How corrupt is the Trump administration?
Very
28.8% (15)
28.8% (15)
Incredibly
9.6% (5)
9.6% (5)
The most, believe me.
17.3% (9)
17.3% (9)
OK, maybe not quite as bad as Somalia.
11.5% (6)
11.5% (6)
But still pretty close.
3.8% (2)
3.8% (2)
Nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
28.8% (15)
28.8% (15)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Day 100 and Donald Trump still embezzling, violating Constitution

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Another nail in the coffin for idea that Trump would do anything to clean up Washington; his own former staffers are ignoring his own lobbying ban.

Hey, America; next time you elect someone to drain the swamp, don't vote for Swamp Thing.

bastardofmelbourne:
Another nail in the coffin for idea that Trump would do anything to clean up Washington; his own former staffers are ignoring his own lobbying ban.

Hey, America; next time you elect someone to drain the swamp, don't vote for Swamp Thing.

To be fair, and even though I didn't trust him at all since he's (at least supposedly) a billionaire and it's just not in his interest to actually do something to curtail corruption (and he's kind of involved with borderline frauds and pyramid schemes himself), it wasn't absolutely clear, especially to voters who aren't paying as close attention as possible, that he would do all of this crap. Now that people know, his approval ratings are pretty shit. But not as shit as they should be.

Seanchaidh:

bastardofmelbourne:
Another nail in the coffin for idea that Trump would do anything to clean up Washington; his own former staffers are ignoring his own lobbying ban.

Hey, America; next time you elect someone to drain the swamp, don't vote for Swamp Thing.

To be fair, and even though I didn't trust him at all since he's (at least supposedly) a billionaire and it's just not in his interest to actually do something to curtail corruption (and he's kind of involved with borderline frauds and pyramid schemes himself), it wasn't absolutely clear, especially to voters who aren't paying as close attention as possible, that he would do all of this crap. Now that people know, his approval ratings are pretty shit. But not as shit as they should be.

IT WAS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR HE WOULD DO THIS SHIT!

The guy who replaced Rockefeller as the quintessential "Evil Businessman" caricature, ofcourse is going to be evil and corrupt. I get you just hate Hillary, but seriously, Hillary has friends in Wallsrteet? Trump IS Wallstreet.

Terrible poll, should have an option, of giving critics free helicopter rides in the Philippines.

Seanchaidh:

bastardofmelbourne:
Another nail in the coffin for idea that Trump would do anything to clean up Washington; his own former staffers are ignoring his own lobbying ban.

Hey, America; next time you elect someone to drain the swamp, don't vote for Swamp Thing.

To be fair, and even though I didn't trust him at all since he's (at least supposedly) a billionaire and it's just not in his interest to actually do something to curtail corruption (and he's kind of involved with borderline frauds and pyramid schemes himself), it wasn't absolutely clear, especially to voters who aren't paying as close attention as possible, that he would do all of this crap. Now that people know, his approval ratings are pretty shit. But not as shit as they should be.

it was really obvious to anyone that's not a moron. the only way to miss it would be if you were on a deserted island until election day and just voted for the guy because you laughed at his name.

lionsprey:

Seanchaidh:

bastardofmelbourne:
Another nail in the coffin for idea that Trump would do anything to clean up Washington; his own former staffers are ignoring his own lobbying ban.

Hey, America; next time you elect someone to drain the swamp, don't vote for Swamp Thing.

To be fair, and even though I didn't trust him at all since he's (at least supposedly) a billionaire and it's just not in his interest to actually do something to curtail corruption (and he's kind of involved with borderline frauds and pyramid schemes himself), it wasn't absolutely clear, especially to voters who aren't paying as close attention as possible, that he would do all of this crap. Now that people know, his approval ratings are pretty shit. But not as shit as they should be.

it was really obvious to anyone that's not a moron. the only way to miss it would be if you were on a deserted island until election day and just voted for the guy because you laughed at his name.

Saelune:

Seanchaidh:

bastardofmelbourne:
Another nail in the coffin for idea that Trump would do anything to clean up Washington; his own former staffers are ignoring his own lobbying ban.

Hey, America; next time you elect someone to drain the swamp, don't vote for Swamp Thing.

To be fair, and even though I didn't trust him at all since he's (at least supposedly) a billionaire and it's just not in his interest to actually do something to curtail corruption (and he's kind of involved with borderline frauds and pyramid schemes himself), it wasn't absolutely clear, especially to voters who aren't paying as close attention as possible, that he would do all of this crap. Now that people know, his approval ratings are pretty shit. But not as shit as they should be.

