CDZ Trump Transition Team Skipped Ethics Training! Really? No gov't experience and they demurred?

[usmbguest5318]

Karma. Kismet. Call it what you want. It's real.

In April 2016, Stephen Miller (the guy who is little but the male version of K. Conway) ridiculed Hillary Clinton for not taking the ethics training offered to her and her staff. (Three of her nine immediate staff members are known to have taken the training.) Miller cited RNC documents as the basis for his charge. Moreover, in attempting to draw a contrast between Mrs. Clinton and Trump, Miller remarked, "Mr. Trump has proposed new ethics reforms to restore honor to our government."

Those were the Trump campaign's accusations; however, they didn't have any corroborating documentation from the Dept. of State (DoS). Indeed, the DoS stated that the Privacy Act prevents them from confirming if employees completed training. They say the lack of records does not necessarily mean employees did not take the training, just that the department track whether they did.

One could not ask for a more palpably literal illustration of the fact that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We all know, after all, that such arguments are overwhelmingly fallacious; it's called, unsurprisingly given that it's a common conservative line of argument, and it's got a long tradition in the Republican party in particular. It's emblematic of the general malaise of anti-intellectualism in the GOP and the argument form itself is fittingly called "argumentum ad ignorantiam", argument from ignorance. And it's not just liberals who see the cognitive opacity among conservatives. Daniel McCarthy, writing for the American Conservative, remarked that "conservative" now "signifies a partisan tendency that would prefer not to have intellectual overtones."

The inanity, inexperience, intransigence and indolence of the Trump does not stop there. They too skipped ethics training. "Unlike the staffers serving under Presidents Bush and Obama, White House officials working for President Trump were not treated to an ethics course that could have helped them avoid some of the upheaval in the first month of Trump’s presidency." Trump's Administration have implied, moreover, that they did the training in-house rather than availing themselves of the insights of ethics experts.

Really? REALLY??? Who with the sense the sense God gave a goose would think that the organization led by a man who pretended to be his own publicist, a man who barges into ladies' dressing rooms, a man who brags about sexually assaulting women, a man fined for falsifying his charitable contributions, a man who rivals Aesop for telling tall tales on matters of all degrees of importance, a man for whom "transparency" is a dirty word, a man who refuses to take responsibility for his own decisions, a man who berated the parents of a fallen soldier, a man who didn't serve in the military yet doesn't like John McCain because he was captured in Vietnam....the list goes on and on and on....who would think a team led by such a man should demure when offered ethics training?

No group of individuals has ever more needed that particular kind of training. Who among the top staffers has prior governmental executive level experience? Chief of Staff Priebus? No. Advisors Conway or Bannon? No. Trump? No. Press Secretary Spicer? No. Trump's children? No. Just how far down into the ranks of WH staff must one look before finding someone well versed with the standards of ethics applicable to the WH's leadership? Furthermore, is there any reason to think that if they raised ethical concerns, Trump would heed their advice? I don't think so. Hell, people can't even get him not to tweet or say stupid shit. How are they to stop him from doing stupid shit?

The fact of the matter is that the Trump Administration is, from top to bottom, teams with ethically turpitudinous people. No ethical foundation at all, and a leader who is the definitional opposite of ethical. And they are who's going to "drain the swamp?"

Thread Topic/Questions:

• Examples of the Trump Administration's ethical or unethical behavior:
  • What manifestations of ethical behavior have you seen from high ranking members of the Trump Administration? (provide references)
  • What manifestations of unethical behavior have you seen from high ranking members of the Trump Administration? (provide references)
• Trump Administration's and your understanding of the meaning of the term "appearance of impropriety"
• Should the Trump White House team have participated in the ethics training that the GAO offered to them? Why?
• What evidence is there indicating the Trump team could have themselves matched the quality of the ethics training the GAO offered to them?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

drumpf and the rest of them have skipped just about every briefing and other types of tools that were offered to them in order to make the transition easier and safer.

But hey, drumpf himself has stated that he consults himself.

(and then he lies)

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Okay ... I appreciate the list of questions you would like to discuss in this thread but seriously -- how can anyone keep up with drumpf's constant lying?

Remember at the beginning, we all went nuts over The Trump Lie du Jour but he has buried the country in lies - to the extent that is truly dizzying.

He far FAR more than just corrupt or criminal. Donald Trump is, in the opinion of many who are well qualified to make the statement, crazy. Just plain flat out nuts.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

If you need training to know right from wrong,there is a deeper underlying problem.

 

[jwoodie]

Slow news day?

 

[usmbguest5318]

drumpf and the rest of them have skipped just about every briefing and other types of tools that were offered to them in order to make the transition easier and safer.

They could have a sloppy transition. I'd ridicule them for it, but I'd get over it.

There're there now. I'm concerned that with their acidly acrimonious offense to decency the nation is doomed to four years of flagitiously debauched malfeasance masquerading as governance.

 

[jwoodie]

drumpf and the rest of them have skipped just about every briefing and other types of tools that were offered to them in order to make the transition easier and safer.

They could have a sloppy transition. I'd ridicule them for it, but I'd get over it.

There're there now. I'm concerned that with their acidly acrimonious offense to decency the nation is doomed to four years of flagitiously debauched malfeasance masquerading as governance.

The Dems seem to have a monopoly on acrimony these days. As far as an "offense to decency" goes, aren't you being intolerant and judgmental?

 

[usmbguest5318]

I appreciate the list of questions you would like to discuss in this thread but seriously -- how can anyone keep up with drumpf's constant lying?

I feel you! It's gotten to the point I had to put an assortment of fact checking websites on my favorites list. Before the election, I was able to keep track using Keith Olbermann's list, but Trump has doubled the quantity of entries that belong there. (Admittedly, some of Keith's list don't annoy me as much as others, but still...that anyone can come up with that much stuff in the space of a year's worth of campaigning is, well, you know....)

 

[Luddly Neddite]

drumpf and the rest of them have skipped just about every briefing and other types of tools that were offered to them in order to make the transition easier and safer.

They could have a sloppy transition. I'd ridicule them for it, but I'd get over it.

There're there now. I'm concerned that with their acidly acrimonious offense to decency the nation is doomed to four years of flagitiously debauched malfeasance masquerading as governance.

The Dems seem to have a monopoly on acrimony these days. As far as an "offense to decency" goes, aren't you being intolerant and judgmental?

Why do you suppose the right is so accepting and tolerant of the hundreds of trump lies?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I appreciate the list of questions you would like to discuss in this thread but seriously -- how can anyone keep up with drumpf's constant lying?

I feel you! It's gotten to the point I had to put an assortment of fact checking websites on my favorites list. Before the election, I was able to keep track using Keith Olbermann's list, but Trump has doubled the quantity of entries that belong there. (Admittedly, some of Keith's list don't annoy me as much as others, but still...that anyone can come up with that much stuff in the space of a year's worth of campaigning is, well, you know....)

I don't think any of us, including the poor fools who actually voted against their own country by voting FOR trump ... None of us knew what an incredibly prolific liar this jerk is.

He's not sane, not stable. He's a criminal and if allowed, he will take the US down.

 

[usmbguest5318]

If you need training to know right from wrong,there is a deeper underlying problem.

Having been in a firm that, like our peers, depends in part on it's reputation for, commitment to and unrelenting adherence to high ethical standards, I can tell you it's not that simple. There's a lot that in one's daily interactions with close friends and family that is perfectly fine and that is not when one acts with and/or on behalf of others and money, careers, renown, etc. are involved. Accordingly the firm requires:

• annual professional ethics training (online) for all employees,
• upon-promotion/-employment, attendance at instructor-led seminars on applications of ethics as it applies to ethically trying situations one might foreseeably encounter in performing one's new job -- staff level, manager level, senior manager level, partner level, managing partner level, firm executive level,
  • These seminars are generally 16 hours long and consist of lecture, exercises, role play and discussion. There is an online test one must complete (90%+ score required) within two weeks of taking the seminar.
• professionals who work on government (fed, state, or local) projects take an instructor-led ethics seminar tailored to the vagaries of public sector environments. One difference is the nature of work for which professionals at differing levels can bill their time. Another has to do with whether one can use one's firm-provided equipment to perform client work. Yet another has to do with entertainment. At higher levels, it gets into the issues of executive discretion and the exercise of it.
  • These seminars are much like those above, but are just 6 hours long as they require the standard seminar prior to attending this one. There is an online test one must complete (90%+ score required) within two weeks of taking the seminar.

