Trump Vow to ‘Drain the Swamp’ Proves a Hollow Promise

Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a D.C.-based nonprofit and self-proclaimed government watchdog, said in an email interview that while the promise to drain the swamp is “difficult to define in the best circumstances,” she is confident there's nothing to commend the administration for on this front.

“If the evidence that multiple cabinet secretaries are using taxpayer dollars for personal convenience continues to mount,” she said.

Another Trump official whose spending habits have come under review is EPA administrator Scott Pruitt. The agency’s inspector general submitted a letter to Pruitt in August seeking information on his frequent trips to and from his home state of Oklahoma since becoming administrator.

Pruitt also reportedly spent at least $20,000 for flights from D.C. to Ohio and New York aboard an Air Force jet in June.

The EPA did not return multiple requests for comment by Courthouse News but an EPA spokesperson confirmed to CBS News last week that ethics officials were consulted when Pruitt opted to board yet another military aircraft in August in lieu of a commercial flight as he departed Denver to Durango, Colorado.

In an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, Mnuchin fielded questions over Price’s resignation and his own controversy.

When asked if he regretted making requests for government aircraft, once for the Kentucky trip and again for an international honeymoon excursion with his wife which was ultimately withdrawn, Mnuchin told host Chuck Todd he did not.

Adding “every single one” of his trips was approved by the White House.

Todd asked if the plane to Kentucky was “a mistake.”

“No, I never said it was a mistake. It was approved by the White House and there were reasons we needed to use that plane that are completely justifiable and we look forward to the [Inspector General's] report,” Mnuchin said.

Many outside the administration view such assertions with a jaundiced eye.

“The fact is, a lot of voters would look at this and say, ‘Who do they think they are and how stupid do they think I am?” Lubin said.

At the same time, he acknowledged that the many brought to Washington by Trump come from a world with an entirely different world view than exists in Washington.

“They’re used to corporations that pay this kind of big freight but don’t understand that the government should not,” he said. “They think very highly of themselves and very little of us and the sad thing is, there are a lot of honorable officials who don’t do this, but the fact that they are popping up like pimples in the Trump administration is sad.”

Ryan Alexander said if more spending abuses emerge, the forced resignation of the officials involved may be unavoidable.

“There are probably two paths that need to be taken by the oversight committee,” she wrote. “First, they are in a position to put this in historical context. They can easily access the travel records of past administrations and taking the long view will help inform any response that either Congress or the administration might have,” she said.

“Also, they should look at the details of travel for each person being investigated. If that identifies a pattern of abuse or extravagance, then resignation may be appropriate. But if it shows a small percentage of trips in question were of questionable work-related purposes, or needlessly expensive, then another course of action is acceptable.”

Like full reimbursement, for one, whether or not the official stays in office, but the “response should be proportional.”

Lublin said in an ideal world, Americans would see justice done with both full reimbursements and resignations.

“But most of us would settle for one or the other,” he added. “Rather than draining the swamp, we’re seeing a rise in real questions of corruption in a way that we haven’t seen since the Clinton years, frankly," he said. "During those years we had ethical quandaries because the Clintons have a tendency to walk the line where you can make the case that [some behavior] is okay, but also make the case that some of it was unseemly. “

Like the private email scandal which dogged Hillary Clinton’s entire presidential run last year, he said.

“This was something [Trump] claims was highly unethical, but now we find his son-in-law, among others, doing the same. The idea that he even cares about this promise in a way that anyone would meaningfully understand, just doesn’t pass the laugh test.”

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit