Trump Wants His Kids (Who Are Running His Businesses) to Have Top Secret Security Clearances . . . Why? (UPDATE: Denied by Unnamed Trump Official) (UPDATE: Denial Reversed)
Donald Trump wants to give Top Secret security clearances to his kids, who will be running his businesses. Nothing to see here, folks!
President-elect Donald Trump is potentially seeking top secret security clearances for his children, sources tell CBS News.
The Trump team has asked the White House to explore the possibility of getting his children the top secret security clearances. Logistically, the children would need to be designated by the current White House as national security advisers to their father to receive top secret clearances. However, once Mr. Trump becomes president, he would be able to put in the request himself.
It’s nice that the children want to advise Daddy, but they’re also running Daddy’s businesses. If they learn Top Secret information that could affect the profitability of one of those businesses, they will have the ultimate insider information. The potential for conflicts of interest is already high. With the kids having Top Secret clearance, the potential becomes almost an inevitability.
What’s more, the request is inconsistent with assurances we were given just days ago that the kiddies will not be involved in government. As Jim Jamitis noted recently, Junior assured us of this in no uncertain terms:
Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. has insisted that Trump’s holdings would go into a blind trust managed by him and his siblings Eric and Ivanka Trump.
“We’re not going to be involved in government,” Trump Jr. said in September on “Good Morning America.” “He wants nothing to do with [the company]. He wants to fix this country.”
When pressed over the potential of Trump and his family still discussing the business while Trump is in office, Trump Jr. said, “We’re not going to discuss those things. … Trust me. As you know, it’s a very full-time job. He doesn’t need to worry about the business. The business is in good hands. He trusts us with that, 100 percent.”
If they’re not going to be involved in government, why do they need Top Secret clearances? Can someone explain this to me?
But the potential for conflicts of interest does not end even if the kids have no Top Secret clearance, and are not involved in government. It’s already a huge problem that they are running the businesses — whether they talk to Daddy Trump or not — because of the nature of influence.
Imagine you are the head of a foreign company seeking a deal with a hotel chain. The logical competitors end up being Marriott International and the Trump Organization. Marriott’s terms are a little better . . . but you have other deals with the U.S. government. Because your company is foreign, President Trump could cancel those deals with the stroke of a pen.
Better go with the Trump Organization.
Trump’s actions in putting his kids in charge of his companies vastly increases the potential for selling of access. And his actions in asking for Top Secret clearance for his kids vastly increases the potential for abuse of that information. And, given his history of self-dealing, I don’t trust the matter to his personal sense of ethics.
Republicans used to care about stuff like this when it was Hillary Clinton selling access for money. Now that Trump’s own moves are making it almost inevitable he will be doing the same, if Republicans are to be consistent, they will care about this too.
Do you think they will?
. . . he asked, knowing that the question was rhetorical.
UPDATE 11-14-16 8:56 p.m. PST: According to this report, a Trump transition team official is denying the CBS News report:
A Trump transition team official denied the claims in an email forwarded to Mic, saying the president-elect did not request the clearances and that the paperwork to do so has not been filed.
“That’s not something I’m expecting right now,” they added.
Either CBS News made it up, or the Trump team is walking it back in the face of criticism. At this point, I’d believe either.
UPDATE x2: The Trump campaign has now admitted the request for security clearances for the kids was made. They are blaming a low-level staffer and claiming Trump didn’t know. Translation: they got caught and knifed a sacrificial lamb.
[Cross-posted at RedState.]
And I’ve already seen reports this isn’t true.
Gospace (f38eb5) — 11/14/2016 @ 8:47 pmLink?
Patterico (115b1f) — 11/14/2016 @ 8:52 pmFound it.
Either CBS made it up or the Trump team is walking it back.
At this point, I’d believe either.
I’ll update, thanks.
Patterico (115b1f) — 11/14/2016 @ 8:54 pmCrickets?
peedoffamerican (310909) — 11/14/2016 @ 8:54 pmUPDATE: According to this report, a Trump transition team official is denying the CBS News report:
Either CBS News made it up, or the Trump team is walking it back in the face of criticism. At this point, I’d believe either.
Patterico (115b1f) — 11/14/2016 @ 8:56 pmPlacing the accuracy of the CBS News report to one side for the moment:
Can we all agree that it would be wrong for him to request this?
Patterico (115b1f) — 11/14/2016 @ 8:57 pmrockefellers were unavailable to comment, with the kennedy’s all were in public office, even the father was on the foreign advisory board,
narciso (d1f714) — 11/14/2016 @ 9:03 pmGreetings:
Maybe he could Huma Abedin to fill in for them. I hear she’s somewhat underemployed at the moment.
11B40 (6abb5c) — 11/14/2016 @ 9:04 pmUnless he is nominating a given child to some post requiring clearances, of course he should not seek such clearances.
However, the question of a blind trust, which many are trying to trump up as unethical, is irrelevant. He never once promised to create such and it should have been obvious to any fool that he was not about to relinquish any control of his companies beyond the bare minimum required by statute.
Parenthetically, it appears that DJT will surpass Romney’s popular vote total tomorrow. There goes that meme. Not sure of the source, but it is possible that the House will retain exactly the 247 total GOP number of members. And, of course, only 2 GOP Senators lost. And DJT with over 300 EC votes. What a wipeout of the donkeys.
Ed from SFV (3400a5) — 11/14/2016 @ 9:05 pmbut the fundamental point is the story true, and if not how did cbs and the basilisk fall for it, questions you used to concern yourselves with,
narciso (d1f714) — 11/14/2016 @ 9:06 pmwell accounting for population, and death adjustment, (birth/death) one can see how that would be.
narciso (d1f714) — 11/14/2016 @ 9:09 pmi’m not going to focus on hypotheticals of dubious provenance, forwarded by the likes of mak and resnick,
narciso (d1f714) — 11/14/2016 @ 9:16 pmor david schuster’s ex?wife,
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/11/homeless_tom_friedman.html
now flathead’s agita is something else again,
narciso (d1f714) — 11/14/2016 @ 9:18 pmIf illary’s housekeeper can look at top secret documents, then anyone can.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 11/14/2016 @ 9:18 pmBarack really got a high-and-tight haircut before this final trip abroad. Too short. Is he cutting his own hair with a pair of Wahl electric clippers?
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 11/14/2016 @ 9:20 pmirony is too crunchy,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3934920/Meet-man-leading-Calexit-charge-pull-California-union-Republican-New-York-spent-election-night-MOSCOW-planning-embassy.html
narciso (d1f714) — 11/14/2016 @ 9:23 pmok, I give up, he’s seen ghost in the shell, and he wanted to recreate this:
The American Empire (米帝 Beitei?, AE) , also known as Imperial Americana, is a fictional country appearing in Masamune Shirow’s anime and manga series’ Ghost in the Shell and Appleseed, featuring most prominently in Ghost in the Shell: S.A.C. 2nd GIG. The AE exists from before 2020 and at least until 2147, and consists primarily of the American states that had formed the Confederate States of America, plus parts of the Great Plains and Southwest.
narciso (d1f714) — 11/14/2016 @ 9:32 pmand they had an interplanetary component as well,
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/14/trump-to-free-nasa-and-set-sights-on-further-space-exploration/
narciso (d1f714) — 11/14/2016 @ 9:43 pmNo. It’s not wrong and the criticism misunderstands they reason such a request might be made and the implications of the clearance being given. Will explain further when I’m on my computer and not my phone.
Shipwreckedcrew (1a3643) — 11/14/2016 @ 10:13 pmWell, you CAN have a clearance and never see any classified information. There is also need-to-know. It would simply allow them to enter an area designated as a classified-holding site such as parts of the White House or parts of the Trump Tower in the not too distant future.
It’s not unreasonable. I suspect that Mrs Obama has such a clearance.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/14/2016 @ 11:52 pmHow many people who have access to the President do you suppose do NOT have top secret clearance? The Residence staff? Yes, all of them. The Secret Service? Yes, all of them. Anyone in the WH staff above assistant deputy underflunky? Yes, all of them. If you have access to the President’s working area you damn better have TS clearance.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/14/2016 @ 11:57 pmAs a big time Trump supporter I can understand why Trump would want his family members to have these clearances. They have run a successful business with combined efforts to some degree. Trump would no doubt like to keep those family members on for advise.
I get it.
But. He should not get it IMHO. He has a fantastic duo of RP and Bannon. No sense in mucking up the stew with too many cooks.
That being said it is going to be a pleasure to see Trumps kids “not” attending pot parties or twerking for the cameras.
On second thought. I could live with Ivanka twerking a lil bit.
Drider (340c7b) — 11/15/2016 @ 2:49 amSeriously, Patterico? You’re worried about sweetheart business deals? His first three kids are half Russian from a Soviet-born mother. The Third Wife is likewise Communist bloc born and bred. What we should worry about is Putin having our nuclear codes.
nk (9faaca) — 11/15/2016 @ 3:36 am24. Well, the 2nd daughter might be a neoconfederate, or what if if the mom was from that other Georgia?
urbanleftbehind (6eb88b) — 11/15/2016 @ 3:58 amLook at the timeline. With the fall of the Soviet Union, Trump got away from Ivana and hooked up with Marla. But as Russia put itself back together again, the KGB got its hooks back into Trump with Melania.
nk (9faaca) — 11/15/2016 @ 4:07 amThe problem with only Trump having clearance is that he’s being counciled and informed by enemy forces right now and will be fed a load of crap. He needs his team at the briefings. If it’s just Trump, he’ll be what Obama wants him to be by the time he’s in office.
If he did ask for that, then he’s already being sabotaged by Obama through the media. They are setting a trap for him.
Jcurtis (223d45) — 11/15/2016 @ 4:14 amTrump should not be at the briefings. His top people should be getting these briefings and then they inform Trump.
