Nominations & Appointments | Media Matters for America

Nominations & Appointments

Issues ››› Nominations & Appointments
  • Trump’s pick for National Economic Council is a CNBC host who gives bad financial advice

    ››› ››› BOBBY LEWIS & MADELINE PELTZ

    President Donald Trump has told people he has chosen CNBC's Larry Kudlow to replace Gary Cohn as the director of the National Economic Council. Kudlow has no formal training in economics, and he has a history of making poor financial predictions, pushing conservative economic talking points, and making outrageous and offensive comments.

  • Report: Trump called a Fox & Friends host with Koch links during a meeting with the VA Secretary

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    Fox News host Pete Hegseth was dialed into the Oval Office by President Donald Trump during a meeting with Veterans Affairs (VA) Secretary David Shulkin to opine on legislation to reform the VA system, according to Axios.

    Hegseth, who co-hosts Fox & Friends Weekend, formerly was CEO of a conservative organization Concerned Veterans for America, which was identified in 2014 by The Washington Post as “part of the ... billionaire industrialist Koch brothers' political network." The Post also reported that the organization was "backed by a donor network organized by the industrialists Charles and David Koch" that raised $400 million during the 2012 election cycle.

    During the Trump administration’s transition in December 2016, Hegseth openly auditioned for the VA secretary position amid reports that he was one of the top contenders for the position. Though he failed to be nominated, he has since been helping Republican Party organizations fundraise, and has interviewed Trump on Fox several times.

    According to Axios, Trump “talks to Hegseth regularly and enjoys watching him on Fox & Friends.” Axios also reported that Trump is “finally losing patience with” Shulkin, which could make Hegseth a contender for the post again. From Axois’ March 11 report (emphasis original):

    Right after his meeting with Kelly, Shulkin was brought into the Oval Office to talk to Trump. The conversation quickly turned to discussing important legislation to reform the VA health care system.

    • Trump surprised Shulkin by dialing in Fox & Friends host Pete Hegseth on speaker phone to get his opinion of the legislation, according to two sources with knowledge of the conversation.
    • The Trump administration is debating a few different bills and trying to reconcile them. Conservatives prefer a bill pushed by Sen. Jerry Moran, while moderates prefer legislation pushed by Sen. Johnny Isakson.
    • The Hegseth call put Shulkin in an awkward spot, according to those sources. Hegseth competed for Shulkin's job and favors more aggressive reform for the VA. Trump talks to Hegseth regularly and enjoys watching him on Fox and Friends.
  • Fox News runs with right wing’s out-of-context video attacking Chuck Schumer

    Full video debunks accusation of racism against Schumer

    Blog ››› ››› ZACHARY PLEAT

    Fox News used out-of-context video of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to claim he was opposing a judicial nominee from President Donald Trump because the nominee is white. In fact, the full video of Schumer’s criticism showed his objection to the nomination of Marvin Quattlebaum to the U.S. District Court in South Carolina came in response to Republicans’ refusal to observe Senate tradition and their failure to support President Barack Obama’s nominees for the vacant seat.

    Tucker Carlson Tonight, Fox & Friends First, and Fox & Friends all used out-of-context video to portray Schumer as racist. Tucker Carlson claimed on March 1 that Schumer “said he’s opposing the nomination because Quattlebaum is the wrong color. For real.” Fox News Headlines reporter Carley Shimkus stated March 2 on Fox & Friends First: “Chuck Schumer voted against the nomination not because of Quattlebaum’s resume or anything like that, but because of his race.” A little later, Fox & Friends co-host Ainsley Earhardt read off a string of headlines all saying essentially “Chuck Schumer votes against Trump judicial nominee because he’s white.” Brian Kilmeade then said there was no difference between Schumer’s comment and Trump’s racist declaration that a federal judge couldn’t be fair in his 2016 Trump University case because of of the judge’s Mexican ancestry.

    These smears likely originated with Carlson’s former website, The Daily Caller, which during the early afternoon of March 1 posted the partial video clip with the headline: “Schumer Will Vote ‘No’ On Judicial Nominee Because He Is White.” Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire also joined in the smear, citing The Daily Caller and amping up the accusation in its headline: “RACISM IN ACTION: Schumer: I Won't Vote For This Judge Because He's White.”

    But as ThinkProgress justice editor Ian Millhiser pointed out, these smears are built around selectively edited video. Both right-wing websites and all three Fox News shows omitted the first half of Schumer’s remarks, in which he berated Republican senators for hypocritically abandoning a Senate tradition for judicial nominees known as “blue slips” now that they are in power, which would have served as an effective check on Trump's judicial nominations. Schumer noted that Democrats had honored the practice previously with respect to this very seat, which is why Trump had a chance to nominate someone to fill it. Millhiser also noted that Schumer’s voting record further debunks the accusation of racism: He voted for 10 out of 11 of Trump’s previous federal district court nominees, and those 10 were all white. On the March 2 edition of CNN's Wolf, Schumer explained how "right-wing radio who never really tells the truth distort[ed] what I had said." 

    The full video of Schumer’s explanation for voting against Quattlebaum, which wasn’t played on Fox News, can be viewed below:

  • Six key takeaways from The Nation's investigative report on Alliance Defending Freedom’s “legal army”

    ADF is the largest anti-LGBTQ hate group and “has fast become a training ground for future legislators, judges, prosecutors, attorneys general, and other government lawyers"

    Blog ››› ››› BRENNAN SUEN


    Sarah Wasko / Media Matters

    The Nation’s Sarah Posner published a horrifying investigative report on anti-LGBTQ hate group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the Christian “legal army” that is arguing before the Supreme Court on December 5 in the Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case. The Supreme Court’s decision on this case, which involves a Christian baker who refused to serve a gay couple, could have huge implications on LGBTQ peoples’ right to access otherwise public accommodations.

    ADF is the largest anti-LGBTQ hate group in the country and has played a role in nearly every aspect of the modern right-wing battle against queer and trans rights. Media Matters has documented its years-long effort to combat transgender student equality in schools, advocating -- often through suing schools -- for discriminatory “bathroom bills” that prevent transgender students from using the restroom facilities that align with their gender identity. It has been involved in writing, promoting, and legally defending so-called “religious freedom” both as Justice Department guidance and as bills in a number of states, including one in Mississippi that has been called the “worst anti-LGBTQ state law in the U.S.” It has also supported harmful reparative therapy, which seeks to turn LGBTQ people “straight” and has been discredited by every mainstream medical group for decades as it has severe mental and medical health consequences for its victims. In 2013, ADF issued a memo in support of Russia’s “gay propaganda” law, which has led to the arrests of a number of LGBTQ activists and a climate where hate crimes against queer and trans people have doubled. Additionally, ADF works with more than a dozen other hate groups that are devoted to demonizing LGBTQ people and halting progress toward equal rights.

    Posner’s November 28 report, “The Christian Legal Army Behind ‘Masterpiece Cakeshop,’” detailed ADF’s vast influence and its relentless campaign to combat LGBTQ equality. Here are six key takeaways from the piece:

    1. ADF has “propelled” numerous attorneys “into state and federal government” and a number of its allies have influential cabinet and agency positions

    In May, Media Matters identified at least 55 ADF-affiliated lawyers serving in federal, state, and local governments. The Nation’s report also detailed that ADF “has fast become a training ground for future legislators, judges, prosecutors, attorneys general, and other government lawyers—including, notably, in the Trump administration. Noel Francisco, Trump’s solicitor general, is an ADF-allied attorney.” According to the report, “at least 18 ADF-affiliated lawyers now work in 10 attorney-general offices” at the state level, including at least three in Texas. Texas’ office has led a number of other attorneys general in “two legal challenges to Obama-era rules protecting transgender rights.” Posner noted that ADF alumni also work as congressional staff, attorneys in the military and federal agencies, “state legislators, City Council members, district attorneys, and judges.” From the report:

    In the past five years, state attorneys general in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin have hired former ADF staff attorneys, allied attorneys, and Blackstone Fellows. Still others in recent years have brought on ADF attorneys to act as special counsel for the state in cases involving touchstone issues for social conservatives. The Nebraska attorney general, Doug Peterson, has spoken at an ADF conference and called its lawyers “some of the best at what they do.” Attorneys general in Arizona and Oklahoma have brought on ADF staff and allied attorneys to assist in major litigation over abortion and LGBTQ rights. In Mississippi, the governor retained an ADF attorney to represent the state in defending a legal challenge to an anti-LGBTQ law that the organization had helped champion, after the state attorney general declined to defend it.

