January 12, 2017

"So I could actually run my business, I could actually run my business and run government at the same time."

"I don’t like the way that looks, but I would be able to do that if I wanted to. I would be the only one to be able to do that. You can’t do that in any other capacity. But as president, I could run the Trump organization, great, great company, and I could run the company — the country. I’d do a very good job, but I don’t want to do that."

From the transcript of yesterday's press conference.

Why did Trump say that?
 
pollcode.com free polls

64 comments:

Matthew Sablan said...

I like the Freudian slip of "I could run the company -- the country." Maybe he's just thinking of the country as a big business with accounts to balance.

Michael K said...

None of the above.

mccullough said...

Part legal point, part pat-me-on-the-back for doing the right thing even though it wasn't legally required, part I-have-the-energy-to-do-both jobs braggadocio

Once written, twice... said...

Trump is going to be the most corrupt president in history. He is just laying out the ground work here to justify him enriching himself and his family while he is president.

Once written, twice... said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nonapod said...

Just Trump saying Trump things. To me the actual content doesn't read so much as him describing anything around the legality of it all, rather it's just him bragging about his unique ability as he perceives it.

I wonder how long it'll take for us to just get acclimatized to his manner of public speaking and become adept at being able to parse out actual significant things from his baseline bluster.

Once written, twice... said...

Ann, if this was a Democrat, you and your Althouse Hillbillies would be going apeshit.

But Ann, you like the right wing strongman. It is the German in you.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Maybe he's just thinking of the country as a big business with accounts to balance.

GOOD!! Because that is EXACTLY what it is. The country/government is structured like a business and needs to have a good CEO, CFO, IT dept, Accounting Dept, Manufacturing, Supplies, Disbursements, Quality Control etc etc etc

Right now the United States is on really badly run company that has been mismanaged for decades by incompetent, unaccountable, non-executive business types. Departments are not held accountable. People are not being held accountable for doing their jobs. Heck....most of them don't even know what their jobs are supposed to BE doing and have begun to make up the rules and regulations for themselves (EPA, Dept Education...I could go on)

This is why I really want Trump to get in and do his CEO thing. Shave the waste. Drain the swamp. Fire the incompetents. Refocus the "Company" on its Mission Statement (the Constitution).

I want him and his cabinet picks to be a corporate head hunters!!!

I'm glad that Trump is backing away from his personal corporations, not because it is or isn't legal to keep them, but because THIS new company he is taking charge of....the United States....is really really f*cked up and needs a lot of focused attention.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

correction non executive NON business types. People who haven't the first idea of how to run a hot dog stand.

Bankruptcy in a business is a hard thing. Sometimes the business can restructure. Sometimes it goes out of business entirely. People can lose their livelihoods.

Bankruptcy in a Country is a very terrible thing and one that can cost people their lives not just their livelihoods.

My name goes here. said...

These two:

He's just making the technical point that it would be legal to do both jobs.

To stress that he didn't have to separate from his business, so we should be impressed that he did.

Michael in ArchDen said...

Obama, "I'm the a better speechwriter than my speechwriters" Response, "Man this guy is full of himself"

Trump (paraphrased), "I'm a better manager than any president ever" Response, "He's right, you know!"

/rolleyes

rehajm said...

His camp is relying on the exclusion of the President from the burdens of the Emoluments Clause.

...and he's boasting about going above and beyond. Does that fit the second option?

Nonapod said...

Once written, twice... said...

Trump is going to be the most corrupt president in history


I curious as to what would lead you to believe that he will be corrupt? Sure, he says lot's of inflammatory stuff, that's his shtick. But that in itself doesn't necessarily indicate corruptibility.

And at any rate, even if he is corrupt I doubt he'll get away with much. Whatever happens over the next few years, everyone is going to be laser focused on Trump not just because he's the president but because he's Trump. People are going to be analyzing everything he does and everything that happens as a result during his presidency like no other president in our lifetimes. There's no shortage of people who want to see him fail.

exhelodrvr1 said...

This will further enrage the progressives and their media toadies, leading them to over-extend on this issue and make more mistakes. Totally inside their OODA loop. It would be interesting to know if this was deliberate on Trump's part, or intuitive.

Unknown said...

Meanwhile, the utter and completely transparent Hillary Clinton selling State access for bribes bothers Once Written not a teensy bit.

When Democrats are corrupt, that's a bonus!

--Vance

Brando said...

Agree with Nonapod above. This is just how Trump talks, and trying to parse his words is a fool's game. When he says "I alone can fix it!" if you start trying to ask yourself "does he really mean no one else on earth can fix these problems? How lucky we must be that Trump exists! Thank you, God!" then you're in for a rough time. It's just the way he talks. "No one respects women as much as I do..." "The worst trade deal in the history of trade deals."

It gets the fact checkers nuts because taken literally his statements are full of obvious nonsense. It makes his fans thrilled because it gets the fact checkers nuts.

You'd save yourself a lot of trouble if when you hear a statement like that you interpreted it as "Trump's just Trumping, wake me when he makes news".

Brando said...

"And at any rate, even if he is corrupt I doubt he'll get away with much. Whatever happens over the next few years, everyone is going to be laser focused on Trump not just because he's the president but because he's Trump. People are going to be analyzing everything he does and everything that happens as a result during his presidency like no other president in our lifetimes. There's no shortage of people who want to see him fail."

What does that matter? Media can hate him, it just fuels him (who anywhere thinks "well, when you've lost the Times, you're in trouble..."?). Dems can fume, but they're in control of neither house of Congress. And the GOP falls in line.

Whether he'll DO anything corrupt remains to be seen--I'm not thrilled with his whitewash of a conflict-of-interest mitigation strategy, and find it curious that Althouse seems fine with it, but ultimately he starts with a blank slate in a week. But I don't see him as hamstrung by his enemies at all.

rcocean said...

That's the whole problem with Trump. He's an imprecise, but very intelligent speaker. He doesn't spell it out, but assumes you can follow what he's saying by the context.

This allows liberals and #nevertrumpers to interpret his words is dumbest way possible. And then ascribe that interpretation or paraphrase to Trump. Its gotten to the point where if I see a headline or a Trump statement paraphrase in the MSM I assume its wrong and they're trying to make him look bad.

Matthew Sablan said...

Honestly, this would've been a good topic for Trump to just shut up on and do what he's going to do. He gains little from a self-congratulatory pat on the back. He may be technically correct/legally correct, but people don't care about that, they just want to remove the appearance of impropriety.

Fernandinande said...

Once written, twice... said...
Trump is going to be the most corrupt president in history.


If I were as good as you think you are at predicting the future, I'd be at the horse track or buying stocks.

If I were as good as you actually are at predicting the future, I'd be posting nonsense on some blog.

n.n said...

Not only legal, but also practicable. The key to managing conflicts of interest is disclosure and transparency. Conflicts of interest range from personal and crony financial interests to social interests to dreams of redistributive change and even retributive change directed to an individual or class (e.g. "color of skin").

Nonapod said...

Brando said...

Whether he'll DO anything corrupt remains to be seen--I'm not thrilled with his whitewash of a conflict-of-interest mitigation strategy, and find it curious that Althouse seems fine with it, but ultimately he starts with a blank slate in a week. But I don't see him as hamstrung by his enemies at all.


My impression of the situation (and keep in mind I've been wrong a lot) is that Trump's apparent cloak of invulnerability will drop away once the rubber hits the road. Even among his supporters I get the impression that if he screws up, if he doesn't deliver or things go bad fast, people will turn on him en masse very quickly.

Sure, he's got a very strong core of devout true believers, but that core isn't super big or unshakable. After all, a very large portion of the people who voted for him did so grudgingly. I get the impression that most of his support is purely provisional. And the overwhelming majority of mainstream media despises and/or fears him.

"So what? He still has both houses" you may say. But without a general popular support I think he might find it difficult to convince the GoP senators and congress critters to go along with him. After all the modern establishment GoP is a fearful bunch, and they're especially afraid of their voters. And the establishment GoP generally already greatly dislikes Trump anyway.

So he'll have his voters against him, the media against him, and his own party against him. With all that anything remotely extralegal would get him roundly impeached quickly for sure.

Maybe I'm just a hopeless optimist but I don't see a tyrannical nightmare in our future.

traditionalguy said...

Remembering Charles II, the Emoluments the Founders had in mind were huge bribes from Louis XIV and the French courtesan whores he sent ( recently called interns when Bubba spent many hours a day having them do tricks on his dick ) that Puritans disliked so much that Willam of Orange was later Gloriously brought in to make England Calvinist again.

We already have that transition made. Donald the Orange can be trusted.

FullMoon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Carter Wood said...

If Zachary Taylor could run his Louisiana plantation from the White House, why, Trump could run his business empire as well.

aritai said...

I think we're overthinking this. Any Wharton graduate would say the same thing, unless the job came with a full social calendar, but if they don't drink or sleep, all he has to is negotiate the objectives of about 12 direct reports. Once these objectives and rewards for performance and early delivery are set, the business runs itself. Which is a horror to those that depend on the swamp to reward non-delivery, and when something is doing poorly increase funding to reward more of the same. The government is less complex than any business where making win-win deals where even the loser comes out vested in the success in the enterprise so you never hear a complaint. Now that is hard work. In the government you have to teach and instruct (tell) folks what to do because there is so much incompetence in the swamp. Though they, and the elites think of themselves as gods so they must know best, where in truth they no less than the small business owner who operates a plumbing business. So in addition to running a country, his business empire has order 48 direct reports because he likes to stay busy. So running a country in addition is a piece of cake. Which is terrible insult to the elites who know they know best. Kiss the hem of my cloak you serf.

Brando said...

"The key to managing conflicts of interest is disclosure and transparency."

Those are important, but there are times (at least when we're dealing with contractors with conflicts of interest) that we have to require more to grant a waiver, such as a firewall with the conflicted party. And at times it's such that we have to refuse the waiver entirely. The issue isn't so much that you can see what they're doing and say "clearly this was in their interest to the detriment of the party to which they owed a duty" but rather when it's impossible to tell.

My view is that while Trump's mitigation plan is insufficient, his situation is such that there isn't really much else he could do short of total divestiture, and the GOP Congress (which is the only check on this) simply doesn't care enough at this point. So, it is what it is.

"Maybe I'm just a hopeless optimist but I don't see a tyrannical nightmare in our future."

As a hopeless pessimist (benefit--we're more likely to be surprised for the better) I don't see tyranny in our future either. I doubt Trump would disappoint his core supporters, particularly as his showman skills will portray him as fulfilling his promises, and as long as he has them the GOP will march to his tune. That doesn't mean dictatorship, of course, and if in the meantime the bunch of them pass some good policy all the better. But I think he has more freedom to act than most people (even some smug leftists) seem to admit.

Mary E. Glynn said...

Once written, twice... said...
Trump is going to be the most corrupt president in history. He is just laying out the ground work here to justify him enriching himself and his family while he is president.
---------------

It's just the opposite, actually.
The legal moves alone are costing him and his family, but the financial sacrifice in the end will be worth it.

Trump's a do-er, where Obama was just a talker. (A very smooth talker, but in the end: it was all just talk... but a lot of intelligent people fell for it: "Obama!!!!" "Obama!!!!!!" "Obama!!!!!" = John and Ann's morning-after-the-2008-election. Do you remember? ;-)

cubanbob said...

Once written, twice... said...
Trump is going to be the most corrupt president in history. He is just laying out the ground work here to justify him enriching himself and his family while he is president."

Maybe you can explain how the soon to be ex-president who never had a job that paid more than the one he has now can afford to buy a $5mm home in DC and a $30mm home in Hawaii. And Barry is chump change compared to those well know grifters-The Clinton's.

rcocean said...

BTW, here's another daily example of the MSM Lying about Trump and misrepresenting what he says.

Trump tweets: "James Clapper called me yesterday to denounce the false and fictitious report that was illegally circulated. Made up, phony facts.Too bad!"

Clapper then issues a statement that says: (1) The report was not a IC document and (2) "the IC has not made any judgement that the information in the report is reliable and we did not rely upon it in anyway for our conclusions."

