…being conducted in the White House by a campaign official who just happens to be his daughter-in-law. What the fuck is her governmental position that she be allowed to do this?
I also don’t get the problem. Say a campaign official says we should enact X policy because it will help us in the election. Isn’t that Democracy? The point of elections is to influence politicians and public policy.
Yes, sitting (first-term) Presidents use part of their time to campaign for re-election, just as they also use part of their time to play golf or vacation with their families.
But they are not supposed to have their campaigning activities directing their Administration business.
She is described in the article as “the senior adviser to the president’s already-active 2020 campaign”. If you have evidence that that description is incorrect, feel free to provide it.
The conflict of interest between Administration activities (which are supposed to be in the service of public interests) and campaign activities (which serve only the individual interests of the candidate for re-election).
Like I said, I get it that maybe we’ve all shifted the yardstick from “unethical” to “unethical by Trump Administration standards”. And I agree that in comparison with all this administration’s other unethical activities, this one doesn’t look all that major. But I don’t think we should lose sight of the fact that “just plain unethical” is still a bad thing, even if it’s a minor-league bad thing compared to other Trumpista shenanigans.
One reason it’s hard to get worked up about it is that it doesn’t seem to be a case of “private interest” “co-opt[ing]” the public service functions of his White House". It’s the other way around. This is a campaign official ostensibly engaged in a public service function. Working with the BLM to protect wild horses or the VA to provide dogs for wounded veterans does not seem to be directly related to real-estate profits (unless, I suppose, they’re buying the horses condos).
I don’t know if this is really “unprecedented” (it seems unlikely that there is never overlap between campaign and policy). But it doesn’t seem to present the same concern that is raised when a policy official (on the government dime) engages in campaign work.
A campaign official saying such a thing to their campaign team as part of their campaigning efforts is one thing.
A campaign official being allowed to push their campaigning agenda in meetings with official White House administrators, the folks who are supposed to be enacting policy in the interests of the public good rather than in the interests of a specific candidate’s re-election, is another.
It’s whatever the president wants it to be. Again, this is not unprecedented…presidents have had relatives and friends do stuff like this in the past.
I have no idea about the historical use of the WH offices for conducting re-election business, but I’d be shocked if this is unprecedented either. Honestly, this seems like a pretty small mole hill compared to the mountains of horseshit and scandal this administration seems to have to pile up.
Not supposed to? Based on what? Is there a law against it? If so, what is that law?
A campaign official who has no recognized government position other than being the President’s daughter-in-law. Campaign officials aren’t supposed to get that kind of privileged facility to “ostensibly engage in public service functions” by having White House meetings with administration officials.
No, I know what her title is. I meant whatever meetings she was holding in the White House don’t seem to have anything to do with the 2020 re-election campaign.
What campaign activities was she performing in these meetings? They seem policy related to me.
There are those words “aren’t supposed to” again. According to what?
Well, obviously you must know more about it than former White House advisers and ethics consultants who have served under multiple Republican and Democratic administrations. Let’s just tell the likes of David Gergen and Virginia Canter to let it go and take a chill pill, shall we?
Like I said, I’m not in the least disputing that this is comparatively not a big deal by Trump-misconduct standards. I just don’t think we should pretend that it doesn’t count as any kind of misconduct at all.
I understand your argument on the merits. And I have no idea what campaign officials are “supposed” to do with respect to policy (or the source of these guidelines). So I take no position on that. My point is that your arguments that this as an example of the Administration “co-opting” its policy function in furtherance of re-election or private profit seems to be unsupported by the known facts.
There are “campaign functions” and “governance functions.” And there are “campaign people” and “governance people.” And while I don’t think the lines between the types of functions are as clear as you do, I understand that you’re saying that people should stay in their lane. And I recognize why it is a real problem when governance people perform campaign functions. The reverse doesn’t really bother me.
My fault entirely-I should have linked to an article that explained the situation to you. :rolleyes:
Have them call my people and I’ll set up a meeting to discuss it with them. 
Basically, what I’d ask them is what I’m asking you…is this any different than the various kitchen cabinets used by previous administrations, and on what basis are they asserting that presidents ‘aren’t supposed’ to do this? Is it illegal for a president to authorize this? Has there been some sort of formal change made that breaks previous precedence presidents used in the past to use whoever they wanted in this type of position? That no one in the past few administrations have done it doesn’t equate to ‘aren’t supposed to’, unless there is a law that says so.
JMHO, and I’m really trying to get riled about this and see why you think it’s important. I’m dead tired atm, so maybe I’m just missing the gravity here.
What else was she doing by hosting an official White House meeting at all? She has absolutely no official role, position or qualifications that would entitle her to be holding meetings with Cabinet secretaries or other administration members on the public’s dime. Officially, she is nothing but a campaign adviser.
If your defense of this conduct is “Hey, she wasn’t actively campaigning for Trump’s re-election, she was just using her family privilege to take up the time of White House officials to push for causes she’s personally interested in as a completely unqualified hanger-on of government!”, I don’t think that line of argument really helps your case very much.
Yeah, I read the article. I didn’t see anything in there about what laws, ethical guidelines, or other official rules or regulations that have been broken. I see a few people complaining. But if this is a thread where you just want to complain about it, why didn’t you put it in the Pit instead of Great Debates?
Do you want a debate, or do you just want people to agree with you on how totally unprecedented and harmful to America this is?
I don’t have a “case” I am waiting for some sort of legal, ethical, or other guidelines, rules, or regulations that show that this type of meeting holding is unethical. I’m not the one who said it was unethical. I’m not sure why the President can’t have whoever he wants hold whatever meetings he wants or why that would be unethical. Luckily, a person who DOES think this is unethical started this thread so he can explain why it’s unethical. Up until now, all I see is “He not supposed to!” Not really convincing.
I don’t understand your repeated use of the term “kitchen cabinet”. The whole point of a political kitchen cabinet is that it’s a group of unofficial advisers whom the President consults with privately. Not people who are handed control of official administration activities such as White House meetings.
If Lara Trump were simply using family dinnertime with President Daddy-in-law to encourage him to support particular policies she favored, that would be a “kitchen cabinet” setup and I don’t see anything wrong with it. The fact that she gets to call official meetings with the likes of the Secretary of the Interior and members of Congress is another pair of shoes.
The way we determine what is best for the country at large is via elections. So if Trump enacts some policy and it helps him get elected then it’s in the public good.
Duly noted.
Naturally. If, to take a purely hypothetical example, Trump removes important environmental regulations that cost businesses money to comply with, and the grateful business owners then spend large sums that help Trump get re-elected, that is prima facie in the public good. There is absolutely no way that the public could be harmed by such a proceeding. :rolleyes:
In case you really haven’t noticed, elections are not in fact the sole measure of public good in this country. This is why there are limitations on what people are allowed to do in order to get elected.