What you have is 28 years of one party plus one family building a teetering house of cards and it’s going to be overwhelming when an outsider looks at it. The Democrats and the Bushes knew each other’s skeletons so they could keep it under wraps because m.a.d. An outsider who isn’t loyal to Democrats or the Bush family is very dangerous because he can go to the people and say “look what they’ve done.”.
Jcurtis (223d45) — 11/15/2016 @ 4:30 amAlternate explanation: Trump’s trying to pre-emptively avoid one of Hillary’s mistakes: allowing people without proper clearance access to classified information.
Theory: Trump doesn’t intend to have his kids get classified information, but should they accidentally slip up, it won’t be a violation of national security laws — much like Hillary having her maid print out classified material for her.
No proof, of course, but just a theory that fits the facts. And, of course, assuming that the story is accurate, which is of course highly questionable.
Jenos The Deplorable (57de13) — 11/15/2016 @ 4:34 amit really makes you wonder what harvardtrash Ted’s grimacing sacky wife would’ve done with a clearance
we really dodged a bullet
happyfeet (28a91b) — 11/15/2016 @ 4:49 amThe media is going to print any number of poorly-sourced and/or false stories about Trump for the next four years. If #NeverTrump is going to chase every one of these squirrels without taking a second to stop and think first, the next fours years is going to seem much longer than it is.
Gabriel Hanna (4f5ff1) — 11/15/2016 @ 4:57 amI agree with the people saying this would make sense, especially if the offspring in question are ever going to visit the White House. OTOH, if the Trump people are denying it, maybe I’m wrong.
C. S. P. Schofield (99bd37) — 11/15/2016 @ 5:06 am@Patterico:Can we all agree that it would be wrong for him to request this?
Not if it is routinely, or at least commonly, done for adult children of Presidents. I don’t know the answer but here shipwreckedcrew seems pretty knowledgeable.
One reason this seems strange to you may be because it really is unusual, but another reason may be that it has been 24 years since a President came into the White House with adult children, and to the media history started sometime after 2000. The media is not good at context especially with a partisan axe to grind.
Did we already forget George W. Bush and the US attorneys?
Gabriel Hanna (4f5ff1) — 11/15/2016 @ 5:09 amIt would probably be an improvement over the status quo if the kids were actually qualified get a clearance. There is a process that involves interviews with neighbors, known acquaintances, and so on, and they occasionally discover something that would preclude granting a clearance. It is surprising that Trump would announce his intentions in this regard given the possibility of such an embarrassment. But then again, perhaps its all been worked out in advance with Mr. Comey.
BobStewartatHome (a52abe) — 11/15/2016 @ 5:21 amBarack really got a high-and-tight haircut before this final trip abroad. Too short. Is he cutting his own hair with a pair of Wahl electric clippers?
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 11/14/2016 @ 9:20 pm
=============================================
He may be prepping to go full Taxi Driver mode…
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 11/15/2016 @ 5:28 amMy comment keeps getting lost in moderation, don’t know why.
In 2008 and 2016, separate occasions, the media expressed surprise and alarm at the utter disregard of gun safety shown by Sarah Palin and Ted Cruz, who were holding shotguns open at the breech with the stocks on their shoulders.
Again, Gell-Mann amnesia. But they know all about security clearances for adult children of presidents, I am sure.
Gabriel Hanna (4f5ff1) — 11/15/2016 @ 5:35 am@30-I was going to agree with you, but decided to change my perspective and look at it as entertainment. Like a puppet show! The corrupt and lying media pull the strings and we watch Patterson jump and dance!
Mind you, the same routine will get old pretty darn quick, and one will likely soon move on to more adult entertainmrnt, but for now it’s funny…
LBascom (74754c) — 11/15/2016 @ 5:37 amPatterico, not Patterson. Patterson don’t dance.
LBascom (74754c) — 11/15/2016 @ 5:38 amjump and dance!
do the piggy shimmy!
happyfeet (28a91b) — 11/15/2016 @ 5:38 am@LBascom:Mind you, the same routine will get old pretty darn quick,
I just look at that banner saying Los Angeles Dog Trainer: Patterico! Public Enemy #1 to remind me of what skepticism of the media looks like.
Whatever it is they print, you have to check it out first, and try to supply the context they always omit. That has not stopped being true.
Gabriel Hanna (4f5ff1) — 11/15/2016 @ 5:40 amI don’t believe that requiring a TS clearance (with background check) is strange or uncommon for people who will regularly be in very close contact with the president or in the private presidential space. I would venture a guess that the hysteria over this will be put in proper perspective shortly. You will note that the official statement made says they have not “requested” it nor filled out any paperwork. Will everyone feel better when it comes out that they are being told/required to do it by Secret Service or to comply with normal and established White House protocol?
elissa (ead691) — 11/15/2016 @ 5:41 amBet it was about the requirements for a White House pass.
crazy (d3b449) — 11/15/2016 @ 5:47 amThe Dog Trainer/Spolied children beat Pewter’s 538, there will always be that.
urbanleftbehind (6eb88b) — 11/15/2016 @ 6:00 amA Trump voter told me yesterday that the President gets paid extra when he travels out of the country so that’s why Obama keeps making all those trips abroad. And this is a guy who runs a successful bakery and pastry shop in Chicago.
And there are 60 million more like him?
I’m going to move to Upper Manchuria and raise sbfxxts.
nk (9faaca) — 11/15/2016 @ 6:03 am@nk:And there are 60 million more like him?
Of course there must be. If one guy, who appears to be an idiot, disagrees with you, then everyone who disagrees with you must also be an idiot. And so therefore must be 60 million people you never met, yet you can rest confident in your knowledge that you are better than all of them.
Gabriel Hanna (4f5ff1) — 11/15/2016 @ 6:06 amThey were named as members of his transition team. The transition team has a wide range of responsibilities, including the recommendation of cabinet members AND working on policy issues that have to be dealt with in the process of political control being transferred from one administration to the next. There is a short window of time when the WH staff and a close group of advisers are really the only officials of the new administration, as cabinet and sub-cabinet officers are named and confirmed.
Getting the children Top Secret clearance is preferable to having to ask them to leave the room every time conversations or briefings in meetings include classified intelligence information. Disclosure such information isn’t always planned — sometimes it simply happens in response to a question.
The safer course is to simply have everyone “read into the program” — likely at just the lowest level of security clearance, so all attendees are covered for purposes of receiving classified information.
And, as another comment noted, having a security clearance, and actually getting access to classified information are two different things. ALL classified information, even at the lowest level of classification, is subject to a “need to know” basis. The fact that someone has that security clearance means you can share classified info with them IF they have a “need to know” the info. If they don’t have a “need to know”, then their security clearance is irrelevant.
So, the kids, as members of the transition team involved in evaluating potential cabinet picks, national security team members, defense department secretaries, etc., would need clearance in order to meaningfully participate in meetings where the areas of responsibility for each of these positions is discussed, and for when candidates for each of these positions are interviewed.
The reality is that Trump has brought his adult children up through the executive ranks of the various companies he controls, and three of them — plus his son-in-law Kushner — are important advisers and part of his inner circle. He’s not going to plan his transition and new administration without their input and advice. Not having them have the necessary security clearance to provide meaningful input in that process would deprive him of that advice.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 11/15/2016 @ 6:06 amIt maybe 24 years since adult children were in the WH, but more like 42 years since all the adult children were at least 80% ideologically compatible.
urbanleftbehind (6eb88b) — 11/15/2016 @ 6:13 am@swc:They were named as members of his transition team.
Hiring his kids. Flagrant nepotism. Proof of Trump’s corruption. He should hire experienced professionals, that would be proof that he’s selling out to the GOPe and that he sold the Trumpkins a bill of goods.
Gabriel Hanna (4f5ff1) — 11/15/2016 @ 6:14 am@urbanleftbehind:It maybe 24
I think it is actually 28, but there is no edit button here…
Gabriel Hanna (4f5ff1) — 11/15/2016 @ 6:15 amIs very sad state of affairs, Gabriel.
nk (9faaca) — 11/15/2016 @ 6:21 amI’m counting the entirety of Bush 1 first term.
urbanleftbehind (6eb88b) — 11/15/2016 @ 6:22 amIt makes sense that Trump’s transition team needs security clearances, including his adult cHildreth becaase they are now part of his transition team. It also makes sense that initial reports said it was the transition team, not Trump, that asked for clearances for his adult children.
But are the children going to run his businesses or are they going to work on his campaign, transition, and Presidency? The further they continue on the government path, the more it blurs the line between government and the family business. And isn’t that exactly what the Clintons did with their Foundation?
DRJ (15874d) — 11/15/2016 @ 6:27 amIIRC, transition team members are not paid. There is a budget for the transition expenses, but that involves staffing and equipment in an off-site transition headquarters, usually in vacant government space somewhere that has a SCIF (“Secured Compartmentalized Intelligence Facility” — I think) for holding classified information and briefings.
I think he’s already indicated all of them will remain with the Trump organization, and not take any paid government positions.
I think we might end up seeing a change in that at some point with respect to his son-in-law Kushner. I think Ivanka stays out of government because they have a young family, but Kushner seems destined for some WH role at some point in time, and I think politics are likely in his future. I would not be surprised if he was to become Chief of Staff later in the first term. He’ll also likely run for office as a Democrat in New York.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 11/15/2016 @ 6:27 am…then Tiffany as the Princess Leia of CA? Otherwise she might be the soft link. Calexit, if judging from the Narciso link, might be a Putinesque hedge to cash in on, if promises are not kept.
urbanleftbehind (6eb88b) — 11/15/2016 @ 6:40 amI think there is a very meaningful distinction to be made between what the Clintons did and the circumstances confronting Trump.
