Crimes Against Liberty

by David Limbaugh

  Walpin fought back by filing a federal lawsuit against the CNCS and some of its corporate officials. Requesting to be reinstated, he alleged he had been unlawfully terminated for political and other reasons in circumvention of the Inspectors General Reform Act of 2008. Walpin argued he was denied his job protections in three instances when the White House attempted to terminate him, once orally on June 10 and twice in writing on June 11 and June 16. He also asserted the White House acted so fast that it didn’t even bother to substantiate its own stated reasons for firing him, for example, by interviewing Walpin or any of the board members.15

  Senator Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, requested that Vermont Democratic chairman Patrick Leahy institute a hearing on the AmeriCorps/Walpin case, and particularly the role of U.S. Attorney Brown and his Department of Justice superiors. What got Sessions’ attention was an offhand statement in a TV interview in March by Doris Matsui, the congresswoman representing Sacramento, concerning the likelihood that the investigation into Kevin Johnson could interfere with Sacramento’s receipt of stimulus money. Matsui said that upon Johnson’s request, she had “been in conversation with officials at the White House and OMB and others to ensure that we don’t lose any money at all.”16

  Fishier still was the government’s settlement with Johnson whereby his temporary suspension from participating in federal contracts or grants was lifted, but he and St. HOPE were required to repay part of the AmeriCorps grant. Mayor Johnson had to pay $72,836.50 of the $423,836.50 that St. HOPE was required to refund.17 Acting U.S. Attorney Brown had issued a press release celebrating the fact that the settlement would remove any cloud over Sacramento that might prevent it from receiving stimulus funds.

  It was uncharacteristic and inappropriate of a U.S. attorney to issue that kind of political statement, which had nothing to do with the merits of the case he was investigating. Reacting to Brown’s statement, Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans demanded, “We need to hear whether the settlement in this case was tainted in any way by political influence or political factors.” House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform ranking Republican Darell Issa, on two occasions, submitted questions to Brown, which were ignored.18

  Apparently frustrated at the administration’s stonewalling, Senator Grassley decided to block the White House’s nomination of CNCS chairman Alan Solomont as U.S. ambassador to Spain. He cited the CNCS’s lack of transparency and cooperation in the Walpin investigation, including its failure to provide a list of the documents it was refusing to deliver and the reasons for the refusal.19 Solomont was a major Democratic donor and Obama supporter and, when chairman of CNCS, personally went to the White House to report the board’s meeting with Walpin and recommend he be fired.

  “AN AFTER-THE-FACT SMEAR CAMPAIGN”

  On October 19, 2009, the Integrity Committee of the Council of the Inspectors General for Integrity and Efficiency cleared Walpin of the complaint filed against him by acting U.S. attorney Lawrence Brown. Committee Chairman Kevin L. Perkins wrote, “After carefully considering the allegations described in the complaint together with your response, the IC determined that the response sufficiently and satisfactorily addressed the matter and that further inquiry or an investigation regarding the matter was not warranted.” In an interview following the dismissal Walpin said, “It takes away any basis belatedly set forth by the White House as a reason for my termination. So I am certainly looking forward to a final determination by the court and to be reinstated.”20

  The White House had filed a motion to dismiss Walpin’s lawsuit, and on November 6, Walpin’s attorneys filed a legal brief that the Washington Times’ editors asserted “convincingly refutes the arguments” contained in the White House’s motion to dismiss. Walpin pointed out that one of the bases upon which the White House fired him was that acting U.S. attorney Brown had filed his complaint against Walpin. Now that that complaint had been resolved in Walpin’s favor, the White House’s justification for terminating him was significantly weakened. About a week later, White House officials met with Senator Grassley to discuss the congressional investigation, but after the meeting the parties were still at odds over the release of documents. The White House had delivered several hundred pages of material but withheld as many, claiming they were protected by various legal privileges.

  The Times editors opined that beyond the investigation terminating in Walpin’s favor, “the rest of Mr. Walpin’s brief makes mince-meat of the White House motion to dismiss the lawsuit.” The White House’s specious defense for circumventing the statutory 30-day notice period for termination was that Walpin was put on paid administrative leave, which did not constitute “removal.” As the Times editors pointed out, this was quite odd since the entire purpose of the notice was to prevent IGs from being blocked from investigating an administration—exactly what happened here. In addition, Walpin alleged in his brief that even before the White House notified Congress about its dissatisfaction with Walpin, it “terminated his access to his own e-mail account and office, and denied him access to his staff. Mr. Walpin was prevented from performing even the most rudimentary steps in order to ensure that his termination did not prevent the Office of the Inspector General from performing his duties.” Moreover, the White House sent a letter six days later actually saying, “Mr. Walpin was removed.” But “removed,” according to the administration, does not constitute “removal.”21

