If I were president and I wanted to enrich myself, I wouldn’t bother with trying to shift policies that might triple the size of my billion dollar empire. I would sell my influence to large multinationals and foreign countries for a thousand times that amount.
What? You mean to tell me he either CAN’T or WON’T do a single thing that he promised? But but but… What about his “straight talk”? What will his supporters do?
sorry - rhetorical question. His supporters will of course blame the media, the elite, the Clintons and Obama for Trumps failure to deliver on a single promise.
Is the possibility that he is not using the method you describe supposed to be evidence that he isn’t enriching himself some other way? Might it not be that he is better at this than you are and knows what will work better in the long run?
They could repeal big chunks of it through the budget reconciliation loophole.
Okay, now I’ll call you out for being an asshole.
Read the goddamned thread you started and you’ll see that Rudy Giuliani is correct when he asserts that conflict of interest laws do not apply to the POTUS (or to the Veep).
Try and be more accurate, please.
Am I the only person here who knows that Steve Bannon made his initial money working for Goldman Sachs as an investment banker?
You may be the only one who cares, unless you can tell me why, then there might be two.
Personally, I think it’s implicit. Though, if you must be explicit:
“Giuliani merely said that conflict of interest laws do not apply to the President. And he is correct.”
The thing that is annoying is your faux-Socratic method, like you are some ivory-tower elitist coming down to teach the plebeians.
Or maybe it’s that you’re treating us like a witness on the stand, while you are a defense attorney. You ask leading questions rather than just say what you mean. It comes off as you assuming that we are hostile towards you. (You know, the same way that a prosecutor can get someone declared a hostile witness and then use the same leading questions).
Whatever it is, it is very annoying. And we’re all near the edge here due to Trump winning. I mean, I yelled at my mom on election day and said some absolutely horrible things. I hurt maybe the one person I am closest to in this world over this goddamn fucking election.
(And I don’t use actual profanity (god, damn, jesus, etc.) very often. I consider it worse than fuck/shit/etc.)
Steve Bannon is incontrovertibly tied to Wall Street. It’s where he made his money, where he knows people and has influence. He’s another in the long list of people Mr. Trump is bringing into his administration who are exactly the people he said needed to be repudiated.
Ya know: an example of conservative hypocrisy. 
How about … Rudy Giuliani as Secretary of State?
“Should,” or “could?”
Giuliani or Bolton? Anthrax or leprosy?
The approach does incorporate a certain satisfaction at times.
Bolton I think would make a fantastic Secretary of State. Giuilani has no foreign policy experience that i know of.
Linda McMahon being considered for Secrtary of Commerce. I was wondering when Trump’s relationship with the McMahon family would be a thing:
Now I love wrestling, but the McMahon family are swindlers of the first order.
And a bonus article from the Washington Post, What Donald Trump Learned about Politics from Pro Wrestling:
At present, only two countries, Angola and Liberia, have the president’s family in the government. Trump wants to make the USA the third. He has asked that his three oldest children be given the highest level security clearance. They will be running his business and at the same time participating in government.
This is not cogent argument.
Nixon was right in the sense that there are things that the President can do legally, but would be illegal for anyone else to do. Imagine a pardon, for example: the Secretary of Commerce cannot issue a pardon for mail fraud. If he did, and a court gave it effect, that would be illegal, but if the President issued that same pardon, in the same words, it would be legal.
Now, does Dewey Finn really want to claim that President has no pardon power?
Of course not – that would be a wrong summary of what Dewey Finn said.
But then again, Dewey Finn’s argument was flawed in another way: he takes a statement made by Nixon in the context of specific set of facts, and suggests a far far different, and wider, application, and THEN suggests that it somehow invalidates what I’m saying, merely because Nixon said it and we all know Nixon is bad.
For context:
I’m not endorsing Nixon’s argument, but it should be clear he wasn’t saying that no law ever applies to the President. He was claiming that there were certain extraordinary circumstances that allowed the President to disregard certain law in war time. That is arguable, but at least let’s identify the correct claim to argue against.
Guliani claimed that the conflict of interest laws, specifically, did not apply to the President. That’s not arguable. It’s black-letter law.
Honestly.
In the alternate universe in which I posted that, what’s the reaction?
Of the names that I’ve seen, this is one of the least objectionable.