Treasury Department Admits Challenging Independence of TARP Inspector General

You don't need to test the entire food to know whether it is cooked properly. A sample is more than enough. Enough is already said. The analysis is complete. We now see scandals galore in Obama administration.

The scary part is, that for 2010/2012, there are few candidates from either party that would be likely to try to unwind the corruption.

"The request to clarify the SIGTARP’s complex legal status within the executive branch was sent to the Department of Justice only after Department of Treasury consulted with Mr. Barofsky who had no objection"

LOL, my mortgage is more complex than the language describing this SIGTARP position. Given the obvious nature and political importance of this IG, it is not even remotely possible that Treasury did not understand his positon & his authority!

Now, as more info comes to light (see if there were "transparency"...there would have already been light on this!!!)...we discover its part of the AIG Bonus issue...Hmmm...so where is Bumbling & Stumbling Barney Frank now? Why isn't he out there faking outrage at the Treasury Dept????

Yeah,...transparancy my butt!!!

On March 19, Barofsky, as the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP), announced he was launching an audit into the AIG fiasco. But when the watchdog went to Treasury to get documents on AIG, the Department initially refused to provide them.

Seems as though Treasury was not concerned in March about Barofsky's seat in some foolish org chart, or his authority. They did not want to hand over something at that time, the real question is what was it?

Why not just give him what he was asking for, Trasury had no reasons to withhold anything. Or DID THEY?

look out Timmy....the Obamabus is headed your way!

"Ah, the memo you linked finally loaded up. I think the paper trail is pretty clear on what's going on here - everything looks awfully above board, with the Inspector General being kept in the loop and agreeing with the request to the Office of Legal Council for clarification."

LOL...well, that "could" be one way on interpreting it...especially to a lefty!

If you bother to read the LAW....yes jlw...the LAW....

(c) Duties.--(1) It shall be the duty of the Special Inspector
General to conduct, supervise, and coordinate audits and investigations
of the purchase, management, and sale of assets by the Secretary of the
Treasury under any program established by the Secretary under section
101, and the management by the Secretary
of any program established under section 102, including by collecting
and summarizing the following information:
(A) A description of the categories of troubled assets
purchased or otherwise procured by the Secretary.
(B) A listing of the troubled assets purchased in each such
category described under subparagraph (A).
(C) An explanation of the reasons the Secretary deemed it
necessary to purchase each such troubled asset.
(D) A listing of each financial institution that such
troubled assets were purchased from.
(E) A listing of and detailed biographical information on
each person or entity hired to manage such troubled assets.
(F) A current estimate of the total amount of troubled
assets purchased pursuant to any program established under
section 101, the amount of troubled assets on the books of the
Treasury, the amount of troubled assets sold, and the profit and
loss incurred on each sale or disposition of each such troubled
asset.
(G) A listing of the insurance contracts issued under
section 102.

(2) The Special Inspector General shall establish, maintain, and
oversee such systems, procedures, and controls as the Special Inspector
General considers appropriate to discharge the duty under paragraph (1).

(3) In addition to the duties specified in paragraphs (1) and (2),
the Inspector General shall also have the duties and responsibilities of
inspectors general under the Inspector General Act of 1978.
(d) Powers and Authorities.--(1) In carrying out the duties
specified in subsection (c), the Special Inspector General shall have
the authorities provided in section 6 of the Inspector General Act of
1978.
(2) The Special Inspector General shall carry out the duties
specified in subsection (c)(1) in accordance with section 4(b)(1) of the
Inspector General Act of 1978.

Now the Inspector General Act of 1978...

There shall be at the head of each Office an
Inspector General who shall be appointed by the
President, by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate, without regard to political affiliation
and solely on the basis of integrity and
demonstrated ability in accounting, auditing, financial
analysis, law, management analysis,
public administration, or investigations. Each
Inspector General shall report to and be under
the general supervision of the head of the establishment
involved or, to the extent such authority
is delegated, the officer next in rank below
such head, but shall not report to, or be subject
to supervision by, any other officer of such establishment.
Neither the head of the establishment
nor the officer next in rank below such
head shall prevent or prohibit the Inspector
General from initiating, carrying out, or completing
any audit or investigation, or from issuing
any subpena during the course of any audit
or investigation.

Now EXACTLY where is the "fuzzy logic" coming from that is on display here from the Treasury Dept????

Anyway, Moving past all the fun language....Barofsky was confirmed in December, so why only NOW when he is requesting information does the Tresury Dept "question" his place in the federal org chart? TARP Money has been flying all over the place for months. No "peeps" from anyone else about this guys "authority"!

There is also this.....

Washington, DC – Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) released a
statement today with the news of the nomination of Neil Barofsky, a Federal prosecutor in
New York, to the post of Special Inspector General (IG) of the Troubled Assets Relief
Program. Baucus fought to include the Special IG requirement in the Emergency Economic
Stabilization Act of 2008 to protect taxpayer interests and guard against waste, fraud and
abuse in the Treasury’s new financial rescue program. The Senate Finance Committee will
hold a hearing on November 17, 2008, to question Mr. Barofsky about the position.
“I included the provision for an independent oversight authority because every
American is depending on us to track, defend, and recoup the dollars spent during this
rescue process. Hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer money has already been sent
out the door for this financial rescue. This effort urgently needs the stronger oversight
and increased accountability that the special Inspector General can provide. I will do
everything in my power to thoroughly and quickly vet Mr. Barofsky, and to see a
confirmed IG on the job without delay,” said Baucus. “I’ve said before that I don’t like
bailouts, and my support for the financial rescue program was conditioned on this
strong protection that the special IG can provide for taxpayers.”
The Special Inspector General will be independent from the Treasury Department, with
funding and full authority to audit and investigate. Baucus insisted that the office have
adequate resources to meet its goal of identifying and bringing to an end any fraud or abuse
of taxpayer funds used by the program. The Inspector General will be required to make his
or her first report to Congress within 60 days of confirmation.

That was in November when Barofsky was nominated!

Oh ...lets see, that was a DEMOCRATIC congress that wrote & passed the TARP law! Obama has repeatedly ... OVER & OVER...promised tranparency and accountability. A DEMOCRATIC controlled congress confimed Barofsky.

I guess with all that love ithe DEMOCRATIC house, they failed to tell the treasury dept about this guy and his LAWFUL duties????

Barofsky is being nice here, he could have just as easily made this a very big embarassment for Obama. The President should be rolling heads... that anyone even suggested this needs to be clarified is just plain stupid!

This is even more in evidence in the ever growing mountain of reasons WHY no SANE person would want the gov't to control "Universal Healthcare"

These are supposed to guys on the same team. This is like a tight end on a football team questioning the refs at halftime to see if the quarterback really has the authority to take the snap!

jhw539 says: "Ah, the memo you linked finally loaded up. I think the paper trail is pretty clear on what's going on here - everything looks awfully above board, with the Inspector General being kept in the loop and agreeing with the request to the Office of Legal Council for clarification."

Did you read the memo? The whole thing? The memo was written by the SIG that is being hassled by the Treasury. He outlines where there are disagreements on whether he is 1. A part of the Treasury Dept. 2. If he falls under the Treasury Sec. supervision 3. If attorney-client privilege can be invoked by the Treasury dept. to withhold info from the SIG. He states that the Emergency Economic Stability Act of 2008 states the following: 1. He is a part of Treasury and Funded by the Treasury. 2. He was specifically placed outside the supervision of the Treasury Sec. by congress in writing the EESA with that intent. 3. EESA requires that Treasury provide him with all documents, information, or assistance as he deems necessary. EESA does not include any exceptions for privileged material, thus rendering the withholding of any material a violation of EESA.

The paper trail you were so happy to see is one compiled by Barofsky refuting arguments that the Treasury Dept. has been making in not allowing Barofsky to do his job.

This is becoming Nixonian

We must question continually this admin. so we will know what's going on. Forget the legal jargon, what's the bottom line? Americans are being led down the path to destruction, and very rapidly.

Jake lost all credibility when he defended ABC's horrendous decision to run a commercial for Obama and the Dems.

2010, 2012.

Bob Q Public:"So far the explanation is being smothered in process. "

? What does that mean? The explanation is being smothered by publicly available document clearly outlining the facts of the case?

Why do I get the feeling that this back and forth serves merely to obscure the real issue--was an inspector general fired without cause by the administration? So far the explanation is being smothered in process. That alone indicates a lack of confidence in the behavior thus far.

I'm glad I'm not some lefty troll trying to defend this Inspector General mess. Talk about cognitive dissonance!

chip:"Sen. Dem. Claire McCaskill said Obama did break the law in trying to fire Walpin on the spot. "

Please provide the quote. All I have seen reported is that she did not accept Obama's original "loss of confidence" rationale as adequate to comply with the law. I look forward to the actual quote from McCaskill where she "said Obama did break the law in trying to fire Walpin on the spot," although I suspect you completely fabricated that accusation.

"Why don't you finish running down the Walpin story? Or when it became clear no law was actually broken and all appropriate Congressional oversight is occurring did you lose interest?"

Eh? Sen. Dem. Claire McCaskill said Obama did break the law in trying to fire Walpin on the spot. She would know because she sponsored the bill that set up the IG -- with co-sponsor Sen. Obama.

So not only did Obama attempt to break the law, he tried to break one that he sponsored.

There was a time when people used to get very upset about presidents abusing their authority. That was so last year.

Ah, the memo you linked finally loaded up. I think the paper trail is pretty clear on what's going on here - everything looks awfully above board, with the Inspector General being kept in the loop and agreeing with the request to the Office of Legal Council for clarification.

"The request to clarify the SIGTARP’s complex legal status within the executive branch was sent to the Department of Justice only after Department of Treasury consulted with Mr. Barofsky who had no objection,"... Williams did note that ultimately "all documents requested by the SIGTARP have been produced to date."

Wow. What a scandal. Two departments are wrangling over the org chart and ask the DOJ to referee. How long to the impeachment?

Why don't you finish running down the Walpin story? Or when it became clear no law was actually broken and all appropriate Congressional oversight is occurring did you lose interest?

Jake, this gets deeper and deeper. Will we find out the identity of the recipient? Oh hell, why am I even asking?
Keep up your work, Jake. There are so many smoking guns, I feel like we are reliving the shoot-out at OK Corral.