IT WAS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR HE WOULD DO THIS SHIT!

The guy who replaced Rockefeller as the quintessential "Evil Businessman" caricature, ofcourse is going to be evil and corrupt. I get you just hate Hillary, but seriously, Hillary has friends in Wallsrteet? Trump IS Wallstreet.

I think you're both mistaking well-justified mistrust and skepticism for absolute clarity. It was absolutely clear to people paying attention that Donald Trump might do things like this (not necessarily that the government would let him), but he certainly didn't say he was going to do all this. On what fact during the campaign would you base speculation that Donald Trump would essentially embezzle money by placing himself so that the Secret Service would have to rent many rooms from his companies? Or that he would be unlike all predecessors and not place his assets in a blind trust? People had reason to wonder and to be cynical, not to be certain that he would do what he has done.

Seanchaidh:

I think you're both mistaking well-justified mistrust and skepticism for absolute clarity. It was absolutely clear to people paying attention that Donald Trump might do things like this (not necessarily that the government would let him), but he certainly didn't say he was going to do all this. On what fact during the campaign would you base speculation that Donald Trump would essentially embezzle money by placing himself so that the Secret Service would have to rent many rooms from his companies? Or that he would be unlike all predecessors and not place his assets in a blind trust? People had reason to wonder and to be cynical, not to be certain that he would do what he has done.

With any predictions about the future you only have a certain degree of certainty based on your current knowledge and past experience. eg. I can't be 100% certain that the man I am sending money to is not really a Nigerian prince in need of my help.

Personally, I have to admit that I was wrong about Trump. I was certain that he would have done far worse things if elected. However, since he has not yet sold the US to a group of Dubai investors, my predictions were a bit off:)

Trump had a recent history of shilling ambitious projects and then using legalities to avoid negative consequences when things went bad. The whole Trump University scheme was a giant red flag that this guy was a snake oil salesman.

Nielas:

Seanchaidh:

I think you're both mistaking well-justified mistrust and skepticism for absolute clarity. It was absolutely clear to people paying attention that Donald Trump might do things like this (not necessarily that the government would let him), but he certainly didn't say he was going to do all this. On what fact during the campaign would you base speculation that Donald Trump would essentially embezzle money by placing himself so that the Secret Service would have to rent many rooms from his companies? Or that he would be unlike all predecessors and not place his assets in a blind trust? People had reason to wonder and to be cynical, not to be certain that he would do what he has done.

With any predictions about the future you only have a certain degree of certainty based on your current knowledge and past experience. eg. I can't be 100% certain that the man I am sending money to is not really a Nigerian prince in need of my help.

Personally, I have to admit that I was wrong about Trump. I was certain that he would have done far worse things if elected. However, since he has not yet sold the US to a group of Dubai investors, my predictions were a bit off:)

Trump had a recent history of shilling ambitious projects and then using legalities to avoid negative consequences when things went bad. The whole Trump University scheme was a giant red flag that this guy was a snake oil salesman.

I don't disagree. I'm just saying, one can be forgiven for having a brighter outlook especially if he or she isn't paying as close attention.

Seanchaidh:

Nielas:

Seanchaidh:

I think you're both mistaking well-justified mistrust and skepticism for absolute clarity. It was absolutely clear to people paying attention that Donald Trump might do things like this (not necessarily that the government would let him), but he certainly didn't say he was going to do all this. On what fact during the campaign would you base speculation that Donald Trump would essentially embezzle money by placing himself so that the Secret Service would have to rent many rooms from his companies? Or that he would be unlike all predecessors and not place his assets in a blind trust? People had reason to wonder and to be cynical, not to be certain that he would do what he has done.

With any predictions about the future you only have a certain degree of certainty based on your current knowledge and past experience. eg. I can't be 100% certain that the man I am sending money to is not really a Nigerian prince in need of my help.

Personally, I have to admit that I was wrong about Trump. I was certain that he would have done far worse things if elected. However, since he has not yet sold the US to a group of Dubai investors, my predictions were a bit off:)

Trump had a recent history of shilling ambitious projects and then using legalities to avoid negative consequences when things went bad. The whole Trump University scheme was a giant red flag that this guy was a snake oil salesman.

I don't disagree. I'm just saying, one can be forgiven for having a brighter outlook especially if he or she isn't paying as close attention.

The problem is that this is a US Presidential Election which is something you are supposed to be paying attention to.

