Chaffetz threatens new ethics investigation

[Deleted]

And that's what he's doing, saying there may be an ethics violation for voicing an opinion. Which he also did. So I find it Ironic.

Are we talking about that Trump has voiced an opinion on something, and that the ethics of it has been put into question? Or are we talking about "threatened" investigations of Trump, due to something he has said?
Because those are two rather different things.

[Tijuana]

Here's the dirt: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/208

I'm pretty sure it was in '79 or '84 that congress said that it doesn't apply to the President. Something about how his position is so important, pretty much any action he takes could fire off an ethics investigation

You are referencing the added verbiage to clarify the point. The original statute exemption is REALLY old. Like, George Washington old. The ideology behind this is that whatever is good for the nation, or bad, would also apply to the presidents financial holdings. He is obviously still subject to any number of corruption laws that would prevent wrong doing, however.

[Celista]

Another "Republicans are bad, so very bad" thread? /yawn

Well if they would stop doing ethically questionable things then really there would be no reason to make these threads.

[Deleted]

Yes. The US president is specifically excluded from those laws. Your fake news outlets didn't tell you that fact, did they? That's why you have to watch both sides, folks. It's not always what they say, but so often it's what they don't say.

Why are you being antagonistic towards me, for asking a simple question?

[Tijuana]

Why are you being antagonistic towards me, for asking a simple question?

I'm sorry, I mistook you for an American. We all are well versed in this as it has gotten a lot of press. My apologies.

I don't think I will ever get used to people from other nations taking so much part in US politics threads. I just always assume we are all American in the thread, and obviously that is rarely the case.

[Deleted]

I'm sorry, I mistook you for an American. We all are well versed in this as it has gotten a lot of press. My apologies.

I was somewhat confused there, I even have my nation below my name

Apology accepted!

[belfpala]

In regards to The Office of Government Ethics, yes the law is in fact the ONLY relevant matter. It's not The Office of Passing Moral Judgement. Try to stay on topic.

I think I was supporting your point, actually. For example, a lawyer can legally have sex with a client, but the Bar Association will hand out ethics violation punishments unless the sex was happening prior to the lawyer/client relationship.

[starlord]

does anybody remember a president who got impeached stemming from "ethics questions"?

[I Push Buttons]

No, I do not understand your point, actually. /shrug

That this is a matter of ethics and the public being made aware of ethical violations... Not a legal matter.

Do you think the public has no right to know about these imminent ethical violations? Ethical violations which Trump and his lackeys openly acknowledge, but dismiss, based on the same argument you just put forward "The President is legally exempt from conflicts of interest."

[Wells]

I don't think the concern is unreasonable. If someone is injecting personal opinion and reavealing it publicly in an offical capacity without an investigation it seems to be common since that it is questioned. (and this is coming from someone who agrees with him).

Its not "personal opinion" when its his job.

- - - Updated - - -

There factually are no conflicts of interest that apply to the president. I don't know what you are on about...

There are no laws against conflicts of interest, aside from the Emoluments Clause. That doesn't mean he can't have a conflict of interest.

[Deleted]

Its not "personal opinion" when its his job.

It might be his job, but being outspoken towards one person could indicate that he has a bias. A bias that could mean unfair and unwarranted oversight, which is unethical.

[Tijuana]

That this is a matter of ethics and the public being made aware of ethical violations... Not a legal matter.

Do you think the public has no right to know about these imminent ethical violations? Ethical violations which Trump and his lackeys openly acknowledge, but dismiss, based on the same argument you just put forward "The President is legally exempt from conflicts of interest."

The official is upset that Trump will not be putting his fortune in to a blind trust. Trump is factually not legally obligated to do that. To the question of should he do that, anyone who is being honest can see the endless issues that arise no matter what Trump does. Even if he sells it all in a fire sale, you could still see issues with buyers over paying to gain favor, or perhaps Trump later holding the low price against them. There is literally no easy way out when your fortune is in real estate. Heck, even just putting it in a blind trust is futile. Trump is not going to forget he owns Trump Tower. The notion that he would is just ridiculous. This isn't a complex issue because Trump is so rich. It's a complex issue because he is rich from real estate, a tangible thing, that you can look at and visit.

- - - Updated - - -

Its not "personal opinion" when its his job.

- - - Updated - - -



There are no laws against conflicts of interest, aside from the Emoluments Clause. That doesn't mean he can't have a conflict of interest.

The constitution is not the only part of the federal code, guy. There are dozens of laws that affect this, and Trump is exempt from them all. However, as I keep having to repeat, he is still subject to any and all corruption laws. He is exempt only from the conflicts created by his mere ownership of assets. He still can't personally enrich himself via corruption. That is still illegal.

[belfpala]

The constitution is not the only part of the federal code, guy. There are dozens of laws that affect this, and Trump is exempt from them all. However, as I keep having to repeat, he is still subject to any and all corruption laws. He is exempt only from the conflicts created by his mere ownership of assets. He still can't personally enrich himself via corruption. That is still illegal.

Laws do not equal ethics.

[Wells]

It might be his job, but being outspoken towards one person could indicate that he has a bias. A bias that could mean unfair and unwarranted oversight, which is unethical.

What other person is he supposed to be speaking about? And his office has spoken about the cabinet nominees as well.

- - - Updated - - -

The constitution is not the only part of the federal code, guy.

From the very first sentence you quoted:
There are no laws against conflicts of interest, aside from the Emoluments Clause.

You only quoted two sentences, do try to read them both.

[Tijuana]

Laws do not equal ethics.

The ethics that he is being accused of imminently violating, is in fact in reference to his refusal to volunteer to use a blind trust, because he is not legally obligated. It's the topic thread. It is what it is.

[NYC17]

Laws do not equal ethics.

You forgot to add "guy" to the end to make yourself sound suuuuper cool.

How are we supposed to be business partners if you can't get basic advertising correct?

[Tijuana]

What other person is he supposed to be speaking about? And his office has spoken about the cabinet nominees as well.

- - - Updated - - -


From the very first sentence you quoted:
There are no laws against conflicts of interest, aside from the Emoluments Clause.

You only quoted two sentences, do try to read them both.

I read them both. I am saying you are fucking wrong. It's you in fact, that does not understand.

Like, how can you not understand that I am disagreeing with you, and think I am somehow just confused...

Edit: a simple google search shows US code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 11: Bribery, Graft, and Conflicts of Interest.

I have no idea why you think the Constitution would be the only law. That's the law says how the laws are made, guy. There are still actual laws, in addition to the law making law.

- - - Updated - - -

You forgot to add "guy" to the end to make yourself sound suuuuper cool.

How are we supposed to be business partners if you can't get basic advertising correct?

Sorry if my colloquialism offended you, amigo.

[Deleted]

What other person is he supposed to be speaking about? And his office has spoken about the cabinet nominees as well.

No one. Unless there is a clear violation of certain ethics or an investigation that shows violation of ethics, there is absolutely nothing that he should say, because that falls outside of what his job is. Again as I said, that could indicate that he has a bias that could lead to unethical behaviour, and that is a very serious issue to have within an ethics organization.

[NYC17]

I read them both. I am saying you are fucking wrong. It's you in fact, that does not understand.

Like, how can you not understand that I am disagreeing with you, and think I am somehow just confused...

- - - Updated - - -



Sorry if my colloquialism offended you, amigo.

No offense was taken. One can comment on your nonsense without being offended. Mind blowing, i know.

[Tijuana]

No offense was taken. One can comment on your nonsense without being offended. Mind blowing, i know.

I'm still sorry if I offended you, buddy.