Posted on 07/03/2009 6:24:56 AM PDT by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!
Key Republicans in both the House and the Senate are accusing the White House of giving “incomplete and misleading” information to investigators probing the president’s abrupt firing of AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin. In return, the White House is hinting that documents concerning its actions in the Walpin affair may be protected by executive privilege.
Both developments are part of an escalating conflict between GOP lawmakers and the Obama administration. Republicans are deeply skeptical of the White House explanation for the June 10 firing of Walpin, a tough investigator who had been probing misuse of AmeriCorps money by Sacramento, Calif., mayor — and prominent Obama supporter — Kevin Johnson. And the administration seems determined to conceal its dealings with AmeriCorps and the organization that oversees it, the Corporation for National and Community Service.
Walpin was dismissed without warning on June 10, when he received a call from Norman Eisen, the special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform. Eisen told Walpin he had one hour either to resign or be fired — an apparent violation of a law giving special job protections to inspectors general. When Walpin refused to quit, he was terminated.
After lawmakers demanded an explanation, the White House said Walpin had been “confused, disoriented [and] unable to answer questions” at a May 20 meeting with the board of the Corporation for National and Community Service. The Johnson case was discussed at that meeting, with Walpin harshly criticizing board members for their support of a decision to let Johnson off easy.
There’s no question that members of the board, both Democrat and Republican, were unhappy with Walpin’s criticism of them. They agreed that Alan Solomont, the Democratic fundraiser appointed by President Barack Obama as chairman of the board, should tell the White House what had happened.
But now, at least three board members have told congressional investigators they did not specifically recommend that the administration fire Walpin. Instead, they simply wanted the chairman to express their concerns.
The White House claims it investigated the matter; Eisen told House and Senate aides that officials did an “extensive review” of complaints about Walpin’s performance before deciding to fire him. But there are serious doubts as to whether the White House did, in fact, conduct a serious investigation before getting rid of Walpin.
The three board members have told Congress that the White House did not contact them during the review. (One was told about Walpin’s firing at about the time it happened, and the other two were contacted days later.) No one from the White House contacted Walpin himself, or his top assistant, as part of the review.
All were present at the contentious May 20 meeting. If officials at the White House were really trying to discover what happened at that session, congressional investigators say, it would have wanted to hear their version of events. But no questions were asked.
In particular, investigators are puzzled by the White House’s failure to contact Walpin concerning the charge that he was “confused” and “disoriented” at the meeting. Was he, in fact, confused? If so, was it the result of some medical condition or other problem the board might not have known about? Some other distraction? The White House never asked.
All in all, the “extensive review” appeared more of a sham review — an exercise designed to support a decision that had already been made. Nor has the White House been open about it. “Information provided to my staff by Mr. Eisen has been incomplete and misleading,” Republican Rep. Darrell Issa wrote in a July 1 letter to White House counsel Gregory Craig.
For its part, the White House is hinting broadly that it might invoke executive privilege to keep documents from Congress. “Your questions seek information about the White House’s internal decision-making process,” Craig wrote to Sen. Charles Grassley on June 30. “These questions implicate core executive branch confidentiality interests.” At another point, Craig pledged to cooperate “to the fullest extent possible consistent with constitutional and statutory obligations.”
The message, apparently, is for GOP investigators to back off. But that hasn’t happened. In his letter to the White House, Issa is still trying to get information. “The White House’s willingness to provide the facts” about the Walpin firing, wrote Issa, “will go a long way to demonstrate the president is committed to running the most transparent White House in history.”
Byron York, The Examiner’s chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears on Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blog posts can be read daily at ExaminerPolitics.com.
Too bad Nixon never thought of that. Could have saved him...
Isn’t it some sort of a crime to lie to Congress?
That should be our first clue that the WH is aware that this is serious. They are circling the wagons, even the little red flyers....Serious enough to IMPEACH?...... Perhaps.
This criminal activity didn’t work for Nixon. Why do I get the feeling Hussein will make out a bit better?
Isn’t it some sort of a crime to lie to Congress?
Only for republicans.
with a full air attack, they are trying desperately to protect something important.
If the future is now, conglomorate man’s rise has happened faster than predicted. Tiger Woods, Obama, these guys are all composed of the new genetic soup taking pieces from all races. Obama is Chavez’s soulmate because they share a similar ancestry.
I kindly ask, How is this not news? Why was it moved from front page to bloggers? Just curious... as this is a big Obama scandal that the MSM are ignoring, why should FR?
Maybe we need a place for editorials, or well known political pundants as well as a place for the run of the mill bloggers.
