FBI e-mail investigation fingers White House?

FBI e-mail investigation fingers White House?

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has begun looking into a dispute that is linked to an AmeriCorps money scandal that has fingers pointing all the way up to the White House
because of President Obama's dismissal of an inspector general who was on the case.



According to a report in the Sacramento Bee, acting U.S. Attorney Lawrence G. Brown has confirmed the agency is looking into the "circumstances" regarding the alleged destruction of e-mails regarding a dispute over the handling of money at Mayor Kevin Johnson's "brainchild" St. HOPE Academy, which had been investigated after allegations that public funds were misused.

As WND reported earlier, U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley is asking for an investigation into Obama's firing of the independent inspector general, Gerald Walpin, who had been charged with rooting out corruption in the AmeriCorps program – and had sought action against Obama's friend, Johnson.

Walpin told WND in an interview he didn't think the timing of his firing was a coincidence, and indeed, he said, "I was fired for doing my job."

Radio host Rush Limbaugh accused the administration of breaking the law by firing Walpin, attributing it to "political cronyism" and declaring, "Alberto Gonzales as attorney general fired a couple of U.S. attorneys. He took hell for it. This is bigger. Inspectors general are supposed to be completely above politics."

One of the participants in the Bee forum page said, "This story will be bigger than Watergate IF the facts are allowed the light of day."

A settlement had been reached in the St. HOPE case that required the return of $400,000 of "misused grants for AmeriCorps volunteers." While Walpin's investigation suggested no more federal money be distributed through those specific channels, Rick Maya, who left his job as executive director with St. HOPE recently, claimed in his resignation letter a member of the charter school's board had deleted e-mails by Johnson during the federal investigation, according to the newspaper.

That allegation caught the interest of Brown, who confirmed to the newspaper the FBI investigation was open, although he was "not at liberty to discuss the details."

The newspaper said while the academy was under subpoena, Maya notified the board that board member Sam Oki allegedly had accessed – and deleted – some of the e-mail in the academy system.

"We had to pay thousands of dollars to recover the information deleted from our e-mail system as a result of this highly inappropriate and potentially unlawful incursion into our e-mail system," Maya's letter said, according to the newspaper. "We are still unsure whether all of the deleted information has been recovered."

To the newspaper, Oki denied the allegation but declined to comment further.

But to Fox news, and other media organizations willing to interview him since his abrupt dismissal, Walpin said Obama's explanation that Walpin was "confused" and "disoriented" and that was why he was dismissed was "absolutely wild."

He also appeared on the Glenn Beck show on Fox today, responding quickly, accurately and coherently to a long list of instructions and questions, apparently to test his "confusion."

Walpin called Obama's explanation for his dismissal "a total lie" and said, "I am now the target of the most powerful man in this country, with an army of aides whose major responsibility today seems to be to attack me and get rid of me."

Watergate, which ultimately brought President Richard Nixon to the point of signing his resignation – the only president ever to resign from the office – was begun by a seemingly low-level investigation into a night-time break-in at Democratic offices at the Watergate complex.

This situation has Obama on the defensive already because he's sought to quash concerns in Congress with a letter explaining White House Special counsel Norman Eisen believed Walpin was "confused" and "disoriented" at a board meeting in May.

The president's letter also accused Walpin of being "unduly disruptive."

Speculation had immediately linked Walpin's dismissal to his action concerning Johnson, and Johnson's friendship with Obama. It was enhanced when Walpin pointed out that after the meeting at which he allegedly was disruptive, he'd been asked to make a speech by the Obama administration.

"I would never say President Obama doesn't have the capacity to continue to serve because of his (statement) that there are 56 states," Walpin told Fox.

He said the same holds true for Vice President Joe Biden, whose "many express confusions" have been reported.

On the campaign trail Obama once stated he had visited 57 states.

Walpin pointed out that at the May meeting he had been critical of the Johnson case settlement, and also had expressed concern over a program at the City University of New York.

He said board members were "angry" as what he described as his "temerity," Fox reported.

On the Fox news page forum, there were hundreds of comments, including: "B.O. is exactly what we expected. So much for any transparency in this corrupt administration."

Another said, "If this is the irrational act it appears to be, we have buffoon in the white house. … It is. We do." And a third: "Walpin is honest and there is no room for honesty in the Obama administration."

As WND reported, independent federal inspectors general are supposed to be granted special protection from political interference – thanks in part to a law co-sponsored by then-Sen. Obama – to ensure they are free to investigate waste and fraud uninfluenced by political cronyism.

Included in those protections is a requirement that the president submit to Congress, in writing, his reasons for dismissing any inspector general.

President Obama's initial explanation, however, was merely, "It is vital that I have the fullest confidence in the appointees serving as inspectors general. That is no longer the case with regard to this inspector general." Later he added the "confused" explanation.

"That's a conclusion, not a reason," Walpin said. "This is shocking. I know of no other I.G. who has been terminated like this."

According to the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008, co-sponsored by Obama, inspectors general must also be given 30 days notice of their dismissal.

The firing of Walpin, however, took on a very different form.

Walpin confirmed to WND that he received last week a sudden and unexpected ultimatum from White House counsel Norman L. Eisen: Resign within the hour or suffer being fired.

Walpin refused to resign, replying in an e-mail, "It would do a disservice to the independent scheme that Congress has mandated – and could potentially raise questions about my own integrity – if I were to render what would seem to many a very hasty response to your request."

Grassley has reminded Obama of the statute requiring the president to submit 30 days notice to Congress of an inspector general's dismissal and stated, "No such notice was provided to Congress in this instance."

The White House later said Walpin was on suspension for the 30-day period leading to his dismissal.

Brown earlier declined to file criminal charges against Johnson, whose organization was found to have used AmeriCorps funds to pay for school board political activities, personal errands and even the washing of Johnson's car. Brown's settlement did require the organization to pay back over $400,000 of $850,000 in grants it was given through the AmeriCorps program.

Walpin, in turn, filed an objection with Congress over the favorable settlement, an objection some are speculating led to his firing.

Brown later complained that Walpin was too aggressive and overstepped his authority in the investigation of Johnson. That awaits judgment by an integrity committee.

"I have been performing – and my office has been performing – its work with the highest integrity, in the spirit of an independent office, calling the shots as it sees them," Walpin told WND. "The integrity committee will decide the merits of the complaint, but what troubles me is that the White House is apparently relying on the complaint. At this point, it is before an adjudicatory body, and if the White House felt it couldn't wait for that decision, it should have at least waited for me to come in and provide my factual response, so it could consider it. It did not."