[kelukelugames]

>Icahn’s role was novel. He would be an adviser with a formal title, but he would not receive a salary, and he would not be required to divest himself of any of his holdings, or to make any disclosures about potential conflicts of interest. “Carl Icahn will be advising the President in his individual capacity,” Trump’s transition team asserted. In the months after the election, the stock price of CVR, Icahn’s refiner, nearly doubled—a surge that is difficult to explain without acknowledging the appointment of the company’s lead shareholder to a White House position. The rally meant a personal benefit for Icahn, at least on paper, of half a billion dollars. There was an expectation in the market—an expectation created, in part, by Icahn’s own remarks—that, with Trump in the White House and Icahn playing consigliere, the rules were about to change, and not just at the E.P.A. Icahn’s empire ranges across many economic sectors, from energy to pharmaceuticals to auto supplies to mining, and all of them are governed by the types of regulations about which he would now potentially be advising Trump.

How is this shit legal?

[curun1r]

> How is this shit legal?

From the article...

> One recurring feature of the Trump Presidency has been an acute collective sensation, shared by a substantial portion of the electorate, of helpless witness. Dismayed Americans wait, like spectators at a game that has turned suddenly dangerous, for a referee to step in and cry foul...What this means in practice is a serious deficit of accountability. Whom can you call when the authorities are the ones breaking the rules?

This, for me, is the troubling part of the Trump administration. It's not whether the crap he's pulling is legal or not. It's whether there is anyone with the power to do so who will hold him and his fellow law-breakers to account. And when he can just fire the people that are investigating him, you seriously have to question whether our system really does have the legendary checks and balances we're taught in school or whether we've just never before elected the wrong cohort of leaders who were willing to abdicate the responsibilities of their offices.

And with Trump's FEC appointees blocking efforts to plug the holes that Russia may have used to influence the outcome of the last election, we may not even have the opportunity to exercise the ultimate check on corruption during the upcoming elections.

[Brybry]

Historically the system of checks and balances, when it works, takes years to accomplish its goal.

For example, it took almost two years after Watergate for the impeachment process to even start and over two years before it started to reach its conclusion. And then of course Nixon resigned before it went to trial.

If the whole process had been completed it would probably have been at least 3 years from crime to conviction. Though any sitting President would be foolish to let it go that far: much easier to resign and have your Vice President blanket pardon you.

[walterclifford]

> For example, it took almost two years after Watergate for the impeachment process to even start and over two years before it started to reach its conclusion.

That's not quite right, the break-in occurred in June 1972 and Nixon resigned in August of 1974 - that's only slightly over two years total (whereas you're suggesting four). It did take almost two years before the impeachment process started (in February 1974), but the process was "concluded" with Nixon's resignation six months after it had started.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Ri...

[jacquesm]

> How is this shit legal?

In a banana republic? Or in a country that takes these things serious? It all depends on where you live. The absolutely incredible conflicts of interest the Trump administration has brought into the whitehouse ought to have been enough to put several people behind bars. The brands of family members are openly advertised by whitehouse advisors on national TV and the president did not divest himself from his holdings but created some kind of smoke-and-mirrors version of divestment.

It's ridiculous, and it sets the tone for the rest of the nation. If you feel that it isn't legal you are probably right but it would require someone in a position in power to do something about it and that is not going to happen for the time being.

The real problem this causes: precedent has been set and future administrations will not feel bound by these rules any more.

[maxerickson]

It isn't all that unlikely that new laws will be passed (for example, there were substantial reforms after Watergate/Nixon).

A big part of the problem is that a lot of the ethics rules surrounding the president are just norms, they aren't laws.

If we are real lucky the imperial office of the president will be neutered quite a lot.

[jacquesm]

> If we are real lucky the imperial office of the president will be neutered quite a lot.

This is my preferred outcome for the Trump administration: that it serves as a vaccine, a shot in the arm for those calling for more restrictions on what a single person can do to the country and that this helps to curb a future wanna-be emperor who is actually competent. Trump - fortunately - is a bungler, imagine the damage he could do if he was half as competent as he claims he is. That would be a much larger issue.

[cmurf]

Congressional Republicans are what what's been neutered quite a lot. Their approval is lower than Trump's, banks, and TV news. That's pretty bad. Their ability to find their tongues, let alone any useful policy making, is impressively bad.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1597/confidence-institutions.aspx

If we are real lucky, the president will have resigned two weeks ago, so obviously we are already not lucky. What we have ahead of us is more of the forest fire in progress, damaging trust. That's what is being neutered, public trust in all of government. And that is risky.

http://www.people-press.org/2017/05/03/public-trust-in-gover...

[cmurf]

Nation of spectators, not citizens. And I find in tech, they prefer not to even watch. It seems people think ethics and law are on autopilot. And they think aristocrats are from a bygone age rather than alive and well and want more classism and money, not less of either.

Of course, it's not quite so simple. Richard Painter, former ethics lawyer to Bush 2 has said about this specific instance that DoJ should investigate on the basis that this was clearly an official role and title.

I would add, that this administration insists everyone watching is a moron, and will thus just let them get away with it. They might be right, we'll just have to see how it plays out in a future episode of President Celebrity Chaos Clown.

In any case, a huge amount of the way things works in government is based on norms including etiquette and ethics, not laws or regulations. When you get people who don't care about norms, things start to fall apart quickly because there's no law or regulation to fall back on.

[paganel]

> Icahn playing consigliere,

I like this tidbit that implicitly assumes that guys like Icahn are like Mafia people. I'm still waiting for magazines like The New Yorker to compare the financial executives from Wall Street with Michael Corleone, I'm pretty sure that that will happen once one of them decides to switch camps and pass on to openly supporting Donald Trump.

And before anyone accuses me of being a right-wing paranoid nut, I'm not an American, I've never set foot in the States, have very little skin in this game, I'm just writing down what I consider as being mass-media manipulation (one of my first jobs while I was in my early 20s was to read papers, did that for 3 years, after you're doing that it's pretty easy to see all these journalistic "schemes").

[zeitg3ist]

As an Italian, “consigliere” to me just means “counselor”, so I completely missed that reference. Thanks for pointing it out.

[mandeepj]

There are a lot of stocks which have appreciated at least 50% during last 12 months like apple, netflix, amazon etc. Market has gone through a crazy bull ride.

[valuearb]

How did Al Gore's pals get a billion federal dollars to fund their dumb Solyndra idea? This kind of stuff is as old as the federal government itself.

[PhantomGremlin]

You're being voted down. That's because oh so many here weren't around when the Chicoms were funneling cash to the Democratic Party for the 1996 election.[1]

Al Gore explained himself thusly: "The vice president also observed that he drank a lot of iced tea during meetings, which could have necessitated a restroom break," the FBI summary stated. "It was not uncommon for him, and for that matter the president, to excuse themselves from meetings to use the restroom."[2]

And, boys and girls, unlike the current special prosecutor to investigate Russia's influence in the most recent election, the Democrats brazenly stonewalled and the media let them get away with it.

This kind of stuff is as old as the federal government itself.

Yup. Anyone who doesn't realize this either had a crappy US History teacher or daydreamed instead of paying attention.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_fi... [2] http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=200...

[contrast]

This is absolutely true.

The other thing to realise is that throughout human history there has always been some degree of grift. In a money driven system like US politics, especially so.

Therefore, it has always been the case that the degree and brazennesss of grift is a part of how it is judged in practice.

So if you want to be honest with yourself, respectful of the history - you've got to ask yourself whether you honestly believe whether Trump is doing a bit of grift for election funds, maybe fund a lifestyle, but otherwise seeks to be a great president. Or like his entire life, is he defined by fraudulent pitches, self-dealing, financial and moral bankruptcy, law-breaking, and stiffing his people every chance he gets?

This is why you get down voted. Not because people think the Democrats have been pure as driven snow, but because they (and past Republicans) have passed that test. Hell, Nixon resigned despite arguably passing that test end it was clear he was getting close. Trump is failing it, big time.

"There are faults on both sides" has always been a cop-out for the worst human behaviour.

[nl]

Didn't Solyndra get burnt by dropping conventional silicon panel prices?

[valuearb]

I wasn't defending the practice, just saying it's a flaw in our governmental structure that it's so easy.