Grassley Demands More Answers About IG Walpin’s Firing; McCaskill Seems More Sated
EmailThis morning, White House attorney Norman Eisen met with the staff of Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, regarding the removal of Gerald Walpin as the Inspector General at the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS).
But based on a letter Grassley wrote to White House counsel Greg Craig, the Iowan is not yet satisfied.
Grassley wrote that “Mr. Eisen refused to answer several direct questions posed to him about the representations made in his letter” explaining Walpin’s dismissal, which the White House released last night.
Among other charges, Eisen wrote last night that Walpin had appeared at a meeting of the CNCS where he "was confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve." The Obama administration charged that Walpin “had engaged in other troubling and inappropriate conduct” and “had become unduly disruptive to agency operations, impairing his effectiveness…”
Grassley requested that Craig provide written answers to the following questions:
- Did the CNCS Board communicate its concerns about Mr. Walpin to the White House in writing?
- Specifically, which CNCS Board members came forward with concerns about Mr. Walpin’s ability to serve as the Inspector General?
- 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?
- Which witnesses were interviewed in the course of Mr. Eisen’s review?
- How many witnesses were interviewed?
- Were any employees of the Office of Inspector General, who may have had more frequent contact with Mr. Walpin than the Board members, interviewed?
- Was Mr. Walpin asked directly during Mr. Eisen’s review about the events of May 20, 2009?
- Was Mr. Walpin asked for his response to the allegations submitted to the Integrity Committee by Acting U.S. Attorney Lawrence Brown?
- 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?
- 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?
- 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?
- 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?
Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who yesterday expressed concern that by not giving Congress 30 days notice before terminating Walpin the President was not abiding by a law she wrote and he cosponsored, seems more sated – though she still wants more information.
“Last night, in response to my request for adequate information on the firing of Inspector General for the Corporation for National and Community Service Gerald Walpin, the White House submitted a letter to Senators Lieberman and Collins that now puts the White House in full compliance with the notice requirement in the law,” McCaskill said in a statement released today. “The next step for Congress is to use the 30 days provided by the notice to seek further information and undertake any further review that might be necessary. The reasons given in the most recent White House letter are substantial and the decision to remove Walpin appears well founded.”
-jpt
Santorum: Money Will Not Defeat Obama, Ideas Will 
Rick Santorum's Full Speech at CPAC 2012
Grassley is gonna try to milk this for all its worth.
Posted by: Ryan C | June 17, 2009, 6:53 pm 6:53 pm
Well, good for Grassley! Isn’t it great when someone stands up for finding out the truth. SOMEBODY needs to look into VERY suspicious breaking of the law. Was there ligitimate grounds for Walpin’s abrupt dismissal? Grassley needs to get to the bottom of this. The President, of all people, should be honest enough to abide by the law. When you get that certain “smell”, there is usually a skunk close.
Posted by: Terry B | June 17, 2009, 7:13 pm 7:13 pm
“The reasons given in the most recent White House letter are substantial and the decision to remove Walpin appears well founded.”
Or the firing was illegal and the reasons McCaskill and Obama gives smell to high heaven. When does it become a matter of opinion to follow the law?
Posted by: Mike | June 17, 2009, 7:15 pm 7:15 pm
If there’s no problem, why was he fired without following protocal and why won’t anyone answer the questions?
What is everyone afraid of?
Posted by: Lisa | June 17, 2009, 7:15 pm 7:15 pm
“When does it become a matter of opinion to follow the law?”
Have you been in a cave the last 8 years?
Posted by: Ryan C | June 17, 2009, 7:18 pm 7:18 pm
Have you been in a cave the last 8 years?
Posted by: Ryan C
Yes! Was that you?
Posted by: Rof L Mao | June 17, 2009, 7:28 pm 7:28 pm
Come on, people, this is to get rid of the watchdog over Americorps and let the fraud continue on and on. The reason IGs do not serve “at the pleasure of the President” is because they investigate fraud and crime on both sides of the aisle. Now the FBI is involved with deleted e-mails in the Kevin Johnson case. KJ was found guilty of scamming $850.000.00 from Americorps mainly because of the investigative work of Walpin. Senile, my foot. Welcome to the Chicago Way.
