...
My read as well. He's in it for him, which is consistent with his life to date.
Do you imagine Jimmy Carter's peanut farm or Papa Bush's oil biz were charitable institutions ? I mean it's hardly surprising that a business entity is chartered to make a profit; or that a closely held family biz can be described as 'self-interested'. we're all self-interested - no ?
The question is: will the job change the man? It takes a toll on most, and is much harder than any of them who want it understand until they are in it.
TA's rants aren't of interest to me, but the potential for conflict of interest, given the man's wealth, are. Why?
We had experience at the micro level here just under a decade ago. A local developer ended up getting elected mayor. All in all not a bad guy, but he had to recuse himself on over half of the issues at city council due to conflict of interest that he was aware of, and got accused of a number of cases of the same by his political opponents ... last I recall none of them had substance.
That opponents complain isn't any sort of indictment. OTOH if he had to recuse himself so often that he wasn't performing the duties of office that's a legitimate complaint.
But that's micro level.
Trump's a few orders of magnitude up the scale. The conflict of interest is of concern, since the media nowadays are far less cordial then when, for example, the Kennedy family showed up in the White House.
I really don't see this massive conflict of interest that has captured the imagination of so many. A casino-operator/hotelier isn't any more reliant or beholding on government than any other biz.
That the left-press will hate-on Trump is a given no matter what he does or how he separates himself from his biz and personal advisers. The only way that fact will change is if the conventional partisan press fails financially.
This 'CoI' claim seems to originate from some anti-biz meme that prefers to disqualify anyone in the private sector from running for office. FWIW the only Dem Pres candidate who had any career outside of law/government was Lincoln Chafee - who was once a farrier (shoed horses). The Trump election was clearly a reaction against these political 'lifers'.
If you read any in depth coverage of people who knew and worked with Kennedy, you find that JFK had a very small group of people he consulted with and trusted, and his family were his closest confidants/advisers on a variety of topics.
Think about this: when the Cuban Missile Crisis was going off, JFK spent a lot of time talking with ...RFK. FFS, with a cabinet full of the so called best and brightest, his closest adviser was an inexperienced political hack.
Robert McNamara wasn't exactly a rube in such matters, and why exactly would anyone imagine that most presidents don't seek sound counsel from trusted ppl ? RFK had no cold-war diplomacy experience, but JFK might well have wanted to talk out the options and outcomes with a trusted person as a sounding board. So what ? Next they'll be complaining that Presidents get counsel from their spouses !
I smell the same sort of problem with Trump. He's not a insider, and he won't trust anyone, and barely listen to anyone he has to appoint. (And seriously, who'd work for the man? No record for listening).
IMO that is the real fear. Trump, unlike most CEOs, ran a large family biz where he was presumably the largest share-holder. He didn't have to answer to anyone except family. No board of director (I presume) nor outside shareholders to answer to. That's quite unlike the typical CEO.
I find his personality very off-putting, and some part of that are his East-Coastal (lack of) manners (from my mid-west POV ). No I wouldn't work directly for him - life is too short. OTOH DC-lifers have a very different agenda than I do, and the moths will be attracted to the flame, regardless.
Does he listen to anyone aside from a few insiders ? Is he able to revise his views based on a fair presentation of facts ? We'll have to wait.
So in a round about way, TA's thread offers me an opening to vent: conflict of interest is likely Trump's Achille's heel.
I really don't see that at all.
The CoI regulation doesn't appear to apply to the Pres, but in any case ...
Section 208, in general, prohibits a Government employee in his official capacity from participating personally and substantially through decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, the rendering of advice, or otherwise in any particular matter in which, to his knowledge, he, his spouse, minor child, partner, organization in which he is serving as officer, director, trustee, partner, or employee or any person or organization with whom he is negotiating or has any arrangement concerning prospective employment has a financial interest.
So if Trump LLC issues him a bond for his fraction of the biz, and he steps down as an active participant in Trump LLC - that is all the 'distance' the law requires.
Note carefully that the restriction applies to spouses and minor children. So say Ivanka running Trump LLC does not create a conflict of interest. Even if she's an 'advisor' this only requires that she disclose her interests. Chelsea running the Clinton Foundation or chatting w/ President Hillary would not be a problem either. OTOH Bills speaking fees to parties in talks with the state department were a clear conflicts of interest while Hillary was Sec-of-State.
The sort of CoIs the law intends to prevent would be making official decisions to benefit himself, spouse, minor children. I don't see that happening in any case, and particularly not if Trump is not an active participant in Trump LLC. It would be far too obvious and would get him impeached, even by his Rep semi-supporters.
Funny how Trump is suddenly the conflict of interest poster-boy while this has gone on for decades ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli.../gJQAlXwVyV_story.html?utm_term=.3d2d75a937c8
