Treasury Secretary Mnuchin requested government jet for European honeymoon

[bcking 3,157]

9 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

This is a serious question, have you ever traveled on a government aircraft?  I ask this because we are talking about a multi-billionaire here, going on his honeymoon.  Not just any personal trip, his actual honeymoon.  You really think that a multi-billionaire wants to take his new wife on their honeymoon on a crappy government plane, with maybe a semi-decent business class type service, instead of taking her on his private jet or one of his many private jets or even in First Class on any commercial airline he chooses?  Have you ever flown on a private jet or in First Class on an international flight?  Think about it.  This isn't Hillary Clinton prior to taking in hundreds of millions of dollars from foreign donors through the Clinton Foundation, this is a self-made multi-billionaire.

 

But if you have insider information that points to nefarious behavior or a willingness to fraudulently waste tax payer funds, I'm willing to listen.  So far I've only heard hypothetical arguments.  

It's not really relevant to the discussion but no to a government aircraft, no to a private jet, yes to first class on an international flight. Oh and you get bonus points for adding in that bit about Clinton. Way to go  I've actually never brought up Trump, so good job to you for masking your bias! (I'm being sarcastic)

 

I don't know why he asked for the military aircraft and either one of us would be speculating if he tried to come up with a reason. I'm merely working with what information is available:

 

1. He requested it for his honeymoon

2. Prior treasury secretaries have not used a military aircraft for personal travel 

 

Because of #2, I find #1 inappropriate unless there is a reason (unknown to the public) for why he thinks he is a unique case. The fact that there is an "inquiry" regarding it suggests that it isn't just members of the public that find it inappropriate. Of course just like with the FBI investigations as members of the public we all have to live with having less information than what is available to members of the government. 

 

I haven't seen any news articles calling for him to resign, or to be fired etc...The ABC article initially linked here just states that it "raises red flags". That is a pretty reasonable statement. His office may have a perfectly reasonable reason for why they thought this was a special circumstance, uninque from prior experiences of Treasury Secretaries in the past. Without knowing their reasoning though, it definitely seems inappropriate at face value.

Edited September 15, 2017 by bcking

[jayjayj 571]

12 minutes ago, bcking said:

If his staff requested it without his knowledge, hopefully they will be reprimanded. That is inappropriate. In my personal example, if my secretary asked my section chief if I could use the funds for personal travel without my knowledge, I would be very unhappy given the fact that it is quite clear to me using common sense that we should not ask that question.

 

As it has been pointed out in most of the articles writing about this topic, military planes are typically reserved for specific members of the National Security Council, except in extenuating emergency circumstances. The Treasury Secretary, for example, would appropriately use a military aircraft to return to DC for an emergency meeting. He would also use it on official foreign trips.

 

Based on precedent, which is discussed in most of these articles, it would not be appropriate OR expected for a Treasury Secretary to need a military aircraft for personal travel. I'm sure his office knows far more about the precedent than we do. If you can find any examples in the past where a Treasury Secretary took a military aircraft to go on holiday, please do let us know. It seems like no news outlets have been able to find an example that supports him requesting it. What makes him different than every other Treasury Secretary before him? We have been involved in wars for a long time now, nothing new here.

 

I ended with a personal example, which I agree is an unethical situation. It would be unethical for me to request funds that are well-established for a specific purpose, to be used for personal enjoyment. I think that is the perfect example because requesting a military aircraft, which has a precendent for how they are used among various officials, for private personal holiday time is similarly unethical.

 

He was not the first Treasury Secretary to go on holiday. He is not the first Treasury Secretary to go on holiday during a "time of war". Unless there are examples from the past in which Treasury Secretaries, for personal travel, used military aircraft I don't see why he thinks he is unique or different. No one has been able to provide an example where it has happened before, so there doesn't seem to be a reason to ask.

 

They claim they "found alternative means of communication". Of course they did. They "found" the means of communication that every other Treasury Secretary likely used when going on holiday, whatever it may be. Shouldn't have been hard to locate.

