Chaffetz threatens new ethics investigation

[belfpala]

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.

And again, the comment that started this thread is about the ethics of the situation, not the legality.

[NYC17]

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

These don't sound nearly as cool, as "guy" though. You, as usual, are missing your mark. And really, I was just using you as an avenue to make a joke with belfpala. Don't be so "offended".

[Tijuana]

These don't sound nearly as cool, as "guy" though. You, as usual, are missing your mark. And really, I was just using you as an avenue to make a joke with belfpala. Don't be so "offended".

I just wanted to play the "I'm not your buddy, guy" game. You are clearly no fun.

[belfpala]

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

Oh right, we should probably look at hiring a marketing firm and a PR department.

[Tijuana]

And again, the comment that started this thread is about the ethics of the situation, not the legality.

Ok, then please tell me what you think about it. Did you read my post detailing the issues of Trumps fortune being in real estate, and the complications that arise from that?

You guys do this weird thing a lot where you don't actually discuss the topic, but then police how others are discussing it.

[NYC17]

I just wanted to play the "I'm not your buddy, guy" game. You are clearly no fun.

That game went out of style three posts ago. Tighten up.

[Tijuana]

That game went out of style three posts ago. Tighten up.

I have been out of style longer than three posts, I assure you of that. =p

- - - Updated - - -

In most professions, conflicts of interest are not governed by legislation but rather by deontology. I would assume that since the US has a government office pertaining to ethics, it is an office interested in deontological interpretation rather than legal implications.

Yes, Trump is still subject to any laws that pass judgement on his actions. He is only exempt from the conflicts of interest that arise from the mere ownership of the assets.

[NYC17]

I have been out of style longer than three posts, I assure you of that. =p

- - - Updated - - -



Yes, Trump is still subject to any laws that pass judgement on his actions. He is only exempt from the conflicts of interest that arise from the mere ownership of the assets.

Fair enough. Careful with that though. You might set a new trend.

[Tijuana]

Fair enough. Careful with that though. You might set a new trend.

I'm hoping this neck beard thing I got going catches on, actually.

[belfpala]

I have been out of style longer than three posts, I assure you of that. =p

- - - Updated - - -



Yes, Trump is still subject to any laws that pass judgement on his actions. He is only exempt from the conflicts of interest that arise from the mere ownership of the assets.

And it's not his mere ownership, it's the nature of what's owned and where. As you pointed out.

By the way, this thread was started with a comment by a guy about a comment made by another guy who said he didn't think Trump's plan goes far enough. He's the one should be talking about here.

[NYC17]

I'm hoping this neck beard thing I got going catches on, actually.

I'm no fashion expert, but doesn't seem likely.

[Tijuana]

And it's not his mere ownership, it's the nature of what's owned and where. As you pointed out.

By the way, this thread was started with a comment by a guy about a comment made by another guy who said he didn't think Trump's plan goes far enough. He's the one should be talking about here.

I think the issue of him misbehaving is far less interesting than what his actual beef is though. Then again, I work in real estate so maybe I just wanted to talk about the conflict of interest for that reason. =p

[NYC17]

And it's not his mere ownership, it's the nature of what's owned and where. As you pointed out.

By the way, this thread was started with a comment by a guy about a comment made by another guy who said he didn't think Trump's plan goes far enough. He's the one should be talking about here.

Chaffetz is a clown. When you put your foot down about how you can't support someone while citing your conscience and daughter, then basically pretend like it never happened....so ridiculous haha. Accountability isn't anywhere near his vocabulary so it's no surprise he'd go after someone whose job is basically accountability.

[I Push Buttons]

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.

So....... What?

This man should shut up until Trump removes and replaces him with his own official and then we should all forget about the "endless ethical issues" since Trump's stooge is obviously not going to bring them up?

[Wells]

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

Government ethics offices have been trying to work with the Transition team for months to no avail. In a week Trump will be violating the Constitution if he doesn't make serious changes. Taking a more public position is perfectly acceptable if other avenues don't succeed.