The firm's "heart attack" serious about ethical behavior. It has to be because clients have to be able to rely on what we tell them, and they have to be able to rely on the fact that when we give our opinions -- it's often enough what we get paid to do -- those opinions reflect our having put ourselves "in their shoes" as well as considering things from an independent and neutral standpoint. Sure, all our people are very smart, but so are the client's people. They need our input for our objectivity, not because we know so much they don't.

The notice goes out for the annual refresher and we've fired people for not completing the thing by the deadline (we allow two months to get it done). And you can't just "click through" the online content; the tool won't let you move on to answer the subject matter quiz questions before what's considered the length of time it takes to slowly read the guidance. The thing's structed in sections with section quizzes, and then a comprehensive test of 50 questions at the end. One must score 90% or higher on the test and 85% or higher on quizzes. (One can retake any quiz or the test as often as one needs to, but the questions keep changing....I suppose one could conceivably take them enough that one would see all the possible questions, but to do that, one would have to be on vacation or something to have enough time to do that.)

Here are some of the types of documents codes of professional ethics that get covered in seminars:

• AICPA
• Ethics in Management Consulting
  
• Connecticut Public Officials and State Employees Guide to the Code of Ethics
• Federal Ethics Overview
• Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act Regulations

And here's the thing that makes this particularly irregular re: Trump's team: enough of them are bar members; they should know better, but their professional training positions them to play very close to the edge of what's legal, and as attorneys, they necessarily skate closer to a "what's legal," not what's ethical. That plays a big role in why we're seeing lots of Trump's administration landing in these scandals that have "what's ethical," not "what's legal" at their heart.

The point of my comments above is this. I understand the comment, and broadly speaking, I agree with it; however, at the level we're talking here there's a lot more to it than what it might seem. It's not merely the difference between right and wrong.

 

[usmbguest5318]

None of us knew what an incredibly prolific liar this jerk is.

I have to say that while I had a feeling that Trump himself might be so profligate, I had hoped I was wrong, or at the very least, the importance of the Office of the President would impose enough restraint in him mind that we would n not be seeing the ethical lapses we have.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

If you need training to know right from wrong,there is a deeper underlying problem.

Having been in a firm that, like our peers, depends in part on it's reputation for, commitment to and unrelenting adherence to high ethical standards, I can tell you it's not that simple. There's a lot that in one's daily interactions with close friends and family that is perfectly fine and that is not when one acts with and/or on behalf of others and money, careers, renown, etc. are involved. Accordingly the firm requires:

• annual professional ethics training (online) for all employees,
• upon-promotion/-employment, attendance at instructor-led seminars on applications of ethics as it applies to ethically trying situations one might foreseeably encounter in performing one's new job -- staff level, manager level, senior manager level, partner level, managing partner level, firm executive level,
  • These seminars are generally 16 hours long and consist of lecture, exercises, role play and discussion. There is an online test one must complete (90%+ score required) within two weeks of taking the seminar.
• professionals who work on government (fed, state, or local) projects take an instructor-led ethics seminar tailored to the vagaries of public sector environments. One difference is the nature of work for which professionals at differing levels can bill their time. Another has to do with whether one can use one's firm-provided equipment to perform client work. Yet another has to do with entertainment. At higher levels, it gets into the issues of executive discretion and the exercise of it.
  • These seminars are much like those above, but are just 6 hours long as they require the standard seminar prior to attending this one. There is an online test one must complete (90%+ score required) within two weeks of taking the seminar.

The firm's "heart attack" serious about ethical behavior. It has to be because clients have to be able to rely on what we tell them, and they have to be able to rely on the fact that when we give our opinions -- it's often enough what we get paid to do -- those opinions reflect our having put ourselves "in their shoes" as well as considering things from an independent and neutral standpoint. Sure, all our people are very smart, but so are the client's people. They need our input for our objectivity, not because we know so much they don't.

The notice goes out for the annual refresher and we've fired people for not completing the thing by the deadline (we allow two months to get it done). And you can't just "click through" the online content; the tool won't let you move on to answer the subject matter quiz questions before what's considered the length of time it takes to slowly read the guidance. The thing's structed in sections with section quizzes, and then a comprehensive test of 50 questions at the end. One must score 90% or higher on the test and 85% or higher on quizzes. (One can retake any quiz or the test as often as one needs to, but the questions keep changing....I suppose one could conceivably take them enough that one would see all the possible questions, but to do that, one would have to be on vacation or something to have enough time to do that.)

