Sign in to follow this  
deicer

Trump 2.0 Continues

Recommended Posts

All the talk about white women and racism is just special interests playing politics.  The election results were all about the economy.   

You can see the electoral results disitrict by district here http://imgur.com/hWJk55W

From those results it seems pretty clear to me the election was about the economy.  Clinton didn't have a plan that the non urban vote could get behind.  Nothing in that platform resonated with the rust belt voter either.  Her voters were urban folks who for the most part lean to the left and rely on others for employment.  Trump didn't have much of a plan but he was a businessman and understands the concerns of small business owners.  That's the rural voter and he appealed to them on several levels.  His jobs jobs jobs and Make America Great Again mantra got the rust belt voters that Hillary let slip away.

 

 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For Pete's sake, why are all you folks so sure you know what happened, what was in peoples heads ... what "the people clearly said". 

About half of the folks who could vote, did vote. Maybe, just maybe, the vast majority of those bloody well voted for the party they always vote for regardless. The margin was tiny, either way it might have fallen, and also of course very fortuitously distributed for the "winner" as well, since the edge favoured the "loser". So winning an election does not always signal some momentous shift in "the people's" determined wisdom. Ontario did not turn socialist in 1990 with Rae, then right-wing with Harris, Canada in turn did not turn right-wing in 2006 with Harper, Mini-Trudeau does not reflect a grand movement back centre-left (& I don't know what's going on in Alberta at all :P). Yet each of these elections brought the same talk of "the people's" great realignment.

Perhaps, most of the time, election results are just reflecting temporary shifts, some groups are more motivated than others, and a small and shrinking few actually do swing. Sometimes, the outcome is an accident (Rae 1990 for sure, & I believe Justin's majority last year too). In representative elections (our parliament, the US's EC), these very small shifts are misrepresented in their magnitude.

All the commentary here would have a bit more credibility if instead of just reflecting or reinforcing preference on little real foundation, it was recognized as the speculation it all is, and stated as such. Nothing is wrong with expressing a little doubt, & often questions are wiser in their asking than clamouring 'certainties'.

But, back to Trump & the US - This is a particularly questionable candidate, not talking policy but in character and background, but I'm really concerned about the people, not the so-called 'leader. Some early transition signs are not encouraging to me. The calibre of the people who seem to surround him (political corruption and cravenness infect them at least as much as his opponents, and they will not likely be much "obstructed") ... disdain and avoidance of the press (it's fashionable to bash them, but that's another discussion) ... and the population at large? the general nihilism everywhere (including here BTW), one could go on ... 

  • "The point is that the relative freedom which we enjoy depends of public opinion. The law is no protection. Governments make laws, but whether they are carried out, and how the police behave, depends on the general temper in the country. If large numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it; if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them." - George Orwell

But as I said (optimistically) these things are said with some doubt, maybe vigilance lies out of sight ...

Still hoping for the best - Cheers, IFG :b: 

Edited by IFG
"goddam" Upper Deck made me ;-)
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that Trump is doing exactly opposite of what he campaigned on, how long until his loyalists turn on him as well?

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/11/12/billionaire-donors-and-lobbyists-already-shaping-trumps-drain-the-swamp-administration.html

The chant echoed through Donald Trump’s boisterous rallies leading up to Election Day: “Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!”

“We are fighting for every citizen that believes that government should serve the people, not the donors and not the special interests,” the billionaire real estate developer promised exuberant supporters at his last campaign rally in Manchester, N.H.

But just days later, there is little evidence that the president-elect is seeking to restrain wealthy interests from having access and influence in his administration.

It’s not just corporate lobbyists who are playing early, visible roles in the new power structure. Some of Trump’s biggest political donors are shaping the incoming administration, including Rebekah Mercer, a daughter of billionaire Robert Mercer, who is figuring prominently in behind-the-scenes discussions, according to people familiar with the transition.

Mercer is among four major donors appointed by Trump Friday to a 16-person executive committee overseeing his transition. The others are campaign finance chairman Steven Mnuchin, New York financier Anthony Scaramucci, and Silicon Valley investor Peter Thiel.

Meanwhile, top campaign fundraisers and a raft of lobbyists tied to some of the country’s wealthiest industries have been put in charge of hiring and planning for specific federal agencies. They include J. Steven Hart, chairman of the law and lobbying shop Williams & Jensen; Michael McKenna, an energy company lobbyist who is overseeing planning for the Energy Department; and Dallas fundraiser Ray Washburne, was has been tapped to oversee the Commerce Department.

