webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Benjamin cassidy

oops see ben

see BERNHARDT

-=-=

...

Earlier this week, the department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) confirmed an investigation into potential ethics violations by six senior DOI officials. The decision came in response to a request by the nonpartisan watchdog group Campaign Legal Center, which requested in February that certain DOI staffers face a probe over potentially violating an ethics pledge due to interactions with former employers and clients.

The deputy inspector for the OIG, Mary L. Kendall, said that her office will look into “potential ethics violations committed by multiple Department of Interior senior executives.” The Campaign Legal Center named current Interior officials Benjamin Cassidy, Lori Mashburn, Doug Domenech, Todd Wynn, and Timothy Williams in its complaint. Vincent DeVito, a sixth person named, left the department in August and joined an offshore oil and gas company.

Despite bipartisan uproar over offshore drilling, coastal Republicans back Trump Interior pick

The complaints against the six officials vary, but all relate to their former employers. Cassidy, a former National Rifle Association (NRA) lobbyist, has been called out for his ongoing work on gun-related issues, including on projects backed by the NRA. Mashburn, a former employee of the right-wing Heritage Foundation, is criticized for staying in close touch with the think tank since leaving. Meanwhile, exchanges show Domenech met with representatives from the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), another think tank that has actively downplayed climate change.

Domenech, who is currently assistant secretary for insular and international affairs, previously worked for the Koch-backed right-wing think tank, which has notched political victories under the Trump administration. DeVito and Wynn similarly engaged with former employers or clients while acting in their capacity as DOI officials.

Senior political appointees are largely limited in the interactions they are allowed with former employers under an ethics pledge imposed by President Donald Trump. The investigation into the DOI staffers will examine whether they are in violation of those limitations.

Bernhardt is similarly accused of breaching that ethics pledge. The Interior secretary, known for carrying around a card listing all of his conflicts of interest, is under investigation in relation to at least seven different complaints, according to an OIG letter sent April 15 to Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR). That probe was launched four days after the Senate voted to confirm Bernhardt, 56 to 41, largely along party lines.

It is unclear what the full scope of the complaints entail, but Wyden and Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) had both pushed for an investigation into Bernhardt’s role in blocking an assessment examining the impact of pesticides on certain endangered species. Bernhardt has previously lobbied on behalf of agribusiness and against endangered species protections.

...

Emails reveal oil and gas drilling was a key incentive to shrink national monuments

-=-=

NEW

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-favor-factory/

12/3/22, 1:53 PM The Favor Factory - Center for American Progress

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-favor-factory/ 1/24

REPORT AUG 27, 2018

TheFavorFactory

PresidentTrump’s Interior DepartmentIsBenefitingPast

Political Donors andLobbying Clients

A culture of corruption in President Donald Trump’s Interior Department may be resulting in

lucrative rewards for the political patrons and past clients of Secretary Ryan Zinke, Deputy

Secretary David Bernhardt, and other senior Trump administration officials.

Introduction and summary

On August 3, 2017, Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke spent his afternoon and evening

with David Lesar, the chairman of oil services giant Halliburton. The two men met in

Marc Rehmann

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke swears in David Bernhardt as the deputy secretary of the Department of the Interior, August 1, 2017. (U.S. Department of the Interior)

12/3/22, 1:53 PM The Favor Factory - Center for American Progress

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-favor-factory/ 2/24

Zinke’s lavish Interior Department offices, toured the Lincoln Memorial together, and

then had dinner at a popular Washington, D.C., beer garden.

The details of Zinke and Lesar’s conversations are not yet known, but according to a

participant in the day’s meetings, the main topic was not energy policy or oil production

but instead areal estate deal in Whitefish, Montana, that would reportedly deliver

private financial benefits to both men.The real estate deal; Zinke’s alleged use of

public office for personal financial gain; and the question of whether Halliburton has

improperly benefited from Lesar’s financial ties to Zinke have rightly attracted the

scrutiny of watchdog groups, congressional investigators, and Interior’s inspector

general.

Both Zinke and Lesar have acknowledged the real estate deal and meeting in the

secretary’s office, and they have dismissed any wrongdoings. However, the emerging

scandal may be part of a string of questionable decisions rather than an isolated

incident. The Center for American Progress reviewed financial and lobbying disclosure

forms of Trump administration officials, as well as Interior Department decisions,

media reports, and other government records. The findings indicate that President

Donald Trump’s Interior Department may be establishing a standard of behavior that

hands out favorable decisions—which may carry substantial financial benefits—to

political patrons and past clients of senior political appointees in the Department of the

Interior (DOI). In some cases, by doing so, the department has dismissed ethical

norms. This pattern of behavior mirrors the culture of corruption that has taken root in

President Trump’s White House, at former Administrator Scott Pruitt’s Environmental

Protection Agency, and in other Trump administration cabinet agencies.

