Trump Nominees Ethical Issues And Ignorance Are Actually A Danger For Trump

Most new administrations run into one or two problems with their cabinet nominees. But the number of ethical lapses by such a range of nominees in trump's cabinet is probably "unpresidented", to use Trump's word. In addition, to their ethical lapses, their ignorance about the very function and details of the agency they will be tasked with overseeing is staggering. I know that the Republican Congress will rubber-stamp most, if not all, of these nominees but the pathetic level of vetting by the Trump transition team does not bode well for any detailed analysis of the challenges that will confront the administration and the country.

Tom Price's troubles of mingling his stock portfolio with legislation in front of his committee continues to grow. Initially, it was revealed that Price had transacted in the stocks of up to 40 companies with business that would be effected by legislation in front of the House Budget Committee that he chaired. Then a specific instance of seeming quid-pro-quo was uncovered showing that Price had introduced legislation that would benefit a medical device company just days after purchasing that company's stock. In addition, Price lobbied for a delay in a regulatory ruling that would have benefited that very same medical device company and two days later received a donation from that company's PAC. Both Price and the Trump transition have claimed that these stock purchases were "broker-directed", meaning that Price potentially did not know they were occurring. Yesterday, however, Price contradicted that position by admitting that at least one purchase of stock in an Australian biotech firm was based on a tip from fellow Representative Chris Collins. The firm offered a private placement at a discounted price to American investors. Price was one of those investors. Collins had been touting the firm, is currently on the firm's board, and was recently overheard saying that he had made lots of Congressmen millionaires with his investment advice. When confronted by Senator Patty Murray over this issue, Price tried to argue semantics that he did not receive a "stock tip" but was eventually forced to admit that he did, in fact, direct the purchase of these shares, a direct contradiction of his claim that all his transactions were broker-directed.

Mick Mulvaney, Trump's choice to become budget director, has a more traditional problem for potential nominees, not paying Social Security and state taxes for a nanny or housekeeper. Mulvaney admitted, "I have come to learn during the confirmation review process that I failed to pay FICA and federal and state unemployment taxes on a household employee for the years 2000-2004." At least Mulvaney went through the efforts to discover this, admit to it, and pay the back taxes before his confirmation hearing. But an ethical lapse like this has sunk numerous nominees in the past. For today's GOP, it is probably considered a badge of honor.

Wilbur Ross had a similar issue to Mulvaney. He "discovered" that one of the "dozen or so" household workers he had employed over the years was actually an undocumented immigrant. Apparently that worker was still employed by Ross because Ross claims that he fired the worker. As opposed to Mulvaney, Ross had paid Social Security and state taxes on this employee. It is unclear whose Social Security account actually received the benefit of Ross's payment. Again, an ethical lapse like this has derailed other nominees in the past and is even more egregious when you consider Trump's position on illegal immigrants. To be snarky, I'm surprised Ross wasn't murdered by this employee but perhaps he/she was running a drug operation out of Ross's home. Also troubling is the fact that Ross seems to think that this issue goes away simply because he fired the employee. That is certainly the attitude of most business executives but it is not how the world works for most of us. I would also add that the best way to cut down on illegal immigration is to crack down on employers who use them. The threat of real punishment for hiring an undocumented worker will require employers to be more vigilant about who works for them. I'm not saying I support that idea but it is clearly a much more effective tool than building a wall.

The already embattled Steve Mnuchin who ran OneWest, the foreclosure machine, is now reported to have failed to report nearly $100 million in properties and investments as well as his involvement in a Cayman Islands investment fund of which Mnuchin is a director. At OneWest, Mnuchin oversaw a massive fraud that forced foreclosures with forged and back-dated documents and engaged in illegal bidding on their own foreclosed properties in order to pick them up on the cheap. In California, virtually every single OneWest foreclosure was based on illegally back-dated documents. Mnuchin also used his private foundation to "astroturf" support for OneWest's sale to CIT, a transaction that put an $11 million payout in Mnuchin's pocket. The latest revelation is Mnuchin's failure to disclose over $95 million in real estate assets as well as the fact that he had moved his investment vehicles to the offshore firm in the Cayman Islands, a move that makes it easier to avoid paying US taxes. In today's hearing, Mnuchin defended himself, saying, "I have been maligned as taking advantage of others’ hardships in order to earn a buck. Nothing could be further from the truth." Sadly, the evidence make lie of that statement. With regard to his "omission" to disclose $100 million of assets, Mnuchin said, "I assure you that these forms were very complicated." I'm pretty sure that's what mortgage holders think when they have to read the fine print on the documents they sign. For those who were foreclosed, the excuse that the forms were complicated didn't really fly. And this guy is going to be Treasury Secretary.

