Gingrich: Congress should change ethics laws for Trump
83 replies, posted
gotta cring when he says trump can just pardon people in his admin that break the law. holy shit thats not even funny to consider even for a moment.
[quote]The former Georgia GOP lawmaker did concede Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress can’t ignore the potential ethical challenges facing the president, including the Constitution’s emoluments clause, which prohibits U.S. government employees from taking payments from foreign governments or the companies they run.
“It’s a very real problem,” Gingrich said. “I don’t think this is something minor. I think certainly in an age that people are convinced that government corruption is widespread both in the U.S. and around the world, you can’t just shrug and walk off from it.”[/quote]
Newt Gingrich actually does the justice of pointing out a potential problem yall agree needs insight, and yet some of the people on here are just saying immediately fuck Gingrich.
Classic SH
[editline]20th December 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sableye;51556639]gotta cring when he says trump can just pardon people in his admin that break the law. holy shit thats not even funny to consider even for a moment.[/QUOTE]
It's just pointing out something presidents could always have done.
[QUOTE]“In the case of the president, he has a broad ability to organize the White House the way he wants to. He also has, frankly, the power of the pardon,” Gingrich said. “It’s a totally open power. He could simply say, ‘Look, I want them to be my advisers. I pardon them if anyone finds them to have behaved against the rules. Period. Technically, under the Constitution, he has that level of authority.”
[/QUOTE]
That's funny, I remember "overstepping his authority" being said about Obama, ad nauseam, from... lets say 8 years ago to about 2.5 microseconds ago.
Number of months in office until Trump is impeached? I wonder.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51556693]Newt Gingrich actually does the justice of pointing out a potential problem yall agree needs insight, and yet some of the people on here are just saying immediately fuck Gingrich.
Classic SH
[editline]20th December 2016[/editline]
It's just pointing out something presidents could always have done.[/QUOTE]
He also then immediately throws in a solution for said problem and ways that Trump can avoid it altogether but you just read what you like to read out of an SH article.
Classic Tudd.
Btw, Gingrich cheated on his wife when she was being treated for cancer. I try not to get involved in too much of people's personal lives, but this guy is absolute scum.
[QUOTE=Big Bang;51556822]He also then immediately throws in a solution for said problem and ways that Trump can avoid it altogether but you just read what you like to read out of an SH article.
Classic Tudd.[/QUOTE]
Assuming I didn't read that part and wasn't already agreeing with it and instead I was just pointing out another issue.
Classy Big Bang.
[QUOTE]And should someone in the Trump administration cross the line, Gingrich has a potential answer for that too.
“In the case of the president, he has a broad ability to organize the White House the way he wants to. He also has, frankly, the power of the pardon,” Gingrich said. “It’s a totally open power. He could simply say, ‘Look, I want them to be my advisers. I pardon them if anyone finds them to have behaved against the rules. Period. Technically, under the Constitution, he has that level of authority.”[/QUOTE]
Imagine the outrage if this was said about Clinton
[QUOTE=Tudd;51556693][quote]The former Georgia GOP lawmaker did concede Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress can’t ignore the potential ethical challenges facing the president, [b]including the Constitution’s emoluments clause, which prohibits U.S. government employees from taking payments from foreign governments or the companies they run.[/b]
“It’s a very real problem,” Gingrich said. “I don’t think this is something minor. I think certainly in an age that people are convinced that government corruption is widespread both in the U.S. and around the world, you can’t just shrug and walk off from it.”[/quote]
Newt Gingrich actually does the justice of pointing out a potential problem yall agree needs insight, and yet some of the people on here are just saying immediately fuck Gingrich.
Classic SH[/QUOTE]
Have you completely forgotten about the Clinton foundation? And all the shit you gave Clinton for allegedly doing [i]exactly[/i] that?
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;51556903]Have you completely forgotten about the Clinton foundation?[/QUOTE]
I can never forget about the Clinton Foundation. :v:
[QUOTE=Tudd;51556908]I can never forget about the Clinton Foundation. :v:[/QUOTE]
So it's a problem for Clinton to allegedly be doing that but not a problem for Trump and friends actually doing it?
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;51556916]So it's a problem for Clinton to allegedly be doing that but not a problem for Trump and friends actually doing it?[/QUOTE]
Well considering he hasn't been in office or in government before, no. That is retarded to think he has already committed the same ethical breach that Hillary has done for years while a public servant. This is obviously a concern during the transition period on how his private assets and international businesses will be dealt with, hence this article.
The point that I bring to this discussion is that Gingrich actually pointing this out is good thing, yet some people on here are just like, "Fuck you Gingrich."
Which imo points out true ideologues since it is the opposition saying exactly what they're concerned with.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51556972]Well considering he hasn't been in office or in government before, no. That is retarded to think he has already committed the same ethical breach that Hillary has done for years while a public servant. This is obviously a concern during the transition period on how his private assets and international businesses will be dealt with, hence this article.