Zinke’s own behaviors and actions—from his real estate deal with Lesar to his mixing of

political, personal, and government business on taxpayer-funded trips—create an

ethically questionable culture within the Department of the Interior’s leadership. Yet it

is Zinke’s deputy secretary, David Bernhardt—previously a lobbyist on issues he now

oversees—who appears to be a central figure in a carefully constructed clientelistic

system for dispensing political favors. The authors of this report characterize this

system as the Interior Department’s “favor factory.”

Bernhardt, who led then-President-elect Trump’s transition team for the Department of

the Interior, first served in the Interior Department as a political appointee in the

administration of former President George W. Bush. He served as senior aide to then

Interior Secretary Gale Norton before being promoted to serve as the Interior

Department’s top lawyer. As solicitor, Bernhardt authored several controversial legal

opinions, including ones that made it more difficult to designate endangered species.

After leaving the department in 2009, Bernhardt rejoined the Washington, D.C., office

of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, where he lobbied for mining companies, oil and

gas companies, powerful water users in the West, and other groups that have a financial

interest in decisions that are made by the Department of the Interior. In August 2017, he

was sworn in as Interior’s deputy secretary.

This report will explore three notable features of the favor factory at the Interior

Department. First, it will examine how Trump administration political appointees at the

Interior Department can exploit weakened federal ethics guidelines to work in positions

where they can deliver favorable decisions to past clients and mask their portfolio of

responsibilities from public inspection. Second, it will analyze recent Interior

Department decisions that are favorable to past clients of former lobbyists and litigants

who are working in Trump’s Department of the Interior. Finally, the report will examine

some of the operational characteristics of the Interior Department’s favor factory that

mask it from public view.

12/3/22, 1:53 PM The Favor Factory - Center for American Progress

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-favor-factory/ 3/24

This report does not make any claims that Trump administration officials at the Interior

Department have violated any federal laws or regulations; rather, it describes the

contours of what is currently known and not known about the Trump administration’s

practices at the Department of the Interior. For example, the report lists four past

clients of Deputy Secretary Bernhardt who have received or stand to receive financial

benefits from specific decisions by the Trump administration’s Interior Department.

These decisions merit scrutiny by congressional investigators in order to determine

whether they were made in accordance with federal ethics and conflict of interest

statutes and regulations. In addition, the report includes a “watch list,” which details

other past clients of Bernhardt who have significant policy and business interests before

the Interior Department. Congressional oversight committees should carefully monitor

the deputy secretary’s engagement on these matters in order to ensure compliance with

his recusals and ethics agreement.

The importance of strong congressional oversight of the Trump administration’s

Interior Department cannot be overstated. The DOI Office of the Inspector General

(OIG) and the U.S. Office of Special Counsel have already opened 11 investigations of

Secretary Zinke’s actions, yet the 115th Congress has failed to hold a single hearing on

possible ethical lapses by political appointees in Trump’s Interior Department. This

failure by the Republican-led Congress to hold the executive branch accountable raises

the risk that the Interior Department will once again endure the kind of scandal,

scientific misconduct, and ethical violations that consumed the department during the

George W. Bush administration. To avoid this outcome, congressional oversight

committees should immediately begin to gather additional information, to request

records, and to conduct interviews that can illuminate the operation of Interior’s favor

factory.

In addition to conducting its oversight responsibilities, Congress should take legislative

action to tighten ethics standards and to strengthen enforcement of conflict of interest

laws. In particular, CAP recommends that Congress:

Enacting these standards and conducting rigorous independent oversight will

strengthen the public’s trust in the Department of the Interior, safeguard the country’s

public lands from special interests, and ensure that the agency’s decisions are made in a

manner that serves the public interest.

TheTrumpadministration’s weakenedethics

policies

Upon taking office in 2009, then-President Barack Obama issued sweeping ethics and

revolving door restrictions to be imposed on officials seeking to serve in his

administration. His executive order was largely inspired by ethical lapses that defined

the Bush administration’s Department of the Interior, including allegations of financial

self-dealing, meddling with scientific findings, and the aftermath of the Jack Abramoff

scandal.

[x]

Strengthen formal ethics standards for individuals working in the executive

branch.

Strengthen the Lobbying Disclosure Act by amending it to require lobbyists to

provide more detailed information when filling out disclosure forms.

