Showing posts with label Pres. Donald Trump. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pres. Donald Trump. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

Trump’s ethical squalor is worse than you thought; Washington Post, April 19, 2017

Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post;

Trump’s ethical squalor is worse than you thought

"What is striking is the degree to which the Trump clan publicly flaunts its ethical laxity and disinterest in complying with norms that every other president and his family have managed to follow.

Whether it is abuse of the instruments of government power or disregard for financial propriety, Trump is setting a new low."

Thursday, April 6, 2017

Howard Jacobson: ‘Trump in the White House – that must never feel normal’; Guardian, April 2, 2017

Andrew Anthony, Guardian; 

Howard Jacobson: ‘Trump in the White House – that must never feel normal’


"Jacobson views Trump as a triumph of the stupid, a symbol of the rejection of expertise and elitism, two concepts that the novelist feels are in danger of being deemed unacceptable in the new paradigm. One of Trump’s great successes was to make articulacy and erudition appear inherently suspect. This has been a growing trend, particularly in America, for many years, but there’s little doubt that with his tweets and fact-free assertions, Trump has set a new low standard of debate, beneath which others may feel compelled to sink."

Monday, March 6, 2017

Following Sessions’ Mar-a-Lago appearance, new ethics questions arise; Rachel Maddow Show, MaddowBlog, MCNBC, March 6, 2017

Steve Benen, Rachel Maddow Show, MaddowBlog, MCNBC; 

Following Sessions’ Mar-a-Lago appearance, new ethics questions arise


"If you voted Republican because you were worried about Hillary Clinton and pay-to-play controversies, I have some very bad news for you. Trump is profiting from the presidency in ways no one has been able to credibly defend.

As we discussed a couple of weeks ago, we’re looking at an ethical nightmare. A president who refuses to divest from his many business ventures still owns a for-profit enterprise, in which undisclosed people pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for exclusive access – and the facility itself openly acknowledges the financial benefits of exploiting Trump’s presidency.

How many lobbyists or agents of foreign governments are signing up to take advantage? We don’t know – because Mar-a-Lago doesn’t disclose its membership list."

The day of Trump toilets and condoms in China may have just ended. Here's why that's controversial; Los Angeles Times, March 6, 2017


Jessica Meyers, Los Angeles Times; 
The day of Trump toilets and condoms in China may have just ended. Here's why that's controversial


"Could Trump benefit from the decision?


Some analysts believe investors, wary about the delicate relationship between China and the U.S., will veer away from anything bearing Donald Trump’s name. But two chief ethics lawyers under former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama argue China could still use Trump’s ties to his family empire to influence policies.
They’re part of a lawsuit filed in federal court in New York that alleges the president’s foreign business connections violate the Constitution.
“We should be seriously concerned about Mr. Trump’s ethical standards,” [Haochen] Sun [director of the Law and Technology Center at the University of Hong Kong and a specialist in intellectual property law] said. “The registration carries the message that Trump is still doing business.”

Friday, March 3, 2017

Goodbye Spin, Hello Raw Dishonesty; New York Times, March 3, 2017

Paul Krugman, New York Times; 

Goodbye Spin, Hello Raw Dishonesty


"And the question is, who’s going to stop him?

The moral vacuity of Republicans in Congress, and the unlikelihood that they’ll act as any check on the president, becomes clearer with each passing day. Even the real possibility that we’re facing subversion by agents of a foreign power, and that top officials are part of the story, doesn’t seem to faze them as long as they can get tax cuts for the rich and benefit cuts for the poor.

Meanwhile, Republican primary election voters, who are the real arbiters when polarized and/or gerrymandered districts make the general election irrelevant for many politicians, live in a Fox News bubble into which awkward truths never penetrate."

U.S. Withdrawal from TPP Impact on Intellectual Property; Inside Counsel, March 3, 2017

Amanda Ciccatelli, Inside Counsel; 

U.S. Withdrawal from TPP Impact on Intellectual Property


"Further, the U.S. withdrawal from the TPP may have major global implications for IP rights. As the TPP was being negotiated, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) was slowly progressing in the background. The RCEP is a Chinese- and Indian-led alternative to TPP that includes all seven of the Asian and Oceanic states in TPP, plus South Korea, Laos, Myanmar, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Cambodia. 

“But the RCEP is almost certain to provide less protection for IP rights – especially pharmaceutical patent rights – than the TPP would have,” Rich said. “India and China are traditionally hostile to strong pharmaceutical patent protections of the type found under U.S. law, calling such patent protections ‘evergreening.’ “So, the rejection of the TPP is likely to allow an alternative, less protective paradigm for international IP rights to arise in its place.”"

Thursday, March 2, 2017

Trump’s team nixed ethics course for White House staff; Politico, March 2, 2017

Isaac Arnsdorf and Josh Dawsey, Politico; 

Trump’s team nixed ethics course for White House staff


"President Donald Trump’s team rejected a course for senior White House staff, Cabinet nominees and other political appointees that would have provided training on leadership, ethics and management, according to documents obtained by POLITICO.

The documents suggest the program could have better prepared officials for working within existing laws and executive orders, and provided guidance on how to navigate Senate confirmation for nominees and political appointees, how to deal with congressional and media scrutiny, and how to work with Congress and collaborate with agencies — some of the same issues that have become major stumbling blocks in the early days of the administration."

Tuesday, February 21, 2017

The Russification of America; New York Times, February 21, 2017

Roger Cohen, New York Times; 

The Russification of America


"I’m skeptical of Trump ever running a disciplined administration. His feelings about Europe are already clear and won’t change. The European Union needs to step into the moral void by standing unequivocally for the values that must define the West: truth, facts, reason, science, tolerance, freedom, democracy and the rule of law. For now it’s unclear if the Trump administration is friend or foe in that fight."

Sunday, February 19, 2017

Graham: A free press and judiciary 'worth fighting and dying for'; Politico, February 19, 2017

Hanna Trudo, Politico; 

Graham: A free press and judiciary 'worth fighting and dying for'


"Sen. Lindsey Graham, responding Sunday to President Donald Trump’s harsh criticism of the media, called a free press and an independent judiciary “the backbone of democracy.”

“They’re worth fighting and dying for,” the Republican from South Carolina said on CBS' “Face the Nation.”

Friday, February 17, 2017

Trump Ethics Monitor: Has The President Kept His Promises?; NPR, February 17, 2017

Alina Selyukh, NPR; 

Trump Ethics Monitor: Has The President Kept His Promises?

"Although Donald Trump sits in the Oval Office now, he continues to own stakes in hundreds of businesses, both in this country and abroad.

Ethics experts say this vast international web of personal financial ties could influence Trump's thinking on public-policy decisions. Trump has dismissed such concerns; he notes presidents are exempt from the conflict-of-interest rules that apply to Cabinet members and other government employees.

Past presidents have complied voluntarily with the ethics rules.

What Trump and his team have done is commit to certain steps that do touch on some of the ethics and conflicts-of-interest concerns. The Trump Ethics Monitor below focuses on those promises and tracks their status."

Saturday, February 11, 2017

Raucous Town Hall In Utah Blasts GOP Rep. Chaffetz Over Trump; Huffington Post, February 10, 2017

Mary Papenfuss, Huffington Post; 

Raucous Town Hall In Utah Blasts GOP Rep. Chaffetz Over Trump


[Kip Currier: Even if the U.S. President is exempt from conflict of interest laws, as Rep. Jason Chaffetz asserts below, he ignores a fundamental underpinning of democracy, the rule of law, and good governance: the need for the public's belief in the integrity of such systems. 

To avoid an "air of impropriety" (i.e. perception that a particular action doesn't look "right" or fair)--to promote the U.S. electorate's faith in the integrity of elected officials to not unduly profit from public service--a U.S. President should voluntarily abide by conflict of interest laws and strive for the highest level of ethical conduct.

A related aside about the Judicial Branch, on the "air of impropriety" rationale for voluntary ethical compliance, transparency, and accountability: conflict of interest arguments have been made about the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, who have continually avoided being bound by a formal ethics code and the Code of Conduct for federal judges that applies to every other federal judge. As Lincoln Caplan's 2015 New Yorker article "DOES THE SUPREME COURT NEED A CODE OF CONDUCT?" persuasively posits:


Impartiality is an essential requirement for a judge. But, as Charles Geyh, the legal scholar who directed the A.B.A. study, wrote, “It is not enough that judges be impartial; the public must perceive them to be so.” Whether a judge is on the highest court in the land or on one of the many others, we are much more likely, in a case where his impartiality has been questioned, to view him as impartial if another judge concludes so after conducting an independent appraisal. That’s crucial to the effectiveness of this country’s courts, which makes it crucial to the soundness of American democracy.]

"“Where do you draw a line in the sand?” asked one woman in the audience regarding Trump’s potential conflicts of interest.

“Everyone has to comply with the law,” Chaffetz responded. “You’re really not going to like this part,” again to boos. “The president, under the law, is exempt from the conflict-of-interest laws.”"