Don’t always agree withhim but, York is one person whose judgment I admire and want to hear his opinion. Am glad he is now appearing on various panels etc on FOX
: > )
Oh BTW
Best. Morph. Ever.
I agree hoosiermama. We are in strange times. The MSM are truly not reporting the news so we find our news in editorials/bloggers. It is very sad saying this, a day before the fourth of July.
Maybe your idea would help get the headlines where they belong and not buried as the MSM talk about Sanford, (he should resign BTW) and Jackson all awhile adoring 0bama- 24/7.
God Bless all
People in all 56 states should be outraged by this!
The democrats as a whole and Bo in particular have learned how to manipulate the news. In turn the MSM believes what they have been fed. The simply reprint talking points issued to them, without thinking or questioning.
Either the GOP is not very good at the news-games or has refused to play. ie: Bush not defending himself....too trusting the the truth will come out on its own in time.
HERE'S WHAT HE DID Freddie Mac records exempt from FOIA (Obama Admin Denies Request)
Sunlight Foundation | 03/26/2009 | Bill Allison
FR Posted 03/27/2009 by BuckeyeTexan
Journalists Bob Secter and Andrew Zajac of the Chicago Tribune report that, while researching what went at Freddie Mac during the period White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel served on the government sponsored enterprise’s board of directors, they were unable to get minutes of board meetings and other information.
The Obama administration rejected a Tribune request under the Freedom of Information Act to review Freddie Mac board minutes and correspondence during Emanuel’s time as a director. The documents, obtained by Falcon for his investigation, were “commercial information” exempt from disclosure, according to a lawyer for the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Freddie Mac executives cooked the books, mismanaged the firm, and ultimately drove it into the ground, costing taxpayers billions of dollars.
The “commercial information” exemption is reserved for private companies–Freddie Mac is by no means a private company anymore.
=================================
BACKSTORY Rahm Emanuel was director when Freddie Mac board was tipped to fraudulent BONUS scheme "On (Rahm) Emanuel's watch, the board was told by executives of a plan to use accounting tricks to mislead shareholders about outsize profits the government-chartered firm was then reaping from risky investments.
The goal was to push earnings onto the books in future years, ensuring that Freddie Mac would appear profitable on paper for years to come and helping maximize annual bonuses for company brass. The accounting scandal wasn't the only one that brewed during Emanuel's tenure. During his brief time on the board, the company hatched a plan to enhance its political muscle.
That scheme, also reviewed by the board, led to a record $3.8 million fine from the Federal Election Commission for illegally using corporate resources to host fundraisers for politicians. Emanuel was the beneficiary of one of those parties after he left the board and ran in 2002 for a seat in Congress from the North Side of Chicago.
The board was throttled for its acquiescence to the accounting manipulation in a 2003 report by Armando Falcon Jr., head of a federal oversight agency for Freddie Mac. The scandal forced Freddie Mac to restate $5 billion in earnings and pay $585 million in fines and legal settlements.
It also foreshadowed even harder times at the firm. Many of those same risky investment practices tied to the accounting scandal eventually brought the firm to the brink of insolvency and led to its seizure last year by the Bush administration, which pledged to inject up to $100 billion in new capital to keep the firm afloat. The Obama administration has doubled that commitment."
SOURCE http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-rahm-emanuel-profit-26-mar26,0,5682373.story
David Copperfield's ingratiating scoundrel fits Rahm to a tee. Uriah Heep was notorious for wielding undue influence, a manipulative bounder who was always planning and plotting, ingratiating himself into the confidence of others. Uriah Heep was obsequious, manipulative, and wormed his way into positions of influence. Uriah was a consummate con man, and not to be trusted.
Translated into the language of the popular culture, Uriah Heeps, like Rahm, position themselves as amenable to American qualities of compassion, but are insincere in these feelings; he uses important issues to advance his hidden agendas and political ambitions.
Like Uriah Heep, power-hungry Rahm feeds on others, and deploys self-serving strategies for his own self-absorbed purposes.
We conservatives are on to this, and are aware of Whom we serve and watch carefully to see if government promises made to us are empty.
We know this-----Rahm evinces an utter contempt for our culture and is obsessed with party politics. Watch him on TV---Rahm coyly speaks the language to appeal to American values, but he is not a true believer, he is a calculating conniver----a latter-day Uriah Heep.
Ping!
Thanks Liz. Great info on Rahm-E
Obama simply can’t fool all of the people all of the time even if he has Soros and was prepped for this take-over of America.
Goos post, thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.