Increase funding for Interior’s Office of the Inspector General in order to ensure

proper oversight of the department.

Require better records retention policies within the Interior Department and

modernize the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

12/3/22, 1:53 PM The Favor Factory - Center for American Progress

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-favor-factory/ 4/24

On January 28, 2017, President Donald Trump signed his own executive order on ethics.

At first glance, it appears that the order is complementary to Obama’s ambitions to curb

conflicts of interests within the administration. Both executive orders include

“reverse revolving door” restrictions on those entering an administration: All

appointees must pledge to recuse themselves from official actions that would directly

and substantially affect their former employers or clients of the last two years.

However, Trump’s executive order removed a critical provision: banning individuals

from seeking or accepting employment with any executive agency that they lobbied

within the previous two years. David Bernhardt—who, until 2017, worked as a lobbyist

and chairman for Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck’s natural resources department—

was among the individuals who benefited from Trump’s elimination of the two-year

lobbying ban. Bernhardt now serves as deputy secretary of the Interior. The removal of

the Obama-era provision allows people like Bernhardt, who have years of experience in

the private and public sectors, to be able to oversee policies at the Department of the

Interior that could benefit former clients.

President Trump’s order also differs from Obama’s in two other important ways. First,

it fails to clearly state who is charged with overseeing that mandated recusals take

place. Unlike the Obama administration, Trump has failed to appoint an “ethics czar” or

to implement a procedure ensuring all potential conflicts of interests are understood by

newly appointed officials. Secondly, while both orders include exception waivers for

some individuals, Trump’s removes a transparency provision that allows the public to

know who has received such waivers.

The favor factory delivers for former clients

and political donors

Secretary Zinke’s eagerness to take actions that benefit political patrons and personal

friends sets a negative example for other senior Interior Department officials, who may

in turn follow his lead. Zinke’s subordinates, for example, might interpret the Interior

Secretary’s questionable business interactions with the chairman of Halliburton as a

sign that it is permissible to blur the line between official business and one’s personal

financial gain. Likewise, Zinke’s decision to take a private chartered flight after giving a

speech to the Vegas Golden Knights hockey team—which is owned by a political donor

to Zinke’s past congressional campaign—might suggest to Interior Department officials

that government resources can be used to reward political campaign supporters. In fact,

many political pundits consider unethical behavior at top to be contagious. The

Interior Department’s inspector general found that the trip, which cost taxpayers

upwards of $12,000 and did not relate to the department’s business, “could have been

avoided.” Furthermore, although the Trump administration’s Interior Department has

made numerous decisions that financially benefit the hunting and gun industries,

Secretary Zinke’s failed to disclose that he was a shareholder in a firearms company,

12/3/22, 1:53 PM The Favor Factory - Center for American Progress

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-favor-factory/ 5/24

PROOF Research Inc., conveying a lack of respect for federal financial disclosure

requirements.

Indeed, the Department of the Interior’s culture now reflects Zinke’s poor example, and

senior political appointees appear to be permitted to work on policy matters that could

benefit former clients and employers. These close personal and professional

connections to senior Interior Department officials may allow former employers to

have direct access to decision-makers that the average citizen does not have. For

example:

The Interior Department’s recent handling of American Indian gaming decisions is also

illuminating. In 2017, the department signaled that it would approve, through its normal

process, an application by two tribal nations in Connecticut—the Mashantucket Pequot

and Mohegan tribes—to build a new casino. MGM Resorts, however, which is building

its own casino nearby in Massachusetts, opposes the tribes’ plans. In early September

2017, lobbyists for MGM Resorts and one of its lobbying firms, Ballard Partners, joined

Secretary Zinke for drinks on his balcony. Two weeks later, the Interior Department

said that it would not approve the tribes’ casino proposal. Records also show that

Deputy Secretary Bernhardt and Associate Deputy Secretary James Cason had

numerous meetings with MGM’s lobbyists, including former Interior Secretary Gale

Norton. Though Bernhardt has brushed off the meeting with Norton as merely a

“social visit,” his former lobbying firm also represents MGM, and per his ethics

agreement, he is barred from participating in particular matters with which he was

involved while working for his previous employer. When asked by reporters, both

Cason and Interior Department spokespersons declined to comment on the informal

meetings with MGM. After media reports emerged about Zinke, Bernhardt, and

Cason’s apparent intervention on behalf of MGM Resorts, the Interior

Department allowed the gaming proposal from the Mohegan tribe to move forward—

?

The department’s senior deputy director for intergovernmental and external

affairs, Benjamin Cassidy, is a former National Rifle Association (NRA) lobbyist

and has since participated in a number of positive decisions for his former

employer of seven years. In one example, according to Secretary Zinke’s public

calendar, Cassidy participated in a “Monument After Action Meeting” in December

2017, about two weeks after the Trump administration eliminated huge portions of

the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments. Earlier that

year as an NRA lobbyist, Cassidy lobbied on a bill that would have prevented

presidents from designating national monuments without approval from Congress

and state legislatures. Cassidy has not responded to media requests about these

reports.

Doug Domenech, assistant secretary of the interior for insular areas, met with his

former employer, the Koch-linked Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), while

the company was involved in legal action against the department. Six months after

their meeting, TPPF announced that it had settled its lawsuit with the Interior

Department, calling it a “major win.” The Interior Department insists that the

meetings were “primarily social in nature”; however, public scheduling calendars

show they concerned policy. Domenech reported the meetings to ethics officials,

and the department is addressing the matter internally, according to an Interior

Department spokesperson.

Zinke’s senior adviser for Alaska Affairs, Steve Wackowski, was formerly employed

by two Alaska companies now tied to a group that is seeking DOI approval to

conduct seismic studies for oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife

Refuge. Wackowski has not commented on media reports on this topic.

12/3/22, 1:53 PM The Favor Factory - Center for American Progress

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-favor-factory/ 6/24

MUCH MORE...

...

U.S. House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Raúl Grijalva and committee member Rep. Katie Porter are investigating an alleged bribery scheme in which they believe a real estate developer donated to a super PAC aligned in support of former President Donald Trump in exchange for pardons for two other men.

The two Democrats wroteto Interior Secretary Deb Haaland on Friday, calling on her department to release all documents related to the pardons of Dwight and Steven Hammond, who had been convicted in 2012 of setting fires on public lands they had leased after illegally killing deer on the land.The two men were sentenced to five years in prison with time served in 2015, sparking right-wing protests including a 40-day armed occupation of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon.

Grijalva (Ariz.) and Porter (Calif.) believe real estate developer Mike Ingram—who was the subject of the Natural Resources Committee's first-ever criminal referral regarding another potential bribery case involving a clean water permit for one of his developments—secured the Hammonds' pardons in 2018 with a $10,000 donation to the America First Action, Inc. Super PAC.

According to the letter, Ingram's assistant emailed a Trump Interior Department official on May 25, 2018, attaching two articles arguing for the Hammonds to be pardoned. On July 1, a Republican lawmaker who supported the Hammonds tweeted that Trump was "seriously considering" pardoning them.

One day later, Ingram made his donation, and just over a week after that Trump announced he was pardoning the Hammonds.

"Mr. Ingram made only one other $10,000 donation during the 2017-2018 nonpresidential election cycle," wrote Grijalva and Porter. "That donation was the subject of the committee's criminal referral regarding the Villages at Vigneto development [in Arizona]. In that case, Ingram and 12 other individuals, many of whom maintained personal or professional relationships with Ingram, donated nearly a quarter of a million dollars to the Trump Victory Fund and the Republican National Committeeon the same day or within just a few days that a major federal action regarding Vigneto was made in Ingram's favor."

"The parallels between the Vigneto case and the Hammonds' pardons raise significant concerns about another potential case of bribery under the Trump administration and warrant further investigation," they added.

On social media, Porter noted that she and Grijalva uncovered the evidence of Ingram's alleged bribe "while investigating a possible $240,000 quid pro quo scheme between the Trump administration and a developer."

"We're requesting documents to help us get to the bottom of [the Ingram case]," Porter said. "I have zero tolerance for corruption."

ref 1 ltr

december 2, 2022 The Honorable Deb Haaland Secretary U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street NW Washington, D.C. 20240

Dear Secretary Haaland: On May 11, 2022, the House Committee on Natural Resources (Committee) presented evidence of likely bribery involving former U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) Secretary David Bernhardt and Villages at Vigneto developer Mike Ingram, in the Committee’s first-ever criminal referral to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). 1 The Committee has now uncovered another potential incident of bribery involving Ingram and senior Trump administration officials through its review of documents obtained in that investigation. In 2012, ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond were convicted of arson on federal lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2

According to DOJ, the Hammonds informed BLM that a fire they had started on Hammond's private property to burn off invasive species had inadvertently spread to public lands. However, witnesses, including a relative, later came forward and testified that Steven Hammond had instructed companions to drop lit matches on the ground, with the effect of destroying evidence that a Hammond hunting party had illegally slaughtered deer on the BLM lands. By law, arson on federal lands carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence.3 The district court in the Hammonds’ case ordered sentences far below this requirement, citing Eighth Amendment concerns, but a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the illegal sentences and ordered the district court to resentence the Hammonds in compliance with the law.4 The U.S. Supreme Court denied cert, 5 and on October 7, 2015, the district court imposed five-year prison terms on each of the Hammonds,...

p2

credit for time already served.6

On July 10, 2018, President Trump signed Executive Grants of Clemency

(Full Pardons) for both Hammonds.7

Documents obtained in the Committee’s Vigneto investigation indicate that Mike Ingram used his unique

access to high-ranking Trump administration officials to advocate for these pardons. In an email dated

May 25, 2018, Mr. Ingram’s executive assistant sentBen Cassidy, DOI’s Senior Deputy Director for

External and Intergovernmental Affairs, two articles on the topic, including an op-ed arguing for pardons

for the Hammonds (see Attachment 1). BY PENDEJO

8

On Sunday, July 1, 2018, a vocal proponent for pardoning the Hammonds shared in a tweet that

“President Trump called me to say he is 'seriously considering' pardoning Dwight and Steven

Hammond.”9

This was the first public acknowledgement that a pardon was under consideration.10

On Monday, July 2, 2018, the next business day, the Federal Election Commission database shows that

Mr. Ingram made a $10,000 out-of-cycle donation to the America First Action, Inc. Super PAC.11 The

America First Action, Inc. Super PAC describes itself as “dedicated to supporting President Trump | We

are the only Official Pro-Trump Super PAC.”12 On Tuesday, July 10, 2018, President Trump signed

Executive Grants of Clemency (Full Pardons) for both Hammonds.13

Mr. Ingram made only one other $10,000 donation during the 2017–2018 non-presidential election

cycle.14 That donation was the subject of the Committee’s criminal referral regarding the Villages at

Vigneto development. In that case, Ingram and 12 other individuals, many of whom maintained personal

or professional relationships with Ingram, donated nearly a quarter of a million dollars to the Trump

Victory Fund and the Republican National Committee on the same day or within just a few days that a

major federal action regarding Vigneto was made in Ingram’s favor.All other donations from Ingram

during this election cycle were $5,400 or less.

House Rule X(1)(m) provides the Committee with jurisdiction over the subject matters within DOI’s

authority. The parallels between the Vigneto case and the Hammonds’ pardons raise significant concerns

about another potential case of bribery under the Trump administration and warrant further investigation.

notes

6 Department of Justice. (2015, October 7). Eastern Oregon Ranchers Convicted of Arson Resentenced to Five Years in Prison

[Press Release]. https://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/eastern-oregon-ranchers-convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison

7

“Statement from the Press Secretary Regarding Executive Clemency for Dwight and Steven Hammond” Trump White House

Archives. July 10, 2018. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/statement-press-secretary-regardingexecutive-clemency-dwight-steven-hammond/

8 Attachment 1 is also included as Attachment 59 in the Committee's referral to the Department of Justice regarding the Villages

at Vigneto incident, available here: https://naturalresources house.gov/media/press-releases/chair-grijalva-rep-porter-referformer-interior-secretary-bernhardt-villages-at-vigneto-developer-to-justice-department-alleging-criminal-bribery

9 Walden, G. [repgregwalden]. (2018, July 1) Late Saturday afternoon, President Trump called me to say he is ‘seriously

considering’ pardoning Dwight and Steven Hammond. [Tweet]. Retrieved from

https://twitter.com/repgregwalden/status/1013455435502964738.

10 The Congressional Research Service (CRS) completed a search on November 9, 2022 for news reports that indicated the White

House was seriously considering a pardon for the Hammonds before July 2, 2018. They found none.

11 United States. (2018) U.S. Federal Election Commission FEC. https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/individualcontributions/?contributor name=Ingram%2C+Michael&contributor name=Mike+ingram&two year transaction period=2018

12 America First [AmericaFirstPAC]. (n.d.). Tweets [Twitter profile]. Twitter. Retrieved November 15, 2022, from

https://twitter.com/AmericaFirstPAC

13 “Statement from the Press Secretary Regarding Executive Clemency for Dwight and Steven Hammond” Trump White House

Archives. July 10, 2018. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/statement-press-secretary-regardingexecutive-clemency-dwight-steven-hammond/

14 United States. (2018) U.S. Federal Election Commission FEC. https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/individualcontributions/?contributor name=Ingram%2C+Michael&contributor name=Mike+ingram&two year transaction period=2018

To assist the Committee’s investigation of this issue, please provide the following documents and

information as soon as possible, but no later than December 15, 2022:

  1. All documents and communications relating to Dwight or Steven Hammond between all

presidential appointees requiring the advice and consent of the Senate (PAS), presidential

appointees not requiring appointments (PA), noncareer Senior Executive Service (SES), or

Schedule C appointees at DOI or the Bureau of Land Management for any part of 2017 or 2018

and

a. Mike Ingram or Michael Ingram;

b. Any representative ofEl Dorado Holdings,including but not limited to ,

Michael (Mike) Reinbold, Jim Kenny, Dennis Krahn, Eric Hollensbe, Deb Bricker, Chris

Grogan, Linda Cheney, and June Prinz.

c. Any person representing the America First Action Inc. and America First Policies, Inc.

PACs, including but not limited to:

i. Brian O Walsh;

ii. Thomas O Hicks, Jr.;

iii. Roy W Bailey;

iv. Harold Hamm;

v. Jonathan T Proch;

vi. Joseph Ahearn;

vii. Erin Montgomery;

viii. Sean Spicer;

d. Any White House Office personnel;

e. Dwight Hammond;

f. Steven Hammond;

g. Anyone from Lawrence Matasar PC;

h. Anyone from Ransom & Blackman LLP; and

  1. All documents relating to a pardon for Dwight or Steven Hammond.

Please contact the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee staff at (202) 225-6065 with any questions

about this request. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Raúl M. Grijalva Katie Porter

Chair Chair

Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on Oversight and

Investigations

Committee on Natural Resources

ref 2

12.02.22

Chair Grijalva, Rep. Porter Seek Documents on Another Incident of Potential Bribery under the Trump Administration

Washington, D.C. – House Natural Resources Committee Chair Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chair Katie Porter (D-Calif.) today sent a letter to U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) Secretary Deb Haaland requesting documents regarding a second incident of potential bribery between senior officials in the Trump administration and real estate developer Mike Ingram. Previously, the lawmakers sent the Committee’s first-ever criminal referral to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) alleging potential bribery regarding a Trump administration decision about Ingram’s proposed real estate development, the Villages at Vigneto in Benson, Arizona.

The full letter to DOI is available :{here:(style="box-sizing:border-box;font-weight:700"):}:.

In their letter, Chair Grijalva and Rep. Porter describe evidence that Ingram, a businessman with unique access to high-ranking Trump administration officials, may have unduly influenced former President Trump’s decision to pardon convicted public lands arsonists Dwight and Steven Hammond in exchange for a sizeable donation to a pro-Trump Super PAC.

The letter lays out the following timeline of events:

Ingram’s only other $10,000 donation during the 2017–2018 non-presidential election cycle was the donation that triggered the Committee’s investigation into—and subsequent criminal referral about—the Villages at Vigneto development. As the letter points out, “The parallels between the Vigneto case and the Hammonds’ pardons raise significant concerns about another potential case of bribery under the Trump administration and warrant further investigation.”

Background on the Villages at Vigneto Criminal Referral

On May 11, 2022, after a years-long investigation, Chair Grijalva and Rep. Porter sent the Committee’s first-ever criminal referral to DOJ outlining evidence of potential bribery between Trump administration officials, including then-DOI Deputy Secretary David Bernhardt, and Ingram regarding the Villages at Vigneto (Vigneto) real estate development.

The Committee’s investigation began in April 2019 when the Arizona Daily Star reported that Steve Spangle, a now-retired Field Supervisor at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) Arizona office, claimed he was directed by a “high level politico” to reverse the agency’s decision about Vigneto in late 2017. Later reporting revealed that then–DOI Deputy Secretary David Bernhardt was the “politico.”

The investigation found that—shortly after holding asecret breakfast meeting with Dep. Secretary Bernhardt—Ingram and 12 other individuals, many of whom maintained personal or professional relationships with him, donated nearly a quarter of a million dollars to the Trump Victory Fund and the Republican National Committee. All of the donations occurred on or near Oct. 6, 2017, the same day that a major federal action regarding Vigneto was made in Ingram’s favor.

Weeks later, on Oct. 26, 2017, Spangle officially reversed FWS’ decision on Vigneto, marking the final greenlight for the development.

Concurrent with standard practice, DOJ has not yet commented on whether they have pursued the investigation.

Press Contact

Media Contact: Lindsay Gressard

202-225-6065 | cell: 202-740-4715

https://yyy.theguardian.com/environment**/2020/jan**/23/revealed-e-mails-show-that-nra-shaped-gun-policy-at-interior-department

no lnx

Revealed: top official did special favors on guns for NRA at interior department

Emails from NRA-affiliated interior department members show how the gun group has shaped federal land policy.

Powerful gun lobby group has used connections in Trump administration to influence decisions, messages show

Jimmy Tobias

Thu 23 Jan 2020

In the fall of 2017, a National Rifle Association lobbyist named Benjamin Cassidy left his job at the influential gun group. His next stop: a top position at the US interior department, which oversees hundreds of millions of acres of federal land across the country.

Once in office, it didn’t take Cassidy long to use his new government gig to provide his longtime NRA colleagues with special access to the powerful federal agency, as revealed by previously unreleased communications obtained by the Guardian.

The messages underscore the potent influence that industry lobbyists and conservative organizations enjoy at a government agency where many key leaders are former lobbyists and conservative activists themselves. The NRA has made the most of this dynamic during the Trump presidency, leveraging its connections to shape policy outcomes and personnel decisions at the interior department.

[pix FILE - This Feb. 19, 2018 file photo shows Denyse Christian, hugging her son Adin Christian, 16, a student at the school, at a makeshift memorial outside the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, where 17 students and faculty were killed in a mass shooting in Parkland, Fla. Parkland city’s historian Jeff Schwartz is setting a plan in motion to collect, archive and preserve the Marjory Stoneman Douglas mementos. Meanwhile, school administrators have vowed to build a memorial after the demolition of the building where the Feb. 14 attack took place. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert, File)]

[Trump administration drops age limit proposal for guns after NRA files suit

Read more]

In 2017, for instance, Susan LaPierre, a prominent NRA member and the wife of NRA leader Wayne LaPierre, was appointed by the head of the interior department to the board of the National Parks Foundation, a congressionally chartered organization that supports park programs.

The interior secretary, David Bernhardt, has also made multiple appearances on NRA media channels in recent years, and inJune he announced a proposal to open more than 1.4m acres of national wildlife refuge land to hunting and fishing activities. The NRA celebrated the move, calling it a “proposal supported and encouraged by the NRA”.

Just this week, Bernhardt tweeted that “Respecting our second amendment is fundamental to our constitutional republic. We’re expanding opportunities to enjoy hunting and recreational shooting on our wonderful public lands.”

:{

}:

But Benjamin Cassidy is the official that most embodies the NRA’s influence at the interior department.

Starting in October 2017, and for months afterward, Cassidy served as a key contact for the gun group inside the interior department, helping the NRA translate its priorities into action from his perch at the agency’s external affairs office. The NRA spent roughly $30m helping Donald Trump win the presidency in 2016.With assistance from its former lobbyist, Cassidy, it has since reaped rewards in the realm of federal public land and wildlife policy.

In one instance, emails show, he sought to arrange a sitdown between Bernhardt, then the deputy secretary, and Chris Cox, a top NRA official. (An interior department spokesperson said Bernhardt did not attend any such meeting.)

In another case, he appears to have helped an NRA official join the International Wildlife Conservation Council (IWCC), an advisory body set up by the department to help shape policy regarding “international recreational hunting”. In a December 2017 email, Erica Rhoad, the director of hunting policy at NRA, wrote to Cassidy: “Ben, Attached please find two nominations for the IWCC.”

“Thank you,” Cassidy replied. Rhoad, who was one of the nominees, eventually obtained the position she sought on the IWCC, which was stacked with pro-hunting advocates. The IWCC would go on to promote big-game trophy hunting overseas, a longtime NRA priority. In 2018, conservationists sued to disband the council, and their case is ongoing.

Most significantly, Cassidy was in regular communication with NRA about recreational shooting policy on federal lands. Almost immediately after joining DOI in October 2017, for instance, Cassidy reached out to Susan Recce, director of the NRA’s conservation, wildlife and natural resources program, asking her to weigh in on an interior department plan to limit recreational shooting at the Sonoran Desert national monument in Arizona, a plan the NRA was keenly interested in.

“Hi Susan! Hope you are great!” he wrote in an email.“Do you have a quick moment to hop on the phone and discuss recreational shooting in the sonoran desert? We have a [deadline] that is due today.”

[

Target shooting in the Sonoran Desert national monument in Arizona is controversial – it has damaged archeological artifacts, destroyed saguaro cacti, and harmed other natural and cultural resources.

Recce replied with an NRA plan to leave more of the monument open to target shooting.

In the weeks that followed, Cassidy kept Recce updated on the progress of that target-shooting plan and others, including a proposal to restrict target shooting on public lands in Utah, which the NRA opposed.

In the case of the Sonoran Desert national monument, the NRA got what it wanted. In March 2018, the department signed its final plan, which aligned almost perfectly with the NRA’s request, leaving roughly 90% of the monument open to recreational shooting.