Here are some of the types of documents codes of professional ethics that get covered in seminars:

• AICPA
• Ethics in Management Consulting
  
• Connecticut Public Officials and State Employees Guide to the Code of Ethics
• Federal Ethics Overview
• Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act Regulations

And here's the thing that makes this particularly irregular re: Trump's team: enough of them are bar members; they should know better, but their professional training positions them to play very close to the edge of what's legal, and as attorneys, they necessarily skate closer to a "what's legal," not what's ethical. That plays a big role in why we're seeing lots of Trump's administration landing in these scandals that have "what's ethical," not "what's legal" at their heart.

The point of my comments above is this. I understand the comment, and broadly speaking, I agree with it; however, at the level we're talking here there's a lot more to it than what it might seem. It's not merely the difference between right and wrong.

Like I said....

 

[usmbguest5318]

If you need training to know right from wrong,there is a deeper underlying problem.

Having been in a firm that, like our peers, depends in part on it's reputation for, commitment to and unrelenting adherence to high ethical standards, I can tell you it's not that simple. There's a lot that in one's daily interactions with close friends and family that is perfectly fine and that is not when one acts with and/or on behalf of others and money, careers, renown, etc. are involved. Accordingly the firm requires:

• annual professional ethics training (online) for all employees,
• upon-promotion/-employment, attendance at instructor-led seminars on applications of ethics as it applies to ethically trying situations one might foreseeably encounter in performing one's new job -- staff level, manager level, senior manager level, partner level, managing partner level, firm executive level,
  • These seminars are generally 16 hours long and consist of lecture, exercises, role play and discussion. There is an online test one must complete (90%+ score required) within two weeks of taking the seminar.
• professionals who work on government (fed, state, or local) projects take an instructor-led ethics seminar tailored to the vagaries of public sector environments. One difference is the nature of work for which professionals at differing levels can bill their time. Another has to do with whether one can use one's firm-provided equipment to perform client work. Yet another has to do with entertainment. At higher levels, it gets into the issues of executive discretion and the exercise of it.
  • These seminars are much like those above, but are just 6 hours long as they require the standard seminar prior to attending this one. There is an online test one must complete (90%+ score required) within two weeks of taking the seminar.

The firm's "heart attack" serious about ethical behavior. It has to be because clients have to be able to rely on what we tell them, and they have to be able to rely on the fact that when we give our opinions -- it's often enough what we get paid to do -- those opinions reflect our having put ourselves "in their shoes" as well as considering things from an independent and neutral standpoint. Sure, all our people are very smart, but so are the client's people. They need our input for our objectivity, not because we know so much they don't.

The notice goes out for the annual refresher and we've fired people for not completing the thing by the deadline (we allow two months to get it done). And you can't just "click through" the online content; the tool won't let you move on to answer the subject matter quiz questions before what's considered the length of time it takes to slowly read the guidance. The thing's structed in sections with section quizzes, and then a comprehensive test of 50 questions at the end. One must score 90% or higher on the test and 85% or higher on quizzes. (One can retake any quiz or the test as often as one needs to, but the questions keep changing....I suppose one could conceivably take them enough that one would see all the possible questions, but to do that, one would have to be on vacation or something to have enough time to do that.)

Here are some of the types of documents codes of professional ethics that get covered in seminars:

• AICPA
• Ethics in Management Consulting
  
• Connecticut Public Officials and State Employees Guide to the Code of Ethics
• Federal Ethics Overview
• Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act Regulations

And here's the thing that makes this particularly irregular re: Trump's team: enough of them are bar members; they should know better, but their professional training positions them to play very close to the edge of what's legal, and as attorneys, they necessarily skate closer to a "what's legal," not what's ethical. That plays a big role in why we're seeing lots of Trump's administration landing in these scandals that have "what's ethical," not "what's legal" at their heart.

The point of my comments above is this. I understand the comment, and broadly speaking, I agree with it; however, at the level we're talking here there's a lot more to it than what it might seem. It's not merely the difference between right and wrong.

Like I said....

God, Almighty. Why does everything have to spelled out "with a big blue crayon?"

One can know "right from wrong" quite well and still behave in a professionally unethical manner.

• Workplace Ethics: 62 Things That Are Legal, But 22 Of Them Are Unethical

 

[OldLady]

If you need training to know right from wrong,there is a deeper underlying problem.

