Executive Departments Part 2

[GreyhoundFan]

More fun with Scotty: "Pruitt’s Dinner With Cardinal Accused of Abuse Was Kept Off Public Schedule"

Spoiler

WASHINGTON — Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, dined last year in Rome with Cardinal George Pell, a prominent climate-science denialist and Vatican leader who was also facing sexual abuse allegations. The E.P.A. later released official descriptions of the dinner that intentionally did not mention the cardinal’s presence, according to three current and former E.P.A. officials.

Kevin Chmielewski, Mr. Pruitt’s former deputy chief of staff for operations, said in an interview that top political appointees at the agency feared that the meeting would reflect poorly on Mr. Pruitt if it were made public. Twenty days after the dinner, authorities in Australia charged Cardinal Pell with sexual assault; he has denied the charges.

“It was a no-brainer,” Mr. Chmielewski said of the decision to keep Cardinal Pell’s participation quiet. His account was confirmed by two people who were familiar with the handling of the trip, who spoke on condition of anonymity out of concern over retribution.

On Friday, Jahan Wilcox, an E.P.A. spokesman, issued a statement confirming the June 9 meal took place while emphasizing that it “was not a private one-on-one dinner” and saying that Mr. Pruitt wasn’t aware of the allegations against Cardinal Pell. He also said the E.P.A. had no knowledge the cardinal would be attending the dinner.

However, emails obtained through the Freedom of Information Act show that as early as May 12, Mr. Pruitt’s scheduler, Millan Hupp, was working on plans for Mr. Pruitt to meet with Cardinal Pell. “Dinner with Cardinal Pell and others,” an email says, proposing the dinner for June 7 and adding, “Note: His 76th birthday is tomorrow.”

The dinner Cardinal Pell attended ultimately took place June 9 at La Terrazza, a restaurant in the five-star Hotel Eden overlooking Rome.

An internal debate over whether to proceed with any meeting with Cardinal Pell had begun well before Mr. Pruitt left for Italy, according to three current and former agency officials. Mark Kasman, a career E.P.A. official who helps supervise international affairs at the agency, found media reports describing the allegations against Cardinal Pell and approached Mr. Chmielewski with them, Mr. Chmielewski said, urging the agency to cancel any such meetings.

Cardinal Pell has been under investigation in connection with sexual abuse allegations since 2016.

Mr. Kasman, reached in Morocco where he was attending a meeting with other United States government officials, referred questions to the agency’s Office of Public Affairs.

Cardinal Pell’s presence at the dinner was initially revealed in E.P.A. emails obtained by the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, this week. “I am at dinner with Cardinal Pell and Mr. Pruitt,” Samantha Dravis, Mr. Pruitt’s former policy chief, wrote the evening of the dinner to another Vatican official.

Ms. Dravis, reached Friday, said she did not know about the investigation into Cardinal Pell at the time of the dinner.

At the dinner, Mr. Pruitt and Cardinal Pell discussed a plan of Mr. Pruitt’s to stage public debates challenging the established science of climate change, the email shows.

The emails also show that much of Mr. Pruitt’s time in Rome was spent attending events recommended or arranged by Leonard A. Leo, executive vice president of the Federalist Society, a conservative organization that promotes limits on federal regulations. The May emails suggest that Mr. Leo was involved in planning for a dinner.

Mr. Leo did not respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Chmielewski said that a move to keep Cardinal Pell off official schedules came after Cardinal Pell was charged on June 29. Senior members of the agency’s leadership team agreed that it was best not to list Cardinal Pell’s name in any official schedule the agency would release, according to Mr. Chmielewski and a second agency official. Mr. Chmielewski said that he personally shared that view.

At least four versions of Mr. Pruitt’s formal and detailed schedules for his week in Italy — one posted online, and three released under the Freedom of Information Act — have been obtained by The New York Times. Two of them list individual attendees at the dinner, including Mr. Pruitt and his chief of staff, Ryan Jackson. None include Cardinal Pell’s name.

Mr. Chmielewski joined the E.P.A. in 2017 after having worked on Republican presidential campaigns. Earlier this year, he said, he was fired from the agency for challenging Mr. Pruitt’s spending decisions. Mr. Pruitt faces 11 investigations into his spending and management practices at the agency. Mr. Pruitt testified to Congress recently that Mr. Chmielewski resigned.

