Is that bad or OK?
Now that you've answered (heh), please do leave the initial answer in and not edit it out. Having done that, consider the following:
Do you really not think that this changes anything:
But as a former First Lady she is given U.S. Secret Service protection for life, and the State Department awarded two contracts worth $16,143 and $6,301 for her security detail's travel and lodging on the trip.?
If you're saying what she did is bad, then you're saying first ladies (and any future first husbands) cannot
ever go on vacation because laws they were not responsible for passing require them to be given security.
If you're saying that the situation is the same as Pruitt's, well,
"Pruitt is the first EPA administrator to have a 24-hour detail, a decision he said was made by security officials. The detail cost more than $830,000 in his first three months in office, E&E News reported."
If I was to apply the same doubt to that explanation as has been applied to stuff like Adam Schiff's statements, I'd have to call it a bald-face lie. But I won't do that because I don't have the evidence. So let's just assume this fear of danger - which has never been explained despite his frequent expensive flights - really does justify 24 hour security wherever he goes.
Other posters have mentioned some potentially unnecessary expenditures:
Cost of Pruitt's Italy trip rises above $84,000 | TheHill
Cost of Pruitt's Italy trip rises above $84,000
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt spent more than $30,000 on security related expenses during his travel to Italy last summer, official documents show.
New EPA travel documents show Pruitt’s personal security detail racked up $30,553.80 in travel expenses between June 5 and 12 of last year. Added to previously disclosed costs, the documents put the total taxpayer cost of the trip above $84,000.
aka, 53k above security costs, including first class on the way in and on the way back
"Emirates, an airline that boasts one of the most luxurious first-class services in the world."
But that probably didn't top something like....
"Pruitt and his aides also took a military plane from Cincinnati to New York City in order to catch the Rome flight after an infrastructure event with President Trump. If that $36,000 flight were included in the total for the Italy trip, it would cost more than $120,000."
Two foot thick walls of concrete, for a sound booth in his office. Maybe he thought Obama has him wiretapped....
I'm sure there's plenty of graft in government. Still, a "but Hillary" remark is pretty lame unless there's some kind of explanation for why it's made. Are Clinton and Pruitt both bad, despite the fact that Clinton is always going to get this security? If they're both bad, then what should happen with Pruitt?
But how
can they both be bad when your "but Hillary" has no validity unless you have a coherent argument for why a first spouse should never go on vacation after leaving the WH.
This isn't some situation where government procurement looks absurd but actually makes sense in terms of what is demanded.
