Alpha Centauri 2

Community => Recreation Commons => Topic started by: Rusty Edge on November 16, 2016, 07:30:28 PM

Title: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Rusty Edge on November 16, 2016, 07:30:28 PM

Let's start off with a piece by the Washington Post. The actual article is full of links to back up their allusions.

-kleptocracy/?utm_term=.6c3eeacb76ef]https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/11/16/welcome-to-the-[Sleezebag]-kleptocracy/?utm_term=.6c3eeacb76ef (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/11/16/welcome-to-the-[Sleezebag)

Welcome to the [Sleezebag] Kleptocracy
By Paul Waldman November 16 at 9:57 AM

“It’s very possible that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it,” Donald [Sleezebag] said back in 2000 when he was contemplating a bid that he never followed through on. And while he didn’t actually turn a profit on his 2016 run, it’s looking more and more likely that being president is going to be very lucrative for [Sleezebag]. By the time it’s over, he may even be worth as much as he has always claimed to be.

The words “conflict of interest” don’t begin to describe what the [Sleezebag] administration is shaping up to look like — though there will be plenty of conflicts of interest with administration figures such as Rudy Giuliani, who made millions from foreign governments and corporations, some of which are hostile to the United States. But the real action is going to be in [Sleezebag]’s own family.

Anti-nepotism laws prevent [Sleezebag] from giving his family members jobs in the administration. But don’t think that’s going to stop them from being active participants in U.S. government decision-making, or using the fact that [Sleezebag] is president to keep money flowing in. In fact, we could see the president enriching himself and his family on a scale that we normally associate with post-Soviet kleptocrats and Third World dictators.

For starters, Ivanka, Eric and Donald [Sleezebag] Jr. are on the executive committee of [Sleezebag]’s transition team, helping decide who gets hired for key positions and what the administration’s initial focus will be. We learned that someone on the transition team inquired about obtaining security clearances for the three so that they could see classified information (though the [Sleezebag] team protested that the request did not come from [Sleezebag] himself). Then there’s the matter of Ivanka [Sleezebag]’s husband:

Donald [Sleezebag] has taken the unprecedented step of requesting his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, receive top-secret clearance to join him for his Presidential Daily Briefings, which began Tuesday.

Multiple sources tell NBC News [Sleezebag] received his first briefing on Tuesday and designated both Kushner and Ret. Gen. Michael Flynn as his staff-level companions for the briefings going forward.

Kushner — whose knowledge of government is so minimal that he was apparently surprised to learn that the Obama staffers in the White House wouldn’t be staying on to serve President [Sleezebag] — is shaping up as perhaps his father-in-law’s closest adviser. He won’t have an official position, yet he’ll be privy to some of the most sensitive intelligence secrets the government possesses.

Then he’ll go home at night to Ivanka [Sleezebag], who is already monetizing her father’s election; Ivanka [Sleezebag] Fine Jewelry is promoting the bracelet she wore on last Sunday’s “60 Minutes” interview, which can be yours for $10,800.

But that’s peanuts compared with what the [Sleezebag] children will be able to accomplish. During the [Sleezebag] presidency, they will be running the [Sleezebag] corporation on their father’s behalf, but the money it makes will still be his money. We don’t know exactly how the profits are divided, because it’s a private company and [Sleezebag] won’t tell us. But it’s important to understand that [Sleezebag]’s primary business is not building things; he actually does very little building anymore. His main business is brand licensing, and it’s a business that is particularly amenable to enriching himself while he’s president.

How would that work? Well, imagine this scenario. Ivanka and Donny Jr. go to some country — let’s say Russia, for no particular reason — and arrange a meeting with a developer. They suggest a deal that the [Sleezebag] corporation has carried out in places all over the world, in which the local developer builds a hotel or resort, then slaps the [Sleezebag] name on it and pays the Trumps millions of dollars in licensing fees for the privilege. And let’s say that developer just happens to have ties, publicly known or otherwise, to the Kremlin and Vladimir Putin. And let’s say he offers the [Sleezebag] corporation very favorable terms — which, being savvy businesspeople, Ivanka and Donny accept. You’d then have a situation in which the Russian dictator has, through a proxy, deposited millions or even tens of millions of dollars into the bank account of the president of the United States.

Or it wouldn’t even have to be as public as a hotel with a “[Sleezebag]” sign on it. What if that same developer just hired the [Sleezebag] children to be “consultants”? Since the money would flow through the company, it would mean that foreign governments or interests could be paying untold sums to the American president.

This could be repeated in countries all over the world. And since the [Sleezebag] corporation is privately held, we might never know all the details. We might be able to figure them out if [Sleezebag] released his tax returns, but he refused to do so, despite almost certainly having more potential financial conflicts of interest than any president in history. And forget about seeing them after his IRS audit is done, the lame excuse [Sleezebag] gave for not releasing them during the campaign. I promise you this: Donald [Sleezebag] is never going to make his tax returns public. Never.

So we’re going to have to rely on the [Sleezebag] family’s strong ethical code to reassure ourselves that nothing problematic will go on when it comes to the entwining of [Sleezebag]’s business interests and U.S. government policy. The problem is that absolutely nothing we have learned about [Sleezebag] suggests that he will operate in a remotely ethical way when it comes to opportunities to enrich himself once he becomes president. We’re talking about a man who allegedly ran multiple grifts on gullible customers ([Sleezebag] University, the [Sleezebag] Institute, the [Sleezebag] Network); who used the bankruptcy laws to escape the collapse of his casinos, leaving investors holding the bag while he made out like a bandit in a kind of Atlantic City version of “The Producers”; who ran a foundation that was essentially a scam from top to bottom; who regularly stiffed contractors when he knew they were too small to fight him; who used undocumented workers and reportedly had foreign models lie to customs officials so that they could work illegally in the United States, who once paid $750,000 to the Federal Trade Commission to settle an antitrust suit, and who was generally revealed to be, if not the most spectacularly corrupt businessman in the United States, then certainly a strong contender for that title.

The irony is that so many of [Sleezebag]’s supporters believed his preposterous claim that he would be the one to banish corruption from Washington, that he’d “drain the swamp” and send that crooked establishment packing. He’ll do nothing of the sort, of course; his transition team is drowning in corporate lobbyists, and among his first priorities are cutting taxes for the wealthy and removing oversight from Wall Street. But that’s standard Republican fare; what’s different and probably unprecedented is the way [Sleezebag] will increase his fortune by hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars while he’s president. "

***************

There won't be a problem, believe me.

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: E_T on November 16, 2016, 08:05:35 PM

Pay no attention to the crooks behind the curtain..

Well, he had better be very careful or he will be fighting multiple impeachments...

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Unorthodox on November 16, 2016, 08:26:49 PM

Guess this is as good a place as any...

Back a ways.  Maybe before the first debate, even.  Right after T rump was made the candidate.  There was a press conference with T rump and the kids...hEt pointed it out, and it fits in a lot of ways. 

The [Sleezebag] family's entire mannerism and staging was just like the Largo family in Repo! the Genetic Opera

Some NSFW images here:

! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqD5JnDTJ68#)

If you've never seen the movie, you owe it to yourself. 

I'm not saying it's everyones cup of tea, or everyone will like it.  But it's so monumentally unique and bizarre, you should experience it at least once. 

Preferably at a shadowcast. 

! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VIHAYaJuMA#)

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Rusty Edge on November 16, 2016, 09:19:18 PM

Quote from: E_T on November 16, 2016, 08:05:35 PM

Pay no attention to the crooks behind the curtain..

Well, he had better be very careful or he will be fighting multiple impeachments...

Fear not! He's safe .Well, maybe.

Impeachment originates in the House. They would be loath to turn on him anytime soon, considering that they have to answer to the voters fairly regularly. As for the Senate, who actually conducts the trial, it may go Red super-majority in the 2018 election. This year the GOP had more seats at risk, and they held on. In two years there are a lot of Blue senators in red and purple states. I am certain that my senator will flip. Not a lot of chance of Congress turning on [Sleezebag].

On the well, maybe, side. T rump coming out for term limits as part of his program won't win him any friends in either house of Congress.

[edited for pronouns and stuff]

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Rusty Edge on November 16, 2016, 09:26:02 PM

Oh, there's room for family working in the White House, just not in cabinet positions and agencies. Hillary ran a health care task force out of the White House. G.W. Bush did some staff work.

