Presidential Conflicts of Interest

[GMDino]

(11-22-2016, 12:54 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Well you are right. I can't find the original document that from the website I found. I had trusted it because it claimed it was pulled by a FOI request.

However, vandalizing the WH is very childish and petty and just shows their character.

 .

Quote:While cautious GSA staffers won’t issue a blanket exoneration of the Clinton team, Bernard Ungar, the agency’s director of physical infrastructure, told Salon the media clearly exaggerated the extent of the damage. According to the terse GSA statement that formed the basis of Ungar’s conclusion, “the condition of the real property was consistent with what we would expect to encounter when tenants vacate office space after an extended occupancy.”

[Mike M (the other one)]

(11-22-2016, 12:57 PM)GMDino Wrote:  .

I guess every administration removes letters from all of the keyboards?

[GMDino]

(11-22-2016, 01:55 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I guess every administration removes letters from all of the keyboards?

I suppose that's the same as you thinking they "vandalized the White House" and cost taxpayers "millions"?

Even if there's no proof it happened?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121599&page=1

[Benton]

(11-22-2016, 01:55 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I guess every administration removes letters from all of the keyboards?

Was it just the delete key?

[Mike M (the other one)]

From your first Link, the GAO one:
"Incidents such as the removal of keys from computer keyboards; the theft
of various items; the leaving of certain voice mail messages, signs, and
written messages; and the placing of glue on desk drawers, clearly were
done intentionally."

So which report do you stand behind?

[GMDino]

(11-22-2016, 03:54 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: From your first Link, the GAO one:
"Incidents such as the removal of keys from computer keyboards; the theft
of various items; the leaving of certain voice mail messages, signs, and
written messages; and the placing of glue on desk drawers, clearly were
done intentionally."

So which report do you stand behind?

I didn't see that quote in either of the links I posted. Maybe there's a third I missed?

But I googled that quote and got this:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washdc/2002/06/11/white-house-vandalism.htm

Quote:Clinton administration workers defaced equipment and left behind prank messages as they departed the White House in January 2001, congressional investigators concluded in a report released Tuesday.


But the General Accounting Office said it couldn't pinpoint the extent of damages or corroborate many claims by Bush administration officials because records weren't kept.

In only a few instances, such as some derogatory signs and stickers left for Bush administration officials, did congressional investigators personally witness evidence of the misdeeds.

In most cases, they relied on work orders submitted by the Bush administration to repair damaged equipment and replace missing supplies. Bush officials didn't conduct a criminal investigation or produce police reports, citing the need to expedite the transition.

...


"Incidents such as the removal of keys from computer keyboards; the theft of various items; the leaving of certain voice mail messages, signs, and written messages; and the placing of glue on desk drawers clearly were intentional acts," concludes the 215-page report by the investigative arm of Congress. "However, it was unknown whether other observations, such as broken furniture, were the result of intentional acts, when and how they occurred, or who may have been responsible for them."

The GAO noted allegations of vandalism surfaced when the Clinton administration took over the White House in 1993, replacing President Bush's father. Incoming Clinton staffers observed missing signs and doorknobs, excessive trash and words and initials carved into desks, the report said.

None of which has anything to do with President Elect Trump and his MULTITUDE of conflicts of interest.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-22-2016, 03:54 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: From your first Link, the GAO one:
"Incidents such as the removal of keys from computer keyboards; the theft
of various items; the leaving of certain voice mail messages, signs, and
written messages; and the placing of glue on desk drawers, clearly were
done intentionally."

So which report do you stand behind?

What GAO link?

[Mike M (the other one)]

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02360.pdf

[GMDino]

(11-23-2016, 12:58 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02360.pdf

Quote:Although it is clear that some of the reported incidents were intentional, such as the removal and damaging of keys on computer keyboards, it was unclear whether, in all cases, the reported incidents occurred, when they occurred, how many occurred, and who was responsible for them. In addition, regarding the items reported missing, it was not known whether all of them were thefts, and if they were, who was responsible for them.

Some documentation corroborating a number of the observations existed. EOP facilities, computer, and telephone officials said that much repair and replacement work was done during the transition without documentation being prepared because of the need to complete the work quickly. The OA associate director for facilities management, for example, said that no documentation was prepared regarding three to four missing office signs, a doorknob, and two or three medallions (small metal presidential seals affixed to office signs) that were replaced during that time. Further, documentation was provided indicating that much telephone service work was done during the transition, but this information did not directly corroborate allegations of vandalism and pranks involving the telephones.

Quote:The purchase requests were approved by an OA financial manager who, in April 2001, sent an E-mail to an OA branch chief indicating that the 62 keyboards purchased in January 2001 were approximately the number that were defective because “W” keys were missing or inoperable during the transition. (The actual number of keyboards that were damaged during the transition is uncertain because of different statements provided by EOP staff regarding the number of damaged keyboards that had to be replaced.)

So maybe, maybe not.

Either way this is way off topic of President Elect Trump conducting his private business as President.

[Dill]

(11-20-2016, 12:47 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: Without intending to preach the moral high ground, my first reaction has to do with ethics, or the lack thereof. You are hearkening  back to a day when eliminating any conflict of interest was a premium requirement for public officials. Ethics have been challenged for God knows how long, but seemingly no more so than the past few decades. Now that we have around 60 million voters showing the rest of the world that proper ethics have no place in the Oval Office, what we see is going to be the norm for a lot longer than most can imagine. Politicians do not give ethics top priority anymore. Neither do some voters.

Well, quite a few voters were incensed by the ethical questions swirling around Hillary. Many claimed her perceived dishonesty as the number one reason they would not vote for her. They rated Trump's honesty very highly.