Having been in a firm that, like our peers, depends in part on it's reputation for, commitment to and unrelenting adherence to high ethical standards, I can tell you it's not that simple. There's a lot that in one's daily interactions with close friends and family that is perfectly fine and that is not when one acts with and/or on behalf of others and money, careers, renown, etc. are involved. Accordingly the firm requires:

• 
  
  
  • annual professional ethics training (online) for all employees,
  • upon-promotion/-employment, attendance at instructor-led seminars on applications of ethics as it applies to ethically trying situations one might foreseeably encounter in performing one's new job -- staff level, manager level, senior manager level, partner level, managing partner level, firm executive level,
    • These seminars are generally 16 hours long and consist of lecture, exercises, role play and discussion. There is an online test one must complete (90%+ score required) within two weeks of taking the seminar.
  • professionals who work on government (fed, state, or local) projects take an instructor-led ethics seminar tailored to the vagaries of public sector environments. One difference is the nature of work for which professionals at differing levels can bill their time. Another has to do with whether one can use one's firm-provided equipment to perform client work. Yet another has to do with entertainment. At higher levels, it gets into the issues of executive discretion and the exercise of it.
    • These seminars are much like those above, but are just 6 hours long as they require the standard seminar prior to attending this one. There is an online test one must complete (90%+ score required) within two weeks of taking the seminar.

The firm's "heart attack" serious about ethical behavior. It has to be because clients have to be able to rely on what we tell them, and they have to be able to rely on the fact that when we give our opinions -- it's often enough what we get paid to do -- those opinions reflect our having put ourselves "in their shoes" as well as considering things from an independent and neutral standpoint. Sure, all our people are very smart, but so are the client's people. They need our input for our objectivity, not because we know so much they don't.

The notice goes out for the annual refresher and we've fired people for not completing the thing by the deadline (we allow two months to get it done). And you can't just "click through" the online content; the tool won't let you move on to answer the subject matter quiz questions before what's considered the length of time it takes to slowly read the guidance. The thing's structed in sections with section quizzes, and then a comprehensive test of 50 questions at the end. One must score 90% or higher on the test and 85% or higher on quizzes. (One can retake any quiz or the test as often as one needs to, but the questions keep changing....I suppose one could conceivably take them enough that one would see all the possible questions, but to do that, one would have to be on vacation or something to have enough time to do that.)

Here are some of the types of documents codes of professional ethics that get covered in seminars:

• 
  
  
  • AICPA
  • Ethics in Management Consulting
  • Connecticut Public Officials and State Employees Guide to the Code of Ethics
  • Federal Ethics Overview
  • Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act Regulations

And here's the thing that makes this particularly irregular re: Trump's team: enough of them are bar members; they should know better, but their professional training positions them to play very close to the edge of what's legal, and as attorneys, they necessarily skate closer to a "what's legal," not what's ethical. That plays a big role in why we're seeing lots of Trump's administration landing in these scandals that have "what's ethical," not "what's legal" at their heart.

The point of my comments above is this. I understand the comment, and broadly speaking, I agree with it; however, at the level we're talking here there's a lot more to it than what it might seem. It's not merely the difference between right and wrong.

Like I said....

God, Almighty. Why does everything have to spelled out "with a big blue crayon?"

One can know "right from wrong" quite well and still behave in a professionally unethical manner.

• 
  
  
  • Workplace Ethics: 62 Things That Are Legal, But 22 Of Them Are Unethical

• 
  
  
  • What evidence is there indicating the Trump team could have themselves matched the quality of the ethics training the GAO offered to them?

Do you have any information on the training the GAO offered to them? Do you know it was "quality" training, or are you just assuming?

One can know "right from wrong" quite well and still behave in a professionally unethical manner.
Exactly. It's quite possible the training wouldn't have done anything to change their behavior.

I used to take required ethics trainings on a yearly basis. They were a waste of time. You know right from wrong or you don't. To me, the fact that the President shirks intelligence briefings is much more worrisome.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Do you have any information on the training the GAO offered to them? Do you know it was "quality" training, or are you just assuming?

I don't know the specific seminar/class content that was offered to Trump's team. I heard on the news the contract fees for the training were ~$1M and inferred, based on what I know my own firm spends for similar training, the quality of the training offered is comparable to that which the partners and staff of my firm receive.

I used to take required ethics trainings on a yearly basis. They were a waste of time. You know right from wrong or you don't.

