Posted on 06/17/2009 8:37:54 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA
Sounds to me like he has grounds for an age discrimination suit at a minimum.
Simply unbelievable!
See? Walpin is confused."
Ah, but he is only 1/7th as confused as Obama.
This guy is right to not give points on whether he was confused or not because then the story will be was he or wasn't he confused. Instead just dismiss it with his comment about Obama being confused before. So now confusion shouldn't even be an issue if you are confused in just one meeting. So now the WH has to come up with a new excuse...then it will be obvious what happened.
1989: Johnson founds nonprofit St. HOPE in Sacramento's Oak Park neighborhood, focusing on education, economic development, civic leadership and arts.
2003: St. HOPE takes over Johnson's alma mater Sacramento High School and converts it to a charter school.
March 5, 2008: Kevin Johnson announces he's a candidate for mayor of Sacramento.
April 25, 2008: The Sacramento Bee reports that a St. HOPE program known has Hood Corps is under investigation for possible misuse of federal funding and failure to report a claim of sexual abuse against Johnson.
August 2008: Inspector General Gerald Walpin completes investigation and sends it to the U.S. Attorney in Sacramento.
Sept. 25, 2008: Walpin releases a report saying Hood Corps volunteers were used to run personal errands for Johnson, wash his car and campaign for school board candidates; Johnson and St. HOPE are placed on list barred from receiving federal funding. Johnson says it was nothing more than "administrative mistakes."
Nov. 4, 2008: Johnson defeats incumbent Sacramento Mayor Heather Fargo.
March 21, 2009: The Sacramento Bee reports independent attorney warns the city's federal stimulus funding could be at risk because of Mayor Kevin Johnson's status.
March 23, 2009: Acting U.S. Attorney Larry Brown tells KCRA 3 his office is negotiating a civil settlement with Johnson and St. HOPE and expects resolution within a matter of weeks.
April 3, 2009: St. HOPE executive director Rick Maya resigns and accuses a board member of erasing Johnson e-mails during the St. HOPE investigation. Later, Maya will receive a severance package of $98,916.
April 9, 2009: Acting U.S. Attorney Larry Brown announces he has reached a civil settlement with St. HOPE and Johnson. They will repay roughly half the misused money in exchange for being allowed to receive future federal funding.
June 10, 2009: Inspector General Gerald Walpin is informed by a White House official that he is being terminated by the White House. Walpin says, "I was fired because I did my job."
June 12, 2009: U.S. Sen. Charley Grassley, R-Iowa, writes a letter to the agency overseeing Americorps saying he is "very concerned" about Walpin's dismissal. Grassley asks administration officials to provide emails and other documents.
June 16, 2009: Johnson says Walpin's dismissal was "100 percent within the purview of the administration. ... Obviously I was not consulted in that decision."
Oh, and another thing :-)
The “acting” US Atty out there, Lawrence Brown, who has the support of Obama, has badmouthed this guy too and asked the FBI to investigate whether or not there is anything to the (baseless) charges of him mishandling his job.
Until we get to this story - http://www.sacbee.com/healthfitness/story/1879743.html?storylink=lingospot
Now, this story is about deleted emails (where have we heard that before?) on the part of Kevin Johnson and his school. This has surprisingly (not) has gotten ZERO PLAY, that I can find in the MSM. But it even has the “acting” US Atty in a tizzy saying deleted emails are very, very bad and he will get to the bottom of it.
Times are tough, layoffs everywhere.
Don't Libs put such folks on a pedestal, write books and movies about them and generally weep and mourn over the great injustice?!!
crickets chirping .....
[He said it on purpose, hoping the left would correct him.]
That would actually be pretty cool.
“Walpin, you confused idiot! Obama said 57 states, not 56!!!”
To borrow a phrase from Clarence Thomas' defense of himself during his SCOTUS judiciary committee hearing, those accusations are "Kafkaesque", baseless accusations coming from all directions.
This all brings the old USSR and other totalitarian regimes to mind and how they accused and discredited any deviants from the party line. Or maybe its just SOP in Chicago politics.
Watch for the left to start their slime machine and try to destroy him.
Walpin better watch his back less he be found leaning against a tree in a DC park.
Just a couple days ago I was reading that Obama White House staffers were leaking to Fox News that the National Security Advisor, James Jones, seemed to be senile or have dementia.
Now the White House is saying Walpin is senile? There’s something very odd about that pattern.
A Sampling of Pro-Bush Websites
Sept. 8, 2004 See also Anti-Kerry Websites and Republicans on the Web
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
Didn’t he say 56 with one left? That may be why Walpin said 56.
Wallpin is 78 years old. He doesn’t have a whole lot to lose by standing up to the Maximum Leader.
For example, if Walpin was 45 then he might think to himself, “if I just play the game and stay quiet then some day down the road, I might score a really big job. If not with Obama then with someone or something else.” I bet there are a lot of people in the government who are thinking this way.
Walpin on the other hand is 78 and at this point in his life he is probably thinking about his legacy and how his family and colleagues are going to remember him. And Barry is spiting all over his legacy and reputation. A reputation Walpin has worked his entire life to build.
Zero might have picked a fight with the wrong guy.
The list, ping
BTTT! Do you have a link we can add to this thread. This is a familar pattern...in the old Soviet Union!!
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.