Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[barmar]

Before we get to the Kushner/Russian angle, I think you should know that Donald Trump is in violation of 5 U.S.C. §3110. He can't hire his daughter and son-in-law into executive branch positions. :blink:

I think they're getting around this by not paying them.

 

It's very convenient that they're all independently wealthy.

[awm]

I think they're getting around this by not paying them.

 

It's very convenient that they're all independently wealthy.

 

Even "independently wealthy" is tricky -- in fact they are simultaneously running businesses which profit from their political roles and connections. So while not being paid for the job they are definitely profiting from it.

[barmar]

Even "independently wealthy" is tricky -- in fact they are simultaneously running businesses which profit from their political roles and connections. So while not being paid for the job they are definitely profiting from it.

Wouldn't that be true even if they didn't have official positions? You can hardly expect POTUS to completely disassociate himself from his family. They'll always have his ear.

 

I think the best you can expect is that they won't make decisions that have clear conflicts of interests between their political ties and business interests.

 

POTUS is expected to put his own assets into a blind trust. But in the case of Trump, this was not really feasible -- his main "asset" is his name, and the more concrete assets are his own company, not a portfolio of investments that trustees can buy and sell independently of him. But regardless of this, I don't think there's any similar requirement for family members.

 

If any of them are found providing advice to Trump that's biased based on their specific business interests, they should be subject to ethics charges. But if they advise actions that are good for businesses in general, that's just normal Republican policy-making. You can't prohibit this any more than we could expect a female president to avoid policies that are good for women.

[RedSpawn]

...

 

I can only offer one actual experience. At one time I held a position in the math department that gave me considerable influence over what textbooks would be used for which courses. Shortly after assuming this position someone came around from a text book company and offered me a good fee for reviewing a new text. Without thinking, I said sure. Within hours, I came to me senses and called him back. I explained that I would be happy to accept such an offer as soon as my term in this position ended. Of course I could render an impartial decision about texts to be used, . But you might or might not believe this, and that's the point. I did not want anyone wondering how my decisions were made. It took me a few hours to realize this because such an event is rare for me, I rarely have power over anything. It is not at all rare for a person with political power to encounter such a conflict. It is inconceivable to me that such a thing did not occur to someone as experiences as Bill Clinton. I regard this as impossible.

 

This gets to the heart of what constitutes good business ethics. You avoided a business relationship that would have created the appearance that a bribe/kickback influenced your math textbook selection. You avoided even the slightest appearance of impropriety by declining the fee until you were no longer in a position to determine textbooks for your math department.

 

Therefore, you avoided a conflict of interest which would have cast a shadow over your motivations for your final textbook selection. It would be difficult to establish that you served the best interests of the math department while receiving compensation from a textbook company participating in your review.

 

You would have had a professional duty to two organizations with competing interests and could not do justice to one organization without adversely affecting the other.

[awm]

Wouldn't that be true even if they didn't have official positions? You can hardly expect POTUS to completely disassociate himself from his family. They'll always have his ear.

 

I think the best you can expect is that they won't make decisions that have clear conflicts of interests between their political ties and business interests.

 

POTUS is expected to put his own assets into a blind trust. But in the case of Trump, this was not really feasible -- his main "asset" is his name, and the more concrete assets are his own company, not a portfolio of investments that trustees can buy and sell independently of him. But regardless of this, I don't think there's any similar requirement for family members.

 

If any of them are found providing advice to Trump that's biased based on their specific business interests, they should be subject to ethics charges. But if they advise actions that are good for businesses in general, that's just normal Republican policy-making. You can't prohibit this any more than we could expect a female president to avoid policies that are good for women.

 

It's at least a little different. The expectation (and my impression was, the law) is that government employees are not supposed to be simultaneously working for private businesses which may profit from the information and influence they receive in their government role. It seems like the Trump family is in flagrant violation of this.

 

While it's true that the president (or any government employee) may have family/friends with such businesses, this is different from the government employee running the business him (or her) self, because the person making the business decisions is not the person privy to classified information, and any attempt to directly collude would require some communication (and thus be subject to transparency laws, subpoena, etc).

 

I agree that since Trump trades primarily on his name, complete disassociation is tricky. But appointing his kids to positions of power (while they are simultaneously running the businesses, rather than having other family members run them) is really a new low.

[RedSpawn]

Now find a reason for Jared Kushner to clandestinely meet with the Russian Ambassador, have a second clandestine meeting with a representative from a Russian bank that is sanctioned in the U.S., and then for Kuchner to suggest to the Russian Ambassador that they allow Kushner a clandestine back channel contact with the Kremlin using Russia's communication systems.

 

First, I am assuming all of the above are true. It is coming from Western intelligence sources, but they can be wrong as was the case with the Iraq War, but let's assume this fact pattern is true.

 

1. Jared Kushner was part of Trump's transition team.

   Contacts between a transition team member and foreign diplomats are indeed entirely normal. What is not normal though is asking a hostile government to provide secure communications to avoid FBI/NSA surveillance. --Eliot A Cohen, former Counselor for the State Department

   Therefore, the back-channel request will immediately send red flags to Congress, the Western intelligence community, and the general public. It paints a cloud of suspicion over the White House because the lack of transparency over the President-Elect's communications with a foreign enemy makes one question Trump's motives and loyalties as Commander-in-Chief (military & global) and President-Elect of the United States (diplomatic & domestic). See link for additional information. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/31/jared-kushners-russia-back-channel-diplomacy-is-it-legal.html
    
   
2. The Western Intelligence Community has a motto, "In God We Trust, All Others We Monitor". Don't believe me? Try the following link: http://www.ebay.com/itm/IN-GOD-WE-TRUST-ALL-OTHERS-WE-MONITOR-THE-IC-HAT-PATCH-INTE-PIN-UP-GIFT-VETERAN-/400208260177?nma=true&si=PWTbohBmGo1%252FeLilR2HvYmB3crc%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557
    
   Trump's desire to keep the FBI/NSA out of the loop on his diplomatic efforts with Russia is unacceptable to the intelligence community. They are "all-seeing" and "all-monitoring". There is too much US and Russian military intervention occurring at the Syrian border for our armed forces and intelligence gathering services to not know the exact nature of diplomatic deal making occurring between Russia and its own President-Elect! Our military and intelligence services would be at a comparative disadvantage to discover the nature of those discussions after Russia moderated them.
    
   The President is Commander in Chief of the United States military. The military's short-term objective in Syria may not reconcile with Trump's long-term diplomatic objective to broker peace between Russia and the US in the Syrian Civil War. He has a conflict of interest between his military role as Commander in Chief to the Department of Defense and his foreign-policy role under the United States Department of State. The only way to resolve this situation adequately is to remain TRANSPARENT to his own governmental agencies at each step of the process.
    
   
3. Kushner's proper response to the Russian diplomat while on the transition team should have been, "I am happy to hear what you have to say to us, but we have one President at a time."--Eliot A Cohen
   

The problem here is that President Trump is an insular businessman who has mastered brand marketing but has failed miserably at understanding the need for teamwork and networking. He can't be an effective President if he despises the media-industrial-complex, the D.C. establishment, and our intelligence community.

 

Trump must learn to hold his family and friends close, but his perceived enemies even closer.

 

Note: Interesting article about Kushner's relationship with Trump. https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-06-01/trump-s-biggest-goals-at-risk-as-kushner-is-sucked-into-probe

[RedSpawn]

...

There are ways around most regulations. If he were to delegate the choices for those roles to his chief of staff and he were to choose Trump's relatives as "the best person for the job", that would presumably be legal, just about. Nepotism happens - when the Chief of Police in Haven dies and the successor in the role just happens to be his son, well that is just a normal thing out there in the real world. Whether Trump bothered to go through such steps to comply with the letter of the regulations I do not know. But it would be a brave/foolhardy person in the HR department to say "no" to the POTUS on such a technicality. The only reason I could think of for someone taking that action would be because they wanted to hear him say "You're fired!" up close and personal. :lol:

Fair enough, but. . .

 

“A nation of laws” means that laws, not people, rule. Everyone is to be governed by the same laws, regardless of their station; whether it is the most common American or Members of Congress, high-ranking bureaucrats or the President of the United States; all must be held to the just laws of America. No one is, or can be allowed to be, above the law. --James Shott, https://patriotpost.us/commentary/26902

President Trump may have found a "work around" for this federal law by not compensating his family members, but it does set a new low for the Presidency. Why? Trump is implicitly showing by leadership example that it is okay to follow the letter of the law and ignore the spirit of the law.

 

When one obeys the letter of the law but not the spirit, one is obeying the literal interpretation of the words (the "letter") of the law, but not necessarily the intent of those who wrote the law.-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law

It is obvious that 5 U.S. Code § 3110 was constructed to put a halt to nepotism in the federal government. Why not honor the spirit of the law instead of searching for ways to circumvent it through "back door" escape clauses, such as not compensating his hired family members through the Treasury? If we can't get our own President to honor the spirit of the law, then why should we?

 

The optics of this situation aren't appealing, but he may skirt this issue on a technicality.

[rmnka447]

It is also worth pointing out how ridiculous this comparison is on the merits.

Sessions was part of the main organisation under investigation (the Trump campaign), he had contacts with Russia, and he did not disclose them until news media found out about them. He would be potential witness, and even possibly a target of the investigation.

Lynch had an half-hour chat with the husband of the person under investigation.

 

The thing that gets me about rmnka447 is that he is clearly intelligent and eloquent. Yet he uses his eloquence to reproduce non-sensical spin from right-wing websites. You can win a real-life debate like that. But in a forum like this one, where most (except for the few how are already on your side) are able to check and verify facts, people may just end up pointing at you and laughing - you certainly won't convince anyone.

 

rmnka447 - how about you try to make one argument here where you try to argue on the merits, rather than reproducing nice-sounding spin with no substance whatsoever? It'd be a much better use of your time.

 

I am completely aware that I may live my life in a left-wing bubble. It would be good to get some reality checks, and to have someone occasionally burst the bubble by pointing out inconvenient facts that would be more convenient for me to ignore. But reading the kind of non-sense presented by Trump supporters in this thread just reinforces the impression that everybody in my left-wing bubble gets everything about Trump 110% right.

Cherdano, thanks for the thoughtful critique.

 

How about this opinion piece from the (ugh?) Washington Post by a fellow non-Trump fan? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-not-learning-from-the-trump-story--because-weve-peeked-at-the-last-page/2017/05/18/08cd5412-3be0-11e7-8854-21f359183e8c_story.html?utm_term=.d1d100ef6642

[RedSpawn]

Cherdano, thanks for the thoughtful critique.

 

How about this opinion piece from the (ugh?) Washington Post by a fellow non-Trump fan? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-not-learning-from-the-trump-story--because-weve-peeked-at-the-last-page/2017/05/18/08cd5412-3be0-11e7-8854-21f359183e8c_story.html?utm_term=.d1d100ef6642

 

I agree with the Washington Post that we do not meet the legal threshold for obstruction of justice charges against President Trump since there is no evidence of Trump's intent to threaten Comey.

 

Advancing the impeachment story line would heighten the political kabuki theater and create enough controversy to hamper Congress' ability to debate bills and conduct the people's business. Don't let the propaganda deceive you. It's the media's job to control what you think; it will support the narrative that best aligns with its corporate agenda.

 

Media bias is now the rule of law rather than the exception. Too many members of the Corporate Media Complex have transformed news into "entertainment" or "infotainment". That's why our current political dysfunction resembles a horribly written reality TV show with no end in sight. Instead of falling for the carefully placed distractions, we should be asking Congress, "What Have You Done for Me Lately"?

 

The D.C. establishment and the media have been railing against Trump ever since he announced his candidacy for POTUS. They labeled him a carnival barker who lacks the political pedigree that the Presidency requires. They predicted he would not win. However, the electoral college proved them wrong and declared Trump President despite the popular vote. This happens sometimes, so we should just accept the political process for what it is and move on.

 

However, the media and political establishment are still in denial about Trump's political victory. He wasn't supposed to win the election when the system had been rigged to favor political insiders. The establishment wants to neutralize the election results by leading a ruthless smear campaign--all because they don't like the impulsive, mysterious bully in the White House. They have been angling for an impeachment ending to this story line so Pence/Ryan can occupy the White House and stick to the script. They want the unpredictable outsider gone--NOW!

 

Ever wonder why the media sat on this treasure trove of disturbing, yet titillating information about Trump until after Election Day? Hmmmm....just another isolated coincidence, I guess.

[PeterAlan]

I think they're getting around this by not paying them.

I don't see this. (b) says you can't appoint them. (c) says if they are appointed "in violation of" (b) they can't be paid - presumably so that if a contentious case arises that is finally deemed to fall foul of (b) they don't get to keep what they've already been paid. But (b) still prohibits appointment, paid or not. The only wriggle room would appear to be over what posts are covered, ie what is a "civilian position in the agency".

[Zelandakh]

<snip>

So your answer to the FBI investigating members of the Trump campaign regarding Russia is that it is a conspiracy between the media and the intelligence agencies of multiple countries to bring down "the outsider" and put in his place a career politician of the far right? You are right to question why the FBI sat on the information about Trump while at the same time releasing information about HC that materially affected the election but is almost certainly less relevant in terms of criminal/moral wrongdoing. But that is another storyline entirely from the large-scale plotting you seem to have in mind.

[RedSpawn]

So your answer to the FBI investigating members of the Trump campaign regarding Russia is that it is a conspiracy between the media and the intelligence agencies of multiple countries to bring down "the outsider" and put in his place a career politician of the far right? You are right to question why the FBI sat on the information about Trump while at the same time releasing information about HC that materially affected the election but is almost certainly less relevant in terms of criminal/moral wrongdoing. But that is another storyline entirely from the large-scale plotting you seem to have in mind.

 

We are watching a power struggle in Washington between a deeply entrenched political establishment resistant to change and an inexperienced, "suspicious", nonconformist that clearly won't stick to script. This disturbs them.

 

We are also watching a corporate media complex subvert what news is to accomplish a larger goal that is consistent with the desires and objectives of said establishment. The visceral, frenetic, machine gun paced media attacks against a President who hasn't even been in office for 5 months is not just alarming, it is revealing. The media is firing too many blanks in their preemptive strike and destroying what little credibility they have left.

 

The ends don't justify the means here, even if a legal case can be made for Trump's impeachment. Too many career politicians in Washington are so worried about Trump's effect on the 2018 midterm elections, that they are willing to bring the government to a slow crawl with a litany of expensive investigations and hearings just to score political points with their constituents. We all know the story ending the D.C. establishment wants.

 

And it is no surprise that the FBI has named Kushner a person of interest in their investigation. He is Trump's liaison and confidant, so maybe including Kushner in this legal/political dragnet will slow Trump down and compromise his ability to fulfill his campaign promises. Of course such a move will reinforce the confirmation bias the media and D.C. establishment already have about Trump.

 

And hopefully when the ride on this political carousel ends, we will all be convinced that we should settle for the devil we know (Pence/Ryan) instead of the devil we don't know (Trump/Pence). Maybe then, the establishment can breathe a collective sigh of relief and go back to business as usual. Election be damned.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/17/mike-pence-president-trump-238525 ==> President succession planning

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/aug/16/mondaymediasection.politicsandthemedia ==> Incisive article about media bias

 

Stay tuned for the next episode. . .

[PassedOut]

We are watching a power struggle in Washington between a deeply entrenched political establishment resistant to change and an inexperienced, "suspicious", nonconformist that clearly won't stick to script. This disturbs them.

 

We are also watching a corporate media complex subvert what news is to accomplish a larger goal that is consistent with the desires and objectives of said establishment. The visceral, frenetic, machine gun paced media attacks against a President who hasn't even been in office for 5 months is not just alarming, it is revealing. The media is firing too many blanks in their preemptive strike and destroying what little credibility they have left.

I understand what you are saying, but am not aware of all those blanks that have been fired. Seems to me that the news about Trump has been pretty accurate, by and large--much more so than Trump himself and his spokespeople.

 

To what large number of blanks do you refer?

[RedSpawn]

With all of this Trump kabuki theater going on --- this VERY IMPORTANT financial regulatory "dismantling" has gotten lost in the news cycle.

 

See link for more information: https://blogs.wsj.com/briefly/2017/02/03/financial-regulation-the-dodd-frank-dismantling-begins-at-a-glance/

 

In an exclusive Wall Street Journal interview, Mr. Trump’s chief economic policy adviser – Gary Cohn, formerly president of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. – ran through a list of regulations ripe for a rethink. Among them: rules setting bank capital levels; mammoth “living will” blueprints banks are required to compile showing how they can go out of business without tapping taxpayer funds; government designation of nonbanks, such as insurers, as “systemically important financial institutions” that face stricter federal oversight; and the Volcker rule restricting how banks invest taxpayer-insured deposits.

Please note how a former President of Goldman Sach Group, now Trump's Chief Economic Policy Adviser, is asking the government to reduce capital requirements for big banks, abolish the Volcker rule, and declaw the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) which was making the financial industry accountable for their client relationships. The CFPA has saved consumers almost $12 billion in the 1st 6 years which equals less graft and corruption and profits for the banking industry. See http://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/why-republicans-want-declaw-nation-s-consumer-financial-watchdog-agency-n756486 for additional information.

 

The Volcker Rule refers to § 619 (12 U.S.C. § 1851) part of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, originally proposed by American economist and former United States Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker to restrict United States banks from making certain kinds of speculative investments that do not benefit their customers. Volcker argued that such speculative activity played a key role in the financial crisis of 2007–2010. The rule is often referred to as a ban on proprietary trading by commercial banks, whereby deposits are used to trade on the bank's own accounts, although a number of exceptions to this ban were included in the Dodd-Frank law. (bold mine). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcker_Rule for additional information.

So, basically we are trying to recreate a financial regulatory environment similar to the one we had before the housing bubble crash and calling it choice? Which lobbyist(s) asked to have this sweetheart change made to our federal laws? Back in the olden days, banking used to be uninspired and boring; commercial banks did not use customers' deposits for speculative activity like hedge funds and derivative based products and proprietary trading. Now, we are allowing commercial banks to engage in the same financial shenanigans that contributed to the 2008 housing bubble crash?

 

Here is a summary of the Financial Choice Act which abolishes the Volcker Rule, declaws the CFPA, and reduces capital requirements for big banks:

 

http://financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/financial_choice_act_executive_summary_final.pdf

 

Can someone tell me how dismantling Dodd-Frank is making American better for Main Street, because I can definitely see how it benefits Wall Street? It creates an atmosphere ripe for another financial market crash! The news sharks should have provided frenetic, repeated and continuous coverage of this programming change.

[RedSpawn]

I understand what you are saying, but am not aware of all those blanks that have been fired. Seems to me that the news about Trump has been pretty accurate, by and large--much more so than Trump himself and his spokespeople.

 

To what large number of blanks do you refer?

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/31/trump-impeach-polling-238947

 

Thanks for the feedback.

 

NOTE: I will need to do major editing of this posting:

 

I am not sure why the corporate media complex is conducting polls to determine whether or not we should be impeaching a President. Either Congress has the evidence that meets the legal standard for "high crimes and misdemeanors" per the Constitution or it doesn't. No one should be conducting a poll to determine the electorate's view on this matter unless a politician is more concerned about his CONSTITUENTS and CAREER than he is the Constitution and rule of law. Congress does not impeach a sitting President based on a plebiscite.

 

What we have now is a whole lot of innuendo, speculation, dubious business associations and strange behavior, but not much else. Don't get me wrong, we have enough to pursue an investigation but I can not understand the media circus and the desire to undo the results of an election less than one year ago. Now is not the time for political vendettas.

[Winstonm]

With all of this Trump kabuki theater going on --- this VERY IMPORTANT financial regulatory "dismantling" has gotten lost in the news cycle.

 

See link for more information: https://blogs.wsj.com/briefly/2017/02/03/financial-regulation-the-dodd-frank-dismantling-begins-at-a-glance/

 

 

Please note how a former President of Goldman Sach Group, now Trump's Chief Economic Policy Adviser, is asking the government to reduce capital requirements for big banks, abolish the Volcker rule, and declaw the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) which was making the financial industry accountable for their client relationships. The CFPA has saved consumers almost $12 billion in the 1st 6 years which equals less graft and corruption and profits for the banking industry. See http://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/why-republicans-want-declaw-nation-s-consumer-financial-watchdog-agency-n756486 for additional information.

 

 

So, basically we are trying to recreate a financial regulatory environment similar to the one we had before the housing bubble crash and calling it choice? Which lobbyist(s) asked to have this sweetheart change made to our federal laws? Back in the olden days, banking used to be uninspired and boring; commercial banks did not use customers' deposits for speculative activity like hedge funds and derivative based products and proprietary trading. Now, we are allowing commercial banks to engage in the same financial shenanigans that contributed to the 2008 housing bubble crash?

 

Here is a summary of the Financial Choice Act which abolishes the Volcker Rule, declaws the CFPA, and reduces capital requirements for big banks:

 

http://financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/financial_choice_act_executive_summary_final.pdf

 

Can someone tell me how dismantling Dodd-Frank is making American better for Main Street, because I can definitely see how it benefits Wall Street? It creates an atmosphere ripe for another financial market crash! The news sharks should have provided frenetic, repeated and continuous coverage of this programming change.

 

The "populist" Trump turns out to be just another oligarch. I am shocked, shocked to hear this news! B-)

[Zelandakh]

We are watching a power struggle in Washington between a deeply entrenched political establishment resistant to change and an inexperienced, "suspicious", nonconformist that clearly won't stick to script. This disturbs them.

 

We are also watching a corporate media complex subvert what news is to accomplish a larger goal that is consistent with the desires and objectives of said establishment. The visceral, frenetic, machine gun paced media attacks against a President who hasn't even been in office for 5 months is not just alarming, it is revealing. The media is firing too many blanks in their preemptive strike and destroying what little credibility they have left.

 

The ends don't justify the means here, even if a legal case can be made for Trump's impeachment. Too many career politicians in Washington are so worried about Trump's effect on the 2018 midterm elections, that they are willing to bring the government to a slow crawl with a litany of expensive investigations and hearings just to score political points with their constituents. We all know the story ending the D.C. establishment wants.

 

And it is no surprise that the FBI has named Kushner a person of interest in their investigation. He is Trump's liaison and confidant, so maybe including Kushner in this legal/political dragnet will slow Trump down and compromise his ability to fulfill his campaign promises. Of course such a move will reinforce the confirmation bias the media and D.C. establishment already have about Trump.

 

And hopefully when the ride on this political carousel ends, we will all be convinced that we should settle for the devil we know (Pence/Ryan) instead of the devil we don't know (Trump/Pence). Maybe then, the establishment can breathe a collective sigh of relief and go back to business as usual. Election be damned.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/17/mike-pence-president-trump-238525 ==> President succession planning

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/aug/16/mondaymediasection.politicsandthemedia ==> Incisive article about media bias

 

Stay tuned for the next episode. . .

So your answer is basically yes, that your response to the links between Russia and the Trump campaign is that it is a conspiracy.

 

From the above it sounds like you believe the only reason Kushner has been named by the FBI is to undermine Trump and that there is no reason for him to be under investigation whatsoever. And not only the FBI either. In Britain it has been reported that GCHQ had evidence of collusion well in advance of the FBI and passed the information on to them. Indeed the Germans (SIGINT) may have been involved before the FBI or CIA acted on the information. I suppose all of these are in on the conspiracy too?

 

But rather than report on collusion between the upper echelons of the White House and a foreign enamy power, the media should have been writing about financial reforms. Yes, this makes perfect sense. I think you really need to take a step back and look at all of the information out there rationally and how you as an editor in chief might have handled it. Either that or simply accept that you are a product of the right wing media machine and agree to disagree with, basically, everything that "normal" people think. :blink:

[PassedOut]

Please note how a former President of Goldman Sach Group, now Trump's Chief Economic Policy Adviser, is asking the government to reduce capital requirements for big banks, abolish the Volcker rule, and declaw the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) which was making the financial industry accountable for their client relationships. The CFPA has saved consumers almost $12 billion in the 1st 6 years which equals less graft and corruption and profits for the banking industry.

 

So, basically we are trying to recreate a financial regulatory environment similar to the one we had before the housing bubble crash and calling it choice? Which lobbyist(s) asked to have this sweetheart change made to our federal laws? Back in the olden days, banking used to be uninspired and boring; commercial banks did not use customers' deposits for speculative activity like hedge funds and derivative based products and proprietary trading. Now, we are allowing commercial banks to engage in the same financial shenanigans that contributed to the 2008 housing bubble crash?

 

Can someone tell me how dismantling Dodd-Frank is making American better for Main Street, because I can definitely see how it benefits Wall Street? It creates an atmosphere ripe for another financial market crash! The news sharks should have provided frenetic, repeated and continuous coverage of this programming change.

I certainly agree with you that making these changes would work against me and against most other Americans. However, changes like these result from the election of representatives committed to acting against the interests of their constituents. Lots of folks didn't like Clinton and voted against her, but she would have stood in the way of those making these proposals.

 

The news sources that I read do present and critique these ill-advised proposals, but I suspect that the folks who don't figure that these proposals work against them don't look for that kind of information.

[RedSpawn]

So your answer is basically yes, that your response to the links between Russia and the Trump campaign is that it is a conspiracy.

 

From the above it sounds like you believe the only reason Kushner has been named by the FBI is to undermine Trump and that there is no reason for him to be under investigation whatsoever. And not only the FBI either. In Britain it has been reported that GCHQ had evidence of collusion well in advance of the FBI and passed the information on to them. Indeed the Germans (SIGINT) may have been involved before the FBI or CIA acted on the information. I suppose all of these are in on the conspiracy too?

 

But rather than report on collusion between the upper echelons of the White House and a foreign enamy power, the media should have been writing about financial reforms. Yes, this makes perfect sense. I think you really need to take a step back and look at all of the information out there rationally and how you as an editor in chief might have handled it. Either that or simply accept that you are a product of the right wing media machine and agree to disagree with, basically, everything that "normal" people think. :blink:

What you call a conspiracy, I call a clever choreography of coincidental circumstances. B-)

 

Question: If Kushner is the evil guy that the Western intelligence agencies purport him to be, why not file the charges right now?

 

Oh that's right, our government needs Kushner to testify under oath in a Congressional hearing so hopefully he will incriminate himself. Why? Because our government doesn't have sufficient evidence in a federal court to win strictly on the code of federal law. If the government already had a compelling case, they wouldn't need to try him 1st in the court of public opinion through media outlets. So the FBI has labeled him a person of interest which means that he has not been arrested or formally charged with a crime. He is "on their radar" as they continue their witch hunt investigation.

 

"The United States of America has the most complicated system of evidentiary rules" in the world. The reasons for this complexity are twofold. First, American defendants have the right to a jury trial in the vast majority of criminal cases and in many civil cases. Second, strict guidelines regarding what evidence can be admitted into a trial keeps the incidents of irrelevant and potentially distracting facts from being introduced, which may confuse a jury and adversely affect the outcome of a trial.

 

There are several major types [of evidence] including: documentary evidence, digital evidence, demonstrative evidence, exculpatory evidence, physical evidence, prima facie evidence, scientific evidence, and testimony.. (Bold & underline mine). See https://www.universalclass.com/articles/law/types-of-evidence.htm for additional information.

Yet with all of these types of admissible evidence in a federal court, Kushner is still a person of interest. The beauty behind trying Kushner in the court of public opinion is that the electorate will get easily sidetracked by incidents of irrelevant and potentially distracting facts. Politicians can score political points with their constituents by creating a controversy over Kushner. However, that tactic will fail horribly in a federal court because the Federal rules of evidence don't allow a smear campaign of glaring omissions, innuendo, conjecture, and dubious business associations to replace hard core evidence and facts relevant to the commission of a crime.

 

Kushner needs to explain how he forgot to disclose the discussions he had with Russian ambassadors and a Russian bank official on his security clearance application last year. The request for the back channel with Russia to facilitate a diplomatic discussion is definitely eye-raising and concerning, but it hardly rises to the level of the commission of a crime or a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917. He might be guilty under the Logan Act if he did not have the authority of the United States; however, if President-Elect Donald Trump approves of that request for a back-channel, doesn't Kushner have the implied consent of the authority of the United States since a President-Elect endorses the action?

 

Hmmmm. A federal judge would probably rule in Kushner's favor since the constitutionality of the Logan Act as written is questionable anyway and no one has ever been convicted under it.

[rmnka447]

So your answer is basically yes, that your response to the links between Russia and the Trump campaign is that it is a conspiracy.

 

From the above it sounds like you believe the only reason Kushner has been named by the FBI is to undermine Trump and that there is no reason for him to be under investigation whatsoever. And not only the FBI either. In Britain it has been reported that GCHQ had evidence of collusion well in advance of the FBI and passed the information on to them. Indeed the Germans (SIGINT) may have been involved before the FBI or CIA acted on the information. I suppose all of these are in on the conspiracy too?

 

But rather than report on collusion between the upper echelons of the White House and a foreign enamy power, the media should have been writing about financial reforms. Yes, this makes perfect sense. I think you really need to take a step back and look at all of the information out there rationally and how you as an editor in chief might have handled it. Either that or simply accept that you are a product of the right wing media machine and agree to disagree with, basically, everything that "normal" people think. :blink:

The problem is that there is too much "it's been reported" or "somebody said that something may have happened". The "somebody" might have misconstrued, misheard, or purposely colored the "facts" they are disclosing. We've all probably played the party game where one person whispers something into the ear of the first person in a line of people and each person in turn whispers what is said to the person next to them. At the end, what the last person reports is usually dramatically different than what was originally said. The differences take place because people have different perceptions of what is being said and expressing how things are said to the next person. I think the legal term is "hearsay" and the court's don't normally admit hearsay as credible evidence.

 

Another problem is that the "might have been" gets reported, then by repeated mention of the assertions, the might have been starts getting treated as fact. Additionally, the manner in which the "might have been" is reported can be biased. For example, the story may not provide appropriate context about what is being reported so that it misinforms about the real impact of what is being reported.

 

I'm thinking about the news story about the President giving classified information to the Russians in a recent WH meeting with them. The story was sensationalized by neglecting to provide the context that Presidents do share such information from time to time when deemed appropriate. But the story was presented as if the information provided were a horrendous gaffe or complicit espionage. The story lost a lot of its legs when subsequently ex-CIA Director Brennan testified that sharing classified information wasn't unusual when pursuing cooperation on common interests. Brennan did say that there was a specific format that needed to be adhered to in order to protect the sources and origins of such information.

 

The three other Americans in that meeting stated that the President didn't do anything inappropriate. Yet the story attributed to former and current members of the intelligence community asserted that the President revealed the source and origin of the intelligence to the Russians. So a question that needs answering is "How did these 'sources' get their information?" It would seem like you would need to know the verbatim conversation to be factually correct about the assertions.

[Winstonm]

The problem is that there is too much "it's been reported" or "somebody said that something may have happened". The "somebody" might have misconstrued, misheard, or purposely colored the "facts" they are disclosing. We've all probably played the party game where one person whispers something into the ear of the first person in a line of people and each person in turn whispers what is said to the person next to them. At the end, what the last person reports is usually dramatically different than what was originally said. The differences take place because people have different perceptions of what is being said and expressing how things are said to the next person. I think the legal term is "hearsay" and the court's don't normally admit hearsay as credible evidence.

 

Another problem is that the "might have been" gets reported, then by repeated mention of the assertions, the might have been starts getting treated as fact. Additionally, the manner in which the "might have been" is reported can be biased. For example, the story may not provide appropriate context about what is being reported so that it misinforms about the real impact of what is being reported.

 

I'm thinking about the news story about the President giving classified information to the Russians in a recent WH meeting with them. The story was sensationalized by neglecting to provide the context that Presidents do share such information from time to time when deemed appropriate. But the story was presented as if the information provided were a horrendous gaffe or complicit espionage. The story lost a lot of its legs when subsequently ex-CIA Director Brennan testified that sharing classified information wasn't unusual when pursuing cooperation on common interests. Brennan did say that there was a specific format that needed to be adhered to in order to protect the sources and origins of such information.

 

The three other Americans in that meeting stated that the President didn't do anything inappropriate. Yet the story attributed to former and current members of the intelligence community asserted that the President revealed the source and origin of the intelligence to the Russians. So a question that needs answering is "How did these 'sources' get their information?" It would seem like you would need to know the verbatim conversation to be factually correct about the assertions.

 

It sounds as if your complaint is that the media cannot be trusted. But let me ask you a question: how does a reporter name his source if that source spoke only on condition of anonymity? The reporter would never again work in news, never get another tip from that source or likely any source, and he might cause the tipster to lose his job, to boot, or face criminal prosecution. And newspapers - any reliable news outlet, for that matter - will not publish information from a single source unless making it totally clear that the allegation is unsubstantiated. In almost all cases, news organizations do not run with a story until it is substatiated or confirmed by at least one other source besides the original.

 

The other side of this coin is that if the White House and campaign members were cooperating fully it would be possible to hear what was being said on t.v. instead of reading and hearing about it second hand.

[barmar]

I don't see this. (b) says you can't appoint them. (c) says if they are appointed "in violation of" (b) they can't be paid - presumably so that if a contentious case arises that is finally deemed to fall foul of (b) they don't get to keep what they've already been paid. But (b) still prohibits appointment, paid or not. The only wriggle room would appear to be over what posts are covered, ie what is a "civilian position in the agency".

I asked about this on politics.stackexchange.com. Someone answered that 3 U.S.C. § 105(a) provides an exception for the President appointing White House staff, and the DOJ OK'ed the appointments based on this law.

[awm]

Trump is known to be extremely hostile to the media and aggressive with lawsuits. He also has some supporters who are quite crazy and violent. If someone from his administration went on the record they would:

 

1. Be fired immediately.

2. Face both jail time and a civil suit.

3. Probably start receiving death threats, even to their family.

 

No surprise that it's hard to get anyone on the record! This being the case, we must wait and see what Mueller uncovers. But I'd trust the word of many news organizations over what Trump administration says, given the record of easily falsifiable lies.

[ldrews]

Trump is known to be extremely hostile to the media and aggressive with lawsuits. He also has some supporters who are quite crazy and violent. If someone from his administration went on the record they would:

 

1. Be fired immediately.

2. Face both jail time and a civil suit.

3. Probably start receiving death threats, even to their family.

 

No surprise that it's hard to get anyone on the record! This being the case, we must wait and see what Mueller uncovers. But I'd trust the word of many news organizations over what Trump administration says, given the record of easily falsifiable lies.

 

Are you of the opinion that news organizations don't falsify their reports?

[PassedOut]

Are you of the opinion that news organizations don't falsify their reports?

Rhetorical question?

 

CORRECTING THE RECORD; Times Reporter Who Resigned Leaves Long Trail of Deception

 

A staff reporter for The New York Times committed frequent acts of journalistic fraud while covering significant news events in recent months, an investigation by Times journalists has found. The widespread fabrication and plagiarism represent a profound betrayal of trust and a low point in the 152-year history of the newspaper.

 

The reporter, Jayson Blair, 27, misled readers and Times colleagues with dispatches that purported to be from Maryland, Texas and other states, when often he was far away, in New York. He fabricated comments. He concocted scenes. He lifted material from other newspapers and wire services. He selected details from photographs to create the impression he had been somewhere or seen someone, when he had not.

 

And he used these techniques to write falsely about emotionally charged moments in recent history, from the deadly sniper attacks in suburban Washington to the anguish of families grieving for loved ones killed in Iraq.

A note to our readers about a reporter who breached our trust

 

At the Guardian, we cherish the trust our readers place in us to provide an accurate and vivid account of the world. That’s why we acted immediately to investigate when sources claimed that they had not spoken with the writer of the piece they were quoted in.

 

The article in question, from February, was by a freelance journalist, Joseph Mayton, who began writing opinion pieces for the Guardian in London in 2009, while based in Egypt. He contributed several opinion pieces before starting to write occasional US news stories, on a freelance basis, in May 2015 from California. These stories ranged from coverage of wildfires to issues related to marijuana farms, urban vineyards and whale deaths on the coast.

 

When Mayton was unable to provide convincing evidence that the interviews in question in the February article had taken place, we hired an independent fact-checker to investigate all of his prior work, which comprised 37 single-byline articles published between 2015 and 2016, seven shared byline stories from the same period, and 20 opinion pieces written from 2009 to 2015.

 

In an investigation that included approximately 50 interviews, our fact-checker found articles that contained likely or confirmed fabrication, including stories about two events that organizers said he didn’t attend. Dozens of sources could not be found – either they had no online presence or they were anonymous and could not be substantiated – and several people quoted in Mayton’s articles either denied speaking with him or giving the quotes attributed to them.

Still, responsible news organizations care about the truth. I don't believe that Trump does.