Trump Chief Scientist Nominee Who Has Testified in Mueller’s Russia Probe Withdraws His Nomination

Anti-Gay Climate Change Denier 

Sam Clovis is out. One of the most unqualified people President Trump has ever nominated has just withdrawn his name from nomination to become the United States Department of Agriculture’s chief scientist. Clovis is not a scientist.

But news broke this week that Clovis was one of the people mentioned but not named in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. According to multiple reports, he testified before Mueller’s grand jury and is “a fully cooperative witness.”

He also reportedly is the campaign official who told George Papadopoulos to pursue talks with the Russian government.

Clovis has been highly opposed by Democrats over his climate change denialism, his anti-LGBT positions and remarks, and his disparaging comments about Black people and women, according to Politico.

Clovis has said same-sex marriage will lead to legalizing pedophilia, homosexuality is a choice, and called all progressives “liars, race traders and race ‘traitors.'”

It seemed clear Clovis would make his confirmation hearing a big win for Democrats, and it’s believed Trump pulled his nomination.

“The political climate inside Washington has made it impossible for me to receive balanced and fair consideration for this position,” Clovis wrote, according to The Washington Post. “The relentless assaults on you and your team seem to be a blood sport that only increases in intensity each day. As I am focused on your success and the success of this Administration, I do not want to be a distraction or negative influence, particularly with so much important work left to do for the American people.”

Here’s Clovis speaking in 2014, via CNN:

“There’s no equivalency there between the civil rights issue associated between those protected classes and the civil rights of someone who engages in a particular behavior,” Clovis adds, in the video from his 2014 Senatorial campaign which he lost to Joni Ernst. “Follow the logic, if you engage in a particular behavior, what also becomes protected? If we protect LGBT behavior, what other behaviors are we going to protect? Are we going to protect pedophilia? Are we going to protect polyamorous marriage relationships? Are we going to protect people who have fetishes? What’s the logical extension of this? It can’t be that we’re going to protect LGBT and then we’ll pull up the ladder. That’s not going to happen, it defies logic. We’re not thinking the consequences of these decisions through.”

To comment on this article and other NCRM content, visit our Facebook page.

If you find NCRM valuable, would you please consider making a donation to support our independent journalism?