The Clinton’s CREATED the foundation for the very purpose of monetizing their public service. In effect, they “sold” access to political power in Washington. There are two trails of money that benefited them directly — the myriad of lifestyle expenses that were covered for them, like travel, accommodations, food, etc. I’d love to be able to nail down what Bill Clinton’s dining expenses are for a single year, and how much of that has come out of his own pocket. The second is the tens of millions of dollars paid to them for speeches — that money didn’t go to the foundation, it was personal income declared on their tax returns.
Trump, on the other hand, already has built these businesses – completely separate and independent from any involvement by him in politics. There have been a few Presidents in the past who came to office with considerable personal wealth, but I think just about every one of them involved family wealth of which they were a beneficiary while they pursued politics as a career. The two most well-known examples are Franklin Roosevelt and JFK. I don’t remember any President who came directly into the WH by stepping out of industry, leaving several huge business operations behind.
Its simply unrealistic to say that he’s got to divest himself of conflicts. The ethics rules are relatively narrow in this regard, and employing a “blind trust” is not required. That has been the simplest solution in the past, where the wealth of the President was primarily reflected in investments. But you can’t really do that when it comes to business enterprises that are a mix of private and public companies (are any Trump companies publicly owned and traded??), and which have numerous entanglements with other family members.
It is absolutely going to be the case that decisions by officials in the new Trump Administration are going to positively (and maybe negatively) impact the Trump businesses. But nothing (so far) was created for the purpose of leveraging his Presidency into a money-making opportunity. Any such effort will make him a one-term President faster than just about anything else that could happen.
And we are going to have 4 years of reporting by the Press and left-wing partisans pointing out every instance where some government policy is good for the Trump organization.
But the key to the ethics question is whether any governmental policy is being pursued FOR THE PURPOSE of advancing Trump’s private interests.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 11/15/2016 @ 6:42 am@DRJ: And isn’t that exactly what the Clintons did with their Foundation?
The Clinton Foundation had no other business, than to be a place for people to give Clintons money, and a place for Clinton loyalists to get salaries when they needed them, and it is inseparable from the Clintons being in a position of power. If it reverts to a real charity now that they are out, there won’t be anything to object to.
If the Clintons had allowed Chelsea to work on their campaigns, transitions, and Presidency, and it had stopped there, there’d be little objection to that. But the Clinton Foundation went way beyond that. It was a cover for bribery and illegal campaign coordination and not much more.
Trump’s businesses, and his family’s role in them, predated his Presidency by many years. The man is not even President-Elect yet, let’s not forget. He may turn into the equivalent of a Clinton someday, or may not.
Gabriel Hanna (4f5ff1) — 11/15/2016 @ 6:45 am@shipwrecvkedcrew:And we are going to have 4 years of reporting by the Press and left-wing partisans pointing out every instance where some government policy is good for the Trump organization.
I see we cross-posted. I have only to add, that these instances will be reported regardless of their basis in fact: as we are seeing today.
Gabriel Hanna (4f5ff1) — 11/15/2016 @ 6:47 amYes, Trump can do what he wants — including making his family advisers — despite the government nepotism rules. Of course he will talk to his trusted adult children (who helped him win the nomination and election) about the challenges he faces as President. He trusts them and relies on them.
The problem is that such access will be as beneficial to the Trump Organization as it was to the Clinton Foundation.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/15/2016 @ 6:48 amI wonder how many government conferences were scheduled at Trump properties in the past, and whether that will change in the future?
DRJ (15874d) — 11/15/2016 @ 6:51 amAccepting foreign donations made for the express purpose of buying access with hope of affecting United States foreign policy was what the Clinton Foundation offered. There is no stretch one can logically make to equate that corruption with the existing Trump business interests.
elissa (ead691) — 11/15/2016 @ 6:56 amHillary should have gotten clearance for her maid.
AZ Bob (f7a491) — 11/15/2016 @ 7:08 am59… yes, elissa, though some will throw the mud against the wall to see if it sticks.
Colonel Haiku (32652f) — 11/15/2016 @ 7:12 am“Trump’s businesses… predated his Presidency by many years.”
– Gabriel Hanna
And they will no doubt continue to predate his presidency (in the sense of predation) for years to come.
Leviticus (efada1) — 11/15/2016 @ 7:15 amYou see no way that someone might use the Trump Organization to buy influence in his Presidency? I bet there are some folks out there who do.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/15/2016 @ 7:17 amWhen Trump spearheads massive corporate tax cuts that suddenly make his many failing businesses viable once again, will that count as a conflict of interest?
Leviticus (efada1) — 11/15/2016 @ 7:18 amConceivably recall the hubub about Halliburton even after Cheney had sold his stake.
narciso (d1f714) — 11/15/2016 @ 7:21 am“You see no way that someone might use the Trump Organization to buy influence in his Presidency? I bet there are some folks out there who do.”
– DRJ
Nah, see, cuz I bought this wonderful Trump Brand ™ Bucket-O-Sand to stick my head in. It’s super-comfy and really reduces my anxiety – you should buy one!
But even more appealing is the vertically-integrated model that comes with it! See, for every person I sign up to sell the Bucket-O-Sand on Mr. Trump’s behalf, I get an extra shiny penny!
Whoooo-eeeee! The Bucket-O-Sand is really more of a *lifestyle* than a product, you know what I mean?
Leviticus (efada1) — 11/15/2016 @ 7:21 amOr the suspicions about w and harken’s early financing
narciso (d1f714) — 11/15/2016 @ 7:22 amHello, Trump Organization. This is the (*) government calling. We want to build a luxurious, very expensive new hotel and we want you to run it, but we want assurances that only the top people in your organization will be handling this. We especially want personal access to and attention from the Trump children on this project. We want the very best Trump-managed hotel possible, and we will pay a premium to get it.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/15/2016 @ 7:22 amThe newest hotel in DC is the Trump International. What if Cabonet members encourage their department heads to schedule conferences and meetings there? No pressure but it’s so new and convenient, you know. Don’t miss a chance to please the big boss.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/15/2016 @ 7:29 amI would be surprised if Trump hotel properties have hosted any government functions. They are generally too “upscale”. To host a government function the hotel has to agree to rent rooms at the government rate. When I started with the government in the mid-90s, the rate varied a bit from city to city, but generally was in the range of $85 to $100 a night. Now its much higher — from $175 to $225 depending on the city.
But to host a conference, the hotel has to make a block of rooms available for the attendees — so the hotel might have to take 80-100 rooms out of inventory while the conference is going on, and for Trump hotels the government rate is going to be a huge discount. And they don’t necessarily make it back on the “amenities” of the events. The government conferences are notoriously “cheap” when it comes to the fringe benefits of a conference. No big dinner functions or hosted cocktail parties. The attendees are pretty much on their own in that regard.
Hotel groups like Marriott, Hyatt, Sheraton, and a couple others, all participate in government programs because they want the regular government traveler, not just the conferences. Thousands of government officials travel every day on official business, and rent hotel rooms every night. All these companies have more “affordable” brands under their roof that work within the government rate structure. If I had a multi-day trip somewhere, I always tried to get a room at one of the “suite” hotels.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 11/15/2016 @ 7:29 amHaving the family receive security clearances is actually a good idea as the responsible parties would know who can be trusted with the information and who cannot as well as providing training to the individuals on how to handle classified information even if they were not privy to the information. . . well, that’s how it’s supposed to work in theory. . .
OldSarg (0c10e8) — 11/15/2016 @ 7:35 amTrump International DC room rates pretty much start at $450 a night. So a conference of 100 federal officials would cut that rate in half for 100 rooms. That’s a $22,500 discount. If the hotel’s occupancy rate is normally pretty high — which I would expect — I doubt they want to sell rooms to the government at that steep a discount.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 11/15/2016 @ 7:37 amI just looked up the Per Diem room rates on the GSA website. For DC, they are seasonal. Room rates through the winter months are $182, and they go up in the spring to $242. In the summer they go down to $172.
And “ME&I” — meals, expenses, and incidentals — is only $69 a day, so no expensive drinks or dinners at BLT PRIME BY DAVID BURKE, where Salmon runs you $32 and a Rib Eye Steak costs $57.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 11/15/2016 @ 7:43 amLeviticus (efada1) — 11/15/2016 @ 7:15 am
That’s funny.
felipe (b5e0f4) — 11/15/2016 @ 7:46 amGreetings:
Please remember fellow readers that the media, having added petulance and snark to the five stages of grief, are now firmly committed to what in the Bronx of the ’50s and ’60s was known as throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks. (Alternatively, for military types, it’s running it up the flagpole to see who salutes it.)
What has convinced me in this regard is the total absence of any historical references or analogies to what has been done in and to our former Republic over the last eight years by the current and hopefully dying present administration.
11B40 (6abb5c) — 11/15/2016 @ 7:53 amManufacturing of most of Trump’s and Ivanka’s clothing lines are outsourced to foreign countries. Trump has promised to bring more manufacturing to America from these countries. What if the Trump Organization were the first to learn the government had pressured a particular business to build a factory in the US? Wouldn’t that be beneficial?
What if the Trump family invested in companies that outsource or move plants, like Ford or Carrier? Normally Presidents use blind trusts so their inside knowledge of government dealings doesn’t generate claims of self-dealing. As shipwreckedcrew suggests, the Trump Organization and the children will be under constant attack for using insider knowledge … but they will have no way to rebut it, because they will be able to benefit from their father’s insights and connections.
Every President’s child benefits from his Presidency, but not every President’s child is running a business that makes buying influence easier.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/15/2016 @ 7:54 amThe Trump Organization has a number of foreign properties. Now that his children will be running the business without a blind trust or other shield, and assuming they have top secret clearance so they can have full discussions with their father, don’t you think foreign governments will use their dealings with those properties to try to encourage Trump to look favorably on their requests? Wouldn’t they be fools not to?
DRJ (15874d) — 11/15/2016 @ 8:02 amI’d say that, first, someone told him that they would need security clearances if he were to discuss matters with them, and then, when he appeared amenable to maybe asking for that, leaked that fact in order to prevent it. But, in the end, he won’t cut himself off from his children. He wants them, or some members of his family, giving him foreign policy advice. That’ll either be with a security clearance, or without a security clearance. Without a security clearance means anything he says to them is automatically declassified.
Sammy Finkelman (db3b66) — 11/15/2016 @ 8:05 amI’d say that, first, someone told him that they would need security clearances if he were to discuss matters with them, and then, when he appeared amenable to maybe asking for that, leaked that fact in order to prevent it
There are all sorts of possible conflicts of interest.
Forst, there’s the fact that his business interests could be hurt by political opposition or unpopularity. People were avoiding using the new Trump hotel in Washington for instance (because somehow it made them on the side as Trump.) Trump said on 60 Minutes what he would be doing as presient is so much more important, he can’t care about hotel occupancy. In other words, all this falls by the wayside. This is good.
He also noted that theer are very few legal requirements. There basically aren’t any, because a president (and the vice president) are elected officials. But every president has done things to avoid things looking bad.
Then, there are known benefits of policy going one way or the other way. For example, Trump is a huge net debter, and also anything new would involve borrowed money. That would benefit his business, although when you come to think of it, that’s only becaue lower interest rates benefit the economy in general. Low intrest rates would also benefit the federal government which has a lot of debt. An enormous amount of it now. (Maybe some of it could be rolled over, but that amounts actually to getting institutions to make abad investment.) People with student loan would also benefit from continued low interestt rates. There are other people, and pension funds, that might benefit from higher rates. (you could say, investments can still make money but they can’t be quite as passive and neutral as buying bonds would be.) And his general political position is more toward supporting higher interest rates, although it goes under the rubric of letting the market set interest rates But ere is no market here.
Here, as well as in many other policy situations, although different in one case from anoher, any president is going to benefit from one position or the other on some very big policy. It’s a given.
Then there are specific problems. Trump is being audited by the IRS – yet would appoint its commissioner. His hotel in Las Vegas is having a big battle with the Culinary Workers Union, which wants to organize it, and has lost most or all of the rulings of the National Labor Relations Board, yet he would gradually replace its members. Now it wouldn’t be good to take the position of always giving in, because then people would really go out and make claims. Then there are settled contracts but with possible disputes, like the contract with the GSA for the rehabilitation of the Old Post Office which is where he built his new hotel in Washington. These are all however, very specific things from which he cuould recuse himself, and every president can or does have the IRS examine his tax returns. He could maybe delegate the filing of new tax returns.
Then there’s s new issue. The emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution:
http://constitutionus.com/
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8:
It’s being argued that that means maybe he can’t accept rent from a Chinese bank partially owned, and certainly controlled, by its government.
But it can’t mean that. That would mean nothing could be sold by him to a foreign government owned entity. He couldn’t even rent a room in one of his hotels to a foreign diplomat but would have to boycott them, and he couldn’t let them use a golf course he owned unless he did it for free. This isn’t what that clause means. What it has to mean is that everything has to be exchanged at fair market value arrived at arms length. The whole focus of this thing is on gifts. Not standard commercial transactions. (speeches by the way, are not really that – that would really be a gift.)
Sammy Finkelman (db3b66) — 11/15/2016 @ 8:08 amA family member with security clearance? I wonder how “Diane Reynolds” feels about that?
And yes, there’s pretty big opportunity for graft here with his properties and businesses. Again, they could ask Diane and her parents about how to run that scam.
I’m not going to get too excited about all the stories out there. People are going bonkers. Hopefully that will fizzle out soon. And when Trump does something terrible and it’s true, I will get all excited.
Patricia (5fc097) — 11/15/2016 @ 8:13 amshiowreckedcrew,
We know there is fraud and improper dealings by government employees, especially when it comes to conferences, restaurants and spas. Perhaps the Trump brand is too extravagant for government employees. If not, hopefully the Trump Organization will report any improper attempts to influence them.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/15/2016 @ 8:16 amI see the “what- ifs”, DRJ. But what I don’t see is what option or outcome or resolution you are actually promoting or suggesting here with respect to the close knit Trump family’s interactions as a family unit and/or the Trump businesses which are headed by the children (who are Executive Vice Presidents and not just figureheads). Would you be willing to share your thoughts on that? Unlike the Clinton Foundation which could (and should) be closed down in the blink of an eye, Trump’s businesses have actual physical properties, provide lodging and food and sports experiences to customers, have contracts with vendors, builders and suppliers, and provide employment and paychecks to thousands of employees, etc.
elissa (ead691) — 11/15/2016 @ 8:19 amWhat was wrong with “blind trust,” again?
Leviticus (efada1) — 11/15/2016 @ 8:24 amMr. Trump’s a straight arrow
honest injun that’s what he is
we’re very lucky to have him
it was looking a bit touch and go for a while there
happyfeet (a037ad) — 11/15/2016 @ 8:25 amWhen they own stcck, presidents can put their investments in a blind trust, and/or sell many stocs and buy government binds (which actually has its ow conflict of interest)
This is a case of a man who owns abusiness or businesses, mainly high rent residential property, often combined with a hotel, and golf courses.
Michael Bloomberg, who ad a somwhat similar situation of owning abig business, turned over management to someone he trusted. When he left office he wanted to continue the arrangement more or less and dvote himself to philantrophy, but he did involved himself in hus business and was interfering too much with the business and the person who was running it turned back over control of Bloomberg to him.
Now Donald Trump wants to turn over the management of his business empire to people he trusts, but they’re his three oldest children, and he also wants to use at least some of them in his “kitchen cabinet.”
So what you have here are what are the rules for unpaid advisers. Usually, it’s disclosure. That maybe could present a probem if they’re not honest and restrained. There may be no established procedures that will eliminate problems.
They can’t actually be appointed to any paid positions because Congress passed a law in 1967, with the example of Robert F. Kennedy being appointed Attorney general in 1961 in mind, that prohibited a president from employing a close family member or mabe a close family member from accepting a position.
At that time, there were fewer conflict of interest rules, but in any case the Kennedy family wealth was centrally managed by an in-law (I think) and both John and Robert – and Ted – Kennedy never paid any attention to any of it, except maybe how much money they got to spend.
JFK never even paid attention even to that really, and he ordinarily never carried cash (this was in the days before credit cards, except Diners Club maybe and American Express) People around him had to pay for anything where money needed to be spent right away and they settled later.
Sammy Finkelman (db3b66) — 11/15/2016 @ 8:25 amLawyers go bonkers about things like this because we know process matters. We used to keep the family separate from the Presidency but that is hard to do in today’s world.
Remember how upset some were at the Clinton’s suggestion of a “co-Presidency”? The days of a separate First Family are gone, but this is a new era when either the Trump or Clinton families would have held the Presidency and continued their family businesses. In times like this, we either need the old rules (blind trusts) or new rules to prevent self-dealing.
If you want to rely on trusting them, you need a process to verify whether that trust is deserved. Waiting until after-the-fact is like closing the barn door after the horses are gone.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/15/2016 @ 8:26 amWell put, DRJ.
Patricia (5fc097) — 11/15/2016 @ 8:29 amI favor disclosure, elissa, because sunlight is the best disinfectant. The Trump Organization is a priate company and, as such,does not have to disclose all its dealings. See, for example, how Trump never disclosed his tax returns. But if the Trump family wants to continue running his company while he is President, I think they have to waive some of that privacy. At a minimum, I think they should have to disclose foreign contacts.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/15/2016 @ 8:31 amhappyfeet (a037ad) — 11/15/2016 @ 8:25 am
He’s not, but he realizes that what he does now pales in comparison to anything that will happen to his businesses, as almost any person would, and he damaged his buesiness running for president, and spent some money too and he wasa OK with that. So he basically doesn’t care as long as he’ll be left with enough to continue his lifestyle, and actually even if he lost it all, an ex-president would probably be OK although he needs a little bit more money than average. I mean, he needs a private jet.
What’s probably bothering him now is the difficultly of being able to sleep in his own bed, in his own bedroom, with his own familiar bathroom and kitchen in Trump Tower. The Secret Service wants to impose impossible conditions and the NYPD is arguing with them. You know, he can overrule them if he’s president. He can even appoint someone from the New York City Police department to head the secret service. Which might be agood thing, since they’re better at everything.
This – the loss of his own bed and bedroom, except possibly on weekends, is what’s bothering him the most. It’s located in the middle of a city in what is more a business district than a residential district so it’s worse than what it was for President Obama in Chicago, and he didn’t visit there very much and took his mother-in-law into the White House.
Donald Trump’s children may care more about the businesses than he does now, but a lot of that is also because they want to show that they’re competent. He does value, or did, value making money.
Sammy Finkelman (db3b66) — 11/15/2016 @ 8:37 amThank you for your response, DRJ.
elissa (ead691) — 11/15/2016 @ 8:37 amDRJ — overspending on a conference with stupid things like elaborately produced videos and over-the-top amenities has happened, but staging a conference at places that are way out of the normal price range for government conferences is not something that happens. Anyone who signs off on that kind of waiver is simply asking to get fired. That’s why you don’t hear stories about government conferences being held at Ritz-Carlton or Four Seasons Resorts.
The VA conference that was the subject of that report was unusually large — 3000 HR attendees from all across the VA. To get 3000 hotel rooms centrally located, there are only a few destinations that can be used — Orlando, New Orleans, New York, San Fran, Chicago, DC, and Vegas come to mind. NY, SF, LA and Chicago are going to be very expensive. Orlando and Vegas are probably the cheapest locales that can provide the number of rooms necessary. But anything placed in Vegas gets a red flag because of the stigma.
So if you really need 3000 people to attend (unlikely), the Orlando is a natural destination. As I recall though, the problem with that conference was the nonsense stuff that the organizers spent money on, not the rooms and conference location itself.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 11/15/2016 @ 8:38 amDo you agree, elissa?