Susan Recce thanked Cassidy for his help in a note that testifies to their close ties.“I appreciate you riding herd over the agency plans affecting recreational shooting,” she wrote to him in a January 2018 email, using a cowboy term to describe his role taking the lead on target shooting issues.

In August 2019, the Wilderness Society, the Sierra Club and other conservation groups sued the interior department over the issue, and their lawsuit is working its way through the courts.

Under federal ethics guidelines, government employees are prohibited from giving “preferential treatment to any private organization or individual”.

“The fact that the Trump administration considered an anti-environment lobbyist like Ben Cassidy qualified to oversee our public lands speaks volumes about who it values and how it operates,” said congressman Raúl Grijalva, the chairman of the House natural resources committee, in a statement. “Mr Cassidy weakened endangered species rules, lobbied against the Antiquities Act from inside the government, almost certainly violated his ethics pledge, and generally treated public service as a chance to dispense political favors to his friends.”Cassidy himself became uncomfortable with his ongoing relationship with the NRA. In an October 2018 email to an NRA staffer, he informed the gun group that he could no longer work directly with it.

:{

}:

“Unfortunately, due to the ethics ban, I am unable to work with the NRA on issues for one more year,” he wrote. He suggested the NRA get in touch with other officials at the department instead.

:{

}:

But it was too late. In April 2019, the interior department’s inspector general opened an investigation into allegations that Cassidy’s conduct had violated federal ethics rules, including the White House’s own ethics pledge. That investigation is currently active.

Not long afterward, Cassidy quietly stepped down from his post. In July 2019, he took a new job: director of government affairs at Safari Club International, a powerful national organization that promotes trophy hunting in the United States and overseas.

In a statement, the interior department said it “will not comment on Mr Cassidy’s motives or reasoning on leaving the department”. Neither the NRA nor Cassidy’s new employer responded to a request for comment.

https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/these-are-trump-staffers-who-left-their-financial-disclosure-forms-blank-and-one

...fore accepting a position at the U.S. Department of the Interior last October, Benjamin Cassidy championed gun rights for nearly seven years as a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, collecting a peak annual salary of $288,333 for his work on Capitol Hill.

The public wouldn’t know that by looking at Cassidy’s government financial disclosure report. The form, which he filed soon after taking a job as senior deputy director of the office of intergovernmental and external affairs, doesn’t list his old job at the NRA — or any past job, for that matter. Cassidy’s form was nearly blank, save for his name, title and some bank holdings and investments. In the space allotted to show his income, it incorrectly stated “None.”

Benjamin Cassidy’s Financial Disclosure Report

Federal law requires nearly all executive branch employees to submit reports intended to reveal and resolve conflicts of interest that might arise from their personal finances. The reports are supposed to be carefully reviewed, preferably by agency ethics attorneys, before being made public.

After we asked the Interior Department about the failure of Cassidy and at least three other staffers to disclose their work histories and finances, the agency responded with a bullet-pointed assessment that acknowledged ongoing problems while also noting that they “predated the current administration.”

Among the department’s findings:

Many of the problems and omissions were easy to spot. For example, an attorney for the DOI’s Bureau of Land Management, Cally Younger, submitted her financial disclosure form in September, days after joining the agency. An ethics official, Tia Barner, reviewed and approved the form, concluding that it complied with federal law.

But Younger’s form was blank, apart from her electronic signature and some perfunctory investment details. It completely neglected basic employment information, such as her old job as an attorney inIdaho Gov. Butch Otter’s office. Ironically, it also left out Younger’s past role as a “public records ombudsman” in Idaho, whose mission included examining how the state’s public record laws could be improved.

Younger should have been questioned by ethics officials when she filed her original form, said Don Fox, who served as acting director of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics during the Obama administration. “It may be, honestly, she just didn’t read the instructions and she just started filling out paperwork,” Fox said, “because if you’d even done a cursory review of the instructions, she should have known that she should have listed her position with the state of Idaho.”After we asked about the batch of blank forms, a senior ethics official, Kim Hintz, determined that Younger “inadvertently omitted certain information.” A revised version of her form now includes more employment and financial information.

Younger’s original form was a veritable font of information compared to one filed in the name of Thomas Baptiste, who is now an advisor to the Bureau of Land Management. Baptiste’s form was completely blank, with no information beyond his name, and no signature or indication that it was reviewed or approved. Baptiste previously worked as a records manager for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, as a project director at a consulting firm that works for conservative political clients, and before that at Tepeyac OB/GYN, which calls itself a “pro-life obstetrics and gynecology medical practice.

...