Several other points.

 

You don't have a secret service detail that is charged with protecting you 24/7, no matter if you are sitting in your home, at work, or on your honeymoon.  How are they getting to the honeymoon location?  Do you think they are paying out of pocket for their travel?  

 

Various officials aren't Principal Members of the National Security Council.  However, here are some article about various officials -   

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/28/government-report-shows-attorney-general-fbi-used-luxury-jets-for-personal.html

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/19/federal-officials-regularly-using-executive-jets-f/

 

I realize you won't believe those articles, but the reporting is factual. 

 

 

[bcking 3,157]

8 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

Several other points.

 

You don't have a secret service detail that is charged with protecting you 24/7, no matter if you are sitting in your home, at work, or on your honeymoon.  How are they getting to the honeymoon location?  Do you think they are paying out of pocket for their travel?  

 

Various officials aren't Principal Members of the National Security Council.  However, here are some article about various officials -   

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/28/government-report-shows-attorney-general-fbi-used-luxury-jets-for-personal.html

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/19/federal-officials-regularly-using-executive-jets-f/

 

I realize you won't believe those articles, but the reporting is factual. 

 

 

I have no problem believing the reporting in those articles. Both are about the intelligence department, specifically the FBI director and the AG using government aircraft. If they are using the aircraft for purposes that the aircraft aren't intended for, than we do need more accountability from them. Both articles seem to focus on how the intelligence department is getting a sort of "free pass" which should stop. I would agree with that. I don't have any loyalty to prior AG's or FBI directors regarding their use of military aircraft.

 

I would hope that we wouldn't end up adding the Treasury Department to that list of those getting a "free pass". Even the thought of asking again is a slippery slope. Coming from the Treasury Department specifically, a request for a military aircraft for private travel is unusual. That is what is being reported. Therefore we have to ask of the current Treasury Secretary why did he think he was unique in this circumstance, when compared to prior Treasury Secretaries. Not compared to FBI directors and AG's. 

 

You can't giving examples of things I don't have, but do have any of these? I don't see how it is relevant here. Prior Treasury Secretaries took private holidays without the use of military aircraft. However they did it, they did it. I don't know how their protection travelled, but however they did it...it has been done. He is not the first Treasury Secretary to ever go on holiday. 

 

So again unless you can find a report stating that this has been an unsettling trend among Treasury Secretaries in the past, I still don't really see why his department didn't just go with what his predecessors did. Whatever it was worked. They seem to act like they "found" some alternative solution after putting in the request. Most likely that alternative solution was the precedent set by former Secretaries. If they didn't think to check that first, I'm not sure how they do their job. It's pretty much common sense to ask "Well how did the person before me handle this situation?".

Edited September 15, 2017 by bcking

[jayjayj 571]

45 minutes ago, bcking said:

It's not really relevant to the discussion but no to a government aircraft, no to a private jet, yes to first class on an international flight. Oh and you get bonus points for adding in that bit about Clinton. Way to go  I've actually never brought up Trump, so good job to you for masking your bias! (I'm being sarcastic)

 

I don't know why he asked for the military aircraft and either one of us would be speculating if he tried to come up with a reason. I'm merely working with what information is available:

 

1. He requested it for his honeymoon

2. Prior treasury secretaries have not used a military aircraft for personal travel 

 

Because of #2, I find #1 inappropriate unless there is a reason (unknown to the public) for why he thinks he is a unique case. The fact that there is an "inquiry" regarding it suggests that it isn't just members of the public that find it inappropriate. Of course just like with the FBI investigations as members of the public we all have to live with having less information than what is available to members of the government. 

 

I haven't seen any news articles calling for him to resign, or to be fired etc...The ABC article initially linked here just states that it "raises red flags". That is a pretty reasonable statement. His office may have a perfectly reasonable reason for why they thought this was a special circumstance, uninque from prior experiences of Treasury Secretaries in the past. Without knowing their reasoning though, it definitely seems inappropriate at face value.