  The scandal broadened with the release of a congressional report of the Walpin matter prepared by Senator Grassley and Congressman Issa. The report revealed allegations of sexual misconduct against Kevin Johnson (alleged inappropriate advances toward three young women involved in the St. HOPE program), and that St. HOPE board member and now Johnson’s fiancé, D.C. schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee, handled “damage control.” (It later came out that Rhee had reportedly visited Walpin to vouch for Johnson and to fish for information on the investigation, though she already knew of the many allegations of Johnson’s misconduct and was actively engaged in attempting to put a lid on them.22)

  Among the allegations reported to Walpin’s investigators was that Johnson had offered at least one of the three women money to keep quiet. An attorney—mentioned as Johnson’s personal attorney—allegedly visited the girl and offered her $1,000 a month for as long as she remained at St. HOPE, which led investigators to “reasonable suspicions about potential hush money payments and witness tampering at a federally funded entity.” Walpin included these allegations in his criminal referral to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Sacramento, which went nowhere. Not only did these cover-ups assist Kevin Johnson in his successful mayoral bid in November 2008, but in Sacramento receiving stimulus funds in 2009 despite major abuses of St. HOPE funds.23

  The congressional report vindicated Walpin, strongly suggesting he was fired not because of any disorientation or confusion, but because of his whistle blowing on St. HOPE and Obama crony Kevin Johnson. It suggested the White House had indeed “orchestrated an after-the-fact smear campaign to justify” Walpin’s firing, adding, “The content of the referral tends to undermine any notion that the [inspector general’s] investigation was driven by inappropriate motives on the part of Walpin. Rather it appears to have been driven by non-political, career investigators simply following the facts.”24

  Senator Grassley issued a statement on the report that read, in part, “The allegations uncovered by the inspector general are very serious and they deserve to be investigated, not swept under the rug. It seems a lot of people might have been interested in protecting the AmeriCorps program and the Mayor of Sacramento from an IG who was discovering some unpleasant facts. I’m not sure whether the IG was fired for political reasons. The evidence points in that direction, but since the White House is asserting privilege over its decision-making process, we can’t be sure. The report details everything we were able to learn, so people can judge for themselves.”25

  “SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VERA
CITY OF YOUR TESTIMONY”

  Shortly after the congressional report was released, the White House finally produced many of its withheld documents on the Walpin-St. HOPE affair. The Washington Examiner’s Byron York reported that the newly released documents support the Republican investigators’ conclusion that the White House’s version of its firing of Walpin was “a public story cobbled together after Walpin was fired, not before.” In other words, Walpin wasn’t fired because he was incompetent; he was fired because he was too competent in investigating misconduct involving Obama’s friends and supporters. Walpin was apparently so persistent that the White House couldn’t afford even to comply with the statutory notice period; it had to terminate Walpin on the spot and then smear his good name to cover its actions.

  Earlier, White House counsel Norman Eisen had told House and Senate staffers that the administration had engaged in an “extensive review” of the complaints against Walpin before making its decision to terminate him. But the new report revealed Eisen had told Congress that “his investigation into the merits of removing Gerald Walpin involved contacting members of the Corporation for National and Community Service [CNCS] board to confirm the existence of a ‘consensus’ in favor of removal.” But, according to York, Republican investigators discovered later that during this so-called “extensive review,” the White House didn’t even check with the board—so it couldn’t have learned of any consensus supporting Walpin’s termination.

  Moreover, “no member of the CNCS board had any substantive input about whether the removal of Gerald Walpin was appropriate” other than major Democratic donor and Obama supporter Alan Solomont. The White House had called one other board member just prior to Walpin’s firing: Stephen Goldsmith, who informed investigators the White House had already made its decision to axe Walpin and wanted Goldsmith’s after-the-fact blessing.26

  It gets worse. The newly released documents reveal the White House was hurrying to coordinate with board members an explanation for the firing that would be presented publicly. Within a day of Eisen’s ultimatum to Walpin, board members had conferred by telephone. The following day, Ranit Schmelzer, a member of CNCS’s press office, sent out talking points to all board members to use if any reporters called. Among the points: “Indicate that you support the president’s decision to remove IG Walpin”; “If asked why he was removed, indicate that the president lost confidence in Mr. Walpin”; “If the reporter continues to press, say that you can’t get into details on a personnel matter, but you understand there were some performance-based issues”; and avoid “getting into any specifics about IG Walpin’s performance-based issues. The WH has stayed away from this and has counseled us to do the same.”

  Obviously, the White House’s fingerprints were all over this. Scandalously, it wasn’t until the next day that the White House actually asked the board members for their views on the matter. About a week after the firing, Solomont, apparently believing CNCS had weathered the storm, wrote an e-mail to board member Eric Tanenblatt saying, “I understand how much work you are doing to prevent and control damage from the IG matter. I want you to know how much I personally appreciate all your efforts.”27 This from the man Obama would nominate to be ambassador to Spain.