Posted by: babs | June 17, 2009, 7:30 pm 7:30 pm
“KJ was found guilty of scamming $850.000.00 from Americorps mainly because of the investigative work of Walpin.”
St. Hope and KJ were never even charged.
“Prosecutors declined to file criminal charges in the AmeriCorps investigation. When the settlement was announced in April, Brown said prosecutors determined there was no fraud. Rather, they found a culture of “sloppiness” in St. HOPE’s record-keeping.”
The lesson as always? Right wingers lie.
Posted by: Ryan C | June 17, 2009, 7:41 pm 7:41 pm
Why is ABC news so far behind the curve? Or are we just pretending we don’t know whats going on?
The bipartisan board had unanimously requested a review of Walpin’s performance.
Mr. Walpin had been absent from the Corporation’s headquarters, insisting upon working from his home in New York over the objections of the Corporation’s Board.
He had exhibited a lack of candor in providing material information to decision makers.
Walpin said, “It’s certainly possible at that meeting I had a bug and was tired. I can’t remember right now…”
Then there’s the Johnson case. Apparently, Walperin didn’t get the memo that there aren’t supposed to be any more politically based vendettas now that Bush is gone…
Posted by: Flash Override | June 17, 2009, 7:44 pm 7:44 pm
The Hope and Change aren’t working too well for me, but I do love the Transparency of this administration.
Posted by: Bob McKenna | June 17, 2009, 7:48 pm 7:48 pm
Sounds so much like the old White House Travel Office trick the Clintons pulled. Think that the Obamas have been caught trying to move out someone that put a little light on some nonsense on-going in Sacramento, involving a supporter of Obama. WHAT IS A POLITICIAN TO DO? Side with the right? NO WAY! Go with the guy that puts campaign funds in your pocket.
Beginning to think that Old Rev Wright was right all along. Obama is nothing more than a politician — a smart one — BUT, A POLITICIAN NONETHELESS!
Posted by: PappyHappy | June 17, 2009, 7:57 pm 7:57 pm
“was confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve.”
Four words:
Vice President Joe Biden
Posted by: malclave | June 17, 2009, 8:04 pm 8:04 pm
I sent a letter to McCaskill and Grassley and hope it is just one of many that will do some good.
This has to be investigated otherwise the WH will get away with any scandal that comes along; and I am sure this is only one of the many past and future.
Posted by: teena | June 17, 2009, 8:05 pm 8:05 pm
I am only slightly surprised at the Obama apologists defense of the admin. What I really love is that they don’t bother defending any of the pertinent facts, like why was there a settlement in the Johnson/St. Hope case if there was no wrongdoing? Why was Johnson asked to repay over $70k and St. Hope over $400K if there was no wrongdoing? If there was that much money that needs to be repaid, then I think that we should be asking why the prosecutor does not want to charge the good friend of the president with theft or fraud of such a large amount of money? Also, the $400k will not be recovered from St. Hope as it is now defunct and has no money to be able to repay under the terms of the settlement. The defenders of the admin resort to character attacks on Grassley, Walpin, and even ABC for daring to report something that might not look good for Obama. I am not impressed with the defense and I think most rational people will agree with me that something rotten stinks in DC.
Posted by: Jason | June 17, 2009, 8:30 pm 8:30 pm
“Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who yesterday expressed concern that by not giving Congress 30 days notice” – Jake Tapper
Yet the ACTUAL REPORTING you yourself did does NOT indicate that she expressed any such concern. Her actual words were a complaint about lack of information: “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.”” See? A complaint about the extent of explanation, NOT the thirty day notice.
Jake – are you fabricating that she was complaining about the lack of 30 day notice entirely? Or did she actually state something indicating that was the crux of her complaint? This matters because the 30 day notice is a testable fact, we know when Obama sent his initial info to Congress and the last day Mr Walpin is on the payroll (after which restoring him to his position becomes far more difficult) while whether Obama provided an adequate reason to fulfill the law (her initial complaint is he did not) is a matter of interpretation.
Posted by: jhw539 | June 17, 2009, 8:36 pm 8:36 pm
jhw428, I am not sure why exactly it is so important as to whether or not McCaskill stated her concern about the 30 day period, what is important is what the actual law says. In this case the white house tried to bully him out of the job by demanding that he resign within one hour or face being fired. He chose not to resign and so they suspended him, which is pretty much the same as being fired. They will keep him on the payroll for 30 days to satisfy the letter of the law, but they have certainly violated the spirit of the law. The intent of the law is to prevent the OIG from being bullied by the president and it requires that the president make the intent to fire an I.G. known to congress 30 days before taking any action to fire them, or force them to resign.
Posted by: Jason | June 17, 2009, 8:51 pm 8:51 pm
Jake, in light of Walpin’s sacking, I suggest you ask the President or his spokesman something along the lines of: The dismissal of Gerald Walpin has some appearance of being politicized. Now, the FDA has banned Zicam, which has been a major advertiser on the Rush Limbaugh program. Is this an example of Chicago style politics? The circumstances of each suggest possible political pay back as the motive. How do you respond?
Jake, you are probably the only member of the White House press corps with the guts to ask a tough question like this. We’re counting on you!
Posted by: Stevereno | June 17, 2009, 8:56 pm 8:56 pm
I.G. known to congress 30 days before taking any action to fire them, or force them to resign.
==================
Exactly.
So Congress could in turn act like a watch dog and validate or dispute the reasons for the firing.
The law wasn’t passed just so there would be a waiting period, or reasons for the firing would be given.
The law was passed so the reasons for the firing could be investigated.
Posted by: MayBee | June 17, 2009, 9:38 pm 9:38 pm
Mr.Grassley is from my state and I am proud to have someone like him representing us; we need 99 more like him.
Posted by: cg | June 17, 2009, 10:02 pm 10:02 pm
Jason:”I am not sure why exactly it is so important as to whether or not McCaskill stated her concern about the 30 day period,”
You don’t see why it is important whether or not Obama actually broke the law as he is accused of doing? Or whether Jake is twisting and flat out fabricating false statements from Senator McCaskill?
“what is important is what the actual law says. In this case the white house tried to bully him out of the job by demanding that he resign within one hour or face being fired. He chose not to resign and so they suspended him, which is pretty much the same as being fired. ”
NO. It is NOT the same as being fired. As you yourself said, what is important is what the law says. By everything reported so far, Obama fulfilled the law. The complaint is that his reason was inadequate (does the law say how adequate a reason is required?).
And it does appear Jake is taking great liberties in implying McCaskill said things that she never did – raising serious questions of journalistic ethics that I had not had about him previously.
Posted by: jhw539 | June 17, 2009, 10:02 pm 10:02 pm
A quick lesson in the frightful power of doublethink. The following two statements are from the same actual post:
“What is important is what the actual law says.”
“The intent of the law is to prevent the OIG from being bullied by the president and it requires that the president make the intent to fire an I.G. known to congress 30 days before taking any action to fire them, or force them to resign. ”
So what is important is what the law actually says, yet Obama broke it because he violated its intent, not what it says… Critical thinking, right wing style.
Posted by: jhw539 | June 17, 2009, 10:04 pm 10:04 pm
Obamas brownnosing media network:”1ST lady not seen since she had been mentioned as involved in Gerald Walpin firing….”
She did a media event centered around a school kids program in the garden just yesterday. You know, it really hurts your credibility when you try to pass off such obvious lies. Do you really think we’re stupid enough to take anything Republicans say as the truth without checking at this point?
Posted by: jhw539 | June 17, 2009, 10:14 pm 10:14 pm
jhw, it boils down to a simple point that you keep trying to dance around– the law says the president must inform Congress of his (or her, for future presidents) intention to dismiss an IG 30 days in advance of the firing. Obama did not do this.
The reason for this requirement is also important, and we can debate that, although it seems clear that the idea is that there is a 30 day window where the congress can become involved, making sure the IG is being fired for legitimate cause. A thirty-day period would, for example, give the WH ample time to respond to Sen. Grassley’s excellent questions about the details of this episode that is supposed to have led to the dismissal in this case.
