So, your issue is that, unlike past presidents, he hasn’t officially appointed them to some position but instead is just allowing them to hold meetings even when they don’t have an official appointment?
I mentioned the kitchen cabinet thing because they were friends and family who had no official standing yet were at the white house offering the president advice, often over the official Cabinet. I guess I don’t see the difference between a president getting actionable advice and consultation from some guys the prez is buds with and running a meeting. I’m sure you see a vast distinction, but I’m not seeing it to be honest.
But all of this can be settled easily if you just answer the question of what actual rule or law this breaks. It seems the people quoted in the article THINK that there has been a violation, but I haven’t seen it laid out. If there isn’t such a law or rule, then I don’t see the issue, even if no president has ever done anything like this (and based on my own half-remembered history, I’d be shocked if this were the case…some of the early presidents took nepotism to unreal lengths, though I guess the distinction is they just appointed them to official positions, while Trump hasn’t done that). If there IS such a rule or law, then Trump is in violation, so that seems something that he can be slapped down on. I’m all for that.
Do these limitations include who can hold meetings in the White House? Are these limitation, specifically the ones that apply to who can hold meetings in the White House, written down anywhere so that the general public can peruse them to determine if any meetings that are being held in the White House violate these limitations?
Or do we just have to listen to people who say “He isn’t supposed to!” and then condemn the meetings as unethical?
My ethical bar are things that break established ethical barriers that are written down so I can read and analyze them myself and not have to depend on people with biases telling me “He’s not supposed to!” and expecting me to use a case of the supposed-tas to determine the ethical boundaries that have been broken by the President.
So, please show what ethical guidelines, laws, legal precedents, or other type of publication that you used to determine that the type of meetings being held are unethical. You are not just going by your own feelings and biased opinions of others are you? Not in Great Debates of all places!
Do you think it possible for an action to be technically legal, but ethically irresponsible(or even wrong)? I said at the outset that I thought this was ethically wrong, but that I was unsure as to the legality of the matter…some seem to be of the position that anything can be passed over as long as a lawyer says it is legal.
Why should that be the only criterion? For example, there is also no official rule or law that an elected President must release tax returns. But every President from Nixon to Obama has done so, and in terms of governmental transparency it seems like a pretty good policy. There are good reasons to complain about Trump’s choice to violate that precedent, even if it doesn’t break official rules or laws.
Are you going on record as saying that you don’t object to anything a President does as long as it doesn’t break any official rule or law? That will certainly lead to some fun times in the archives.
You tell me. You started this thread. What ethical guidelines are YOU using to determine that the meetings are unethical? Then I will look at those guidelines and see whether or not I agree with you that the meetings are unethical.
No-You tell me, since you brought up ethics that are established and written down somewhere. Are these ethics that you say are written down different that established laws?
You are the one who made an assertion about your own personal “ethical bar” as depending on “ethical barriers that are written down”. Precisely what kind of written-down ethical barriers were you referring to?
We have a fluid system that can change, so if what the president is doing is technically legal but turns out to be ‘ethically irresponsible’ then it can shift to ensure that in the future that doesn’t happen. Many things that presidents did in the past wrt nepotism appointments aren’t allowed today because of this, so perhaps this will be another loophole closed.
Today, however, it seems it is more something that the previous administrations didn’t do, but not something they couldn’t have done if the whim hadn’t taken them in that direction. If you are just wanting opinions, I’d say this is yet another instance of something we should tighten the rules up on, but that the answer to the title of your OP is ‘because the President says so’ and that there is precedence for this stance. Precedence doesn’t mean that we have to continue to allow it to happen.
Well, because that’s how our system works. There is recent precedence on the tax returns thing, but there is much more precedence on not doing it that way. This seems similar…according to those quoted in the OP in their experience, recent administrations have chosen not to do what Trump is currently doing. Basically, if it really is an issue then we need a formal law or rule to lock it down. Otherwise, the answer to the OP is, again, because the President decided that’s what he wanted. He’s not a king, so he can’t do that for everything (much to the relief of most of the country and the consternation of Trump I’m sure :p), but on this it seems to be the case…otherwise you or the OP would have shown the rule or law that forbids it.
I wouldn’t go that far, and, of course, laws and official rules do change or are adopted because of abuses by the various Presidents. Perhaps that will be the case here. In this case, I’m not seeing any major issue in what’s been presented thus far especially wrt things presidents have done in the past. If there is no rule or law about this then it will be up to the voters to decide. And I think the voters are going to kick this idiot out for reasons other than this. Hell, I’m hopeful he gets the boot for some of this Russian stuff.
You’ve given us a theoretically possible reason why this could be bad. That’s a million miles away from providing an argument why this should be considered prima facie wrong. My point still stands. Generally speaking, if a politician does something that gets them elected it is a good thing.
It seems to me that ethical guidelines are most effective when written down and published. And it seems to me that most companies and government agencies agree. Written ethical guidelines allows everyone to see what they are and conform to them. It’s not a controversial position, yet you seem to be mocking it. That’s strange.
YOU said it stinks to high heaven ethically. What ethical guidance are you using to determine this? YOU posted in Great Debates that it stinks to high heaven ethically. It seems to me that the burden is on you to provide proof or reasons that it is unethical. Got any? And yes, I read the article. If your proof that this stinks to high heaven ethically is the opinions of the people in that article, then just say that.
It’s illegal for certain employees* of the executive branch to engage in political activities. IFIAK, she is not an employee of the executive branch, but I could be wrong.
*“except the president, vice-president, and certain designated high-level officials of that branch”, according to wikipedia.
Your love of “official” is pretty carefully delineated, isn’t it? The meetings offend you because they were “official” meetings in the White House. But when asked what “official” law regulation or policy is broken, and you immediately disclaim the importance of “official,” pointing out how things can be unethical without breaking an official regulation.
Would it surprise you to learn that David Axelrod hosted meetings in the White House when he was “chief campaign strategist,” for the 2012 campaign?
I don’t recall your horror at that event when it happened, of course.
No.
The Hatch Act prohibits:
[ul]
[li]Any person employed in any administrative position by the United States, or by any department or independent agency (except for certain officials listed below) from using “… his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting the election.”[/li][li]Promising employment, compensation, or other benefit that is provided by any federal money as a reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in any election.[/li][li]Threatening anyone with loss of any of those as inducement for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in any election.[/li][li]Furnishing or receiving any list of people receiving government benefits to a political candidate, committee, or campaign manager.[/li][li]Interfering with, restraining, or coercing any individual in the exercise of his right to vote at any election by offering or withholding any federal grants or loans for public-works projects.[/li][li]Taking any active part in political management or in political campaigns.[/li][/ul]
Excluded from these prohibition are “persons whose compensation is paid from the appropriation for the office of the President,” as well as the heads and assistant heads of executive departments; officers who are appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and who determine policies to be pursued by the United States in its relations with foreign powers or in the Nation-wide administration of Federal laws.