Mr. Jackson said that neither he nor the administrator was informed about the investigation into Cardinal Pell before the trip. He also said discussions about leaving Cardinal Pell’s name off the schedules never took place.

“The only ever conversation that happened was, ‘Hey, these schedules change so quickly that we need to be really diligent about keeping the records of what actually happened,’” Mr. Jackson said. He added that he did not know why Cardinal Pell’s name did not appear on official schedules, but noted that schedules are fast-moving and participants change frequently. “Documents change every five minutes, to be entirely candid with you,” he said.

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[candygirl200413]

So just like orange fuckface, it's perfectly fine when it's their relatives cause they are the right color. Everyone else is not. 

Instead of being the responsible one, he is just another one of them, racist and horrible. 

[fraurosena]

5 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

 

What a great idea, Yosemite Sam! Because Europe will never think of posing retaliatory sanctions on America, now would they? 

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[fraurosena]

Sweet Rufus. They're more worried about bad PR than they are about public health.

Trump officials feared PR 'nightmare' from drinking water standards

Quote

Officials at the White House and Environment Protection Agency (EPA) fretted about a public relations "nightmare" from an agency’s expected move to change suggested standards for fluorinated chemicals in drinking water, according to internal emails.

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), which is part of the Centers for Disease Control, is currently readjusting its standards for acceptable levels of the chemical in drinking water and is expected to propose that safe levels be almost six times stricter than EPA's current recommendation. 

Internal Trump administration emails, that the Union of Concerned Scientists obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, paint a picture of an administration bracing for the heightened standards, fearing the conflicting guidance's impact on other parts of the federal government.

In one of the emails obtained and first reported by Politico on Monday, an unnamed White House intergovernmental affairs official called the expected fallout from the stronger recommendations "extremely painful."

“The public, media and Congressional reaction to these new numbers is going to be huge,” the official wrote in a letter forwarded to the EPA. “The impact to EPA and DoD [the Department of Defense] is going to be extremely painful. We (DoD and EPA) cannot seem to get ATSDR to realize the potential public relations nightmare this is going to be.”

Fluorinated chemicals are used by a number of industries, including in products such as hoses to reduce emissions for cars and planes, sterile equipment used in pharmaceuticals, and stain resistance in clothing and nonstick cookware. But the chemicals are also associated with serious health risks, including kidney and testicular cancer.

Another series of emails between agency officials show that the EPA and the Pentagon sought to get interagency review of the rule before publishing, but as one EPA staffer wrote, "It seems like [the ATSDR] want to roll out [the report] and do they [sic] own thing.” 

The exchange reported that ATSDR Director Patrick Breysse provided the proposed levels to EPA officials but would not give the other agencies a full draft of the proposal or say when the standards would be formally published in the Federal Register.

One conversation between EPA officials discussed the wide differences between the level sought by ATSDR and those cited by the EPA in its own study. Peter Grevatt, director of the EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, remarked that while ATSDR said its drinking water intake level doesn't not differ significantly from EPA's health advisory, "I think it's important to note that we disagree with the perspective that there is not a significant difference between our drinking water values."

The ATSDR is responsible for defining minimal risk levels in drinking water, estimated as the daily safe exposure to a hazardous substance that is most likely to be without risks over time.

In their exchanges, agency officials feared how the public and the media would react to the stricter standards, which EPA staffers said was based on a different study than the EPA based its findings.

At least one environmental group viewed the exchange as EPA's attempt to circumvent the tougher drinking water standards.

“Unlike Scott Pruitt’s Pollution Protection Agency, there is still one government agency clearly trying to safeguard the public from these dangerous chemicals,” Environmental Working Group President Ken Cook said in a statement Monday. “Only Scott Pruitt and the Trump administration would consider reducing drinking water contamination for the American people to be a ‘nightmare.’ ”

While the ATSDR's recommendations are nonbinding and don't force the EPA to change its standards, they are considered important screening levels.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

More fun with Scotty: "Scott Pruitt requested, received 24/7 security starting on his first day at EPA"

Spoiler

Scott Pruitt began receiving round-the-clock security from the moment he stepped foot inside the Environmental Protection Agency in February 2017, at the behest of a Trump administration political appointee, according to emails obtained by The Washington Post.

The EPA’s inspector general said in a letter Monday that Pruitt got extensive protection from the very start of his tenure but did not clarify who requested it. The separate series of emails obtained by The Washington Post shows that the decision to provide Pruitt with 24/7 coverage was made by Don Benton, a Republican former Washington state senator who served as the agency’s senior White House adviser in the first weeks of the new administration.

“EPA’s Protective Service Detail began providing 24/7 coverage of the Administrator the first day he arrived,” Inspector General Arthur Elkins wrote in response to inquiries from Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.) about what threats prompted Pruitt’s nonstop security, which has cost in excess of $3 million. “The decision was made by the Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics and Training after being informed that Mr. Pruitt requested 24/7 protection once he was confirmed as Administrator.”

The inspector general’s office, which investigates threats made against any EPA employee, “played no role in this decision,” Elkins added.

In a Feb. 12, 2017, email to several EPA security officials, Benton framed the decision as a precautionary measure given the controversy sure to ensue from some of the president’s early policy decisions. “I have requested 24-7 protection for the new administrator for the first week at least and then evaluate from there,” Benton wrote.

“There will be several Executive Orders signed when [Pruitt] is sworn in that will likely stir the hornets nest and with the security issue in the Atlanta office last week as well as the lady who threatened former administrator [Gina] McCarthy not showing up for court and at large in DC it is best to be on the safe side,” he continued.

EPA officials discussed the increased costs and strain on the agency’s criminal-investigations division that would stem from such a move. The acting special agent in charge, Eric Weese, wrote colleagues that nonstop protection would entail doubling the number of agents on Pruitt’s security detail to 16.

Weese predicted this would be “a major disruption” to the division’s assets in the Mid-Atlantic region, “but there will be no other way to pull this off.”

Agency spokesman Jahan Wilcox said in a statement Monday that, “as the report says, EPA’s Office of Inspector General does not determine security assessments. EPA’s Protective Service Detail handles security decisions and this particular decision was made before Administrator Pruitt arrived at EPA.”

Some Cabinet members routinely receive heightened security as part of their jobs, including the secretaries of defense, state and homeland security. FBI agents accompany the attorney general around the clock. But for other Cabinet posts, the level of protection varies, based on circumstances. Early in the Trump administration, for example, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos received a full protective detail, at an estimated initial cost of $1 million a month.

At the EPA, prior administrators have not typically received 24/7 protection. Pruitt’s immediate predecessor, McCarthy, typically had a security detail that accompanied her to work each day, to meetings and to events and dropped her off at home each night. The detail also traveled with her on official business. But McCarthy’s detail was roughly a third of the size of the one that guards Pruitt.

“While I did get threats, I did not feel like I was particularly under threat,” McCarthy said in a recent interview. She said she declined the agents’ proposal that she expand her protection. “I did what I thought was the minimum.”

Agency officials, including Pruitt, have said repeatedly that he has experienced far more threats than previous administrators. And Pruitt has maintained that he left decisions about the size and intensity of his security detail, as well as related decisions such as traveling first class for safety, to Pasquale “Nino” Perrotta, the special agent in charge who took over after Weese was reassigned.

Perrotta, who has been under scrutiny for the expenditures related to Pruitt’s security and travel, retired from the agency late last month.

Grilled at a hearing on Capitol Hill last month about the need for such extensive security, Pruitt read directly from a list of alleged threats the inspector general had compiled last summer, including one posted on social media that read: “Pruitt, I’m gonna find you and put a bullet between your eyes. Don’t think I’m joking. I’m planning this.”

The 14 incidents collected by the inspector general to that point also included a “potentially threatening postcard” from a person who “expressed regret and apologized” when confronted by investigators, as well as a letter from a prison inmate that authorities concluded “did not reveal any overt threatening language.”

There were no confirmed threat cases open the day Pruitt took office, according to an individual with direct knowledge of the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of retaliation.

Elkins made clear in his letter Monday that his office “has never conducted a ‘threat assessment’ ” for Pruitt — a broader, more formal evaluation used to help determine what level and type of protection is warranted for an official.

“It includes all available information, including the results of threat investigations, but also other factors, such as notoriety, history of threats or violence directed against the person or event, other dangers or potentials dangers that may be associated with the person or event, and location,” Elkins wrote, adding, “The OIG is not a decision-maker for the EPA.”

