Calling Matata

[Calliecake]

I can't wait for your daily Trump report today. Even Jimmy Kimmel was talking about the latest scandal on his show last night.

 

[momhappy]

Not sure if you saw, but Trump is holding a live News conference right now. Part of the discussion is the "scandal" to which you refer to.

 

[lovedogs]

I can't wait for your daily Trump report today.

did anyone else watch the press conference? What an antagonistic sh** show.

 

[momhappy]

I watched most of it. It got fairly boring, so I lost interest. Much of it was about how he plans to divorce himself from his business during his presidency, which I felt was a small step in the right direction.

 

[azstonie]

I can't wait for your daily Trump report today.

did anyone else watch the press conference? What an antagonistic sh** show.

Antagonistic with a giant dollop of martyr on top of it all. Ugh. Nixon had an Enemies List (and people were PROUD to be on it). Trump hates almost everyone so he will have an Enemies Database

 

[redwood66]

No words from any of you on the plan for conflict of interest? That was the main purpose of the news conference. Not peepeegate. Did you listen to the explanation by the attorney on the remedies? I am not a lawyer and I am sure that lawyers will review their plan. If an independent ethics reviewer will be involved that makes me more at ease. We shall see. His plan to give the $$ earned from hotels to the Treasury is not necessary but a good gesture.

 

[Matata]

No words from any of you on the plan for conflict of interest? That was the main purpose of the news conference. Not peepeegate. Did you listen to the explanation by the attorney on the remedies? I am not a lawyer and I am sure that lawyers will review their plan. If an independent ethics reviewer will be involved that makes me more at ease. We shall see. His plan to give the $$ earned from hotels to the Treasury is not necessary but a good gesture.

Shortly after the news conference the chief of the government ethics office said the plan was woefully insufficient. Trump's donation to the Treasury would be tax deductible contributions from which Trump would profit. There is no way, short of the blind trust he has been repeatedly advised to create, that conflicts of interest can be avoided. The independent ethics reviewer will be hired by Trump's organization. If he wanted a unbiased review of his business activities, he would let the existing US ethics office provide either the oversight or let the chief ethics officer choose someone to do it.

 

[redwood66]

No words from any of you on the plan for conflict of interest? That was the main purpose of the news conference. Not peepeegate. Did you listen to the explanation by the attorney on the remedies? I am not a lawyer and I am sure that lawyers will review their plan. If an independent ethics reviewer will be involved that makes me more at ease. We shall see. His plan to give the $$ earned from hotels to the Treasury is not necessary but a good gesture.

Shortly after the news conference the chief of the government ethics office said the plan was woefully insufficient. Trump's donation to the Treasury would be tax deductible contributions from which Trump would profit. There is no way, short of the blind trust he has been repeatedly advised to create, that conflicts of interest can be avoided. The independent ethics reviewer will be hired by Trump's organization. If he wanted a unbiased review of his business activities, he would let the existing US ethics office provide either the oversight or let the chief ethics officer choose someone to do it.

Link please. And if I were the owner of such a large corporation the last thing I would want to do is have the government provide oversight on it. They can't effectively provide oversight on themselves.

 

[Matata]

No words from any of you on the plan for conflict of interest? That was the main purpose of the news conference. Not peepeegate. Did you listen to the explanation by the attorney on the remedies? I am not a lawyer and I am sure that lawyers will review their plan. If an independent ethics reviewer will be involved that makes me more at ease. We shall see. His plan to give the $$ earned from hotels to the Treasury is not necessary but a good gesture.

Shortly after the news conference the chief of the government ethics office said the plan was woefully insufficient. Trump's donation to the Treasury would be tax deductible contributions from which Trump would profit. There is no way, short of the blind trust he has been repeatedly advised to create, that conflicts of interest can be avoided. The independent ethics reviewer will be hired by Trump's organization. If he wanted a unbiased review of his business activities, he would let the existing US ethics office provide either the oversight or let the chief ethics officer choose someone to do it.

Link please. And if I were the owner of such a large corporation the last thing I would want to do is have the government provide oversight on it. They can't effectively provide oversight on themselves.

Look it up for yourself.

 

[redwood66]

No words from any of you on the plan for conflict of interest? That was the main purpose of the news conference. Not peepeegate. Did you listen to the explanation by the attorney on the remedies? I am not a lawyer and I am sure that lawyers will review their plan. If an independent ethics reviewer will be involved that makes me more at ease. We shall see. His plan to give the $$ earned from hotels to the Treasury is not necessary but a good gesture.

Shortly after the news conference the chief of the government ethics office said the plan was woefully insufficient. Trump's donation to the Treasury would be tax deductible contributions from which Trump would profit. There is no way, short of the blind trust he has been repeatedly advised to create, that conflicts of interest can be avoided. The independent ethics reviewer will be hired by Trump's organization. If he wanted a unbiased review of his business activities, he would let the existing US ethics office provide either the oversight or let the chief ethics officer choose someone to do it.

Link please. And if I were the owner of such a large corporation the last thing I would want to do is have the government provide oversight on it. They can't effectively provide oversight on themselves.

Look it up for yourself.

Testy this morning? I wanted to read what you are reading. Not trying to be an a$$hole.

 

[Matata]

No words from any of you on the plan for conflict of interest? That was the main purpose of the news conference. Not peepeegate. Did you listen to the explanation by the attorney on the remedies? I am not a lawyer and I am sure that lawyers will review their plan. If an independent ethics reviewer will be involved that makes me more at ease. We shall see. His plan to give the $$ earned from hotels to the Treasury is not necessary but a good gesture.

Shortly after the news conference the chief of the government ethics office said the plan was woefully insufficient. Trump's donation to the Treasury would be tax deductible contributions from which Trump would profit. There is no way, short of the blind trust he has been repeatedly advised to create, that conflicts of interest can be avoided. The independent ethics reviewer will be hired by Trump's organization. If he wanted a unbiased review of his business activities, he would let the existing US ethics office provide either the oversight or let the chief ethics officer choose someone to do it.

Link please. And if I were the owner of such a large corporation the last thing I would want to do is have the government provide oversight on it. They can't effectively provide oversight on themselves.

Look it up for yourself.

Testy this morning? I wanted to read what you are reading. Not trying to be an a$$hole.

You usually disparage any links I post because you don't the source so it's better for you if you just do a search and find a source you agree with. I saw several analyses yesterday on myriad sources and can't remember which one the chief of the government ethics office was quoted in.

 

[redwood66]

No words from any of you on the plan for conflict of interest? That was the main purpose of the news conference. Not peepeegate. Did you listen to the explanation by the attorney on the remedies? I am not a lawyer and I am sure that lawyers will review their plan. If an independent ethics reviewer will be involved that makes me more at ease. We shall see. His plan to give the $$ earned from hotels to the Treasury is not necessary but a good gesture.

Shortly after the news conference the chief of the government ethics office said the plan was woefully insufficient. Trump's donation to the Treasury would be tax deductible contributions from which Trump would profit. There is no way, short of the blind trust he has been repeatedly advised to create, that conflicts of interest can be avoided. The independent ethics reviewer will be hired by Trump's organization. If he wanted a unbiased review of his business activities, he would let the existing US ethics office provide either the oversight or let the chief ethics officer choose someone to do it.

Link please. And if I were the owner of such a large corporation the last thing I would want to do is have the government provide oversight on it. They can't effectively provide oversight on themselves.

Look it up for yourself.

Testy this morning? I wanted to read what you are reading. Not trying to be an a$$hole.

You usually disparage any links I post because you don't the source so it's better for you if you just do a search and find a source you agree with. I saw several analyses yesterday on myriad sources and can't remember which one the chief of the government ethics office was quoted in.

Aw come on. You disparage everything I say.