Billionaires who served as Trump’s policy advisers, such as Oklahoma oil executive Harold Hamm, are under consideration for cabinet positions.

And Trump is still working to fashion ethical guardrails that would wall him off from his sprawling real estate empire.

On Friday, the Trump Organization said it was focused on identifying how to “immediately transfer” management to his three oldest children — an arrangement government ethics experts said was fraught with conflicts, particularly since his children are also helping oversee the transition.

Meredith McGehee, who heads policy and strategy for Issue One, a bipartisan group that aims to reduce the influence of wealthy interests on politics, said there is “tremendous dissonance” between Trump’s rhetoric and early actions.

“Much of what he said was, ‘I’m going to change the game,’” she said. “Of all of his messages, that one I think clearly resonated the strongest. That’s going to be incredibly difficult when the people you bring in are the experts at making the game work for them.”

Trump aides and transition officials did not respond to repeated requests for comment about what role donors and lobbyists will play in the administration.

In the few days since Trump’s surprise win, Washington’s lobbying industry — which largely eschewed his candidacy — has clamoured for a spot in the incoming administration. The transition team, which is scrambling to make 4,000 political appointments in less than three months, has welcomed lobbyists’ involvement and expertise, according to people familiar with the operation.

“Every presidential candidate at one time or another runs against Washington,” said energy lobbyist Scott H. Segal. “But the last thing in the world any newly elected president wants to do is go into complicated issues with blinders on. As a result, they look to people as advisers and implementers that have a full understanding of the subject matter they are supposed to address.”

The courting started before Election Day, when trade association representatives and lobbyists were invited to transition policy developments sessions. Lobbyists were solicited to give up to $5,000 to finance the transition, a fundraising effort that accelerated last week as the team seeks to collect about $3 million more to hit a $5 million budget, according to a person familiar with the situation.

Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, president of BGR Public Relations, said “all the Washington regulars” participated in the policy meetings, but added that such access is no guarantee Trump will take his cues from K Street.

“Just because a transition task force makes a recommendation doesn’t mean that Donald Trump will follow it,” he said.

Still, the prominence of established Washington figures and wealthy donors comes as a jarring contrast to Trump’s unequivocal rhetoric on the campaign trail, when he decried inside-the-Beltway denizens as “corrupt.”

Ari Fleischer, who served as president George W. Bush’s press secretary, said the policy decisions Trump makes in the early days will directly reflect on his credibility.

“The transition affords him an opportunity to show he’s going to govern consistent with the promises he made,” Fleischer said. “If you are a reformer and you genuinely want to change the system, you ban people who you say you’re going to ban. Anything less starts to represent compromise.”

Michael Toner, who served as general counsel to the Bush-Cheney transition in 2000, said the 10-week period after the election is a key moment for establishing broad ethical policies that will govern the incoming administration.

On the campaign trail, Trump promised to take several specific actions regarding lobbyists, including prohibiting White House and congressional officials from lobbying for five years after they leave government service.

But his transition team has already rolled back some of the restrictions on lobbyists that Barack Obama established for his transition operation in 2008. Among the rules that have been discarded: a ban on lobbyists from contributing financially to the transition and a prohibition on lobbyists working on the transition from overseeing any fields of policy on which they had lobbied in the previous year.

 

The Trump team is putting some limits on lobbyists, according to a person with knowledge of the transition. As in past years, those working on the transition have agreed not to lobby any federal agencies they helped staff for a certain period of time. However, the length of the ban is unclear. Obama prohibited such lobbying for a year.

 

It also remains unclear whether the new president will dole out plum appointments such as ambassadorships to major donors — a practice embraced by his predecessors, including Obama and Bush.

While Trump has repeatedly proclaimed his independence from wealthy donors, at least 330 supporters contributed $100,000 or more to his campaign, the Republican National Committee and pro-Trump super PACs, according to a Washington Post analysis of federal campaign finance reports.

Trump’s biggest backers gave millions, including casino magnate Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam ($11.2 million), Home Depot co-founder Bernard Marcus ($7.6 million), wrestling magnate Linda McMahon ($6 million), Robert Mercer ($3.4 million) and poultry executive Ronald Cameron and his wife Nina ($2.9 million).

Together, the top 100 donors donated $82 million to support his bid, with strong support from the finance, gambling and real estate industries.

Another major uncertainty: how Trump will wall himself off from his private company, which has interests around the globe. On disclosure filings, Trump listed involvements in more than 500 companies, some in countries where the United States has sensitive diplomatic or financial relationships, such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and China. Trump companies are partially indebted to banks in Germany and China.

On Friday, Amanda Miller, vice president of marketing for the Trump Organization, said in a statement that the company was still “vetting various structures with the goal of the immediate transfer of management of The Trump Organization and its portfolio of businesses to Donald Jr., Ivanka and Eric Trump along with a team of highly skilled executives.”

 

But ethics experts said putting Trump’s children in charge of his empire would not distance the new president from his assets or avoid conflicts of interest.

 

“In a real blind trust, an independent trustee who has no connection to the beneficiary is appointed to manage the assets in the trust, and that trustee is supposed to be the only one who knows what is being done in the blind trust,” said Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21, a government watchdog group.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's only been a President Elect for 5 days. Rome wasn't built in a day.  People need to chill out and give the next President time to rest for a few days and  reflect. The man himself hasn't said anything, it's all been speculation from that great demographic called the MSM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Protesters with Trump Insanity Syndrome are the real danger, not Trump
By Anthony Furey, Postmedia Network
First posted: Friday, November 11, 2016 03:26 PM EST | Updated: Friday, November 11, 2016 03:33 PM EST

 

If you thought Bush Derangement Syndrome was bad, just wait until Trump Insanity Syndrome kicks into high gear.

For all the ill-advised remarks president-elect Donald Trump made during the primaries, nothing he said or did was anywhere near as bad as the ridiculous rhetoric and actions still flooding in from the far-left now protesting his fair and square victory.

Clearly, many statements made by Trump lacked finesse. He used reckless language that shouldn’t be used by the leader of the free world.

But most of these remarks have been repeatedly exaggerated and taken out of context.

For example, Trump never said he sexually assaulted women. He said, “when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything ... Grab them by the p----. You can do anything.”

Note the words, “they let you do it”.

It’s certainly a stupid thing to say and Trump’s admitted that many times. But it’s simply reckless to argue he promoted sexual assault.

Likewise, he never called all Mexicans or Hispanics rapists or bad people. Here’s the offending quote in full: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

I don’t have the space or interest in re-litigating every gaffe and misstep the unlikely president-elect has made in recent months.

But the bottom line is, if you weigh the evidence, there appears to have been more and far worse assaults against Trump supporters, than there have been those by Trump supporters against others.

There are numerous claims floating around about verbal and physical harassment by Trump supporters. But few come with any first-hand, recorded evidence. This doesn’t mean they’re all false.

However, in one case, a young woman in Louisiana may now face charges for allegedly fabricating a story that she was attacked, had her hijab ripped off and her wallet stolen by two men following Trump’s victory. Her initial story made international headlines, but police say she later admitted to them it was a lie.

What this suggests is there’s little evidence to justify the absurd frenzy that’s been happening every day since the election in a number of major American cities, as thousands of anti-Trump activists take to the streets.

Some of these demonstrations can legitimately be called protest. Others, in the words of police, are outright riots.

The main anti-Trump protest complaint is truly Orwellian: The rioters say they fear for their safety ... as they go about setting fires, smashing windows, vandalizing vehicles, burning the American flag and, most disturbingly, attacking other people and calling for deaths.

You may not be aware of what I'm referring to, since a lot of major media outlets have been downplaying just how extreme they’ve been. But poke around online and it'll soon become clear.

Watch the video of a student in California being beaten by her classmates for posting on social media that she was happy Trump won.

Watch the video of a man beaten in the middle of the road as his attackers yell “he voted Trump” and “don’t vote Trump”.

No one should be shocked by any of this. Not if they’ve been paying attention. It happened before the election too.

During the summer, an ABC report that’s still online describes – in their own correspondents’ words – “Trump supporters harassed, beaten and bloody”. There's extensive video footage of the beatings.

Over a decade ago, the term Bush Derangement Syndrome was coined to describe people who were incensed by anything and everything George W. Bush did. But their mania was mostly confined to things like smug little rants while waiting in line for a latte.

Trump Insanity Syndrome is clearly much worse. The new generation of social justice warriors has grown up in the age of outrage.

Everything that doesn’t conform to their undeveloped view of the world is a trigger warning for them.