DRJ (15874d) — 11/15/2016 @ 8:39 amAnd yet it happened, shipwreckedcrew. Creative people come up with creative ways to benefit from evading rules. There are a lot of creative people in and out of government that will look for ways to get benefits. I’m not suggesting they will all be corrupt or wrong or improper, only that there are people who will try to use the Trump Organization to gain influence or make money. We need to protect the public interest from that.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/15/2016 @ 8:43 amWhat better time to set up rules like this than when the GOP is in control?
Someday it will be a Democratic President like the Clintons with their Clinton Foundation. We need rules that are already in place to protect us from them.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/15/2016 @ 8:46 amyes yes the secret service needs a complete overhaul
those people are of poor character and questionable comeptence
happyfeet (a037ad) — 11/15/2016 @ 8:49 am*competence* i mean
happyfeet (a037ad) — 11/15/2016 @ 8:49 amFigure out whatever rules we would have wanted applied to the Clinton Foundation and apply them to Trump.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/15/2016 @ 8:52 amAnd future Presidents.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/15/2016 @ 8:53 am@DRJ:There are a lot of creative people in and out of government that will look for ways to get benefits.
Always was true and always will be true. There is nothing constructive suggested here. Every President has owned something the value of which might be affected by that President’s decisions. Maybe the sales and value of books already written, if nothing else.
Even the patricians with nothing but investments parked in a blind trust–the assets in that blind trust will be affected by government decisions.
Maybe we should limit the Presidency to people incapable of ever working or owning anything, I guess they’d be the only ones we could trust. Bums and landed gentry, I guess.
We need to protect the public interest from that.
Actually you are trying to protect the public interest from the possibility of that ever happening, and only to this President. The level of protection you demand is impossible. Everything you said here applies to the Bushes and the Obamas as much is it does Trump.
Who, I will say for like the fiftieth time, has not even been elected yet.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/15/2016 @ 8:55 am@DRJ:Figure out whatever rules we would have wanted applied to the Clinton Foundation
The rules would also have to not have prevented Reagan or the Bushes or Obama from serving. Or FDR for that matter.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/15/2016 @ 8:57 amI wonder how many government conferences were scheduled at Trump properties in the past, and whether that will change in the future?
If it does change, is that because Trump is ordering it, or the bureaucrats 6 levels under him think it a good way to curry favor?
Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/15/2016 @ 8:58 am@Kevin M:If it does change, is that because Trump is ordering it, or the bureaucrats 6 levels under him think it a good way to curry favor?
Since, as SWC already pointed out, Trump would lose money on government conferences, that would be a good way to get fired, if any bureaucrat could get fired.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/15/2016 @ 9:00 amThe government conferences are notoriously “cheap” when it comes to the fringe benefits of a conference. No big dinner functions or hosted cocktail parties. The attendees are pretty much on their own in that regard.
You can buy a government employee a cup of coffee, but probably not a grande mocha with two extra shots. The limit was about $5 last I looked.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/15/2016 @ 9:01 amAnd yet it happened, shipwreckedcrew. Creative people come up with creative ways to benefit from evading rules
People who have TS clearances (Clintons excepted) generally don’t eff with the rules. It’s not in them.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/15/2016 @ 9:03 amThe Trump Organization is a priate company
You transposed the i and r.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/15/2016 @ 9:05 amDRJ–In principle sunlight is always good, so yes. l am not sure who will make the new disclosure protocols you suggest– or enforce them, but I also know that the old “blind trust” concept does not work here and I am glad to see that you (unlike Leviticus) appear to understand that as well. Even though they were not particularly interested in delving into the bowels of the Clinton Foundation I do feel confident that the media will be very eager to keep an eye on Trump’s businesses to prevent any possible misadventures or misbehavior from occuring.
By the way, this summer I visited the Trump golf course facility in Ireland overlooking the Atlantic Ocean and Dough Mor beach, near the Cliffs of Moher. It is just amazing. I don’t play golf but the grounds and lunch were lovely. The Irish I spoke with seemed very proud and happy with the facility and several were quite interested in the American election because of Trump’s affiliation with the golf course and his large investment in Ireland.
elissa (ead691) — 11/15/2016 @ 9:13 am@elissa:The Irish I spoke with seemed very proud and happy with the facility and several were quite interested in the American election because of Trump’s affiliation with the golf course and his large investment in Ireland.
Best Trump election headline ever:
“Aberdeenshire business owner wins presidential election”
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/15/2016 @ 9:15 amWe should assume all these stories are false and made up by the media that is out to get Trump.
AZ Bob (f7a491) — 11/15/2016 @ 9:22 am@Az Bob:We should assume all these stories are false
I disagree. I think we should assume that the media sources poorly, leaves out critical content, is populated by people who know little of the outside world, and that these are especially true where they see partisan advantage.
Consequently, things should be checked out before we assume they are true and react to them.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/15/2016 @ 9:29 am“And future Presidents.”
– DRJ
We should be so lucky.
Leviticus (efada1) — 11/15/2016 @ 9:29 amelissa,
Why shut this down and not the Trump Organization? My guess is you believe Trump properties add value to the world and the CF doesn’t, or that it is so corrupt it should be shut down. If so, I agree in spirit, but the CF was founded after Bill’s Presidency and is as much (or more) his than Hillary’s.
On the other hand, the Trump Organization is all Trump’s. He is President and CEO. His children are vice-presidents — employees — who may someday inherit the company, but Trump has a way of threatening to disinherit family. There is no guarantee they will inherit anything and their current ownership interest is (to my knowledge) zero.
So you would shut down a family endeavor because one owner becomes president and leave another alone, even though the owner has left? Does that seem riht? In the real world, I submit the answer would be that Trump should have to sell the Trump Organization if he is not willing to put it into a blind trust. I am willing to look at more modern solutions, but trusting Trump (or any President, liberal or conservative) is not a valid choice to me.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/15/2016 @ 9:33 amAs said previously, if Trump has involved his children in the business and in his campaign, that makes them experienced and trusted advisors and assistants.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/15/2016 @ 9:34 amI understand the difficulties with “nepotism”, but I personally thought it was bad only if the person was not doing a good job. Don’t we all prefer to work with people we know we can count on from experience?
That said, the practical implications are pretty challenging,
I appreciate SWC’s perspective that they are already involved with the transition team.
Good one. I meant private but that is much funnier.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/15/2016 @ 9:35 amYeah, I’m sure that all the media who weren’t interested in asking why Saudi Arabia was dropping millions of coins into the Clinton Slot Machine will all of a sudden be screaming about how Eric Trump is comping Japan’s finance minister a continental breakfast (including a glass of orange juice!) at the Hotel’s restaurant. (LOL)
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 11/15/2016 @ 9:36 amTrump’s children are 1/4 of his transition team, MD. It was announced 3 days ago.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/15/2016 @ 9:37 amIt appears this is about getting even to most people here, not good ideas in governing. If they did it, we should be able to do it … because we won’t do it as bad.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/15/2016 @ 9:39 amThe evidence is that the Clinton foundation did little philanthropy and a lot of influence wielding and partying. If the CF had a good record of overhead to disbursements and got good things done, we would not worry about them.
If a government function was held in a Trump property with a competitive rate and a good value of service,
that wouldn’t bother me, frankly.
But those are necessary ifs that would need to be pretty clear,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/15/2016 @ 9:40 ambut even then I am sure there are laws with good intention.
@DRJ: If they did it, we should be able to do it
Can’t speak for everyone but I do not think this is an accurate characterization of what most of the people who disagree with you are saying. They are saying that this is not the same thing, and giving reasons why they are not.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/15/2016 @ 9:41 amDRJ,
Isn’t it fair to say that the Trump businesses are tangible businesses which provide identifiable goods and services whereas the Clinton Foundation merely accepts donations?
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 11/15/2016 @ 9:42 amMD,
Once you start comparing value to make your decision, then you legitimize Lois Lerner running off the Tea Party organizations. Government can’t be run based on someone’s subjective idea that one entity adds value but another one doesn’t.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/15/2016 @ 9:44 amCruz Supporter,
My last comment applies to you, too. Pick and choose at your peril.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/15/2016 @ 9:45 amThe way to attack the Clinton Foundation is to require it and other entities to provide information about their financings — donations, overhead, costs, and disbursements — and disclose how much of the money given actually goes to good works. Disclosure works in most cases. It gives us the information that lets people decide.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/15/2016 @ 9:48 amThat’s why Wikileaks hurt Hillary so much. It’s also why government emails are supposed to be archived on government servers, and why Hillary didn’t do it. It’s all about disclosure.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/15/2016 @ 9:50 amDRJ–Yes I believe the Clinton Foundation is corrupt and needs to be shut down and that its money laundering operation during the time the ex-president’s wife was Secretary of State and was subsequently running for president has been shown to have been exceptionally egregious. If you do not automatically see all the inherent differences between the Clinton “Charitable” Foundation and the Trump businesses even as he assumes the presidency I really don’t know what to tell you.
elissa (ead691) — 11/15/2016 @ 9:52 am117. Jonah Goldberg said the Clinton Foundation did some genuine philantrophy – but that was a cost of doing business, overhead like the electric bill, and the purpose of the Clinton Foundation was to keep Bill and Hillary Clinton in circulation and employ lots of Clinton retainers.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441518/clinton-inc-scandal-money-access-charity-afterthought
That was posted on Friday October 28, 2016 12:00 AM, a week and a half before the election. He spoke (or wrote) too soon.
I’m also not sure they really did anything worthwhile at all. Jonah Goldberg may be assuming too much here.
Sammy Finkelman (db3b66) — 11/15/2016 @ 9:52 amYou beat me to it, DRJ.
I am not a corporate or organizational person. If I needed to hire somebody for job x, and it was my decision, and I thought my brother or a child of mine was perfect for it, I would want to do it and people would see that they are qualified,
as opposed to someone who is a relative of a friend or owed a favor and everyone can tell the person is a “post turtle”, as I understand that they say down there in Texas.