    2. Trump is nominating attorneys with ties to ADF for federal judgeships

    Posner identified four Trump federal judicial nominees with ties to ADF: Amy Coney Barrett (who was recently confirmed) and Kyle Duncan at the appeals court level and Jeff Mateer and Michael Joseph Juneau at the district court level. Mateer is one of the most vehemently anti-LGBTQ figures to be nominated to the judiciary. Trump also nominated Steven Grasz to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Grasz is a member of the board of the Nebraska Family Alliance, which is partnered with ADF. Media Matters has identified another nominee who was confirmed in August to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, Joseph Toth, who was an ADF Blackstone Fellow in 2005.

    3. Extreme anti-LGBTQ book The Homosexual Agenda “has long been on the reading list” for ADF’s Blackstone Legal Fellowship

    According to Posner, testimonials from students who were part of ADF’s law school training program the Blackstone Legal Fellowship “hint at an ideology firmly opposed to secular government and law.” She noted that ADF’s longtime President Alan Sears’ extreme anti-LGBTQ book, The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today, “has long been on the reading list” for the fellowship. The book pushes a number of myths about LGBTQ people, including that they are promoting “sexual relations between adults and children, known as pedophilia.”

    4. To hide its extremist views, ADF has “very recently” tampered down "routinely traffick[ing] in slurs against the LGBTQ community"

    The Nation’s report acknowledged a shift in ADF’s rhetoric as it has “redoubled its efforts to portray its views as mainstream” amid its growing influence, including at the Supreme Court, and after being labeled a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Posner noted that “until very recently, ADF routinely trafficked in slurs against the LGBTQ community, consistently depicting LGBTQ people as promiscuous, uncommitted, and unfit to parent.” From the report:

     In a 2006 case in Maryland, ADF maintained that “sexual fidelity is rare among homosexual men” and that “the average homosexual relationship is short.” In a 2009 case in West Virginia, arguing against a lesbian couple’s adoption of a baby they had fostered, ADF noted that the couple had insisted that the court be “forced to treat their home as just as good as any other.” But, ADF wrote, “this cannot be.” Although the organization had long opposed allowing same-sex couples to marry, in another parenting case, this one in Arkansas in 2010, it used the fact that the couple could not marry as an argument against allowing them to adopt. “It is logical to prevent children’s exposure to the illicit sexual conduct and revolving-door of adult sexual partners that often accompany cohabitation,” ADF argued.

    5. ADF-allied attorneys often do not disclose their relationships to the group

    Media Matters has repeatedly found a lack of transparency with ADF-allied attorneys, as many of its 3,200-plus reported allies do not publicly identify their affiliation with the group. In her report, Posner noted that Trump’s solicitor general, Noel Francisco, was identified as an allied attorney in a 2016 ADF press release but that the relationship is not one “that he has made public,” including in a questionnaire “submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee in advance of his May confirmation hearing.” She continued, “Francisco’s only acknowledgment of his ADF ties was a mention, on a list of speaking engagements, of his participation on a 2015 panel on law-firm recruiting hosted by the Blackstone Legal Fellowship.”

    6. ADF’s guise of “religious liberty” is essentially exclusively focused on Christians

    The Nation conducted “a review of 146 of ADF’s appellate and Supreme Court briefs” and found that its lawyers “are focused almost exclusively on the religious rights of Christians.” Of cases that involved non-Christian religious plaintiffs, the group’s lawyers “weighed in” on only five instances and expressed support for the non-Christian plaintiffs only two times. From the report:

    [W]e found just five instances in which ADF’s lawyers weighed in on appellate cases involving religious plaintiffs who were not Christian. In only two of them did ADF express support for the religious-minority plaintiff—once in a case in which a rabbinical organization challenged a public-health regulation on circumcision, and once in support of an Orthodox Jewish day school claiming that a local permitting process violated its religious rights. ADF also weighed in on two cases in support of Muslim prisoners who claimed their religious rights had been violated, but in neither did it address the particular facts of the case, making only arguments about what it considered to be a proper interpretation of the relevant statute and, in one case, how that interpretation would affect Christian organizations.

  • Politico fails to disclose conflicts of interest in article attacking Democrats for protecting consumers

    A strong, independent CFPB was created to rein in a predatory financial industry, not cater to political whims

    Blog ››› ››› CRAIG HARRINGTON


    Sarah Wasko / Media Matters

    A recent article in Politico blamed Democrats for the ongoing Republican campaign to weaken the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), misleadingly alleging that “Democrats are facing the consequences of their decision to protect the agency’s powerful independent director,” without disclosing the conflicts of interest of the experts it cited in support of such a view.