Elkins said that the EPA’s front office asked the inspector general to undertake such an assessment in February 2017 but that he “declined and informed EPA management that it is not the role of the OIG to provide a threat assessment.” Later, he wrote, his office provided the list of threats it had investigated to Pruitt’s protective service detail, which was in the process of preparing its own threat assessment.

Perrotta wrote a brief memo May 1, 2017, requesting approval for Pruitt to begin flying first and business class whenever possible, based on security concerns. Perrotta said that Pruitt was being recognized more often in public and that those guarding him had noticed “at times lashing out from passengers which occurs while the Administrator is seated in coach with [his personal security detail] not easily accessible to him due to uncontrolled full flights.”

As a result, Perrotta wanted a way to better control the environment around the EPA chief. “We believe that the continued use of coach seats for the Administrator would endanger his life,” he said. Earlier this year, after a public outcry over the cost of his travels, Pruitt said he instructed his detail to again seat him in coach class whenever feasible.

Whitehouse and Carper, who requested the information that Elkins ultimately provided Monday, said in a statement that Pruitt’s decision to request full-time security from the moment he took over at the EPA raises questions about his previous claims.

“A threat to a federal employee’s personal security is extremely serious, but so is using security as pretext for special treatment on the public dime,” the senators said. “This letter raises troubling questions about whether Administrator Pruitt told the truth during his testimony before the House. Now more than ever, Mr. Pruitt should come clean about his spending of taxpayer dollars on all manner of extravagances, and our colleagues on both sides of the aisle should demand he do so.”

 

[AmazonGrace]

More Fun with Scotty The Emails Edition: 

 

Nikki Haley is evil : 

 

[onekidanddone]

Not sure where to put this because I don't think ICE falls under the Executive branch. But so be it.

David Simon does not mince words.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump’s pick to run Labor’s pension agency: Mitch McConnell’s brother-in-law"

Spoiler

President Trump has selected a Washington outsider to head the government agency responsible for paying back dissolved pensions.

That might be welcome news for Trump voters who want the president to fulfill a promise to “drain the swamp” and rid the capital of the politically connected.

Yet Trump’s nominee, Gordon Hartogensis, is well known to some of Washington’s most politically influential people: He is the brother-in-law of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and McConnell’s wife, Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao.

Chao’s sister, Grace, is married to Hartogensis.

Hartogensis was nominated to direct the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, a Labor Department agency that collects insurance premiums from sponsors of defined-benefit plans and pays out benefits when companies cannot meet their obligations.

His nomination requires confirmation by the Senate. If confirmed, he would replace W. Thomas Reeder Jr., an Obama administration official appointed in October 2015.

Hartogensis declined to comment when reached by phone Tuesday. His current position is managing his family’s trust, according to his LinkedIn page.

His nomination by Trump raised questions among government ethics experts on the selection process and vetting for Hartogensis, a nominee with no apparent public service experience or direct insight into the agency’s mission.

“The White House’s process for naming and vetting candidates is flawed,” Scott Amey, the general counsel for the Washington-based Project on Government Oversight, said Tuesday. “This seems to be another example of who you know rather than what you know.”

Amey, an expert on government ethics, told The Washington Post that the latest nomination is a “pattern for this administration that raises red flags about how seriously they’re taking the daily operation of the government.”

Another example Amey cited: Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson inviting his businessman son on a Baltimore “listening tour” that agency officials warned would violate ethics rules.

In a statement, the White House said Hartogensis’s recent experience as an investment manager makes him uniquely qualified to run the agency. He is expected to turn around the office’s growing problems, including a deficit that has doubled since 2013, the White House said.

The Presidential Personnel Office, a White House operation that recruits and vets appointees, has itself been beset by questions about inexperience and mismanagement following a Post investigation in March.

It was unclear Tuesday if McConnell or Chao made a recommendation based on their familial relationship with Hartogensis.

The White House declined to address questions about Hartogensis’s connections to Trump’s Cabinet and McConnell, and if Chao or McConnell played a role in his nomination.

The Department of Transportation and a spokeswoman for McConnell declined to comment, referring queries to the White House.

According to a White House statement, Hartogensis is “an investor and technology sector leader with experience managing financial equities, bonds, private placements, and software development.”

Hartogensis does not appear to have any government experience as he readies for a job that protects the current and future pensions of 1.5 million people.

