Whenever, under any administration, there is an attempt to paint the opposition as a bad guy, rather than prove one’s own actions as correct, suspect smoke and mirrors. The right wing does it as well (as do the libertarians, communitarians, and Greens) – because it works.

Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican, first wrote the White House on June 15 asking for “a full and complete explanation of whom the White House consulted in order to evaluate the performance of Mr. Walpin,” among a number of other requests. Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, wrote the White House on June 17 with similar specific requests, after first raising questions about the firing on June 12. Mr. Issa wrote Corporation for National and Community Service Acting Chief Executive Officer Nicola Goren on June 26 to ask again for the information.

“It’s a White House prerogative,” Mr. Trinity told staff members, according to multiple sources. Asked if he was somehow asserting “executive privilege” — a privilege not his to claim — Mr. Trinity repeated his “White House prerogative” line. Told that no such prerogative exists in law, Mr. Trinity still declined to answer. Both he and the White House continue to withhold requested, relevant documents.

My main concerns are the manner in which Walpin was fired, the varying stories told about the firing by the White House, and the refusal to clarify matters on the part of the White House. These things have yet to be clarified, and the White House has been singularly uncooperative and non-transparent.

The Washington Post made a boatload of documents available a month ago, and the picture they paint of Walpin is devastating.

He lied in a memo to the CNCS board chairman about the General Counsel’s views on a disputed legal question, a falsehood the GC rebutted in writing.

Even more telling is the letter from the US Attorney’s Office describing Walpin’s serious and repeated misconduct, which included a) mouthing off in the press about an ongoing investigation, even after the USAO had expressly directed him not to do so, and b) withholding crucial information that cast serious doubt on the allegations in his criminal referral. (See page 3, where the Acting US Attorney points out that Walpin’s referral claimed that “AmeriCorps members Performed No Tutoring” [for local schools], when in fact Walpin’s office had contrary evidence which it withheld in the criminal referral.) Note also that although the US Attorney’s letter is from 2009, the relevant events took place in August and September 2008; for instance, it was the previous US Attorney — appointed by Bush, not Obama — who told Walpin on 9/26/08 to stop running his mouth in the media on the ongoing investigation.

Funny how Byron York manages to gloss over all this, eh?

http://ig-gate.blogspot.com/