    Such a commission structure at CFPB has long been a goal of financial industry lobbyists and some Republicans seeking to roll back consumer protections put in place by the Dodd-Frank Act, because it would make the agency less responsive to predatory practices targeting Americans, delaying its decision-making and ability to protect consumers.

    In the November 27 article, Politico's financial services reporter claimed the succession crisis at the CFPB created by the recent resignation of long-time Director Richard Cordray “highlights how Democrats” are responsible for “the turmoil” because they rebuked GOP overtures that would have weakened the agency at its inception. From the article:

    But while the process plays out in court, the turmoil highlights how Democrats shunned Republican efforts to broaden the governance of the fledgling agency from a single appointed director to a bipartisan commission that would have included members with diverse political viewpoints.

    [...]

    In truth, the bureau has been mired in controversy since its creation. Warren has built a political career railing against Wall Street. Cordray infuriated industry and inspired lawsuits. And the bureau itself is unique, investing great power in one person with almost no accountability.

    It was predictable that such a toxic mix would eventually explode. Now Democrats are facing the consequences of their decision to protect the agency’s powerful independent director. Anybody Trump nominates to replace Cordray will have the ability to undo a lot of his work. On Monday, Mulvaney wasted no time, imposing a regulatory and hiring freeze.

    This analysis mirrors misleading arguments made by the conservative Washington Examiner and the right-wing blog RedState, which both seemed to revel in the supposed reckoning Democrats brought on themselves. In the midst of these ongoing media attacks, the Republican-controlled Congress has already moved to weaken the CFPB, a fact never mentioned in the Politico piece.

    The Politico article also echoes financial industry talking points in favor of implementing a commission structure at CFPB, going so far as to rely on a quote from Richard Hunt, the president of the Consumer Bankers Association, without pointing out he has spent years demanding the agency be turned into a weaker bipartisan commission. Indeed, more than a dozen financial and real estate lobbying arms, including the Consumer Bankers Association, wrote to Congress in June asking that the Republican-controlled House and Senate move to reshape the CFPB’s governance structure.

    But the very reason the CFPB avoided a similar commission when the agency was created was because in the aftermath of the financial devastation of the Great Recession (unleashed in part by underregulated financial industry actors), the decision was made to avoid a weakened commission that would be susceptible to just this sort of political pressure, or the type of partisan paralysis that has afflicted similar bipartisan efforts.

    Making matters worse, the only Democrat featured prominently in the article has voiced opposition to CFPB consumer protections in the past, and works at a law firm that proudly boasts of its experience fighting the agency on behalf of “bank and non-bank consumer financial services providers.” Politico’s failure to disclose this clear conflict of interest is the kind of oversight one might expect from Fox News.

    This is not the first time Politico has targeted the CFPB. A piece attacked the consumer advocacy agency in November 2015 after it used research from a consumer advocacy group while drafting new rules aimed at ending racial biases in auto lending. The 2015 criticism followed a salvo from the right-wing editorial board of The Wall Street Journal, which slammed the CFPB for daring to stand up against racially biased lending practices.

    Conservative politicians and media outlets have routinely pilloried the CFPB since its inception, sometimes inventing reasons to smear the agency. Some antagonists have even attacked the CFPB for paying its employees competitive salaries, falsely claiming along the way that the agency is misusing tax dollars (it’s actually funded by the Federal Reserve).

  • Fox’s Dana Perino allows guest to attack the CFPB without disclosing he represented anti-CFPB clients

    Shannen Coffin has “represented clients affected by and opposed to CFPB regulation,” according to The Weekly Standard

    Blog ››› ››› GRACE BENNETT

    Fox News host Dana Perino allowed conservative lawyer and columnist Shannen Coffin to criticize the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) on her show without divulging his representation of clients antagonistic to the CFPB.

    On the November 27 edition of Fox News' The Daily Briefing with Dana Perino, host Dana Perino interviewed Coffin about his recent column for The Weekly Standard titled “The Definitive Explanation of Why Trump Is Right on Mulvaney, English, and the CFPB.” During Coffin’s appearance on the show, Perino quoted from this column at length, and allowed Coffin to criticize the CFPB as he argued that there are “no checks and balances” when it comes to the agency. 

    But at no point during Coffin’s appearance did Perino acknowledge that Coffin has “represented clients affected by and opposed to CFPB regulation,” as noted in the Weekly Standard column that Perino quoted.

