Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (495108)	7/14/2009 3:26:41 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1588515

"“The Board’s action was precipitated by a May 20, 2009 Board meeting at which Mr. Walpin was confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve.” made up excuse, typical of you wackos, slime the guy. That's all you guys do. Ask Palin, Joe the Plumber, Ricci, etc. Walpin: The Plot Thickens Share Post Print June 15, 2009 Posted by John at 8:50 PM Republican Senator Charles Grassley has written to Alan Solomont, head of the Corporation for National and Community Service, asking for information about the controversial firing of Inspector General Gerald Walpin. Byron York as always, has the details at the Examiner. The letter is a long one; here is an excerpt: An issue was recently brought to my attention by the Office of Inspector General (OIG), which concerns the misuse of Federal grant funding by St. HOPE Academy, a grantee of the Corporation. The investigation conducted by the OIG found evidence of the misuse of $850,000 of Federal grant funds provided to St. HOPE Academy from 2004 to 2007. It was reported that this particular investigation was contentious. Furthermore, according to some recent reports this investigation may have been a contributing factor in the decision to remove Inspector General Gerald Walpin. I am very concerned about the appearance that the IG's communication with my office about this matter may have contributed to his removal. Inspectors General have a statutory duty to report to Congress. Intimidation or retaliation against those who freely communicate their concerns to Members of the House and Senate cannot be tolerated. This is especially true when such concerns are as legitimate and meritorious as Mr. Walpin's appear to be. What is most intriguing about Grassley's letter is the list of documents which he requests from Solomont: In light of the removal of the Inspector General, it is vital that Congress obtain a full understanding of the role that you and your colleagues at CNCS played in these matters. Accordingly, please provide any and all records, email, memoranda, documents, communications, or other information, whether in draft or final form, related to: 1) the performance of Gerald Walpin as Inspector General; 2) the removal of Gerald Walpin as the Inspector General; 3) contacts with the United States Attorney's Office; 4) contacts with officials in the Executive Office of the President; 5) contacts with officials in the Office of the First Lady; 6) St. HOPE Academy; 7) Kevin Johnson; 8) or CUNY. "Contacts with officials in the Office of the First Lady"? The Walpin story grows more interesting every day

To: combjelly who wrote (495108)	7/14/2009 3:27:26 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 1588515

The Walpin Story: It's About Money Share Post Print June 14, 2009 Posted by John at 7:10 PM Gerald Walpin, the Inspector General responsible for the Corporation for National and Community Service, the organization that runs AmeriCorps, was fired by Barack Obama after he blew the whistle on waste of government funds by a nonprofit run by Obama supporter Kevin Johnson, the Mayor of Sacramento. (It apparently is undisputed that Johnson was using AmeriCorps funds to pay people to wash his car, run errands for him, and so on.) Walpin's effort to discharge his duties got him in hot water not only with Johnson, but also with the Corporation's head, Alan Solomont, a Democratic Party fundraiser and Obama crony, and the acting U.S. Attorney in Sacramento. We wrote about Obama's firing of Walpin here. Now, Walpin has given an interview and more details of the incident have come to light. Byron York explains that Walpin's firing grew out of Sacramento's desire to get its hands on millions of dollars in federal "stimulus" money: The White House's decision to fire AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin came amid politically-charged tensions inside the Corporation for National and Community Service, the organization that runs AmeriCorps. Top executives at the Corporation, Walpin explained in an hour-long interview Saturday, were unhappy with his investigation into the misuse of AmeriCorps funds by Kevin Johnson, the former NBA star who is now mayor of Sacramento, California and a prominent supporter of President Obama. Walpin's investigation also sparked conflict with the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento amid fears that the probe -- which could have resulted in Johnson being barred from ever winning another federal grant -- might stand in the way of the city receiving its part of billions of dollars in federal stimulus money. After weeks of standoff, Walpin, whose position as inspector general is supposed to be protected from influence by political appointees and the White House, was fired. The proposition that Sacramento could lose its stimulus money if Johnson was barred, as Walpin wanted, from receiving federal grant money, seems dubious to me as a legal proposition. But a lawyer retained by the City came to that conclusion, as the Sacramento Bee reported: The city of Sacramento likely is barred from getting federal money -- including tens of millions the city is expecting from the new stimulus package -- because Mayor Kevin Johnson is on a list of individuals forbidden from receiving federal funds, according to a leading attorney the city commissioned to look into the issue. So the investigation had to be swept under the rug quickly, and Walpin had to go. Obama had one of his White House lawyers call Walpin and demand that he resign within an hour. When Walpin refused to quit, Obama fired him without giving a reason other than his supposed lack of "fullest confidence" in Walpin. This certainly violated the spirit, and may have violated the letter of the 2008 Inspectors General Reform Act, which Obama co-sponsored. (I think it probably did.) This is classic Obama--ignoring a statute which he himself had sponsored just a year earlier. Everything that we know about the Walpin episode so far contributes to the picture we are getting of the Obama administration--its fondness for bullying tactics; its lawlessness; its cronyism; its lack of transparency; its eagerness to crush anyone who gets in the way of Democratic Party corruption. I'm afraid we're going to see many similar stories over the next 3 1/2 years. A final observation: it is inexplicable that many liberals who are convinced that money in politics is the source of corruption nevertheless believe that the government can spread around $800 billion in what can charitably be described as disorganized fashion without engendering far greater corruption. I don't believe that the love of money is the root of all evil, but it does account for a significant chunk of it. UPDATE: Still more here, including a suggestion that First Lady Michelle Obama may have been involved. View/Hide 13 Responses