Nobody’s ever told them to put on their big boy pants. They’ve never heard the phrase “sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me”.

But if they hear anyone speaking a few words they don’t like, expect them to break a few bones. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, IFG said:

For Pete's sake, why are all you folks so goddam sure you know what happened, what was in peoples heads ... what "the people clearly said". 

About half of the folks who could vote, did vote. Maybe, just maybe, the vast majority of those bloody well voted for the party they always vote for regardless. The margin was tiny, either way it might have fallen, and also of course very fortuitously distributed for the "winner" as well, since the edge favoured the "loser". So winning an election does not always signal some momentous shift in "the people's" determined wisdom. Ontario did not turn socialist in 1990 with Rae, then right-wing with Harris, Canada in turn did not turn right-wing in 2006 with Harper, Mini-Trudeau does not reflect a grand movement back centre-left (& I don't know what's going on in Alberta at all :P). Yet each of these elections brought the same talk of "the people's" great realignment.

 

All the commentary here would have a bit more credibility if instead of just reflecting or reinforcing preference on little real foundation, it was recognized as the speculation it all is, and stated as such. Nothing is wrong with expressing a little doubt, & often questions are wiser in their asking than clamouring 'certainties'.

But, back to Trump & the US - This is a particularly questionable candidate, not talking policy but in character and background,

Still hoping for the best - Cheers, IFG :b: 

IFG.....you need an IPA...or two!! Lol

I'm beginning to doubt both your character AND background, throwing around those "god damns" without an apparent moment's thought to those readers who might be offended by your use of profanity. I am not of that group, mind you.

Speculation is something in which we all engage including you since I don't believe you've had the pleasure of meeting DJT.

It's what we do....and apparently, it gives MOST of us pleasure. Please read the Post article above submitted by Malcolm. Very reasonably stated. Thank you Malcolm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump planning to deport illegal immigrants who have committed crimes, I wish we would do the same.  In fact I would extend that to all non Canadian Citizens who have committed crimes no matter their immigration status. In other words, if you immigrate to Canada and then commit a crime.....goodbye, so long, goodbye.

On the other hand, if you come to Canada, abide by our laws, then WELCOME, GLAD YOU CAME!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heartily agree.....generally. I continue to believe that one should as quickly as possible learn the language of the country to which you emigrate so as better to assimilate and reduce the natural feeling of isolation. I lived in Miami for awhile and tried very hard to learn Spanish.

On another subject.....did everyone watch 60 Minutes tonight? An individual should be judged not on clipped videos or news reports but upon his or her actions and the product of labours. Did you hear his progeny....especially Ivanka? Tell me those are not children of whom any parent would be proud. Bah! Humbug ! to you naysayers who assert he demeans women. Watch Melania.....yeah, right. She's submissive isn't she? Nothing speaks more loudly of the character of the man than the children he has raised ( and the loyalty and respect they display....my lord!!)....and the essence of the woman who travels by his side.

 

My humble opinion, of course.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, UpperDeck said:

IFG.....you need an IPA...or two!! Lol ... I'm beginning to doubt both your character AND background, throwing around those "god damns" without an apparent moment's thought to those readers who might be offended by your use of profanity. I am not of that group, mind you.

Speculation is something in which we all engage including you since I don't believe you've had the pleasure of meeting DJT. It's what we do....and apparently, it gives MOST of us pleasure. Please read the Post article above submitted by Malcolm. Very reasonably stated. Thank you Malcolm.

Indeed, UD', holy blasphemy was very curmudgeonly of me! Post amended - please do not force me to swallow IPA!

I do think I've been pretty gentle and respectful considering a strongly-held opinion. There's really little alternative, if one wants to maintain an even keel going forward.

I don't think the Trump cheering squad here quite appreciates the risks in this man as POTUS, but risk is not prediction, any more than HRC-favouring polls were. It's merely my own distillation of his policy aspirations (many IMHO misguided at best), and the wide-ranging implications of the normalization of that sort of politics and politician.

As for not having met DJT, so what? He's been a public personality for 30-odd years. His actions have spoken loudly to us all, with no shortage of words either. Disregarding his past record for a moment, I get mixed signals right now on how he'll handle it all, but as the election phase is done unfolding, with many more to follow, a lot of outcomes we can preconceive, & some will come from left field. Events will almost certainly surprise us. Regardless, whatever his attributes and drawbacks, he's gonna be the Skipper for a while.