But I imagine it doesn’t work that way.
The way I imagine it “works” often,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/15/2016 @ 9:53 amWhich really doesn’t,
is you get somebody who is an “expert” to tell you what to do,
when they don’t know beans.
At least that is the way I have usually seen it done in the medical field,
some non-doctor telling doctors how to do their job.
“The evidence is that the Clinton foundation did little philanthropy and a lot of influence wielding and partying.”
The “evidence” that no one ever bothers to compile or present, oddly enough.
Leviticus (efada1) — 11/15/2016 @ 9:57 amI think we are in agreement,
WikiLeaks hurt Clinton because there was a lot of “there” there.
Hacking Palin didn’t hurt her much because there was nothing to see.
If the facts on clear display show that something is legit,
then I figure it is legit.
If official hoops are jumped through, but everything is obscured,
then I don’t care if the details supposedly follow protocol or not.
The world is a challenging place.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/15/2016 @ 9:58 amWhat bothers me about these discussions is posts like this one by Jazz Shaw at Hot Air. Like here, discussions and even criticism of Trump now and during the general election are seen as petty and disloyal.
It’s like Bush 43’s “You’re either with us or you’re against us” in the War on Terror. Now we are the enemies for wanting to talk about things instead of accept them on blind faith.
I think discussions can lead to better decisions. I hope Trump and his advisers talk about things candidly, instead of trying to be loyal above all, but I have my doubts. Blindly trusting Trump or any President is not why I read blogs.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/15/2016 @ 10:00 amI would much prefer Trump family members to be vetted and read in, the sooner the better. They provide a needed counterpoint to Trump’s courtiers and aid his decision making process. I don’t know if the process of assembling an administration, for which he is completely unprepared and unfitted, can be smoothed into a semblance of competence but I do believe he needs the presence of his family as an aid to gross error mitigation.
Rick Ballard (bca473) — 11/15/2016 @ 10:02 amFWIW, I have no problem with Bush 43 saying it was time for the world to choose sides, but I have a big problem with telling blog commenters to shut up and choose sides about Trump or any President.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/15/2016 @ 10:02 amI have seen things like evaluations by forensic accountants.
Now, whether it was true or not I don’t have info to verify.
If they have a defendable outfit I would expect that they would be happy to share some details.
Do you really think they have a legitimate operation and we are just badmouthing them,
Or did you reflexively react to a conservative claim?
Not trying to be too obnoxious, but I haven’t even heard the MSM actually defend the foundation.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/15/2016 @ 10:03 amRick,
Good point, especially Jared Kushner who seems to be the family’s voice of reason.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/15/2016 @ 10:03 amWhich world foundations and businesses should be shut down and which ones should be allowed to continue? How do you decide?
DRJ (15874d) — 11/15/2016 @ 10:06 amOh, by no means assume anything of Trump doing the right thing!!!!
I never assumed he did anything right before,
why would I start now?
I am just saying that on the surface it seems reasonable for him to want his adult children approved and cleared to be involved,
as he has already looked to them to be his advisors,
I must admit, though,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/15/2016 @ 10:08 amIt will look a little strange
If he appoints
Baron as sec of the treasury,
or head of the IRS…
That would be a bit much.
@DRJ: I have a big problem with telling blog commenters to shut up and choose sides about Trump or any President.
I don’t see anyone here telling you this. I see people telling you that you are wrong about something.
Which world foundations and businesses should be shut down and which ones should be allowed to continue? How do you decide?
Charities laundering bribes and spending the vast majority of their money on the living expenses of the family members, and the salaries of their cronies, are probably a good place to start.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/15/2016 @ 10:11 amMD,
I doubt the Clinton Foundation is operating to do good, and what little information has been released suggests it doesn’t do much good for anyone outside the Clinton orbit. But that isn’t my point. My point is that we need to make rules that apply to everyone, whether they are named Clinton or Trump or whatever.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/15/2016 @ 10:11 amDRJ,
Sorry for the confusion,
That comment was to Leviticus in response to him.
No, your desire to see the rule of law and people treated consistently is fine.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/15/2016 @ 10:17 amSpecifically, I don’t know what the line should be,
But 85% of income allocated out with evidence of projects happily completed sounds pretty good, to pick a number,
And less than 50% with projects being uncompleted sounds pretty dubious.
The specifics and the cut off I am unsure of,
But the general principle looks clear.
@DRJ:My point is that we need to make rules that apply to everyone, whether they are named Clinton or Trump or whatever.
But they can’t be so restrictive that no one is allowed to hold office, and they can’t be so restrictive that they would retroactively invalidate all past presidencies.
Why don’t you throw out a list of what you think a President should be allowed to own while serving office?
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/15/2016 @ 10:18 amDRJ,
It will take a bit for the brand damage to Trump Org. to become fully evident. I suspect influence accusations against DeutscheBank when loan renegotiation becomes necessary to be a bigger story than any changes in group booking arrangements.
Rick Ballard (bca473) — 11/15/2016 @ 10:24 ampeople are so mean on Mr. Trump like it’s the cool thing to do but
it’s not cool at all
it’s pooper
happyfeet (a037ad) — 11/15/2016 @ 10:29 amI addressed this above. In the old days, anything a President owned either was divested or went into a blind trust but I said I am willing to look at more modern solutions that involve disclosure.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/15/2016 @ 10:34 am“It will take a bit for the brand damage to Trump Org. to become fully evident.”
Time is moving at a higher than expected velocity.
Rick Ballard (bca473) — 11/15/2016 @ 10:37 amIf we had elected a former homeless guy like Bernie Sanders to become President, we wouldn’t have to worry about any conflicts of interest. He doesn’t own anything, and he has no interest in seeing business make money! (LOL)
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 11/15/2016 @ 10:37 amThose are the kind of comments that sound like SHUT UP to me. That and BINARY CHOICE.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/15/2016 @ 10:44 am“Do you really think they have a legitimate operation and we are just badmouthing them,
Or did you reflexively react to a conservative claim?”
– MD in Philly
That’s a fair question. I think (based on my sense of the Clintons and based on the sources from which it accepts money) that the Clinton Foundation is a pretty shady operation – but this isn’t evidence, and I have not seen evidence of the kind of “pay-to-play” dynamics that everyone seems to take for granted re: the Clintons.
Similarly (and this is more in line with DRJ’s point), I think the Trump Organization is a pretty shady operation, based on my sense of Trump and on the company’s double-dealing, contract breaching, and bankruptcy manipulation – but this isn’t evidence either (until the Trump U suit goes to trial, of course!).
What would be nice is some consistency in our treatment of the Shady Operations that we’ve seemingly allowed to sit on the shoulder of our once-and-future
KingsExecutives.We have reason to believe that the Clinton Foundation is shady? Fine. But we absolutely also have reason to believe that the Trump Organization is shady too, and everybody’s brushing off that concern as though it were not legitimate.
Leviticus (efada1) — 11/15/2016 @ 10:46 am@DRJ:I addressed this above.
Not with any detail. Ok, Trump puts the whole thing in a “blind trust” tomorrow.
His name is still on stuff, people trying to curry favor with him might still patronize those businesses. Should he, or the blind trust, be made to remove his name from things?
Who’s going to run that blind trust, and how will we keep newspapers away from that person so they can’t take advantage of Trump’s decisions and increase his wealth.
Should he have to divest it? To whom, and how will you insure that person pays a “fair” price instead of trying to influence Trump with an inflated price?
And then what may Trump be allowed to do with that money he got from the Trump organization? Another blind trust? Then how will keep that blind trust honest?
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/15/2016 @ 10:54 amBlind trusts are great for patricians who live off their investments, but not so great for an active business that needs to have decisions made all the time.
Is the Presidency to limited only to patricians and people who own nothing and run nothing and work for no one?
Then it seems like we should have a kind of profession–let’s invent a word, politician–who does nothing but politics full time for their career.
Shouldn’t have too many conflicts of interests then. A new age of clean government dawns!
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/15/2016 @ 10:57 amUntil now, it’s been up to the President-elect to choose between divestment and a blind trust for his business interests. Trump is choosing to keep his business (not divest) and to use family members to run his business outright (no blind trust). It’s those decisions that make him putting his family on his transition team so problematic, and that will be even more troublesome if they continue to advise him as President — as they likely will.
Some people want to wait and see what happens. Fine, especially if they don’t really care what Trump and his businesses do. My guess is most also feel like the Democrats do the same thing so why should we come down hard on a Republican, and that’s understandable. But I see this as a good time to address something that will continue to happen.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/15/2016 @ 11:12 amTrump could divest or use a blind trust, or some combination of those choices for various business interests. His unusual decision and his desire to have his family advise him is why this is an issue.
Like Rick, I think it’s good for his family to stay involved. I also understand why he would not want a blind trust or divestment for a brand-centric business. But there are downsides to public service and this one means he has to make choices doesn’t like and is obviously resisting.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/15/2016 @ 11:16 amLeviticus,
Thank you for a respectful response to my question.
I think I have made it clear that I am no fan of Trump’s, and if a scandal erupts such that he never takes office and Pence is sworn in as president that is just fine with me.
I do think, however, that there is a significant difference between being a cabinet level federal official getting an apparent cover-up by the DOJ, and a private citizen, that no matter how rich and how lawyered up, is still on the opposite side of the fence of the DOJ and FBI.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/15/2016 @ 11:23 amLikewise, I think there is a difference if one is a scoundrel on one’s own time, or at the expense of the country.
From what I have heard directly claimed, complete with quotes from specific named individuals, the Clinton backed housing effort in Haiti was a real fiasco. As I said, I heard of one named forensic accountant who said there were all kinds of problems just based on what little information was publicly available. But as I also said, I have no way of knowing whether that was a valid statement or not, but it wasn’t just a claim from a pro-Trump pundit.
It’s been reported that in his meeting with Obama, Trump didn’t seem to realize how time-consuming it is to be President. That may be Obama using the media to spin but it isn’t helpful to Obama to say that if he wants Trump to trust him, unless it’s true.
If so, then Trump may have felt he could be President and run his businesses using his children as surrogates. Even the most ardent Trump supporters must admit it sounds like him, since he thinks he is the Superman of business leaders. When you own a business like this and you are a man like Trump, it would be very hard to turn it over to someone else. Even and perhaps especially to your children.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/15/2016 @ 11:31 amthe pig had no idea how time-consuming it was to *run* for president
poor piggy
she plum tuckered
happyfeet (a037ad) — 11/15/2016 @ 11:35 amDRJ,
It’s a political decision by Trump which appears to ignore the difference between campaigning and governance. Clinton has reaped the political reward for running Clinton Inc. as SoS and Trump may well be surprised at the political (not to mention economic) cost of failure to separate cleanly from Trump Org.
I suppose I could imagine a regulation which might appear to prevent self-dealing, I just can’t imagine the absence of people capable of at least attempting the evasion of the regulation. I believe I’d rather watch a political contest (or series of contests) which exact the full price for ethical, moral and political miscalculations rather than legal and court proceedings.
Rick Ballard (bca473) — 11/15/2016 @ 11:43 amThe orihginal meeting with Obama (which was originally supposed to be a meeting of Obama with Hillary) was scheduled for 15 minutes but lasted 90 minutes and it is reported Trump or Obama or both didn’t want to stop talking but they were pulled apart by their schedules.
Basically Trump was getting a briefing from Obama, probably mostly on current problems, and it was being done in a very non-hostile manner.
This is actually the only way Trump learns thinga: Talking to people. And going over and opver the subject.
They talked about a variety of things, including foreign policy (the Middle East) and Obama also put in a pitch for Obamacare or retaining some elements of it.
They are scheduling additional meetings and Obama is going to spend much more time with Trump than he originally planned to.
There is a claim that Trumpp didn’t know he had to appoint a White House staff – it’s more likely that is its size now.
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 11/15/2016 @ 11:45 amUm. When will we move away from HF’s weirdo obsession with HRC? I mean, she is done.
On the other hand, like some troll Brokeback Mountain, he can’t help but make frequent pervy comments about Romney, four years after the fact.
It’s just tiring to read the crap, over and over again.
Sort of a Troll Without a Cause.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 11/15/2016 @ 11:55 amBarron may be under age. But is Tiffany risky–or risque?
“Darling, why are we suddenly staying in the Bridal Suite at the Whyte House?” – Tiffany Case [Jill St. John] ‘Diamonds Are Forever’ – 1971
DCSCA (797bc0) — 11/15/2016 @ 11:57 amMD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/15/2016 @ 11:23 am
Chelsea Clinton was shocked at what was going on when she visited Haiti.
,
I thought that was from Wikileaks dump of the hacking of John Podesta’s Gmail account but it seems like it was known before. It is in the emails Hillary released September a year ago. Chelsea didn’t want it forwarded, without asking her permission, and she was apparently talking about the entire haitian relief effort.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/kyleblaine/chelsea-clinton-wrote-bill-and-hillary-about-being-profoundl
But apparently that wasn’t enough to stop it.
The people picked for contracts were “friends of Bill”
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/friends-bill-state-dept-attention-haiti-relief-article-1.2827361
That is from a Freedom of Information request lawsuit won by the Republican National Committee – an apparently new or relatively new Hillary person at the State Department slipped up and asked via state.gov email if she could get alist of who was a Friend of Bill – she knew most of them but not all – so she would know who to gove special prefeernce to. Now note this is friends of Bill, not specifically Clinton foundation donors. the relationship is more long term than that,
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 11/15/2016 @ 12:04 pmTrump has got multi-million dollar real estate arrangements in Azerbaijan and Uruguay, according to the New york times.
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 11/15/2016 @ 12:15 pm157. Tiff is the weak link – too West Coast and might have recent Prince Harry dating habits.
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 11/15/2016 @ 12:30 pmMay you help disabled people in Israel?
assaf benyamini (e28543) — 11/15/2016 @ 12:45 pmassaf benyamini.
*1)my email addresses: 029547403@walla.co.il or: a815962@gmail.com or: hgf32urkw@gmail.com or: assaf197254@yahoo.co.il
2)my postal address: 115/4 costa rica street, qiriat menahem neighborhood, Jerusalem, ISRAEL, zip: 9662592.
3)my phone numbers: at home-972-2-6427757. cellular-972-52-4575172.
4)social-workers I am connected to: dorit argo-972-52-5596500. or: naomi harpaz-972-54-4661758. or: tal-972-50-5656457.
5)my first language is Hebrew(עברית).
This is so rich! From the WaPo… “ATHENS — President Obama warned Tuesday that Americans and people around the world “are going to have to guard against a rise in a crude sort of nationalism, or ethnic identity, or tribalism” taking root amid the populist movements that are gaining currency around the world.”
Colonel Haiku (32652f) — 11/15/2016 @ 12:58 pmugh
pervy Mitt Romney tried to do a slurpy egg mcmuffin all up in it
our poor little country’s still reeling from the substantive ripple effects of the protest vote he engineered
and we may never even know why he done it
that’s the scariest part
happyfeet (a037ad) — 11/15/2016 @ 1:39 pmTroll Without a Cause…
Sounds like a Monty Python reunion movie
In the building across the parking lot from the argument clinic
A 12 step self help group…
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/15/2016 @ 2:12 pm#162 Colonel Haiku, if only Barack would let peace begin with him by guarding against a rise in rioters in the streets, whose tribalist instincts result in breaking windows and chanting, ‘Not my President!’ (LOL)
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 11/15/2016 @ 2:13 pmMost career politicos turn my stomach. They are exactly the people we should want out of politics. I’ll take Ivanka, her husband Kushner, and the other Trump kids over Chris Christie and his ilk any day. Aren’t the Trump kids exactly the kind of people we want by the President’s side?
So today we’re going to fret about a few extra hotel stays at Trump properties now that he’s the president? You people have way too much time on your hands.
ThOR (c9324e) — 11/15/2016 @ 2:40 pmISIS is threatening the Macy’s Thanksgiving Parade, China’s making hay before the sun sets on Barack’s rule, Iran is non-compliant, illegals are pouring across the border, downtown Portland is on fire, and left wing creeps are camped out in North Dakota.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 11/15/2016 @ 2:53 pmThere’s a lot to worry about.
whose butt hurts?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/11/15/paul-ryan-wins-re-election-house-speaker/93899284/
nk (dbc370) — 11/15/2016 @ 2:54 pmI’m late to these comments – but – just a thought …
In the current political climate, with gotcha-folk trying to find *any* way to get at President-Elect Trump, in his shoes, I would probably want my immediate family to have Top Secret clearance so that dinner-table conversation couldn’t get them easily prosecuted by the same sort of folk what prosecuted Senator Stevens or Tom DeLay or any of the other conservatives subjected to malicious prosecutions …
alastor (2e7f9f) — 11/15/2016 @ 3:30 pmKelly Anne Conway said on Fox this morning that the security clearance matter was an informal inquiry.
In other news: Rudolph Giuiiani was not intereted in being Attorney General 9which we knew) but he can probably get the job of Secretary of State if he is willing to take it. If not, it may likely go to Josh Bolton.
Ben Carson has turned down a Cabinet position.
Former House Intelligence chief Mike Rogers, who left Congress after the 2014 electon to become a talk radio show host, was in general advising the Trump tranistion team on national security issues has left the tranistion – no idea as to why he was dismissed or replaced or what it means.
Matthew Freedman, a former business associate of Paul Manafort, who is also alobbyist for foreogn governments, and who had been in charge of coordinating Mr. Trump’s calls to world leaders after his election, (Trump spoke to Egypt’s Sisi right away, and he has spoken to Netanyahu and Putin and the leader of China) is also gone.
Senaor Jeff Sessions was earlier rumored for Secretary of Defense, now ihe is being mentioned for Attorney General – it was said befre he could have his pick of Cabinet positions.
The official paperwork legally setting up a transition staff has been postponed, because Christie was replaced as chief by Mike Pence. The document must be signed by the chairman of the transition operation or his designee, and it includes a mutual nondisclosure agreement for both sides, although I don’t know why they really need it, which is maybe why it hasn’t been signed.
It would also say members of the president-elect’s team do not divulge information about the inner workings of the government that they learn during the transition period, and that the president’s aides do not reveal anything they may discover about the incoming administration’s plans. Tere’s a statute that says what it says, and it needs to be signed to get money and federal employees assigned or something.
Sammy Finkelman (db3b66) — 11/15/2016 @ 3:36 pmNow there is an issue of Ivanka Trump wearing an extremely expensive gold necklace, which she is in the business of selling (many copies of – for $10,000 a piece) on 60 Minutes and then advertising that this was seen on 60 Minutes.
Sammy Finkelman (db3b66) — 11/15/2016 @ 3:42 pmBinge Beating:
Christie Kreemed. Purge. Coffee. Repeat.
“You are seduced and abandoned, over and over and over again.” – Alec Baldwin, ‘Seduced and Abandoned’ – 2013
DCSCA (797bc0) — 11/15/2016 @ 3:50 pmThe unanimous vote today for the Speaker is a very nice touch in establishing solidarity in setting the agenda for Congress for the new session. It will be interesting to see how McConnell and Ryan coordinate their priorities going forward.
Rick Ballard (bca473) — 11/15/2016 @ 5:07 pm#170 Sammy,
I think you meant to say “John” Bolton for Secretary of State.
Josh Bolten (sic) is a different person who served Bush 43.
John Bolton would be fantastic for Secretary of State. That’s his wheelhouse. He’s an encyclopedia, a philosopher, and a negotiator all rolled into one.
I like Giuliani, but I’d think he’s suited to be more of a Homeland Security guy. His company does security.
By the way, the reason Mike Rogers was gently pushed out is because he was perceived as a Christie loyalist.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 11/15/2016 @ 5:47 pmMike Rogers was one of those of concern who was eased out.
narciso (d1f714) — 11/15/2016 @ 5:48 pmIf Pete Rose is added to the transition team, I’d be very very afraid to be Chris Christie.
urbanleftbehind (6eb88b) — 11/15/2016 @ 6:10 pmHappyfeet will be happy to hear of this. When folks are in crisis he’s always hopefully and helpfully asking, “where dem pups?!
http://www.rollcall.com/news/hoh/the-morning-after-therapy-dogs-cheer-up-election-crazed-hill-
elissa (ead691) — 11/15/2016 @ 6:14 pmstaffers
The transition team’s “welled oiled case of grenades with the pins pulled” shtick is hopefully just preliminary theater. I think the move on Pelosi as Minority Leader may be real. That would leave Schumer as the face of the opposition in January until the new Minority Leader becomes familiar, with Ellison potentially the new face of the DNC. I think Schumer and Ellison will be almost as delightful to watch as Pelosi and Reid.
Rick Ballard (bca473) — 11/15/2016 @ 6:31 pmTed Cruz had an in person meeting with Donald Trump at Trump Tower today.
elissa (ead691) — 11/15/2016 @ 6:41 pmGiven CBS News tenuous relation with the truth and eagerness to alter the outcome of elections my money is on the story being bucksnort.
See: Fake Audi story.
About politics See: Fake TANG documents.
If they lie once they can’t be trusted.
J P Cass (5a4596) — 11/15/2016 @ 7:21 pmI have a post which mentions Ted Cruz’s meeting.
By the way, the security clearances were requested. I have a post coming in an hour about it. In the meantime, here is the link to the news article. They’re blaming it on a “low-level staffer.”
Patterico (115b1f) — 11/15/2016 @ 7:33 pmUPDATE x2: The Trump campaign has now admitted the request for security clearances for the kids was made. They are blaming a low-level staffer and claiming Trump didn’t know. Translation: they got caught and knifed a sacrificial lamb.
Patterico (115b1f) — 11/15/2016 @ 7:37 pmLooks like they were right about the clearances being requested.
As to who was behind it . . . probably your thoughts on that depend on how cynical you are about Trump.
Me, I’m plenty cynical.
Patterico (115b1f) — 11/15/2016 @ 7:39 pmActually there’s no actual proof yet.
narciso (d1f714) — 11/15/2016 @ 7:54 pmThe memo is sourced, the request is not.
narciso (d1f714) — 11/15/2016 @ 7:57 pmPatterico, I have no doubt that the White House will be super skeevy and low class with DJT in charge.
Still, I am wondering what the press would think about HRC trying to get Chelsea a security clearance. I’m almost certain the MSM would be in lockstep it would be no big deal.
It’s a nightmare, regardless.
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/porn-stars-donald-trump/2933543
#DumpsterFirePresidency
Simon Jester (c63397) — 11/15/2016 @ 7:58 pmAll class.
Simon Jester (c63397) — 11/15/2016 @ 8:01 pmI’m sure Republicans would go ballistic. Even if Chelsea were not running Bill and Hillary’s for-profit business.
Patterico (115b1f) — 11/15/2016 @ 8:22 pmI have to admit, it’s hilarious listening to the left freak out over the RACISMS and all that.
Patterico (115b1f) — 11/15/2016 @ 8:26 pmWhat I enjoy most—except that most LIVs don’t keep track—is this.
Slate as of four years ago.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/11/defending_the_electoral_college.html
Slate the other day.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/11/11/the_electoral_college_is_an_instrument_of_white_supremacy_and_sexism.html
There is a word similar to “hypotenuse” in the dictionary that applies. Sigh.
Simon Jester (c63397) — 11/15/2016 @ 8:50 pmMaybe not Chelsea, but I am willing to bet that Hillary had a clearance while Bill was President.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/16/2016 @ 12:03 ampuppy power!!!
happyfeet (28a91b) — 11/16/2016 @ 4:20 amFor happyfeet:
What Trump adviser said this?
DRJ (15874d) — 11/16/2016 @ 5:19 amyes yes yes prosperity is the heart of it
prosperity is the sine qua non of a classically liberal america
albeit
it’s what gave food stampers the luxury of their yummy food stamps
it’s what gave social cons the luxury of their petty bigotries
so many failmericans have have lost the ability to distinguish between necessities and luxuries
but not Mr. Bannon
but not President Trump
and it is so good
it is so good
praise jesus america has hope again
happyfeet (28a91b) — 11/16/2016 @ 5:33 am
happyfeet (28a91b) — 11/16/2016 @ 5:34 amhave(ugh ugh i wrote the same word twice in a row)It’s not just prosperity. It’s Judeo-Christian values and prosperity from capitalism based on those values, according to Bannon. He says we can’t have success without both. Plus Pence has ejected the lobbyists.
Trump will have my support with words and actions like these.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/16/2016 @ 6:05 amvalues are frosting but prosperity’s the cake
happyfeet (28a91b) — 11/16/2016 @ 6:09 amMe, I’m plenty cynical.
Patterico (115b1f) — 11/15/2016 @ 7:39 pm
Me, I’ll take a wait n’ see attitude, see who he surrounds himself with and see what he does during the first 6 months.
Colonel Haiku (32652f) — 11/16/2016 @ 6:13 amNot according to Bannon. You didn’t read the link, did you?
DRJ (15874d) — 11/16/2016 @ 6:37 amHeh, DRJ. Don’t you know happyfeet by now? 😉
Dostoyevsky: “First fill their bellies, then teach them virtue.”
nk (dbc370) — 11/16/2016 @ 6:46 amhappyfeet: “a tasty fish taco with sriracha, hold the virtue”
Touche’ and funny, too.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/16/2016 @ 6:49 amI guess there’s a reason I took a course on Dostoyevsky in college,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/16/2016 @ 7:00 amand not on feets.
Therein drj is why they really despise Bannon.
narciso (d1f714) — 11/16/2016 @ 7:35 amDRJ,
I’m sure when Mnuchin gets Treasury part of the reason will be Bannon’s appreciation of another Goldman-Sachs alumni shared experience. Bannon’s MBA from Harvard Business School surely made him appreciate the importance of common background, even if Mnuchin was educated at Yale rather than Harvard.
Rick Ballard (bca473) — 11/16/2016 @ 7:46 amRealistically, I doubt this will make me a Trump supporter. First, it was Pence and not Trump who ejected the lobbyists. The Trump Administration will gladly accept lobbyists, not only because that is how Trump operates but also because they need all the manpower they can get.
Second, and unfortunately, Bannon doesn’t seem to have the Christian values he talks about. He may be one of those con men like Trump that adopts a personal for his audience. Maybe that’s why the like each other.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/16/2016 @ 7:55 amPersona, not personal.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/16/2016 @ 7:55 amPatterico (115b1f) — 11/15/2016 @ 7:39 pm
Probably indeed a low level staffer, or, as Kellyanne Conway put it on Fox yesterday morning, an informal inquiry.
But there is someone they did seriously request it for: Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump’s husband and Donald Trump’s son-in-law. Donald Trump wanted to attend the President’s Daily Briefing, which started yesterday or the day before. Trump also had General Michael Flynn with him. Donald Trump probably needs Kushner to explain to him what he was just told – (Donald Trump will not reveal ignorance) – and for that he needs somebody he trusts – and he also needs to chew over and discuss what he was told with a few people.
Sammy Finkelman (db3b66) — 11/16/2016 @ 8:07 am* Donald Trumo wantsed or had Jared Kushner attend the President’s Daily brief with him, and another person there is General Mike Flynn. If Mike Flynn hangs around, then logically he might wind up as the National Security Adviser.
Sammy Finkelman (db3b66) — 11/16/2016 @ 8:10 amImagine you are the head of a foreign company seeking a deal with a hotel chain. The logical competitors end up being Marriott International and the Trump Organization.
Why not Hilton Interntional? Oh, right. RedState is headered w/Marriott ads. If you’re going to shill, at least say so.
“Never give a sucker an even break or smarten up a chump.” – WC Fields
DCSCA (797bc0) — 11/16/2016 @ 12:54 pmOn the matter of a President who is also business owner, oh the horror. Perhaps he should divest himself of all of his worldly possessions, dress himself in sack and grind ashes into his face. Seems a suitable punishment for winning the election. The ethical guidelines are quite clear; should he not follow them, then let him hang. But of course, you just somehow *know* that shenanigans will be afoot. Hell, Trump might be the only living politician in America who will leave the office poorer than he came to office. Might want to give it a bit of time before you sic the forensic accountants on him just yet.
As for requesting clearances for his children, they all seem fairly interconnected – in business, and now politics, it appears to be a family affair. I know not his motive for asking for such a thing, but it is not routine, and in this case might well lead some to believe that the family is one huge conflict of interest. Thus, unless he chooses one of his children to be a part of his political inner circle, and that child is wholly separated from the workings of Trump’s business interests, this was not a very well thought out idea.
And this will be an ongoing concern for the entirety of Trump’s term in office. He would do well to build a firewall between his former profession and his new position. If he does not, and there is even a whiff of impropriety, life will not be very fun for him or his family. Special prosecutor, anyone? And the DOJ would be entirely justified in appointing such.
Estarcarus (cd97e1) — 11/16/2016 @ 2:15 pmThere are legitimate issues with Trump refusing to put his company’s assets in a blind trust. (He is not required to liquidate, although the WSJ suggested it.) We don’t need another President who thinks “I won” is justification for whatever he wants to do.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/19/2016 @ 7:04 am