Scott Pruitt has filed dozens of lawsuits against the EPA as Attorney General of Oklahoma. When asked whether he would recuse himself from decisions on the suits that are still outstanding when he becomes head of the EPA, Pruitt responded that he would only do so if the agency's ethics lawyers instructed him to do so. Said Pruitt, "If directed to do so, I will do so." As Senator Markey pointed out, by not recusing himself, Pruitt would become the plaintiff, the defendant, and the judge in these cases. But that seems to be an OK outcome for the GOP these days.

The above lists only the ethical lapses of Trump's nominees. But many of the nominees have shown incredible ignorance about the departments that they will be running, none more so than voucher advocate Betsy DeVos, in line for the Education Secretary. Senator Franken seemed to absolutely flummox DeVos when he asked whether the focus of education should be growth or proficiency. This is a critical question in how we evaluate schools and teachers. Should we focus on whether test scores are improving (growth) even if students are still failing standardized desks (proficiency)? She did not answer because she did not even understand the question. When asked by Senator Hassan about protecting the educational opportunities of the disabled through the IDEA, DeVos responded that the individual decisions should be left to the states. Hassan had to inform DeVos, who had clearly no idea what IDEA was, that it was a federal civil rights statute that required public schools to provide free and appropriate education to those with disabilities. The states have no say in the enforcement of a federal civil rights law. DeVos continued to amaze when she responded to a question from Senator Murphy that guns might be needed in schools, citing a school in Wyoming That had guns in order to protect the school from attacks by grizzly bears. Yes, you read that correctly. Senator Warren asked about how DeVos might crack down on fraud and abuse in the for-profit education business as evidenced by Trump University. DeVos said she would work with individuals within the Education Department on the matter. Warren pointed out that there are already regulations on the books and that DeVos would simply have to enforce them. Devos's answer was that she would review those regulations. As Warren noted, "Swindlers and crooks are out there doing back flips when they hear an answer like this." Lastly, Senator Kaine asked a fairly straightforward question as to whether all institutions, whether public, charter, or voucher-assisted private schools, should be held to the same standards of accountability. Apparently Devos must have though this was a trick question because she again and again repeated that the schools should merely be accountable but would not agree to equally accountable. That would seem like a no-brainer if someone believed that voucher-assisted private schools were actually going to be better for students than public schools. But, based on the success of DeVos's involvement with Detroit's school system, it appears the voucher system is basically a way for private companies to steal public money and provide very little education at all. In that vein, her answer seemed totally appropriate. Did anyone brief this train-wreck before the hearings?

Rick Perry, who, when he could remember, actually advocated for the elimination of the Energy Department apparently never really understood what the department really did. Although he did have some inkling it was responsible for our nuclear arsenal, he seemed to believe it was simply a PR job for US oil and gas interests. He was apparently unaware that two-thirds of the department's budget goes toward the safety and upkeep of our nuclear stockpile, both military and civilian. According to a Trump transition official, "If you asked him on that first day he said yes, he would have said, ‘I want to be an advocate for energy. If you asked him now, he’d say, ‘I’m serious about the challenges facing the nuclear complex.’ It’s been a learning curve." I know this is a low bar to cross for Trump nominees but at least give Perry credit for actually getting briefed and learning about what the agency does. It was apparently more than DeVos could do. In today's hearing Perry said, "In fact, after being briefed on so many of the vital functions of the Department of Energy, I regret recommending its elimination".

I have only focused on the ethical and ignorance issues of Trump's nominees here and have not touched on some of their truly awful policy positions and constant waffling and hedging as indicated by their positions on climate change, etc. Nor have we even mentioned the biggest ethical disaster of them all, Donald Trump. In just a little under 24 hours, Trump will be in violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. Hopefully, the first lawsuits can be filed by Friday evening.

Most, if not all, of these nominees cannot be stopped by Democrats alone. Of all of them, I think the three most vulnerable are Tillerson, DeVos, and Price. There are enough Republican Russia hawks to derail Tillerson. DeVos's incompetence and ignorance is so great even some in the GOP may not be able to vote for her. Price's plan for Obamacare repeal is not popular with Trump or Senate Republicans and his stock trading problems are quickly ballooning into a real scandal.

For Democrats, there is a sliver of hope in some of these nominees. For a small minority, there may be a "come to Jesus" moment, a la Perry, when they actually understand that all the agencies of the federal government have important functions for our country and are not just make-work jobs for unions. There won't be many of those. On the flip side, the ethical issues hanging over all these candidates will make it slightly more difficult for them to do their job, which many of them interpret as rendering their agency as ineffective as possible. In addition, the total ignorance and lack of understanding that these nominees are bringing to their agencies will make it far easier for the technocrats and career officers in these agencies to constantly thwart some of their most egregious plans. The same goes for all of Trump's nominees from business who have always been able to run things by fiat and can fire or sideline people with competing views. That just doesn't work in a government agency. And when these nominees fail, by extension so will Trump.