A Premature Ethics Departure - Fed Ethics Chief Steps Down


samcraig

macrumors P6
Original poster
Jun 22, 2009
16,610
35,364
USA
An Obama appointee leaving the White House... shocker.
Well let's be clear here. Everyone in this position serves 5 years - to overlap transitions. Obama appointee or not - do you think he has done a good job and has had valid issues raised?

And as noted - he had 6 months left. Not years. The article might be pointed - but it seemed as though there were frustrations he had. But he also seemed to resign on a positive note.
 

RootBeerMan

macrumors 65816
Jan 3, 2016
1,272
5,008
An Obama appointee leaving the White House... shocker.
The man started his tenure under Bush and only became director when Obama was in office. He's not an appointee. Nice try.

That said, there have been an inordinate number of career government people resigning since Trump took office. Most because he and his minions interfere with their jobs. That's not normal.
 

rjohnstone

macrumors 68040
Dec 28, 2007
3,483
3,399
PHX, AZ.
The man started his tenure under Bush and only became director when Obama was in office. He's not an appointee. Nice try.
"Directors are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate to five-year terms"

I'm sorry what was that you were saying?
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Original poster
Jun 22, 2009
16,610
35,364
USA
"Directors are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate to five-year terms"

I'm sorry what was that you were saying?
He was 1/2 right. I think the point was - he didn't come out of thin air. He was already in the department. He was, indeed, appointed by Obama. To which I ask - so what? Does that make him less qualified? As I asked earlier - do you think he's done a good job? And I'll add - if not, what have you disagreed with?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scepticalscribe

Rhonindk

macrumors 68040
Oct 3, 2014
3,776
7,380
watching the birth of the Dem WTH Party
Not really.
Trump was something totally new in the matter of wealth and types of businesses in a global scale. Walter was stuck, or maybe trapped in the old "style" and looked to be unable to realistically address these new items. His stance was "tighten up" vs. finding a path forward. There will be other "Trump" candidates in the future. Walter had an opportunity to help create new guides for the "next four decades".
His leaving is no surprise.

http://www.npr.org/2017/07/06/535781749/ethics-office-director-walter-shaub-resigns-saying-rules-need-to-be-tougher
 
  • Like
Reactions: rjohnstone

samcraig

macrumors P6
Original poster
Jun 22, 2009
16,610
35,364
USA
Not really.
Trump was something totally new in the matter of wealth and types of businesses in a global scale. Walter was stuck, or maybe trapped in the old "style" and looked to be unable to realistically address these new items. His stance was "tighten up" vs. finding a path forward. There will be other "Trump" candidates in the future. Walter had an opportunity to help create new guides for the "next four decades".
His leaving is no surprise.

http://www.npr.org/2017/07/06/535781749/ethics-office-director-walter-shaub-resigns-saying-rules-need-to-be-tougher
Seems to me that his next gig is something to help move that forward no?
 
  • Like
Reactions: rjohnstone

rjohnstone

macrumors 68040
Dec 28, 2007
3,483
3,399
PHX, AZ.
He was 1/2 right. I think the point was - he didn't come out of thin air. He was already in the department. He was, indeed, appointed by Obama. To which I ask - so what? Does that make him less qualified? As I asked earlier - do you think he's done a good job? And I'll add - if not, what have you disagreed with?
It doesn't and I never said anything with regards to his qualifications.
I'm sure he was wonderful at his job. I do believe his political views are the motivating reason he left.
He didn't like how Trump dealt with his business affairs prior to taking office.

What he failed to recognize, and what so many others on the left do as well, is that Trump himself IS the brand.
Selling the physical assets without the brand would have destroyed a large portion of the value.
And no President would ever sell the rights to his name to anyone. So all of Trump's properties would instantly lose significant value without the Trump brand behind it.

I now there are some snarky folks who would disagree simply because of who Trump is, but the Trump organization would be worth a lot less without the Trump brand.
Trump is an anomaly in the world or presidential politics. But there is no law whatsoever that requires or even compels a president to divest himself of his own business.
Investments are one thing, but his company is all his.

There are rules with regard to his behavior that could pose legal issues, but the POTUS and VPOTUS are exempt from ethics rules. That is the law. Don't agree with it or like, but it is what it is. Congress can change those laws if they had the balls to try.
As for potential emoluments violations, that argument regarding his properties is weak at best.
Trump cannot prevent foreign government from using his properties.
He can get into serious trouble if he personally directs them to use his properties and sets rates that are "abnormal" or above and beyond standard rates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rhonindk

samcraig

macrumors P6
Original poster
Jun 22, 2009
16,610
35,364
USA
It doesn't and I never said anything with regards to his qualifications.
I'm sure he was wonderful at his job. I do believe his political views are the motivating reason he left.
He didn't like how Trump dealt with his business affairs prior to taking office.

What he failed to recognize, and what so many others on the left do as well, is that Trump himself IS the brand.
Selling the physical assets without the brand would have destroyed a large portion of the value.
And no President would ever sell the rights to his name to anyone. So all of Trump's properties would instantly lose significant value without the Trump brand behind it.

I now there are some snarky folks who would disagree simply because of who Trump is, but the Trump organization would be worth a lot less without the Trump brand.
Trump is an anomaly in the world or presidential politics. But there is no law whatsoever that requires or even compels a president to divest himself of his own business.
Investments are one thing, but his company is all his.

