Media trumpet Walpin claims without noting acting U.S. attorney's allegations
SUMMARY: In reporting on Gerald Walpin's removal as inspector general and hosting Walpin to discuss his claims, Fox & Friends, Glenn Beck, and Laura Ingraham did not note a U.S. attorney's allegations against Walpin.
Since President Obama suspended Gerald Walpin from the office of inspector general at the Corporation for National and Community Service, Fox News' Glenn Beck, Gretchen Carlson, Steve Doocy, and Brian Kilmeade, and radio host Laura Ingraham have repeatedly reported on Walpin's removal without noting allegations issued by acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of California Lawrence Brown in an April 29 letter that Walpin and his staff "did not include" or "disclose" relevant information regarding the case to Brown's office; that Walpin repeatedly discussed the case in the press after being advised "under no circumstance was he to communicate with the media about a matter under investigation"; and that Walpin's "actions were hindering our investigation and handling of this matter."
Media Matters for America reviewed Walpin's appearances and reports discussing his removal on the following shows:
- The June 15 edition of Glenn Beck.
- The June 15 edition of The Laura Ingraham Show.
- The June 16 edition of Fox & Friends.
- The June 17 edition of The Laura Ingraham Show.
- The June 17 edition of Glenn Beck.
- The June 18 edition of Fox & Friends.
In none of his appearances was Walpin asked to respond to Brown's letter; indeed, Brown's letter detailing his concerns with Walpin's conduct was not addressed at all when discussing the suspension.
From Brown's letter to Kenneth W. Kaiser, chairman of the Integrity Committee for the Department of Justice's Counsel of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency:
In our experience, the role of an Inspector General is to conduct an unbiased investigation, and then forward that investigation to my Office for a determination as to whether the facts warrant a criminal prosecution, civil suit or declination. Similarly, I understand that after conducting such an unbiased investigation, the Inspector General is not intended to act as an advocate for suspension or debarment. However, in this case Mr. Walpin viewed his role very differently. He sought to act as the investigator, advocate, judge, jury and town crier.
[...]
This matter was referred to our Office on August 7, 2008. However, even before our Office officially received this matter, we learned about it in April and June 2008 through articles in the Sacramento Bee newspaper, including comments from an IG spokesperson. Moreover, we considered the IG referral somewhat unusual in that it was accompanied by a letter from Mr. Walpin (enclosed) explaining that he viewed the conduct in this case as egregious and warranted our pursuing the matter criminally and civilly.
Within a few weeks thereafter, on August 25th, we met with Mr. Walpin and 2 investigators from his office. We expressed our concerns that the conclusions in their report seemed overstated and did not accurately reflect all of the information gathered in their investigation. We also highlighted numerous questions and further investigation they needed to conduct, including the fact that they had not done an audit to establish how much AmeriCorps money was actually misspent.
Despite our expressed concerns and the need for further analysis, the next we learned of this matter was again through the Sacramento Bee newspaper. First, on September 5, 2008, an IG spokesperson informed the newspaper that the matter had been referred to our Office, but also added that a "referral means that it's out opinion that there is some truth to the initial allegation..." Second, Mr. Walpin apparently advocated to have St. HOPE, Johnson and Gonzalez immediately placed on a list of parties suspended from receiving federal funds. We learned of that determination through Sacramento Bee articles quoting extensively from a press release issued by Mr. Walpin's office on September 25, 2008. Not only was it extremely questionable for Mr. Walpin to issue a press release, it contained statements such as: "[i]f we find really egregious stuff and we want to stop the bleeding, we seek immediate suspension..." Moreover, the IG publicly released the findings of his investigation.
[...]
In summary, the IG should be a fact-finding impartial investigative arm of the CNCS agency. Although I recognize that a strong IG is necessary to ensure that allegations of wrongdoing are investigated, I believe that Mr. Walpin overstepped his authority by electing to provide my Office with selective information and withholding other potentially significant information at the expense of determining the truth. I believe that rather than ensuring protection of a respected federal agency, he tarnished its reputation.
Beck further discussed Walpin's dismissal during the June 16 edition of his Fox News show without discussing Brown's letter. In addition, Carlson, Doocy, and Kilmeade ignored Brown's letter while discussing Walpin's dismissal with Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) during the June 18 edition of Fox & Friends.
By contrast, the Associated Press reported in a June 12 article about the firing, "Walpin was criticized by the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento for the way he handled the investigation of Johnson and St. HOPE Academy."
Further, as reported by ABC News senior White House correspondent Jake Tapper in a June 12 post on his blog, Political Punch, White House counsel Greg Craig "said that the White House was 'aware of the circumstances leading to that referral and of Mr. Walpin's conduct throughout his tenure and can assure you that that the president's decision was carefully considered.' " Tapper further reported, "[Craig] noted that Walpin's termination 'is fully supported by the Chair of the Corporation (a Democrat) and the Vice-Chair (a Republican).' "
From the AP article:
"It is vital that I have the fullest confidence in the appointees serving as inspectors general," Obama said in the letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Vice President Joe Biden, who also serves as president of the Senate. "That is no longer the case with regard to this inspector general."
The president didn't offer any more explanation, but White House Counsel Gregory Craig, in a letter late Thursday to Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, cited the U.S. attorney's criticism of Walpin to an integrity committee for inspectors general.
"We are aware of the circumstances leading to that referral and of Mr. Walpin's conduct throughout his tenure and can assure you that the president's decision was carefully considered," Craig wrote.
[...]
In August 2008, Walpin referred the matter to the local U.S. attorney's office, which said the watchdog's conclusions seemed overstated and did not accurately reflect all the information gathered in the investigation.
"We also highlighted numerous questions and further investigation they needed to conduct, including the fact that they had not done an audit to establish how much AmeriCorps money was actually misspent," Acting U.S. Attorney Lawrence Brown said in an April 29 letter to the federal counsel of inspectors general.
Walpin's office made repeated public comments just before the Sacramento mayoral election, prompting the U.S. attorney's office to inform the media that it did not intend to file any criminal charges.
Here's video of Walpin on The Glenn Beck show, and he is responding to the issue.
If this episode were going on during the Bush administration, the media would be having a fit. Smearing an elderly man by saying he's "confused"?!? ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and everyone else would be trotting out the AARP and all sorts of other people "in outrage" to defend Walpin.
This is dirty Chicago-Obama politics, plain and simple, and the media is turning a blind eye to it.
"Conservative misinformation"? You've got to be kidding. This entire episode is textbook liberal media bias.
Again ... Textbook liberal media bias.
Also, are you actually saying Obama should not suspend this man based on the unanimous opinion of the board as well as the letter written by the Bush appointed US attorney? I do not see what choice he had. This man cannot be allowed to continue until these issues are addressed. I don't know what being an elderly man has to do with an excuse, but if he is confused and unaware because he is elderly it is still cause for removal.
I don't know how you run your business but I would not be in my position if I allowed such a thing to continue on my watch. I suppose maybe you are seeing acting to stop incompetence as a "liberal" activity. I can see why your thought process would work this way after the previous administration. But, it used to be that competence was a requisite on both sides of the aisle.
Oh, how far the Republicans have come to use their phony outrage to defend the incompetent. Hell of a base that party is building there. The secessionists, the torture defenders, the birth certificate conspiracy theorists, the "I don't understand the meaning of socialism" crowd, and now the incompetent. Good luck on the next election.
Actually, this story is just another part of that same Bush scandal. The Bush administration undertook a political "cleansing" of these offices (frequently illegal). Walpin was a corrupt Bush official, put in place because of his ironclad loyalty to Bush and the Republicans, rather than any sort of competence for the job, and he was trying to manipulate the results of the Sacramento mayoral election by repeatedly talking to the press. Those repeated releases on the verge of that election weren't just inaccurate/incomplete/misrepresentations of the facts; they were direct violations of Justice Department protocols, something I haven't seen detailed anywhere. The U.S. Attorney whose letter led to Walpin's suspension is also a Bush appointee.
But thanks to Media Matters for the "entire" story of the firing of Walpin. Beck and Fox&Friends pushed this story to (once again) "smear" the Obama Administration with "one-sided" information. FoxNews Channel "HATES" President Obama and the Democrats. Just shameful.
One wonders why, if they were so concerned about the 'irregularities' of the investigation, they didn't use that. Instead, they publicly accuse the guy of not coming into the office to work and of being senile. Walprin isn't defending against the Brown letter because Obama's crew didn't use the Brown letter. That is not the grounds they cited as reasons for his dismissal.
The Obama administration didn't want to talk about the investigation because the investigation clearly showed Obama's buddy is a thief. I note that MMFA doesn't seem to think the fact that the grantees (Johnson and St. Hope) had to repay all that money was significant, either.
Walprin did try to get Obama's buddies suspended - as well he should have. And they should be suspended - does the Constitution allow for a president to be suspended?
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/cae/press_releases/docs/2009/04-09-09JohnsonSettlement.pdf
And your evidence to the contrary ... ?
Obama and his crew are operating with all the respect for democratic traditions common to his ilk- he looks more like Huey Long every day. (ie. fascist demagogue.)
Walpin has stated that this is the first time the IG has ever performed this type of investigation on a non-profit organization.
Which means this case established precident.
Which means that there is the very real possiblity that ACORN could very well turn up on their investigation list.
Fairly sure that Obama doesn't want that!!!
So he killed two birds with one stone.
That is essentially what our accompanying referral shows occurred here except that the recipient was not a for-prfit entity but a not-for-profit entity, obtaining Government funding by proclaiming its purpose was to do a specific and identified type of activity to benefit the community, and instead used the funds and labor financed by the Government for other purposes.
I should have posted the complete Walpin statement, which now appears above.
I said that Walpin has stated that this is the first time the IG has ever performed this type of investigation on a non-profit organization. I should have clarified that this is the first time the IG has worked with the US attorney that would be prosecuting the case.
It is indeed unfortunate that right wing nonsense media has commandeered this story, and/or that Walpin has sought refuge in Fox, rather than appearing in/on other, more credible, news venues.
