U.S. Politics

[blandy]

3 hours ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

Other side of the coin is that those who helped create and nurture an environment where these people are now the majority and can now mobilise to destroy any election or referendum are as guilty as anyone.  What did people think,  they were just going to sit there and take it for another 30 or 40 years ? 

It's a good point, (though slightly spoilt by the fact that they're not "the majority" and not anywhere close to being a majority). 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

What about ... the implications for TTIP?

TTIP, and particularly the way it was being drawn up, in semi secrecy and under the control of Big Corp. was a disgrace. Much of it would have been mildly beneficial in many ways, put small parts of it hugely harmful. Stopping it (it was already nigh on dead before Trump) was a very good thing, not just in itself, but also as a rejection of the way it was drawn up - the lack of democratic openness. I know we're legging it out of the EU, but I'd hope that any future trade agreement with the UK or EU would be done far more openly.

Trump's motives are wrong, but the end effect in this instance would have been for the best (if it weren't already a dead parrot).

[Awol]

14 minutes ago, blandy said:

TTIP, and particularly the way it was being drawn up, in semi secrecy and under the control of Big Corp. was a disgrace. Much of it would have been mildly beneficial in many ways, put small parts of it hugely harmful. Stopping it (it was already nigh on dead before Trump) was a very good thing, not just in itself, but also as a rejection of the way it was drawn up - the lack of democratic openness. I know we're legging it out of the EU, but I'd hope that any future trade agreement with the UK or EU would be done far more openly.

Trump's motives are wrong, but the end effect in this instance would have been for the best (if it weren't already a dead parrot).

Agree with much of that, although with Clinton in charge I think great efforts would have been made to save TTIP.  

TTIP will be next on the chopping block following Trump's rejection of TPP (which of the two was much closer to ratification), clearing the decks for a much more basic & transaction bilateral deal between the UK and US - once we are clear of the EU.

Simply making the point that for the UK the election of Trump may be a good thing & it's ok to acknowledge that without needing to shower afterwards.

[blandy]

Just now, Awol said:

Simply making the point that for the UK the election of Trump may be a good thing & it's ok to acknowledge that without needing to shower afterwards.

Yeah, It's possible it'll be a good thing, though I suspect not, but not all aspects will end up bad. Hopefully. this TTIP thing is an example of a notionally positive consequence. I'm not counting on it though.

[mjmooney]

I'm calling this now - he isn't going to survive four years as president. Probably not assassination (although it's possible), but he'll be removed from office, one way or another, probably by forces within the Republican Party. "Ill health", perhaps, but they'll find a way. The man is utterly incapable of doing the job. Of course, the prospect of Pence stepping in is hardly a reassuring thought, but it'll happen. 

[Brumerican]

I think we are about to see what would happen if a football fan  was given the England managers job .

[chrisp65]

We ridicule football club owners for being twitter weirdos.

[peterms]

1 hour ago, mjmooney said:

I'm calling this now - he isn't going to survive four years as president. Probably not assassination (although it's possible), but he'll be removed from office, one way or another, probably by forces within the Republican Party. "Ill health", perhaps, but they'll find a way. The man is utterly incapable of doing the job. Of course, the prospect of Pence stepping in is hardly a reassuring thought, but it'll happen. 

Yes, though I would be surprised if the security services are not even now planning an accident to one of his planes.

If someone gave me 10-1 on him not surviving to make it into office, I'd be tempted to put a tenner on it.

[snowychap]

Link:

 

Quote

Why Aren't Donald Trump's Epic Conflicts of Interest Illegal?

• by Roger Parloff 
• November 15, 2016, 10:48 AM EST

Former White House ethics lawyers explain.

With Donald Trump’s global business empire already reaching such nations as Azerbaijan, Turkey, Indonesia, and the United Arab Emirates—and eager to enter new realms—the potential for conflicts of interests both domestically and internationally has long been obvious.

It’s clear also that the “blind trust” candidate Trump has been talking about setting up since last January between himself and those far-flung business interests will be neither blind, nor a trust, nor provide any meaningful insulation whatsoever.

He will let his adult children run his businesses, he has said, even though they are also now serving on his transition team, will certainly stay in close touch with him, and may well serve as de facto advisers on presidential business as well. (CBS News reported Monday that Trump is seeking top secret security clearances for his children.)

Several people have asked me why the federal conflicts of interest law, which bars every lowly executive branch official from acting on matters that affect their personal financial interests, won’t apply to President Donald Trump.

To find out answers to that and related inquiries, I did some research and also spoke to Richard Painter and Norman Eisen, the former top White House ethics counsels for George W. Bush (2005-2007) and Barack Obama (2009-2011). Here are the answers.

Why doesn’t the federal conflicts of interest law apply to the President?

