https://www.citizensforethics.org/yearone/
From the smallest incidents of using official positions to promote hats or clothing
This one just into the full on bizzare in my book that it is somehow even an issue. The Obama's could rock a designer label(and provide advertising for them!) and nobody bats an eye. But the moment Ivanka Trump walks into a state function wearing something from her own clothing line people are screaming "ethics violation!" Seriously?
Of course, virtually of those designer labels the Obama's were tied to had "respectable credentials" and so on.
Now if we discussing the Postmaster General using his position to solidify his position as something of a media mogul. That is an obvious abuse(and Benjamin Franklin is guilty as sin). But getting fussy over
personal wardrobe choices that might have financial benefits for the wearer, how exactly is the taxpayer being abused there? Now if they
required government employees to buy products from their clothing line, or whatever else, that's another matter.
Even "private use" of government email (in a "non-advertising" manner) to discuss non-government related things(like how to promote said clothing with an associate) is a grey area where I'd be inclined to grant the Obamas a pass on, so how did that even become an issue under Trump? The issue with the "official e-mail address use" is when that address can be
directly used to "Self-Promote" for personal gain. IE use of the (government) office copy machine to produce sales flyers using government provided supplies, or use of that e-mail address to solicit sales
from a prospective customer.
to the most damning examples of business conflicts that could influence American foreign policy and systematic obstruction of justice,
And this can get rather subjective too. This stance almost presumes guilt. If you're innocent, and you KNOW you are innocent, you're not going to be very appreciative of "random people" being granted a basically unlimited license to rifle through through your stuff. As such, most people are going to do everything they can to curtail any such searching as may happen.
An unreasonable search is unjust, and if you're innocent, being searched in pursuit of evidence regarding an invalid claim in an unjust outcome.
Acting to prevent an unreasonable search is not "obstruction of justice."So what we are left with, is splitting hairs over what exactly constitutes "reasonable." I don't agree with a lot of things Trump may view as being perfectly reasonable, but I also think the anti-Trump crowd is anything but exemplars of reasonability.
President Trump and his administration are sending a signal that they view the government as working for them, rather than for the American people.
The executive branch works for the President. If Congress objects to the executive branch exerting authority granted to it, then Congress needs to re-evaluate what they have placed under the purview of the Executive Branch. If this means potential constitutional amendments, then suggest accordingly. I think few in here will object to claims that the Executive Authority that exists in the United States is too far reaching, and it badly needs to be curtailed.
Fix the system, not the symptoms. This is complaining about a symptom, and thinking that firing Trump will somehow fix the system. That's a rather short-sighted perspective to take.
If we want government of the people, by the people, and for the people to continue, it is time for Congress, enforcement agencies, and most importantly the American people to demand an end to the violations and a return to an ethical and lawful government.
"Ethics" is a voter and political consideration. Of course, impeachment is "a political consideration" as well. As to lawful or unlawful government practices, I think only time will tell on that front. But I think a lot of the objections regarding Trump fall firmly into the "lawful" side of things, even if they're very sketchy on the ethics side. But that just points to a
system problem that needs to be addressed, and focusing on the person rather than the legal system which enables it, is doing a disservice to everyone.