Obama violated Federal Law in Firing an Inspector General

Post Reply New Topic

He'll be turning 80 soon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:THF/Gerald_Walpin

Funny but here's what your source fails to mention:

The AmeriCorps inspector general fired by President Barack Obama, Gerald Walpin, has been cleared by a federal investigation into allegations that he improperly interfered with a criminal inquiry into alleged misuse of government funds, according to a letter filed in federal court Monday night.

The claim that Walpin withheld evidence in the inquiry into the Sacramento-based St. Hope Academy, an organization founded by ex-NBA star Kevin Johnson, was among the allegations the White House cited when senators asked Obama to justify his firing of Walpin.

In April 2009, the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento, Lawrence Brown, filed a complaint against Walpin with the Integrity Committee, an entity set up to deal with grievances against agency watchdogs.

"Mr. Brown alleged you hindered his office's investigation of the underlying matters and disregarded Department of Justice policy and his warnings about dealing with such matters in the press," committee chairman Kevin Perkins wrote in an Oct. 19 letter to Walpin. "After carefully considering the allegations described in the complaint together with your response, the [Integrity Committee] determined that the response sufficiently and satisfactorily addressed the matter and that further investigation was not warranted."

In June, after Obama suspended and declared his intent to fire Walpin, several senators complained that the vague letter the president sent to Congress didn't comply with a new federal law requiring the president to inform lawmakers of the reasons for dismissing an inspector general, who is supposed to be independent of political influence.

In a follow-up letter, White House ethics counsel Norman Eisen said Walpin's removal had been sought by the bipartisan board of the Corporation for National and Community Service. Eisen's letter cited a series of problems with Walpin, including that he was "confused and disoriented" at an agency board meeting, that he wasn't candid with other officials and that he "engaged in other troubling and inappropriate conduct."

However, Eisen also made prominent note of Brown's complaint — which has now been resolved in Walpin's favor.

"Upon our review, we also determined that the Acting United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California, a career prosecutor who was appointed to his post during the Bush Administration, had filed a complaint about Mr. Walpin's conduct with the oversight body for Inspectors General, including for failing to disclose exculpatory evidence," Eisen wrote.

Johnson, a former point guard for the Phoenix Suns and Cleveland Cavaliers, was running for mayor of Sacramento as the federal inquiry into St. Hope unfolded last year. He was elected in November 2008. Walpin has asserted that the actions taken against him are a political vendetta for his aggressive investigation of Johnson, who is a Democrat and a political supporter of Obama.

In a civil settlement in April, St. Hope agreed to repay about $400,000 in federal grants, with Johnson lending the group about $72,000 for the first reimbursement. No criminal charges were ever filed. Johnson acknowledged administrative mistakes by the nonprofit but denied any intentional wrongdoing.

The letter clearing Walpin was filed Monday night by his lawyers in connection with a lawsuit he filed asserting that his firing was illegal. As I noted in a blog post last month, the Justice Department has argued that Walpin's firing was legally effective, even if Obama did not give proper notice to Congress.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerst ... _flap.html

And

By contrast, Grassley, who is something of a patron saint for inspectors general, said the belated clearance of Walpin indicated that the White House allowed the cart to get before the horse when Obama suspended and then fired Walpin earlier this year.

"After getting both points of view, including Mr. Walpin’s, the integrity committee found that the acting U.S. attorney’s complaint had no merit and that there was no need for a full investigation," Grassley said in a statement e-mailed to POLITICO. "Since the White House cited the complaint in its case for firing Mr. Walpin, it’s disturbing that the White House failed to wait for the outcome of the review before firing the inspector general. The process set up for situations like this allows both sides of the story to be heard, and it should have been given a chance to work.”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerst ... aring.html

Looks more like this dismissal was just for political reasons.

Reason 1 given by White House: He seemed confused and to be losing it.

Debunked by the fact he proves he is competitent.

Reason 2 given by White House, he acted improperly, blah, blah, blah.

Debunked by the fact the investigation found he acted properly and did not commit any wrong doing.

While the Judge threw it out, it should be noted the Judge was appointed by Bill Clinton, so partisanship came into play there too, and he was from the now tarnished Civil Rights division of the Department of Justice.

Clearly, those two judges were democrats who pretended to be republican to get in those positions.

Here is a House Oversight Report you can read

http://oversight.house.gov/images/stori ... Report.pdf

And here are appended documents

http://oversight.house.gov/images/stori ... 20docs.pdf

It may be an indication that more specific laws are needed to protect the IGs.

However, I still don't know why he didn't try to argue that the Whistleblower Protection Act had been violated.

Possibly the WPA doesn't apply to political appointees?

Here is the Relevant Law

SIJALI

*Note New Policy