Any non-biased person could see this entire story in nonsense.  

 

Since you've flown first class, did you enjoy the experience?  I'm assuming it was international travel, because first class domestic travel is akin to premium economy on international flights.  If you had a choice, with money being no object because you are a hypothetical billionaire, would you choose first class international travel for your honeymoon or would you rather fly on a well maintained but much less luxurious government plane?  

Edited September 15, 2017 by TBoneTX
to remove unnecessary comment

[bcking 3,157]

37 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

Any non-biased person could see this entire story in nonsense.  

 

Since you've flown first class, did you enjoy the experience?  I'm assuming it was international travel, because first class domestic travel is akin to premium economy on international flights.  If you had a choice, with money being no object because you are a hypothetical billionaire, would you choose first class international travel for your honeymoon or would you rather fly on a well maintained but much less luxurious government plane?  

I don't see why you keep asking me questions about what I would do. We are dealing with what Steve Mnuchin did.

 

I've never claimed he wanted to fly on the military jet because it was luxurious. I'm saying I don't see the reason why he would want to fly on it. It can't be for security purposes, since his predeccesors never needed it so I don't see why he thinks he does. Secure communications? Once again, if it has never been done by his predeccesors so what does he need it for specifically that makes him unique?

 

I don't know the answer to those questions, and neither do you. That is why it is unusual.

 

I agree with you that if his choice was purely about comfort he would of course prefer a private aircraft charter, which he could more than afford. I don't think first class on a commercial plane would have been a reasonable option for him because of his wealth, as you reference. Even if he doesn't own a plane himself (I have no idea), chartering one would be quite reasonable to him most likely.

 

So it clearly wasn't because of the comfort of the military aircraft, because he could pay for much better. I would also say it wasn't for the security or the communication, since there is an established precedent of prior treasure secretaries NOT needing it....so then why? The fact that he is rich just makes it more unusual.

 

In the end it will probably just end up being an "honest mistake" in the sense that he didn't think to ask what his predecessor did for personal travel, he just "assumed" he could take a military jet. Being an "outsider", similar to Trump, would suggest that he probably doesn't understand how things work and doesn't think to ask about precedent. It's unfortunate that he has no one on his staff smart enough to think about it before putting in an inappropriate request. Also sucks for him considering the embarassing behavior of his wife recently doesn't make him look any more innocent. 

Edited September 15, 2017 by TBoneTX
to edit quote

[jayjayj 571]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

I have no problem believing the reporting in those articles. Both are about the intelligence department, specifically the FBI director and the AG using government aircraft. If they are using the aircraft for purposes that the aircraft aren't intended for, than we do need more accountability for them. Both articles seem to focus on how the intelligence department is getting a sort of "free pass" which should stop. I would agree with that.

 

I would hope that we wouldnt' end up adding the Treasury Department to that list of those getting a "free pass". Even the thought of asking again is a slippery slope. Coming from the Treasury Department specifically, a request for a military aircraft for private travel is unusual. That is what is being reported. Therefore we have to ask of the current Treasury Secretary why did he think he was unique in this circumstance, when compared to prior Treasury Secretaries. Not compared to FBI directors and AG's. 

 

You can't giving examples of things I don't have, but do have any of these? I don't see how it is relevant here. Prior Treasury Secretaries took private holidays without the use of military aircraft. However they did it, they did it. I don't know how their protection travelled, but however they did it...it has been done. He is not the first Treasury Secretary to ever go on holiday. 

 

So again unless you can find a report stating that this has been an unsettling trend among Treasury Secretaries in the past, I still don't really see why his department didn't just go with what his predecessors did. Whatever it was worked. They seem to act like they "found" some alternative solution after putting in the request. Most likely that alternative solution was the precedent set by former Secretaries. If they didn't think to check that first, I'm not sure how they do their job. It's pretty much common sense to ask "Well how did the person before me handle this situation?".

