View Single Post
 
Old 04-15-2017, 05:08 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Join Date: n/a
Posts: n/a
Default

This man actually feels as like he is above the law.

This article is on his appointments and how secretly they hide conflicts.

This was probably behind the secret White House guest register.


This is simply stated the most secretive administration of any kind. This SHOULD be read by all Americans, but I doubt those with man crushes will read it. They care about Trump, not our country.

This is sneaky and terrible,



"In at least two cases, the appointments may have already led to violations of the administration’s own ethics rules. But evaluating if and when such violations have occurred has become almost impossible because the Trump administration is secretly issuing waivers to the rules."






"But the Trump administration is more vulnerable to conflicts than the prior administration, particularly after the president eliminated an ethics provision that prohibits lobbyists from joining agencies they lobbied in the prior two years. The White House also announced on Friday that it would keep its visitors’ logs secret, discontinuing the release of information on corporate executives, lobbyists and others who enter the complex, often to try to influence federal policy. The changes have drawn intense criticism from government ethics advocates across the city.

Mr. Trump’s appointees are also far wealthier and have more complex financial holdings and private-sector ties than officials hired at the start of the Obama administration, according to an Office of Government Ethics analysis that the White House has made public. This creates a greater chance that they might have conflicts related to investments or former clients, which could force them to sell off assets, recuse themselves or seek a waiver.

A White House spokeswoman, Sarah H. Sanders, declined repeated requests by The Times to speak with Stefan C. Passantino, the White House lawyer in charge of the ethics policy. Instead, the White House provided a written statement that did not address any of the specific questions about potential violations The Times had identified."


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/15/u...icts.html?_r=0