Patterico's Pontifications

I HATES THIS GUY ON ACCOUNT OF HE IS CRITICIZING TRUMP

Patterico (115b1f) — 1/12/2017 @ 9:55 pm

Emoluments clause applies to a good portion of President Trumps nominees, but that’s because those nominees serve in the House of Representatives.

They’ll have to take it on a case by case basis whether they voted their new cabinet position a pay raise or not, just like anybody else.

papertiger (c8116c) — 1/12/2017 @ 10:04 pm

The guy makes some very good points. I listened to his whole statement and it’s was very compelling.

Too bad he’s wasting his breath. Trump doesn’t care about ethics and neither do his supporters. They’ll defend him no matter what. We are about to see that in microcosm here, momentarily.

Patterico (c32ea2) — 1/12/2017 @ 10:12 pm

That OGE dude is whack.

papertiger (c8116c) — 1/12/2017 @ 10:14 pm

He should at least hold Trump to the same strict standards upheld by Hillary Clinton.

AZ Bob (f7a491) — 1/12/2017 @ 10:16 pm

How about Barack Obama?

Patterico (c32ea2) — 1/12/2017 @ 10:18 pm

Trump Ethics.

It is funny.

If he makes America great again, it won’t matter.

If he makes America grate again, best keep a ‘President Pence’ bumper sticker in the glove compartment. Just in case.

“Be Prepared!”- Tom Lehrer

DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/12/2017 @ 10:32 pm

So SPQR has chosen to reject my emailed apology for snarking, and make clear in no uncertain terms that he is writing me off forever.

If any other people whom I considered to be long-term, solid friends would like to also tell me they are done with me for life, now is apparently a good time for it.

Maybe that will help me abandon the thought that you can actually befriend people through the internet. Relationships I thought strong were apparently so fragile as to be non-existent. My bad!

Patterico (c32ea2) — 1/12/2017 @ 10:54 pm

What a fantastic and enjoyable night this has been. It’s so wonderful to have a blog!

Patterico (c32ea2) — 1/12/2017 @ 10:55 pm

Sure, on the one hand you get sued and swatted. But on the other hand, look at the friends you make! Or, think you make, only to have them write you off over nothing!

Patterico (c32ea2) — 1/12/2017 @ 10:56 pm

Whose standard was that guy talking about?

Point me to the clause in the constitution about divesting the President of his fortunes?

Console yourselves with those billions as insurance against let’s say Haliburton or Soros turning the President’s head with a back channel stocking stuffer.

papertiger (c8116c) — 1/12/2017 @ 11:02 pm

I’m not going anywhere, (you probably wish I would sometimes though).

papertiger (c8116c) — 1/12/2017 @ 11:05 pm

Nah, I like you, papertiger.

Patterico (c32ea2) — 1/12/2017 @ 11:19 pm

He’s probably the only federal bureaucrat who wants Trump to do more.

In general, I’m with the guy. I’m hoping Trump will do more, lots more.

ThOR (c9324e) — 1/12/2017 @ 11:40 pm

I have said since before Trump was nominated that he has enormous conflicts of interests. And, of course, he does.

I am, however, far more concerned on some of them than I am on others. The foreign ones concern me the most.

However… total divestiture of all his properties is just not practical, or for that matter, possible. Many of these are very complex deals, which are darn hard to unwind. And in many cases, commercial real estate sales of that magnitude take years. There’s also the issue of his brand, itself worth well over a billion. It’s simply not possible for him to divest of that – not unless he forgets what his name is.

That’s not to say there’s not more he can do, there is, but total divestiture and a blind trust just aren’t possible in his case, a fact that’s been known all along (and part of why he wasn’t my preference in the primaries).

Arizona CJ (191c8a) — 1/12/2017 @ 11:47 pm

Tillerson is a lukewarmer. Maybe the only one on Trump’s team.

By my eyes his dogma is informed by the same affliction common among most corporate oil.
They see limited regulation of carbon correctly as a gate keeping out pesky upstart direct competition.

I fear that in the compacity as secretary of state he will serve as a resparator, keeping the global warming movement alive until we are cursed with another Democrat administration.

I hope he gets Borked.

papertiger (c8116c) — 1/13/2017 @ 12:08 am

Trump could change his brand over to a symbol, like Prince. That way nobody would know they were staying in his hotel.

Or how about the Chris Gaines Plaza Hotel?

And I thought that emoluments were what they put in Dawn dishwashing liquid.

Pinandpuller (1bb5a4) — 1/13/2017 @ 12:16 am

So I guess only old money can run for office in America.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/13/2017 @ 12:21 am

Nothing is quite as “ethical” as a Trust Baby. The problem is what we consider ethical. Would George Washington have passed muster before our modern day ethics scolds? If not, what underlying premise is faulty?

Just to be clear, I’m not defending Trump. I am attacking the very notion that I would allow somebody else to tell me what is ethical. It is worth discussing, but a bureaucrat is not the sort of person I would consider an authority. Certainly, I would not give such a functionary points because they happen to have put the title “Office of Government Ethics” on their box in the organization chart. Nor would I gave such a person any credit because he asserts he is “nonpartisan”, nor am I impressed by his “career” as an ethics scold.

Indeed, Mr. Schaub’s principle criteria seems to be how much an individual will lose by taking a government office. He was quite pleased that Tillerson will lose millions of dollars. What could be more reassuring that this individual will behave ethically?

The real problem is that what passes as “ethics” has been defined by laws written by Congress. Congress and “ethics” exist on different planes in this universe. Like corrupted software that allows a hacker to gain control through a hidden backdoor, anything Congress approves will be carefully designed to sound comprehensive, and nonpartisan, but if you believe this to be the case it just means you haven’t really figured out what this particular piece of legislation will really do. Mr. Schaub’s real job is to provide cover as these jackalopes stash their loot in the freezer of their office refrigerator. As we have seen.

BobStewartatHome (c24491) — 1/13/2017 @ 1:15 am

Ouch, Patterico. FWIW, you’re a thoughtful wag; a good egg and an engaging read.

I, for one, don’t take any of the discourse, snarky or otherwise, personally. Snark can be appreciated– especially if it’s witty. The give and take is in the character of the dialogue in this medium. It’s healthy to exchange views even in disagreement.

A few threads back you noted this was a labor of love for you. Sometimes love has to be taken unconditionally. It’s been a lousy election cycle– for everyone.

Okay, now tell me to get stuffed.

“I’ve been reamed by experts, Senator.” – Jiggs Casey [Kirk Douglas] ‘Seven Days In May’ 1963

DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/13/2017 @ 2:29 am

If any other people whom I considered to be long-term, solid friends would like to also tell me they are done with me for life, now is apparently a good time for it.

I adore you, Patterico. Even when I’m not around.

MayBee (a7822d) — 1/13/2017 @ 5:20 am

When I was in Law School, one of my professors advised us that, in reading “ancient” documents, we must make sure what the writer meant in using a term – he pointed out that, over time, some words or terms take on different meanings. Emoluments is such a term. No one, from the president to the lowest federal employee, need worry about legitimate business intrests in other countries need worry – after all, who did you think brought the crops that Washington raised?

Michael Keohane (947544) — 1/13/2017 @ 5:24 am

I’m not happy about Trump’s conflicts of interest. I don’t have an answer.
I also don’t see a way around it. I don’t want it to be that only career politicians can be president. And even then, politicians (and presidents) seem to leave office much richer than they went in.
Obama is about to become a very rich man. I don’t think he was motivated as president to increase his wealth, especially not with foreign actors. But then, his foreign policy is a disaster.

MayBee (a7822d) — 1/13/2017 @ 5:26 am

He was appointed for a 500 contribution in 2013, so he had nothing to do with geithner.

narciso (d1f714) — 1/13/2017 @ 5:42 am

Shaub is career bureaucrat. He was there under Clinton and GW too.

nk (dbc370) — 1/13/2017 @ 6:04 am

But, for him anyway, Napoleon’s caution is apropos (that’s French): “Do not forbid that which you do not have the power to prevent.” There’s nothing he can do about it now, and he won’t be the one advising Trump on a case-by-case basis when conflicts arise. Trump will have his own person for that.

nk (dbc370) — 1/13/2017 @ 6:07 am

*possible conflicts*

nk (dbc370) — 1/13/2017 @ 6:08 am

BTW, wasn’t one of the selling points for Trump that he would be under close scrutiny unlike a Democratic President? Well, he’s being scrutinied.

nk (dbc370) — 1/13/2017 @ 6:10 am

And he says it in a thinktank awash with Qatari loot, which of course looks askance at the threat of radical Islam.

narciso (d1f714) — 1/13/2017 @ 6:13 am

BTW, wasn’t one of the selling points for Trump that he would be under close scrutiny unlike a Democratic President? Well, he’s being scrutinied.

Indeed! I assume the people who made that argument are all for the scrutiny. Oddly enough, their pro-scrutiny attitude is not much in evidence in this thread. So weird, and unpredictable!

Patterico (c32ea2) — 1/13/2017 @ 6:25 am

So I guess only old money can run for office in America.

So I guess you forgot Trump is old money.

I understand polls show most people think he is a self-made man. His lies work well. ‘Murica.

Patterico (c32ea2) — 1/13/2017 @ 6:27 am

Through at least Monday I shall not post any new content here. Each day I will post that Donald Trump is awesome. That is what people here want to read, and I will give the readers what they want. My actual thoughts will be at RedState.

Patterico (c32ea2) — 1/13/2017 @ 6:29 am

Burning strawmen with a flame thrower. The sorry is who put the dossier together and why,

narciso (d1f714) — 1/13/2017 @ 6:35 am

@Patterico:Through at least Monday I shall not post any new content here. Each day I will post that Donald Trump is awesome. That is what people here want to read, and I will give the readers what they want. My actual thoughts will be at RedState.

Trolling your own blog is probably not the solution.

It is not true that your commenters only want to hear that Trump is awesome. If you actually believe this, then things are not going to get better.

Speaking for myself, I like to hear factually based criticism of Trump that is not just the same thing that the mainstream media is peddling this week based on criminal leaks and then they go on to the next thing (LL Bean, is the next one).

For example, on the divestment issue, many of your long-term commenters who agree with you about Trump are saying the same thing that I’m saying, the same thing the pro-Trump commenters are saying, about why there is no solution that is going to satisfy all possible ethics concerns.

And you’re not really engaging with that, just declaring it all predictable, and in my case you said something very nasty and untrue.

Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/13/2017 @ 6:40 am

More on the OGE’s Shaub.

Folks have a “Get Even” mentality and they see Trump as the man who will finally make that happen.

DRJ (15874d) — 1/13/2017 @ 6:41 am

It’s your blog. You choose what you serve, not the customers.

DRJ (15874d) — 1/13/2017 @ 6:43 am

In the last three years did $chaub render an

narciso (d1f714) — 1/13/2017 @ 6:46 am

On second thought, I will post at least the crowd-pleasers, and this morning’s is a crowd pleaser because I am slamming Ibama supporters.

Maybe I’ll change my mind. As DRJ notes, it is my blog, after all.

Patterico (c32ea2) — 1/13/2017 @ 6:49 am

and in my case you said something very nasty and untrue.

I am not re-arguing the Trump conflict thing, which I have engaged with in the past, but what did I say about you that was nasty and untrue?

Patterico (c32ea2) — 1/13/2017 @ 6:50 am

Speaking of scrutiny, last night I was listening to a clip of Kamala Harris grilling Mike Pompeo about global warming.

Kamala Harris is what you get when Sheila Jackson Lee falls out of a Maxine Waters tree and hits every branch on the way down.

Pinandpuller (70a330) — 1/13/2017 @ 6:52 am

@Patterico:As DRJ notes, it is my blog, after all.

It is and I hope you can find some time to think about what you want it to be.

You have never wanted it to be a cheering section, and you’ve always encouraged argument and differing points of view.

Whatever it takes to stop making posting here a chore for you, I hope you will do.

Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/13/2017 @ 6:53 am

Remember the times picayune and the new jersey papers of okeefe

narciso (d1f714) — 1/13/2017 @ 6:54 am

@Patterico:what did I say about you that was nasty and untrue?

It’s here.

It is very unlike my usual interaction with you. I don’t mention it because I want an apology or anything, but because I think it is a symptom of your unhappiness with this blog lately.

Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/13/2017 @ 6:57 am

You are fighting an imaginary battle.
To give you two quotes,
“He’s criticizing Trump. Swarm him.”
“Each day I will post that Donald Trump is awesome. That is what people here want to read.”

I don’t remember anyone saying don’t criticize Trump.
If anything we have said that there is so much to criticize Trump for that it gets old,
especially when you start your posts like this, or with a challenge/dare to find a way to defend him

What I said that I had always liked about this blog was the careful evaluation of something like SWC did on the previous thread.
He did us a great service, as far as I can tell.
My point was simply that I would not expect you or anyone to bother doing that, because when we are talking about leaks from Intel sources based on dubious information,
I don’t think it is usually worth our time,
unless we have a reason to go against the flow, like trying to undermine the attempts to delegitimize Trump’s presidency.

Some of us think it is sort of delegitimate anyway and we need to hope for the best.

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/13/2017 @ 7:05 am

Patterico, don’t get your nose out of joint, you’re still ‘the man’ around here. True, you’ve been dead wrong about Trump from day one, but everyone’s subject to a total eclipse of the brain from time to time. Yours just happens to be one heck of a whopper.

So, best regards from one of your oldest internet friends, and thanks for maintaining the best blog ever, warts and all.

PS: I”m not going anywhere.

ropelight (19a16e) — 1/13/2017 @ 7:09 am

i wonder what uglybutt Walter thinks of public employee unions

ethics lol

happyfeet (28a91b) — 1/13/2017 @ 7:17 am

Thanks, ropelight. I happen to think I was dead right about Trump. I was just wrong about how 10,000 people or so would vote in a small handful of Midwestern states. But I never pretended to be an expert on that.

Patterico (115b1f) — 1/13/2017 @ 7:23 am

I don’t think it is usually worth our time,
unless we have a reason to go against the flow, like trying to undermine the attempts to delegitimize Trump’s presidency.

I feel no impulse to try to undermine such an attempt, unless the attempt is BS, in which case I will. But if a factual attempt to undermine him comes along, why would I care?

Patterico (115b1f) — 1/13/2017 @ 7:25 am

When you’re on point, patterico, you’re very good, volodya bears watching he van be useful in some areas like north Africa, there’s a certain irony there.

narciso (d1f714) — 1/13/2017 @ 7:25 am

I think it’s high time we reined in the executive. I’d say that no matter who is in office.

Patterico (115b1f) — 1/13/2017 @ 7:26 am

Gabriel, your link is empty. Can you post it again?

Patterico (115b1f) — 1/13/2017 @ 7:27 am

I would never in seventy billion hundred years figured Mr. Donald would pick these splendid nominees (except for poopy retread Elaine Chao who adds no value to anything in America)

would you have figured on this Mr. P?

I sure didn’t!

it’s very exciting – all these new faces coming in with true grit and determination for to help make America great again

whatever I can do to help you guys just let me know except for Elaine

happyfeet (28a91b) — 1/13/2017 @ 7:30 am

“I think it’s high time we reined in the executive. I’d say that no matter who is in office.”

– Patterico

Right? Is this such a difficult notion for a bunch of purported conservatives to grasp?

Leviticus (efada1) — 1/13/2017 @ 7:33 am

Mr. Trump has nominated dozens of people dedicated to rolling back administrative over-reach

he’s very clear-eyed about what needs to be done

amd so handsome too (bonus)

happyfeet (28a91b) — 1/13/2017 @ 7:35 am

Aw fer …. Would you want to look at Mattis’s picklepuss every morning? I hope Trump keeps Monica to avoid an overload of ugly in the Oval Office. Not to mention senility. Like the control rods in nuclear reactors.

nk (dbc370) — 1/13/2017 @ 7:35 am

oops *and* so handsome too i mean

happyfeet (28a91b) — 1/13/2017 @ 7:36 am

The executive has certain defined functions, it was in some document It was over a hundred years old though.

narciso (d1f714) — 1/13/2017 @ 7:37 am

R.I.P. William Peter Blatty, author/screenwriter best known for The Exorcist

Ice (59f53e) — 1/13/2017 @ 7:40 am

Maybe that will help me abandon the thought that you can actually befriend people through the internet. Relationships I thought strong were apparently so fragile as to be non-existent. My bad!