So I would say that many politicians and voters do give ethics top priority. They are still a premium requirement for the other party's candidates.

But on this forum I won't be surprised if some who disparaged "crooked Hillary" now wonder what all the fuss is about if Trump uses the presidency to leverage building permits from foreign governments or to prevent unsightly wind towers from damaging the view at a luxury golf course.  What's the big deal if Chinese banks hold mortgages on his properties while he is negotiating trade deals with them?  Mightn't his 650 million in debts affect his domestic and foreign policy?  Doubtful, once he has turned his business over to his kids.  After that, how could he really know what is happening with those businesses any more?  And he won't be directing them. His kids will. So how could they profit from insider information once he has separated himself from his "international business empire"?

Still, the liberal media are so angry that he won; I am betting they continue to carp about conflicts of interest. 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-19-2016, 11:26 PM)Benton Wrote: a. Because the presidency shouldn't really be about profiting off the country.
b. He stands to make a lot more this way and donating his salary (which he can claim as a tax deduction). But he doesn't have a choice about accepting the salary. He can donate it, or keep it for himself. He can't simply not accept it. Other public officials have tried that, they still have to take the money.

About B, I believe JFK donated part of it, and used the other part of it as a bonus for his staff to supplement their income.

But yeah, do believe you're correct that he has to accept it, he just doesn't have to keep it.

[*wildcats forever*]

(11-23-2016, 07:23 PM)Dill Wrote: Well, quite a few voters were incensed by the ethical questions swirling around Hillary. Many claimed her perceived dishonesty as the number one reason they would not vote for her. They rated Trump's honesty very highly.

So I would say that many politicians and voters do give ethics top priority. They are still a premium requirement for the other party's candidates.

But on this forum I won't be surprised if some who disparaged "crooked Hillary" now wonder what all the fuss is about if Trump uses the presidency to leverage building permits from foreign governments or to prevent unsightly wind towers from damaging the view at a luxury golf course.  What's the big deal if Chinese banks hold mortgages on his properties while he is negotiating trade deals with them?  Mightn't his 650 million in debts affect his domestic and foreign policy?  Doubtful, once he has turned his business over to his kids.  After that, how could he really know what is happening with those businesses any more?  And he won't be directing them. His kids will. So how could they profit from insider information once he has separated himself from his "international business empire"?

Still, the liberal media are so angry that he won; I am betting they continue to carp about conflicts of interest. 

I wouldn't argue a single bit of this, Dill. In fact the only thing I'd change in what I wrote previously would be the referenced 60 million to 62 million, had Clinton won. The BS her posse pulled on Sanders during the primaries disgusted me as much as anything. It applies to the entire circus from my view. Old fashioned ethics lost its seat at the table, regardless of who is throwing the party. 

[Dill]

(11-23-2016, 11:10 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: I wouldn't argue a single bit of this, Dill. In fact the only thing I'd change in what I wrote previously would be the referenced 60 million to 62 million, had Clinton won. The BS her posse pulled on Sanders during the primaries disgusted me as much as anything. It applies to the entire circus from my view. Old fashioned ethics lost its seat at the table, regardless of who is throwing the party. 

LOL no Cats, I would say you Bernie supporters have kept at least one seat at the table--at least the ones who didn't shift to Trump!

[xxlt]

(11-21-2016, 09:46 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: You're right that this would be a drop in the bucket to both his back accounts and the increase to the debt he is going to be brining, but that doesn't make it any less unethical.

Perhaps it is a bigger drop than most think. Remember, this is the guy American banks won't lend money to, who did not release his tax returns, who bankrupted a casino, who says he states his net worth based, "On how I feel that day."

So, I am not sure he is worth billions. And, as you state, unethical is unethical, regardless of the size of your bank account and in spite of what Trump and many of his supporters would have you believe. Nixon said, "If the president does it, it isn't illegal." Trump et al would paraphrase that to, "If a rich guy does it, it isn't illegal."

[xxlt]

(11-19-2016, 10:23 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Seeing how he isn't going to accept the salary, and will only intermittently reside in the White House, What is the big deal?

I somehow missed the part in bold. I will bet dollars against donuts that it is not true.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(11-24-2016, 10:16 AM)xxlt Wrote: I somehow missed the part in bold. I will bet dollars against donuts that it is not true.

Legally he has to accept a Salary, he said he wants $1 per year as his salary.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(11-20-2016, 06:17 PM)GMDino Wrote: While in office? Try again.

The complete and total loyalty to trump is kind of funny though.

While in office?
Hillary said if she won, she was going to let Chelsea run the Clinton Foundation. That's the same as Trump's kids running his businesses while he's POTUS right?

[Benton]

(11-25-2016, 02:11 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: While in office?
Hillary said if she won, she was going to let Chelsea run the Clinton Foundation. That's the same as Trump's kids running his businesses while he's POTUS right?

Hillary didn't get elected. And running a for profit multinational isn't the same as a legal nonprofit where some people make money. There's a world of difference in the red cross and us bank even though they're both a type of bank.

[GMDino]

(11-25-2016, 02:11 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: While in office?
Hillary said if she won, she was going to let Chelsea run the Clinton Foundation. That's the same as Trump's kids running his businesses while he's POTUS right?

Not even close.

One is a charitable foundation the other is a (supposed) multi-billion dollar industry that is actively doing business with other countries.  Countries that President Elect Trump is talking business with while being President of the US.  

[xxlt]

(11-25-2016, 02:07 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Legally he has to accept a Salary, he said he wants $1 per year as his salary.

Which plays well in Poughkeepsie, but legally $1 is not the salary for the job.