Before managing the family trust, according to his LinkedIn page, he was the chief executive and co-founder of Auric Technology from 2004 until he left the software company in 2011. He previously worked in senior positions at other technology companies.

Hartogensis would head the agency as it struggles with a number of crises, particularly one caused by the growing number of multi-employer plans that are severely underfunded and projected to become insolvent.

According to its last annual report, the PBGC’s program for multi-employer pensions ran a widening deficit of $65.1 billion, while its deficit for single-employer plans had contracted to $10.9 billion. Those deficits represent the gap between the agency’s assets and its liabilities.

Sigh.

[onekidanddone]

40 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"Trump’s pick to run Labor’s pension agency: Mitch McConnell’s brother-in-law"

Sigh.

I'm SHOCKED I tell you... SHOCKED..

errr, no I'm not.

[GreyhoundFan]

I love Dana Milbank: "Crank up the siren. Scott Pruitt has an emergency."

Spoiler

Turn on the flashing lights and crank up the siren: Scott Pruitt has an emergency.

President Trump’s embattled EPA administrator is an important man. He does not like to wait in traffic. So, according to CBS News, he let it be known that he wanted his security detail to use police lights and sirens when taking him to the airport, meetings and social events — even though such emergency equipment is for, well, emergencies.

Confronted Wednesday by a Senate committee, Pruitt said the siren-and-lights thing was a false alarm.

“There have been reports that you encouraged the use of lights and sirens on your motorcade even though there wasn’t an emergency,” said Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.).

“I don’t recall that happening,” Pruitt maintained.

Udall rephrased. “You personally requested that on a number of trips,” he charged.

“No,” Pruitt insisted. “I don’t recall that.”

It was then that Udall revealed a just-released February 2017 email from Pruitt’s head of security, Pasquale “Nino” Perrotta. Subject: “Lights and Sirens.” The body consisted of one line: “Btw — Administrator encourages the use.”

The email was sent to Pruitt’s security detail, including Eric Weese, who was reportedly demoted after he refused to drive with lights and siren, and John Martin, who was also removed from the detail after raising objections to Pruitt’s security procedures.

Throw that log on Pruitt’s five-alarm blaze of cartoonish corruption, as his explanations go up in smoke.

The $3 million, 24/7 security detail that accompanied him to Disneyland and the Rose Bowl? Pruitt suggested that came from a threat assessment, but the EPA’s inspector general reported this week that Pruitt requested the protection when he started the job.

His $43,000 soundproof phone booth? The Government Accountability Office said last month that it violated the law.

The EPA official who served as Pruitt’s personal real estate representative? Pruitt said she did that on her own time but he admitted Wednesday he didn’t pay her for it — possibly making it an illegal gift.

He is the subject of no fewer than 15 investigations by various federal entities. Actually, make that 16: Udall requested another Wednesday, into the EPA allegedly using taxpayer money for partisan social media.

The president, and many congressional Republicans, have stuck with Pruitt, presumably because he has proven skilled at dismantling the EPA. But is there nobody else who can dismantle the EPA without acting like he’s the Sultan of Brunei?

“I am concerned that many of the important policy efforts that you are engaged in are being overshadowed,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) advised Pruitt.

Ya think?

There’s his affection for first-class travel, because, as Perrotta put it, “we believe that the continued use of coach seats for the Administrator would endanger his life.”

There’s his sweetheart deal on a $50-a-night D.C. condo, leased from the wife of a lobbyist.

There’s his trip to Morocco arranged by a lobbyist who then won a contract from the Moroccan government.

There’s the stacking of EPA advisory committees and the prioritizing of projects recommended by donors and lobbyists.

There’s the attempted exploitation of the Safe Drinking Water Act to give raises to top Pruitt aides, and the Pruitt friend who got a top EPA job but didn’t show up at work for months.

There are also the bulletproof vests, biometric locks, office decorations, luxury hotels, dubious trips and more.

Udall, usually one of the mildest members of the Senate, denounced Pruitt as “disastrous” and “a betrayal of the American people.”

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) mocked Pruitt’s security (“nobody even knows who you are”) and called him a “laughingstock.”

Pruitt maintained a placid expression; only his legs jiggling under the witness table betrayed his agitation. He said nothing about ethical problems in his opening statement and, when prompted, said the allegations are motivated by policy disagreements. He blamed his predecessors for failing to develop “processes . . . to prevent certain abuses.” (Maybe a “No $43,000 Phone Booths” sign in his office and an “Emergency Use Only” label on his siren?)

