Scott Pruitt looks to be incompetent and corrupt. Yet Trump is encouraging him and offering him his support. Wondering why? Well, don't forget Pruitt was floated as a replacement for Sessions if Trump fires him.
Think Trump would benefit from (another) incompetent, corrupt AG?
Think Trump would benefit from (another) incompetent, corrupt AG?
2/ As I understand it, if Trump replaces Sessions with Pruitt, Pruitt could serve as AG for a year before having to be confirmed. Trump has virtually no "no-confirmation" options for AG, otherwise. He needs Pruitt because he may yet use Pruitt to crush the Mueller investigation.
3/ So all of these stories about Pruitt being incompetent, corrupt, and frankly perhaps a bit deranged culminating with Trump offering him support in a way Trump knew would become public tells us that every Pruitt story is fundamentally a Trump-Russia story and a significant one.
4/ So the media needs to stop reporting on all these Pruitt scandals without—concurrent with that reporting—informing American news consumers that Trump allies and possibly Trump himself have long floated Pruitt as a potential replacement for Sessions and an antidote to Mueller.
5/ A reader notes that confirmation procedures may be different after a firing versus a resignation.
That'd put the Shulkin story in a new light—Trump fired him, then insisted he resigned. Will we see the same thing with Sessions, to ensure Pruitt escapes confirmation hearings?
That'd put the Shulkin story in a new light—Trump fired him, then insisted he resigned. Will we see the same thing with Sessions, to ensure Pruitt escapes confirmation hearings?
6/ The reason I've skirted the question of the process by which Trump could replace Sessions with Pruitt (which he's known to want to do) is it's a complicated question outside my specialization. So here's a great article on just how complicated it all is: google.com/amp/s/www.poli…
7/ The upshot: it's doable, but could result in litigation.
On the other hand, Trump has a great deal to gain from replacing Sessions with Pruitt, and so far Congressional Republicans have given *no* indication that that indirect attack on Mueller would result in repercussions.
On the other hand, Trump has a great deal to gain from replacing Sessions with Pruitt, and so far Congressional Republicans have given *no* indication that that indirect attack on Mueller would result in repercussions.
8/ What's odd is the reporting I'm seeing seems to take the story in the other direction, implying Trump's semi-public support for Pruitt could be a prelude to a firing, as was the case with McMaster. Sure, it could be, but as likely is an alternative the media is not discussing.
9/ If I'm reporting this story, or talking with undergrads about how one might report a story of this sort, the context to be offered readers would be the unusual, leveraged position Pruitt occupies in the administration and his variable utility to—or role as liability for—Trump.
