Ben Carson Lied About His Dining Room Set For No Reason

Adjust Comment Print

HUD spokesman Raffi Williams initially denied the Carsons had any involvement in the dining set selection. Carson sheepishly explained that the table had been acquired without his knowledge, and although he at first vowed to keep the set, he eventually relented and moved to cancel the order. "The table was ordered by the career staffers in charge of the building".

The gotcha report comes just weeks after Carson denied ordering the expensive furniture set, saying he was not the one to blame. "I have requested that the order be canceled". Candy Carson was apparently so uninterested in the whole thing that Jacie Coressel was "still waiting" to hear from her a day after her initial email.

In her complaint to HUD's special counsel, Foster charged that shortly before Trump's inauguration, soon-to-be acting secretary Craig Clemmensen told her Candy Carson wanted the office overhauled and she needed to find the money to fund the project.

While the initial quote for the furniture came in at $24,666, the final bill came to almost $7,000 more, due to delivery and installation charges, along with a price increase for the upholstered chairs.

A HUD staffer made reference to "print outs of the furniture the Secretary and Mrs. Carson picked out", in another email sent later the same month.

Senate Reverses Decision Not To Screen CBN Board
Also to be screened are nominees for membership of the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) sent to the upper parliament for confirmation.

"I briefly looked at catalogs for dining furniture and was shocked by the cost of the furniture", Carson said. A H.U.D. spokesperson blamed the order on a Carson staffer, per CNN.

Carson followed up with a statement a few days later in March claiming he was "surprised as anyone to find out that a $31,000 dining set had been ordered". The furniture, he said, was "characterized as unsafe" and was "beyond fix and needed to be replaced".

A HUD staffer noted in one email that the cost of the furniture shouldn't be an issue because "the furniture hasn't been changed since 1988". Even if this is true-that they were simply picking off a menu to complete a purchase already made by their underlings, blissfully unconcerned with the undertaking's associated expense-it still diverges wildly from HUD's indignant response to the original story, which was that the secretary and his wife had "zero awareness of this purchase being made".

Foster wrote in a February 22 email that she had to answer "endless questions about why I won't fund more than the $5000 limit" for redecorating the office. The secretary knew that the table and chairs were old because somebody fell out of a chair once.

Comments