Chaffetz threatens new ethics investigation

[Tijuana]

Yes, there is absolutely no way that an ethics committee would not see issue with Lynch's meeting, that was a glaring conflict of interest.
I think this is largely the media being incompetent here. An advisory office on ethics should be able to make an official recommendation on the issue of Trump's assets which would be about ethics and not law and which should be made officially and not as commentary. In all honesty the partisanship in the US seems to hit disgusting just as soon as Obama got nominated and has only gone downhill since so I have no sympathy for either side.

If I understand the office he holds, the intention is to provide ethics advice to assist congress in avoiding lawsuits and such. I think he is just upset that Trump doesn't want his advice. That seems pretty self righteous, considering Trump's asset plan was handled by an extremely bright lawyer/CPA (at least I found her to be so in her speech). I sort of doubt this pip squeak has anywhere near the legal chops of the people Trump hired. It's like he doesn't understand that Trump already has an existing legal staff. He isn't some freshman congressman in his 20s.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd argue that the bar is so low because people have an unrealistic expectation of those they elect to office. This doesn't apply to Chaffetz though. He's a spineless shit who now, if not in practice, is at the very least in appearance, trying to ingratiate himself to Trump. There's nothing exceptional about him, except maybe, how he was so publicly shameless.

In case I haven't made it clear; the dude is a piece of shit not worthy of praise of any kind. But, this does seem to be the norm for "principled" Republicans who decided to stand up to Trump...for those 3 minutes.

Power is fleeting, huh?

I don't know that we set the bar too high. I would argue we don't set it high enough. We got people up there who have been there for 30 years, and the only reason they got in that first time was because they were lucky enough to have a retiring congressman in their district, in a non-swing state, at the right time. If you get elected in California or Texas, you are set for life.

[Wells]

How on earth did you arrive at this notion?

I assume a basic level of familiarity with current events. If that's too great a hurdle for you then w.e As an example though. Even after they finally made contact Trump has declined to do anything to resolve conflicts of interest or violations of the Emoluments Clause. With the man taking office in a few days its entirely understandable that an office concerned with Presidential ethics would get louder when nothing has been done.

How does an individual even violate the Constitution, as a point of fact?

These are not questions that gets someone taken seriously.

Also, if what you claim is true, which it laughably is not, could this official then not just charge Trump with violating the law?

The various ethics offices aren't law enforcement agencies.

[Tijuana]

I assume a basic level of familiarity with current events. If that's too great a hurdle for you then w.e As an example though. Even after they finally made contact Trump has declined to do anything to resolve conflicts of interest or violations of the Emoluments Clause. With the man taking office in a few days its entirely understandable that an office concerned with Presidential ethics would get louder when nothing has been done.



These are not questions that gets someone taken seriously.


The various ethics offices aren't law enforcement agencies.

By all means, please explain to me how, in the world you live in, and individual can directly violate the constitution. It's like you don't even understand what the Constitution is: the law we use to frame the other laws. We have laws other than the Constitution that pertain to individual behavior. I don't even....what in the....I mean...just....WHAT ARE YOU ON ABOUT?

You always do this thing were you don't actually have a fucking point, other than to say someone is wrong, and then you don't even say why you think so. Do you legit not understand how human communication works? If you think I am wrong, tell me why, or don't fucking quote me.

[Wells]

By all means, please explain to me how, in the world you live in, and individual can directly violate the constitution.

Stop. Take a moment. Think about the fact that you're asking me how the President could violate the Constitution.

You always do this thing were you don't actually have a fucking point, other than to say someone is wrong, and then you don't even say why you think so. Do you legit not understand how human communication works? If you think I am wrong, tell me why, or don't fucking quote me.

This is a bizarre.

[Tijuana]

Stop. Take a moment. Think about the fact that you're asking me how the President could violate the Constitution.


This is a bizarre.

Ok, I can see there is no point in trying to discuss anything with you. At least insult me or take some issue with what I have said. This shit is just weird. I would call it what it is, but we can't use the T word here.

[Wells]

Ok, I can see there is no point in trying to discuss anything with you. At least insult me or take some issue with what I have said. This shit is just weird. I would call it what it is, but we can't use the T word here.

So you've figured it out? You've figured out how the President of the United States might violate the Constitution through his actions?

Because that's the danger if Trump doesn't take serious measures. Its what the Ethics office is so worried about. Its good for government officials to loudly speak out against these dangers.

[Tijuana]

So you've figured it out? You've figured out how the President of the United States might violate the Constitution through his actions?

Because that's the danger if Trump doesn't take serious measures. Its what the Ethics office is so worried about. Its good for government officials to loudly speak out against these dangers.

Tennisace is better at this than you are. Just sayin...

[Flarelaine]

By all means, please explain to me how, in the world you live in, and individual can directly violate the constitution. It's like you don't even understand what the Constitution is: the law we use to frame the other laws. We have laws other than the Constitution that pertain to individual behavior.

Generally speaking, you are right, but that does not stop your Constitution from directly dealing with individual behaviour. The Emoluments Clause does that; there may be others, but that is the one that may or may not pertain to Trump.

[Wells]

Tennisace is better at this than you are. Just sayin...

"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."

Article I, Section 9, Clause 8

The only way for Trump to avoid violating this is to either dissolve his business and place the money in a blind trust or convince Congress to let him use the Presidency to personally profit himself.

[Tijuana]

Generally speaking, you are right, but that does not stop your Constitution from directly dealing with individual behaviour. The Emoluments Clause does that; there may be others, but that is the one that may or may not pertain to Trump.

The emoluments clause is not applicable to this situation. In addition, Trump is not exempt from that clause. However, making money is not necessarily receipt of an UNDUE payment from a foreign official. Lastly, Trump is giving the profits from foreign official stays at his properties to the US treasury, even though those profits would not necessarily constitute UNDUE payments from a foreign nation. As usual, Wells has no fucking clue what he is talking about, and is being supremely smug in his ignorance.

[Flarelaine]

The emoluments clause is not applicable to this situation. In addition, Trump is not exempt from that clause. However, making money is not necessarily receipt of an UNDUE payment from a foreign official. Lastly, Trump is giving the profits from foreign official stays at his properties to the US treasury, even though those profits would not necessarily constitute UNDUE payments from a foreign nation.

All that is why I wrote "may or may not". It's a muddy question, both legally and ethically. In an ideal world, one would expect a chief executive to steer clear of anything muddy to make sure they stay clean... but we live right here, right now.

(And that last clause already contains all the whatabouts.)

[Redwyrm]

Just making sure... From what I am reading I am assuming that everyone is ok with Trump either A) making money by using his influence as President to affect laws and economic policy that could benefit him (insider trading being one example) and B) potentially being easily influenced by foreign entities because of his personal interests around the world. As a metaphor, Trump has hundreds of children (properties and projects that make up his fortune) around the world that could be taken hostage by these foreign entities until he gives them something in return.

How would the american people know Trump is making policy with their best interest in mind and not because he could either gain or lose from the outcome.

[Tijuana]

All that is why I wrote "may or may not". It's a muddy question, both legally and ethically. In an ideal world, one would expect a chief executive to steer clear of anything muddy to make sure they stay clean... but we live right here, right now.

(And that last clause already contains all the whatabouts.)

But he isn't even keeping those profits, so there is no need to judge if they were standard, or could be considered emoluments.

[starlord]

Just making sure... From what I am reading I am assuming that everyone is ok with Trump either A) making money by using his influence as President to affect laws and economic policy that could benefit him (insider trading being one example) and B) potentially being easily influenced by foreign entities because of his personal interests around the world. As a metaphor, Trump has hundreds of children (properties and projects that make up his fortune) around the world that could be taken hostage by these foreign entities until he gives them something in return.

How would the american people know Trump is making policy with their best interest in mind and not because he could either gain or lose from the outcome.

you mean like constantly praising putin and seeking to "improve relations" with russia when a "disproportionate amount of his assets involve russia"-
oh.

[Tijuana]

Just making sure... From what I am reading I am assuming that everyone is ok with Trump either A) making money by using his influence as President to affect laws and economic policy that could benefit him (insider trading being one example) and B) potentially being easily influenced by foreign entities because of his personal interests around the world. As a metaphor, Trump has hundreds of children (properties and projects that make up his fortune) around the world that could be taken hostage by these foreign entities until he gives them something in return.

How would the american people know Trump is making policy with their best interest in mind and not because he could either gain or lose from the outcome.

Finally an intelligent thought in this thread. Thank you.

To answer for me, but not others, of course it's not ok for him to use his office as some sort of insider trading mechanism. But, to those who have followed this story closely, that isn't really going to happen, for a number of reasons.

