Michelle Rhee and the Kevin Johnson Sex Scandal

If you were going to write a trashy sex novel you could do worse than look at the Gerald Walpin story for ideas.

Byron York continues to expose the White House shenanigans that the majority of the media won't report. Today he explains the role Michelle Rhee, head of the Washington D.C. school system and the fiancee of Kevin Jones, played in the scandal:

At the time, Walpin was investigating a California private school known as St. Hope, which was founded by Kevin Johnson, the former NBA star and friend of Rhee's who was running for mayor of Sacramento. St. Hope had received about $850,000 in AmeriCorps money, and Walpin's investigators were looking into charges that Johnson had misused those funds by assigning paid volunteer tutors to run errands for him and wash his car, as well as making them take part in political activities.

In the course of the investigation, some young female AmeriCorps volunteers also charged that Johnson had made inappropriate sexual advances toward them and offered one of them $1,000 a month to keep quiet.

Rhee, who later became engaged to marry Johnson, had been on St. Hope's board of directors before taking over as chief of the District of Columbia system. Her apparent goal, as she visited Walpin, was to vouch for Johnson.

What a tangled web we weave...Rhee trying to vouch for Johnson?

Now cut to Stacy McCain's story today in which he digs up from WorldNetDaily this treasure regarding the sexual misconduct charges against Johnson:

About 11:00 p.m., Mr. Johnson arrived at St. Hope and instructed [her] to gather her things and come with him. Mr. Johnson drove to [her] apartment, which is managed by St. Hope Development and houses its AmeriCorps members, purportedly so that they could review the students' grades. While in [her] apartment, in which another AmeriCorps member had a separate bedroom, Mr. Johnson laid down on [her] bed. [The woman] sat on the edge of the bed to show him the grades, at which time Mr. Johnson "layed [sic] down behind me, cupping his body around mine like the letter C. After about 2-3 minutes or so, I felt his hand on my left side where my hip bone is."

Since sex sells, I guess we can expect to hear about this in all the major newspapers, right? I mean, if Sarah Palin had acted the way either Johnson OR Rhee had, wouldn't we hear about it? Wouldn't the ethics charges be gargantuan? What's the difference?

More at Memeorandum.

Transparency Sinks to a New Low in the Walpin Case

Via Memeorandum, Byron York reports in the Washington Examiner, on the Gerald Walpin case this morning, specifically, on the White House cover-up regarding Walpin's firing.

Remember, Walpin was told on June 10 to either resign or be fired. The next day, Senator Grassley objected because this violated the new law that says Congress must be given 30 days notice before an inspector general is fired.

York reports:

Pressed for the reason Walpin was fired, [Norman] Eisen told House and Senate aides that the White House conducted an "extensive review" of complaints about Walpin’s performance before deciding to dismiss him. According to the new report, Eisen 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 Republican investigators later discovered that during that "extensive review," the White House did not even seek the views of the corporation's board -- the very people whose "consensus" purportedly led to Walpin's firing.

According to this new report, the only person on the CNCS board who objected was "Democratic mega-donor and Obama supporter" Alan Solomont. York says that "Only one other board member, vice-chairman Stephen Goldsmith, was even called by the White House, and that was on June 10, a few hours before Walpin was fired. According to the report, Goldsmith told investigators that 'the White House had already decided to remove Walpin and wanted to confirm [Goldsmith's] support for the action.'"

The day after Walpin's firing, a conference call was held, talking points were distributed and Walpin was toast.

The bottom line here is that the Obama administration was unhappy with Walpin's aggressive investigation of Kevin Johnson and the misuse of AmeriCorps funds so they figured out a way to get rid of him. Then they had to cover it up.

Adding insult to injury, the excuse initially was that the 77 year old Walpin was becoming "senile" or addled in his responses to the board. Since Walpin didn't appear senile or addled in any subsequent interviews, another cover had to be developed and suddenly he was fired for unspecified "performance issues."

York points out in his conclusion that "Through it all, the White House and top management of the corporation struggled to keep the story straight. By June 18, a week after the firing, with news coverage dying down -- it had never been very intense in the first place -- they felt they had succeeded."

To me, besides the smear on Walpin, the travesty of this story is that as York says, "it wasn't very intense in the first place." The media should have been all over this if they'd been doing their jobs.

Have we heard the last of this story? I hope not.

Related - Get up to speed!:

Bob Belvedere's IG-Gate blog

On this Blog:
Let The Investigations Begin
This Story Has Legs

Stacy McCain's coverage is here.

The AmeriCorps IG-Scandal

The Inspectors General scandal is getting interesting. It's been so complex and is tangled up on so many levels that it's been difficult for me to follow completely. Robert Stacy McCain and Byron York are both doing great work in keeping the story moving and keeping people informed; plus there is this new blog which helps keep up with all the developments.

This is really more than one story. I call it the Inspectors General scandal, but there are three that are of interest and the stories are not necessarily related. That's the thing - nobody knows for certain.

The one that has had my interest from the beginning is the case of Gerald Walpin. For those of you just catching up, Byron York breaks it down pretty easily in his latest Examiner article. Here is what happened in plain, simple terms:

Kevin Johnson is the mayor of Sacramento. Gerald Walpin was the Inspector General who scrutinized AmeriCorps, "one of Obama's favorite federal programs."

AmeriCorps gave an $800,000 grant to Kevin Johnson (who is also "an influential friend and supporter" of Obama).

Walpin investigated Johnson's misuse of that money, Johnson was suspended from receiving any more federal grants, and this put Sacramento in danger of not receiving stimulus money.

Enter Lawrence Brown, U.S. Attorney for Sacramento. Brown makes a sweetheart deal that gets Johnson off the hook which means Sacramento is eligible for stimulus money. Brown then denounces Walpin.

Walpin objects to said sweetheart deal; Obama fires him.

As York points out, anybody with common sense can see that is odd.

Now we find out that Rep. Doris Matsui, who represents the Sacramento district, had been in contact with the White House to ensure that Sacramento didn't lose any stimulus money. Did she lean on the White House?

York writes:

Within days of Matsui’s statement, a settlement was reached. Johnson was unsuspended, and in a particularly unusual move, acting U.S. Attorney Brown issued a press release hailing the arrival of stimulus funds. “The lifting of the suspension against all parties, including Mayor Johnson, removes any cloud whether the City of Sacramento will be prevented form receiving much-needed federal stimulus funds,” Brown wrote.

Republicans on the Judiciary Committee want to know why a U.S. attorney was touting his own actions in bringing stimulus money to the city. That’s not the normal role of prosecutors. “We need to hear whether the settlement in this case was tainted in any way by political influence or political factors,” says the senior Republican aide.

Both Brown and the White House refuse to answer any questions by the Oversight Committee.

Odd, indeed.

This is but one thread in the Inspectors General scandal. And it's just beginning to unravel. Keep your eyes on this one.

This Story Has Legs!

The Inspector General scandal is absolutely "growing legs" and Robert Stacy McCain continues to be all over it. The story is the subject of several editorials around the country this morning.

The Washington Times reports, as we learned late last week, that the FBI has opened an investigation into the AmeriCorps story:

The FBI has opened an investigation into a Sacramento program formerly run by a close ally of President Obama's, giving credence to the IG's work.

The president fired Mr. Walpin June 11 after Mr. Walpin filed two reports critical of Obama friends. The highest-profile of the two reports focused on misuse of funds at Sacramento's St. Hope Academy, then run by former NBA star Kevin Johnson before Mr. Johnson was elected Sacramento's mayor in November. Mr. Johnson was a frequent stump speaker for Mr. Obama during last year's campaign and has claimed in TV interviews to be particularly good friends with first lady Michelle Obama.

The Las Vegas Review also has an editorial which also points out that Obama co-sponsored the law that prohibits just the sort of thing he's just done:

The White House tried to fire Mr. Walpin last Wednesday night. That could be a violation of the 2008 Inspectors General Reform Act, which requires the president to give Congress 30 days' notice, plus an explanation of cause, before firing an inspector general.

Does President Obama have the right to remove an inspector general? Sure -- despite that new law, intended to put limits on that power, which was co-sponsored by, um ... U.S. Sen. Barack Obama. Was the Walpin firing the right thing to do? Heck, no. Barack Obama is covering up for a prominent supporter caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

The law the Review is referring to was sponsored by Senator Claire McCaskill last year to protect inspectors general from partisan firings. Presidents can't just say they have “lost confidence” in an Inspector General; the new law requires him to explain the actual reason for a firing and to allow Congress 30 days to investigate the claims.

The Kansas City Star quotes McCaskill: “This reform isn’t about Obama; it’s about keeping future auditors independent and free to prepare critical reports without political pressure.”

As this all broke, you may recall, Obama said just that he'd "lost confidence" in Walpin. When pressed, and reminded of the law that he co-sponsored, he then tried to make the case that Walpin was senile and displayed dementia in a meeting. This doesn't work because the entire nation has seen Walpin in one interview after another in which he displays no such thing.

Enter FBI.

Stay glued to The Other McCain on this one because Stacy is like a dog with a bone on this story. His latest update says, "Meanwhile, at 1:30 a.m. Monday, I've just made an executive decision to go down to Capitol Hill again today and talk to more sources. There is no substitute for old-fashioned shoe leather. Just show up unannounced and buttonhole your source. It's an infallible method. Make a nuisance of yourself until they figure out that they need to start calling you, or else you'll be back again bugging them tomorrow."

Somehow, this clip seems appropriate:

See also this story on NRO today for the backstory.

(Artwork from Carol at No Sheeples Here)

Let The Investigations Begin

Senator Grassley is asking questions about the AmeriCorps scandal having now picked up on a pattern of behavior from the White House: "Grassley is now concerned about whether a pattern is emerging in which the independence of the government's top watchdogs -- whose jobs were authorized by Congress to look out for waste, fraud and abuse -- is being put at risk."

It's no longer just about Gerald Walpin. Michelle explains that Walpin's "removal came a week after he 'questioned the eligibility of the largest and most expensive AmeriCorps program, and while the IG was contesting the propriety of a settlement made with a mayor for alleged misuse of AmeriCorps funds.'"

It's now also about Neil Barofsky who was the IG watching over Porkulus spending and also Judith Gwynne who was the IG involved with the International Trade Commission. The ITC dumped her last week.

Robert Stacy McCain is all over this one. American Specatator also has a nifty piece on this and indicates what is to come, investigation-wise. There's also a growing number of links on Memeorandum which I suspect will get longer. Not Tucker Carlson is aggregating like crazy on this one.

As things stand now the White House is refusing to answer questions about this. Sen. Grassley has put his questions in writing. It may take a full blown investigation to get those answers. Meanwhile, I say more power to Walpin for firing back and not letting Chicago Thug Style politics mow him down. The FBI is now involved in the Kevin Johnson investigation (who is suspected now of already deleting emails) and this is only going to get bigger.

All I've got to say is if Walpin is senile, as the White House asserts, I must be too. This video is from yesterday's Glenn Beck program.