The point that I bring to this discussion is that Gingrich actually pointing this out is good thing, yet some people on here are just like, "Fuck you Gingrich."
Which imo points out true ideologues.[/QUOTE]
So it's okay to remove the thing that makes Hillary crooked so that it doesn't become a problem for Trump?
[editline].[/editline]
Talk about cognitive dissonance
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;51557006]So it's okay to remove the thing that makes Hillary crooked so that it doesn't become a problem for Trump?[/QUOTE]
No I don't believe that is a good thing if that was the case. I want more transparency concerning what we have dealt with in the past.
But going by the article, it doesn't seem Gingrich specified anything on what should be changed; Just saying it should. So there really isn't much to go on with that until Trump releases his actual ethics plan so we can see what his intentions might be.
The assumption of thinking I just love everything Trump is going to be a pitfall either way.
[editline]20th December 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;51557006]
Talk about cognitive dissonance[/QUOTE]
Seems like you have assumptions of me that paint such a picture. How about pointing out specific examples of my Cognitive dissonance?
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;51556916]So it's a problem for Clinton to allegedly be doing that but not a problem for Trump and friends actually doing it?[/QUOTE]
It's been the Trump camp's M.O. for a good while now, I don't see why you're so surprised.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;51557059]It's been the Trump camp's M.O. for a good while now, I don't see why you're so surprised.[/QUOTE]
I don't think he is surprised. Just acting like it cause he thinks he has me pinned to a board.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51557038]No I don't believe that is a good thing if that was the case. I want more transparency concerning what we have dealt with in the past.
But going by the article, it doesn't seem Gingrich specified anything on what should be changed; Just saying it should. So there really isn't much to go on with that until Trump releases his actual ethics plan so we can see what his intentions might be.
The assumption of thinking I just love everything Trump is going to be a pitfall either way.
[editline]20th December 2016[/editline]
Seems like you have assumptions of me that paint such a picture. How about pointing out specific examples of my Cognitive dissonance?[/QUOTE]
Unless I'm misinterpreting you, how else will Trump clear up his conflict of interests without giving up his businesses? Especially if he can just rewrite the rules.
[QUOTE=The golden;51554906]A neo-nazi government.[/QUOTE]
Every moment we get closer to January 20th, the higher the chance of the GOP outlawing the Democratic Party before the end of his term
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;51557088]Unless I'm misinterpreting you, how else will Trump clear up his conflict of interests without giving up his businesses? Especially if he can just rewrite the rules.[/QUOTE]
Well the idea is that he transitions his businesses to his sons. Which ultimately is the most practical/realistic solution even if you hate the guy, but it should still be transparent (and hopefully more) than something like the Clinton Foundation, on it's future foreign interests. It's not like presidents didn't have these problems before though when transitioning to their candidacy from private life, it's just that the scale of it is much bigger this time.
Though define what rules from the article; Because as far as I can tell in the article there is nothing really specifically drawn up on what "should" be changed.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51556859]Assuming I didn't read that part and wasn't already agreeing with it and instead I was just pointing out another issue.
Classy Big Bang.[/QUOTE]
I long for the day this shit stops being a giant fucking joke to you.
[editline]20th December 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Tudd;51557149]Well the idea is that he transitions his businesses to his sons. Which ultimately is the most practical/realistic solution even if you hate the guy, but it should still be transparent (and hopefully more) than something like the Clinton Foundation, on it's future foreign interests. It's not like presidents didn't have these problems before though when transitioning to their candidacy from private life, it's just that the scale of it is much bigger this time.
Though define what rules from the article; Because as far as I can tell in the article there is nothing really specifically drawn up on what "should" be changed.[/QUOTE]
His charity is shadier than the Clinton foundation. We've even been over this I'm sure.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51557163]
His charity is shadier than the Clinton foundation. We've even been over this I'm sure.[/QUOTE]
Oh really? Building a flagpole and then sending the fined money to a Veteran's center is shadier than the Clintons receiving millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia while being public figures? How about the specific million dollars that went to the foundation for Bill Clinton's "Birthday present" from Qatar they failed to report?
Both can be considered shady, but the scales are way off.
Donald trump uses his own charity to pay off his own lawsuits with other people's money
I know, that's just smart business.
But that's shady and dirty as fuck
[QUOTE=Tudd;51557197]Oh really? Building a flagpole and then sending the fined money to a Veteran's center is shadier than the Clintons receiving millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia while being public figures? How about the specific million dollars that went to the foundation for Bill Clinton's "Birthday present" from Qatar they failed to report?
Both can be considered shady, but the scales are way off.[/QUOTE]
difference: one of those people is president of the united states
[QUOTE=Tudd;51557197]Oh really? Building a flagpole and then sending the fined money to a Veteran's center is shadier than the Clintons receiving millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia while being public figures? How about the specific million dollars that went to the foundation for Bill Clinton's "Birthday present" from Qatar they failed to report?
Both can be considered shady, but the scales are way off.[/QUOTE]
All I'm hearing is "Trump hasn't had the chance to play in the [B]Big Kids[/B] pool of corruption yet, give him a chance to earn his place next to the Clintons".
I await the day when you finally wake up as horrified as the rest of us as it dawns on you just what happened on November 8th.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51557197]Oh really? Building a flagpole and then sending the fined money to a Veteran's center is shadier than the Clintons receiving millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia while being public figures? How about the specific million dollars that went to the foundation for Bill Clinton's "Birthday present" from Qatar they failed to report?
Both can be considered shady, but the scales are way off.[/QUOTE]
I didn't want Clinton either, but Trump is effectively and objectively the worst possible outcome. In truth I envy that you can sit there and watch one of the worst economic, political, and ethical paths come to be with a self satisfied smile while you patiently wait for Daddy Trump(tm) to #MAGA at the cost of the quality of living of nearly everyone that isn't upper class or a high-end business owner of some sort.
Clinton was shady, yes, and I'd still be upset if she got elected. Trump is a fucking man-child who's going to serve no other purpose than act as a puppet for Mike "Like the Cock? You're In For A Shock" Pence, and lacking any true political nature, will be bullied, bamboozled, and otherwise pushed towards the Republican anti-progressive agenda that only serves the purpose of securing more power and lining their pockets with more money.
[QUOTE]“We’ve never seen this kind of wealth in the White House, and so traditional rules don’t work,” Gingrich said Monday during an appearance on NPR’s "The Diane Rehm Show" about the president-elect’s business interests. “We’re going to have to think up a whole new approach.”
“In the case of the president, he has a broad ability to organize the White House the way he wants to. He also has, frankly, the power of the pardon,” Gingrich said. “It’s a totally open power. He could simply say, ‘Look, I want them to be my advisers. I pardon them if anyone finds them to have behaved against the rules. Period. Technically, under the Constitution, he has that level of authority.”[/QUOTE]
I couldn't agree more. There is no ethical standard for how a President should behave--the use of his executive power is almost completely at his discretion. It's naive of us as a country to simply accept on good faith that a representative will not leverage his authority. We must write clearly into law the principles that we expect our officials to abide by.
[QUOTE=Judas;51557229]difference: one of those people is president of the united states[/QUOTE]
I think all politicians regardless of position should have the same oversight on their actions. And Clinton was a Secretary of State when alot of her corruption scandals happened, not something to just scoff because it ain't the big numero uno spot.
It's just that this election only had two realistic options in Clinton or Trump, and I decided to go with the latter on this corruption point considering Clinton's history is much longer and worse in comparison. Neither are even remotely ideal though for this aspect.
I just think it is dishonest with most of you thinking your choice of president was the morally superior one regarding corruption.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51557038]
Seems like you have assumptions of me that paint such a picture. How about pointing out specific examples of my Cognitive dissonance?[/QUOTE]
Cognitive Dissonance isn't the right word, it's just plain hypocrisy. Seriously, right on this thread you're agreeing with Newt on this and yet you [I]still[/I] think that the Clinton Foundation was too shady.
[editline]20th December 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Tudd;51557362]I think all politicians regardless of position should have the same oversight on their actions. And Clinton was a Secretary of State when alot of her corruption scandals happened, not something to just scoff because it ain't the big numero uno spot.
It's just that this election only had two realistic options in Clinton or Trump, and I decided to go with the latter on this corruption point considering Clinton's history is much longer and worse in comparison. Neither are even remotely ideal though for this aspect.
I just think it is dishonest with most of you thinking your choice of president was the morally superior one regarding corruption.[/QUOTE]
So it's only bad when a Politician does it, just not a real estate tycoon who controls property in Manhattan.
[QUOTE=Phycosymo;51557373]Cognitive Dissonance isn't the right word, it's just plain hypocrisy. Seriously, right on this thread you're agreeing with Newt on this and yet you [I]still[/I] think that the Clinton Foundation was too shady.[/QUOTE]
How exactly am I being hypocritical about this?
[QUOTE=Tudd;51557394]How exactly am I being hypocritical about this?[/QUOTE]
You're saying "Yes lets change the rules so he can't break them"
meanwhile lambasting Clinton for things that while shady weren't actually against the rules.
So you're down with changing the rules so your guy doesn't break them, but you're also down with going after someone based on relatively flimsy charges
It's pure hypocrisy.
It's okay you can't see that. But that is what it is.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.