1. He sold all his stocks. He doesn't own anything to game in the stock market.
2. He is putting his liquid cash in the standard blind trust other presidents have volunteered to do, to be invested in whatever the trustee choose, which may or may not be stocks.
3. Although he is handing management over to his kids, he is doing so with dual ethics employees on both sides, government and private, to ensure the blind status of the real estate empire is maintained.
4. Real estate can't really be gamed by foreign officials, like you surmise. If one takes the assumption, and I think we should, that his properties are successful, they don't have vacancy problems that can be solved by foreign government kick backs.
5. If Trumps property is unfairly seized by a foreign leader, this is something that already would not have been ok before he was president. I sort of doubt he has properties in banana republics so, this seems like it's not likely an actual thing.
6. He has directed his sons, and the ethics advisers, to pursue no new building projects abroad while he is president.
7. He is donating any profits from foreign government stays at his properties to the US treasury.
8. His branding rights, such as the use of his name on buildings and products he doesn't own, and his share of his TV show, don't really need to be managed. There is nothing to game there.
9. Lastly, the notion that he can make MORE money than he would have as a private citizen, under these rules, is just sort of a ridiculous notion, IMHO.

Bonus point: The dude is already a billionaire. This notion that he would get impeached to make a couple of extra bucks is just a bit hard to swallow. I actually trust him to not seek personal profit ahead of what is right, FAR more than I do some twenty something year old congressman with no investment portfolio. Trump has already made it big, long ago. He is 70 years old. I mean...this talk is just sort of silly.

[NYC17]

If I understand the office he holds, the intention is to provide ethics advice to assist congress in avoiding lawsuits and such. I think he is just upset that Trump doesn't want his advice. That seems pretty self righteous, considering Trump's asset plan was handled by an extremely bright lawyer/CPA (at least I found her to be so in her speech). I sort of doubt this pip squeak has anywhere near the legal chops of the people Trump hired. It's like he doesn't understand that Trump already has an existing legal staff. He isn't some freshman congressman in his 20s.

- - - Updated - - -



Power is fleeting, huh?

I don't know that we set the bar too high. I would argue we don't set it high enough. We got people up there who have been there for 30 years, and the only reason they got in that first time was because they were lucky enough to have a retiring congressman in their district, in a non-swing state, at the right time. If you get elected in California or Texas, you are set for life.

Your reply to Nymrohd is seriously ridiculous. You found her to be extremely bright because she read shit off a prepared statement? And the ethics official you assume, based off nothing, doesn't have her "legal chops", which you evaluated based off a prepared statement, because he's a pip squeak who dared speak truth about Trump. And it's not even controversial truth. It's just a basic...thing. This is why valuing uninformed opinion over factual information is met with vehement resistance. It's fucking pointless.

As for politicians and meeting bars, the issue you described is a problem with the electorate, not the eelctoral system.

[Independent voter]

Some people are saying the Constitution allows for a president to have a business like George Washington did, others are saying it's against the Constitution because of conflict of interest. I saw a pole and voters didn't mind if the president had a conflict of interest.

[Draco-Onis]

9. Lastly, the notion that he can make MORE money than he would have as a private citizen, under these rules, is just sort of a ridiculous notion, IMHO.

Bonus point: The dude is already a billionaire. This notion that he would get impeached to make a couple of extra bucks is just a bit hard to swallow. I actually trust him to not seek personal profit ahead of what is right, FAR more than I do some twenty something year old congressman with no investment portfolio. Trump has already made it big, long ago. He is 70 years old. I mean...this talk is just sort of silly.

False he can make more money since all these employees are just that employees, they can be fired blinded and he can collude with his kids to increase his empire and just get it all back when he steps down. This is why what he is doing is the farthest thing from a blind trust, it is smoke and mirrors.

Bonus point. It is not proven that he is a billionaire, Trump has not released his tax returns the data that estimate his net worth swing from anywhere to 300 million to 6 billion. Also the notion that people that are rich can't be bought is insane, there is a rather long list of politicians, venture capitalists that have gone to jail over just a few extra bucks. Whenever someone says well he is rich so a few extra bucks won't matter it means they are either fanatics or blind to the real world.

[Daelak]

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.

The only bias he has is to ensure that the public knows how egregious he believes the unethical nature as to which Trump is setting up his transition to public life.

[paralleluniverse]

Because right-wingers are about ethics in games jour--I mean in politics. Wait no, their not about ethics at all.

They scrapped the ethics office, Trump supported this scrapping (he opposed only the timing), and they only backed down due to a huge public outcry.

Trump is the most corrupt and conflicted President ever, and the ethics office has every right to point this fact out. His ethics plan is a joke. Any special interest can give to his businesses, stay at his hotels, etc., to ingratiate and to buy him. He has refused to extricate himself from all his conflicts of interest. And no, this nonsense that he's so rich he doesn't need money is bullshit. Trump is the most stingy person ever. He used his charity money on himself and refused to give the millions he raised on TV to veterans despite saying he would.