The knee-capping Presidency

W.H. v. Grassley on Walpin clearing
W.H. v. Grassley on Walpin clearing - Josh Gerstein: W.H. v. Grassley on Walpin clearing
November 10, 2009

The White House and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) have profoundly different takes on the news that a federal investigation cleared fired inspector general Gerald Walpin of allegations of misconduct in connection with an investigation into misuse of federal funds.
An inquiry by a group known as the integrity committee found last month that Walpin offered an adequate response to charges from a federal prosecutor that Walpin withheld exculpatory evidence and made improper statements to the press in connection with an inquiry he initiated into improper use of funds by the Sacramento-based St. Hope Academy.
A White House official said Tuesday afternoon that the development, first reported by POLITICO, did not change the administration's view that President Barack Obama had ample reason to oust Walpin from his post as a watchdog at the Corporation for Community and National Service.
"We have previously provided Congress with a detailed explanation of the multiple bases for this removal and we continue to believe that it was fully merited," said the White House official, who asked not to named.
By contrast, Grassley, who is something of a patron saint for inspectors general, said the belated clearance of Walpin indicated that the White House allowed the cart to get before the horse when Obama suspended and then fired Walpin earlier this year.
"After getting both points of view, including Mr. Walpin’s, the integrity committee found that the acting U.S. attorney’s complaint had no merit and that there was no need for a full investigation," Grassley said in a statement e-mailed to POLITICO. "Since the White House cited the complaint in its case for firing Mr. Walpin, it’s disturbing that the White House failed to wait for the outcome of the review before firing the inspector general. The process set up for situations like this allows both sides of the story to be heard, and it should have been given a chance to work.”