The unofficial "Trump's cabinet" thread

[Taylor]

And yet, Jeff Sessions is still there.

[Glen]

Trump's cabinet has more turnover than your local McDonald's.

[Thomas]

1 hour ago, Glen said:

Trump's cabinet has more turnover than your local McDonald's.

I don't think their Apple Pies count as turnovers. 

[RallyMo]

4 hours ago, Thomas said:

I don't think their Apple Pies count as turnovers. 

Either way: more turnover in the White House.

[Blarg]

7 hours ago, Glen said:

Trump's cabinet has more turnover than your local McDonald's.

McDonald's has higher standards for employment.

[Taylor]

Maybe Trump's cabinet peeps should make $15 an hour.

[mtangelsfan]

7 minutes ago, Taylor said:

Maybe Trump's cabinet peeps should make $15 an hour.

They would be overpaid

[fan_since79]

Mnuchin told Congress today that the stock market will crash if they don't cut taxes.

Now that's helpful!

 

[red321]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/22/climate/epa-scientists.html

The Environmental Protection Agency has canceled the speaking appearance of three agency scientists who were scheduled to discuss climate change at a conference on Monday in Rhode Island, according to the agency and several people involved.

John Konkus, an E.P.A. spokesman and a former Trump campaign operative in Florida, confirmed that agency scientists would not speak at the State of the Narragansett Bay and Watershed program in Providence. He provided no further explanation.

 

Maybe they need the scientists to work on Pruitt's expanded security staff?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/23/politics/epa-pruitt-security-costs/index.html

The Environmental Protection Agency is beefing up security measures surrounding Administrator Scott Pruitt to an unprecedented level, CNN has learned, as members of Congress are asking if the costs are a "potential waste or abuse of taxpayer dollars."

Pruitt's security detail is in the process of expanding by hiring a dozen more agents, according to a source with knowledge of the situation, as the number of threats against the agency leader increase. The incoming agents will grow the team that works in shifts to provide him around-the-clock protection, something unheard of for Pruitt's predecessors.

Salaries alone for the full team will cost at least $2 million per year, according to figures compiled by CNN from public documents. The numbers do not include costs such as training, equipment, and travel.

[nate]

They should rename it to the Energy Lobby Agency anyway, environmental protection is not something they are interested in.

[Thomas]

42 minutes ago, nate said:

They should rename it to the Energy Lobby Agency anyway, environmental protection is not something they are interested in.

That's already taken. Thanks.

[well_red]

2 hours ago, red321 said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/22/climate/epa-scientists.html

The Environmental Protection Agency has canceled the speaking appearance of three agency scientists who were scheduled to discuss climate change at a conference on Monday in Rhode Island, according to the agency and several people involved.

John Konkus, an E.P.A. spokesman and a former Trump campaign operative in Florida, confirmed that agency scientists would not speak at the State of the Narragansett Bay and Watershed program in Providence. He provided no further explanation.

This is totally fucked.  What's next, close down NREL and start the Coal Institute?  Force NOAA to rescale temperatures so there is no evidence of global warming?  Are all scientists at government labs just political pawns now?  Slippery slope from EPA to government labs (NIST, NIH, NASA) all the way to government funding of basic science research.

[RallyMo]

16 hours ago, well_red said:

This is totally fucked.  What's next, close down NREL and start the Coal Institute?  Force NOAA to rescale temperatures so there is no evidence of global warming?  Are all scientists at government labs just political pawns now?  Slippery slope from EPA to government labs (NIST, NIH, NASA) all the way to government funding of basic science research.

DRAIN THE SWAMP.

[RallyMo]

Pathetic.

[Thomas]

17 hours ago, well_red said:

 Are all scientists at government labs just political pawns now?

Scientists gotta eat too. It's always been and likely always will be about getting the next year's funding. Certainly has been my observation around here. You can best hope that the source of the funding is benevolent enough that society's best interests are met.

[red321]

EPA has moved forward with new rule identifying who can sit be on scientific advisory board...woohooo...EPA, now with more ExxonMobil.

The Environmental Protection Agency announced on Tuesday afternoon sweeping changes to who can advise the agency on its research and regulatory priorities, opening the door to more industry participation.

Effective immediately, scientists who receive EPA funding cannot serve on the agency's three major advisory groups. Some Republican lawmakers have been pushing for similar changes to the agency's advisory boards for years.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/zahrahirji/epa-pruitt-new-science-advisors?utm_term=.um8LGo47l#.nnAOAjVyZ

The explanation...EPA...now with more Bible baby!

Pruitt used a story from the Book of Joshua to help explain the new policy. On the journey to the promised land, "Joshua says to the people of Israel: choose this day whom you are going to serve," Pruitt said. "This is sort of like the Joshua principle — that as it relates to grants from this agency, you are going to have to choose either service on the committee to provide counsel to us in an independent fashion or choose the grant. But you can’t do both. That’s the fair and great thing to do."