[Tijuana]

Chaffetz is a clown. When you put your foot down about how you can't support someone while citing your conscience and daughter, then basically pretend like it never happened....so ridiculous haha. Accountability isn't anywhere near his vocabulary so it's no surprise he'd go after someone whose job is basically accountability.

I actually have been more impressed with Caffetz over time. A lot of the tea party riff raff is pretty untalented, but I think he and Cruz are exceptions.

- - - Updated - - -

Government ethics offices have been trying to work with the Transition team for months to no avail. In a week Trump will be violating the Constitution if he doesn't make serious changes. Taking a more public position is perfectly acceptable if other avenues don't succeed.

How on earth did you arrive at this notion? You always do this where you make wild claims but never flesh out your point. How does an individual even violate the Constitution, as a point of fact?

Also, if what you claim is true, which it laughably is not, could this official then not just charge Trump with violating the law? What in the world are you on about....holy shit.

This official can cry that it should be a different way than it is, but that isn't how the real world works. Laws are an actual thing, and said laws exempt Trump from compliance specifically.

[Tijuana]

Not really what I am saying though. A conflict of interest is not a legal concern; it can be but that is not what the concept deals with; it deal with ethical ramifications of the exercise of power. For lawyers in most countries conflicts of interest are disciplined by their professional associations. The same is true to a large extent for medical professionals and chartered accountants.

Right. There are other governing bodies, aside from the public government. However, in this news story, they are in fact talking about the legality of Trumps asset plan while he is president.

Another example would be Loretta Lynch's brilliant meeting on the tarmac in public view with Bill Clinton while over seeing his wife's investigation. It doesn't always have to be financial matters, but I fail to see how this is anything but a legal issue for Trump and for this "ethics official" that seems not have any actual ethics himself.

Also, it seems like a pretty good way to get fired, and a pretty retarded thing to stand your ground on. He clearly does not even remotely understand the law, or the complexity of the situation.

[NYC17]

I actually have been more impressed with Caffetz over time. A lot of the tea party riff raff is pretty untalented, but I think he and Cruz are exceptions.

- - - Updated - - -



How on earth did you arrive at this notion? You always do this where you make wild claims but never flesh out your point. How does an individual even violate the Constitution, as a point of fact?

Also, if what you claim is true, which it laughably is not, could this official then not just charge Trump with violating the law? What in the world are you on about....holy shit.

This official can cry that it should be a different way than it is, but that isn't how the real world works. Laws are an actual thing, and said laws exempt Trump from compliance specifically.

So does his moral outrage in regard to Trump, citing his conscience and his daughter, and subsequent shameless reversal highlight his exceptionalism?

It's hard to keep track of how many absolute douchebags and hypocrites are considered exceptional nowadays.

[Tijuana]

So does his moral outrage in regard to Trump, citing his conscience and his daughter, and subsequent shameless reversal highlight his exceptionalism?

It's hard to keep track of how many absolute douchebags and hypocrites are considered exceptional nowadays.

I get ya man. I think the reality is the bar is so fucking low, based on the other people in office.

I'm not saying this dude is my bae, I'm just saying after hearing him speak more, I found him to be more bright, and less douchey than I originally thought. But, I really do think it's more just him getting better at his job, than him changing my mind.

I'll stick up for Cruz being insanely bright, however. When Alan Dershowitz says someone is the best law student he ever had, and that person is a conservative, that is high praise. But, holy fuck Cruz is annoying. He makes my skin crawl.

[NYC17]

I get ya man. I think the reality is the bar is so fucking low, based on the other people in office.

I'm not saying this dude is my bae, I'm just saying after hearing him speak more, I found him to be more bright, and less douchey than I originally thought. But, I really do think it's more just him getting better at his job, than him changing my mind.

I'll stick up for Cruz being insanely bright, however. When Alan Dershowitz says someone is the best law student he ever had, and that person is a conservative, that is high praise. But, holy fuck Cruz is annoying. He makes my skin crawl.

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.