He also blamed the decision for him to have 24/7 security on “law enforcement career officials” — even though emails reported this week by The Post show the decision was made by a Trump political appointee.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) asked Pruitt why, given that he requested 24/7 security on day one, he justified the security by citing an August 2017 report on threats against him.

“That’s not the case,” Pruitt replied.

No? Just a few weeks ago, Pruitt read from the August 2017 “threat investigation” when asked by a House committee to justify his extensive security.

Pruitt’s abuses of office are catching up with him — and no quantity of bodyguards, biometric locks, sirens and flashing lights can protect him.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"A perk for friends of the Zinkes: Guided tours through National Park Service sites"

Spoiler

A personalized visit to Joshua Tree National Park. A spin through the West Wing, guided by White House staffers. And a trip to the top of the Lincoln Memorial, which is closed to the public.

Such VIP tours of National Park Service sites, some at the height of the tourist season, came at the request of either Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke or his wife, Lola, according to records obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. Several excursions were scheduled specifically for friends and acquaintances.

Under both Democratic and Republican presidents, top Interior officials have long given lawmakers and White House officials tours of Park Service sites and other courtesies at the agency’s disposal. Several Obama administration officials — including Vice President Joe Biden — stayed for free at the Brinkerhoff Lodge in Grand Teton National Park, only to reimburse the government later when their visits came under fire after a FOIA disclosure.

Zinke and his aides have offered similar opportunities, while his wife has pressed for such access as well, the records and interviews with current and former Interior employees show.

In the past 14 months, according to documents obtained in separate FOIA requests by The Washington Post and the advocacy group Western Values Project, the Zinkes have arranged for acquaintances and administration officials to get special tours of the Lincoln Memorial, including areas where the public is not allowed. At taxpayer expense, they took a yacht broker — who once sold Lola Zinke a boat — on a work trip to California’s Channel Islands National Park. An aide said the secretary described the man as one of three guests who were “subject matter experts” and could offer “personal testimony” about the area.

Don Hellmann, who headed the Park Service’s office for legislative and congressional affairs for eight of his 22 years with the agency, said in an interview that Zinke and his aides appear to be devoting a disproportionate amount of time to arranging VIP tours.

“What I personally find ironic about this is that they can’t seem to find the time to perform the basic functions of government, such as nominating the director of the National Park Service after not having one for a year and a half,” said Hellmann, who sits on the executive council of the Coalition to Protect America’s Parks. “Yet they seem to find the time to enjoy all the perks that come with the office.”

Interior Department spokeswoman Heather Swift said in an email Thursday that the secretary “uses his own personal time to give tours of the Lincoln Memorial to employees, reporters, and the general public several times per month because he believes the more people who experience our parks, the better.” (Post reporters were invited on a May 1 tour but did not attend because of scheduling conflicts.)

The department did not comment on the involvement of Zinke’s wife. The records released suggest that her interest in booking tours with Park Service rangers — for herself or associates — has raised some internal concerns.

In an email July 4, the secretary’s scheduler Caroline Boulton informed Interior’s director of scheduling and advance at the time, Rusty Roddy said that Lola Zinke had started going “directly” to Elaine Hackett, the Park Service’s congressional liaison for “tours, etc.” As a result, the email noted, the secretary’s staff needed “better communication” with liaison Elaine Hackett.

One day earlier, Hackett appears to have set up a personalized “mini tour” of the Mall for Lola Zinke. On the eve of the capital’s traditional Fourth of July celebration, it was the only Mall tour scheduled that day, according to one email.

Swift herself has questioned how much time park rangers should devote to providing VIPs with special access when tourist demand is high. Last summer, she directed Glacier National Park officials to scale back a visit for Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg, leaving Glacier Superintendent Jeff Mow and a U.S. Geological Survey climate expert off the itinerary.

At the time, she noted in an email that most of the park’s 3 million visitors come in the summer and that allocating more extensive “government resources to a celebrity would have been a waste of money and a disservice to average parkgoers.”

Ryan Zinke personally arranged two custom White House tours for friends affiliated with the Navy SEAL program last year, according to public records. His scheduler emailed one of the friends to explain, “This isn’t the normal self-led East Wing tour, but are instead led by White House staffers so they can answer any questions and provide background.”

