"He’s clearly trying to make it easier for them financially to work in government service at the White House. You can’t do that."

Said Richard Painter, "the former chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush and a critic of Trump."

Quoted in "Trump gave $45,000 cash gifts to Natalie Harp, two other close aides/Financial disclosures released by the administration show the sums were equivalent to nearly one-third of each of their salaries" (WaPo).

"It’s not like tipping the doorman on Fifth Avenue," Painter said. "These are U.S. government employees. If you want a job where you get tips, you shouldn’t be working for the U.S. government."

"Mr. Trump ended the first day of public trading $4.6 billion richer on paper...."

I'm reading "Trump’s Social Media Company Opens New Avenue for Conflicts of Interest/Ethics experts say Trump Media, now a publicly traded company, would present a new way for foreign actors or others to influence Donald J. Trump, if he is elected president" (NYT).

Isn't it funny how his haters got him kicked off Twitter and — only because of that — he made his own website and 3 years later, it makes him $4.6 billion?

Anyway, this new Times article, by Sharon LaFraniere — "an investigative reporter currently focusing on Republican candidates in the 2024 presidential campaign" (I love the plural) — casts shade on Trump's insanely good fortune. 

Alan Dershowitz asks a tricky question about 16 year olds.

I stand by the constitutional (not moral) argument I offered in my controversial oped: if a 16 year old has the constitutional right to have an abortion without state or parental interference, how could she not have the constitutional right to engage in consensual sex? 1/ https://t.co/48Thb8Uaym

— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) July 29, 2019

The thread at Twitter continues. Dershowitz goes on to say:

I challenge my readers to distinguish the cases, as a matter of constitutional law. I did not suggest that it is moral to have sex with a 16 year old, but rather that the issue presents a constitutional conundrum worthy of discussion. 2/

And:

I also pointed out that, statutory rape laws are applied quite selectively and often against young teenagers. That’s why I also say there are Romeo and Juliet exceptions. Lets debate not name call. End/

He's taunted by tweeters who say things like:

OK, perv.

And:

Could this be because you raped a 16 year old?

But I'm going to take his question about abortion seriously. And here are my questions: When a woman under the age of consent seeks an abortion, it is always the case that she is the victim of statutory rape, is it not? If statutory rape is a serious crime — as Dershowitz's taunters apparently believe — shouldn't the abortion providers always report the crime to the police? Providing an abortion to an underage woman and doing nothing about the sexual abuse is covering up a crime, isn't it?

"The president is not well at all mentally. I think he’s an extreme narcissist... he is having a hissy fit... He does need to be removed under the 25th Amendment."

Said Richard Painter, just last night on MSNBC.

So the idea lives on.

ADDED: Incoherently, the "hissy fit" Painter is hissing about is the use of emergency power, but the argument against that has to do with narrow interpretation of the Constitution, and Painter is relying on a broad interpretation when it comes to the 25th Amendment. This is a contradiction I talked about and did a poll about 4 days ago in "Want to be able to do things the easy way or not?"

The poll gave you 5 options:

Yes, bypass Congress with emergency powers for the wall and the 25th am. to oust even a non-incapacitated President. [1% of 625 of you voted for this option.]

No, you have to do it the hard way, legislation to fund the wall and impeachment to oust a non-incapacitated President. [40%]

Use emergency powers for the wall, but not the 25th to oust a non-incapacitated President. [45%]

No to emergency powers for the wall, but yes to the 25th instead of impeachment. [1%]

A more subtle balancing of factors is needed, so none of the above. [13%]

Isn't if funny that Painter is being irrational just as he's making a pronouncement about the President's rationality?

"Trump’s use of Air Force One is raising questions about the ethics and protocol of using a military asset for political purposes."

"But ethics experts said there is no law preventing Trump from campaigning within view of the plane. And they note that the president, as well as the vice president, is exempt from the Hatch Act, which bars federal employees from engaging in political activity. 'It’s a question of appearance,' said Richard W. Painter, ethics czar in the Bush White House and an outspoken critic of Trump’s ethics practices. 'It’s highly inappropriate, but there’s nobody who can go sanction him for standing in front of the plane to give a political speech. It’s not illegal.'... The president does not have the option of flying commercial or using his personal plane for political events. He is required to fly Air Force One for all of his travel, including vacations, because of the security and communications systems aboard. During the 2016 campaign, Trump used his personal Boeing 757 — branded Trump Force One — at his rallies, pulling the plane up to near the stage to great fanfare... But in February 2017, when Trump held his first airport hangar rally as president, the White House said it would not use Air Force One 'in the background as a prop.' That policy was clearly dropped as the president’s campaigning picked up pace, however...."

From "A ‘there-it-is’ moment: Trump wows fans by using Air Force One as a campaign prop" (WaPo).

Dershowitz versus Mueller and Painter.

I'm seeing this billed as a Dershowitz "melt down," but I think Painter is the one who creates the tension by interrupting Dershowitz and introducing the accusation of lying.



Dershowitz wants to speak (with passion) about prosecutorial ethics, and he criticizes Mueller, but Painter insists on policing a don't-impugn-Mueller ethic that's incredibly aggravating. Painter also has a louder, clearer microphone. I don't know if that's by design, but it is MSNBC.