Judicial Watch Statement Trump’s (on his handing total control to sons)

Judicial Watch ^ | January 11, 2017 | Tom Fitton

[jazusamo]

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton today made the following statement regarding the announcement by President-Elect Donald J. Trump that he had officially handed “complete and total” control of his business empire to his sons, Don Jr and Eric, in order to avoid potential conflicts of interest once he enters the White House:

While there is no off-the-shelf ethics plan for a matter as complex and unprecedented as this, Mr. Trump seems to be on the right track. As we said in our recent New York Times op-ed , it would be unfair to insist that Mr. Trump destroy his business to become president. This ethics plan follows many of Judicial Watch’s recommendations and reasonably addresses pressing concerns about separating Mr. Trump’s private business from the public’s business.

[jazusamo]

A common sense action by both President-elect Trump and Tom Fitton's statement, undoubtedly the enemedia will not agree.

[DoughtyOne]

I thought Trump went way out of his way to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest.

Contrast him with Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation.

[jazusamo]

Amen to that.

[Jim W N]

off-the-shelf ethics plan

The primary standard for the federal government and federal officials isn't some murky, relative/situation ethics, but the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended.

The Constitution is ALWAYS the issue when it comes to the feds. I'm not sure what if anything in the Constitution addresses this other than Art II, Sec 4 regarding bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors. Trump is using good instincts and avoidance of evil appearances and temptations by giving over the reins of his company.

Of course if Art II, Sec 4 were actually followed, most of the D.C. swamp would be drained.

Switching gears but not relevancy, the Left thinks the Constitution doesn't apply to them. Some on the Right still take the Constitution seriously. Anyone who loves liberty should. The Constitution is the only legal bulwark standing between our freedom and absolute tyranny. It is, therefore, imminently imperative that the Constitution be applied to cut the 70% to 80% unconstitutional portion of the $4 trillion federal government and stuff it back into its constitutional cage where it belongs.

[AFreeBird]

Yea, a day and night comparison.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks.

That lady that made the presentation was a very capable person also.

I’ll bet that was lost on the Left and the MSM.

I have been very impressed by women he has hired that we have been able to observe.

[jazusamo]

Totally agree, well said.

[Steve_Seattle]

I think the MSM won’t be satisfied until Trump is stripped down to his shorts. Then they’ll complain that his shorts were made in China. If he then switches to American-made shorts, they’ll accuse him of starting a trade war with China.

[jazusamo]

Go President-Elect Trump!

Please bump the Freepathon or click above to donate or become a monthly donor!

[NonValueAdded]

The lady who presented the details was very good. And based on what she said concerning emoluments, sHillary has one more thing to worry about. Pay to play is definitely impeachable.

[NorthMountain]

It is, therefore, imminently imperative that the Constitution be applied to cut the 70% to 80% unconstitutional portion of the $4 trillion federal government and stuff it back into its constitutional cage where it belongs.

THIS!

[Jim W N]

Thanks. Shout it from the rooftops.

[Grimmy]

I don’t think impeachment is a thing for people not in any kind of federal office.

She’s nothing more than a Suzie Q citizen now. Drag her into a court and beat her with the Book o’ Law.

[Jim W N]

Shout it from the rooftops, Bro.

[DoughtyOne]

I liked the way she and Trump didn’t mention any names, but talked about past administrations.

LOL

I wonder which ones... (as if)

I hadn’t even heard the term ‘emoluments’ before. (I may have, but it didn’t stick with me if I had)

Then I find out Trump is trying to avoid them.

You see, that’s Obama’s problem. There are things he isn’t even aware of, that he needed to avoid.

I’m not saying he didn’t, because what conflict of interest related to businesses did he have? None.

There are many other concepts that he is unaware of, that are something Trump has dealt with for decades.

Not many people are as sharp as Trump, and > IMO < we are very lucky to have him.

Some folks think of this as fawning on him. I’m actually quite impressed with his abilities, and I’m not ashamed to say so.

That’s why I wanted him and voted for him. This guy is going to amaze us.

IF he doesn’t or goes South, I’ll have to admit it and eat crow, but that’s what my gut instinct is now.

[DoughtyOne]

I agree. I think Trump will head things in that direction. To an extent, the amount he does eliminate will be at least one test he will be measured by.

Eliminating Obamacare will be a step in the right direction. The more of it that returns to work in a free enterprise environment will eliminate government control and involvement. (cost)

I hope he can find a way to get almost all of it off the government’s back.

Places like California are in for a real surprise Tossing everyone on Medi-Cal, California’s Medicare program was an ill advised idea. Now they’re going to be in trouble.

Oops.

[NonValueAdded]

It IS possible to impeach someone out of office and disqualify them from ever holding office during the Senate part. However criminal prosecution is better.

[Grimmy]

Heh.

Digging into the darker part of my soul, I can see a use for an impeachment fufuerahl against Killery.

Don’t use it to punish Killery, that’s for criminal courts and prison. Use the impeachment to make the list of names that need to be sent off into the wilds to find jobs more fitting to their nature and ability, like asking “want fries with that?”

Or, maybe, the list of names that need to be tried as co-conspirators and/or accessories to Killery’s crimes.

They’d surely out themselves in their voting on impeachment.

[Steve_Seattle]

The MSM have raised the "conflict of interest" issue as a slogan, without feeling the need to demonstrate any specific conflict of interest; I mean, Trump isn't even in office yet.

And, speaking of conflicts of interest, many of us have seen the chart here on FR that depicts the familial relationships between high-ranking media executives/journalists and Obama administration employees.

The MSM never raise that issue, which is actually a very fundamental conflict of interest, and which is one that I think should be addressed by law. It should be PROHIBITED for relatives (spouses/siblings/parents/children) of influential media employees (whether executives, reporters, or pundits) to be members of a presidential administration.

[Jim W N]

cut the 70% to 80% unconstitutional portion of the $4 trillion federal government

What it would look like:

Gradually but deliberately start killing unconstitutional cabinet bureaucracies and begin dismantling the entire unconstitutional Regulatory State with its repulsive and unconstitutional EPA, FCC, etc.

Over time, hundreds of thousands of officials, bureaucratic heads, and government workers would be sent home packing. Shed no tears. They would soon find other work as the American free-market economic engine would kick into high gear as never before.

Support would come from states who decide to exercise their constitutional sovereignty by nullifying unconstitutional federal acts which by definition are acts of tyranny.

The only way this could be accomplished would be 1) God and 2) enough people on the Right supported it knowing that it is critical for the recovery of our Free Constitutional Republic.

We on the Right must keep our eye on the ball, dust off our asbestos suits, support those who want to see recovery of our Free Constitutional Republic, and throw out the corrupt bums who just want to keep lining their pockets with business as usual.