FBI HQ in PG!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there's one thing about the GSA, they don't mess around. It's funny to me that people think the GSA will just openly partake in shady behavior, breaking the rules, as it relates to a high profile decision.

They have been very transparent about the process, it’s true. The issues is not their lack of transparency, the issue and questions people have is how did it come to pass that Nina Albert was appointed to replace the civil servant who was responsible, whether her participation should have been precluded due to perceived conflict of interest and whether her role in changing the criteria and overruling the panel recommendations were arbitrary and capacious.

The investigation will not be about GSA. The investigation is going to focus 100% on Nina Albert.

Nina Albert was part of the GSA's process. It's super-weird to single her out as though she were some random person who had nothing to do with the real GSA. And the conflict of interest consisted of what? Her stock options in WMATA?

The FBI Director and VA congressional delegation did not specify the alleged conflicts of interest. All of that will be investigated.

Not PP, but I agree that it is wrong to single out one person at GSA for scrutiny. The public also needs to know who made the decision to replace the career official originally selected as SSA with a political appointee. Was it the GSA administrator? What was her reasoning for this decision? It seems highly unusual.

GSA is messing with the wrong agency. The GSA lawyers may well be scrambling right now to put together after-the-fact rationalizations. But they cannot change what was done before. There is going to be a record.

If it turns out that there are reasonable explanations for all of the serious concerns raised in the letter that the VA congressional delegation sent to the Acting GSA IG, then the headquarters will probably end up in Greenbelt.

It's weird that they didn't do that, don't you think?

I continue to be astonished that so many people are apparently so ignorant about how the government works. How the government works: the GSA makes the real estate decisions. How the government does not work: whatever the FBI wants, the FBI gets.

We all agree that GSA makes real estate decisions. That’s not the issue. The issue is how GSA ultimately came to this decision.

The issue is that some people don't like the GSA's decision.

Nope. Try again.

Of course the issue is that some people don't like the GSA's decision. Do you think the Virginia congressional delegation would have asked the IG to open an investigation into the decision-making process if the GSA had decided on Springfield instead of Greenbelt?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there's one thing about the GSA, they don't mess around. It's funny to me that people think the GSA will just openly partake in shady behavior, breaking the rules, as it relates to a high profile decision.

They have been very transparent about the process, it’s true. The issues is not their lack of transparency, the issue and questions people have is how did it come to pass that Nina Albert was appointed to replace the civil servant who was responsible, whether her participation should have been precluded due to perceived conflict of interest and whether her role in changing the criteria and overruling the panel recommendations were arbitrary and capacious.

The investigation will not be about GSA. The investigation is going to focus 100% on Nina Albert.

Nina Albert was part of the GSA's process. It's super-weird to single her out as though she were some random person who had nothing to do with the real GSA. And the conflict of interest consisted of what? Her stock options in WMATA?

The FBI Director and VA congressional delegation did not specify the alleged conflicts of interest. All of that will be investigated.

Not PP, but I agree that it is wrong to single out one person at GSA for scrutiny. The public also needs to know who made the decision to replace the career official originally selected as SSA with a political appointee. Was it the GSA administrator? What was her reasoning for this decision? It seems highly unusual.

GSA is messing with the wrong agency. The GSA lawyers may well be scrambling right now to put together after-the-fact rationalizations. But they cannot change what was done before. There is going to be a record.

If it turns out that there are reasonable explanations for all of the serious concerns raised in the letter that the VA congressional delegation sent to the Acting GSA IG, then the headquarters will probably end up in Greenbelt.

This actually doesn’t seem unusual at all if you know how the executive branch typically works. It is highly unusual for a career official to be the final decision maker in an agency, not the other way around. Politicals are supposed to set priorities and make decisions, and career officials are supposed to do the legwork to make it happen. Career officials only make big decisions if a political official has not been appointed or selected. Once a political is in place, it would be inappropriate for career officials to make decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there's one thing about the GSA, they don't mess around. It's funny to me that people think the GSA will just openly partake in shady behavior, breaking the rules, as it relates to a high profile decision.

They have been very transparent about the process, it’s true. The issues is not their lack of transparency, the issue and questions people have is how did it come to pass that Nina Albert was appointed to replace the civil servant who was responsible, whether her participation should have been precluded due to perceived conflict of interest and whether her role in changing the criteria and overruling the panel recommendations were arbitrary and capacious.

The investigation will not be about GSA. The investigation is going to focus 100% on Nina Albert.

Nina Albert was part of the GSA's process. It's super-weird to single her out as though she were some random person who had nothing to do with the real GSA. And the conflict of interest consisted of what? Her stock options in WMATA?

The FBI Director and VA congressional delegation did not specify the alleged conflicts of interest. All of that will be investigated.

Not PP, but I agree that it is wrong to single out one person at GSA for scrutiny. The public also needs to know who made the decision to replace the career official originally selected as SSA with a political appointee. Was it the GSA administrator? What was her reasoning for this decision? It seems highly unusual.

GSA is messing with the wrong agency. The GSA lawyers may well be scrambling right now to put together after-the-fact rationalizations. But they cannot change what was done before. There is going to be a record.

If it turns out that there are reasonable explanations for all of the serious concerns raised in the letter that the VA congressional delegation sent to the Acting GSA IG, then the headquarters will probably end up in Greenbelt.

It's weird that they didn't do that, don't you think?

I continue to be astonished that so many people are apparently so ignorant about how the government works. How the government works: the GSA makes the real estate decisions. How the government does not work: whatever the FBI wants, the FBI gets.

It is not odd at all for the FBI director not to specify the specific conflicts. It is unfair to the subject(s) of investigation to do that prior to a full investigation. The FBI cares about good process.

It is astonishing how folks including apparently GSA do not understand how procurement is supposed to work. The rules should not be changed in the middle of the game. And you should not replace the SSA in the middle of the process either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there's one thing about the GSA, they don't mess around. It's funny to me that people think the GSA will just openly partake in shady behavior, breaking the rules, as it relates to a high profile decision.

They have been very transparent about the process, it’s true. The issues is not their lack of transparency, the issue and questions people have is how did it come to pass that Nina Albert was appointed to replace the civil servant who was responsible, whether her participation should have been precluded due to perceived conflict of interest and whether her role in changing the criteria and overruling the panel recommendations were arbitrary and capacious.

The investigation will not be about GSA. The investigation is going to focus 100% on Nina Albert.

Nina Albert was part of the GSA's process. It's super-weird to single her out as though she were some random person who had nothing to do with the real GSA. And the conflict of interest consisted of what? Her stock options in WMATA?

The FBI Director and VA congressional delegation did not specify the alleged conflicts of interest. All of that will be investigated.

Not PP, but I agree that it is wrong to single out one person at GSA for scrutiny. The public also needs to know who made the decision to replace the career official originally selected as SSA with a political appointee. Was it the GSA administrator? What was her reasoning for this decision? It seems highly unusual.

GSA is messing with the wrong agency. The GSA lawyers may well be scrambling right now to put together after-the-fact rationalizations. But they cannot change what was done before. There is going to be a record.

If it turns out that there are reasonable explanations for all of the serious concerns raised in the letter that the VA congressional delegation sent to the Acting GSA IG, then the headquarters will probably end up in Greenbelt.

This actually doesn’t seem unusual at all if you know how the executive branch typically works. It is highly unusual for a career official to be the final decision maker in an agency, not the other way around. Politicals are supposed to set priorities and make decisions, and career officials are supposed to do the legwork to make it happen. Career officials only make big decisions if a political official has not been appointed or selected. Once a political is in place, it would be inappropriate for career officials to make decisions.

The FBI director described the decision to overturn the panel's decision as "exceedingly rare" or something to that effect. I think he knows something about how government works.

There were career professionals who were empowered to make this particular decision until they weren't.

The VA senators are serious people. They would not make allegations of corruption and political influence lightly. They are going against their own party.

[Anonymous]

Great news! Keeps Md the richest state in the USA!! These Va types ragging on PG county when PG county is richer than 23 counties in Va.

PG has..
a Big ten University
the FBI
the IRS
an NFL team
NASA
Census
Andrews AFB
FDA
NOAA
National Archives
Huge USDA presence


and thats Marylands most criticized county. Best state in the mid-atlantic by far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there's one thing about the GSA, they don't mess around. It's funny to me that people think the GSA will just openly partake in shady behavior, breaking the rules, as it relates to a high profile decision.

They have been very transparent about the process, it’s true. The issues is not their lack of transparency, the issue and questions people have is how did it come to pass that Nina Albert was appointed to replace the civil servant who was responsible, whether her participation should have been precluded due to perceived conflict of interest and whether her role in changing the criteria and overruling the panel recommendations were arbitrary and capacious.

The investigation will not be about GSA. The investigation is going to focus 100% on Nina Albert.

Nina Albert was part of the GSA's process. It's super-weird to single her out as though she were some random person who had nothing to do with the real GSA. And the conflict of interest consisted of what? Her stock options in WMATA?

The FBI Director and VA congressional delegation did not specify the alleged conflicts of interest. All of that will be investigated.

Not PP, but I agree that it is wrong to single out one person at GSA for scrutiny. The public also needs to know who made the decision to replace the career official originally selected as SSA with a political appointee. Was it the GSA administrator? What was her reasoning for this decision? It seems highly unusual.

GSA is messing with the wrong agency. The GSA lawyers may well be scrambling right now to put together after-the-fact rationalizations. But they cannot change what was done before. There is going to be a record.

If it turns out that there are reasonable explanations for all of the serious concerns raised in the letter that the VA congressional delegation sent to the Acting GSA IG, then the headquarters will probably end up in Greenbelt.

This actually doesn’t seem unusual at all if you know how the executive branch typically works. It is highly unusual for a career official to be the final decision maker in an agency, not the other way around. Politicals are supposed to set priorities and make decisions, and career officials are supposed to do the legwork to make it happen. Career officials only make big decisions if a political official has not been appointed or selected. Once a political is in place, it would be inappropriate for career officials to make decisions.

The FBI director described the decision to overturn the panel's decision as "exceedingly rare" or something to that effect. I think he knows something about how government works.

There were career professionals who were empowered to make this particular decision until they weren't.

The VA senators are serious people. They would not make allegations of corruption and political influence lightly. They are going against their own party.

Which allegations of corruption and political influence, specifically, have they made?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Great news! Keeps Md the richest state in the USA!! These Va types ragging on PG county when PG county is richer than 23 counties in Va.

PG has..
a Big ten University
the FBI
the IRS
an NFL team
NASA
Census
Andrews AFB
FDA
NOAA
National Archives
Huge USDA presence


and thats Marylands most criticized county. Best state in the mid-atlantic by far.

Except that it is just so wrong for UMD to be a Big Ten team. It's also wrong for the "Big Ten" to have eighteen teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Great news! Keeps Md the richest state in the USA!! These Va types ragging on PG county when PG county is richer than 23 counties in Va.

PG has..
a Big ten University
the FBI
the IRS
an NFL team
NASA
Census
Andrews AFB
FDA
NOAA
National Archives
Huge USDA presence


and thats Marylands most criticized county. Best state in the mid-atlantic by far.

That’s not much to brag about when Va. has 95 counties….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there's one thing about the GSA, they don't mess around. It's funny to me that people think the GSA will just openly partake in shady behavior, breaking the rules, as it relates to a high profile decision.

They have been very transparent about the process, it’s true. The issues is not their lack of transparency, the issue and questions people have is how did it come to pass that Nina Albert was appointed to replace the civil servant who was responsible, whether her participation should have been precluded due to perceived conflict of interest and whether her role in changing the criteria and overruling the panel recommendations were arbitrary and capacious.

The investigation will not be about GSA. The investigation is going to focus 100% on Nina Albert.

Nina Albert was appointed to her position back in 2021, before the decision was made. Comments were made and Administrator Carnaghan said she did not believe that Nina Albert had a conflict of interest. If this was truly the issue, then the Virginia delegation and the FBI director needed to make their objections at that time and request that the IG review Albert's appointment to the position. But, note, they had no problem with her as the person in that role, who had the final say on the decision, until she decided differently than they wanted. Talk about double-shotting. We're going to agree there is no problem if she sides with us, but we will complain about her appointment if she decides against us. Win-win. Wrong. They had no problem when she was appointed. That was when they should have raised their objections.

This is just sour grapes and grasping at straws. The procedure was followed. A panel was created to provide research and input to the administration who made the decision. Just like any executive who gets a report by staff members on feasibility, sometimes the executive decision does not follow the feasibility report recommendations. But the people in the decision making positions take input from several sources, only one of which is the report, to make their final decision. This happened. All above board. All explained in a 38-page report. All fine. The IG may look, but will not find any issue. Certainly no grounds for overturning this decision.

https://www.gsa.gov/system/files/Enclosure%201.2%20-%20N.Albert_Authorization%20Memo_7.6.21.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there's one thing about the GSA, they don't mess around. It's funny to me that people think the GSA will just openly partake in shady behavior, breaking the rules, as it relates to a high profile decision.

They have been very transparent about the process, it’s true. The issues is not their lack of transparency, the issue and questions people have is how did it come to pass that Nina Albert was appointed to replace the civil servant who was responsible, whether her participation should have been precluded due to perceived conflict of interest and whether her role in changing the criteria and overruling the panel recommendations were arbitrary and capacious.

The investigation will not be about GSA. The investigation is going to focus 100% on Nina Albert.

Nina Albert was part of the GSA's process. It's super-weird to single her out as though she were some random person who had nothing to do with the real GSA. And the conflict of interest consisted of what? Her stock options in WMATA?

The FBI Director and VA congressional delegation did not specify the alleged conflicts of interest. All of that will be investigated.

Not PP, but I agree that it is wrong to single out one person at GSA for scrutiny. The public also needs to know who made the decision to replace the career official originally selected as SSA with a political appointee. Was it the GSA administrator? What was her reasoning for this decision? It seems highly unusual.

GSA is messing with the wrong agency. The GSA lawyers may well be scrambling right now to put together after-the-fact rationalizations. But they cannot change what was done before. There is going to be a record.

If it turns out that there are reasonable explanations for all of the serious concerns raised in the letter that the VA congressional delegation sent to the Acting GSA IG, then the headquarters will probably end up in Greenbelt.

This actually doesn’t seem unusual at all if you know how the executive branch typically works. It is highly unusual for a career official to be the final decision maker in an agency, not the other way around. Politicals are supposed to set priorities and make decisions, and career officials are supposed to do the legwork to make it happen. Career officials only make big decisions if a political official has not been appointed or selected. Once a political is in place, it would be inappropriate for career officials to make decisions.

The FBI director described the decision to overturn the panel's decision as "exceedingly rare" or something to that effect. I think he knows something about how government works.

There were career professionals who were empowered to make this particular decision until they weren't.

The VA senators are serious people. They would not make allegations of corruption and political influence lightly. They are going against their own party.

Which allegations of corruption and political influence, specifically, have they made?

That will be part of the investigation. The GSA career officials will be able to describe to the IG.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there's one thing about the GSA, they don't mess around. It's funny to me that people think the GSA will just openly partake in shady behavior, breaking the rules, as it relates to a high profile decision.

They have been very transparent about the process, it’s true. The issues is not their lack of transparency, the issue and questions people have is how did it come to pass that Nina Albert was appointed to replace the civil servant who was responsible, whether her participation should have been precluded due to perceived conflict of interest and whether her role in changing the criteria and overruling the panel recommendations were arbitrary and capacious.

The investigation will not be about GSA. The investigation is going to focus 100% on Nina Albert.

Nina Albert was part of the GSA's process. It's super-weird to single her out as though she were some random person who had nothing to do with the real GSA. And the conflict of interest consisted of what? Her stock options in WMATA?

The FBI Director and VA congressional delegation did not specify the alleged conflicts of interest. All of that will be investigated.

Not PP, but I agree that it is wrong to single out one person at GSA for scrutiny. The public also needs to know who made the decision to replace the career official originally selected as SSA with a political appointee. Was it the GSA administrator? What was her reasoning for this decision? It seems highly unusual.

GSA is messing with the wrong agency. The GSA lawyers may well be scrambling right now to put together after-the-fact rationalizations. But they cannot change what was done before. There is going to be a record.