On May 17, 2017, Hackett arranged for “two friends from England” of Lola Zinke’s to get a guided tour of Joshua Tree National Park in California. Writing to park Superintendent David Smith, Hackett confirmed the details of the tour, closing, “You saved my day!!”

And Jon Jorgenson, the yacht broker involved in Lola Zinke’s boat purchase, accompanied her and the secretary on an official tour of the Channel Islands in April 2017. Asked to clarify why Jorgenson should participate in the trip, Interior’s scheduling director told department lawyers that he could “offer personal testimony to help the Secretary understand issues facing the islands.”

The broker did not return a call seeking comment.

While most of the individuals who received personal tours expressed their appreciation of Park Service staffers, at least one person complained after he did not receive the special access Zinke had promised.

The Montana resident, who had dined with the secretary after they ran into each other in March 2017 at a Big Sky fundraiser for Sen. Steve Daines (R), emailed Zinke’s scheduler to explain that he and his wife had been invited to Washington for a VIP visit. “He regaled us with the excitement of seeing what is underneath the Lincoln Memorial, for example,” the man wrote Caroline Boulton.

But after the tour the next month, a follow-up email told Boulton that he was heading home with “great disappointment” because the memorial’s basement had been off limits.

Boulton replied that park staffers were reluctant to allow people there because of safety concerns and that the Park Service had even “turned the Secretary’s wife away once when she went without him to the memorial recently so we are working to try to come to a suitable conclusion with them.”

 

[Howl]

Good time to revisit Zinke's record on SEAL Team 6, which seems to be a good indicator of his character flaws then, making his continuing and current actions not at all surprising.  This was all over the news back in December 2016 through January 2017 during Zinke's confirmation hearing.  But did it stop Zinke's confirmation?  Oh, hells no!  This is from a Website called The Intercept, but there are numerous articles with the same information online from the same time period. Just google.  

TRUMP’S PICK FOR INTERIOR SECRETARY WAS CAUGHT IN “PATTERN OF FRAUD” AT SEAL TEAM 6

Quote

 

But when Zinke was a mid-career officer at SEAL Team 6, he was caught traveling multiple times to Montana in 1998 and 1999 to renovate his home. Zinke claimed that the travel was for official duties, according to the sources.

He submitted travel vouchers and was compensated for the travel costs.

Two SEAL officers investigated Zinke’s records and discovered a yearslong “pattern of travel fraud,” according to two of the sources. When confronted about the trips, Zinke acknowledged that he spent the time repairing and restoring a home in Whitefish, Montana, and visiting his mother, according to two retired SEAL Team 6 leaders. The future lawmaker eventually told SEAL leaders that the Montana house was where he intended to live after he retired from the Navy.

After Zinke was caught and warned, he continued to travel home and submit the expenses to the Navy. The offense would normally have been serious enough to have ended Zinke’s career, but senior officers at SEAL Team 6 did not formally punish him. Zinke could have been referred for criminal charges, or subjected to a nonjudicial proceeding that would have censured him, likely removing him from the unit. Neither of those things happened, and he was allowed to finish his assignment at the elite unit.

While he received no formal punishment, he was told he would not be allowed to return to the elite unit for future assignments, according to the sources. Zinke continued his career, and he was eventually promoted to Navy commander, the rank he retired at in 2008.

A retired SEAL Team 6 leader said that Zinke wasn’t punished because of concerns over the impact on his family if he was pushed out of the Navy or had his rank reduced.

According to a former SEAL Team 6 leader, the officer who submitted evidence documenting Zinke’s misconduct was “incensed” that he wasn’t punished. Three of the sources said the lack of formal punishment was part of a tradition at SEAL Team 6 of avoiding scandal and failing to adequately hold its officers accountable for criminal behavior and other misconduct.

 

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

How long until he gets fired?

[Audrey2]

This time, I'm questioning the National Park Service.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/interior-moves-lift-restrictions-hunting-bears-wolves-214244969--politics.html

Quote

The Trump administration is moving to reverse Obama-era rules barring hunters on some public lands in Alaska from baiting brown bears with bacon and doughnuts and using spotlights to shoot mother black bears and cubs hibernating in their dens.

The National Park Service issued a notice Monday of its intent to amend regulations for sport hunting and trapping in national preserves to bring the federal rules in line with Alaska state law.