    This is not the first time that Fox has allowed guests to shill for conservative causes or personalities without divulging important information about their potential conflicts of interest. From the November 27 edition of Fox News' The Daily Briefing with Dana Perino:

    DANA PERINO (HOST): Amid the ongoing saga over who will take over the consumer financial protection bureau, my next guest says this legal battle will likely be a long one. Quote: “The dispute and the resulting litigation will cast further doubt over the legitimacy of an already troubled agency, a result that would run counter to Cordray’s stated purpose in launching his little bureaucratic war, but would let him continue to protect his bureaucratic legacy for just a little while longer, at a price of accountability to We the People.” Shannen Coffin is an attorney at Steptoe & Johnson. Shannen, take me back to 2010. What was the intent of the CFPB, and where did everything go wrong?

    SHANNEN COFFIN: Oh boy, that’s a big question. Well, look, the desire was to consolidate some other governmental agencies’ power into one bureau that would have regulatory control over consumer financial products. And the problem is though, the power here is so concentrated in one person. Unlike other agencies that are accountable directly to the president or some agencies that are made up of commissions that are made up of multiple members, you’ve got one guy, this Richard Cordray, who just resigned on Friday, who has all of the power. And a court that has looked at that said that is too much power. They have to be -- in order to be accountable in our constitutional system, he has to answer to the president. And that’s the constitutional background about this agency.

    PERINO: And doesn’t it also get its money to run, not from the Congress, but from profits from the federal reserve?

    COFFIN: That’s right. So the federal reserve pays the freight on the CFPB. Congress doesn’t appropriate funds directly like it does for every other agency. So you don’t even have real accountability to Congress. So there are just no checks and balances on the system. And this latest dispute is really another sign of that.

  • How cable news should cover Trump's latest effort to screw you over while helping big banks

    White House appointment to CFPB could doom successful watchdog agency

    Blog ››› ››› CRAIG HARRINGTON


    Sarah Wasko / Media Matters

    CNN’s morning news program New Day set a standard for covering the dispute between the White House and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) over who should lead the agency after the departure of its long-time director, Richard Cordray. Meanwhile, Fox News largely carried water for the administration, framing the dispute in its morning show Fox & Friends as a fight between President Donald Trump and the so-called “swamp,” while MSNBC’s flagship morning program Morning Joe neglected the legal brinkmanship entirely.

    On Friday, November 24, Cordray announced his resignation from the nation’s premier consumer financial watchdog agency and elevated his chief of staff, Leandra English, to the position of deputy director. According to The Washington Post, Cordray argued in his resignation letter that designating English as the agency’s new deputy, and thus as its acting director in his absence, “would minimize operational disruption and provide for a smooth transition” until the Senate confirmed a permanent replacement. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) shared Cordray’s sentiment, pointing out on Twitter that the Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB, was very clear about the proper process for succession at the regulatory agency: The deputy director “shall be appointed by the Director” and serve as acting director in that person’s absence.

    Despite the clear letter of the law, the Trump administration nominated its own acting director: the head of Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Mick Mulvaney, a former Republican congressman and outspoken opponent of the CFPB with close ties to a lobbyist who currently represents a bank “facing the prospect of major CFPB sanctions.” Acting Director English summarily filed suit against the White House in federal court for “Disregarding ... statutory language” on the proper process of naming a new director and for attempting to implant Mulvaney to serve “indefinitely as the interim head of a statutorily ‘independent’ agency” despite his current role as White House budget director.

    The succession crisis at CFPB, and the looming court battle over the president’s latest decision to circumvent legislative statutes in pursuit of his own agenda, should have provided ample material for reporters and analysts at each of the largest cable news outlets. Unfortunately, only CNN’s New Day seemed up to the task the day after the lawsuit was filed.

    CNN reporters led with the CFPB story throughout the morning of November 27, outlining the legal basis for the administration’s case as well as the case made by Acting Director English. The network’s legal and political analysts also dissected how the dispute over CFPB’s leadership is part of the Trump administration’s broader plan to dismantle regulatory and oversight mechanisms throughout the federal government. New Day even featured a lengthy interview with former Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), who co-authored Dodd-Frank, where he highlighted the importance of maintaining an independent financial watchdog to implement consumer protections that would prevent returning to the catastrophic circumstances of the 2008 financial collapse.