I am sure many of the people in charge of the water in Flint had a "brighter outlook" on how things would work out but they still should have known better.

Nielas:

Seanchaidh:

Nielas:

With any predictions about the future you only have a certain degree of certainty based on your current knowledge and past experience. eg. I can't be 100% certain that the man I am sending money to is not really a Nigerian prince in need of my help.

Personally, I have to admit that I was wrong about Trump. I was certain that he would have done far worse things if elected. However, since he has not yet sold the US to a group of Dubai investors, my predictions were a bit off:)

Trump had a recent history of shilling ambitious projects and then using legalities to avoid negative consequences when things went bad. The whole Trump University scheme was a giant red flag that this guy was a snake oil salesman.

I don't disagree. I'm just saying, one can be forgiven for having a brighter outlook especially if he or she isn't paying as close attention.

The problem is that this is a US Presidential Election which is something you are supposed to be paying attention to.

I don't expect people to pay more attention than I do, and I honestly had no reasonable way to know what Donald Trump would do in office. I only had suspicions, and suspicions aren't enough to expect everyone else to think the same way.

I am sure many of the people in charge of the water in Flint had a "brighter outlook" on how things would work out but they still should have known better.

That is a more direct and accountable form of responsibility.

Seanchaidh:
I think you're both mistaking well-justified mistrust and skepticism for absolute clarity. It was absolutely clear to people paying attention that Donald Trump might do things like this (not necessarily that the government would let him), but he certainly didn't say he was going to do all this. On what fact during the campaign would you base speculation that Donald Trump would essentially embezzle money by placing himself so that the Secret Service would have to rent many rooms from his companies? Or that he would be unlike all predecessors and not place his assets in a blind trust? People had reason to wonder and to be cynical, not to be certain that he would do what he has done.

Man, I think everyone expected Trump to do worse than this. He's actually exceeding my expectations by being more of the boring, conventional Republican evil instead of the terrifying, unpredictable Steve Bannon evil.

Just as a little addition to this, a wine bar in Washington DC had recently filed a lawsuit against Donald Trump due to the Trump International Hotel, also in Washington DC. The gist of it was that the hotel was operating with an unfair advantage, because it was for all intents and purposes owned by the current President, bringing with it significant unspoken incentive for lobbyists, diplomats, etc to spend their money there to try and court favor. And yes, this is the same hotel whose lease specified that no elected official could own it, but was more or less wriggled around by insisting Trump would not see a dime of the money the hotel made. ( https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/23/us/politics/trump-hotel-washington-lease.html?_r=0 ) But in short, the lawsuit states that Trump's position as President is being leveraged to give the hotel an unfair advantage over the competition.

What defense has Trump's attorneys advanced against the lawsuit?

His position as President.

More specifically, his legal staff is invoking 'absolute immunity,' a measure that is designed to protect the President of the United States from being personally liable in what could be innumerable lawsuits that would otherwise stack up over the course of his time in office. The lawyers who filed the lawsuit against Trump are insisting, however, that absolute immunity doesn't apply here, as they aren't seeking to file a lawsuit against Trump as President, but as a businessman.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-washington-dc-wine-bar-lawsuit-absolute-immunity-us-president-international-hotel-white-a7729921.html

He also appears to be using the same defense in the defamation lawsuit filed against him, i.e. 'I'm President, You Can't Sue Me';

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/28/donald-trump-claim-presidential-immunity-defamation-case-brought/

Gonna need someone with a meatier legal or historical mind to weigh in on this. While I can see how absolute immunity would protect a President from decisions related to his Presidency- so, for example, nobody can sue Trump directly for shafting environmental regulations, at most they can file a lawsuit against the government as a whole- how frequently has it been used to shield Presidents from matters such as these, issues outside their normal Presidential duties? I seem to recall that Bill Clinton might have tried it at one point, but iirc the Supreme Court shot him down on it.

****

And in other news, looks like the Kushner clan is in some hot water as well, as it looks like while seeking Chinese investors to put money into their projects (possibly for EB-5 Visas, which grant an American Visa to anyone who invests five hundred thousand dollars in U.S. ventures, iirc,) Jared Kushner's sister ended up name dropping the fact that her brother was, indeed, White House senior adviser Jared Kushner as part of their marketing material. This has caused a biiiiit of a stir...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/kushner-firm-apologizes-for-referencing-white-house-ties-at-chinese-event/article34929127/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/us/politics/kushner-china-visa-eb-5.html

***

Also, this.

http://www.npr.org/2017/05/11/527811206/sale-of-trump-property-raises-ethical-questions-about-potential-buyers-motives

At this point, I think Americans would be happy if he was just embezzling.

renegade7:
A while ago I remember there was a minor burst of outrage when it was found out that Obama was going through multiple bottles of hand sanitizer per day at the taxpayer's expense. If Obama had pulled half the shit Trump is doing, the MAGA crowd would have burned the fucking country to the ground.

Heh .... yeah. Though I thought more highly of Obama for that than not. With the amount of hands he shook, he was doing his patriotic duty of helping quarantine services and international good will by people knowing when you shook his hand yours become cleaner. It's just polite.

Besides ... 9 out of 10 preventable deaths happens because people don't wash their hands.

Seanchaidh:

Catnip1024:

bastardofmelbourne:
I mean, listen to this shit: do we all remember when a department store chain named Nordstrom announced they were going to stop stocking Ivanka Trump's merchandise because of steadily declining sales? And then Kellyanne Conway went on Fox & Friends and literally said "go buy Ivanka's stuff?"

Online sales of Ivanka Trump merchandise increased by 332% in the month after that interview.

Okay, for the sake of debate, how is this any different to the preceding bit where people went around asking people to not buy Ivanka's stuff because of her links to her father? If you start asking people to buy politically, you can't complain when it turns out more people on the other side are doing it.

Kellyanne Conway was speaking on CNN because she's a figure in the White House, not because CNN is an advertising arm of the Trump organization. Conway is, in fact, paid by the government-- her and by extension the Trump administration used her position to advertise Ivanka's merchandise. This is by far the least of the sins of the Trump administration, though.

I think Conway gets an overly bad rap. She's a paid employee who obviously blurs the lines of acceptability because ... well the person she is representing is such a horrible person. To put it more sincerely, she's a loyal henchman of the Godfather. When the Godfather is a fool and so obviously and publicly wrong, do you necessarily blame the henchmen that work with him? I would be hardpressed to do her job with the level of sincerity she seems to display. And frankly, the wayshe has drawn heat on numerous occasions away from her employer to herself is downright admirable. I mean she's the perfect representative of an obviously flawed politician.

Some of her 'gaffs' are, when analyzed fairly, not really gaffs. I mean how else do you defend Trump's allegations and downright frightening rhetoric that the press is the enemy of the people? And it paid off, right? She gets tarnished and diverts hatred away from her boss with ridiculous rhetoric at precisely the right time she was needed.

Her competency as a sacrificial lamb is both admirable and not to be underestimated. With a better president she might have been a welcome sight, but with a crappy one she still did her job with loyalty. Either that or she's a bigger idiot than people claim... but I tend to worry about people that are soquick to underestimate their opponents.

I mean if I was approachedto do Trump's PR work, in light of the public circus he is and his criminal activities and downright abhorrent rhetoric ... I would not take that contract. Not for a million dollars. Not for ten million dollars. As the only strategy I would have to take the air away from the flames is by precisely the tactics she displayed and used. In my mind, if you want to reduce hatred you create diversions. You create "unintended" humour at key calculated points, whereby you reduce the condemnation to 'LOL' ... and frankly that would not be a bullet I am willing to take.

And yet somehow, where we are now is still preferable to a Clinton presidency. That we have people taking that viewpoint is the real surprise here. Anyone with half a brain was already pointing out prior to the election how corrupt this dude was going to be.

Jux:
And yet somehow, where we are now is still preferable to a Clinton presidency. That we have people taking that viewpoint is the real surprise here. Anyone with half a brain was already pointing out prior to the election how corrupt this dude was going to be.

A lot of people have bigger problems than the embezzler-in-chief. Self-interested abuses of power which don't greatly disturb national policy are predictably less damaging to voter perceptions than more consequential forms of corruption, such as modifying policy due to a bribe-- or, indeed, honestly working to further the interests of rich people at the expense of everyone else (and naturally receiving lots of money for those efforts).

Ever seen the movie Office Space? The heroes of that movie in the end resort to straightforward embezzlement. The villains are the established powers that be, crushing the spirits of employees by maintaining a system of management-- entirely legally-- that is capricious and arbitrary, that ignores merit and rewards superficiality, position and personal connections, and that can almost at random become immensely disruptive to the lives of the people who work there. The heroes of this movie just want to smash whatever they can to bits and escape with enough money to live on-- and they are absolutely sympathetic. It is difficult to imagine an audience that would be against them. When Milton finally just sets the building on fire, no tears are shed. Sound familiar? That's 2016 in a nutshell. And that's why clinging to Hillary Clinton as the alternative to Donald Trump is a losing strategy. Hillary Clinton is Lumbergh.