If nothing else, the inform people who don't know right from wrong what is and is not ethical within the scope of the work they perform, and that in turn eliminates the possibility that one can say one didn't know and wasn't ever told. They form a basis for holding people accountable for their unethical behavior, which is what matters in this context as nobody takes exception with ethical behavior.

To me, the fact that the President shirks intelligence briefings is much more worrisome.

I agree that's worrisome. In my mind, it's unethical, among other things, that he skips/skipped them. His doing so is (1) disrespectful to the people who do their best to prepare the content for him and (2) a disservice to the American people who've placed their trust in his being well and completely informed about the nature of the nation's affairs and threats, and rely on his thus making better decisions than would the rest of us who haven't access to that specific knowledge. One might think of his skipping those briefings as might one a captain who deliberately sails with a broken rudder and without examining the weather forecast.

 

[jwoodie]

To me, the fact that the President shirks intelligence briefings is much more worrisome.

I agree that's worrisome. In my mind, it's unethical, among other things, that he skips/skipped them. His doing so is (1) disrespectful to the people who do their best to prepare the content for him and (2) a disservice to the American people who've placed their trust in his being well and completely informed about the nature of the nation's affairs and threats, and rely on his thus making better decisions than would the rest of us who haven't access to that specific knowledge. One might think of his skipping those briefings as might one a captain who deliberately sails with a broken rudder and without examining the weather forecast.

Isn't it time to stop bashing Obama?

 

[OldLady]

Do you have any information on the training the GAO offered to them? Do you know it was "quality" training, or are you just assuming?

I don't know the specific seminar/class content that was offered to Trump's team. I heard on the news the contract fees for the training were ~$1M and inferred, based on what I know my own firm spends for similar training, the quality of the training offered is comparable to that which the partners and staff of my firm receive.

I used to take required ethics trainings on a yearly basis. They were a waste of time. You know right from wrong or you don't.

If nothing else, the inform people who don't know right from wrong what is and is not ethical within the scope of the work they perform, and that in turn eliminates the possibility that one can say one didn't know and wasn't ever told. They form a basis for holding people accountable for their unethical behavior, which is what matters in this context as nobody takes exception with ethical behavior.

To me, the fact that the President shirks intelligence briefings is much more worrisome.

I agree that's worrisome. In my mind, it's unethical, among other things, that he skips/skipped them. His doing so is (1) disrespectful to the people who do their best to prepare the content for him and (2) a disservice to the American people who've placed their trust in his being well and completely informed about the nature of the nation's affairs and threats, and rely on his thus making better decisions than would the rest of us who haven't access to that specific knowledge. One might think of his skipping those briefings as might one a captain who deliberately sails with a broken rudder and without examining the weather forecast.

They charged a million dollars to give an ethics training to WH employees and Trump's staff? Did they serve caviar during break and have the Pope as a guest speaker? Our tax dollars hard at work. LOL

 

[usmbguest5318]

Do you have any information on the training the GAO offered to them? Do you know it was "quality" training, or are you just assuming?

I don't know the specific seminar/class content that was offered to Trump's team. I heard on the news the contract fees for the training were ~$1M and inferred, based on what I know my own firm spends for similar training, the quality of the training offered is comparable to that which the partners and staff of my firm receive.

I used to take required ethics trainings on a yearly basis. They were a waste of time. You know right from wrong or you don't.

If nothing else, the inform people who don't know right from wrong what is and is not ethical within the scope of the work they perform, and that in turn eliminates the possibility that one can say one didn't know and wasn't ever told. They form a basis for holding people accountable for their unethical behavior, which is what matters in this context as nobody takes exception with ethical behavior.

To me, the fact that the President shirks intelligence briefings is much more worrisome.

I agree that's worrisome. In my mind, it's unethical, among other things, that he skips/skipped them. His doing so is (1) disrespectful to the people who do their best to prepare the content for him and (2) a disservice to the American people who've placed their trust in his being well and completely informed about the nature of the nation's affairs and threats, and rely on his thus making better decisions than would the rest of us who haven't access to that specific knowledge. One might think of his skipping those briefings as might one a captain who deliberately sails with a broken rudder and without examining the weather forecast.

They charged a million dollars to give an ethics training to WH employees and Trump's staff? Did they serve caviar during break and have the Pope as a guest speaker? Our tax dollars hard at work. LOL

I haven't seen the contract, but I'd be surprised if that sum is just for WH employees. More likely is that it was for all WH staff and Trump's various department, agency, bureau and commission appointees.