…besides the fact that she is also Trump’s daughter-in-law, that is? Apparently she has conducted over half a dozen meetings so far on what seems to be non-campaign issues. Others more knowledgeable than I can comment on the legality of this, but I think it stinks to high heaven ethically.
Sorry, but I’m not getting the ethical concerns. What are they specifically?
Getting access to such a venue to conduct personal business just because you are a relation?
From the article:
Because it’s much faster and more accurate to assume anything a Trump does has ethical concerns.
Far fewer resources and time wasted in ferreting out the few instances of ethical behavior.
I read the article. And yes, I read where Virginia Canter says that it’s inappropriate. Is the only reason that it is inappropriate because “you get the appearance that the individual is moving policy for political purposes rather than the public interest”?
Is that the ethical concern? That the administration might be doing things for political purposes rather than the public interest? I thought that was already common knowledge.
Conflicts of interest don’t stop being ethical concerns just because they’re business as usual for the Trump administration.
Saying that a particular instance of unethical behavior doesn’t matter because they’re already doing such a lot of it is not a valid defense of unethical behavior.
She isn’t part of the Administration…or are you not understanding the part where Trump isn’t King and his close relatives aren’t automatically royalty?
I hate everything Trump as much as the next guy, but I’m not seeing the problem with these meetings.
Sounds like the kind of meeting you’d expect at the White House.
Yes, if organized and/or conducted by a White House official.
That sounds like the criticism Hillary got for trying to coordinate UHC while first lady.
- I don’t know if she conducted meetings in the White House.
- If she did, the First Lady holds a unique position in The White house, and some(not all) have carefully used that position to further causes that they feel will benefit the country. As far as I know there is no unique and semi-official position of “First Daughter-In-Law”.
Really? If Jim Messina, Obama’s re-election campaign chair, had held high-level meetings in the White House on domestic policy, you don’t think it would have been reasonable to object to that?
You’re still missing the point. This isn’t about a First Lady helping a President enact his public policy initiatives. (Although even if it were, how many First Ladies is Trump entitled to have participating in his administration with zero qualifications beyond being a member of his family, anyway? There’s already Melania and Ivanka.)
What this is about is the relative in question being a campaign official rather than an administration official. Campaign officials are not supposed to be guiding White House meetings on policy.
Look at the link again:
The point isn’t the family nepotism, the point is the co-opting of Administration business for campaign purposes.
This doesn’t sound campaign related, it sounds policy:
[QUOTE]
[/QUOTELara Trump, the face of her father-in-law’s re-election campaign, has been hosting high-level meetings within the White House to push a variety of domestic policy initiatives]
I’m willing to assume the worst, however.
I’m still not getting why it’s unethical. It’s unethical to have non-government employed people running meetings in the White House? Is that it?
Campaign business and Administration business are supposed to be kept totally separate, aren’t they? What position does Lara Trump hold in the Administration?
Supposed to be? Or Have to be? Or it’s a good idea if they are? And if they are not, that’s unethical?
Didn’t past presidents have kitchen cabinets of friends and relatives? How is this any different, really? And I’m asking, it’s not a leading question or some sort of trap, as folks often seem to assume these days around here…I don’t see the issue.
As I noted, it’s not specifically about the nepotism so much as about the entanglement of campaigning and administrative policy. The nepotism is relevant merely because it’s facilitating that unethical entanglement.
Is this sort of entanglement out of line? Let’s look at that link again:
What part of “a clear crossing of the well-established line between campaign work and public service” is so hard to understand here? Have we all just become so accustomed to the fact that the Trump Administration has absolutely zero interest in performing any public service that we no longer care when his private interests, such as his real-estate profits or his re-election campaign, blatantly co-opt the public service functions of his White House?
Again, is this unethical? What makes it unethical? Presidents do campaign work all the time while they are in office. And it doesn’t seem like this person is doing “campaign work” anyway.
I’m with you on that, but it just sounded to me like this wasn’t re-election related but actual government policy.