 

[Matata]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-oge_us_5876b2f5e4b03c8a02d555ba

 

[Tekate]

No words from any of you on the plan for conflict of interest? That was the main purpose of the news conference. Not peepeegate. Did you listen to the explanation by the attorney on the remedies? I am not a lawyer and I am sure that lawyers will review their plan. If an independent ethics reviewer will be involved that makes me more at ease. We shall see. His plan to give the $$ earned from hotels to the Treasury is not necessary but a good gesture.

Shortly after the news conference the chief of the government ethics office said the plan was woefully insufficient. Trump's donation to the Treasury would be tax deductible contributions from which Trump would profit. There is no way, short of the blind trust he has been repeatedly advised to create, that conflicts of interest can be avoided. The independent ethics reviewer will be hired by Trump's organization. If he wanted a unbiased review of his business activities, he would let the existing US ethics office provide either the oversight or let the chief ethics officer choose someone to do it.

Link please. And if I were the owner of such a large corporation the last thing I would want to do is have the government provide oversight on it. They can't effectively provide oversight on themselves.

Well, if I were the owner of such a large corporation I'd gladly provide my tax returns. Well under Obama the government did a pretty good job of oversight.. and care of the environment, poor people, young people, old people. not rich people per se.

 

[E B]

Another from Jennifer Rubin:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...an-ethics-train-wreck/?utm_term=.beff0b67cfd4

 

[redwood66]

We are definitely in a different situation with this president elect than any other in recent history. All of the recent presidents have been lifelong bureaucrats who have not been the sole proprietor of a large corporation who has never held public office. Therefore using the "Well all other presidents used a blind trust" or something similar may not apply. Yes we must have oversight into possible ethical situations but to require someone to "completely divest" and possibly lose billions in the process just to soothe everyone's feelings might be a bit extreme. And even if he did it, the majority of Hillary voters would not be happy anyway. Why would anyone in the future, other than a career bureaucrat, want to run for president? Part of the reason I think this way is because I do not think public office should be a career for anyone. Serve if you have altruistic motives but not to be a career politician. I like the original view of public office where you had a job or business and you served in addition to that, not as your main source of income. This leads to making decisions to your benefit and not the American public.

JMHO.

 

[E B]

We are definitely in a different situation with this president elect than any other in recent history. All of the recent presidents have been lifelong bureaucrats who have not been the sole proprietor of a large corporation who has never held public office. Therefore using the "Well all other presidents used a blind trust" or something similar may not apply. Yes we must have oversight into possible ethical situations but to require someone to "completely divest" and possibly lose billions in the process just to soothe everyone's feelings might be a bit extreme. And even if he did it, the majority of Hillary voters would not be happy anyway. Why would anyone in the future, other than a career bureaucrat, want to run for president? Part of the reason I think this way is because I do not think public office should be a career for anyone. Serve if you have altruistic motives but not to be a career politician. I like the original view of public office where you had a job or business and you served in addition to that, not as your main source of income. This leads to making decisions to your benefit and not the American public.

JMHO.

Just to soothe everyone's feelings? Have you read up on the reasons for the emoluments clause? Given Trump's strange behavior toward Russia/Putin and his particular lack of financial transparency, it is ESPECIALLY important in his case. Essentially, it is important for the exact reason you feel it isn't- foreign money could lead to making decisions to his benefit and not the American public's. Wasn't there a huge outcry on this forum and throughout conservative America over Hillary and her foundation for this exact reason?

So much for "Trump is the best candidate to uphold the Constitution." We're already seeing him try to chip away at/turn the public away from a free press.

 

[Matata]

We are definitely in a different situation with this president elect than any other in recent history. All of the recent presidents have been lifelong bureaucrats who have not been the sole proprietor of a large corporation who has never held public office. Therefore using the "Well all other presidents used a blind trust" or something similar may not apply. Yes we must have oversight into possible ethical situations but to require someone to "completely divest" and possibly lose billions in the process just to soothe everyone's feelings might be a bit extreme. And even if he did it, the majority of Hillary voters would not be happy anyway. Why would anyone in the future, other than a career bureaucrat, want to run for president? Part of the reason I think this way is because I do not think public office should be a career for anyone. Serve if you have altruistic motives but not to be a career politician. I like the original view of public office where you had a job or business and you served in addition to that, not as your main source of income. This leads to making decisions to your benefit and not the American public.