  Another troubling matter for the administration arose as investigators pored through the recently released White House documents. Alan Solomont had earlier denied to investigators that he had met with First Lady Michelle Obama’s chief of staff, Jackie Norris, about the Walpin case, but White House visitor logs show he met with her on June 9, the day before Walpin was fired, and two previous times as well. Solomont attempted to explain away his visit to Norris as a meeting on CNCS business, but when further pressed said he may have mentioned the Walpin matter in passing. Congressman Issa followed up with a letter to Solomont expressing his “serious questions about the veracity of your testimony.” Grassley expressed similar concerns. In another bizarre twist, Solomont suddenly claimed he had previously disclosed his meetings with Norris. Issa wrote to Solomont, “This is simply false. The notes and recollections of multiple staff in the room at the time are clearly contrary to your recollection.”28

  Congressional investigators sought to interview Norris about his meetings with Solomont, but the White House counsel’s office barred the interview. Issa wrote to Norris, “Our request to meet with you was denied by [CNCS] general counsel Frank Trinity. Mr Trinity told my staff that the White House counsel’s office has advised him that they were not permitting the Corporation to make you available for an interview.” Issa added, “The White House has averred that you had no role whatsoever in the president’s decision to remove Mr. Walpin. In light of these representations, it is hard to understand a decision to prevent your testimony. If the information provided by the White House officials is true, it follows that no colorable claim of executive privilege should impede your cooperation with the committee.”29

  Three months later, new revelations threatened to blow the lid off this seemingly bottomless scandal. For months observers wondered why acting U.S. attorney Lawrence Brown had so cavalierly dismissed Walpin’s prosecutorial referral concerning Kevin Johnson. Brown not only declined to investigate, but virtually appointed himself Johnson’s PR man, reporting his investigation results in such a way as to rehabilitate Johnson’s reputation and thus his chances for election, and to enhance Sacramento’s likelihood of receiving stimulus funds in the wake of the damning allegations against Johnson. Investigators later learned that while Brown had been actively running interference against Walpin’s investigation of Johnson, he was also seeking a White House appointment as a permanent U.S. Attorney. In their supplemental report, Republican investigators for the Senate Finance Committee and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said the contents of Brown’s letter seeking a presidential appointment raised “new questions about his potential motivations. It would be reasonable for an already skeptical public to wonder whether Brown excluded Inspector General Walpin from negotiations and settled the St. HOPE matter with Johnson in order to curry favor with the White House because Brown wanted the president to appoint him U.S. Attorney.”

  Investigators also found troubling e-mails between Brown and Kevin Johnson’s attorney, Matthew Jacobs, in which Jacobs recommended that Brown “should either (1) call out Walpin publicly, or (2) Tell him to take his case back home.” After complaining about Walpin, Jacobs said, “WTF is wrong with this guy! First, he tried to effect [sic] the election; now he’s messing around with the entire region’s federal funding! Over this case?!” He told Brown he should “stand up and say this isn’t right.” Within minutes, according to Byron York, Brown replied, “Message heard loud and clear, Matt. I am at a complete loss and do in fact plan to speak to Gerald.” Brown was not appointed for the position, but now serves as a Sacramento Superior Court judge.

  The Republican investigators’ supplemental report concluded that the e-mails showed Brown “was actually parroting to CIGIE supposed grievances first presented to him by Kevin Johnson’s attorney.... Together with his efforts to obtain a political appointment from the president, Brown’s communications with Johnson’s attorney contribute to the appearance that Walpin’s removal was more about his vigorous pursuit of the St. HOPE matter than about any other legitimate, unrelated factors.”30

  Meanwhile, the Washington Times editors shined the spotlight on Walpin’s investigation of AmeriCorps’ teaching fellowship at the City University of New York (CUNY), which Walpin said had wasted “upwards of $80 million in taxpayer money.” In the aforementioned e-mail from CNCS’s Ranit Schmelzer providing talking points to board members, Schmelzer also briefly addressed the CUNY issue. He said, “If asked whether this was connected to Walpin’s action in the CUNY case, say no. The decision was made before Walpin’s reports on CUNY were issued.”

  But that assertion is false, the Times’ editors pointed out. The timeline irrefutably contradicts the e-mail’s claim. Walpin issued his draft report, which was c
ritical of CUNY and the CNCS board, on April 2. CUNY responded on April 30, and the CNCS board on May 4. Walpin shared with Senate staffers on May 5 his concern that CNCS would “retaliate” against him for his report. On May 20 Walpin strongly criticized the board members in the first half of the meeting—before they contend he became “confused” and “disoriented” upon returning to the meeting room. The editors said it was highly suspicious that the e-mail would advise board members to stonewall about an issue that was completely ignored elsewhere in the e-mail. They wrote, “Defensiveness about one issue, and only one, when nobody has yet raised the issue, is often a telltale sign that there is something to hide. This is especially the case when the information provided is demonstrably false.”31

  “THIS NEEDLESS DISTRACTION”