Trump’s vast web of conflicts: A user’s guide The bad news: no one has ever come into the White House with more obvious conflicts (and plenty of others that might be not so obvious) as Trump. The good news: if he has the hubris to insist there's "no problem" here... he could have problems. I could even see it bringing him down, especially if Democrats take over the House in 2018. (And if the 2018 midterms are like the 2006 midterms, with all the anger and energy on the left - hint, hint, just sayin' ya'll), it could be.
LOTS of concerns here. But one not raised in the article involves his children and the fact they will be running his business, will serve as senior advisers in the administration, and Trump has requested they all get top-secret security clearance. I can't really get my head around it, but it just doesn't sound right. There are so many ways Trump can screw this thing up - and there will be plenty of Democrats waiting to pounce on him when he does. He is surrounding himself with so many sycophants that he is unlikely to see the conflicts until one bites him in his arse. The bite won't have teeth though until the Dems can win back majorities in the Senate and/or House.
Interesting article, but I wonder why so much of it seems to focus on Trump the man vs. Trump the organization (which he is handing off - leading to plenty of OTHER ethics questions but anyway...). Like the example of that hotel in D.C., how is it that TrumpCo is being seen as "a federal employee"? That sort of distinction doesn't seem apparent to me in the article (and the hotel is just one example). What am I missing?
I think Trump himself is (or will soon be) the "Federal employee" here. Which is why they said he needed to divest himself of any tie to the hotel (leased by the GSA) before January 20. Even if he does so, there's a big question whether having his kids in charge would be sufficient. For sure it's nothing like the "blind trust" they keep insisting it is. A blind trust means literally that you don't know what's in it, and therefore can't base your decisions as President on whether or not they would help your business interests. Trump obviously knows what's in the portfolio of the Trump Corporation. And he'd have daily contact with the people (his kids) running it, which is another complete no-no for a blind trust. And the article, as ED pointed out, didn't even get into that! The potential for conflict and corruption that they outlined - and with plenty of stuff they left out - is staggering. And Trump has NEVER shown himself to be an ethical man.
Right, I understood that. But if he's handing over the reigns to his kids (a whole 'nother kettle of fish, obviously!) I don't get how that's not divesting. Or perhaps the article was assuming this "eyes-wide-open trust" wasn't enough of a cover, and that the authorities would simply assume Trump the man was involved regardless? Indeed. Gives the Democrats a lot to sink their teeth into two years from now, assuming we make it that far (I'm fully convinced at this point that the president *will* piss off enough people to usher in another wave election soon, and I'm betting it won't take nearly two years to get there) and that they have the guts to do it.
I think that's what the article assumed, although it wasn't really addressed specifically and thus was pretty ambiguous.
Oops! See what I did there? I said "reigns" when obviously I should've said "reins". Handing over the reigns comes later.