Under the proposed changes, hunters would also be allowed to hunt black bears with dogs, kill wolves and pups in their dens, and use motor boats to shoot swimming caribou.

I am not entirely against hunting in general. After losing the predators at the top of the food chain, I know how overrun many states have been with deer. My brother has hit two of them- thankfully, he wasn't injured either time. My grandparents also hit at least one, and a teacher at my high school almost died from a collision with a deer. I know of many people, myself included, who have had near misses. If the animals in this article are suffering from overpopulation, starvation, or disease, I can understand that. What I can't reconcile is killing mama and baby bears and wolves in their den, and the other atrocious ways they intend to let hunters hunt. It seems to take all of the sporting out of hunting. I'm also much more comfortable hunting animals for food than for a trophy.

[AmazonGrace]

More fun with Scotty: 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump officials’ infinite capacity for self-debasement"

Spoiler

The Post reports:

House Democrats are questioning Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen’s commitment to improving election security after she told reporters that she is unfamiliar with a key finding in the intelligence community’s assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 election: that the Kremlin intended to help President Trump win.

Several top members of the party said they are unsure whether Nielsen was being serious or simply playing politics when she said she was unaware of the intelligence community’s conclusions. They surmised she might have been trying to avoid upsetting Trump, who — along with House Republicans — has sought to discredit the idea that Russia favored his candidacy over that of former secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

After Democrats mocked Nielsen’s professed ignorance, the Department of Homeland Security went into damage control. However, its statement didn’t entirely exonerate her; in fact it seemed to double down on the message that the aim of the Russian scheme wasn’t meant to hurt Hillary Clinton specifically. DHS press secretary Tyler Houlton said in a statement Tuesday that Nielsen

“has previously reviewed the Intelligence Community’s assessment and agrees with it – as she stated today and previously.

“She also very clearly articulated today that the Russian government unequivocally worked to undermine our democracy during the 2016 election. Russian goals included undermining faith in the US democratic process and harming a candidate’s electability and potential presidency. Importantly, they targeted both major political parties. As the Secretary reiterated, their intent was to sow discord in the American electoral process.”

But Russia didn’t help both sides equally; its spies and operatives weighed in for Trump’s benefit. That was the unanimous conclusion of intelligence professionals. As my colleague Aaron Blake points out, the language in their January 2017 report was straightforward. (“We also assess [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.”) Blake also notes that the DHS spokesman offered another explanation for his boss’s comment, with Houlton saying that “the question asked by the reporter did not reflect the specific language in the assessment itself, so the secretary correctly stated she had not seen the conclusion as characterized by the reporter.” Make what you will of that, but the DHS still would not acknowledge that Nielsen was aware of the very specific finding that contradicts weeks and months of Trump’s attempts to deny that he was given a helping hand by Russians.

We find it remarkable that Nielsen would choose to appear ignorant, if not dim, rather than admit to facts the president doesn’t like to hear. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the heads of our intelligence agencies have acknowledged that the aim was to help Trump. She nevertheless persists in her refusal to speak truth to the American people. Even casual news observers know that, from the hack and release of Democratic National Committee emails, the anti-Clinton social media themes, the anti-Clinton rallies that its operatives arranged and the multiple contacts with Russians offering “dirt” on Clinton. Apparently acknowledging reality in the Trump administration is a firing offense.

More seriously, she would do well to recall that she took an oath to defend the Constitution, not her boss. She works for the taxpayers, not for Trump personally. Even if she and other White House spinners don’t take that distinction to heart, they might want to think practically about their futures. Many of the White House staffers are young and will have decades of working years ahead. What employer would want an employee so comfortable insulting the intelligence of the public, so lacking in character, that they’d rather make up a ridiculous excuse than be truthful? Not impressive and prestigious ones, for sure.

 

[AmazonGrace]

Jeff and Jared fix prisons: 

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

Well I guess "homeless and lost", "human trafficked" and "dead on the streets" all technically fall under "or whatever"

[fraurosena]

Scott Pruitt's legal defence fund has unexpected consequences.

 

[AmazonGrace]

This is criminal 

 

[fraurosena]

He’s probably right. 

What’s even worse, is that it’s eerily reminiscent of how nazi’s treated people. It’s scary how much today’s America echoes that evil era.

[AmazonGrace]