$35.00
Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
49 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Bill to have COI legislation apply to the President and VP rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
United States
flag msg tools
Bitter and Acerbic Harridan
This seems fair to me and is pretty consistent with Trump's campaign promises to eliminate "pay to play." Particularly given Trump's decision to include his children in both his business and his transition team.

Quote:
Congresswoman Katherine Clark has introduced legislation to ensure that U.S. Presidents are required to resolve any conflicts of interest with regard to financial interests and official responsibilities. Current law prohibits federal office holders from engaging in government business when they stand to gain profit. The President and Vice President are currently exempt from this statute. Clark’s Presidential Accountability Act removes this exemption and requires the President and Vice President to place their assets in a certified blind trust or disclose to the Office of Government Ethics and the public when they make a decision that affects their personal finances. This issue has been elevated to greater importance as concerns of conflicts of interest have surfaced in the first week of the President-elect’s transition period. From the Trump Organization’s federal contract to operate the President-elect’s hotel in the Old Post Office Pavilion in Washington, D.C. to the scale of his debt to foreign banks, the President-elect’s business interests present an unprecedented level of conflict. Trump has also appointed his children to serve in leadership positions on both the President-elect’s transition team and his businesses. Clark’s Presidential Accountability Act prohibits the President from engaging in government responsibilities from which they or their families can benefit financially.

“The President of the United States has the power to affect how our tax dollars are spent, who the federal government does business with, and the integrity of America’s standing in a global economy,” said Clark. “Every recent president in modern history has taken steps to ensure his financial interests do not conflict with the needs of the American people. The American people need to be able to trust that the President’s decisions are based on the best interests of families at home, and not the President’s financial interests.”

Previous American presidents including Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama have all used some form of blind trust or placed their assets in an investment vehicle over which they had no control.


http://katherineclark.house.gov/index.cfm/2016/11/clark-intr...
17 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
"Consistent?"
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
"Thoughtful dumbass posting."
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
Bitter and Acerbic Harridan
Sorry to have interrupted the 30th iteration of "Mean Liberals Calling Us Names Made Us Vote Trump," "Christians Love Trump Like the Lord Our God," "Did We Mention We Won Yet? We won!", and "Obama/Hillary/Other Random Lefty is the Real Racist." I should probably check back in another month and see if RSP has any other threads, but instead I'm going to drop some actual content in here to see if anyone is interested in discussing anything real.
23 
 Thumb up
6.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
she2 wrote:
Sorry to have interrupted the 30th iteration of "Mean Liberals Calling Us Names Made Us Vote Trump," "Christians Love Trump Like the Lord Our God," "Did We Mention We Won Yet? We won!", and "Obama/Hillary/Other Random Lefty is the Real Racist." I should probably check back in another month and see if RSP has any other threads, but instead I'm going to drop some actual content in here to see if anyone is interested in discussing anything real.


I thought you were quitting RSP.
No strength of your convictions?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
Bitter and Acerbic Harridan
BTW, yes, it's consistent with a promise to eliminate pay to play to limit conflicts of interest between a President's personal pecuniary interests and effectively quid pro quo arrangements implemented through his role as the chief executive.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
she2 wrote:
BTW, yes, it's consistent with a promise to eliminate pay to play to limit conflicts of interest between a President's personal pecuniary interests and effectively quid pro quo arrangements implemented through his role as the chief executive.



Who paid you to come back?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
I see you...
United States
Avon
Ohio
flag msg tools
"I made a promise on the grave of my parents...
badge
...that I would rid this city of the evil that took their lives. "
mbmbmbmbmb
TheDashi wrote:
she2 wrote:
BTW, yes, it's consistent with a promise to eliminate pay to play to limit conflicts of interest between a President's personal pecuniary interests and effectively quid pro quo arrangements implemented through his role as the chief executive.



Who paid you to come back?


*Waves*
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
Bitter and Acerbic Harridan
Dispaminite wrote:
TheDashi wrote:
she2 wrote:
BTW, yes, it's consistent with a promise to eliminate pay to play to limit conflicts of interest between a President's personal pecuniary interests and effectively quid pro quo arrangements implemented through his role as the chief executive.



Who paid you to come back?


*Waves*


Wait, well where is my payment then?
3 
 Thumb up
2.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oh my God They Banned Kenny
Canada
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
she2 wrote:
This seems fair to me...


Of course it does. Just as it would have seemed to you to be totally unnecessary if Clinton had won. shake
2 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
I see you...
United States
Avon
Ohio
flag msg tools
"I made a promise on the grave of my parents...
badge
...that I would rid this city of the evil that took their lives. "
mbmbmbmbmb
she2 wrote:
Dispaminite wrote:
TheDashi wrote:
she2 wrote:
BTW, yes, it's consistent with a promise to eliminate pay to play to limit conflicts of interest between a President's personal pecuniary interests and effectively quid pro quo arrangements implemented through his role as the chief executive.



Who paid you to come back?


*Waves*


Wait, well where is my payment then?


7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
Bitter and Acerbic Harridan
deadkenny wrote:
she2 wrote:
This seems fair to me...


Of course it does. Just as it would have seemed to you to be totally unnecessary if Clinton had won. shake


Actually, I became in favor it after some of the allegations about the Clinton Foundation surfaced.

That said, I don't think we have had a President with the wealth of Trump in recent memory which is a new set of challenges to manage. When you see Ivanka sitting in on meetings with the Japanese Prime Minister and his children being involved in the transition team, while his business is not going to be held in a true blind trust, then it sets up a situation where these conflicts necessarily come to mind.

To be frank, I'd like to see them set up certain rules for Congress as well as lobbying restrictions after they leave office for a certain reasonable period of time.

I'm curious though. Do you think such COI rules are unnecessary in truth? I thought I heard quite a bit about the Clinton Foundation during the election, so it's fairly hard for me to believe that there's no concern there.

11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oh my God They Banned Kenny
Canada
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
she2 wrote:
deadkenny wrote:
she2 wrote:
This seems fair to me...


Of course it does. Just as it would have seemed to you to be totally unnecessary if Clinton had won. shake


Actually, I became in favor it after some of the allegations about the Clinton Foundation surfaced.

That said, I don't think we have had a President with the wealth of Trump in recent memory which is a new set of challenges to manage. When you see Ivanka sitting in on meetings with the Japanese Prime Minister and his children being involved in the transition team, while his business is not going to be held in a true blind trust, then it sets up a situation where these conflicts necessarily come to mind.

To be frank, I'd like to see them set up certain rules for Congress as well as lobbying restrictions after they leave office for a certain reasonable period of time.

I'm curious though. Do you think such COI rules are unnecessary in truth? I thought I heard quite a bit about the Clinton Foundation during the election, so it's fairly hard for me to believe that there's no concern there.


What I believe is that the appropriate time to have raised it was before the election, not after. It seems rather inconsistent for the office of President to have been exempted in the first place. However, given that it has been, I see no reason to bring this up now, other than as another tool sore loser liberals can use to attack Trump.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
Bitter and Acerbic Harridan
deadkenny wrote:
she2 wrote:
deadkenny wrote:
she2 wrote:
This seems fair to me...


Of course it does. Just as it would have seemed to you to be totally unnecessary if Clinton had won. shake


Actually, I became in favor it after some of the allegations about the Clinton Foundation surfaced.

That said, I don't think we have had a President with the wealth of Trump in recent memory which is a new set of challenges to manage. When you see Ivanka sitting in on meetings with the Japanese Prime Minister and his children being involved in the transition team, while his business is not going to be held in a true blind trust, then it sets up a situation where these conflicts necessarily come to mind.

To be frank, I'd like to see them set up certain rules for Congress as well as lobbying restrictions after they leave office for a certain reasonable period of time.

I'm curious though. Do you think such COI rules are unnecessary in truth? I thought I heard quite a bit about the Clinton Foundation during the election, so it's fairly hard for me to believe that there's no concern there.


What I believe is that the appropriate time to have raised it was before the election, not after. It seems rather inconsistent for the office of President to have been exempted in the first place. However, given that it has been, I see no reason to bring this up now, other than as another tool sore loser liberals can use to attack Trump.


That seems fair---raising it before the election. I agree that it's easy to just dismiss it as aimed at a person rather than the office. But that's an optics issue.

But I also think that Trump has raised questions about whether he's going to handle conflicts of interest responsibly based on his actions thus far in terms of not insulating the people running his business interests and those he's placing in positions of influence in the government (i.e., his own children). Surely you can see that also?

I also don't see what the downside is to Trump to agree to this unless he's intending to do something underhanded. If liberals want to attack Trump, it would seem like this is a pretty mild way of going about it.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
United States
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
deadkenny wrote:
What I believe is that the appropriate time to have raised it was before the election, not after. It seems rather inconsistent for the office of President to have been exempted in the first place. However, given that it has been, I see no reason to bring this up now, other than as another tool sore loser liberals can use to attack Trump.

So it's okay to hold up filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court until after the election, but not pass a conflict of interest bill that in reality should have been passed decades ago? And you're accusing Sue of inconsistency?
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mc Jarvis
United States
Bloomington
Minnesota
flag msg tools
I speak to improve upon the cacophony.
badge
This heart is meant to convince you that I feel.
mbmbmbmbmb
does a blind trust even work if your name is written in gold across everything you own? even if he doesn't know who is controlling his businesses or how, he still knows key things like "hey, I own that hotel where the post office pavilion was".
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Beaton
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
I have a cunning plan
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm seeing reports through the Argentinian press that Trump used his call from their president to press Argentina to expedite the construction of Trump properties.
Is this not an impeachable offence, using the office for personal gain?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Binkowski
United States
Rochester
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
she2 wrote:
Sorry to have interrupted the 30th iteration of "Mean Liberals Calling Us Names Made Us Vote Trump," "Christians Love Trump Like the Lord Our God," "Did We Mention We Won Yet? We won!", and "Obama/Hillary/Other Random Lefty is the Real Racist." I should probably check back in another month and see if RSP has any other threads, but instead I'm going to drop some actual content in here to see if anyone is interested in discussing anything real.


You want to discuss issues you post but dismiss other folks' postings as inconsequential rambling. I'm seeing a bit of a double standard here.

But I agree that Trump is going to have a hard time keeping his business end from benefiting from his political influence. Probably a tough thing to do when you are just that far reaching in your business dealings.

Should the farmer not be the first to eat from his own crops?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Binkowski
United States
Rochester
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
aiabx wrote:
I'm seeing reports through the Argentinian press that Trump used his call from their president to press Argentina to expedite the construction of Trump properties.
Is this not an impeachable offence, using the office for personal gain?


hillary first then:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/hillary-...

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
I see you...
United States
Avon
Ohio
flag msg tools
"I made a promise on the grave of my parents...
badge
...that I would rid this city of the evil that took their lives. "
mbmbmbmbmb
Sarxis wrote:
aiabx wrote:
I'm seeing reports through the Argentinian press that Trump used his call from their president to press Argentina to expedite the construction of Trump properties.
Is this not an impeachable offence, using the office for personal gain?


hillary first then:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/hillary-...


So this is how it's going to go. When ever someone criticizes Trump, the conseRSPvatives are going to whine "BUT HILLARY!!!!!!!!"?
12 
 Thumb up
0.50
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
Bitter and Acerbic Harridan
Sarxis wrote:

But I agree that Trump is going to have a hard time keeping his business end from benefiting from his political influence. Probably a tough thing to do when you are just that far reaching in your business dealings.