I am a native Sacramentan who, up until the time he decided to run for Mayor, knew little of Kevin Johnson or St. Hope. I did support the incumbent Mayor. I am a Stanford trained CFO of a real estate investment firm, and I have worked with nonprofit organizations for nearly twenty years, including several nonprofits in Sacramento. I also have a law degree, though I am not a practicing attorney.
St. Hope School, which is a part of the St. Hope constellation of nonprofit organizations, was brought into being as an alternative charter school and given nearly $20million in government largesse to do so, including the extensive renovation of a poorly performing public high school, on the claim that it would provide education for students in a poor section of Sacramento.
Per guidestar.org, since its inception St. Hope has operated in deficit in all years but one, has had unprecedented teaching staff turnover, has had to lay off both teaching and administrative staff to meet its cash flow difficulties, and incurred allegations of child sexual abuse at least seven times (per former St. Hope staff), one incident that reached the media and appears to have been mishandled by St. Hope staff, in particular by Kevin Johnson's personal lawyer who also served as an administrative official of the school, who delayed reporting the incident to officials for eight days (California law requires 36 hours notice) while he 'interviewed' the child involved.
During the Mayoral campaign last year one shoe after another seemed to drop about Kevin Johnson's history, including another allegation of child sexual abuse some ten years earlier in Phoenix, Arizona, whose police department had published transcripts of interviews with Kevin Johnson as well as a taped conversation between Johnson and the alleged victim. It was also reported by the Sacramento Bee's reporter Terry Hardy that a payment of nearly $300,000 was made at some point after the allegations were made to the alleged victim and/or her family.
In September, 2008 Mr. Walpin's decision to suspend contracting privileges for Johnson and St. Hope due to fiscal mismanagement of Americorps funds, was made public. It is my understanding that this was not an action that was publicly handed to the local media, but that it was made public by Walpin's Investigator General website, which was then reported in the Sacramento Bee and other local media. Walpin's findings, all subject to federal audit review, which is a VERY HIGH STANDARD (per OMB Circular A-133), included the use of such funds for political lobbying, and for service that was not a part of the Americorps scope of work.
Throughout one allegation after another Mr. Johnson seemed to behave equivocally, denying but not doing so definitively, or doing so in a way that was calculated to appear as a denial of these charges but doing so to legally save any admission of fact.
The election turned in Johnson's favor, but a few months into his term, and after the inauguration of President Obama, with his suspension from federal contracting, it appeared that the City might be at risk of losing participation in President Obama's economic stimulus program.
It seemed that a judgment was rushed to settle this case with a very light penalty, including the repayment by St. Hope of about half of their grant monies received, and for Johnson and another St. Hope official to enroll in an online fiscal management course for federal grants. Walpin's suspension of St. Hope and Johnson was immediately lifted, thus ending any jeopardy the City may have been in.
Walpin reacted against the settlement agreement publicly.
On the day the settlement was reached, St. Hope's Executive Director, Rick Maya, tendered a letter of resignation detailing extraordinary charges of malfeasance against Johnson, whom Maya replaced, and certain board members who remained loyal to Johnson and who may have been complicit in covering up and obstructing evidence during Walpin's investigation, including the deletion of pertinent email messages that might have had bearing on the case.
Two other board members, both very very well respected in the community, resigned shortly thereafter.
Just last week the local US Attorney stated that the FBI is investigating allegations of obstruction made by Maya and others per the request of the Attorney General.
+++++
It seems to me that Johnson might have been culpable for considerably more than merely 'misuse' of funds based not only on actual evidence, but a pattern of obstruction that could be reasonably discerned by a reasonably prudent person. I believe I am one of those reasonably prudent people, and while I loathe almost all things Republican and conservative, I cannot help but believe that in this situation Mr. Walpin is more credible, and is being 'thrown under the bus' for reasons apart from justice and a proper investigation of these rather sinister events.
Thank you for allowing me to provide input on this truly sad situation.
Moreover, what you've related doesn't have any bearing on the decision to fire Walpin, which appears to have been instigated by a unanimous decision of the bipartisan CNCS board, whose members were concerned about Walpin's erratic behavior.
Nor does it address the US Attorney's investigation of Walpin for, among other things, allegedly withholding pertinent information that was favorable to Johnson.
No one hesitates for a moment in prosecuting a for-profit Government contractor who executes a contract with the Government to produce a specified product, but instead uses the Government funds for other purposes, such as financing other non-contract activities, and, to obtain the Government funds, misrepresents to the Government that the funds had been used for the contract specified activities. This type of criminal conduct has occurred, for example, in the cost-plus contract context, when the contractor uses it labor and material for a non-contract activity but charges those costs to the Government Contract.
That is essentially what our accompanying referral shows occurred here except that the recipient was not a for-prfit entity but a not-for-profit entity, obtaining Government funding by proclaiming its purpose was to do a specific and identified type of activity to benefit the community, and instead used the funds and labor financed by the Government for other purposes.
[/b]What Walpin saying is that it is the first time this sort of thing has been turned over to a US Attorney to prosecute the non-profit.
In this manner the St. Hope - Johnson case would set a precident for future cases of public prosecution of non-profit entities.