For that duration, I hope that reasonable discussion remains possible, with a little less pollution from utter falsehood, and tolerance for the notion that ones interlocutors remain people of good will. I remain concerned about Trumpian infections of our Canadian politics; we may have much to learn watching all this unfold. Like you (I believe?), I have a ringside seat in FL for a good chunk of the year, and I sniffed this outcome in January, even as I hoped the polling was showing me wrong.

Cheers, IFG :b:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mo32a said:

I watched the 60 Minute show. The country is in good hands. 

Of course it is.  The man has never served in the military or in any form of government, has gone bankrupt several times, and has assaulted women and bragged about it.  What else does one need to become POTUS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, FA@AC said:

Of course it is.  The man has never served in the military or in any form of government, has gone bankrupt several times, and has assaulted women and bragged about it.  What else does one need to become POTUS?

1. Did Trump ever "go bankrupt"? I don't think so. No doubt companies in which he was a shareholder did but that's a horse of a different colour.

2. I'm not sure how one's service in the military is a " qualifier". Wm. Jefferson....did he serve?

3. I think not having held political office previously was precisely the point.

4. Any details about the admitted sexual assault? I am unaware of any such confession.

So you were not impressed by the way in which his children presented on CBS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding President Elect Trump, I don't like a lot of his ideas but there is one that I wished our government would sign onto and that is deporting non citizens who commit crimes.  After servicing their Gaol time, out they would go.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, FA@AC said:

Of course it is.  The man has never served in the military or in any form of government, has gone bankrupt several times, and has assaulted women and bragged about it.  What else does one need to become POTUS?

Can you illuminate me on Obamas military service. He never held a real job, been on the public teat all his life. So I would have to say Trump is overqualified comparatively speaking.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mo32a said:

Can you illuminate me on Obamas military service. He never held a real job, been on the public teat all his life. So I would have to say Trump is overqualified comparatively speaking.

 
Obama has never served in the military. However, during an interview in 2008, Obama revealed that he did entertain the idea of joining the service after graduating from high school.  http://2012.presidential-candidates.org/Obama/Military.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Devil,,,,, errrr the Donald made me do it.

 
 

Minnesota driver blames Trump for DWI arrest

 
By: Staff The Associated Press Published on Mon Nov 14 2016 02:46:21

MINNEAPOLIS — A Minnesota motorist had a novel excuse for her drunken driving arrest: She blamed Donald Trump.

Police in the Minneapolis suburb of Lino Lakes said the 33-year-old woman rammed into two vehicles stopped at a traffic light Wednesday afternoon.

.

The Star Tribune reported that the woman told officers she was upset over the election and they should let her go home. Police Capt. Wayne Wegener said the woman was referencing Trump's victory the night before.

Her blood alcohol measured 0.33 per cent a few hours after the crash, well over Minnesota's legal driving limit of 0.08. The drivers in the other vehicles weren't hurt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, UpperDeck said:

1. Did Trump ever "go bankrupt"? I don't think so. No doubt companies in which he was a shareholder did but that's a horse of a different colour.

2. I'm not sure how one's service in the military is a " qualifier". Wm. Jefferson....did he serve?

3. I think not having held political office previously was precisely the point.

4. Any details about the admitted sexual assault? I am unaware of any such confession.

So you were not impressed by the way in which his children presented on CBS?

1.  I had forgotten that whenever one of Trumps's ventures does well the credit should all be his, and that when they fail somebody has just attached his name to something that he actually has nothing to do with.

2.  Not a qualifier, but if Trump is going to claim that he knows more than his country's own Generals about how to fight ISIS you might get the idea that he had put a day or two of service in himself.

3.  Probably.  I'm no fan of politicians either, but I think that some experience in government might have equipped him better for the job he is about to take on.  How his previous career as a reality TV star who grabs women by the p***y prepares him to run the country I can't imagine, but maybe you can explain it to me.

4.  What Trump has bragged about doing to women constitutes assault in my book.  

His children did fine answering the softball questions from Lesley Stahl.  I don't know how they'd have made out had they been asked about their father's crackpot pledge to ban Moslems from entering the country, his mad raving about Obama not being born in the USA, his wierd claim that Mexico is going to pay for the wall that will probably never be built or about how the trillions of dollars in government revenue that would be lost under his tax plan will be made up.  Earlier in the campaign one of his daughters abruptly ended an interview when she was asked some of that.  I mostly agree with what John Doyle had to say about the interview.  You may already have read the piece, but I'll link it in a separate post in case anyone is interested.