But in the end, you simply cannot argue that the president followed the rules as stated in the law (which he cosponsored). He did not give notice that in 30 days, Walpin would be dismissed, but rather dismissed the man and then sent notice.
Interesting to see that you and Ryan C are working tag-team on this thread again. Are you guys that worried about this issue gaining traction?
Posted by: moderate | June 17, 2009, 10:57 pm 10:57 pm
The president breaks the very law he helped pass by firing an Inspector General who exposes a donor’s theft of over $850,000 and barely a peep out of the mainstream media. Welcome to Obamaland.
And, even here, where is the basic reporting of the details of the law that was passed to prevent presidents from doing exactly what Obama has gone right ahead and done here? Who cares if McCaskill is satisfied? Who named her the arbiter of the law?
What has happened to our media? Welcome to Obamaland!
Posted by: Thank God for Karma | June 17, 2009, 11:00 pm 11:00 pm
moderate:” it boils down to a simple point that you keep trying to dance around– the law says the president must inform Congress of his (or her, for future presidents) intention to dismiss an IG 30 days in advance of the firing. Obama did not do this. ”
Walpin’s termination is not effective for 30 days. Obama complied with the law, the complaint of McCaskill was that Obama did not provide adequate reason in his notification of Congress – a matter of opinion, not law.
So quite simply, it is documented that you are lying to say Obama did not give 30 days notice. Feel free to attack Obama for playing lawyer and just barely meeting the letter of the law, but the FACTS are that he did not break the law. And if any Republican honestly thought he did, charges would be brought faster than you can say Lewinsky. Of course, no such move will be made and Republicans will just trust their base to blindly believe the lie.
Posted by: jhw539 | June 17, 2009, 11:24 pm 11:24 pm
We have countless examples of Biden making inaccurate statements, which could be perceived as disoriented and confused…. so why hasn’t the president fired Biden?
Posted by: ohioan | June 17, 2009, 11:57 pm 11:57 pm
Grassley requested that Craig provide written answers to the following questions:
can’t wait till the hammer drops on ‘W’ & Shooter, and the rest of the wrecking crew…..
we’ll see how many questions Strawman wants answered then
Posted by: PO'd | June 18, 2009, 12:18 am 12:18 am
It is obvious that Walpin is as sharp and competent as they come and he just was doing his job. He got in the way of the Obama-Acorn train. This travesty has to stop and the rest of the mainstream media better wake up. If it wasn’t for Jake Tapper at ABC and Fox News there would be no coverage of this at all.
Someone needs to answer for this.
Posted by: Oped | June 18, 2009, 12:45 am 12:45 am
The difference between Obama and Bush is that Obama fires incompetents, Bush hires them. That’s change I can believe in.
Posted by: thebob.bob | June 18, 2009, 1:05 am 1:05 am
you guys get over it. Its done is done and there is nothing you can do about it, you can cry all you want.
Posted by: john | June 18, 2009, 2:23 am 2:23 am
The Obama people need to make sure that whoever stands in their way jeopardizes their reputation. That’s the secret behind getting all the CEOs and congressman to back his plans despite their reservations.
If someone like Walpin can demonstrate that it’s possible to impede Obama’s agenda and garner support for it, then “the illusion of invincibility” is finished, and it will be that much harder to push through health care, media diversity etc.
Posted by: Dr. Soos | June 18, 2009, 6:00 am 6:00 am
McCaskill almost did a back flip in changing her tune. Somebody must have taken her aside and reminded her of her debts. ACORN canvassed for her in 06.
Posted by: Charles | June 18, 2009, 7:42 am 7:42 am
The firing of Inspector General Walpin is an outrage! Chillingly similar to other totalitarian regimes, who sent dissenters to “re-education camps”, asylums, falsely discredited them, or eliminated them one way or another.
It’s more evidence of the corruption in this Administration. Amicore funnels hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to ACORN. Anyone pay attention to the stripping out of the funding freeze for ACORN, and prohibition of the organization’s participation in the Census, until fraud allegations and investigation is complete?!?!?! Anyone hear about Acorn members physically intimidating Albany legislators? … and we’re funding them?!?!?! Is it a leap to believe that ACORN had a hand in the firing? It’s high time to cut off government funding of this organization, audit the books, and demand IMPARTIAL oversight!!!!
