Twisted Trumpian Logic

So, I know it's only Tuesday and usually I save the head-scratching for Wednesday, but I've gotta tell you, I'm so confused trying to stick with the president's logic.

You know, logic that says when things are going well, we need tens of billions of dollars but when things are going well, we don't need to do anything at all. Or something - like the two scenarios below.

We have seen significant change at our southern border since Trump was elected. In 2017, arrests for illegal crossings were at a 46-year low, and arrests away from the border are up by 25%. Fewer people are trying to come across illegally, we're told, because they fear they'll be apprehended. And arrests of non-criminal aliens - those whose illegal status is the their only crime - have risen 42% and arrests of MS13 gang members are up 82%. Sounds pretty good, right? And the president, fairly, takes credit for this.

And then there's Russia. The president decided yesterday that there was no need to increase sanctions because things were already going OK, and the law authorizing the sanctions was deterrent enough. Never mind that the bill authorizing the sanctions was passed with only five nays combined in the House and Senate; and pay no attention to the purposefully misunderstanding of the purpose of the legislation, which was to punish Russia for interfering in our election. And further never mind CIA head Mike Pompeo counting on additional Russian interference in future elections.

I haven't seen a significant decrease in their activity. I have every expectation that they will continue to try and do that, but I'm confident that America will be able to have a free and fair election, and that we will push back in a way that is sufficiently robust that the impact they have on our election won't be great.

So, let's recap: the actual deterrent being seen on immigration demands a $25,000,000,000 solution, but actual interference by Russia does not warrant any penalty? One of those things is not like the other. And the president's logic is a load of hooey.

Or, here's another one -- the whole biased/unbiased, conflict/no conflict, ethics/no ethics thing going on with a particular FBI guy.

You know Andrew McCabe, the Deputy Director of the FBI who was pushed out yesterday, after facing the wrath of Trump for months, including, we're told, the president telling McCabe to ask his wife what it felt like to be a loser?  Yeah, seems his wife lost an election in Virginia, even after receiving a boatload of money from a super PAC run by then-Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe.

Now, you and I might focus on the fact that boatloads of money are available to support a candidate for statewide office, or any office for that matter. But not Trump: he focused on the fact that McAuliffe, in addition to being a former Syracusan, is an FOB - friend of Bill (Clinton) and, of course, an FOH - friend of Hillary, too.

So, you see, it's impossible - IMPOSSIBLE - for McCabe to be impartial in his job, because of  Comey emails Hillary his wife.  It's an automatic disqualifier, don't you see - a bona fide conflict of interest, plain as the orange hair on Trump's head!

As are these many conflicts of interest or ethical challenges, which go unnoticed - or worse, denied - by the Trumpeters, their legal teams, and the current Office of Government Ethics:

• taxpayers enriching the president's coffers by paying higher than market rate rent in Trump Tower 
• taxpayers enriching the president's coffers by Trump properties renting golf carts to the Secret Service for when he's very busy working
• private citizens buying access to and enriching the president's coffers through their membership at Mar-a-Lago, including photo ops with the guy who carries the nuclear football, and pictures of the government in action the public dining room
• citizens and companies (both foreign and domestic), foreign government representatives, and lobbyists enriching the president's coffers and currying favor by staying at his Washington DC hotel, or playing golf at his properties
• Kellyanne Conway promoting Ivanka Trump's clothing line on national TV
• the president promoting "his" winery in Charlottesville VA
• then candidate Trump paying $25K to Florida's Attorney General, at the same time she was contemplating joining a multi-state legal action against him
• Trump using his foundation to pay legal bills, use other people's money to make donations for which he took credit, and more

I could go on (and on and on) with these. And yes, it goes without saying that Democrats aren't immune to the influence of money -- you'll never get an argument from me on that. However, this is about specific situations, many of which are unique to the man currently occupying the Oval Office. 

The absurdity of this president pretending that he and his family, Cabinet members, advisers, and the like are pure as the driven snow, while suggesting that a career FBI guy is compromised because his wife ran for office?

That's a way more bigly bigger load of hooey.

Wondering on Wednesday (v104)

The Republicans in the Senate are working hurriedly to try and rustle up enough support to drag Mike Pence in for a potential tie-breaking vote, by September 30th, on a last, best chance to repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with something that I heard Kentucky's Rand Paul describe as merely taking money away from blue states and giving it to red states.

Jimmy Kimmel, whose son was born with a congenital heart defect, met months ago with Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy, one of the coauthors of the current bill. At that time, Cassidy coined the phrase 'the Jimmy Kimmel test' which any bill would need to pass, according to Cassidy: coverage for preexisting conditions, no lifetime caps, and insurance had to be affordable. Fast forward to this week, where Kimmel called Cassidy a liar on his show. 

Cassidy says Kimmel doesn't understand the bill. 

No one understands the bill, least of all the people who will be expected to get insurance coverage under it. And the people who are working on the bill don't understand anything other than they said they're repeal and that's what they're going to do, dagnabit. 

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office hasn't chimed in, and may not have the chance to - but pretty much everyone - except 15 Republican governors, that is -  is against it, or afraid of it, or, to Cassidy's point, doesn't understand.

