President-elect Trump said he'll turn over The Trump Organization to his children and team of executives while serving the Oval Office, but the ethics and legalities of his financial affairs are still unclear; Twitter bans several far-right accounts to crack down on hate speech; should never-Trumpers follow in President Obama and Hillary Clinton's calm tone for a peaceful transition of power, or openly condemn as alarmists?; plus, why some Uber and Lyft drivers are getting arrested by the LAPD in stings.
Ethical and legal aspects of President-elect Trump's financial affairs, plus a look at his proposed lobbying ban
The vast and varied business dealings of President-elect Donald Trump would pose a plethora of conflicts of interest, and while the legality of those conflicts is in his favor, the ethics are open to question.
There are no laws on the books that prevent the President of the United States from being involved with the Trump Organization while in office. The President-elect has said he will turn control over to his children and a team of executives, which in itself presents its own ethical issues with how it could look if the Trump Administration does something that could help one of his businesses.
Furthermore, Trump has borrowed millions from banks all over the world to support his real estate empire, and his ties to banks are even more unclear because his tax returns aren’t public. Within that empire there are hotels, golf courses, and a slew of other properties he owns worldwide as well as involvements in hundreds of companies both domestically and in countries overseas, some of which aren’t necessarily friendly with the U.S. There’s also the matter of the federal civil case regarding fraud claims at Trump University. If and when Mr. Trump takes the witness stand during the trial, there are concerns the federal investigators on the case could be swayed because the focus of the investigation is their boss.
Elsewhere in the transition, top advisers on the President-elect’s transition team said on Wednesday that they are moving towards a ban on lobbying for five years after an official leaves the government. Anyone being considered for a high-profile position in Trump’s Administration will have to formally terminate their status as a registered lobbyist.
Guest:
Drew Harwell, national business reporter for The Washington Post; he tweets
Twitter’s alt-right ban: crackdown on hate speech or a step down a slippery slope?
Twitter has suspended several accounts belonging to prominent members of the alt-right movement.
One of the banned accounts belongs to Richard Spencer, who is credited with founding the movement with white nationalist leanings.
In a video posted two days ago, Spencer criticized Twitter’s actions as a kind of censorship. “It is corporate Stalinism, in a sense that there is a great purge going on and they’re purging people on the basis of their views,” he says in the video.
The company points to its policy as justification for the suspensions. What do you think of the ban? Would it achieve what Twitter and its supporters intend?
Guests:
Susan Benesch, Director of the nonprofit, Dangerous Speech Project. She is a member of Twitter’s “Trust and Safety Council,” which councils the company on content regulation.
Mathew Ingram, senior writer at Fortune magazine, who has published a piece on the ban this week
From President Obama to Harry Reid: should never-Trumpers take an alarmist or diplomatic approach?
It’s been a tough week-and-a-half for those who didn’t, and still don’t, support President-elect Trump.
Some are adamant that they not normalize a Trump presidency, even likening his election to the steady rise of Nazism, but others say that comparison is way out of line, and while they are deeply disappointed by last week’s election results, they must acclimate to a “new normal.” There’s also distinction among anti-Trump leaders. Critics like The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank have criticized President Obama and Hillary Clinton for approaching the post-election with a relatively dispassionate and calm tone. Others have lauded Harry Reid’s persistent condemnation of Trump.
How do you think leaders should conduct themselves? Are they obligated to call for calm and take a diplomatic tact? Or should they openly express their condemnation? If you’re someone who doesn’t support Trump, how are you talking about the election with your friends and family? Do you feel obligated to take a positive tone, or do you feel this election is too important and unprecedented for you to do that?
Guest:
Shane Goldmacher, senior political reporter at POLITICO, where he covered the 2016 presidential campaign