Posted by: oltxgal | June 18, 2009, 9:27 am 9:27 am
The Chicago Tribune has an article about more politically motivated IG firings.
Posted by: Really | June 18, 2009, 9:39 am 9:39 am
This quote applies to both the takeover of private industries and the political firing of IG’s:
Auric Goldfinger to James Bond, “Mr. Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: ‘Once is happenstance, Twice is coincidence, Three times is enemy action.’”
Posted by: Fallon | June 18, 2009, 10:42 am 10:42 am
Auric Goldfinger to James Bond, “Mr. Bond, they have a saying in Chicago:
‘Once is happenstance,
Twice is coincidence,
Three times is enemy action.’”
Posted by: NoPost? | June 18, 2009, 10:49 am 10:49 am
Where was Sen. Grassley’s outrage when Bush let IG Clark Ervin go after he came out reporting of the fraud and ineptitude in the Dept. of Homeland Security? Where was it? Guess now that it’s a dem POTUS he has issues. That and he’s up for re-election in 2010. Hypocrite!
Posted by: Christopher | June 18, 2009, 10:51 am 10:51 am
The Obama adminstration completely controls the mainstream network media. It’s phony journalism and propaganda at it’s worst. At the end of the day, this adminstration will be viewed as the most corrupt ever — far, far worse than Bush because Bush and his team were under the microscope and criticized about EVERYTHING by the same media that giggles when Obama walks in a room. You can attack Bush all you want because you have the ammunition from ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. But trust that there is a lot of dirt being hidden about this adminstration, and keeping it secret doesn’t do anyone any good, it just keeps you stupid.
Posted by: kate | June 18, 2009, 11:04 am 11:04 am
The Obama adminstration completely controls the mainstream network media. It’s phony journalism and propaganda at it’s worst. At the end of the day, this adminstration will be viewed as the most corrupt ever — far, far worse than Bush because Bush and his team were under the microscope and criticized about EVERYTHING by the same media that giggles when Obama walks in a room. You can attack Bush all you want because you have the ammunition from ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. But trust that there is a lot of dirt being hidden about this adminstration, and keeping it secret doesn’t do anyone any good, it just keeps you stupid.
Posted by: kate | June 18, 2009, 11:05 am 11:05 am
JHW: [First Lady] did a media event centered around a school kids program in the garden just yesterday.
—————————–
My dear JHW! Not only do you have FLOTUS’ daily schedule at your fingertips, you are feverishly defending actions anyone not on the Obama/DNC payroll should have legitimate concerns about. How long can you hope to sustain the fiction that you’re not being paid to root, root, root for Obama?
Posted by: Tonto | June 18, 2009, 11:44 am 11:44 am
his adminstration will be viewed as the most corrupt ever — far, far worse than Bush because Bush and his team were under the microscope and criticized about EVERYTHING
Posted by: kate
tell ya what….
when Obama stars a war for no reason like Iraq, gets around 5K US forces killes, 35K+ maimed and wounded…..
then you might have something to talk about,
until then keep up the whine,
keep Palin, Newt, Rush front and center
Posted by: PO'd | June 18, 2009, 1:08 pm 1:08 pm
Keep up the good work, Senator Grassley! This Inspector General was fired because he exposed one of Obama’s friends and supporters of mismanagement (pilfering) $850,000. of taxpayer money. This is corruption, plain and simple!
Posted by: Sunnyr | June 18, 2009, 1:59 pm 1:59 pm
Stupid me, I thought this blog would not be censored as long as the truth was told. Pravda lives!! Dear Leader is NOT CORRUPT! He is doing what is best to us.
He is a fair and honest man. pffft!
Posted by: Sunnyr | June 18, 2009, 2:03 pm 2:03 pm
Honest mistake.
Posted by: Freedom | June 18, 2009, 2:14 pm 2:14 pm
He who controls the inspectors controls the inspections. It’s the Chicago way. I am sure Obama has some good honest ACORN peiople in the wings to watch over the AmeriCorps dollars for us.
Posted by: mitch | June 18, 2009, 3:24 pm 3:24 pm