Paul is a no vote already. Susan Collins of Maine, Alaska's Lisa Murkowski and Arizona's John McCain are the other three who should vote against the bill as well, and free up the Senate to enact bipartisan reform to fix the Affordable Care Act and stop trying to bullshit their way into destroying one sixth of the US economy. 

I wonder if they - or any other Republicans - will have the courage to vote no?

Robert Mueller's investigation of the Trump machine - the campaign and, perhaps, the administration as well - is barrelling along, with Paul Manafort clearly in its sights. Reports have said Manafort can expect to be indicted; that the feds picked the lock on his house early one morning to gain entrance for a search; that he met with close Putin allies during the campaign to update them about the campaign; and yes -- there were phone calls that were recorded, and the president is on the recordings. 

Someone suggested there was now no turning back -- Mueller's investigation will result in outcomes, of that there was certainty -- "even if Mueller was fired" by the administration. 

And I wonder two things here: would Trump really have the audacity to fire Mueller?  And will Manafort be the only one?

Finally, and sticking with the investigation aspect of tonight's post, the former Office of Government Ethics (OGE, now known as the OTBE - Office of Turning a Blind Eye) appeared to say it was OK for administration folks to receive anonymous donations - from lobbyists or other interested parties with money to burn - to cover legal fees related to Mueller, Inc. Some will say this is all OK, because Clinton. William Jefferson, that is, not Crooked Lyin Lock Her Up Hillary. 

Seems this question was posed back in the 1990s, and it was deemed to be technically legal, but people were subsequently advised not to take any contributions from lobbyists, anonymous or otherwise. The OTBE clarified that the original decision from 1993 stands, and strongly encouraged a deeper dive for each case. 

Not to worry, though. The RNC has stepped up to offer assistance, and has paid close to $450,000 (so far) to assist with Donald and Donny's legal fees; Trump is also dipping into his campaign coffers to help pay the bills, bless his heart.

And I can't help wondering, again, where is the swamp and who's pulling the plug?

Ethics Defections

It's hard to imagine that it was just over four months ago that I talked about the real problem with the Trump administration. It was not Russia, I said.

The Trump administration, in its infancy, is a swamp.

It's the kind of swamp where everything that is officially called out as being unethical is either an accident or, more commonly, completely ignored. This is particularly true if the notification comes from the Office of Government Ethics. (More on that in a minute)

It's that, and more.

The Trump administration is a swamp of people who think that running America is the same as running a big old family business. One where obfuscation and diversion and dismissal and deflection are the norm. One where, knowingly or ignorantly, rules are skirted, or it's pretended that there are no rules. Where the moral compass is provided by the man in the mirror, or by the same man in the corner office, or by other members of the family, or handpicked associates, without external scrutiny.

Chant with me: #DraintheSwamp #DraintheSwamp.

Hui Chen was, until late June, the Compliance Counsel in the Department of Justice's Criminal Fraud Division. I'm familiar with Chen and her work from my day job, where I have the opportunity to research best practices in the world of ethics and compliance.

Her arrival at the DOJ back in 2015 was incredibly well received by experts, consultants and thought leaders in the ethics and compliance world. After all, Chen had come from the practitioner side of the house, having worked at both Pfizer and Microsoft. Real world experience is what she brought to the table, in how she helped evaluate companies, their E+C programs, and issues of noncompliance.

Until she quit, several days ago, and several months before her contract was up. In a Linked In post, Chen provided some insight on why she left. Here's an excerpt:

First, trying to hold companies to standards that our current administration is not living up to was creating a cognitive dissonance that I could not overcome. To sit across the table from companies and question how committed they were to ethics and compliance felt not only hypocritical, but very  much like shuffling the deck chair on the Titanic. Even as I engaged in those questioning and evaluations, on my mind were the numerous lawsuits pending against the President of the United States... Those are conducts I would not tolerate seeing in a company, yet I worked under an administration that engaged in exactly those conduct(s). I wanted no more part of it.

Now, some have questioned whether Chen's politics - she's participated in protests wearing 'Resist' clothing and holding a sign exhorting people to support the Constitution (the nerve!) - were the real reason why she left. And, she did indicate future plans include helping elect ethical candidates for public office.

But all of that notwithstanding, in the final analysis, I believe she walked the walk and talked the talk.

It's hard for me to imagine that Donald Trump would still be employed at any company I've worked for - not the family owned business, not the industry leader, and not my current employer. Not because of his politics, but because his behavior, his words, and his actions are inconsistent with anything any of these companies would consider ethical. So are the behaviors, words and actions of many he chose to bring into the government.

As the folks at Radical Compliance pointed out,

In the corporate world, if a CEO under investigation for misconduct violations fired the in-house counsel investigating him, the board would have his scalp. We would all be attending our compliance industry conferences, lecturing ourselves about best practices, and saying that the compliance officer at that organization should take the brave step and resign.

At the top of the post, I mentioned the Office of Government Ethics. We've heard more about, and from, that group since Trump won the election I think, than ever before.

Earlier today, the OGE's director, Walter Shaub Jr, tendered his resignation, effective on July 19th. In an interview, Shaub noted

There isn't much more I could accomplish at the Office of Government Ethics, given the current situation. OGE's recent experiences have made it clear that the ethics programs needs to be strengthened. 

Indeed, they do.

How long before others follow Chen and Shaub out of government service and into arenas where differences can be made?