There are many reasons to stand against Trump, but the one that should take precedence — because it is foundational for decent governance — is his autocratic assumption that he is above the expectations that apply to us normal humans.
- .. Should Trump separate himself completely from his business interests, as presidents had been doing for more than four decades? His implicit message is always: No, I can do what I want.
- .. Should he release his income-tax returns so the public can see where conflicts might exist — including whether he will benefit from his own tax proposals?
- .. Should we know the full cost of his gallivanting and how many of the millions of dollars involved are circulating back to his family through the charges Trump’s resorts impose on the government?
- .. Should we know why it is that, according to The Post’s Greg Miller, Trump “appears increasingly isolated within his own administration” in calling for warmer relations with Russia even as almost everyone else in his government issues “blistering critiques of Moscow”?
- .. Did Trump express concern about democracy? Nope. He called Erdogan to congratulate him. Why?
- .. Asked about Turkey in a December 2015 interview with, of all people, Stephen K. Bannon — now his chief strategist who back then hosted a radio show on Breitbart — Trump admitted: “I have a little conflict of interest because I have a major, major building in Istanbul.” He also described Erdogan as “a strong leader”
.. If Hillary Clinton had done any one of the things described above, is there any doubt about what Republicans in Congress would be saying and doing?
.. It’s said that Trump always skates away. Not true. Those he ripped off in his Trump University scam stuck with the fight and forced Trump to settle a lawsuit he said (in an untruth typical of his approach) he would never settle. The country’s citizens can prevail, too, if we insist on calling out a self-absorbed huckster who treats us all as easily bamboozled fools.
White House to Keep Its Visitor Logs Secret
The White House announced on Friday that it will cut off public access to visitor logs revealing who is entering the White House complex and shut down a disclosure website containing a wide range of government data. The decision breaks with past practice and returns a cloak of secrecy over the basic day-to-day workings of the administration.
.. White House officials, conceding privately that the decision would be controversial, said the visitor logs were being withheld for national security reasons. They said they were relying on the same legal rationale espoused by the Obama administration in arguing that many of the records were essentially “presidential records,” and therefore not subject to public disclosure.
.. Although a federal court ruled in 2011 that the visitor logs could be kept secret, the Obama administration voluntarily provided many of the records.
.. Lawyers still exercised what they maintained was a right to omit some entries from the logs, in the cases of confidential meetings such as interviews for prospective Supreme Court candidates. And the Obamas left out the names of celebrities and top donors who came to personal events at the White House, such as star-studded birthday celebrations for the president and his wife.
Two Different Perspectives About Bridgewater from The New York Times
For over 40 years, we have pursued meaningful work and meaningful relationships through radical truth and radical transparency. This unique way of operating has obviously worked extremely well. I think it is very important to note that our culture has been conveyed in two notably different ways by The New York Times’ writers and editors. There is a significant discrepancy in the way they portray our culture in their distorted and sensationalized print stories versus the more thoughtful and accurate discussion I had today at their New Work Summit, which focused on celebrating innovative and successful workplace cultures.
.. radical transparency is coming at you. link
Larry Summers: The disturbing way banks are still ducking punishment for driving the financial crisis
The settlements have two components. The first was a fine payable to the government. The second was labeled “consumer relief.” Since consumer relief was added to the fine, I naively assumed it represented payments by banks to consumers or additional relief from obligations for distressed borrowers. In fact, rather than these sums cited by the banks and DOJ, it seems that zero is a better estimate of the cost to banks of providing “consumer relief.”
.. I’d imagine other major banks with mortgage portfolios got consumer relief credit for carrying through on principal reductions that they would have found necessary wholly apart from the DOJ’s intervention.
.. the wrongdoing in question involves lack of financial integrity, clarity and transparency in reporting the settlement should have been a preeminent value. I wish this had been the case.