I simply gave you examples of "various government officials".  

 

I guess my overall point is that this is being blown way out of proportion in the main stream media.  He didn't even use the aircraft for his honeymoon, it was a request by his staff for reasons none of us know and none of us know if he knew at the time that the request was submitted.  Officials from previous administrations actually used military and/or government aircraft for person use and never reimbursed the tax payers for their travel - Republican and Democrat administrations.  Most or none of those officials were billionaires, which is my other main point.  Government planes are not equated with luxury by any standards, especially for people who can afford real luxury travel.  

 

 

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

I simply gave you examples of "various government officials".  

 

I guess my overall point is that this is being blown way out of proportion in the main stream media.  He didn't even use the aircraft for his honeymoon, it was a request by his staff for reasons none of us know and none of us know if he knew at the time that the request was submitted.  Officials from previous administrations actually used military and/or government aircraft for person use and never reimbursed the tax payers for their travel - Republican and Democrat administrations.  Most or none of those officials were billionaires, which is my other main point.  Government planes are not equated with luxury by any standards, especially for people who can afford real luxury travel.  

 

 

I don't see how the news is "out of proportion"? No one is calling for him to be fired, they are just reporting that the request is unusual from his department. They have former staff members from the department stating it is so, and there is an investigation into the request which again suggests that it is indeen unusual. Maybe the quote from a democratic senator is a little bit "bombastic" and "sky is falling"esque.

 

I don't think it is that big of a deal, but I do agree that it seems to be unusual. That is my only point. He shouldn't be fired or resign. It is just strange. As I've said I think most likely it just reflects the fact that he is an "outsider" and isn't very familiar with precedents set in his department.

 

Unless other news outlets, or government officials, report that in fact prior treasury secretaries always, as a matter of protocol, request a military jet when taking a personal holiday then it is unusual for him or his department to do so. Why did they think they were unique from the predecessors? 

 

It would defy logic for them to think "Well the AG and FBI director have used a jet for personal trips, so maybe we can to?". I agree with you that the Intelligence Department likely needs more accountability. But that is a different department. If you just look at the Treasury Department, even just requesting an aircraft is apparently not heard of (according to what reports we have from people who would know). Unless reports suggest otherwise, then the request is indeed unusual.

Edited September 15, 2017 by bcking

[jayjayj 571]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

I don't see why you keep asking me questions about what I would do. We are dealing with what Steve Mnuchin did.

 

I've never claimed he wanted to fly on the military jet because it was luxurious. I'm saying I don't see the reason why he would want to fly on it. It can't be for security purposes, since his predeccesors never needed it so I don't see why he thinks he does. Secure communications? Once again, if it has never been done by his predeccesors what does he need it for specifically that makes him unique?

 

I don't know the answer to those questions, and neither do you. That is why it is unusual. I agree with you that if his choice was purely about comfort he would of course prefer a private aircraft charter, which he could more than afford. I don't think first class on a commercial plane would have been a reasonable option for him because of his wealth, as you reference. Even if he doesn't own a plane himself (I have no idea), chartering one is more than affordable for him.

 

So it clearly wasn't because of the comfort of the military aircraft, because he could pay for much better. I would also say it wasn't for the security or the communication, since there is an established precedent of prior treasure secretaries NOT needing it....so then why? The fact that he is rich just makes it more unusual.

 

In the end it will probably just end up being an "honest mistake" in the sense that he didn't think to ask what his predecessor did for personal travel, he just "assumed" he could take a military jet. Being an "outsider", similar to Trump, would suggest that he probably doesn't understand how things work and doesn't think to ask about precedent. It's unfortunate that he has no one on his staff smart enough to think about it before putting in an inappropriate request. Also sucks for him considering the embarassing behavior of his wife recently doesn't make him look any more innocent. 

The only reason then would be for security and secure communications purposes.  

 

I'm not going to assume his staff is incompetent.  I'm going to assume the exact opposite.

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, jayjayj said:

The only reason then would be for security and secure communications purposes.  

 

I'm not going to assume his staff is incompetent.  I'm going to assume the exact opposite.

So for some reason they thought that Steve Mnuchin going on honeymoon somehow required specific security and secure communication purposes that prior treasury secretaries going on holiday did not require?

 

If that is the case, than as members of the public I doubt either one of us will ever know what exactly they thought he needed that past treasury secretaries didn't need. 

 

I'd say a more likely explanation is they didn't think to ask themselves "What has the department done in the past when the Treasury Secretary goes on holiday?" They probably didn't look it up, and just went ahead with the request. I don't know how many people are in his office but assuming more than 1 I find it rather incompetent that as a group none of them thought to ask that question. It is a fairly basic question when dealing with any scenario in any job.

 

It is pretty basic common sense to ask "Has this been done before, and what did they do?"

[jayjayj 571]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

So for some reason they thought that Steve Mnuchin going on honeymoon somehow required specific security and secure communication purposes that prior treasury secretaries going on holiday did not require?

 

If that is the case, than as members of the public I doubt either one of us will ever know what exactly they thought he needed that past treasury secretaries didn't need. 

 

I'd say a more likely explanation is they didn't think to ask themselves "What has the department done in the past when the Treasury Secretary goes on holiday?" They probably didn't look it up, and just went ahead with the request. I don't know how many people are in his office but assuming more than 1 I find it rather incompetent that as a group none of them thought to ask that question. It is a fairly basic question when dealing with any scenario in any job.

 

It is pretty basic common sense to ask "Has this been done before, and what did they do?"

Which appears to be exactly what they did in this case?  

[bcking 3,157]

19 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

Which appears to be exactly what they did in this case?  

They did so after they put in the request.

 

It would have been the first thing I did before I filed to use a military aircraft. I would have first looked up what was done before.

 

As I've said it is likely all an innocent mistake due to his being an "outsider" and not knowing established precedent. It's unfortunate he has no one on staff that has the foresight to ask the question ahead of time either. If I were an "outsider" I'd make sure I have people on staff who are familiar with how things have been done before, to help provide me with that insight.

 

If he had no knowledge of the request, than if I were him I would be looking for who put in the request and that person would be reprimanded. Maybe not fired, but at least it should be acknowledged that putting in the request BEFORE doing the homework regarding what has been done before is inappropriate.

 

Requesting the use of the jet clearly involves people outside the Treasury Department. The people within his department should have first made sure it was a reasonable request to make. Had they done their homework they would have realized it wasn't reasonable.

16 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

.

 

Edited September 15, 2017 by TBoneTX
now-redundant material removed

[jayjayj 571]

12 minutes ago, bcking said:

They did so after they put in the request.

 

It would have been the first thing I did before I filed to use a military aircraft. I would have first looked up what was done before.

 

As I've said it is likely all an innocent mistake due to his being an "outsider" and not knowing established precedent. It's unfortunate he has no one on staff that has the foresight to ask the question ahead of time either. If I were an "outsider" I'd make sure I have people on staff who are familiar with how things have been done before, to help provide me with that insight.

 

If he had no knowledge of the request, than if I were him I would be looking for who put in the request and that person would be reprimanded. Maybe not fired, but at least it should be acknowledged that putting in the request BEFORE doing the homework regarding what has been done before is inappropriate.

 

Requesting the use of the jet clearly involves people outside the Treasury Department. The people within his department should have first made sure it was a reasonable request to make. Had they done their homework they would have realized it wasn't reasonable.

That assumes that they had no credible security reason to make the request.  I am simply saying, we don't know.  I do know that nuclear war could kick off at any minute on the Korean Peninsula and Steven Mnuchin is a principal member of the National Security Council.  There aren't any irrelevant principal members of the NSC.  So perhaps his staff, taking into consideration the precarious nature of current global affairs, felt it was necessary to ensure he had an increased level of ensured and secure communications.

