Posted on 09/12/2019 1:02:56 PM PDT by Rusty0604
The inspector general for the Department of Housing and Urban Development said in a new report that investigators found no evidence of misconduct by Secretary Ben Carson concerning a controversial order for expensive furniture in late 2017.
Speaking on Fox Business Network’s “Varney & Co.,” Carson said the report proves what he’s been saying all along.
“I was so disgusted with that story, because they try to claim that I want to buy expensive furniture while I’m trying to take money away from the poor people,” he said. “There’s probably no one in Washington who cares less about furniture than I do.”
HUD, though, ultimately did not get the furniture. The order was canceled on March 1, 2018 at the direction of Carson, in response to media reports.
The investigation began last year after HUD’s former chief administrative officer Helen Foster complained that she was retaliated against for objecting to the cost of the dining room set, saying it was beyond the $5,000 statutory maximum for office updates.
Foster said she was demoted for refusing to bankroll the remodeling and claimed it was requested by Carson’s wife amid an environment where top officials told her to skirt the rules. Foster said she was told the department “has always found money for this in the past” and that “$5,000 will not even buy a decent chair.”
The department said in response to that report that Carson decorated his office mainly with furniture from the agency’s basement and did not ask for a new dining set. Instead, HUD blamed it on “career staffers.”
The department also denied retaliation, saying that Foster is still a HUD employee and that it is customary for staffers to be rotated.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
It should be as easy to fire a government employee as it is to fire a private sector employee.
Civil service job protections need to be eliminated, entirely.
Ditto that.
Guilty of being black while conservative.
The order was cancelled “in response to media reports.” IOW, it wouldn’t have been cancelled but that he was caught. I remember the furniture company getting upset because the table was special ordered. His wife was overseeing the furnishings.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/14/politics/ben-candy-carson-emails-dining-set/index.html Mrs. Carson knew. Check the email.
This was an obvious frame job from the get go.
Doctor Ben Carson would be the last man to cheat the government.
“he order was cancelled “in response to media reports.” IOW, it wouldn’t have been cancelled but that he was caught. I remember the furniture company getting upset because the table was special ordered. His wife was overseeing the furnishings.”
Citing CNN as a source here on FR: Shameless.
I clicked on your link, and I read through the emails. Mrs. Carson was involved in exactly 1 of them, and it was incoming to her. Some names are redacted (not sure why you need to redact names of emails discussing furniture purchases) but no Ben or Mrs. Carson involved other than what I mentioned above.
Now for the more important question:
Why is it that YOU feel the need to (so weakly) attack the Carsons? Really lame attempt, but I’m more curious as to they WHY aspect.
I dont see anything in those emails implicating Ben, and one email to Cindy in August asking if she wants to look at the furniture. What does that prove? If the staff knew anything over $5,000 had to be approved why didnt they follow procedure?
Thanks, I just posted a similar response.
A deliberately confusing article trying very hard to make Carson and his wife sound guilty when they are not. We love the Carsons here in Maryland. You couldn’t find two more trustworthy people, who spent gobs of their own money from his surgical career on helping child literacty (children of all colors, btw). So glad he was officially pronounced innocent.
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.