Result: "Think Progess" headline: "Trump fabricates conversation with director of national intelligence"

First, Trump is tweeting based on what Clapper told him verbally - not his written statement. Second, Clapper is saying the information in the report is not reliable, was not an IC document, and was not used by them in anyway.

So how do you get from that to "Trump is lying"? Its all BS.

rehajm said...

He is just laying out the ground work here to justify him enriching himself and his family while he is president.

Trump and his cabinet billionaires are foregoing substantial income to participate in public service. It's difficult to imagine a scenario either corrupt or above board that would make up for value lost during their service, much less something that could be considered 'enriching' to a ten figure wealthy family.

rehajm said...

can afford to buy a $5mm home in DC and a $30mm home in Hawaii

Isn't he renting?

rehajm said...

Committing future Presidents who hold valuable illiquid assets to surrendering their life's work sets a poor precedent for the quality of future Presidents.

Brando said...

"Trump and his cabinet billionaires are foregoing substantial income to participate in public service. It's difficult to imagine a scenario either corrupt or above board that would make up for value lost during their service, much less something that could be considered 'enriching' to a ten figure wealthy family."

Not to say that that's what WILL happen, or that that's what he's planning to do, but it's not hard to imagine how Trump can profit greatly while serving as president. Any foreign country or foreign company (or a lot of domestic private parties, for that matter) could seek favor with him by granting tax breaks, fast tracking licensing, or paying above market (or selling things at below market) to his companies in the hope that he'll go easy on them in any foreign trade deal, or domestic regulatory action, or federal tax policy. Hell, just selling branding rights alone means a lot more when the brand is the name of the president of the U.S. And if that sounds too transparent, just remember any one of those official activities could be defended as "acting in America's best interests, because of course we want better relations with India or to encourage growth in this sector" and the foreign and domestic parties can say their actions were in their own best interests, even if it's debatable.

Mind you, I'm not saying that's definitely going to happen, or his plan, but it's that very scenario which makes the conflict of interest question worthwhile.

traditionalguy said...

Or Trump could tell the GLOBAL ETHICS MASTERS that he will settle for a contingency fee of one half of 1% of the World's Equities Trump Bump since election day, and a half of 1% of the increase in US GDP over the 2% standard set in Obama's years. That should come to about 100 Trillion dollars.

Take it or leave it.

Ann Althouse said...

"His camp is relying on the exclusion of the President from the burdens of the Emoluments Clause."

That wasn't the main argument from the lawyer. It was that emoluments are gifts and an equal exchange (such as paying for a hotel room) isn't a gift.

Ann Althouse said...

Here's the lawyer (from the transcript):

I’m going to turn to one last topic today that has been of interest lately called emoluments. That’s a word I think we’ve all become familiar with and perhaps had not heard before.

And we’re gonna describe some other actions that President-elect Trump is taking to avoid even the appearance of a conflict.

Emoluments comes from the Constitution. The Constitution says “officials may not accept gifts, titles of nobility, or emoluments from foreign governments with respect to their office, and that no benefit should be derived by holding in office.”

The so-called Emoluments Clause has never been interpreted, however, to apply to fair value exchanges that have absolutely nothing to do with an office holder.

No one would have thought when the Constitution was written that paying your hotel bill was an emolument. Instead, it would have been thought of as a value-for-value exchange; not a gift, not a title, and not an emolument.

But since President-elect Trump has been elected, some people want to define emoluments to cover routine business transactions like paying for hotel rooms. They suggest that the Constitution prohibits the businesses from even arm’s-length transactions that the president-elect has absolutely nothing to do with and isn’t even aware of.

These people are wrong. This is not what the Constitution says. Paying for a hotel room is not a gift or a present and it has nothing to do with an office. It’s not an emolument.

Chuck said...

To be honest, I'm not all that jazzed, about attacks on Trump based on conflicts of interest laws.

I do think Trump is setting awful precedents, for future Presidents, in most of what he is doing, personally. But come on, people. The Trump Organization is not nearly as big, or as important, or as much of a financial power, as Trump thinks.

