world

House Republican summons ethics agency chief over Trump criticism

18 Comments
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

18 Comments
Login to comment

This is a clear partisan political attack on the Ethics Office, right on the coattails of the Republican attempt to gut the Office of Congressional Ethics. Without the oversight of the Ethics Office, the US is nothing better than a kleptocracy. At least Shaub has the courage to speak out.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

House Republicans have shown no inclination to challenge President-elect Donald Trump on ethics matters. Instead, they are going after federal ethics official who questioned Trump’s potential conflicts of interest.

This is consistent with the Republican's platform, which has been to find ways to ensure the wealthy are able to maintain their wealth. Trump - a Republican - wants to maintain his wealth. His fellow Republicans will protect him, themselves, and their biggest campaign contributors.

An example, Ben Carson, nominee to head HUD (a federal agency that oversees among many other things public housing) was asked point blank if Trump (whose family has got rich in part by taking advantage of federal housing programs) and his family businesses should be allowed to participate in and profit from federal housing programs, and answered yes. In other words, he saw no conflict of interest. He thought it was OK for the president and his family to profit from federal programs.

Trump seems to be patterning his reign-to-be after Putin's oligarchy. Reward those who support you by granting them the keys to major industries and ensuring them they will have limited federal intervention in their business practices. Look for consumer and environmental controls to be lifted. Look for a Trump picked judiciary to help overturn consumer and environmental regulations.

Look for the Republicans to ensure the wealthy remain wealthy. Look for the 99% to be trickled down on by the golden boy and his oligarchs. .

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Look for the Republicans to ensure the wealthy remain wealthy. Look for the 99% to be trickled down on by the golden boy and his oligarchs.

Great and these people can and have the ability to create better jobs in the private sector or do you think we should do it the Obama way and concentrate more on the government sector and keep 46 million people on food stamps, that would be cheaper and easier.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

I've thought long and hard before using this word, as I'm shocked to see it arrive so suddenly:

Fascism.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

The Office of Government Ethics might be a liability for Trump and the GOP. Look for them to weaken it.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The Office of Government Ethics might be a liability for Trump and the GOP. Look for them to weaken it.

Common decency has gone out the window already. Are we to see an ethics witch-hunt?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@bass Great and these people can and have the ability to create better jobs in the private sector

I'm in agreement that better jobs in the private sector should be cornerstone to building on the strong economy left by Obama.

However, with Trump and the oligarchs in charge one of the many things I am worried about is the (TRIGGER WARNING to the Gordon Gecko-ites) the externalities of re-unleashing 1950s industries like big auto, big coal, big oil and others, those industries that ran ramshod and roughshod over the country back in their heydays.

I'd prefer the incoming admin to do whatever is required to help startups and smaller companies, which I think should be considered the backbone of the US economy, especially if they can profit without causing more damage to the environment or further loss of workers' rights.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I'm in agreement that better jobs in the private sector should be cornerstone to building on the strong economy left by Obama.

Agreed.

However, with Trump and the oligarchs in charge one of the many things I am worried about is the (TRIGGER WARNING to the Gordon Gecko-ites) the externalities of re-unleashing 1950s industries like big auto, big coal, big oil and others, those industries that ran ramshod and roughshod over the country back in their heydays.

Ok, I'll meet you halfway, but this is not the 1950's so I don't think it's going to be anything like that. There are ways to process and burn coal cleaner and more efficiently and I truly believe we should do more fracking in order to ween ourselves from as much foreign oil as possible which is better for other countries and better for us at the same time, we need to find better energy alternatives as long as its done in the private sector, go for it. But first priority is to get people up and running so that they can pay their bills.

I'd prefer the incoming admin to do whatever is required to help startups and smaller companies, which I think should be considered the backbone of the US economy, especially if they can profit without causing more damage to the environment or further loss of workers' rights.

I totally agree with the exception that when it comes down to it when it hits the wire, you have decide which is more important, a starving family that can't eat and pay their bills or a tiny smelt. I firmly believe in conservation, but my argument with your statement is, in the worst case scenario and you need to choose, which side of the fence will you fall?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

@bass which side of the fence will you fall?

Though I don't think that scenario is realistic, I certainly hope we don't reach some dystopian state where we'd have to choose one or the other. People need jobs and people need healthy environments to live in.

Let's hope the incoming admin works to find a balance.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

No candidate should be given a hearing until all of his or her required paperwork has been filed, and the ethics office has signed off that there is no conflict of interest that would potentially entangle the person in a lawsuit. The laws are there to protect both the candidates and the government. The incoming govt's disorganisation and disdain for standard operating procedure (aka "the law") have led to this. Director Shaub is simply doing his job in a conscientious manner, which upsets these billionaires, who believe they are accountable to nobody. News flash - you now work for the taxpayers, even if you don't pay your taxes.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Gee, when Obama was president, there was nothing Chaffetz didn't want to investigate. Wonder what changed.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

I'm in agreement that better jobs in the private sector should be cornerstone to building on the strong economy left by Obama.

Agreed.

Very brave of you to admit, Bass.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Shaub

Walter Shaub, Jr.

Appointed by Barack Obama II.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Fascism.

Sense, It's the same old story: Monied interests exploit reactive elements to distract the general populace to the raping going on plebeian interests so as to further enrich themselves. Excellent explanation of it here. http://thebaffler.com/blog/russia-to-our-right-sawicky

3 ( +3 / -0 )

What did Obama's ethics chief have to say to Pres. Obama after Bob Creamer's 300+ visits to the White House came to light?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

You're looking in the wrong direction. Look at what they plan to do with our money. Our money. Everything else is just gamesmanship. Keep your eyes on the checks and balances for the new lobbyists. And the top guests at the swearing in. Trump's main role will be to distract us from the business on the table. Maybe it's time to decide if we are the United States anymore. And if we aren't, what are we?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

turbotsat: What did Obama's ethics chief have to say to Pres. Obama after Bob Creamer's 300+ visits to the White House came to light?

Googling ' "walter shaub" "bob creamer" ' turns up 4 hits, one of which is my post, the other hits are articles but AFAICT the hits are due to thread posts or sidebars (Shaub's comments are headlined in sidebars on a couple of articles about Bob Creamer's antics).

I guess the press is not interested in asking this obvious question.

An Obama appointee wouldn't have ulterior motives, would he?

(wikipedia) Shaub was also the author of a series of tweets published on the Office of Government Ethics Twitter account, which gained media attention for breaking from the account's typically serious tone to mimick Donald Trump's tweeting style and congratulate him on his announcement that he would divest himself of his business assets. Ref. Reuters. "Official U.S. Ethics Office Got Snarky With Donald Trump on Twitter".

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Washington and Jefferson were previously the richest and second richest presidents, and both had operating businesses as president. No one would claim that they were in conflict of interest. These ethics rules were created for a professional political class, who wouldn't know an income statement from a balance sheet. It's the rules that need to be changed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites