused Johnson of misusing over $800,000 in AmeriCorps funding granted to a nonprofit organization that Johnson helped to run.
The matter has been referred to an independent federal council that oversees inspectors general.
"For obvious reasons, we won't get into details of a personnel decision like this, but I can tell you that the president lost confidence in Mr. Walpin's performance," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Thursday.
White House briefs Hill aides on IG dismissal
The original story I read at Talking Points Memo concluded that "The White House should probably offer some more specific details about its reasons for firing Walpin, beyond simply referring to Brown's letter." It seems the contents of Brown's letter holds some answers as to why an Inspector General, who is supposed to work independently of any political motivations, will be terminated in 30 days.
Update: I started writing this diary because it was Rush Limbaugh's reaction to all this that started me reading about it again today. You know when Rush Limbaugh speaks, the right listens. I got so wrapped up in pulling together the facts of the story, I completely left out the Limbaugh point of view, because, of course, according to Limbaugh this all has to do with President Obama's friendship with Kevin Johnson.
Then Rush moved on to the firing of AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin, saying that inspector generals are not political offices, and firing one is a big deal. Rush said that Byron York of The Washington Examiner summed things up nicely: "The AmeriCorps IG accuses prominent Obama supporter of misusing AmeriCorps grant money. Prominent Obama supporter has to pay back more than $400,000 of that grant money. Obama fires AmeriCorps IG." Rush omitted from his discussion of the story a key point, as reported by the AP: "Walpin was criticized by the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento for the way he handled an investigation of Johnson and St. HOPE Academy, a nonprofit group that received hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal grants from the Corporation for National and Community Service." White House counsel Greg Craig reportedly cited that criticism in explaining to Congress why Walpin was being replaced.
After the break, Rush returned to the AmeriCorps IG firing briefly, saying that this demonstrates "[t]ypical Chicago thug behavior: He fires private sector CEOs; he nationalizes industries. I'll tell you something: Hugo Chavez has nothing on this guy. Hugo Chavez got nothing on Barack Obama."
Hour 1: Limbaugh: "Hugo Chavez Got Nothing On Barack Obama"
However, Norah Mallaney and Jonathan Eyler-Werve have taken a closer look at this close friendship of Kevin Johnson and President Obama over at TPM Cafe:
Wagging the dog, basketball edition...
It is now conventional wisdom in right wing press (and has been repeated in major outlets) that Johnson and Obama are "basketball buddies", but characterizations of that relationship prior to Rush Limbaugh's comment on the issue do not seem to support this. Like most Democrats, Johnson supported Obama's presidential bid and was a donor to his campaign. Johnson attended a meeting with Obama along with other mayors while in town for the inauguration. Prior to this, the former NBA star turned mayor tried to get media attention by suggesting he would beat the President at hoops. There's no indication they ever played, and the group meeting at the inauguration appears to be the only time they have ever met. Johnson, like many local politicians has publicly described himself as "like Obama", but despite Obama's popularity, Johnson never suggested that the President was particularly aware of him. The former basketball player won his first election in November 2008.
How Limbaugh Wags the Dog on IG and Obama