Trump is a "businessman" the way that George Foreman is. The same way that Colonel Sanders was. He's in the name-licensing business. With a golf course management company, and a tv production company.

I would not have asked Arnold Palmer to divest himself of all of his businesses, if he had become president. I think Arnold was a bigger and better businessman than Trump. At least Arnold never got involved in a debacle like Trump University.

harryo said...

I was going to vote, but there was no option for "He is full of shit".

The only way he could do both, is if Melania let him, and got herself a pool boy. I don't think she's into pool boys.

Chuck said...

Ann; did you know that Jeffrey Toobin mostly agrees with you on all of the relevant statutory law and the application of the Emoluments Clause? He does.

Brando said...

"But come on, people. The Trump Organization is not nearly as big, or as important, or as much of a financial power, as Trump thinks."

It doesn't have to be. The issue isn't how big and powerful Trump's organization is, it's to what extent foreign parties might be able to affect his decisions with those benefits. If, for example, Foreign Leader A buys a copy of Trump's Art of the Deal, and Trump personally nets one dollar from the transaction, it's highly unlikely this would affect his decisionmaking regarding Foreign Leader A's country. But the higher amounts we're talking about, the more likely we have a conflict.

Ann, do you accept Trump's lawyer's legal reasoning re: emoluments? If you've weighed in on it I missed it.

Chuck said...

Brando I shall not argue with you on the ethics issues. I pretty much would not wish to argue anything with you.

For me, personally, I am not as excited about this aspect of anti-Trumpism as some others are.

Who knows? One of these ethics issue could be the thing that brings down a Trump Presidency.

Curious George said...

To be entirely FREE from the Emoluments Clause Trump just needs to make an Executive Order. That's how it works now. Right?

Robert Cook said...

""Trump and his cabinet billionaires are foregoing substantial income to participate in public service. It's difficult to imagine a scenario either corrupt or above board that would make up for value lost during their service, much less something that could be considered 'enriching' to a ten figure wealthy family."

Oh, for heaven's sake!

First, boo-fucking-hoo if a wealthy person who has sought office and wins it must forgo "substantial income to participate in public service." They make their choices with eyes open.

Second, government makes decisions and passes laws that affect the economy, and, by extension, every citizen. Wealthy businesspersons in office who are still active in running their businesses might be more inclined to pass bills into law that will benefit the business community--even if at the expense of most American citizens--not only because they can expect their business to benefit directly but because their friends in the business community will benefit. As it is, elected officials pass laws that benefit the business community at the expense of the people simply because they are being paid by the business community to serve their interests, (oh, I mean, the business community provides them with campaign contributions).

There's no way to get corruption and graft out of government entirely, (or possibly even substantially), but letting elected officials who own businesses to continue running their businesses while in office is to ignore human nature and invites such behavior.

Brando said...

"For me, personally, I am not as excited about this aspect of anti-Trumpism as some others are."

I'm not TOO distressed--I guess dealing with these issues at work makes me a bit more sensitive to them and some of the laughable arguments Trump's lawyer made have me wondering if standards for lawyers have gotten a bit lax. But as there's not really a plausible way to mitigate this, and the GOP certainly isn't going to push it, I think we can just hope for the best that Trump's business interests don't diverge from the national interest, and to the extent that they do, he either puts the national interest first (possible) or if he doesn't, it's not on a major issue we all live to regret (I don't for example see him making a secret pact with Putin to give him half of Europe in exchange for favorable hotel leases!).

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Ann, do you accept Trump's lawyer's legal reasoning re: emoluments?

Not speaking for anybody but myself. The SEC has similar rules regarding gifts and entertainment rules for investment managers and advisors see linked Rules that I have had to abide by for many years.

On the broker/dealer level it is not as restrictive. Gifts given or received in nominal amounts are not considered violations of the rule. Giving or getting candy for Christmas. A bottle of scotch or wine. Taking a client to lunch or being treated for lunch. Golf game etc. Those are generally a non issue under a $100 dollar limit.

IF I have a client with a spa resort and I book a weekend at a fair market price, just like everyone else....or like Trump, rents a hotel room....it is a non issue as well as long as the weekend isn't a gift. It is a business transaction. It might be considered suspect if I booked the spa weekend for a big client and paid for it.....THAT would be giving a gift to my client.

We had to be very careful and I'm quite sure that Trump is not dumb enough to compromise himself.

Here is an easier take on it

However, as a business owner and public figure, he needs to be even more careful and thus distancing himself from business decisions.

No one expects or should expect that person running from office should have to impoverish himself, his family, sell their assets in order to be in office. What should be considered is the people who COME into office poor and leave as multi multi millionaires. Harry Reid for example. Obama for example. Clintons for example.

rehajm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rehajm said...

Ann Althouse said...
"His camp is relying on the exclusion of the President from the burdens of the Emoluments Clause."

That wasn't the main argument from the lawyer. It was that emoluments are gifts and an equal exchange (such as paying for a hotel room) isn't a gift.

Well, It was the first one. Did you miss that?

(Dillon, from the transcript): As he said, he’s voluntarily taking this on. The conflicts of interest laws simply do not apply to the president or the vice president and they are not required to separate themselves from their financial assets.

Drago said...

Robert Cook: "First, boo-fucking-hoo if a wealthy person who has sought office and wins it must forgo "substantial income to participate in public service." They make their choices with eyes open."

I'm sorry that the law as written does not conform to your inner Lenin.

Better luck next time.

And I'm also sorry that your (and the "lifelong republican") sides latest "October Surprise" ploy (with Michael Cohen playing HW Bush and jaunting off in an SR-71 to meet with Russian intermediaries in Prague) didn't work out.

Well, not to worry Cookie. Gary Sick is Not Dead Yet and I'll bet he has Dan Rathers recycled Word Processor fired up and ready to go!

Brando said...

"No one expects or should expect that person running from office should have to impoverish himself, his family, sell their assets in order to be in office. What should be considered is the people who COME into office poor and leave as multi multi millionaires. Harry Reid for example. Obama for example. Clintons for example."

Your point reminds me of something I should have added above--another way to look at it is ultimately all presidents are somewhat compromised by interests that may not perfectly align with the national interest (and even sometimes they think that they do), and they certainly benefit after leaving office. So while this is still an ethical problem, the potential "damage" from it should be weighed against the norm which is not ethically squeaky clean.

I don't know if the "gift" definitions are on point here, though--in dealing with the federal government, there's a gift ban (with a certain threshold--used to be $20 but may have increased) but that is separate from the bribery and conflict of interest rules, which can kick in where any benefit is granted and the determining factor is whether that benefit is likely to sway their judgment. So even if it results in more business--and a "fair exchange" in that business, however we try to define that--if that increase in business could benefit the recipient, it still creates a conflict.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Brando,
" If, for example, Foreign Leader A buys a copy of Trump's Art of the Deal, and Trump personally nets one dollar from the transaction, it's highly unlikely this would affect his decisionmaking regarding Foreign Leader A's country. But the higher amounts we're talking about, the more likely we have a conflict"

So how much are they going to be selling the book for now?

Brando said...

"So how much are they going to be selling the book for now?"

Ha, I'll let you know after I put my copy up on Ebay. If someone named "Vladimir" offers a billion dollars for it, I'll check back in just before retiring...

rehajm said...

Ann Althouse said...

That wasn't the main argument from the lawyer. It was that emoluments are gifts and an equal exchange (such as paying for a hotel room) isn't a gift.


This argument doesn't speak to the topic of this post: Why did he say that? with 'that' being and including Trump's stating, I would be the only one to be able to do that.

The argument that emoluments are gifts and an equal exchange if true, would apply to not just Trump but any and everyone subject to the clause, no?

Trump is pointing out the rule doesn't apply to him.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The argument that emoluments are gifts and an equal exchange if true, would apply to not just Trump but any and everyone subject to the clause, no?

As I pointed out in my industry controlled by FINRA and the SEC there are gift rules and fair exchange rules that are recognized.

Gifts/emoluments within certain low limits can be accepted. No one is going to be bribed to do something illegal over a box of See's Candy. However. Gifts of significant amounts...even free airplane rides can be something that "might" be able to sway someone or bribe them. Free use of a very expensive home in Hawaii???? This is why gifts, awards that convey some sort of power or other items might bring in a pay to play situation and why they are forbidden to accept.

However, when the exchange is an ordinary transaction at fair market pricing, that anyone else would do it is not a gift or emolument. It is business being transacted. If that plane ride is paid for ...or the hotel room is paid ..or the apartment rent is market value there is no conflict with the law.

This is what the attorney was trying to convey.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Brando: So even if it results in more business--and a "fair exchange" in that business, however we try to define that--if that increase in business could benefit the recipient, it still creates a conflict.

This is true. The appearance of conflict can exist even when there is no conflict. Do we expect Trump and other government officials to never do business with anyone else. Never rent a vacation home. Never buy vehicles from a particular manufacturer over another. Never rent out a ballroom or conference room in any public facility. Stop renting an apartment in a building. Never go to a golf course again. Never act like a normal person because there might....might....might....be a perception of conflict.

There is nothing wrong with close scrutiny of our public officials and questioning of the possible conflicts, but we must be rational about it and not screech like a demented Rosie O'Donnell at the slightest normal actions.

Robert Cook said...

"I'm sorry that the law as written does not conform to your inner Lenin.

"Better luck next time."


As usual, Drago, your remarks are incoherent. I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.

Brando said...

"There is nothing wrong with close scrutiny of our public officials and questioning of the possible conflicts, but we must be rational about it and not screech like a demented Rosie O'Donnell at the slightest normal actions."

Oh, I agree--and as I noted above there's always going to be SOME conflicts, not even necessarily financial ones. When we do mitigating strategies it's generally a matter of degree (for example, we recommended waiver with a contractor who owned some stock in a company he'd be reviewing because the small amount of stock he owned and the miniscule effect our contract would have on that company's overall business were deemed not enough to affect his judgment).

Roy Lofquist said...

"Don't worry Jim, if that question comes up, I'll just confuse them." ~~ Dwight Eisenhower.

To Press Secretary Jim Hagerty who pleaded with Eisenhower not to answer any press conference questions about the delicate Formosan Strait crisis, March 23, 1955. (Eisenhower was, indeed, asked if using atomic weapons on China was an option. He delivered a long, confusing reply which was effectively indecipherable.)

Eisenhower won WWII in Europe, resolved Korea (last campaign of WWII) and created the Interstate Highway System. Not bad for a guy who was called a dunce by many of his detractors.

Trump reminds me very much of Eisenhower in a number of respects.

Alex said...

Trump is gonna be yuuuge and bigly.

Robert Cook said...

"Trump reminds me very much of Eisenhower in a number of respects."

Don't insult Eisenhower with such a comparison.

Drago said...

Cookie: "As usual, Drago, your remarks are incoherent. I have no idea what point you're trying to make here."

A non-communist one.

Your befuddlement is understood.

Drago said...

If I wrapped my remarks up in a Little Red Book, I wonder if that would help Cookie understand that his mass murder ideology is perhaps slightly flawed?

In any event, who is up for a "Venezuela needs foodstuffs and fuel and medicine and electricity and water and medical supplies and everything else" support party?!

Peter Araujo said...

@Michael in ArchDen:

Obama, "I'm the a better speechwriter than my speechwriters" Response, "Man this guy is full of himself"

Trump (paraphrased), "I'm a better manager than any president ever" Response, "He's right, you know!"


Try this:

Obama, "I'm the a better speechwriter than my speechwriters"
Conservatives, "Man this guy is full of himself."
Progressives, "No he's not, he's right!"

Trump (paraphrased), "I'm a better manager than any president ever"
Progressives, "Man this guy is full of himself."
Conservatives, "Problem, progs?"

After sixteen years (8 Bushitler, 8 Obamassiah) of being shouted down, demonized, lied to, and gaslighted by progressives, conservatives have gone full honey badger. Cries of "hypocrisy!" from the left are falling flat because the right simply Does. Not. Care. Anymore.

The ship has sailed. The time has passed. We have entered the Trumpian Dispensation.

Anthony said...

If Teddy Roosevelt could not control Alice and be President at the same time, I doubt Trump can do it.