 

Just to clarify on why I asked you what you would do, it was because you brought up a scenario where you were personally involved.  

Edited September 15, 2017 by jayjayj

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

That assumes that they had no credible security reason to make the request.  I am simply saying, we don't know.  I do know that nuclear war could kick off at any minute on the Korean Peninsula and Steven Mnuchin is a principal member of the National Security Council.  There aren't any irrelevant principal members of the NSC.  So perhaps his staff, taking into consideration the precarious nature of current global affairs, felt it was necessary to ensure he had an increased level of ensured and secure communications.

 

Just to clarify on why I asked you what you would do, it was because you brought up a scenarios where you were personally involved.  

You have a good point, and that may be why. It seems like the request was still "unusual" enough that some sort of investigation is occuring, so unless that internal investigation is politically motivated the request was unusual enough given the current geopolitical climate to ask questions. I don't know anything about the Treasury Department's "Office of Inspector General" so I don't know if someone who runs that would potentially be motivated by political position.

 

(I have a conference to attend so unfortunately conversation has to end. It has been a good discussion.)

Edited September 15, 2017 by bcking

[Dashinka 24,505]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

They did so after they put in the request.

 

It would have been the first thing I did before I filed to use a military aircraft. I would have first looked up what was done before.

 

As I've said it is likely all an innocent mistake due to his being an "outsider" and not knowing established precedent. It's unfortunate he has no one on staff that has the foresight to ask the question ahead of time either. If I were an "outsider" I'd make sure I have people on staff who are familiar with how things have been done before, to help provide me with that insight.

 

If he had no knowledge of the request, than if I were him I would be looking for who put in the request and that person would be reprimanded. Maybe not fired, but at least it should be acknowledged that putting in the request BEFORE doing the homework regarding what has been done before is inappropriate.

 

Requesting the use of the jet clearly involves people outside the Treasury Department. The people within his department should have first made sure it was a reasonable request to make. Had they done their homework they would have realized it wasn't reasonable.

 

So putting in the request was a bad thing?  How does one know something is not appropriate until they ask the question?  Like you said earlier, no one knows the entire story, and it keeps getting reported that this was purely his honeymoon, but do we know if there were official duties he had to perform while there?

 

This simple fact is that the question was asked, he and his staff was educated, and the aircraft initially requested was not used.  If we are going to now investigate things that did not happen, then we need to start investigating the government paid travel for the party leaders (both sides) of the Congress.

[bcking 3,157]

12 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

So putting in the request was a bad thing?  How does one know something is not appropriate until they ask the question?  Like you said earlier, no one knows the entire story, and it keeps getting reported that this was purely his honeymoon, but do we know if there were official duties he had to perform while there?

 

This simple fact is that the question was asked, he and his staff was educated, and the aircraft initially requested was not used.  If we are going to now investigate things that did not happen, then we need to start investigating the government paid travel for the party leaders (both sides) of the Congress.

You can ask a question internally without submitting an official request, I would imagine.

 

There is nothing wrong with me asking myself "Could I possibly use our CME funds for my personal vacation?", but going to my section chief and asking him would be an inappropriate means of asking that question. A simple search of what the CME funds are for, and what they have been used for in the past would answer my question.

 

His department could have asked themselves "Do we need to use a military aircraft for this trip?". It seems like, based on the consensus from people with prior working knowledge of the Department of the Treasury, that they would have gotten a simple answer if they merely looked at precedent. They wouldn't need an official request to be filed. 

 

Unless of course they thought their situation was unique compared to precedent. The question then is what made them think they were unique? We've been at war for awhile now, and yes North Korea is volatile but it is pretty much always volatile. According to the sources available precedent suggests that the Treasury Secretary does not routinely need a military aircraft for personal travel. They should be able to get that information without a formal request. It became unusual as soon as they expanded their question beyond their own integral decision making. If no other Treasury Secretary has ever requested the use of a military jet for personal holiday time then it is by definition unusual (not commonly occuring).