Patterico

I’m still a big fan, Patterico, and would say friend. We’re going through dark times for politics and particularly for the right. Either one has no real soul or one finds the hypocrisy and intensely stupid partisanship to be unpleasant. There’s no going along with it. But this is just internet stuff. It’s not activism and it doesn’t matter. Comment discussion on a blog is recreation. Unpleasant tedious recreation isn’t.

Dustin (ba94b2) — 1/13/2017 @ 8:03 am

@Patterico: link

But the comment itself, as I said, is not the point.

Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 1/13/2017 @ 8:04 am

@Leviticus: Is this such a difficult notion for a bunch of purported conservatives to grasp?

No straw man is safe. Pretty much everyone here wants a restrained executive. That some of us can see that in this case, what is demanded of Trump is literally impossible to comply with unless a few thousand people are forced to lose a few billion dollars does not mean that we are hailing him as our Fuehrer.

Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 1/13/2017 @ 8:06 am

Its been a week sin e ft lauderdale, but appatentky the dealt narrative has been in effect.

narciso (d1f714) — 1/13/2017 @ 8:08 am

No surprise, Gabriel complains about being called out for his predictable shilling… as though he hasn’t been legitimately called out for trolling via dishonestly paraphrasing several respected commenters here for months.

Tedious.

Dustin (ba94b2) — 1/13/2017 @ 8:08 am

Yes he has on occasion but when the intelligence community, has been trolling us, with pathetic product that wouldn’t fit up to middle school standards

narciso (d1f714) — 1/13/2017 @ 8:12 am

@Dustin: Gabriel complains about being called out for his predictable shilling

See my note to Leviticus on strawmen. If you think I have been shilling for Trump, you haven’t been reading my comments. Even in the last three days I have been critical of Trump.

dishonestly paraphrasing several respected commenters here

That which is offered without evidence, may be refuted without evidence.

I respect you for having the integrity to say you preferred Hillary. What you say here does not take away from that.

Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 1/13/2017 @ 8:17 am

That is not how commas work.

Dustin (ba94b2) — 1/13/2017 @ 8:17 am

That last was for Narciso.

Gabriel, I definitely wasn’t talking to you and am not concerned in the slightest with your response. Integrity is all you’ve got online and therefore there’s really no reason to skip over a comment once it’s clear (quickly) that you wrote it.

Dustin (ba94b2) — 1/13/2017 @ 8:18 am

@Dustin:Gabriel, I definitely wasn’t talking to you and am not concerned in the slightest with your response.

Refuted by your own response. If weren’t concerned you’d have posted nothing.

Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 1/13/2017 @ 8:19 am

Well its carp all of it. Meanwhile Obama feels free to follow up another secret compact Ben Rhodes conjured up in havana, last month.

narciso (d1f714) — 1/13/2017 @ 8:20 am

I think that should matter at least as much, as this other garbage

narciso (d1f714) — 1/13/2017 @ 8:24 am

I think you’re talking about who attends some funeral. I guess that matters, but it doesn’t matter very much.

Dustin (ba94b2) — 1/13/2017 @ 8:38 am

No Dustin its about slamming a door on 50 years of cleat passage from that island gulag, three guesses why he did it.

narciso (d1f714) — 1/13/2017 @ 8:43 am

I’m sorry, man. I don’t know what ‘cleat passage’ is. I’m (non-sarcastically) sure you are making an interesting yet obscure point and if I put the effort in I would enjoy what I learned, but I work nights and I am tired. I want to give you an A for effort.

Dustin (ba94b2) — 1/13/2017 @ 8:49 am

“cleat passage” is what teh SF 49er defense has been providing the rest of the NFL for years now.

Colonel Haiku (6c3d91) — 1/13/2017 @ 8:55 am

Refuted by your own response. If weren’t concerned you’d have posted nothing.

Gabriel Hanna

‘Oh, someone is talking about me being a jackass, therefore they provably care what I think!’

Terrible. You work here is done.

Dustin (ba94b2) — 1/13/2017 @ 8:55 am

@Dustin:Terrible. You work here is done.

You can’t even refrain from mischaracterizing comments on the same page.

This is more of that courtesy in a long-standing community that Leviticus and our other curiously selective tone police go on about.

Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 1/13/2017 @ 8:58 am

It’s “clear passage”. Gotta be. R is next to T on the keyboard. I was too tired to figure it out. Oh wait. I’m still not able to figure it out. Just like old times!

Dustin (ba94b2) — 1/13/2017 @ 9:00 am

Lola, coronello, autocorrect is useless, I thought the 50 yrs was the clue and I’m not talking star trek,

narciso (d1f714) — 1/13/2017 @ 9:04 am

I think it’s high time we reined in the executive. I’d say that no matter who is in office.

Patterico (115b1f) — 1/13/2017 @ 7:26 am

It’s time to reign in the entire federal government, not just the last chief executive.

Wickard must be overturned.

Right Leviticus?

NJRob (371291) — 1/13/2017 @ 9:06 am

Next*

NJRob (371291) — 1/13/2017 @ 9:08 am

Our host remains utterly consistent in standing on principle in spite of the push back he has received. He has not wavered, nor changed his mind about his beliefs, and made logical arguments to support his views-even if he knew that would cost him readers . In that, he has remained true to himself and his core values of conservatism. No matter the price. You may not agree with those views, but I am sure we can all agree that there is honor in being consistent with one’s values and beliefs, no matter the cost.

And, at the very least, should we not also expect that from our president-to-be as well?

Dana (7d5ce0) — 1/13/2017 @ 9:10 am

narciso, what’s the reaction down there in FL vis a vis Barack’s eleventh hour hit job on Cuban immigrants?

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/13/2017 @ 9:14 am

@Dana:I am sure we can all agree that there is honor in being consistent with one’s values and beliefs, no matter the cost.

I don’t think lack of integrity has ever been the issue.

This is:

Trump doesn’t care about ethics and neither do his supporters. They’ll defend him no matter what. We are about to see that in microcosm here, momentarily.

Putting a large section of your commenters in the basket of deplorables in advance of what they actually say.

Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 1/13/2017 @ 9:17 am

“We need the Office of Government Ethics to act ethically. Ironically, that’s not what they’re doing.”

– Rep. Jason Chaffetz

Just another Trump stooge.

ThOR (c9324e) — 1/13/2017 @ 9:24 am

Wickard must be overturned.

Yes. If we amended the constitution to draw a line through the commerce clause and require a balanced budget (and defined budget) the country would be saved in a lot of ways.

there is honor in being consistent with one’s values and beliefs, no matter the cost.

Honor yes. And the host has his. Politicians who are consistent and honorable no matter the political cost are going to lose these days.

Dustin (ba94b2) — 1/13/2017 @ 9:26 am

Most of us want you to climb back in from that limb, Pat.

ThOR (c9324e) — 1/13/2017 @ 9:36 am

This. In spades.

Politicians who are consistent and honorable no matter the political cost are going to lose these days.

Dana (b461c1) — 1/13/2017 @ 9:38 am

I can’t wait for my new L.L. Bean shirt to arrive.

ThOR (c9324e) — 1/13/2017 @ 9:48 am

So last year, Herr schaub made excuses for red queen’s failure to disclose.

narciso (d1f714) — 1/13/2017 @ 9:52 am

Politicians who are consistent and honorable no matter the political cost are . . .

1.) An a-historical fiction;

2.) as rare as hen’s teeth;

3.) What the GOPe is all about;

4.) Born every minute.

ThOR (c9324e) — 1/13/2017 @ 9:53 am

@ThOR:I can’t wait for my new L.L. Bean shirt to arrive.

Did you get one of those Trump ties?

Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 1/13/2017 @ 10:11 am

@ThOR::I can’t wait for my new L.L. Bean shirt to arrive.

I’m saving my money for a Shinola watch:

“The president said Wednesday he already owned a Shinola watch before his visit and was there to buy a journal. Nevertheless, he repeatedly mentioned his watch to reporters.”

Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 1/13/2017 @ 10:16 am

L.L. Bean is overpriced. I got this great genuine sheepskin shearling hat from Turkey as a Christmas present and welcoming cold days so I can wear it.

nk (dbc370) — 1/13/2017 @ 10:20 am

”fess up, you nailed that sheep.

Colonel Haiku (6c3d91) — 1/13/2017 @ 10:23 am

Well said, Dana and Dustin. Patterico is an honorable man.

I respect that he sticks to his principles and that you, Leviticus, and nk (and probably JD) have stood by him. We don’t always agree on everything, nor should we, but I’m glad we agree on that.

DRJ (15874d) — 1/13/2017 @ 10:23 am

Yes, he is a, ThOR. I’m glad you admit it.

DRJ (15874d) — 1/13/2017 @ 10:25 am

There was Aristides. There was Cato the Younger. Can we call George Washington a politician?

nk (dbc370) — 1/13/2017 @ 10:28 am

I don’t think he’s dishonorable; I think he’s wrong and has backed himself into a corner.

ThOR (c9324e) — 1/13/2017 @ 10:30 am

Chicks dig guys who wear L.L. Bean. Or maybe my little pixie always just tells me that so I’ll be encouraged to continue to buy her stuff from them when I’m placing my order!

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/13/2017 @ 10:33 am

Chaffetz, not Patterico. But it’s good to know both.

DRJ (15874d) — 1/13/2017 @ 10:39 am

You say that Cruz Supporter but I just ordered a jazzy pair of red high heel ankle boots from the “Ivanka Trump Collection” at Neiman Marcus for Valentine’s Day. Hot red with the IT logo on the upper just to bust balls.

Rev. Hoagie® (785e38) — 1/13/2017 @ 10:40 am

I forgot to mention before you smart asses jump in, they’re for my wife.

Rev. Hoagie® (785e38) — 1/13/2017 @ 10:41 am

The forecast for inauguration day in DC is for it to be in the 60s. Which suggests that Barack failed to stop global warming.

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/13/2017 @ 10:42 am

“Wickard must be overturned. Right Leviticus?”

– NJRob

Wickard is a ridiculous opinion and I would have no problem with it being overturned.

Leviticus (efada1) — 1/13/2017 @ 10:42 am

I find our host perfectly honorable, but I don’t trust Mr. Schaub.,,

narciso (d1f714) — 1/13/2017 @ 10:42 am

“This is more of that courtesy in a long-standing community that Leviticus and our other curiously selective tone police go on about.”

– Gabriel Hanna

It is, actually. It just doesn’t involve you, because you have not demonstrated the symmetry, reciprocity, or reflexivity necessary to demonstrate that you are here in good faith. You see that list that DRJ made? That’s the core of the long-standing community I’m talking about, along with aphrael, MayBee, machinist, and plenty of others (including Hoagie and Steve57, as much as they sometimes frustrate me). All that the past months of discord have done is illuminate the fragile nature of the periphery.

Leviticus (efada1) — 1/13/2017 @ 10:51 am

Rev Hoagie, I hope that pair of boots is for your lady. (LOL)

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/13/2017 @ 10:52 am

Seems appropriate…

https://youtu.be/YP2KDUiBI-E

Colonel Haiku (6c3d91) — 1/13/2017 @ 11:01 am

papertiger @2.

Emoluments clause applies to a good portion of President Trumps nominees, but that’s because those nominees serve in the House of Representatives.

They’ll have to take it on a case by case basis whether they voted their new cabinet position a pay raise or not, just like anybody else.

That’s a different clause: Article I, section 6, clause 2. The one that also applies to the president is Article 1, Section 9, clause 8.

The word emoluments or emoluments appears in both of them. From the earlier one, it is clear that “emolument” means some kind of a payment or maybe a privilege. (especially, salaries, stipends or pensions)

Some people, mostly Democrats, are trying to make it appear that an emolument is the acceptance of money for any reason whatsover, including fair market value sales.

Sammy Finkelman (1a8d7e) — 1/13/2017 @ 11:08 am

papertiger @11 Soros lost $1 billion after the election betting that the stock market would fall, or perhaps I should say, trying to force the stock market to drop.

Sammy Finkelman (1a8d7e) — 1/13/2017 @ 11:10 am

18. Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/13/2017 @ 12:21 am

So I guess only old money can run for office in America.

Nelson Rockefeller, whose case, when he was nominated for Vice President, is cited as precdent, had a minor share in a much bigger family business, which at that point was mostly just passive investments. Michael Bloomberg as mayor or New York, is a better precedent, and Trump is said to have done something similar to what Michael Bloomberg did.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/10/the-future-of-donald-trumps-businesses.html

Using a blind trust was an issue when Michael Bloomberg was elected mayor of New York in 2001. Despite pressure to do so, Bloomberg did not put his 72 percent ownership interest of Bloomberg L.P. into a blind trust. But the city’s Conflict of Interest Board ruled that Bloomberg had to recuse himself from daily decision-making at the company although it allowed him to be part of any talks about selling the media and data empire.

http://www.cnn.com/1.318.2/static/unsupp.html

Sammy Finkelman (1a8d7e) — 1/13/2017 @ 11:17 am

I meant it in the soap context.

They could all use a good wash.

In the global warming wars it was discovered that the more conspicuous a person was about their virtue signalling their ethics, the more likely that person would be to clean out the cash in a found wallet, or ding a car by setting their shopping cart astray without a note.

papertiger (c8116c) — 1/13/2017 @ 11:19 am

#108 Colonel, how appropriate!
You think he’ll clink the link?

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/13/2017 @ 11:26 am

11 Soros lost $1 billion after the election betting that the stock market would fall, or perhaps I should say, trying to force the stock market to drop.

Sammy Finkelman

Yeah. I heard that’s the way he made most of his money, betting on misery then using campaign donations and the like to ensure it comes to pass.

Still kind of fuzzy on how it works, but glad to hear he lost that bet.

papertiger (c8116c) — 1/13/2017 @ 11:27 am

113… don’t much care, CS. That link is for others who’ve grown weary of the tediously trite posturing, virtue signaling and unadulterated asshattery.

Colonel Haiku (6c3d91) — 1/13/2017 @ 11:46 am

Call it “the Sermon of teh Mounted”.

Colonel Haiku (6c3d91) — 1/13/2017 @ 11:47 am

Short selling.

nk (dbc370) — 1/13/2017 @ 11:48 am

papertiger @114

but glad to hear he lost that bet.

He still has another $29 billion or so.

One reason he does is that he knows when to cut his losses.

Sammy Finkelman (1a8d7e) — 1/13/2017 @ 11:52 am

narciso (d1f714) — 1/13/2017 @ 8:20 am

Meanwhile Obama feels free to follow up another secret compact Ben Rhodes conjured up in havana, last month.

Obama just ended, effective immediately, the instant amnesty for Cubans, as “liberals” were clamoring for him to do. People from Cuba will now be eligible for deportation. And you thought nothing in immigration policy would change till January 20. One more less problem for Donald Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/world/americas/cuba-obama-wet-foot-dry-foot-policy.html

Sammy Finkelman (1a8d7e) — 1/13/2017 @ 12:03 pm

Emoluments – That does sound like a soap.

The phosphate clause of the Constitution?

I’m soaking in it.

papertiger (c8116c) — 1/13/2017 @ 12:04 pm

Michelle Fields: ‘Don’t Treat Trump As A Serious Candidate’

brilliant and insightful

happyfeet (28a91b) — 1/13/2017 @ 12:06 pm

Michael Keohane (947544) — 1/13/2017 @ 5:24 am

he pointed out that, over time, some words or terms take on different meanings.

There’s one term taht changed between 1986 and 1992: “out-of-the loop”

In 1986 it meant out of the chain of command. By 1992, when George Bush was accused of being a liar because he had saaid he was out-of-the-loop on the sale of arms to Iran, it meant without access to knowledge, and that seems to be its continuing meaning.

Emoluments is such a term. No one, from the president to the lowest federal employee, need worry about legitimate business intrests in other countries need worry – after all, who did you think bought the crops that Washington raised?

Shipowners or middlemen. Emoluments or emolument is used twice in the constitution and one of the times it is used, it had to mean money or the equivalent.

Sammy Finkelman (1a8d7e) — 1/13/2017 @ 12:10 pm

@Sammy Finkelman: it had to mean money or the equivalent.

Hence Wilkins Micawber’s desire for “pecuniary emoluments”, as opposed to some other kind.

Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 1/13/2017 @ 12:21 pm

I wish I was soaking in it then.

papertiger (c8116c) — 1/13/2017 @ 12:54 pm

This guy is a partisan Democrat who had no problem with Clinton’s shenanigans, so his opinion of Trump’s arrangements does not interest me at all, and I’m surprised it interests you.

Milhouse (40ca7b) — 1/13/2017 @ 1:15 pm

I’ve been busy elsewhere lately and not checked on this site, but seriously, Patterico, do you believe that rich people shouldn’t run for president?! Or that they should have to give up their fortunes to do so?! I can’t believe you would say that. True ethics are not about not having opportunities for corruption, but about not being corrupt. Whether Trump will do so is yet to be seen, and like you I have no illusions about his character, but expecting him to dump his empire and destroy so much value just to check off some goo-goo boxes is insane. I think in terms of technical arrangements he’s gone far beyond what he could be expected to do. Now we’ll see how he handles the temptations that will come his way.

Milhouse (40ca7b) — 1/13/2017 @ 1:20 pm

Emoluments clause applies to a good portion of President Trumps nominees, but that’s because those nominees serve in the House of Representatives.

They’ll have to take it on a case by case basis whether they voted their new cabinet position a pay raise or not, just like anybody else.

Um, how is that even remotely related to the clause, which forbids officers of the USA from taking emoluments from foreign governments? In any case, it doesn’t apply to congressmen or to the president; it only applies to people appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate.

Milhouse (40ca7b) — 1/13/2017 @ 1:22 pm

1. I listened to the first five minutes, and realized I spent 23 years in the federal government listening to moronic lectures like this from people who considered themselves my “betters”.

2. Its irrelevant because an incoming President has no obligations under the law to render himself free of conflicts.

The only “Vetting” of a President’s fitness to enter the office is the general election on the 2nd Tuesday of November. After that there is nothing he’s required to do except take the oath of office.

The imposition of any further obligation on the person entering the Office of the Presidency is extra-constitutional, and therefor unconstitutional.

Whether Mr. Shaub thinks that’s true or not interests me not one bit.

Mr. Shaub’s efforts here remind me of the TSA guys who tell people in line they must discard their liquid containers greater than 2 oz in size or they’ll be denied entry into the airport.

Does he really think its the proper role of the Director of OGE to tell the incoming President of the US that — “Hey, public service sometimes comes at a cost. I know you’ve earned a lot of money, and built a lot of shit around the world, but if you really want to be President, you need to sell all that and give your money to someone else to hold for you.”

If I were Trump today, I’ll tempted to send him a quick note saying. “Thanks for the advice. Fuck off.”

Trump is subject to the vagaries of public opinion for his actions with regard to his ethical safeguards. He’s subject to the constitutional remedy of impeachment available to Congress if they deem his actions sufficiently egregious.

But the President is not subject to the Gate Keeper that Mr. Shaub thinks himself and his office to be.

I don’t think the plan Trump has announced is the best solution. He’s going to be criticized for it, but he seems ready to accept the criticism and fire back.

Mr. Shaub should stick to the proper role of his office, which is to insure that appointed officials are in compliance with the statute which clearly applies to them.

But it doesn’t apply to the Pres. and Shaub should keep his mount shut on the topic.

shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 1/13/2017 @ 1:22 pm

Ethics theater – good for a couple news cycles.

We should all trust partisan Democrats as arbiters of acceptable ethics.

ThOR (c9324e) — 1/13/2017 @ 1:23 pm

This is all part of the lefts businessmen can’t be trusted but government stooges can mantra. Cause businessmen as we know murdered 200 million people in the last century, not government guys. Or the Wal-Mart SWAT teams that kick in your door when you fail to pay your annual tribute on April 15th. Yeah, etics.

Rev. Hoagie® (785e38) — 1/13/2017 @ 1:29 pm

milhouse has spoken, dammit!

Colonel Haiku (6c3d91) — 1/13/2017 @ 1:38 pm

#126 Milhouse & #129 Rev. H

Precisely.

ThOR (c9324e) — 1/13/2017 @ 1:39 pm

125… Bingo!

Colonel Haiku (6c3d91) — 1/13/2017 @ 1:40 pm

This is all part of the lefts businessmen can’t be trusted but government stooges can mantra.

Exactly — that’s the essence of the goo-goo mentality.

Milhouse (40ca7b) — 1/13/2017 @ 1:41 pm

This is how an ethical businessman answers a government bureaucrat:

Recently, Oregon ranchers Larry and Amanda Anderson received a letter by the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife asking for permission to survey their land in order to track a nearly endangered species. The letter requested use of the landowners’ creek to document the amphibian life represented, specifically the foothill yellow-legged frog which is noted to have recently declined in population. If the Anderson’s agreed to give the department access, they were ensured as being responsible for “the conservation of this important species.”

But the Andersons weren’t exactly interested and noticed an opportunity to turn the tables on the request and apply a little “Golden Rule” justice, or at least doing unto the government as is so often done unto them.

The Andersons constructed one of the best come-back letters of all time. The only way to truly appreciate it is to read it in its entirety:

Dear Mr. Niemela:

Thank you for your inquiry regarding accessing our property to survey for the yellow-legged frog. We may be able to help you out with this matter.

We have divided our 2.26 acres into 75 equal survey units with a draw tag for each unit. Application fees are only $8.00 per unit after you purchase the “Frog Survey License” ($120.00 resident / $180.00 Non-Resident). You will also need to obtain a “Frog Habitat” parking permit ($10.00 per vehicle). You will also need an “Invasive Species” stamp ($15.00 for the first vehicle and $5.00 for each add’l vehicle) You will also want to register at the Check Station to have your vehicle inspected for non-native plant life prior to entering our property. There is also a Day Use fee, $5.00 per vehicle.

If you are successful in the Draw you will be notified two weeks in advance so you can make necessary plans and purchase your “Creek Habitat” stamp. ($18.00 Resident / $140.00 Non-Resident). Survey units open between 8am and 3pm but you cannot commence survey until 9am and must cease all survey activity by 1pm.

Survey Gear can only include a net with a 2″ diameter made of 100% organic cotton netting with no longer than an 18″ handle, non-weighted and no deeper than 6′ from net frame to bottom of net. Handles can only be made of BPA-free plastics or wooden handles. After 1pm you can use a net with a 3″ diameter if you purchase the “Frog Net Endorsement” ($75.00 Resident / $250 Non-Resident). Any frogs captured that are released will need to be released with an approved release device back into the environment unharmed.

As of June 1, we are offering draw tags for our “Premium Survey” units and application is again only $8.00 per application. However, all fees can be waived if you can verify Native Indian Tribal rights and status.

You will also need to provide evidence of successful completion of “Frog Surveys and You” comprehensive course on frog identification, safe handling practices, and self-defense strategies for frog attacks. This course is offered online through an accredited program for a nominal fee of $750.00.

Please let us know if we can be of assistance to you. Otherwise, we decline your access to our property but appreciate your inquiry.

Sincerely,Larry & Amanda Anderson

Rev. Hoagie® (785e38) — 1/13/2017 @ 1:41 pm

So I guess you forgot Trump is old money.

No, coupon clippers like the Bushes are old money. Cabots and Lodges. But people who actually WORK at earning their fortune with ongoing operations that they can’t just turn over to bankers have a problem serving in this rule-bound government.

One of the reasons Trump won was the Democrats seem intent on porting these sclerotic rules to private enterprise, making everything as responsive and nimble as the federal government.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/13/2017 @ 6:05 pm

I wonder what Murray Rothbard would have said about government ethics laws.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/13/2017 @ 6:07 pm

Here’s the problem: the seemingly endless litany of breathlessly presented insubstantial and/or unsubstantiated criticisms of Trump have one and only one effect: they enable Trump and serve to discredit anyone voicing criticism, no matter how substantial. It is creating “Teflon Don,” yet it goes on and on and on. Doesn’t anyone notice that Trump parries the attacks with the growing facility that comes from daily practice? Why is this a lesson the media seems completely incapable of learning? It is a truly extraordinary thing to witness. And it pushes people into the Trump camp. Today, conservative blogs are awash with former Trump critics who now voice growing disgust for his critics. Is that the desired outcome?

With enemies like these, Trump doesn’t need friends.

ThOR (c9324e) — 1/13/2017 @ 6:35 pm

i’ll be your friend Mr. Trump

hey do you have a costco membership?

happyfeet (28a91b) — 1/13/2017 @ 6:48 pm

#134 Rev Hoagie, that is absolutely priceless!
Yay Larry & Amanda Anderson.

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/13/2017 @ 6:57 pm

“15. I have said since before Trump was nominated that he has enormous conflicts of interests. And, of course, he does.”

I’m just wondering, how can you bribe a multi-billionaire? Pay him $100,000 for a speech? Hell, his time is worth so much that he loses $500,000 every time he takes a crap.
Offer him a ride on your private jet? Um, he owns a 757 with gold-plated fixtures. And a couple of helicopters with gold ashtrays. He could TOW your airplane with his airplane.

A billion is 1000 million. If he’s worth $10 billion that’s 10,000 million.
So some Saudi prince pays, say, $5000 to rent a hotel room at Trump tower. That’s like offering 1 cent to a judge to throw a case.

Not saying that a multi-billionaire couldn’t be bribed — but how?? How much money would you have to offer him for him to care?

fred-2 (ce04f3) — 1/13/2017 @ 8:47 pm

“81. Our host remains utterly consistent in standing on principle in spite of the push back he has received. ”

Yes. And that principle would have President Hillary being sworn in next week. And have us still marvelling at how badly Ted Cruz got stomped in the election. Actually, how badly JEB Bush got stomped, because absent Trump the GOP would have give us JEB.

fred-2 (ce04f3) — 1/13/2017 @ 8:49 pm

as a person as a man as an American Mr. Tillerson is exponentially more accomplished and qualified to serve America than babydick rubio

it’s weird to see this little twerp passing judgment on someone so superior to him

happyfeet (28a91b) — 1/15/2017 @ 1:36 pm

More reason to be cautiously skeptical of the Government Ethics Office headed by a political appointee.

Director of the Office of Government Ethics Walter M. Shaub donated to President Obama before his appointment and defended Hillary Clinton’s decision to not disclose paid speeches to the Clinton Foundation while she was secretary of state.
…
“I need to talk about ethics today because the plan the president-elect has announced doesn’t meet the standards that ….every president in the past four decades has met,” he said. “My hope is that, if the Office of Government Ethics can provide some constructive feedback on his plan, he may choose to make adjustments that will resolve his conflicts of interest.”
“We can’t risk creating the perception that government leaders would use their official positions for profit,” Shaub said.

Shaub struck a different tone when testifying before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in December 2015, when he was asked about Secretary Clinton’s failure to disclose six-figure dollar speeches her husband gave to foreign governments and donors while they had interests before the State Department.

“The statute is a very long, very detailed statute,” he told Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah) when defending the speeches as allowed under ethics rules.

“Why don’t we pursue maximum disclosure of anything that could be potentially relevant or interesting to anyone? It’s simply because we’re a nation of laws and OGE is specifically regulated by an extremely detailed, highly prescriptive statute,” Shaub said. “Congress left us almost no discretion in terms of interpreting this statute. We apply it uniformly to everyone across the board.”

http://freebeacon.com/issues/head-ethics-office-obama-donor-concerned-trump-nominees/

elissa (7d8dcb) — 1/15/2017 @ 8:15 pm

1/12/2017

Head of Ethics Agency Says Trump’s Plan Won’t Address Conflicts of Interest

144 Responses to “Head of Ethics Agency Says Trump’s Plan Won’t Address Conflicts of Interest”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out