SeventhSigil:
Gonna need someone with a meatier legal or historical mind to weigh in on this.

I can give you a very concise and completely useless answer: nobody has any fucking idea. There is virtually no precedent testing a president's immunity to civil suits. There's precedent for testing executive privilege, which is a closely related but distinct matter relating to the executive's ability to resist subpoenas, but almost no precedent testing the "absolute immunity" that Trump claims.

I don't agree with your core premise but even if you think this, that really just puts him in the same boat as every other politician ever.

Zacharious-khan:
I don't agree with your core premise but even if you think this, that really just puts him in the same boat as every other politician ever.

While there are plenty of politicians in their own boats, Trump has rather characteristically opted for one of the biggest and shiniest boats. Whether it's not divesting himself of his businesses, a lack of a blind trust, (for that matter, open and easy access to detailed information on his financial holdings and business interests,) total lack of transparency with regards to his tax returns, his administration's total lack of transparency when it comes to providing ethics wavers, not only to the public but even initially the Office of Government Ethics. (Bright side, the White House has finally relented in its initial refusal to provide the OGE with the waivers.) The only way one might argue the swamp is being drained at this point is that a number of people who would have lobbied government for rule changes last year are now in government, with direct access to the wheel. =P

If nothing else, this seems to set a precedent for the future on just how much more self-serving and corrupt a President can be in office, given a number of the things Trump has done (things that a couple of years ago were considered a no-no,) highlighted the utter lack of consequences that come from crossing those lines.

Zacharious-khan:
I don't agree with your core premise but even if you think this, that really just puts him in the same boat as every other politician ever.

Most of them at least pretend not to be profiting at taxpayer expense. Trump makes it obvious.

trump just made senior administration figures exempt from ethics violations so they can freely lobby on behalf of groups and businesses they currently and formerly represented.

well at least hes not trying to outright hide the corruption this time

pookie101:
trump just made senior administration figures exempt from ethics violations so they can freely lobby on behalf of groups and businesses they currently and formerly represented.

well at least hes not trying to outright hide the corruption this time

Well, hey, at least it's only five times the number Obama handed out in the same period of time, at this point Trump showing enough restraint not to be ten times as corrupt seems like the best we're going to get. =P

The funniest part is that, after resisting actually releasing these records despite the Office of Government Ethics' prodding, the White House is trying to spin this as if they're all about transparency. =P It's like a kid who, after spending three hours whining about wanting to go get ice cream to no avail, finally shouts 'WELL FINE, I DON'T WANT ICE CREAM ANYWAY!'

In any case, still waiting on the rest of the information to release for full context, as thus far only White House staff waivers have been released to the public, meaning that at this point in time we don't know how many waivers have been given to people across the various agencies throughout the federal government. For comparison's sake, over the course of eight years, Obama provided waivers to 16 White House staff (3 of them were in the first four months,) and a total of about 70 waivers across the full federal government. So it'll be interesting to see if Trump is just favoring his close, personal allies, or if his laisser-faire approach to swamp filling extends across the entire government. xP

SeventhSigil:

pookie101:
trump just made senior administration figures exempt from ethics violations so they can freely lobby on behalf of groups and businesses they currently and formerly represented.

well at least hes not trying to outright hide the corruption this time

Well, hey, at least it's only five times the number Obama handed out in the same period of time, at this point Trump showing enough restraint not to be ten times as corrupt seems like the best we're going to get. =P

The funniest part is that, after resisting actually releasing these records despite the Office of Government Ethics' prodding, the White House is trying to spin this as if they're all about transparency. =P It's like a kid who, after spending three hours whining about wanting to go get ice cream to no avail, finally shouts 'WELL FINE, I DON'T WANT ICE CREAM ANYWAY!'

In any case, still waiting on the rest of the information to release for full context, as thus far only White House staff waivers have been released to the public, meaning that at this point in time we don't know how many waivers have been given to people across the various agencies throughout the federal government. For comparison's sake, over the course of eight years, Obama provided waivers to 16 White House staff (3 of them were in the first four months,) and a total of about 70 waivers across the full federal government. So it'll be interesting to see if Trump is just favoring his close, personal allies, or if his laisser-faire approach to swamp filling extends across the entire government. xP

ah i didnt know about obama doing that.. i didnt really pay much attention to american politics back then purely because it was just another president rather than now when this nutter could possibly end the world

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here