Should the farmer not be the first to eat from his own crops?


As to your last statement, there is obviously nothing wrong if Trump's economic policies in general happen to benefit him personally.

But that's not what conflict of interest provisions attempt to address. They attempt to address more direct and clear conflicts, where the executive branch agrees to implement policy x in exchange for something directly profiting the executive branch member's own personal business. That can be as direct as what aiabx raises above (and I'm not going to comment on that as I don't think we have much proof there of impropriety at this stage) or something a bit looser. It also assures more transparency as he'd have to disclose the COI to the public. This is part of what Trump ran on, is it not? To root out pay to play? Or are you saying he's exempt from that? If so, why?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Beaton
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
I have a cunning plan
mbmbmbmbmb
Sarxis wrote:
aiabx wrote:
I'm seeing reports through the Argentinian press that Trump used his call from their president to press Argentina to expedite the construction of Trump properties.
Is this not an impeachable offence, using the office for personal gain?


hillary first then:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/hillary-...



Is Clinton the President-elect? Has she ever been the President-elect? Then who the fuck cares what Clinton did? This is Trump flirting with impeachment. "Someone who was never elected to the Presidency did it too" is not a recognized legal defence.
7 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
Bitter and Acerbic Harridan
aiabx wrote:
Sarxis wrote:
aiabx wrote:
I'm seeing reports through the Argentinian press that Trump used his call from their president to press Argentina to expedite the construction of Trump properties.
Is this not an impeachable offence, using the office for personal gain?


hillary first then:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/hillary-...



Is Clinton the President-elect? Has she ever been the President-elect? Then who the fuck cares what Clinton did? This is Trump flirting with impeachment. "Someone who was never elected to the Presidency did it too" is not a recognized legal defence.


Don't take the bait. Otherwise that's all we'll ever discuss for four years. Hillary or Obama. Sarxis, I talked above about the Clinton Foundation as one of the reasons I first thought this was a good idea. Move on, sir.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Beaton
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
I have a cunning plan
mbmbmbmbmb
she2 wrote:
aiabx wrote:
Sarxis wrote:
aiabx wrote:
I'm seeing reports through the Argentinian press that Trump used his call from their president to press Argentina to expedite the construction of Trump properties.
Is this not an impeachable offence, using the office for personal gain?


hillary first then:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/hillary-...



Is Clinton the President-elect? Has she ever been the President-elect? Then who the fuck cares what Clinton did? This is Trump flirting with impeachment. "Someone who was never elected to the Presidency did it too" is not a recognized legal defence.


Don't take the bait. Otherwise that's all we'll ever discuss for four years. Hillary or Obama. Sarxis, I talked above about the Clinton Foundation as one of the reasons I first thought this was a good idea. Move on, sir.


Also, I used a bad word, so I anticipate a lecture about my poor manners and civility in general.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Binkowski
United States
Rochester
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
she2 wrote:
Sarxis wrote:

But I agree that Trump is going to have a hard time keeping his business end from benefiting from his political influence. Probably a tough thing to do when you are just that far reaching in your business dealings.

Should the farmer not be the first to eat from his own crops?


As to your last statement, there is obviously nothing wrong if Trump's economic policies in general happen to benefit him personally.

But that's not what conflict of interest provisions attempt to address. They attempt to address more direct and clear conflicts, where the executive branch agrees to implement policy x in exchange for something directly profiting the executive branch member's own personal business. That can be as direct as what aiabx raises above (and I'm not going to comment on that as I don't think we have much proof there of impropriety at this stage) or something a bit looser. It also assures more transparency as he'd have to disclose the COI to the public. This is part of what Trump ran on, is it not? To root out pay to play? Or are you saying he's exempt from that? If so, why?


Nope, I don't disagree with that. And as I said, for Trump, I think it will be hardest for him to keep business and politics separate because he actually HAS an international business (unlike so many other politicians who are supported by... well who knows how they get their millions).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.