Of course, they weren't also running international businesses at the time.  Legal and ethical aren't synonymous.

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Rusty Edge on November 18, 2016, 03:25:52 AM

"[Sleezebag] wouldn't know a conflict of interest if it bit him in the axe ( or similar) " - me, after reading about the following ...let me see if I can find a curt and pastable source. This is close enough.

https://theintercept.com/2016/11/17/turkish-client-paid-[Sleezebag]-adviser-michael-flynns-company-tens-of-thousands-of-dollars-for-lobbying/

Essentially, Flynn, who was dismissed from military intelligence under unfavorable circumstances, has had [Sleezebag]'s ear. He couldn't survive a Senate confirmation hearing, but he doesn't need one to be an advisor. He was the designated assistant to sit in on the courtesy National Security Briefings to the candidates in August while he ran an international intelligence consultant business. He personally is not a registered lobbyist. His son is his chief of staff and presumably will continue to run things while the general is national security advisor.

Cool, huh?

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Buster's Uncle on November 18, 2016, 03:41:11 AM

What unfavorable circumstances?

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Rusty Edge on November 18, 2016, 05:35:49 AM

Quote from: BUncle on November 18, 2016, 03:41:11 AM

What unfavorable circumstances?

I think it's classified. After some more digging - Here's Flynn's side of it-

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/michael-flynn-isis-memoir/2016/07/10/id/737937/ (http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/michael-flynn-isis-memoir/2016/07/10/id/737937/)

Gen. Michael Flynn: I Was Fired for Calling Our Enemies Radical Islamic Jihadists
By Cathy Burke   |   Sunday, 10 Jul 2016 09:36 AM

Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn — being considered by Donald T rump as a possible running mate — says he was axed as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2014 because of his stand "on radical Islamism" and al Qaida's expansion around the globe.

In a biting commentary for the New York Post which included excerpts from his bestseller "Fields of Flight" cowritten by  Michael Ledeen, Flynn writes "the intel system was way too politicized."

"I asked the DNI [Gen. James Clapper] if my leadership of the agency was in question and he said it was not; had it been, he said, they would have relieved me on the spot," he writes.
 
"I knew then it had more to do with the stand I took on radical Islamism and the expansion of al Qaida and its associated movements. I felt the intel system was way too politicized, especially in the Defense Department."

An unapologetic Flynn writes he'd been trying "to change the culture" of the agency "from one overly focused on Washington, D.C., to a culture that focused on our forward-based war fighters and commanders."

"In the end, I was pissed but knew that I had maintained my integrity and was determined in the few months I had left to continue the changes I was instituting and to keep beating the drum about the vicious enemy we were facing (still are)," he writes.

I would not change a lick how I operate. Our country has too much at stake."

Flynn asserts the nation is in "a global war" comprised of "an enemy alliance" that stretches from North Korea to Cuba and Venezuela and "picks up radical Muslim countries and organizations such as Iran, al Qaida, the Taliban and Islamic State."

Flynn writes only a designed "strategy to destroy this global enemy" will win, but decries the nation's current approach to "timidly nibble around the edges of the battlefields from Africa to the Middle East, and act as if each fight, whether in Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, Libya or Afghanistan, can be peacefully resolved by diplomatic effort."

"This approach is doomed," he declares.

"We’re not going to talk our way out of this war, nor can we escape its horrors," he adds. "We have to destroy the enemy armies and combat enemy doctrines. Both are doable."

***********************************

This is Wikipedia's explanation-
"On April 30, 2014, Flynn announced his retirement effective later in 2014, about a year earlier than he had been scheduled to leave his position. He was reportedly effectively forced out of the DIA after clashing with superiors over his allegedly chaotic management style and vision for the agency.[22][23] According to what Flynn had told in one final interview as DIA director, he felt like a lone voice in thinking that the United States was less safe from the threat of Islamic terrorism in 2014 than it was prior to the 9/11 attacks; he went on to believe that he was pressed into retirement for questioning the Obama administration’s public narrative that Al Qaeda was close to defeat.[24] He retired as of August 7."

************
Mother Jones-   http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/11/meet-ret-general-michael-flynn-most-gullible-guy-army (http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/11/meet-ret-general-michael-flynn-most-gullible-guy-army)

Meet Ret. General Michael Flynn, the Most Gullible Guy in the Army
Kevin DrumNov. 17, 2016 5:29 PM

Donald T rump's favorite general, Michael Flynn, was fired as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency a couple of years ago. The circumstances have long been a bit mysterious. On one side, the story is that he was pushed out due to a revolt of his senior staff over his abusive and chaotic management style. Flynn himself says it was because he was tough on Islamic terrorism, and the weenies in the White House didn't like it.
In any case, Flynn has been "right wing nutty" ever since, in Colin Powell's words, so naturally he's now in line for a top position in the T rump administration. Possibly National Security Advisor. But whatever you think of Flynn, he was the head of an intelligence agency and therefore ought to have a pretty good BS detector. Apparently he doesn't:  "

Then it posts a CNN video about how he re-tweeted a bogus story about the contents of Anthony Weiner's laptop that would have evidence to jail Hillary, Huma, etc.

****************
* My hunch/reading between the lines of the insider naysayers is that the problem was with his intemperate remarks - tarring all Moslems broadly, including those within our country and those who are officially our Allies, and criticism of his Commander In Chief.

* On the factual side, the Secretary of Defense is supposed to be a civilian position and active duty military are barred from serving for 5 ( or is it 7 ? ) years afterwards. So, not only would he require confirmation for that job, but a special act of Congress to exempt him from the legal restrictions. That's why he is seen as T rump's  National Security Advisor pick, which has no such limitations.

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Rusty Edge on November 18, 2016, 06:02:23 AM

A little more about ethics and why I'm such a hard axe about it.

When I was a kid, and my Dad was VP and later president of a small bank in a small town, I was privy to a lot of information, because both of my parents worked there, and I overheard phone calls, meetings, conversations, etc.  I was told to never repeat anything I heard or overheard to preserve confidentiality, and never to talk about banking and local business matters in general, simply because it would start rumors because people would think it was inside information.

 As an adult in local government, church treasurer, etc. It was a matter of honor looking after my friends and neighbor's money, because they were demonstrating their personal trust in me.
That meant that once or twice my family business refused to bill for services when we were the only ones available to provide them to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest. 

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Rusty Edge on November 18, 2016, 05:44:49 PM

As for General Flynn's dismissal. NBC's military consultant said it was about competing narratives. Obama describing ISIL as the "JV team", and Flynn describing them as the great global threat.

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Rusty Edge on November 18, 2016, 07:43:50 PM

Time magazine's overview of our thread topic-
-conflicts-of-interest/]http://time.com/4574938/donald-[Sleezebag]-conflicts-of-interest/ (http://time.com/4574938/donald-[Sleezebag)

"Donald [Sleezebag]’s Many, Many, Many, Many Conflicts of Interest
Jeff Nesbit Nov. 17, 2016

Jeff Nesbit was the communications director to former Vice President Dan Quayle (R-IN) at the White House. He is the author of Poison Tea

And Rudy Giuliani's, too
When Donald [Sleezebag] becomes the 45th president of the United States in January, it seems quite likely that he will bring hundreds of potential financial conflicts of interest with him into the Oval Office.
Yet none of it will matter. Instead, incredibly, several congressional oversight committees have said that they will continue to investigate potential financial conflicts of interest between the Clinton foundation and Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of State during the Obama administration. The irony here is beyond strange. It’s also unprecedented.

What is astounding about this is that few seem to care—not the 59 million Americans who voted him into office because they wanted an outsider who has never been involved in politics to run the national government, and certainly not the new GOP Congress that will, instead, continue to investigate potential conflicts of interest of the Democratic presidential candidate who lost the 2016 election.

[Sleezebag]’s conflicts of interest range from small matters like his investment in a controversial oil and gas pipeline in North Dakota that he may ultimately have to rule on, to large trade issues with China that will affect Bank of China ties to his business organizations that will be managed by his three children.
Presidents are largely exempt from oversight from Congress on matters of financial conflict of interest, and the GOP Congress wouldn’t launch investigations of him regardless. The FBI tilted in his favor in the run-up to the presidential election, so it’s unlikely it will take an interest in this subject either. There isn’t anyone left on the playing field in Washington to investigate any of his potential conflicts of interest.

[Sleezebag] didn’t release his tax returns during the presidential campaign, and he has shown no inclination to be any more transparent about potential financial conflicts of interest once he becomes president. Despite intense media pressure on [Sleezebag] to be more forthcoming about his business dealings and how they might intersect with the White House, [Sleezebag] has simply stonewalled. That isn’t likely to change.

Past presidents have placed their financial holdings in blind trusts and released their tax returns each year to show good faith to the American public. [Sleezebag] has said he’ll simply allow his children to continue to run his varied financial interests while he’s president, and isn’t likely to allow anyone to scrutinize the inner workings of his many and varied businesses while he’s president.

His campaign personal disclosure form lists more than 500 legal business entities, as well as 21 large financial properties that he says are worth more than $50 million each. Many of the decisions he makes as president will undoubtedly affect those small and large financial interests, yet there is no mechanism that can compel him to be more transparent about how those interests might overlap—and there are no federal investigative bodies either in Congress or his own administration to conduct any meaningful oversight. The media will continue to investigate, of course, but [Sleezebag] has convinced much of America that the media can’t be trusted.

Take just two examples of how this might work once he’s in office. [Sleezebag] is a small investor in Energy Transfer Partners, which is one of the business interests behind the Dakota Access Pipeline that has spurred dozens of protests. The decision on the Dakota pipeline could very likely be made from the Oval Office, in favor of his investing partners. It is an obvious and clear financial conflict of interest, but [Sleezebag] has shown no indication that he will avoid such conflicts—and there is no public call for him to divest his political decisions from such financial interests.

At a larger scale, the state-run Bank of China has a financial interest or stake in at least two of [Sleezebag]’s large real estate properties. During the campaign, [Sleezebag] said he would consider trade sanctions on China in an effort to promote American business interests. Should he follow through on those campaign threats, triggering reciprocal actions by the Chinese government, those Bank of China loans to his business interests will be squarely in the crosshairs.

No one—other than the media—has made an issue out of [Sleezebag]’s potential financial conflicts of interest as president. And in yet another level of bizarre political irony, one of the central elements of [Sleezebag]’s presidential campaign was a populist demand from his followers to put Clinton in jail for perceived conflicts of interest between the Clinton foundation and her time as secretary of State. “Lock her up” was a central theme of the [Sleezebag] campaign, one that he often repeated from the podium. But do such potential financial conflicts interest extend to [Sleezebag] when he becomes president? Apparently not.

The sheer irony of all of this doesn’t stop at the White House, either. The loudest, most vociferous cheerleader at many of those [Sleezebag] rallies—where his populist movement was demanding that Clinton go to jail for any financial conflict of interest transgressions while she was serving as secretary of State—was former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani. Like [Sleezebag], he was a willing and eager political cheerleader for this demand that Clinton be investigated and jailed. Both he and [Sleezebag] have said they would still consider appointing a special prosecutor to pursue Clinton.

Giuliani is now the leading candidate to become secretary of State in the [Sleezebag] administration. He has any number of business ties that might come under intense scrutiny should he, in fact, be named to that position.

Giuliani has dismissed the questions of any potential conflicts of interest that might intersect with the State Department. “I have friends all over the world,” he told the New York Times. He’s said his financial dealings, which ranged from contracts with the government of Qatar and the huge Canadian company behind the Keystone XL pipeline to paid speeches to groups with financial interests in countries that he would deal with as secretary of State, aren’t the same as the charges that he and [Sleezebag] leveled during their “lock her up” campaign tour.

And yet it is precisely the same thing. The question, at least for the foreseeable future, is whether anyone beyond the media will ever show any interest in the subject. Congress hasn’t shown any interest. The FBI isn’t likely to look into it. [Sleezebag] isn’t compelled by ethics laws to list potential conflicts of interest when he becomes president. So who’s left to conduct oversight?"

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Rusty Edge on November 19, 2016, 02:11:37 AM

-administration.html?_r=0]http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/us/politics/donald-[Sleezebag]-administration.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/us/politics/donald-[Sleezebag)

Well, this seems to lay out the question of the son-in-law.  Here's the core of the article-

"But the prospect that Mr. Kushner might end up in the West Wing remained a concern to some people close to the president-elect, who said he would instantly become a target for media and legal attacks if he took the unorthodox step.

Mr. Kushner has consulted with at least one lawyer and believes that by forgoing a salary and putting his investment fund, his real estate holdings and The New York Observer into a blind trust, he would not be bound by federal nepotism rules, according to one of the people briefed.

Ethics lawyers in both parties said that such an arrangement would violate a federal statute designed to prevent family ties from influencing the functioning of the United States government. Under a 1967 law enacted after John F. Kennedy installed his brother, Robert F. Kennedy, as attorney general, no public official can hire a family member — including one related by marriage — to an agency or office over which he has authority. A separate statute also makes it a crime, punishable by a fine and up to two years of prison time, for government employees to accept voluntary services that are not authorized by law, except in emergency situations.

The anti-nepotism law “would seem to block out Kushner flatly,” said Norman L. Eisen, who served as Mr. Obama’s ethics counsel during his transition and at the White House. If Mr. [Sleezebag] were to try to skirt it by having Mr. Kushner advise him in a volunteer capacity, he added, he “would be treading upon very serious statutory and constitutional grounds.”

**********


[Sleezebag] may try to do it anyway, as Priebus &  Bannon, want Kushner, too.  [Sleezebag] could try it and see who dares to oppose him. A legal motion may be filed, but depending on the judge who hears it, etc., the bench may challenge the legal standing of the person who files it and dismiss the case.  [Sleezebag] could argue that Hillary's health care task force is the legal precedent, but the office of First Lady is legally established in the White House, so that is a legal distinction. Also, [Sleezebag] could argue that since he is declining a salary, he is not a US government employee, and therefore there isn't a problem with Kushner offering voluntary advisory services in the White House.

Not the spirit of the law, but somebody may see it as within the letter.

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Bearu on November 19, 2016, 03:04:48 AM

Ah. The supreme member of the bourgeoisie wins the position of president in the United States of America so he can produce a profit from the backs of the proletariat. What higher ideal could exist for a capitalist? The family of Donald [Sleezebag] represents the epitome of the bourgeois family where the husband and wife produce nothing, yet, as Carl Marx and Friedrich Engels states, "For those of its members who work acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything do not work" (93). The entire situation reeks of the corruption behind the screen of the bourgeois society. Why would anyone believe the concept that Donald [Sleezebag] would "Make America Great Again"? The entire scheme reminds me of the process to indoctrinate people where you first shock them (rape them, murder the family, force them into poverty, deprive them of food, etc.), isolate them (sever the communal ties in a country, divide the country into a mosaic society), indoctrinate them (repeat the same phrases like the communists remain evil, the Russians remain corrupt, the Mexicans will take the jobs of Americans, and so on), and then promise a reward (Make America Great and the removal of the poverty remains a guarantee). How could anyone believe the feculent and preposterous statements of Donald [Sleezebag] and Hillary Clinton?

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Buster's Uncle on November 19, 2016, 03:16:06 AM

How did you come to this actual communist phase?  I'm asking.

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Bearu on November 19, 2016, 03:19:14 AM

Quote from: E_T on November 16, 2016, 08:05:35 PM

Pay no attention to the crooks behind the curtain..

Well, he had better be very careful or he will be fighting multiple impeachments...

The governmental prostitutes known as representatives and senators ensure the president does not confront the prospect of impeachment unless the allegation violates a set of standards like sexual morality.

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Bearu on November 19, 2016, 03:56:51 AM

Quote from: BUncle on November 19, 2016, 03:16:06 AM

How did you come to this actual communist phase?  I'm asking.

      What makes a person believe I remain a communist beyond the desire to progress the goals of a better society? The communists remain correct on certain issues, but the current problems in the United States of America remain impervious to the ideologies of the conservatives, liberals, libertarians, anarchists, and proprietors of the various ideologies in the minority parties. The other parties, in part, remain susceptible to the influence of currency and the wealthy. The entire idea began in pursuit of an ideology to understand the events in the world around me. The contemporary liberalism ideology of complete equality remains a repulsive concept because the people will never achieve complete equality, and the government holds a monopoly on the application of force.  Since the contemporary liberals simply wanted to ensure the dominance of the wealthy over the impoverished through the integration of the population into the bourgeois system, the concept of liberalism remains a deplorable idea. The conservatives want to pursue a policy of moral slavery over the country while the wealthy remain free from the responsibility towards the health of the country. The Anarchists remain a nonviable form of government, and the homo sapiens never exist in a self sustained manner where the the strongest in a community dominate under the auspices of the libertarians. What other option could I agree with when I could not remain a moderate in the face of incontrovertible evidence the wealthy own and control the major means of production, media, and government in the United States of America? The other option remains apathy, but I have never been an apathetic person towards the issues that other people deem "too big" and inconsequential for the average person. The ultimate answer remains complicated with the continual development of a personal identity, and I do not agree with the social justice warriors about the need to liberate the women etc. The only people that need liberation remains the majority of the Americans from the purview of the bourgeoisie.
      The problem with the country appears with the evidence below on the presence of property. The top ten percent of the citizens in the United States of America own over 80% of the assets and the wealth in the country while the bottom 80% own a meager 10% of the assets. How can people create an equitable society when the majority own a super majority of the financial resources. Carl Marx and Friedrich Engels states
"You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society private property is already done with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the nonexistence of property for the vast majority of society" (87).
What purpose does the private property serve except to promote the power of the bourgeoisie and the ruling class? How can a equitable society exist when about 48% of the population lives in the poverty level or within 150% of the poverty level? The question does not even touch the antiquated definition of the "poverty level," but the answer remains the country possesses a number of serious problems that lead back towards the distribution of the means of production and private property in the country.
 The ultimate answer remains I want to observe a world where the people do not need to worry about the security of housing, food, clothing, and basic necessities. The party will lead the people towards a glorious future full of bright prospects and bountiful freedom from the bourgeois notion of private property.

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Rusty Edge on November 19, 2016, 09:30:38 PM

Watching cable, while some allude to Flynn's "abrasive  management style" as the reason for his dismissal, it seems that he did in fact publish a report critical of Obama while working at the Pentagon, as well as publically saying things like "Islam is a cancer". I don't think that you get to criticize your CIC and insult our allies at high levels and keep your job.

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Buster's Uncle on November 19, 2016, 09:51:58 PM

I don't think any of that reflects well on the man at all...

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Rusty Edge on November 19, 2016, 10:37:05 PM

At the moment nobody bothers me as much as Jeff Sessions.  It seems to me that [Sleezebag]'s utter lack of government experience and Constitutional awareness means that the two most important and critical positions are Attorney General and White House Councel. The people who will tell him "You can't do that!"

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: E_T on November 21, 2016, 03:23:13 PM

Quote from: Rusty Edge on November 19, 2016, 09:30:38 PM

Watching cable, while some allude to Flynn's "abrasive  management style" as the reason for his dismissal, it seems that he did in fact publish a report critical of Obama while working at the Pentagon, as well as publically saying things like "Islam is a cancer". I don't think that you get to criticize your CIC and insult our allies at high levels and keep your job.

IIRC, it's against the UCMJ, so they likely gave him an out that kept him from losing his benefits.

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: E_T on November 21, 2016, 03:26:48 PM

Quote from: Rusty Edge on November 19, 2016, 10:37:05 PM

At the moment nobody bothers me as much as Jeff Sessions.  It seems to me that [Sleezebag]'s utter lack of government experience and Constitutional awareness means that the two most important and critical positions are Attorney General and White House Councel. The people who will tell him "You can't do that!"

Well, if they give him bad constitutional law advice, would leave him more open for impeachment...
But then, we would have to deal with Pence...

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Rusty Edge on November 21, 2016, 07:13:36 PM

Quote from: E_T on November 21, 2016, 03:26:48 PM

Quote from: Rusty Edge on November 19, 2016, 10:37:05 PM

At the moment nobody bothers me as much as Jeff Sessions.  It seems to me that [Sleezebag]'s utter lack of government experience and Constitutional awareness means that the two most important and critical positions are Attorney General and White House Councel. The people who will tell him "You can't do that!"

Well, if they give him bad constitutional law advice, would leave him more open for impeachment...
But then, we would have to deal with Pence...

Exactly. The guy who diverted AIDS treatment money to gay conversion therapy. The guy who insisted on funerals for fetuses. The guy who brought economic boycotts down upon his state, and couldn't get re-elected. No thanks. I want [Sleezebag] to finish his term.

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: E_T on November 22, 2016, 01:25:11 AM

Scary thought...

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Rusty Edge on November 22, 2016, 01:33:03 AM

https://thinkprogress.org/[Sleezebag]-spokeswoman-says-americans-should-ignore-conflicts-of-interest-focus-on-trumps-sacrifice-b914533b77a1#.p4jocinzj

Politics
[Sleezebag] spokeswoman says Americans should ignore conflicts-of-interest, focus on [Sleezebag]’s ‘sacrifice’
ThinkProgress 9 hours ago

---------------

This subject is so full of material, I think I'll have to go into gleanings mode. But first, a nap.

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: E_T on November 22, 2016, 01:46:04 AM

The [Sleezebag] word mangling tool has been shut off??

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: E_T on November 22, 2016, 01:53:59 AM

[Sleezebag], trumpet, -[Sleezebag]-

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Buster's Uncle on November 22, 2016, 02:03:30 AM

...It was nothing but a deeply trashy publicity-hungry celebrity, and the less we said its name the better.  I refused to have my place be part of the problem.  Now, it's technically president-elect.  Can't justify it anymore, the damage being done...

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: E_T on November 22, 2016, 02:21:10 AM

So, [Sleezebag] is a thing??  Is he Thing 1 or Thing 2??

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Buster's Uncle on November 22, 2016, 02:23:00 AM

He's a scumbag huckster, is what he is.

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Buster's Uncle on November 22, 2016, 04:54:40 AM

(https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15203247_10155518526855031_5832541782926581777_n.jpg?oh=a988e7b3aa687945be4bc1e46065ee1d&oe=58885369)

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Rusty Edge on November 22, 2016, 05:19:56 AM

GLEANINGS from recent days-

* Ivanka & Kushner present at meeting with Japanese Prime Minister.

* Ivanka present at meeting with Indian businessmen.

* [Sleezebag] pressing the British to not have windmills ruining the vistas at his Scottish golf course. ( I find it interesting that he rants about windmills ruining vistas, but asserts his right to giant flagpoles. Maybe if they flew flags from the windmills...)

* Ivanka present on phone call when when Argentina called. According to Argentina news source [Sleezebag] asked for help permitting a skyscraper there.

* [Sleezebag] made 4 or 5 deals in Saudi Arabia during the campaign.

* [Sleezebag] tweeted- " Prior to the election it was well known that I have interests in properties all over the world.Only the crooked media makes this a big deal!"

* Obama and others call for [Sleezebag] to divest.

------------------------------

At first I was thinking that okay, this is just one foreign media source for each allegation, let's wait for confirmation, but there seems to be a pattern of  behavior here, and more sources picking it up. [Sleezebag] bringing up business, making it clear that Ivanka is the liason ( okay, that has creepy implications . Ivanka is the go-between ), looking forward to a good working relationship.

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Unorthodox on November 22, 2016, 02:08:25 PM

Warning: language

! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_SVuSHgh30#)

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Rusty Edge on November 23, 2016, 04:17:37 AM

Today he sort of admitted to bringing up the Scottish windmills with the British government.

He also indicated that he doesn't see the conflicts of interest as a big deal. Maybe that's why he doesn't want the Clinton Foundation investigated. That kind of attitude will lead to excess and trouble.

The question is, will the GOP Congress restrain him, or will it get bad enough for everybody to consider it bribery/impeachable, and flip the Congress to make it so. Well, I think the Congress will be less forgiving if they see him as enriching himself, while taking money out of their pockets by imposing a 5 year lobbying ban upon them.

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Unorthodox on November 23, 2016, 01:31:14 PM

Biased source, but:

-conflicts-of-interest]http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/11/only-congress-can-deal-with-[Sleezebag]-conflicts-of-interest (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/11/only-congress-can-deal-with-[Sleezebag)

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Rusty Edge on November 23, 2016, 08:23:32 PM

The Mother Jones article was fair.

The only way out of this box that I see is if Congress regulates this & Obama signs off before [Sleezebag] takes office.

OR if Congress buys him out. Too big to handle for years otherwise.