If it turns out that there are reasonable explanations for all of the serious concerns raised in the letter that the VA congressional delegation sent to the Acting GSA IG, then the headquarters will probably end up in Greenbelt.

This actually doesn’t seem unusual at all if you know how the executive branch typically works. It is highly unusual for a career official to be the final decision maker in an agency, not the other way around. Politicals are supposed to set priorities and make decisions, and career officials are supposed to do the legwork to make it happen. Career officials only make big decisions if a political official has not been appointed or selected. Once a political is in place, it would be inappropriate for career officials to make decisions.

The FBI director described the decision to overturn the panel's decision as "exceedingly rare" or something to that effect. I think he knows something about how government works.

There were career professionals who were empowered to make this particular decision until they weren't.

The VA senators are serious people. They would not make allegations of corruption and political influence lightly. They are going against their own party.

Which allegations of corruption and political influence, specifically, have they made?

That will be part of the investigation. The GSA career officials will be able to describe to the IG.

No, somebody specifically said the Virginia senators "made allegations of corruption and political influence." What allegations did they make?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there's one thing about the GSA, they don't mess around. It's funny to me that people think the GSA will just openly partake in shady behavior, breaking the rules, as it relates to a high profile decision.

They have been very transparent about the process, it’s true. The issues is not their lack of transparency, the issue and questions people have is how did it come to pass that Nina Albert was appointed to replace the civil servant who was responsible, whether her participation should have been precluded due to perceived conflict of interest and whether her role in changing the criteria and overruling the panel recommendations were arbitrary and capacious.

The investigation will not be about GSA. The investigation is going to focus 100% on Nina Albert.

Nina Albert was part of the GSA's process. It's super-weird to single her out as though she were some random person who had nothing to do with the real GSA. And the conflict of interest consisted of what? Her stock options in WMATA?

The FBI Director and VA congressional delegation did not specify the alleged conflicts of interest. All of that will be investigated.

Not PP, but I agree that it is wrong to single out one person at GSA for scrutiny. The public also needs to know who made the decision to replace the career official originally selected as SSA with a political appointee. Was it the GSA administrator? What was her reasoning for this decision? It seems highly unusual.

GSA is messing with the wrong agency. The GSA lawyers may well be scrambling right now to put together after-the-fact rationalizations. But they cannot change what was done before. There is going to be a record.

If it turns out that there are reasonable explanations for all of the serious concerns raised in the letter that the VA congressional delegation sent to the Acting GSA IG, then the headquarters will probably end up in Greenbelt.

This actually doesn’t seem unusual at all if you know how the executive branch typically works. It is highly unusual for a career official to be the final decision maker in an agency, not the other way around. Politicals are supposed to set priorities and make decisions, and career officials are supposed to do the legwork to make it happen. Career officials only make big decisions if a political official has not been appointed or selected. Once a political is in place, it would be inappropriate for career officials to make decisions.

The FBI director described the decision to overturn the panel's decision as "exceedingly rare" or something to that effect. I think he knows something about how government works.

There were career professionals who were empowered to make this particular decision until they weren't.

The VA senators are serious people. They would not make allegations of corruption and political influence lightly. They are going against their own party.

Which allegations of corruption and political influence, specifically, have they made?

That will be part of the investigation. The GSA career officials will be able to describe to the IG.

No, somebody specifically said the Virginia senators "made allegations of corruption and political influence." What allegations did they make?

They made shady allegations fully of innuendo. They implied that a former employee of WMATA who had no current ties to the agency had some sort of preference for WMATA over Springfield. The cost savings of nearly a billion dollars and the savings of years of time for development of the site, were inconsequential compared to her favoritism for her former employer and the fact that she currently lives in PG county. It is so much more important for her to pick her home county than to save the federal taxpayers 10 figures in federal waste.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Great news! Keeps Md the richest state in the USA!! These Va types ragging on PG county when PG county is richer than 23 counties in Va.

PG has..
a Big ten University
the FBI
the IRS
an NFL team
NASA
Census
Andrews AFB
FDA
NOAA
National Archives
Huge USDA presence


and thats Marylands most criticized county. Best state in the mid-atlantic by far.

Except that it is just so wrong for UMD to be a Big Ten team. It's also wrong for the "Big Ten" to have eighteen teams.

+2 I graduated from Indiana University - a real Big Ten school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Great news! Keeps Md the richest state in the USA!! These Va types ragging on PG county when PG county is richer than 23 counties in Va.

PG has..
a Big ten University
the FBI
the IRS
an NFL team
NASA
Census
Andrews AFB
FDA
NOAA
National Archives
Huge USDA presence


and that's Maryland's most criticized county. Best state in the mid-atlantic by far.

Just researched this. Was shocked to find that PG was richer than all but 4 Virginia counties (no I dont consider Alexandria City or Falls Church City counties...that's like calling Takoma Park or Chevy Chase a county).

PG is richer than 91 Virginia Counties. 10 Maryland counties are richer than PG so its at the tippy top of Virginia but only Middle of the pack for Md.

Its really not fair for the richest state in the country to stockpile even more wealth with the FBI headquarters, Va has 91 scrambling counties scurrying around for cash while Md just gets fatter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there's one thing about the GSA, they don't mess around. It's funny to me that people think the GSA will just openly partake in shady behavior, breaking the rules, as it relates to a high profile decision.

They have been very transparent about the process, it’s true. The issues is not their lack of transparency, the issue and questions people have is how did it come to pass that Nina Albert was appointed to replace the civil servant who was responsible, whether her participation should have been precluded due to perceived conflict of interest and whether her role in changing the criteria and overruling the panel recommendations were arbitrary and capacious.

The investigation will not be about GSA. The investigation is going to focus 100% on Nina Albert.

Nina Albert was part of the GSA's process. It's super-weird to single her out as though she were some random person who had nothing to do with the real GSA. And the conflict of interest consisted of what? Her stock options in WMATA?

The FBI Director and VA congressional delegation did not specify the alleged conflicts of interest. All of that will be investigated.

Not PP, but I agree that it is wrong to single out one person at GSA for scrutiny. The public also needs to know who made the decision to replace the career official originally selected as SSA with a political appointee. Was it the GSA administrator? What was her reasoning for this decision? It seems highly unusual.

GSA is messing with the wrong agency. The GSA lawyers may well be scrambling right now to put together after-the-fact rationalizations. But they cannot change what was done before. There is going to be a record.

If it turns out that there are reasonable explanations for all of the serious concerns raised in the letter that the VA congressional delegation sent to the Acting GSA IG, then the headquarters will probably end up in Greenbelt.

This actually doesn’t seem unusual at all if you know how the executive branch typically works. It is highly unusual for a career official to be the final decision maker in an agency, not the other way around. Politicals are supposed to set priorities and make decisions, and career officials are supposed to do the legwork to make it happen. Career officials only make big decisions if a political official has not been appointed or selected. Once a political is in place, it would be inappropriate for career officials to make decisions.

The FBI director described the decision to overturn the panel's decision as "exceedingly rare" or something to that effect. I think he knows something about how government works.

There were career professionals who were empowered to make this particular decision until they weren't.

The VA senators are serious people. They would not make allegations of corruption and political influence lightly. They are going against their own party.

Which allegations of corruption and political influence, specifically, have they made?

That will be part of the investigation. The GSA career officials will be able to describe to the IG.

No, somebody specifically said the Virginia senators "made allegations of corruption and political influence." What allegations did they make?

They made shady allegations fully of innuendo. They implied that a former employee of WMATA who had no current ties to the agency had some sort of preference for WMATA over Springfield. The cost savings of nearly a billion dollars and the savings of years of time for development of the site, were inconsequential compared to her favoritism for her former employer and the fact that she currently lives in PG county. It is so much more important for her to pick her home county than to save the federal taxpayers 10 figures in federal waste.

The actual savings number for Greenbelt is 40 million and the development timelines were the same. You can find both of those facts in GSA’s materials.

Both sites have risks — acquisition timeline for Greenbelt and relocating tenants at Springfield. Greenbelt also has half the buildable area and a more complicated site due to wetlands.

The panel felt the difference in buildable space was significant enough to favor Springfield and did not find a significant difference in schedule risk. The SSA found the opposite.