There are rules with regard to his behavior that could pose legal issues, but the POTUS and VPOTUS are exempt from ethics rules. That is the law. Don't agree with it or like, but it is what it is. Congress can change those laws if they had the balls to try.
As for potential emoluments violations, that argument regarding his properties is weak at best.
Trump cannot prevent foreign government from using his properties.
He can get into serious trouble if he personally directs them to use his properties and sets rates that are "abnormal" or above and beyond standard rates.
I disagree at least with the last part. Because of optics. Foreign governments will use his properties because it's good optics. It's hard to prove - but even during one of the tours - many of them said they would intentionally stay there (in DC) because they would feel it would offend if they didn't. Sorry - but I see that as an issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scepticalscribe

rjohnstone

macrumors 68040
Dec 28, 2007
3,483
3,399
PHX, AZ.
I disagree at least with the last part. Because of optics. Foreign governments will use his properties because it's good optics. It's hard to prove - but even during one of the tours - many of them said they would intentionally stay there (in DC) because they would feel it would offend if they didn't. Sorry - but I see that as an issue.
Well then Donnie needs to publicly say it's cool of they want to stay elsewhere and that they shouldn't feel obligated in any way.
Beyond that, there's not much else he can do.

In reality though, the D.C. hotel is very nice and in a great location for visiting dignitaries.
Trump picked that property for a reason. He knew it's potential long before he decided to run for POTUS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rhonindk

Rhonindk

macrumors 68040
Oct 3, 2014
3,776
7,380
watching the birth of the Dem WTH Party
It doesn't and I never said anything with regards to his qualifications.
I'm sure he was wonderful at his job. I do believe his political views are the motivating reason he left.
He didn't like how Trump dealt with his business affairs prior to taking office.

What he failed to recognize, and what so many others on the left do as well, is that Trump himself IS the brand.
Selling the physical assets without the brand would have destroyed a large portion of the value.
And no President would ever sell the rights to his name to anyone. So all of Trump's properties would instantly lose significant value without the Trump brand behind it.

I now there are some snarky folks who would disagree simply because of who Trump is, but the Trump organization would be worth a lot less without the Trump brand.
Trump is an anomaly in the world or presidential politics. But there is no law whatsoever that requires or even compels a president to divest himself of his own business.
Investments are one thing, but his company is all his.

There are rules with regard to his behavior that could pose legal issues, but the POTUS and VPOTUS are exempt from ethics rules. That is the law. Don't agree with it or like, but it is what it is. Congress can change those laws if they had the balls to try.
As for potential emoluments violations, that argument regarding his properties is weak at best.
Trump cannot prevent foreign government from using his properties.
He can get into serious trouble if he personally directs them to use his properties and sets rates that are "abnormal" or above and beyond standard rates.
Looking back over some older headlines in regards to this issue, it is amazing that almost 100% of the Washington ethics experts went in assuming that self policing by Trump and Trump family members would fail. "There will be violations and this is what could be the impact ...". No room for any other outcome. Just the severity.
Remarkable.
[doublepost=1499374036][/doublepost]
Well then Donnie needs to publicly say it's cool of they want to stay elsewhere and that they shouldn't feel obligated in any way.
Beyond that, there's not much else he can do.

In reality though, the D.C. hotel is very nice and in a great location for visiting dignitaries.
Trump picked that property for a reason. He knew it's potential long before he decided to run for POTUS.
It is a seriously nice place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rjohnstone

samcraig

macrumors P6
Original poster
Jun 22, 2009
16,610
35,364
USA
Well then Donnie needs to publicly say it's cool of they want to stay elsewhere and that they shouldn't feel obligated in any way.
Beyond that, there's not much else he can do.

In reality though, the D.C. hotel is very nice and in a great location for visiting dignitaries.
Trump picked that property for a reason. He knew it's potential long before he decided to run for POTUS.
Oh you know he'll never say that. He would say something like "You can stay somewhere else. But really why would you? This is a very nice hotel, don't you think? There are other hotels - but not as nice as this one..." lol
 

rjohnstone

macrumors 68040
Dec 28, 2007
3,483
3,399
PHX, AZ.
Oh you know he'll never say that. He would say something like "You can stay somewhere else. But really why would you? This is a very nice hotel, don't you think? There are other hotels - but not as nice as this one..." lol
And he would be right.
I saw it when I was in D.C. a couple of months ago. It looks fantastic and again... location, location, location.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rhonindk

Rhonindk

macrumors 68040
Oct 3, 2014
3,776
7,380
watching the birth of the Dem WTH Party
You missed the point though ;) Or the joke. In other words - he couldn't possible suggest another hotel. His ego would not allow it. Even if his hotel suffered in comparison.
Or culturally. Even if DT offered they would not consider it.
Then business wise; "I stayed at (enter DT property) last week ..." using this as a business "fact" to show you are close to or have an in with the Trump org.
 

RootBeerMan

macrumors 65816
Jan 3, 2016
1,272
5,008
"Directors are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate to five-year terms"

I'm sorry what was that you were saying?
The man started there under GW and was essentially promoted from within. Just as good a chance that he might have been a Bush man, as an Obama man. It still stands. Trump is corrupt and an idiot and is driving many good civil servants out of the government because of his idiocy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: samcraig

rjohnstone

macrumors 68040
Dec 28, 2007
3,483
3,399
PHX, AZ.
The man started there under GW and was essentially promoted from within. Just as good a chance that he might have been a Bush man, as an Obama man. It still stands. Trump is corrupt and an idiot and is driving many good civil servants out of the government because of his idiocy.
No, he wasn't "promoted from within".
He had to be nominated by POTUS (Executive branch) and approved by the Senate (Legislative branch) to get that spot. That defies the very definition of "promoted from within".

Your opinion of Trump is irrelevant.