    Compared to extensive coverage from CNN, MSNBC’s Morning Joe had nothing to say about the issue. Meanwhile, the Trump sycophants at Fox & Friends briefly addressed the dispute twice, characterizing it as a fight between Trump and the so-called “swamp” and wondering why the president ought not have unilateral authority to usurp the independence of agencies like the CFPB.

    The Trump administration’s current assault on the CFPB is only the latest in a series of Republican attempts to take down the agency. Right-wing media outlets, such as The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, have vilified the CFPB for years, but their calls to destroy the independent financial regulatory process have been supercharged by the rise of Trump and his GOP enablers.

    Methodology

    Media Matters searched SnapStream for mentions of “CFPB,” “Mick Mulvaney,” and “Leandra English” on the November 27 editions of CNN’s New Day, Fox News’ Fox & Friends, and MSNBC’s Morning Joe.

  • The White House press corps should follow up on new communications director’s financial conflicts

    New reports raise questions about Anthony Scaramucci’s promise that his financial portfolio would be “totally cleansed”

    Blog ››› ››› CRAIG HARRINGTON

    According to Politico, Anthony Scaramucci “still stands to profit” from his ownership stake in a hedge fund he founded in 2005 despite his assertion that his financial portfolio would be “totally cleansed” of conflicts of interest before he assumed a full-time role as communications director at the White House.

    During a July 21 press conference in which Scaramucci announced his new role in the Trump administration, he claimed that the position would not be encumbered by conflicts of interest tied to his previous business dealings. However, according to a July 26 report from Politico, Scaramucci “still stands to profit from an ownership stake in his investment firm SkyBridge Capital.” The Office of Government Ethics (OGE) stipulates that federal employees “may be directed to divest” from certain stock or property holdings in order to resolve possible conflicts of interest, but Scaramucci was still listed as SkyBridge’s managing partner as of July 27 and, according to a financial disclosure form published by Politico, Scaramucci still expects to receive significant returns from the upcoming sale of his SkyBridge assets:

    According to a July 25 report from Bloomberg citing “people familiar with Scaramucci’s recent thinking,” the incoming communications director “was eager to take another government post” in part so he could benefit from an agreement with the IRS that allows appointees to defer some capital gains taxes when they are forced to liquidate private business relationships in order to assume federal government roles. However, several ethics experts contacted by Bloomberg believe Scaramucci should be disqualified from that tax arrangement because the terms of the sale of his company pre-dated his assumption of a federal government role by several months.

    CNBC reported last week that Scaramucci’s ongoing attempt to close the sale of SkyBridge Capital “delayed his appointment” to the Trump administration earlier this year, but he has technically been an employee of the federal government since joining the Export-Import Bank last month while the SkyBridge deal remained unfinished.

    The SkyBridge deal itself is increasingly raising questions. Bloomberg reported in January that the Chinese government linked foreign conglomerate lined up to purchase SkyBridge is paying significantly more for the firm than it seems to be worth. On July 24, Business Insider described the purchase agreement for the sale of SkyBridge as “a $180 million conflict of interest hanging over [Scaramucci’s] head” because the sale will eventually have to be approved by Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, with whom Scaramucci will work closely in his new role as a senior adviser in the Trump administration. (Rumors that Scaramucci may be in line to replace Reince Priebus as the president’s chief of staff may further exacerbate the financial conflict.)

    Given the Trump team’s extraordinary penchant for misleading the press, reporters should continue digging for proof of Scaramucci’s compliance with ethics regulations routinely flouted by the Trump family and other members of the administration.

  • New Trump hire Anthony Scaramucci to Sean Hannity: "We were separated at birth" because I agree with you "1,000 percent"

    Scaramucci and Hannity repeatedly agree on the White House communications strategy

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    In a July 24 appearance on Sean Hannity’s radio show, Anthony Scaramucci, the newly-minted White House communications director, promised he would go after leakers, “find other ways” beyond traditional media outlets to “deliver information,” and confirmed that he would combat the media’s “double-standard.” This strategy mirrors the rantings from Sean Hannity on his radio program and Fox News show.

    Hunting and purging leakers in the government

    Scaramucci promises to fire "leakers" on his staff.