 

[Thomas]

9 minutes ago, red321 said:

Effective immediately, scientists who receive EPA funding cannot serve on the agency's three major advisory groups.

That does on the surface seem like a pretty serious conflict of interest at the very least and at worst a serious ethics violation. (Gah my training apparently stuck with me)  In a vacuum it's probably a good thing. But as you say clearly there others on the board with their own conflict of interests. It's hard to imagine finding a SME in a particular field that wouldn't have significant financial interests of some manner.

[well_red]

On 10/24/2017 at 6:02 AM, Thomas said:

Scientists gotta eat too. It's always been and likely always will be about getting the next year's funding. Certainly has been my observation around here. You can best hope that the source of the funding is benevolent enough that society's best interests are met.

Yeah, I used to work in basic science research.  There have always been choices to be made based on what projects could get funded (mostly) by the government.  But the silencing of researchers for political reasons because they work in a government lab is a return to the dark ages. Next up:  anyone who gets funding from a US government entity has to sign an agreement that the Trump administration can approve/deny their work for publication.

18 minutes ago, red321 said:

you are going to have to choose either service on the committee to provide counsel to us in an independent fashion or choose the grant

Experts in the field can't help shape scientific policy?  But political cronies and corporations who profit from lax regulation can?  Every day this administration drags the US down that much further.

[Thomas]

1 minute ago, well_red said:

 But the silencing of researchers for political reasons because they work in a government lab is a return to the dark ages.

It's getting pretty dark around here.

[red321]

20 minutes ago, Thomas said:

That does on the surface seem like a pretty serious conflict of interest at the very least and at worst a serious ethics violation. (Gah my training apparently stuck with me)  In a vacuum it's probably a good thing. But as you say clearly there others on the board with their own conflict of interests. It's hard to imagine finding a SME in a particular field that wouldn't have significant financial interests of some manner.

I am all for ensuring conflicts of interest don't exist (I just finished some ethics training as well...apparently we are no longer allowed to print out anything from web, but feel free to send the link to whomever you want). Though it's pretty clear, bible passages aside, Pruitt and company have no interest in clearing up conflicts of interest and are rather more interested in turning more and more policy over to the business entities he's supposed to be monitoring. Inmates/Prison sounds familiar.

[Thomas]

5 minutes ago, red321 said:

Though it's pretty clear, bible passages aside, Pruitt and company have no interest in clearing up conflicts of interest and are rather more interested in turning more and more policy over to the business entities he's supposed to be monitoring.

Well if nothing else you have to admire their consistency.

[red321]

5 minutes ago, Thomas said:

Well if nothing else you have to admire their consistency.

I guess...look forward to that being Weinstein's defense

[mtangelsfan]

3 hours ago, red321 said:

I am all for ensuring conflicts of interest don't exist (I just finished some ethics training as well...apparently we are no longer allowed to print out anything from web, but feel free to send the link to whomever you want). Though it's pretty clear, bible passages aside, Pruitt and company have no interest in clearing up conflicts of interest and are rather more interested in turning more and more policy over to the business entities he's supposed to be monitoring. Inmates/Prison sounds familiar.

Next thing you know someone might quote the Golden Rule.

 

 

 

The horror 

[red321]

Jeff Sessions....American hero?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/01/politics/trump-putin-meeting/index.html

But the chairman of Trump's national security team, then Alabama senator and now attorney general Jeff Sessions, shut down the idea of a Putin meeting at the March 31, 2016, gathering, according to the source. His reaction was confirmed with another source who had discussed Session's role.

 

Spoiler

 

https://theintercept.com/2017/10/30/jeff-sessions-indictment-bad-news-for-attorney-general/

But unlike Trump, Sessions’s claims about such meetings came in sworn testimony to the Senate. During his confirmation process, Sessions was asked a key question by Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn.: “If there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?” 

“Senator Franken, I’m not aware of any of those activities,” Sessions responded. “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn’t have — did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.” 

The question, however, was about Sessions’s knowledge of such communications, and we now know he was in a meeting in which they were discussed.

More recently, on October 18, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., asked Sessions a series of questions about his knowledge of interactions with Russians, including whether he had discussed emails with Russian officials since the campaign. To that question, Sessions said he “did not recall.” 

Franken then asked, in an attempt to clarify the confirmation questions, “You don’t believe that surrogates from the Trump campaign had communications with the Russians?” 

“I did not — and I’m not aware of anyone else that did. I don’t believe that it happened,” said the attorney general whose own department had, two weeks earlier, already gotten a guilty plea from a campaign surrogate describing such discussions with Russians.

 

 

[Glen]

Lock him up.