JMHO.

GW Bush and Clinton had blind trusts. I believe this issue about Trump's assets is moot. Asking him to liquidate all he has isn't reasonable imo yet we can reasonably speculate his business will profit from his position as president. This is just something we'll have to accept. He is and always will be a businessman first and I doubt it's in his nature (from we've seen and heard so far) to let money making opportunities pass by. It will probably be a factor in his impeachment.

 

[redwood66]

We are definitely in a different situation with this president elect than any other in recent history. All of the recent presidents have been lifelong bureaucrats who have not been the sole proprietor of a large corporation who has never held public office. Therefore using the "Well all other presidents used a blind trust" or something similar may not apply. Yes we must have oversight into possible ethical situations but to require someone to "completely divest" and possibly lose billions in the process just to soothe everyone's feelings might be a bit extreme. And even if he did it, the majority of Hillary voters would not be happy anyway. Why would anyone in the future, other than a career bureaucrat, want to run for president? Part of the reason I think this way is because I do not think public office should be a career for anyone. Serve if you have altruistic motives but not to be a career politician. I like the original view of public office where you had a job or business and you served in addition to that, not as your main source of income. This leads to making decisions to your benefit and not the American public.

JMHO.

Just to soothe everyone's feelings? Have you read up on the reasons for the emoluments clause? Given Trump's strange behavior toward Russia/Putin and his particular lack of financial transparency, it is ESPECIALLY important in his case. Essentially, it is important for the exact reason you feel it isn't- foreign money could lead to making decisions to his benefit and not the American public's. Wasn't there a huge outcry on this forum and throughout conservative America over Hillary and her foundation for this exact reason?

So much for "Trump is the best candidate to uphold the Constitution." We're already seeing him try to chip away at/turn the public away from a free press.

EB all I am offering is my take on this situation and politicians motives. Right or wrong or don't agree.

 

[azstonie]

Redwood.

I'm a retired-young government employee. My responsibility was clean air, soil and water for the state of Alaska. If you think that the corporations and entities busily occupied in profiteering care about YOU, REDWOOD, and the air you breathe, the soil you come in contact with in so many ways, and the water you drink, bathe in, and feed your horses THEN YOU ARE FRANKLY NUTS. If YOU were in charge, REDWOOD, Princess and the military complexes and logging and big fishing and mining would leave our country uninhabitable, with air that is unfit, soil and water the same.

Fark your attitude towards government employees too, Redwood; I worked my tail off in dangerous conditions for the good of us all, and not for "windfall profits" or a piece of the action. Go live in a 3rd world country where government controls don't exist---why aren't you there right NOW, in fact? Oh, that's right, you're busy making *America* a 3rd World Country. Enjoy your $#it wages, no benefits, crap healthcare, zero infrastructure, and the legions who are uneducated, enraged and fully armed.

Ha, you don't like government? BS to that. You experience the bennies of a governed society with Rule of Law just like the rest of us. So either shut it about government or move to an ungoverned society, I hear Guatemala is just what you say you want.

 

[redwood66]

Right back at you. Government employee here for two state governments with a retirement from both. Personally I have seen lots of corruption and government overreach and waste. Especially by the EPA and DEQ in my last job.

Edit - And yes I did care about the public I was helping.

And don't talk to me about dangerous. I know all about it spending a career elbow to elbow with murderers and rapists who want to do you harm just because you have a badge and can go home at night.

You should take a pill for that anger. What brought all that on? We were talking about elected officials.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Right back at you. Government employee here for two state governments with a retirement from both. Personally I have seen lots of corruption and government overreach and waste. Especially by the EPA and DEQ in my last job.

Edit - And yes I did care about the public I was helping.

And don't talk to me about dangerous. I know all about it spending a career elbow to elbow with murderers and rapists who want to do you harm just because you have a badge and can go home at night.

You should take a pill for that anger. What brought all that on? We were talking about elected officials.

The Democratic Party in disarray...