Reply With Quote
also Share Blue
which also has a paid troll army
also Share Blue
all well known nonpartisan organizations of course, because Brock says so right RG?
The Koch Brothers are billionaires whose groups spent nearly a billion dollars on campaign contributions over the Obama presidency. That is billionaire with a b.
Media matters is certainly closely aligned with the Clintons and politically biased. That does not mean that they should be discounted out of hand. They are not the same as the conspira types that really are the moonbats. It would be more akin to Fox News who was founded by the RNCs media executive from the Bush and Reagan era.
According to your profile you've been posting everyday including over a dozen times on Monday.
If the Koch brothers brought up ethical concerns, then I would be happy to support them. I am for good governance, and value that over party any day.
The article was full of hyperbolic accusations and no facts to back it up. Trumps a but if you are gonna write a hit job article at least back it up.
Cliffs: Trumps a poopyhead and I hate em
How much specificity do you need?
You want details, I can provide them. A lot of them. This is like asking someone for evidence that the earth is round, or evolution is real.
We can start with the conflicts of interest. I have posted the first few hundred of them in that thread. That of course, is just Trumps self-dealing.
Bear in mind that we are talking about an historically corrupt, inept administration, and the conflicts of interest don't stop with Trump.
How much do you want?
President Trump’s conduct in the past year has made clear that the conflicts of interest problem is not just theoretical;
it is real. Countries from Saudi Arabia to Malaysia to China have provided business to the president in the form
of hotel stays, special events, rental of office space, and the provision of valuable trademarks, among many other
transactions that represent not only conflicts of interest but violations of the cons ution’s prohibition on emoluments,
meaning profit or gain, from foreign governments. The federal government, by allowing President Trump to hold an
illegal lease for his Washington, D.C. hotel, and states like Maine, which paid for officials to stay in the president’s
hotel, have also provided him with cons utionally prohibited benefits.
Meanwhile, President Trump has again and again used his office personally profit, most prominently by spending
roughly a third of his days as president at his resorts, but also by constantly promoting his businesses, as he did when
he wore hats sold by his campaign to hurricane relief photo opportunities. Those who pay to be members of his club
or guests at his hotel obtain access to the president, and the possibility of influencing him, not available to regular
Americans. No president in the history of our nation has held businesses creating the kinds of conflicts, cons utional
violations, and self-dealing we see with this one.
The broader problems began in the administration’s first days. The appointments of Ivanka Trump and Jared
Kushner, President Trump’s daughter and son-in-law, to senior White House positions violated at least the spirit and
purpose of the federal anti-nepotism law, and each of them brought a raft of potential conflicts of interest of their
own into their jobs. Both Ms. Trump and Mr. Kushner have business interests that present continuing conflicts,
most visibly when the two of them attended a dinner with the Chinese president on the same day that the Chinese
government provisionally approved new trademarks for Ms. Trump’s brand. Mr. Kushner’s dozens of amendments
to his financial disclosure forms as more and more errors have been discovered, and his omission of significant
information on his national security questionnaire, raise additional questions about his forthrightness and about
whether he has sought to hide potential conflicts.
By the by, care to guess which Mediterranean island's banks is favored by Russian oligarchs for getting money out of Russia? Just sayin'.Similarly, several of President Trump’s cabinet members have been plagued by conflicts of interest stemming from
massive financial holdings or prior positions that conflict with their job responsibilities. Commerce Secretary
Wilbur Ross has held on to massive interests in global shipping and natural gas companies, and he appears to have
acted on matters that could affect these interests. He also appears to have failed to fully disclose his net worth and
his ownership interest in problematic en ies including the Bank of Cyprus. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has
similarly continued to hold a significant interest in an education-related company that could present a significant
conflict. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt attempted to get clearance to participate in
cases and matters upon which he had worked, often in direct opposition to the EPA, while serving as Oklahoma
Attorney General; ultimately, he partly but not fully backed down
Ethics rules violations have also been rampant in the administration’s first year. Two senior officials, United Nations
Ambassador Nikki Haley and White House Social Media Director Dan Scavino Jr., were both found by the Office of
Special Counsel to have violated federal law by using official Twitter accounts to post messages in favor of or against
candidates for office, and two other officials are under investigation for similar political law violations. Perhaps even
more troubling, multiple cabinet officials are under investigation for potential misuse of government resources for
travel, with Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price resigning after incurring more than $1 million in travel
costs. Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway misused her office to promote Ivanka Trump’s clothing brand,
and EPA Administrator Pruitt has spent taxpayer money extravagantly, including on a $25,000 telephone booth.
Going to guess you didn't actually read the linked report. Plenty of details there.
While it is not uncommon for an occasional lobbyist to get a job with an administration, it is rare for the sheer number of them not only getting jobs, but getting them quietly, and with a lot of waivers.
There are some interesting articles out there if you want more on this. It is icky.While the president’s executive order on ethics purported to curtail the revolving door between the White House
and lobbying in order to “drain the swamp,” in fact it contained significant loopholes, and the administration’s
approach in practice has been much worse still. The administration hired multiple lobbyists, waived ethics and
conflicts requirements for 17 officials, initially secretly, and worse still, has filled its ranks with numerous senior
officials pulled from the industries they are now tasked with regulating.
President Trump’s foregoing interactions with then-Director Comey and Attorney General Sessions about the
Russia investigation also are part of a broader, troubling shift in the relationship between the White House and the
Department of Justice under the Trump administration. President Trump’s personal involvement in the appointment
of United States Attorneys, his highly unusual public calls for the investigation of his former political opponent
Hillary Clinton and his attacks on possible witnesses against him—including former Director Comey—have
raised the prospect that the president expects the Department of Justice to serve his personal and political ends.24
For instance, after Attorney General Sessions announced his recusal, President Trump reportedly erupted in anger,
expressed the view that his top law enforcement official should protect him, and asked “Where’s my Roy Cohn?”—
a reference to the man who served as a top aide to Senator Joseph McCarthy when the Senator led investigations into
purported communist activities in the 1950s.25
Presidents do not interview lead prosecutors.Finally, President Trump has taken an active, personal role in the selection of United States Attorneys appointed
to offices that have jurisdiction over him and his businesses. For instance, President Trump personally interviewed
candidates for these lead prosecutor jobs in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.28 Coupled with the
failure of the president, his daughter Ivanka Trump, and his son-in-law Jared Kushner to divest from their business
interests, President Trump’s personal involvement in these hiring decisions raises the troubling possibility that he is
trying to screen out individuals who would investigate his businesses or those of his closest associates.
This is a MASSIVE red flag.
Let me know when you have enough detail.
So far I have:
Self-dealing on the part of Trump, lining his pockets directly through stays at his properties
violations of the emoluments clause of the cons ution
hiring relatives, who have benefitted directly from foreign government policies aimed at influencing him
cabinet members who have failed to fully disclose potential conflicts of interest, and who have actively sought to direct policies at former business associates
direct political intervention designed to ward off any investigations into his finances
Should I keep going?
Here is your cons ution out the window. If a Democrat had been doing this, the Republican party would Beghazi-gate the out of this.The Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. has become the central location for currying favor with
President Trump. The hotel provides special interests the opportunity to spend money on events, rooms, food, drink,
and more that ends up in President Trump’s pocket, and at the same time gain access to administration officials and
sometimes the president himself.29 The National Mining Association, for instance, held a two-day meeting at the
hotel in October where at least three cabinet secretaries spoke to the lobbying group.30 Groups promoting U.S.-Turkey
relations held a three-day conference at the hotel in May,31 and organizations ranging from the controversial American
Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to a commercial real estate development trade association have held or will
hold events there.32 All this has been good for the hotel’s—and thus President Trump’s—bottom line. The hotel
was expected to lose $2.1 million in the first four months of 2017, but instead turned a $1.97 million profit.33
And while room rates around the country stagnated, the Trump hotel raised its rates this year, reaching levels
higher than comparable local hotels.34
Trump has the magic "R" so he gets a pass.
The guy owns hotels. Big ing deal. Are they supposed to screen every reservation and selectively discriminate against anyone from other countries?
Foreign governments similarly understand that the hotel provides them a means to influence President Trump
and have taken their business there, raising questions about whether these countries are receiving special treatment.
The Embassy of Kuwait moved its National Day celebration to the Trump hotel from another venue, the prime minister of Malaysia and his entourage stayed at the hotel during an official visit to the United States, and lobbyists
for Saudi Arabia spent thousands of dollars on rooms and catering there after the election.35 The hotel even has a
salesperson dedicated to seeking business from foreign diplomats.36 Foreign governments also found other ways to
benefit President Trump. The Chinese government, after repeated rejections, granted valuable trademarks to President
Trump last year, and a large Chinese state-owned bank continues to be the biggest tenant in New York’s Trump
Tower.37 The trademark decisions took place at a time when the administration was developing and implementing its
approach on policies related to China, including areas such as trade, North Korea, human rights, and climate change,
leaving the public unsure whether the benefits President Trump received influenced policymaking.
Here is RG hysterical hyperbole.
The magic "R" makes it all better. Got it. Laws only matter when it comes to Democrats.
He is supposed to divest, and put it into a trust.
He hasn't.
That is un-ethical. Magic "R" makes it all better. POOF. Magically ethical, right?
CC hypocritical double standards.
You asked for details, I give you plenty. You focus on one.
What about the Chinese bank tenants?
What about the favorable business deals for his relatives?
Lmao
You think he might still own the hotels even if they were in a trust?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions