Spox: The president, by law, doesnât have conflicts.
FOX: This is in Republican Constitution and applies to White, Republican POTUSes.
Guess what, no, she didnât address everything. And I donât give a fuck how many times you and Cheetohead say he doesnât have conflicts, because we all know he does.
These people are fucking unbelievable.
âI donât know how many times it can be stated,â Spicer began in response. âThe president, by law, doesnât have conflicts. I mean, itâs somewhat of a silly discussion."
:sigh: No. Thatâs not true. A single conflict of interest law doesnât apply to the President, but the president can most definitely have conflicts.
Shaub added âcommon sense dictates that the president can of course have very real conflicts of interests.â
Common sense and this lot are not on speaking terms.
Who you gonna believe? A big-firm lawyer whose business is making conflicts go away? Or the OGE, whose business is keeping corruption our of government. Trumpâs approach to this is so over-the-top, even for him. Iâm waiting for the real experts who teach ethics at major law schools to weigh in on this.
I do hope that OGE is not an executive branch office or part of DOJ whose head serves at the pleasure of the president or whose boss is the AG.
As he said when wearing nothing but silly string and talking about the octopus living in his toenails
I, for one, am going to get really sick of the bloviating BS we are going to be hearing every day from Spicer during the upcoming administration. As a lawyer myself, I would have been embarrassed to be making that legal presentation yesterday at the âpress conference.â Also, from the standpoint of the rules of professional responsibility, the lawyer from Morgan Lewis was there representing Trump in his personal capacity, not in his capacity as President-elect of the United States. She does not represent him in his official capacity and does not represent the interests of the public, so there needs to be an acceptable set of standards and protocols for Trump as President to be accountable to the citizens of the United States with respect to all of his conflicts of interest and potential conflicts of interest.
Sean Spicer: âI donât know how many times it can be stated,â Spicer began in response. âThe president, by law, doesnât have conflicts. I mean, itâs somewhat of a silly discussion."
Richard Nixon: âWell, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.â
What is really silly Sean Spicer is your mindless remark. Try to understand how government is supposed to work. Remember the Emoluments Clause. Because as soon as Herr Trump assumes the throne he will have most likely violated it many times over.
Sean- be a grown up and apologize for your silly, sycophantic comment.
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
Donât know if this was before or after Dillon got on stage, but Trump again âtalked out of turnâ about getting deals.
but hey
The Constitution is pretty clear that the President can have âconflictsâ - otherwise, it wouldnât have a presidential impeachment process enshrined in it. So are The Federalist Papers. For example, Alexander Hamiltion, Federalist 68:
⌠the Executive should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves. He might otherwise be tempted to sacrifice his duty to his complaisance for those whose favor was necessary to the duration of his official consequence
Sundry more examples are scattered throughout The Federalist Papers.
Furthermore, Anti-Nepotism laws were expanded and passed by Congress in direct response to a President appointing his brother to the AG office, so itâs pretty clear that Congress still believes it has jurisdiction (at least as of the mid-1960âs) to restrain the President via legislation, aka by law.
So, no, PeePeeâs Mouthpiece, the President is not above the law, nor beyond conflicts between his personal financial goals and the interests of America. Just because the President can only be held to account via elections or the impeachment process does not mean he is above the law - it just means there is a high bar to prosecute him, and, unfortunately, itâs a bar that can be manipulated by a crooked president and a dishonest, manipulable, Congressional majority.
I have to say I laughed out loud when I realized, yesterday, the tiny head at the podium was Spicer. Trump could wear him as a tie tac.
If the president by definition canât have a conflict of interest, then explain to me how anything regarding the Clinton Foundation would remotely be considered a problem. Shouldnât be too hard to mine the record for statements that may not be entirely consistent with their positions now.
Hey, Sean, you can make this all simple. Get him to release his tax returns. Then weâll have the information needed to monitor it.
Trump is going to get away with everything. Sorry-- moment of despair there. But heâs been rewarded for refusing to release his tax returns, for bragging about sexual assault, for inciting criminal activity against his rivals and the press.
Heâll get away with everything else. There really is sociopathy here⌠but his voters are happy to help him just ignore laws, rules, traditions, kindness, and common decency.
Sez the ethically challenged dumpster spokesperson. Its great how they rewrite the issue saying hes going above and beyond when heâs not even meeting he standard of many presidents ahead of himâŚ
Shorter Spicer: Ethics? Silly libruls, ethics only matter when Democrats are in the white house or control,the house or senate. The great orange one can loot the government at will, and we will stand by and applaud while he does.
Richard W. Painter, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School and the chief White House ethics lawyer from 2005 to 2007, has been a forceful commentator on this issue. This from him was posted today on the New York Times op-ed page: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/opinion/trumps-business-separation-plan-does-nothing-of-the-kind.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region
Shaub needs to appreciate all those manila folders full of divestment! Hundreds and hundreds of them, right from Office Depot that morning.
Spicerâs comment is just a paraphrase of Nixon. In 1973 the US was not ready to embrace the FĂźhrerprinzip, which Nixonâs claim is a succinct summary of. Apparently, in 2017 the US is now ready for rule by fiat. We are being told daily that the President ainât accountable to nobody for nuthinâ.