White House Moves to Block Ethics Inquiry Into Ex-Lobbyists on Payroll

[Cardinal]

Might be a deflection

Thank you for being able to admit that.

 

[Chomsky]

What is there to see? As soon as there is actual evidence, I'll listen up. So far...nothing.

There were MOUNTAINS of evidence against Hillary, and Democrats gleefully voted for her anyway. Even after the DNC and media cheated for her during the campaign. Even after the clear evidence was ignored, and Seth Rich magically disappeared. No big deal, I guess.

This is the greatest hypocrisy in American history. Period.

And fortunately, the nation sees it. While liberals are dancing in their big gay group hug, the United States of America is looking on in shame.

Everybody sees what's going on here.

You don't even see a problem with Flynn?

And your argument comparing past wrongs (if even true) with current, isn't a very good argument.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Your inability to address the topic is noted.

I addressed your comment which pertained to another poster on this thread as he correctly pointed out your usual party line hypocrisy.

All you were really looking for was a pig pile of confirmation from your cronies.............. and you know it.

No harm - No foul

 

[Cardinal]

I addressed your comment which pertained to another poster on this thread as he correctly pointed out your usual party line hypocrisy.

All you were really looking for was a pig pile of confirmation from your cronies.............. and you know it.

No harm - No foul

What you demonstrated is you're aware that blocking the ethics inquiry is indefensible. And you know it.

 

[JasperL]

How'd you feel about the optics of wiretapping James Rosen? Of a tarmac meeting with the DoJ during the Hillary scandal? Of calling Trayvon "your son" during a murder investigation? Of IRS audits directed at conservative groups? Of the destruction of 30,000 emails?

You care nothing about optics. Please.

Hmmm.. I'd have sworn this thread was about Trump and EOs and Trump refusing to release the names of lobbyists he's granted a waiver.

Your first accusation was we didn't care about ethics, now it's we don't care about optics, cause OBAMA!! etc..... Another relevant question if you're going to go the red herring route is do you care about ethics or optics.

 

[RetiredUSN]

What you demonstrated is you're aware that blocking the ethics inquiry is indefensible. And you know it.

Obama had 65 lobbyists on the payroll........................go check it out.

Geeees Card's.

 

[Cardinal]

Obama

Trump. Try again.

 

[JasperL]

Obama had 65 lobbyists on the dole. Trump can't have any?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-obama-administration/?utm_term=.7dac0710c124

I wonder where your curiosity was then.

Obama disclosed them - Trump refuses. That last point - Trump refuses to disclose which lobbyists have waivers - is literally the topic of the OP. No one has suggested or intimated that "Trump can't have any" it's just that the Office of Government Ethics and the public should know who they are and which ones are allowed to work on areas they lobbied just before joining the administration and have waivers of Trump's own EO prohibiting such conduct.

 

[JasperL]

Might be a deflection, but it is truthful. But then again, you most often could care less.

So, "He did it too, Ma!" works for the Trump administration? Didn't work to well when I was a kid, and I learned early to not even try, but it's good to know that the rules change as you get older. Does "My dog ate my homework/work assignment" work for the Trump administration, too? That would be sweet!

 

[Rogue Valley]

What is there to see? As soon as there is actual evidence, I'll listen up. So far...nothing.

How can evidence be collected if the Office of Government Ethics is denied the empirical data needed to ascertain compliance or violation of lobbyist rules?

The Ethics Office can't determine B (ethics compliance) or C (ethics violation) without the Trump administration supplying A (waiver data).

Jesus. This isn't rocket science.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Trump. Try again.

I am allowed to make a comparison while debating, Am I wrong, or should we ask a forum moderator?

If you had any real concern, you would have questioned Obama's using 65 lobbyists.

I would block the ethics witch hunt myself, and then politely smile in their faces.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Obama disclosed them - Trump refuses. That last point - Trump refuses to disclose which lobbyists have waivers - is literally the topic of the OP. No one has suggested or intimated that "Trump can't have any" it's just that the Office of Government Ethics and the public should know who they are and which ones are allowed to work on areas they lobbied just before joining the administration and have waivers of Trump's own EO prohibiting such conduct.

Obama's own revolving door policy which he himself ignored?

 

[Erod]

You don't even see a problem with Flynn?

And your argument comparing past wrongs (if even true) with current, isn't a very good argument.

Yep, and he got fired. So......?

 

[JasperL]

Obama's own revolving door policy which he himself ignored?

Obama....:roll:



I'll repeat my last point since you ignored every word:

Obama disclosed them - Trump refuses. That last point - Trump refuses to disclose which lobbyists have waivers - is literally the topic of the OP. No one has suggested or intimated that "Trump can't have any" it's just that the Office of Government Ethics and the public should know who they are and which ones are allowed to work on areas they lobbied just before joining the administration and have waivers of Trump's own EO prohibiting such conduct.

 

[Erod]

Thread is about Trump. Thank you. What do you think of the optics of Trump blocking the ethics inquiry?

Every thread is about Trump. I wade in here everyday among this throng of unemployed liberals to find out what's distracting them from daytime TV, and lo and behold, it's a massive hissy fit of threads about Trump. Oodles of them. Links galore from the frothing media, trying to distract from their 90% prediction of a Hillary win and the truth about Seth Rich.

It's really quite the fascinating zoological study, to be honest.

 

[JasperL]

I am allowed to make a comparison while debating, Am I wrong, or should we ask a forum moderator?

If you had any real concern, you would have questioned Obama's using 65 lobbyists.

I would block the ethics witch hunt myself, and then politely smile in their faces.

You do know that Trump himself signed an EO prohibiting lobbyists from working on issues from the previous two years as lobbyists? It's here.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-02-03/pdf/2017-02450.pdf

And the EO has a bunch of enforcement provisions, and the waivers. So why would you be a hypocrite and sign and order, then ignore it and keep the waivers hidden? And why do you consider asking for disclosure a "witch hunt"? Trump signed the EO, so he should be proud to demonstrate that he's fulfilling both the letter of the order HE SIGNED, and the spirit, by only granting waivers to former lobbyists for good reasons, and letting us know who these people are.

 

[Visbek]

This is so the opposite of "draining the swamp"

Y'know, the amount of hypocrisy and sheer bull**** spun by this White House is stunning. Even by political standards, it is just completely fubar.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Obama....:roll:

View attachment 67217905

I'll repeat my last point since you ignored every word:

Yeah yeah yeah...................go add up how many times Obama blocked inquiries.

I know it's hard for you to see past the end of your own nose, but I can give you at least a dozen times.

 

[Visbek]

If you had any real concern, you would have questioned Obama's using 65 lobbyists.

Obama, in a somewhat rare display of transparency, published every single waiver given, along with the reasons why.

Trump, who claims he wants to "drain the swamp," won't even say how many waivers he's given, let alone to whom or why. That's pretty messed up right there.

 

[Chomsky]

Yep, and he got fired. So......?

And what were the circumstance of his firing?

Was it Trump's idea as soon as it came to light he was using subterfuge? Was it Pence's idea? Was the administration open and transparent with the American people? Were they honest?

No.

The story was broken by leaks and pursued through the media.

That my friend, is why we have the investigations and rely upon leaks and the media. The same as it was done during the Nixon administration. You can't trust an administration to police itself. You can't trust government to police itself. It requires the Fourth Estate and an active and informed citizenry. Both are the last bastions of democracy.

 

[JasperL]

Yeah yeah yeah...................go add up how many times Obama blocked inquiries.

I know it's hard for you to see past the end of your own nose, but I can give you at least a dozen times.

Obama....

I know it's hard to keep track sometimes, but the OP is at the top of every page.

"[Trump] White House Moves to Block Ethics Inquiry Into Ex-Lobbyists on Payroll"

 

[Erod]

And what were the circumstance of his firing?

Was it Trump's idea as soon as it came to light he was using subterfuge? Was it Pence's idea? Was the administration open and transparent with the American people? Were they honest?

No.

The story was broken by leaks and pursued through the media.

That my friend, is why we have the investigations and rely upon leaks and the media. The same as it was done during the Nixon administration. You can't trust an administration to police itself. You can't trust government to police itself. It requires the Fourth Estate and an active and informed citizenry. Both are the last bastions of democracy.

You interested in the Kim DotCom leaks? The DNC certainly is. They're crapping their knickers.

 

[RetiredUSN]

You do know that Trump himself signed an EO prohibiting lobbyists from working on issues from the previous two years as lobbyists? It's here.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-02-03/pdf/2017-02450.pdf

And the EO has a bunch of enforcement provisions, and the waivers. So why would you be a hypocrite and sign and order, then ignore it and keep the waivers hidden? And why do you consider asking for disclosure a "witch hunt"? Trump signed the EO, so he should be proud to demonstrate that he's fulfilling both the letter of the order HE SIGNED, and the spirit, by only granting waivers to former lobbyists for good reasons, and letting us know who these people are.

Good for Trump. It will be known in due time, the last administration dragged it's feet every time there was a inquiry they didn't like.

Screw em!

 

[JasperL]

You interested in the Kim DotCom leaks? The DNC certainly is. They're crapping their knickers.

Fascinating the length's you're going through to avoid talking about Trump and the OP.

FWIW, if you want to discuss that, there is a thread right on point that's not this one!

 

[RetiredUSN]

Obama, in a somewhat rare display of transparency, published every single waiver given, along with the reasons why.

Trump, who claims he wants to "drain the swamp," won't even say how many waivers he's given, let alone to whom or why. That's pretty messed up right there.

Obama claimed would have the most transparent administration ever.

I didn't buy it under Odumbo, and I don't buy it under the Orange Buffoon.