The media don't really care about Scott Pruitt's ethics – just his reversal of Obama policies

The media are going after Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt for traveling first class and only paying $1,500 per month for a condo, pretending it's all a matter of ethics.

It's nonsense.  They actually are going after him because he dares reverse some of the rules the Environmental Protection Agency implemented without going through Congress.  Dissent is just not allowed from Democrat policies, and the media are the method of choice for Democrats, using it to go after any Trump administration person they don't like.  Here's a typical headline: "Scott Pruitt's job in jeopardy amid expanding ethics issues."

Somehow I don't remember any of Obama's people fired for massive ethical violations, including Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin for working for the Clinton Foundation, the State Department, and a consulting group at the same time.  Clinton aide Cheryl Mills also did work for the foundation at the same time she was working for the State Department.

That wasn't even the half of what went down during the Obama administration.  The huge donations to the Clinton Foundation from foreign countries doing business with the State Department, along with escalating speech fees for Bill and Chelsea were obvious kickbacks or illegal campaign donations.  But nobody's head was called for when those things made the news.

The media cared so little about all the ethics and actual law violations of Hillary that they almost universally supported putting her, Huma, and Cheryl in the White House.

Just look at the flavor of how things were done during the past administration:

A spring 2012 email to Hillary Clinton's top State Department aide, Huma Abedin, asked for help winning a presidential appointment for a supporter of the Clinton Foundation, according to a chain obtained by POLITICO.

The messages illustrate the relationship between Clinton's most trusted confidante and the private consulting company that asked for the favor, Teneo – a global firm that later hired Abedin. Abedin signed on with the company while she still held a State Department position, a dual employment that is now being examined by congressional investigators.

Abedin's status as a "special government employee" has been questioned by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who has raised concerns about any overlapping duties and whether they posed potential conflicts of interest. Abedin also worked as an adviser to the Clinton Foundation, the nonprofit founded by former President Bill Clinton.

Are we to believe that Obama's and Hillary's people didn't fly first class?

A top aide to Hillary Clinton at the State Department traveled to New York to interview job candidates for a top job at the Clinton Foundation, a CNN investigation has found.

The fact that the aide, Cheryl Mills, was taking part in such a high level task for the Clinton foundation while also working as chief of staff for the secretary of state raises new questions about the blurred lines that have dogged the Clintons in recent years.

Upon entering office as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation agreed to a set of rules to ensure any activities by the foundation would not "create conflicts or the appearance of conflicts for Senator Clinton as Secretary of State."

Or this, which shows the extent of the bribery but doesn't call for anyone to lose their job:

During and before the four years Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, the Clinton Foundation run by her husband took tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments and corporations.

Many of these donors had a lot riding on Clinton's decisions.  Saudi Arabia gave the foundation up to $25 million, and Clinton signed off on a controversial $29 Billion sale of fighter jets to the country.  Oil companies gave the foundation around $3 million, and Clinton approved a lucrative gas pipeline in the Canadian tar sands they'd long sought.

The FEC has been asked to investigate whether a $130,000 payment from Trump's attorney to a porn "star" for a seven-hour rendezvous that might have occurred twelve years ago was an illegal campaign contribution.

Why were there no calls for investigations of foreign payments to the Clinton Foundation and to Bill himself as illegal campaign contributions?  The speech fees paid to Hillary and Chelsea after she left the State Department were also obviously campaign contributions in order to gain favor.  It would be easy to determine what the kickbacks or campaign contributions were by looking at amounts before she was secretary of state and after she was secretary of state and compare them to what she and the Foundation receive after she has no favors to sell.  And there's a trail of quid pro quo deeds that makes crimes even more visible.

But even as the press reported these things, there was no feeding frenzy calling for firings, such as we are seeing now with Scott Pruitt.  Double standard, anyone?

If you experience technical problems, please write to