From the NYT: What Was Behind Those Befuddling McCain Questions?
Full disclosure (even if it’s possible for a guy with Trump’s business) might help people figure out where he has a conflict of interest. It wouldn’t resolve those conflicts. For a guy like Trump, it’s probably impossible for him not to be affected by decisions he makes as Prez. But the people voted for him anyway.
The investigation would continue, but the fact that he was fully on-board with it would change the dynamics considerably.
He could set up an ACTUAL blind trust, as has been pointed out many times. Or he could have made the decision that at least a handful of his appointees made, that it was too difficult for them to abide by ethics laws so they decided not to serve in government.
Comey definitely inflicted some damage – more than I thought he might. There weren’t any moments of high drama as far as I’m concerned, but he looked credible in contrast to his former boss. In fact being a private citizen now makes it harder for Trump to go after him. Comey’s no longer powerful; he’s out of a job, and he got bullied by a boss who’s a dick – and who among us can’t relate to that? The real damage though is that Mueller’s investigation probably got some wind at its back today.
All these interesting interpretations of what Trump meant when he said that he “hopes” Comey can drop this thing seem to ignore the fact that Comey didn’t drop it, and he was, in fact, fired as a result. The statement implies a threat, and the subsequent actions are the fulfillment of that threat.
OK, that sounds like what I was saying. Your original claim was that it was “completely within his own power to resolve”. It sounds like you’re now backing off that claim.
The notion that Trump could set up a blind trust seems very impractical. That makes sense for a stock-and-bond investment portfolio, not for an illiquid personal but very public business that he’s intimately familiar with (and is also bound up in his name).
Your other (apparent) suggestion that he should have simply not run for president altogether is specious.
The “as a result” is your own interpretation and has no basis. (Remember, “this thing” was about Flynn specifically - Comey was pretty clear that Trump did not ask him to drop the Russia investigation generally.)
You’re making a distinction without a difference. Flynn is a central figure in the “Russia thing”. Unless you’re suggesting that Trump was saying that he wanted Comey to drop everything about the Russia thing except the Flynn part, which is not particularly realistic or consistent with everything that he said.
^^^^^
This is the long and the short of it right here.
No one, least of all Comey, is claiming that Trump had no legal right to fire him. At the very beginning of his testimony, before anyone asked him the first question, Comey made the statement that he knew he served at the pleasure of the president and that the president could fire him at any time for any reason or for no reason. The president had asked him a couple of times if he planned to stay on in the job and Comey said yes. The president had complimented him a few times, telling him what a great job he was doing. So then (Comey continued) when he saw on TV that Trump had fired him (!), he said he was confused, but he immediately went home “as a private citizen.” If you came in late to the program, you might have missed that.
One of the questioners said to Comey, “When the President of the United States in the Oval Office says to you that he ‘hopes’ something will happen, you take that as a directive, don’t you?” Comey replied, “Yes.”
Also, as for why Comey didn’t “take some action” as soon as he thought something might be up, he said (paraphrasing) that he thought some action would be necessary somewhere down the road, but he wanted to hold off and see where the road was going.
I was listening in the car. At that point, I got to my hair appointment and had to leave the testimony. (Weighing: “matters of state” v. “hair appointment”? No contest.)
I am not.
First, I don’t think you are using the word specious correctly, so I have no idea what you’re trying to say. Trump asked several billionaires to serve in appointed office. They looked at the ethics guidelines for a couple weeks and said, “Thanks but no thanks!” Trump easily could have made the same decision, as he had roughly two years (probably longer) to consider the issue.
Second, this ethics expert disagrees with you that a blind trust is “impractical,” in fact he recommends the following steps:
Exactly.
If Comey starts leaking to people in the press that he felt Trump had been making veiled threats but he keeps his job, then it’s all inside Comey’s head.
But the fact that Trump followed through by terminating him and then took to Twitter no less to basically confirm 100% everything that Comey had suspected when he wrote his personal memorandum is damning, no matter how much Trump’s GOP buddies choose to spin it. They can choose to ignore facts and basic logic if they wish – they’ve done a lot of that already. But ignoring the facts doesn’t change the facts.
As president, and in charge of the executive branch though, he can stop investigations. It’s been done before, it’ll be done again. Life will go on, and while people may not like it, so far there’s nothing criminal there.
Hey, please! There may be a vice President in the room. Jesus horse.
Trump made a lot of veiled and not so veiled threats about Comey. He has been ripping him since before the election and Comey’s position was always precarious. It’s obvious Trump has viewed him suspiciously since the beginning and has been entirely unhappy with the Russia investigation (of which Flynn is just a small part). In short, the link you are claiming between a pretty innocuous “Flynn’s a good guy” statement and Comey’s firing is very tenuous.
It doesn’t look tenuous to me.
So let’s say hypothetically, that Trump actually does shoot someone in the middle of 5th Ave in New York. Would you argue that Trump, as president, can order an investigation into this shooting shut down, and that it would therefore be shut down… and further, that the reaction to this should be “it’s been done before, it will be done again, he’s allowed to do this, life will go on.”
You have it backwards. Trump asked him to drop the Flynn part specifically. There’s no evidence that Trump fired him because he refused to drop the Flynn part.
Oh.
You could look it up. But one example of a specious argument is to say that Trump’s ethics problems were “completely within his own power to resolve” when you mean that he could “resolve” them by not running for president to begin with.
That guy might be an ethics expert but he’s not a business expert, so he doesn’t have any better clue than anyone else what might or might be practical. Further, he’s described in the article as being a stickler on ethics matters (who also felt that Clinton should have shut her foundation for example).
Many others have looked at the issue in a more level-headed manner. See e.g.
Every respectable businessman understands the need and utility of independent investigation. Every large business will at some point have a problem with safety, harassment, fraud, or similar thing that requires an independent party to look into whether there’s a real problem or not. For the CEO to apply pressure on the third party indicates that they view them simply as cover and not a means to solving a real problem.
Whether this is Trump’s view or he is too stupid to understand the difference, it indicates that he is a far worse businessman than generally imagined.
Cite for the bolded part? :dubious:
If one’s business interests so obviously conflict with the duties of the president, then it’s one’s patriotic duty not to run. Not everyone is suited for the job. Trump happens to be unsuited temperamentally and intellectually as well, so this trainwreck remains the fault of a woefully unsophisticated electorate.
I guess you could say that the entire concept of a Trump presidency is specious.
I agree that Trump is completely unsuited to be president. His ethics issues are not on the Top 10 of reasons, IMO. Unfortunately, despite it all, including ethics and everything else, millions of people voted for the guy. That’s democracy for you.
“Practical”? Who’s needs are the top priority: the country’s or Donald Trump’s?