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: E_T on November 24, 2016, 01:43:29 PM

Not for the next two years, which will cause the largest party mid-term flip in Congress, then after, will have to see.... But wait.... Mike Pence...

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Unorthodox on December 06, 2016, 07:26:58 PM

Don't really have a place to put this. 

-air-force-one-boeing.html?_r=0]http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/us/politics/[Sleezebag]-air-force-one-boeing.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/us/politics/[Sleezebag)

Quote

Boeing is building a brand new 747 Air Force One for future presidents, but costs are out of control, more than $4 billion. Cancel order!

Putting aside the rest of the circus that is [Sleezebag], if there is one glimmer of hope I have for Trumpident, it's that he takes a serious look at ALL government contracts. 

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Rusty Edge on December 10, 2016, 03:32:47 AM

The proposed [Sleezebag] Cabinet is basically generals, Goldman-Sachs bankers, and assorted plutocrats. [Sleezebag] repeatedly said that he knows more than the generals. So why hire any of them? Because they'll take orders?  I can't help but wonder if Goldman-Sachs isn't helping out the [Sleezebag] family financial empire somehow... just a hunch. Plutocrats, well, people like to surround themselves with like-minded guys.

 I hear [Sleezebag] doesn't want to divest because it might mean paying capital gains taxes. But if he doesn't divest, he'll have conflicts of interest. The ones with the foreign governments are the thorny ones, Constitutionally.   The only remedy is for The House to start impeachment proceedings. Of course they aren't likely to do that.

 Then again, I'm sure the House Republicans would much prefer their former colleague Mike Pence as president. If [Sleezebag] doesn't want to play along with the GOP agenda, he'll have that hanging over his head. .  You may say they can't do that, because [Sleezebag] has a mandate. But he's already flipped on "Lock her up",  "Mexico will pay for it", and his puplic opinion of Obama. His Carrier deal wasn't strong-arming with the threat of a 35% tariff  and no more government contracts, it was a tax break deal, which the parent company has since announced will be used to further automate the Indiana plant. That's not all. He's only saving 800 of the 1100 jobs he promised. So the taxpayers are paying to automate workers out of a job AND will be supporting them on the unemployment rolls. How cool is that?!

 But it doesn't stop there. [Sleezebag]'s Sec. of Labor choice is an advocate of immigration and automation. As a fast food CEO he has a history of not paying minimum wage and overtime. Cool, huh?  Anyway, my point is that [Sleezebag]'s approval ratings are still under water. When his supporters get disillusioned with him, he's in peril.

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Unorthodox on December 23, 2016, 05:41:02 AM

-federal-contracts-weapon-000262]http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/12/[Sleezebag]-federal-contracts-weapon-000262 (http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/12/[Sleezebag)

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Bearu on December 24, 2016, 04:22:37 PM

The greed continues to emanate from the orifices of the president known as [Sleezebag]. Who does not love the characteristic of overt greed in a president? ;sarc The greed represents the presence of a capitalist where a person who owns the means of production claims to "work" for the people while the bourgeoisie lines his or her pocket with the temporal blood of the proletariat.

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: E_T on December 26, 2016, 07:03:50 AM

Well, first, it is not yet Jan 20th, so he is not yet president, but still a PRIVATE Citizen...

As for other things, I think is just more stupidity than greed.

Now, if you have a specific instance that has promted your last post, please post a link (english sites only, please) to it, maybe even quote a few paragraphs too...

Allows for better discussion than just outright propaganda...  and who knows, you might just sway some readers that way....  but if anything, continues the overall discussion...

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Bearu on December 26, 2016, 04:53:39 PM

Quote from: E_T on December 26, 2016, 07:03:50 AM

Well, first, it is not yet Jan 20th, so he is not yet president, but still a PRIVATE Citizen...

As for other things, I think is just more stupidity than greed.

Now, if you have a specific instance that has promted your last post, please post a link (english sites only, please) to it, maybe even quote a few paragraphs too...

Allows for better discussion than just outright propaganda...  and who knows, you might just sway some readers that way....  but if anything, continues the overall discussion...

     Oh! The examples I could cite for the last point based on simple economic terms. The presence of the gambling industries in the portfolio of Donald [Sleezebag] represents a dangerous precedent for the population because the business deals of the corporations, for example, produces an excessive influence on the economic decisions of the president. The presence of the media corporations in the "acquaintances" of Donald [Sleezebag] represents another corruptible influence. How many times will the people delude themselves under the guise of a media who manipulates, according to Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman in [i[Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media[/i], the population with the five point model of media creation? The quotations from the material derives from a copyrighted source, so I cannot employ the article unless I check the book from my local library. The answer remains the people remain suggestible since the population lacks the ability to discern the true motivations for the actions of the population.
    The other aspect of the critique derives from the principles of the economics of Marx, Keynes, and several other important economic theorists. The gist of the topic involves the exploitation of the surplus value from the population of a capitalist who multiplies the cost of a product through the hands of the various manufacturers in the industry. The labor cost of a phone with parts from five different industries costs about 1700 labor hours yet the cost appears at a reasonable 500 or 600 dollars for a phone. How can the cost reach the reasonable price? The answer remains the brutal exploitation of the labor force in a foreign country where the workers remain the slaves of the capitalists like Donald [Sleezebag] who profit from the suffering of the population. The examples from Marx include the presence of a cloth manufacturing process where the initial cost of the product remains 12 hours yet the process continues to increase through 1200 hours after a number of processes in an additive series. The capitalists promise to support the interests of the people, yet the people remain an ignorant group about the processes.

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Rusty Edge on January 10, 2017, 11:07:16 PM

This article lists [Sleezebag]'s potential international conflicts of interest.
http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2016/12/next-national-security-conflict-trumps-foreign-business-interests/133899/ (http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2016/12/next-national-security-conflict-trumps-foreign-business-interests/133899/)

"A global business empire raises the question: will the next president’s foreign policy serve America’s interests or his own?
From close neighbors in Latin America to European allies in the fight against the Islamic State, Donald [Sleezebag] has international entanglements like no previous commander in chief. Each of the president-elect’s business endeavors, critics say, offers an opportunity for foreign leaders and other actors to unduly influence U.S. policy through emoluments — or potentially, even extortion.
Keeping track of [Sleezebag]’s national-security conflicts-of-interest will be no simple matter, observers say, unless and until he creates a truly blind trust for his assets. Though some potentially profit-inflected decisions have already attracted critical scrutiny, others have surfaced only in the international press, and still others may remain hidden by the [Sleezebag] Organization’s opaque operating style.
What follows is as complete an accounting of [Sleezebag]’s overseas financial interests as could be gleaned from open-source reporting, including the financial disclosure form he filed as a presidential candidate. Released by the Federal Election Commission, the form is light on details but provides broad estimates of [Sleezebag]’s assets, income, and debt for the year ending May 2016.
We will update this article as information comes to light about [Sleezebag]’s interests, including projects that are being cancelled or moving ahead. Last updated: Jan. 9, 2017 . "

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Bearu on January 12, 2017, 04:51:57 AM

The country requires the presence of labor unions for a healthy economy, but the president elect [Sleezebag] and the cadre of elite sphincters insist on the presence of the bourgeoisie's union busting members in the Department of Labor. The presence of a strong labor union activity without the oppressive restrictions of the 1947 National Labor Relations Act would allow the country to flourish under the auspices of a revitalized activity among the proletariat. The removal of the 1947 ban on the strikes would provide the labor unions with the means and methods to solidify the opposition and productivity against the insidious corporations in the United States of America. The current format of the labor union represents an antiquated method of organization, and the United States of America requires a contemporary version to endure the brutal manifestations of the corporate slavery. The labor unions further provide the average worker with the employment security from the aggressive corporations, provide the opportunity for civic engagement, provide the opportunity to establish a communal identity, and provide the foundation for a new political party separate from the influences of the republican and the democratic parties in the United States of America. The most important aspect of the labor unions remain the implementation of a collective action among the proletariat to improve the lives of the population through the combined efforts of each individual, and the singular path through the darkness towards a bright future resides in the arms of the collective movement.
 
The links below ensure the advice remains a relevant feature for the discussion.
http://www.salon.com/2016/12/31/this-week-in-donald-trumps-conflicts-of-interest-trumps-getting-what-he-wants-at-mar-a-lago/ (http://www.salon.com/2016/12/31/this-week-in-donald-trumps-conflicts-of-interest-trumps-getting-what-he-wants-at-mar-a-lago/)
-recently-canceled-added-up-to-less-than-400000/]http://www.salon.com/2017/01/09/the-conflicts-of-interest-donald-[Sleezebag]-recently-canceled-added-up-to-less-than-400000/ (http://www.salon.com/2017/01/09/the-conflicts-of-interest-donald-[Sleezebag)

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Unorthodox on January 12, 2017, 02:26:03 PM

Love the there is no conflict I can do whatever the hell I want speech yesterday. 

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Rusty Edge on January 12, 2017, 05:33:05 PM

Well, the presidency is a unique position. The only conflict of interest rule that applies to him is the Emollients Clause. The only remedy is impeachment.

Once upon a time Bill Clinton committed perjury, for which he was disbarred and impeached. We know how that turned out. [Sleezebag] probably reads that as - I can do whatever I want as long as I'm more popular than the Congress who accuses and tries me.

While he frequently doesn't know what he's talking about, I think he's right in practical terms.  Seeing as how the GOP has hitched their wagon to his star, they'd be damned if they do impeach him, and damned if they don't. 

Of course, power corrupts, and the greater the abuse brought about by one party rule, the more likely we are to see mid-term elections that change the Congress and the balance of power. When that happens, the popularity balance will tip, and the new Congress will be free to apply the remedy, and [Sleezebag] will be free to rage quit.
****

Then again, I was wrong about candidate [Sleezebag]. I was one of those people who took what he said seriously, but didn't take him seriously.  I have reversed that stance. I try to ignore what he says ( presume it's all trial balloons ) and am waiting to see what he actually does when he has power as President.

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Unorthodox on January 12, 2017, 06:11:25 PM

-just-used-his-presidential-power-to-advertise-l-l-bean/?utm_term=.38af031a11a5]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/01/12/donald-[Sleezebag]-just-used-his-presidential-power-to-advertise-l-l-bean/?utm_term=.38af031a11a5 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/01/12/donald-[Sleezebag)

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Rusty Edge on January 24, 2017, 03:11:44 AM

Today a lawsuit was filed against [Sleezebag] in federal court as a conflict of interest. [Sleezebag] commented that it was "without merit".
He may be an authority on the subject ( because he has been sued so much, not because I was making a judgement on his character. )

Some say the real point of this lawsuit is to flush out [Sleezebag]'s tax returns so that the extent of his conflicts of interest are apparent, so that subsequent accusations will be more effective.

 The big question in something like this is the matter of legal standing. If the judge decides that the matter doesn't affect you, you have no right to the court's time. For example, back in June or July of 2008, a Constitutional lawyer filed a case against Barrack Obama/Democratic Party questioning his natural born status. ( I dearly wish that the case would have been heard and settled then ), but a Democrat judge threw it out, saying he had no legal standing. The plaintiff would not be personally harmed by such a fraud. A federal appeals judge also refused to hear Gary Johnson's case against the debate commission, claiming he had no standing.

Well, the public ethics group who filed this one claims that they have been forced to divert most of their funds and energy to [Sleezebag], to the neglect of the rest of the federal government.

Word is that another DC hotel may file a conflict of interest suit, because Dubai and other foreign governments are giving [Sleezebag] all of their business now.

And so it begins.

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Bearu on January 24, 2017, 04:21:31 AM

The people comprehend the meretricious nature of Donald [Sleezebag], but the people renege the pursuit of the secretaries like Rex Tillerson, in Latin known as King Tillerson, with an extensive background in the corporate elite and foreign governments. I remain with Rusty Edge on the lawsuits will not dissipate until a federal Court produces a decision on the constitutionality of the issues in the area, and the responsibility of the people resides in the ability to squash the initial infestations of the corruption in the government.

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Rusty Edge on January 27, 2017, 01:43:07 AM

Purely coincidental that [Sleezebag]'s "Extreme vetting" only applies to moslem majority countries in which he is not doing business.

-immigration-ban-conflict-of-interest/]https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-[Sleezebag]-immigration-ban-conflict-of-interest/ (https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-[Sleezebag)

I gotta admit that he found a creative alternative to the constitutional roadblock to his campaign trail promise to ban all Moslems.

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Unorthodox on January 27, 2017, 03:03:05 AM

In fairness, I'm fairly sure they are also the countries in the area that formerly were without sanctions, and thus the ones on that list he was ABLE to do business with. 

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Rusty Edge on January 27, 2017, 04:41:15 AM

Quote from: Unorthodox on January 27, 2017, 03:03:05 AM

In fairness, I'm fairly sure they are also the countries in the area that formerly were without sanctions, and thus the ones on that list he was ABLE to do business with.

You're probably right.

 As for which countries deserve sanctions and scrutiny, as I recall Osama and his hijackers were mostly from Saudi Arabia, and Turkey was the main route in and out of ISIL for westerners.

Also, [Sleezebag] tried to do business with Cuba while we had strict sanctions imposed.

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Unorthodox on January 27, 2017, 02:11:01 PM

Sorta.  It was a few days before the sanctions were going to be lifted.  He sent a scout down there to see if there was anything to jump on once sanctions lifted.  It was shady, sure, but hardly 'trying to do business' and more just trying to be ready to hit the ground running once it was legal. 

If there were any legs to THAT it would have been drummed up more during the campaign. 

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Unorthodox on February 02, 2017, 01:34:04 PM

-badgers-and-brags/2017/02/01/88a3bfb0-e8bf-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html?utm_term=.a681fd348361]https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/no-gday-mate-on-call-with-australian-pm-[Sleezebag]-badgers-and-brags/2017/02/01/88a3bfb0-e8bf-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html?utm_term=.a681fd348361 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/no-gday-mate-on-call-with-australian-pm-[Sleezebag)

Can't believe we have such an [jerk, sphincter] in charge.  I can live with crazy policy and crazy politics and crazy views.  But be civil about it. 

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Rusty Edge on February 12, 2017, 02:39:47 AM

Even fair and balanced FOX NEWS isn't putting the president in a good light on this one-

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/09/white-house-taking-bipartisan-heat-for-ivanka-nordstrom-comments.html (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/09/white-house-taking-bipartisan-heat-for-ivanka-nordstrom-comments.html)

White House taking bipartisan heat for Ivanka-Nordstrom comments
By Jennifer G. Hickey Published February 09, 2017

*****************************

Apparently too much advertising crap loading for me to cut and paste effectively. In Short Nordstrom dropped Ivanka's clothing line because of falling sales, according to their standards and procedures. [Sleezebag] complained on Twitter that it was a politically motivated attack by Nordstrom. Whitehouse Council Kelly Anne Conway used her position to blatantly endorse Ivanka's Clothing from The Whitehouse, in direct violation of ethics laws. The Whitehouse Council, of all people, should be well aware of ethics laws. I guess Ivanka hasn't divested.

Anyway, there was bipartisan outrage.

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: E_T on February 15, 2017, 01:51:32 PM

As if we didn't see that coming...

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Rusty Edge on February 17, 2017, 10:35:30 PM

I would have contributed more here, but I seem to have exhausted my access to the New York Times already this month.

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Buster's Uncle on February 17, 2017, 11:14:07 PM

...I hear China has given him trademark on his name...

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Rusty Edge on February 18, 2017, 12:29:01 AM

Yeah.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/320167-dem-senator-trumps-china-trademark-gives-obvious-impression-of-a-quid (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/320167-dem-senator-trumps-china-trademark-gives-obvious-impression-of-a-quid)

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Rusty Edge on March 02, 2017, 04:38:06 AM

WELL, it's a new month, but I must admit to a sort of [Sleezebag] outrage burnout on my half. I simply pay less attention to current events in order to restore more serenity. I did e-mail my senator with regard to Senator Sessions' confirmation, imploring him to be absent for the vote. My reasoning was that with [Sleezebag] kinda fuzzy on ethics and The Constitution, we really needed an AG who would keep him within the lines to prevent a Constitutional crisis, and Sessions wasn't the guy to do that, being too cozy with [Sleezebag].

After voting to confirm Sessions, my Senator responded saying he thought [Sleezebag] had the right to chose his own people. Well, now I feel vindicated:

According to today's news, Sessions lied about his contacts with the Russian ambassador while under oath during his confirmation hearing. Now that it's been discovered, he claims it was only while wearing his US Senator hat, not his [Sleezebag] foreign policy advisor hat. 

I think we need and independent prosecutor in charge of the FBI Russia-[Sleezebag] probe. Sessions is a potential witness, if not co-conspirator. He must recuse himself. He can't remain in charge of the people doing it.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/investigators-probed-jeff-sessions-contacts-with-russian-officials-1488424871 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/investigators-probed-jeff-sessions-contacts-with-russian-officials-1488424871)

[Politics
Investigators Probed Jeff Sessions’ Contacts With Russian Officials
Communications from the then-senator occurred during presidential campaign
By Carol E. Lee, Christopher S. Stewart, Rob Barry and Shane Harris
Updated March 1, 2017 10:56 p.m. ET

 
WASHINGTON—U.S. investigators have examined contacts Attorney General Jeff Sessions had with Russian officials during the time he was advising Donald [Sleezebag]’s presidential campaign, according to people familiar with the matter.
The outcome of the investigation, and whether it is ongoing, wasn’t clear, these people said. The contacts were being examined as part of a wide-ranging U.S. counterintelligence investigation into possible communications between members of Mr. [Sleezebag]’s campaign team and Russian operatives, they said.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation, which has been leading the investigation, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. The White House directed requests for comment to the Justice Department.

During his confirmation hearing for attorney general in January, Mr. Sessions, a Republican senator from Alabama, testified under oath that he had no contact with Russian officials as a campaign surrogate and never discussed the 2016 election with Russian officials.

But Mr. Sessions spoke with the Russian ambassador to the U.S., Sergei Kislyak, while the Republican National Convention was under way in Cleveland last summer, according to his spokeswoman, Sarah Flores. He also spoke with Mr. Kislyak on another occasion last year, by phone from his Senate office, she said.
Ms. Flores said the contact last July occurred when Mr. Sessions spoke at a Heritage Foundation event attended by Mr. Kislyak in Cleveland, appearing in his capacity as a senator, not a campaign official. She said several ambassadors approached Mr. Sessions after his speech at the Heritage Foundation event, including Mr. Kislyak.
“It was short and informal,” she said.

She said the attorney general wasn’t aware that his communications have been under investigation.
During his confirmation hearing in January, Mr. Sessions was asked what he would do if any evidence emerged that someone affiliated with the [Sleezebag] campaign communicated with the Russian government during campaign and said: “I’m not aware of any of those activities.”
“I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn’t have—did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it,” he said.
Ms. Flores said Mr. Sessions wasn’t required to disclose the contacts because they took place in his capacity as a senator, not a campaign official.
“The attorney general has been very clear that as a senator he had conversations with the Russian ambassador,” Ms. Flores said in a statement. “Last year, the senator had over 25 conversations with foreign ambassadors as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, including the British, Korean, Japanese, Polish, Indian, Chinese, Canadian, Australian, German and Russian ambassadors.”
The focus of the U.S. counterintelligence investigation has been on communications between [Sleezebag] campaign officials and Russia. The inquiry involving Mr. Sessions is examining his contacts while serving as Mr. [Sleezebag]’s foreign-policy adviser in the spring and summer of 2016, one person familiar with the matter said.
The investigation is being pursued by the FBI, Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and Treasury Department, officials have said. Counterintelligence probes seldom lead to public accusations or criminal charges.

However, the probe, if ongoing, could create a highly unusual and sensitive political dynamic given that the FBI is part of the Justice Department that Mr. Session as attorney general, now leads. Mr. Sessions has only been in office for under a month and the investigation began before he was nominated and approved by the Senate.

The FBI’s role in the investigation into Mr. Sessions’ conversations left the agency “wringing its hands” about how to proceed, said one person familiar with the matter.
Mr. [Sleezebag] asked for the resignation of his national security adviser, Mike Flynn, after Mr. Flynn misled Vice President Mike Pence over the nature of a conversation he had in December with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S.
The White House has denied any inappropriate interactions between associates of Mr. [Sleezebag] and Russian officials. Asked during a news conference in February if anyone advising his campaign had contact with Russia during the campaign, Mr. [Sleezebag] said “nobody that I know of.”
Committees in the House of Representatives and the Senate are investigating Russia’s alleged involvement in the election campaign and possible ties or communication between Russian officials and the [Sleezebag] campaign.
Russia has denied interfering in the U.S. election, blaming accusations on American politicians who want to sabotage relations between the two countries.
Some Republicans contend that the Russia investigations are politically motivated and are being pushed by people who were furious that the FBI, led by its director, James Comey, continued to investigate Hillary Clinton’s emails late into the 2016 election campaign. These Republicans say that the Russia investigations will prove to be without foundation.
Until this week, Mr. Sessions had resisted calls to remove himself from any role investigating possible ties between [Sleezebag] associates and Russia. Democrats have said he should do so because of his place advising the [Sleezebag] campaign.
On Monday, he suggested he would take himself off a case under certain circumstances, though he left out any specifics. Mr. Sessions told reporters he would “recuse myself on anything that I should recuse myself on, that’s all I can tell you.”
As a senator, Mr. Sessions was a sharp critic of Russia. He supported kicking the country out of the Group of Eight summit and called for sanctions against Moscow for its 2014 invasion of Ukraine.
“I believe a systematic effort should be undertaken so that Russia feels pain for this,” Mr. Sessions said at the time.

But his rhetoric softened after he endorsed Mr. [Sleezebag], and he advocated better relations with Russia.
Mr. Sessions joined the [Sleezebag] campaign in February 2016 at a rally in the former senator’s home state of Alabama. Within days, Mr. [Sleezebag] named him chairman of his campaign’s national-security advisory committee.
It is unclear whether anyone in Congress knew about the investigation into Mr. Sessions’ Russian interactions before Mr. Sessions was confirmed.
The investigation into Mr. Sessions’ communications comes amid calls from Democrats and some Republicans for an independent inquiry into the possible cooperation between the [Sleezebag] campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 election, particularly through cyberattacks.
U.S. intelligence agencies already concluded that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee and the personal email account of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta. Emails from both were released on the website WikiLeaks.
At first, Mr. [Sleezebag] disputed that assessment, but later said: “I think it was Russia, but we also get hacked by other countries.”
Justice Department regulations require the attorney general to remove himself from investigations that present a real or perceived conflict of interest. But ultimately, there is no practical mechanism, other than public pressure or an impeachment proceeding, to force the matter.
The law has changed since wide-ranging probes into the Clinton Administration, when a three-judge panel could appoint an “independent counsel” or a “special prosecutor.” Today, the attorney general retains far more control over the scope of a special investigation and its prosecutorial jurisdiction.
Mr. Sessions can also appoint a temporary “special counsel” from outside the Department of Justice to conduct an investigation into a particularly sensitive matter and possibly prosecute related wrongdoing.
—Lisa Schwartz contributed to this article. ]

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: E_T on March 02, 2017, 06:01:51 AM

Don't forget to write you Senator back with a gigantic "I told you so"....

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Rusty Edge on March 02, 2017, 07:35:33 AM

Quote from: E_T on March 02, 2017, 06:01:51 AM

Don't forget to write you Senator back with a gigantic "I told you so"....

Uhh....  I may have already replied to his reply-

"Thanks, Senator Johnson,

for clarifying your thoughts on this and taking the time to reply to me. I don't object to President actually governing, providing it stays within The Constitution, I just don't think Sessions will reign him inside the lines.

   Speaking of which, I think it's time that Congress re-asserted it's power with regard to declarations of war. The War Powers Act was a Cold War adaptation. Since the Cold War is over and President [Sleezebag] wants to turn the page on Russian relations, since communications have been transformed so that you and your colleagues can be reached almost anytime and any place, I don't see the imperative for the President to be able to start a war on his own.

With the President making remarks about invading Mexico, confiscating Middle Eastern oil, and resuming the nuclear arms race, I think it would be a really good idea to re-assert that Constitutional authority now, before any of those things happen. For that matter, Congressional power of the purse and work on balanced budgets is meaningless if you can't control which wars we are in. If a war is justified, it deserves the backing of Congress, and if a war can't muster that kind of support, we aren't ready to be involved.

Thank you for your time"

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: E_T on March 02, 2017, 04:25:35 PM

DOH!!

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Rusty Edge on May 09, 2017, 09:00:01 PM

I'm rapidly becoming jaded, or at least exasperated with the volume and audacity of this administration's ethical lapses. Well, maybe sometimes it's disregard or contempt rather than a lapse.

Events of this weekend have me dredging up this thread. Kushner's sister is in charge of his "blind" trust, by the way.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/us/politics/kushner-china-visa-eb-5.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0 (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/us/politics/kushner-china-visa-eb-5.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0)

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 10, 2017, 02:25:55 AM

Why the nets are not brim-full of running lists of laws brazenly violated 20 January-on by a certain real estate huckster and his cronies, I don't know.  There were solid grounds to impeach before Groundhog's Day.

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Geo on May 10, 2017, 10:19:08 AM

Looks like 'it' pays to be American... literally!

Just wondering, but do people who sign up through this program have to say the Oath? Or don't they get American nationality this way?

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Rusty Edge on May 11, 2017, 02:04:42 AM

Quote from: Geo on May 10, 2017, 10:19:08 AM

Looks like 'it' pays to be American... literally!

Just wondering, but do people who sign up through this program have to say the Oath? Or don't they get American nationality this way?

Citizenship is another step. There's a test ( civics mostly ) that most native born Americans couldn't pass, the oath, and I forget what kind of criminal record checks and other requirements. 

Many of our illegal immigrants are simply people who came here legally as tourists, students, guest workers, or on business and overstayed their permission.

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Geo on May 11, 2017, 10:28:08 PM

What's the usual procedure when some official (police officer or whatnot) bumps into such people? Instant incarcenation and deportation, or simply registering? Or is this handled on the state level, not the federal?

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Spacy on May 12, 2017, 02:03:38 AM

Most police are state level or lower (county, city).  They have no requirement to ask the question of citizenship, which is part of the issue we have. 

The proper procedure is that if a local police question someone for something or other (perhaps as a witness) and discover that they are illegal, they are supposed to report to the federal immigration police.  Immigration is supposed to take custody of the person and place them into a detention center (which can be anywhere in the US, and although they try to find somewhere close to the persons home, it is usually done on a first open bed policy which often sends people hundreds or even thousands of miles from their home).  Then, the person is assigned a court to have their case heard in (which is first opening basis, so again quite often hundreds or thousands of miles away).  Now the person needs an attorney - but where, at their home, where their family and money are, at the location they are detained at, or at the location of the courthouse?  Often they need one in each - which as you can immagine gets expensive fast.  The court then makes a ruling - and usually it is to deport the person as they are not fleeing persecution, but instead looking residing for economic reasons.  Very rarely does the court say the person can stay, because they wouldn't have been detained if they were legal residents to begin with (although, I suppose, very rarely that does happen, but I have never heard of it and it does get quite a bit of news coverage as it is one of those hot topic political divides here in the US).  If the person is deported, it depends on where they are being sent - but typically they are placed on a charter plane with a 1 way ticket and a notice sent to the country's embassy that the person is being sent home.  Sometimes, they are just dropped off at the embassy if there are issues with flights to that person't country (i.e. Iran) or to a close by embassy or country (i.e. China embassy for a North Korean national). 

The current issues with illegal immigration go back almost 80 years now, when we did some crazy laws to allow migrant workers back in the great depression back in the late 1930's, and then changed the laws in the 1950's and 60's to basically get rid of the program but without providing economic alternatives for both the workers and the employers who relied upon them, and then even worse in the Clinton and Obama era's when there was little/no enforcement of the laws that were in place (which are horribly broken).  So, we now have a population of about 325 million, 11 million (or about 3.4%) of which are in the country illegally.  That means that on average, pull 30 random people into a room, one of them will be an illegal resident.

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Spacy on May 12, 2017, 02:44:56 AM

Conservative opinion #1 on immigration

People need to obey the law.  If you cannot do the time, don't do the crime.  Doesn't matter that the law isn't perfect, just that it is.  By entering the country illegally (or, overstaying an expired visa, which I believe is more common), they are breaking the law and that is the end of the issue. 

Conservative opinion #2 on immigration

Climate change is happening (although, big business and humans may be partially at fault, that isn't relevant).

Climate change is causing famine - look at Syria as an example: 2008 population of about 20 million, 2-3 million of which are refugees fleeing Iraq and Iran.  2006 start of drought in Syria, and per NASA is directly caused by climate change.  2010 drought is ending, but there are estimated to be 2 million refugees from Syrian rural areas to urban areas due to devastated agriculture (75% farms and 85% livestock have failed by the end), and about 1/4 million fled the country.  So in a country of 20 million, 4-5 million people are considered refugees - which led to all sorts of political unrest that started the civil war in 2011. 

Refugees need resources (food, shelter, medicine, etc.) that they have no means of providing for themselves, else they wouldn't be refugees.  These cost money and are a drain.

The problem of climate change, famine, and refugees will only get worse.  By 2040 following current trends most urban areas will be having issues with rising oceans, and the US has a lot of infrastructure and urban areas that will be impacted.  On extreme projections (meaning not likely to happen, but cool to at least look at) about 15% of the US that is land now would be underwater, including most of the Mississippi valley and large parts of southern states. 

Refugees are not immigrants.   Refugees by definition don't want to immigrate, they are forced to do so.  Most would return to their homeland once the causes of their forced relocation are no longer a factor (i.e. the war is over, the famine has ended, etc.).  So, they come, they drain resources, then they go home.  Immigrants, however, are different.  They are seeking a new home and will do what they can to work and make it a better place.  Immagine you inviting your 3rd cousin 4 times removed to sleep in your guest room while they recover from their house burning down.  Now imagine 10 years later they are still there, eating your food, not paying any rent, and asking for an allowance so they can get some spending money - contributing nothing and taking everything they can. 

As climate gets worse, and more and more places have unrest and forced migrations, these displaced will come looking to us for refuge - but who must we take care of first, our own or strangers?  Let your kids suffer so that some stranger doesn't? 

This is the perspective of the majority of conservatives in the area I live (and, from what I have seen and heard, fairly common in other areas as well). 

Conservative opinion #3 on immigration

Them heathens be heathens.  They can go to their fellow heathens and leave us good, god fearin' folks alone.  (I would like to say that this isn't too common, but I fear that it is rather more common than uncommon.  It is just kept quiet as it isn't politically correct to say such words and have such thoughts and it will get the people ostracized).


Liberal attitude #1

They are people.  All people are inherently good.  We need to be good.  We should welcome them with open arms; give them hugs, kisses, cookies and hopefully the vote so they can vote for me, and call it a day. 

LIberal attitude #2

I am unaware of any other attitude.  Do good and hope for good karma back is really the only thing I have ever heard.

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: Rusty Edge on July 17, 2018, 07:18:37 PM

I have one senator from each party. The Democrat is partisan and protectionist, and she was also asleep on watch with regard to the Veteran's Administration scandal. Normally somebody I'd oppose, but a sure impeachment and opposition vote to the ruling GOP. She's tolerable in the big picture.


My GOP Senator, who got re-elected with more votes the same time [Sleezebag] got elected, has been mysteriously deferential to [Sleezebag]. He was part of the delegation which spent Independence Day in Moscow, and came back calling for sanctions to be lifted because they weren't working. He's the one I've shared my correspondence with here.  Lately I've been wondering if he was the beneficiary of Russian money funneled through the NRA, that developing scandal has several connections to Wisconsin.


Here's my e-mail to him today-

Yesterday really reminds me of August 8th, 1974, when I knew in my heart that the worst was true about the president.
It was another one of those defining days in America. You must find it particularly liberating, because now you get to choose a side and forget the apologies and excuses. You don't have to worry any more about what neutrals will think of you, because they are rapidly transforming into a negligible minority. Anything you say or do now can't embarrass him beyond what he has done to himself. I really think it's time for everybody to get on the right side of history.

I'll be watching to see what you actually do now, rather than what you say, to see who you really are.

Farewell,
Xxxxx


I also had a line in there about [Sleezebag] having no personal honor left, and was unworthy of the sacrifice of anyone else's honor.



I sent pretty much the same message to my Congressman, who has recently said that he was all for [Sleezebag], except for the trade wars. I doubt they'll find any courage to lead, and that this will be my last effort to work with them.

Title: Re: Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.
Post by: E_T on July 18, 2018, 02:28:03 AM

It's a sad state of affairs when things like this get swept under the rug.  Well, payback is coming for some of them, although the replacements might even be worse...