Congress was most likely avoiding direct confrontations between branches of government, which would also raise Constitutional issues.

The Constitution sets out the qualifications for being President (things like being at least 35 years old and a “natural born citizen”). If Congress added supplemental strictures, those could at least be challenged in court as unconstitutional.

The conflicts of interest law—which carries federal criminal penalties—avoids those issues by exempting the President and Vice President from its provisions.

It also leaves out members of Congress (though not their staffs), perhaps, similarly, to avoid confrontations with prosecutors from the executive branch. Each branch of Congress has set up its own ethical rules, which that branch alone enforces.

Do Presidents, then, simply govern despite conflicts of interest?

Not in the past 50 years.

According to Painter, “every other President in modern times has tried as best they could to act as if the law did apply to them.” President Reagan, both Bushes, Clinton, and Obama, all used “blind trusts” to manage assets, he says. Painter is now a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School.

(Vice President Dick Cheney was dogged by criticism for allegedly not adequately severing his relationship to Halliburton, the oil services company he had once run. In that instance—trivial when compared to the conflicts Trump is gearing up to incur—he merely continued to receive deferred compensation and options proceeds, which he had pledged to donate to charity.)

What’s a blind trust exactly?

With a true blind trust, Painter says, a president would typically sell his business, and then have an independent trustee—someone with no familial ties—reinvest the proceeds in assets the president doesn’t even know have been selected.

That would be very difficult for Trump. Without such an elaborate divestiture, are the conflicts really so serious?

“Profound,” argues Eisen, who is now with the Brookings Institution. “They are the most serious set of business conflicts any president has faced in modern times.”

Like what?

The “core conflict” is that “real estate businesses often thrive on easy money from banks,” according to Painter. That industry and the banking industry therefore “have a mutual interest in loose credit and loose regulation,” he continues. So Trump’s stated goal of “dismantling” the Dodd-Frank reforms of 2010 presents at least the appearance of a personal conflict. (The Trump Organization and campaign did not immediately respond to an inquiry seeking comment. In a statement to the New York Times published Monday evening, the organization said: “We are in the process of vetting various structures with the goal of the immediate transfer of management of the Trump Organization and its portfolio of businesses to Donald Jr., Ivanka and Eric Trump along with a team of highly skilled executives. . . . This is a top priority at the organization, and the structure that is ultimately selected will comply with all applicable rules and regulations.”

So are there no other existing restraints? Are we simply at Trump’s mercy when it comes to conflicts?

Well, if Congress thinks an abuse of power becomes obvious and outlandish, it could impeach him. Federal criminal bribery statutes apply to presidents, too, but only for egregious and blatant abuses. Then there’s the emoluments clause, too.

What’s the emoluments clause and how does it factor in?

Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution bars federal officers from, among other things, accepting, without the consent of Congress, payments and gifts “of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.” The Justice Department has interpreted this provision very broadly.

A retired Army officer, for instance, who wanted to take a post as a visiting professor at a foreign university, would have to jump through multiple hoops, seeking permission from both the Army and the State Department. The same would go for a Navy reservist who joins a private law firm that happens to have a sovereign wealth fund as a client—even if the reservist doesn’t work on that account.

In Donald Trump’s case, according to the New York Times, at least one of his businesses has outstanding loans from the Bank of China, which is majority owned by the state. Loans typically have dozens of conditions, and if the bank were to ever forgive or forbear on any of those, or Trump were to negotiate a refinancing, it would be scrutinized microscopically to see if it was a “gift.” If Trump’s policy toward China were tough, it might look like was exerting pressure in an effort to win better terms on his company’s loans. If his policy were accommodating, it might look like he feared retaliation by the bank in the form of tighter terms on those same loans.

White House ethics lawyers ordinarily pore over presidents’ tax forms each years (and those of cabinet members and nominees) to make sure there are no emoluments problems. Because Trump has refused to make his returns public, scrutiny of potential problems has been impossible so far.

Is there anything the public can do to protect itself right now?

Painter recommends that Congress pass a law right now that would require that when a President or his businesses have specific matters pending before a federal agency—like, say, an Internal Revenue Service audit, or a case before the National Labor Relations Board or the Securities and Exchange Commission, or a licensing issue before the Federal Communications Commission—that the matter must be decided by a career civil servant, rather than by a political appointee. (Trump has said that his taxes are currently under audit, and his hotels are also known to have active disputes with unions pending before the NLRB.) In the event that a White House official tried to intervene in any such matter, Painter continues, the bill he envisions would require the agency to notify the House and Senate oversight committees.

Eisen would go further still. He believes that the Congress has the constitutional power to extend the existing conflicts of interest law to cover the President, and he thinks Congress should try to do so. “If the drafters of the conflicts law had foreseen something on this scale,” he says, “they never would have exempted the President and Vice President.”

 

[peterms]

When the forthcoming crash hits, Trump will be severely judged.

Some of that will be unfair.  He may be the worst possible choice, and the man most likely to wreak havoc, but at the same time it was all going to go tits up anyway.

Yes, he's a clueless arse who will do untold damage; but much of the damage would have occurred anyway, he will just have made it worse.

[OutByEaster?]

2 hours ago, Awol said:

TTIP will be next on the chopping block following Trump's rejection of TPP (which of the two was much closer to ratification), clearing the decks for a much more basic & transaction bilateral deal between the UK and US - once we are clear of the EU.

Simply making the point that for the UK the election of Trump may be a good thing & it's ok to acknowledge that without needing to shower afterwards.

Do you not think that Trump will have pulled out of these deals because he thinks he can get a better deal for the US one country at a time?

He's a protectionist and someone who's a huge supporter of major corporations and the banking system - I have a feeling the reasons he's pulling out of these deals is because he doesn't think they're one sided enough. I have a feeling it's not going to be a good thing for anyone but a small number of American billionaires. I have a feeling that might be a feature of his Presidency.

 

[OutByEaster?]

I think he'll survive the Presidency - he'll say and do anything in the public sphere to confuse, baffle and hide the fact that for those that matter to him there will be increased protections and further riches. The America that matters isn't all that many people.

 

[chrisp65]

2 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Do you not think that Trump will have pulled out of these deals because he thinks he can get a better deal for the US one country at a time?

He's a protectionist and someone who's a huge supporter of major corporations and the banking system - I have a feeling the reasons he's pulling out of these deals is because he doesn't think they're one sided enough. I have a feeling it's not going to be a good thing for anyone but a small number of American billionaires. I have a feeling that might be a feature of his Presidency.

 

no no, he's good news for the UK, he's our friend unlike that other creature, he wouldn't treat us as just another opportunity to make a buckr and look good in front of rednecks and neo cons

we just need to keep liking his tweets

we need to make sure we are chosen to be the little Hammond to his Clarkson 

[peterms]

Someone, sorry I forget who, has pointed out that property parasites need lots of poorly regulated bank lending,  and there is a common interest between the rentier scumbag and the global engines of oppression.  So expect some bank deregulation, framed as Freedom, to oil the wheels of the machine.

[maqroll]

Meanwhile, the California votes are still being counted, and suggest that Clinton won the popular vote by 1.5 million.

[ThunderPower_14]

I don't have an issue with Trump losing the popular vote, and I don't even really have an issue with the electoral college system provided it's regularly updated to be a proper representation of the people.

 

But I do have an issue with the lack of a preference system. A preference system would almost certainly see more independant candidates run and put a lot more pressure on the major parties to be representative of the people.

[Awol]

4 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

Do you not think that Trump will have pulled out of these deals because he thinks he can get a better deal for the US one country at a time?

He's a protectionist and someone who's a huge supporter of major corporations and the banking system - I have a feeling the reasons he's pulling out of these deals is because he doesn't think they're one sided enough. I have a feeling it's not going to be a good thing for anyone but a small number of American billionaires. I have a feeling that might be a feature of his Presidency.

 

Yes he definitely thinks he can get better deals on a bilateral basis, but going on what he's said that involves not offshoring more lower paid jobs to places like Mexico and bringing jobs back onshore where possible. His entire focus is domestic job creation.

In a bilateral deal with the UK that's a marginal consideration so the focus will be on lowering barriers to the flow of goods and services - exactly the kind of arrangement that would suit us.  The US is the largest foreign investor in the UK as we are with them, building on that relationship is logical if you want to create more jobs and wealth.

It seems obvious to me that Trump's approach will be better for the UK than a Clinton / Obama continuity Administration that had no policy interest in dealing directly with the UK. It's not about being friends, it's about money.

 

[maqroll]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

It's not about being friends, it's about money.

As well as how many underdeveloped countries they can screw over in the pursuit of that money. Special relationship, and what have you.

[villakram]

NASA's earth science budget rumored to be under threat... though, this is likely including a heavy amount of scaremongering. 

Much more important in the longer term is the appointment of DeVos as the education secretary. She is well known for her attacks on the public education sector here in Michigan and is 100% onboard the privatization of education bandwagon  

[maqroll]

6 hours ago, villakram said:

NASA's earth science budget rumored to be under threat... though, this is likely including a heavy amount of scaremongering. 

Much more important in the longer term is the appointment of DeVos as the education secretary. She is well known for her attacks on the public education sector here in Michigan and is 100% onboard the privatization of education bandwagon  

It's big step backwards for this country. American apartheid looks like it's making a comeback.