Edited by FA@AC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Democrats lost on every front guys. Unless someone's planning a coup, it's probably time for the Left to get used to the fact they're no longer positioned to make the picks & calls.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/14/trump-wants-secret-clearance-for-kids.html

 

Donald Trump Wants His Adult Kids To See America’s Most Carefully Kept Secrets

The president-elect reportedly wants to be sure that the family members who will run his business while he runs the country know exactly what is going on.
Tim Mak
Gideon Resnick
11.14.16 4:40 PM ET

Donald Trump is reportedly looking for top-secret clearances for his children, a sign that rather than entering the Oval Office with an eye for avoiding conflicts of interest he’s preparing to rush headlong into a minefield of them.

The president-elect has begun asking how he could secure high level clearances for Ivanka, Eric and Donald Jr., his three adult children with first wife Ivana, as well as for Ivanka’s husband Jared Kushner, according to CNN and CBS. All four family members are members of his transition team, though Trump has said his children won’t serve formal roles in his administration but instead will run the family business while he runs the country.

“This is why we created the nepotism law in the first place. Huge conflicts of interest. You can’t have your kids being advisers. It has to be properly qualified officials who are experts in the fields,” Bradley Moss, a lawyer specializing in security-clearance law, told The Daily Beast. “It’s an issue of comfort for the President-elect because he’s relied on his children so much. But I don’t foresee a viable legal or ethical loophole or exception.”

It’s unclear exactly whether Trump’s request could even be fulfilled—at least legally. A 1967 law prohibits the president from hiring their immediate family members in the federal government, and to have a security clearance an individual must work the government in some capacity: as a civilian, as a military official or a contractor.

“Even if they came in as unpaid advisers, there’s no such thing as an informal government position that allows you to be sponsored for access” to classified information, Moss said. “There’s no exception. There’s no loopholes.”

And it would difficult to see how Trump could argue that his children have a “need to know” without a formal government role.

“This is not the family business, this is the presidency. The days of family nepotism is over, not just due to policy and practice but by law. Security clearances are not candies to be doled out like at Halloween. You must have a ‘need-to-know’ that is supposed to be taken seriously in advancing the business of the government rather than an individual,” said Mark Zaid, another national security lawyer.

But a former Obama administration official said Trump could simply be asking for them to be cleared so they can have unescorted access to parts of the West Wing. Even First Ladies have to be cleared to access that part of the White House, but that doesn’t mean they have access to top-secret areas like the Situation Room, the official said, speaking anonymously because he was not authorized to discuss the clearance process publicly. The level of clearance for people with unescorted access to visit the President in the West Wing is known as “Yankee White,” which could be what Trump is seeking.

CBS, however, reports that Trump wants his kids to be able to see top secret information, defined as information that could cause “exceptionally grave damage to the national security” if released.

If the Trump children ran the Trump Organization while also serving as high-level, informal advisers, their suggested dual roles would invite an unprecedented conflict of interest.

“If President-elect Trump seeks a security clearance for his children, it will show he either has no understanding of the potential conflict of interest problems he faces or doesn’t care,” said Larry Noble, general counsel of the Campaign Legal Center. “If he seeks a security clearance for his children who are running the businesses, it will undermine the credibility of any claim that his children will not be involved in advising him on government policies. It raises the real danger that his children will be able to influence government decisions to benefit Trump businesses and run those businesses with inside knowledge of actions and policies the government take.”

During an interview with Trump and his family on 60 Minutes taped last week, Eric Trump said that the children would remain in New York to run their father’s business. “So we’ll— we’ll— we’ll be in New York and we’ll take care of the business,” the younger Trump said. “I think we’re going to have a lot of fun doing it. And we’re going to make him very proud.”

Ivanka Trump also said that she would not be interested in a formal role in the upcoming administration. “I’m going to be a daughter,” she said when asked about a possible role. “But I’ve— I’ve said throughout the campaign that I am very passionate about certain issues. And that I want to fight for them.”

Interestingly enough, while the law prohibits nepotism, it doesn’t require the president to give up his or her business holdings while serving in the Oval Office.

Eric, Ivanka, and Donald Trump Jr. did not immediately respond to requests to comment for this story.

—Kimberly Dozier contributed reporting

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this