    SEAN HANNITY (HOST): Let's talk a little bit about the statement that you made here. "Any leakers are going to be shown the door," does that also include deep state leakers? Because there was one report --

    ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI: So, let me -- let me rephrase that for your listeners, it's the leakers that I have control over, okay? So, I sit in the comms shop now, I report directly to the president, had a very crisp meeting with him this morning about some of the things I'd like to do, got his green light. I met with about 40 or so people in the Roosevelt Room, here in the West Wing shortly thereafter, and sort of laid out what i want to do culturally here to make people understand where I'm coming from. And so, very very binary, like I said to Jake Tapper, "You are going to leak, you are going to go outside on Pennsylvania Avenue, and you're going to sell postcards to the tourists." It's just that simple.

    HANNITY: Well, I --

    SCARAMUCCI: If you're not going to leak, you can stay here and work. You gotta make a decision.

    HANNITY: I think one of the harder things to find is gonna be the 125 leaks from within the intelligence community --

    SCARAMUCCI: Yeah.

    HANNITY: -- against the President. I mean, we had one late last week again, and this one was against Jeff Sessions, and it seems like it just never ends.

    SCARAMUCCI: Yeah, so that's a -- totally separate topic, and so unfortunately it is outside of my authority. But what I will say there is that we are going to start a process of bolstering the exposure of those as well. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Sean Hannity Show, 7/24/17]

    Hannity: Trump should fire everyone in the executive branch who Isn't loyal to him “because he’s got to end the leaks that are plaguing this administration.

    SEAN HANNITY (HOST): Let's go back to 1861, President Abraham Lincoln he created a team of rivals, a so-called team of rivals, a cabinet of rivals including adversaries that he ran against the Republican primary. While President Lincoln sought to unify his party through cabinet selections, he also executed an extensive government purge. He fired over 75 percent, nearly 1200 people. Out of 1500 bureaucrats that worked in the executive branch that President Lincoln feared could be disloyal. It's time now for President Trump to follow Abraham Lincoln's example and fire anyone and everyone who was actively working against him in government.

    [...]

    Because he’s got to end the leaks that are plaguing this administration.[Fox News, Hannity, 3/9/17]

    Circumventing traditional press to get better news coverage

    Scaramucci: “If I can’t get the help from the mainstream media,” “we’ll find other ways” to “deliver information to the American people.”

    ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI: We’re going to try to keep this as transparent as we can, and as open. I don’t think we’re going to be able to fight through a lot of the mainstream media nonsense, I think they’re just going to go off the hook into the direction they’re going in, but we’ve got very sharp people here on the comms team. We’re going to reinvent the way we deliver information to the American people, and if I can’t get the help from the mainstream media, of giving the president a fair shake, we’ll find other ways to do that. On -- certainly, the president does that with his social media situation.

    SEAN HANNITY (HOST): I honestly have seen a shift and a change just before you came onboard, and then we saw a lot of it this weekend, I mean -- I think the exchange we just played with you and Jake Tapper is a really good one, “Well Jake, I know you’re trying to come up with analogies on the fly, but good try, it doesn’t work here,” or Kellyanne was on CNN, and Doctor Gorka’s two appearances, Anderson Cooper and Alisyn Camerota went viral. I do think that they have gotten away with way too much, and I think there has been far too little pushback, in my humble opinion. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Sean Hannity Show, 7/24/17]
     

    Hannity led the charge to get Trump to abandon traditional media. Sean Hannity has devoted himself to promoting the notion that Trump should not have a press office in his White House and should use other methods of reaching out to the American people outside of the mainstream media. [Media Matters, 12/14/16]

    Scaramucci echoed Hannity’s claim that Trump’s communication strategy should combat the media’s “double standard”

    “You and I were separated at birth”: Scaramucci tells Hannity he agrees completely with his comments on combating the media’s double standard.

    SEAN HANNITY (HOST): How do you combat all of -- all of this double standard at one time? Are you going to -- are you going to take these issues to the media?

    ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI: Yeah, so you know you and I were separated at birth, you just happen to be Irish, right? You know that about yourself, right? So, everything you just said, you know, I 1000 percent agree with.

    But what I said from the podium on Friday was that, you know, the Navy SEALs have a great line, that the only way that you can eat an entire elephant is to take one bite at a time. So, the first thing that I’ve got to do, Sean, is I’ve got to clean up the culture here in the comms shop, and I have to stop the internecine civil warfare among the personalities and the egomaniacs.

    Once they stop shooting at each other, we can subordinate all of that to the president’s message. Once we get that under control, we can start dealing with the stuff that you’re referencing -- but I 1000 percent agree with you that we’ve got to start going in that direction. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Sean Hannity Show, 7/24/17]