(07-30-2019 11:26 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:37 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 09:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 09:07 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  He has business interests all over the world. About any foreigner he talks to will be from a country where Trump has business interests.

He consulted with foreign leaders before a speech on energy policy that directly affects their countries. Much of the article is about what he didn't do: he left out most of the suggested language.

What's the story here?

A private businessman in the UAE was given access to a foreign policy speech prior to it being given (thus potentially giving him insider information).

Also, it's a bit ironic that a foreign government was then allowed to review and edit a policy speech that was intended to be about putting America first.

Cooperating with foreign governments - and yes, even sharing information with them - is not inconsistent with putting America first.

Trump's whole campaign was based on the idea of America dictating the terms and not asking for other's opinions on matters. It's ironic, and not that hard to admit it's ironic, especially given how Trump talks.

I have more issue with using private citizens, who likely have vested business interests, as intermediaries. The guy Barrack gave the speech to had access to information that could be used for personal gain, because what POTUS says matters and can move markets.

In feudal monarchies like the UAE and Saudi Arabia, there's no clear distinction between government officials and private citizens, and the the government and private business of shieks and emirs blurs and overlaps. The decisionmakers and policy makers are private citizens, and government officials tend to be functionaries. As for US private citizens being intermediaries, that's nothing new at all, especially in matters of trade and economics. Google "Armond Hammer" for example (don't freak out over his connections to Al Gore, or Al Gore's business interests in coal).

I have no issue with Trump's foreign policy being more nuanced and sophisticated than his campaign slogans. I often can't avoid the suspicion that his opponents are actually disappointed that he isn't the jingoistic warmonger they made him out to be.

Yes, using the insight and knowledge of private citizens is normal. But regardless of how normal it is, the problem with using them as intermediaries, is that we don't know where their interests lie. Conflicts of interest are real, and we have legal measures to keep government officials from abusing their power and position for personal gain (and we could use more, actually).

Case in point, Barrack is being investigated by federal prosecutors for illegal foreign lobbying.

Quote:President Donald Trump’s inauguration chairman, Tom Barrack, lobbied the new administration to share nuclear power technology with Saudi Arabia while, at the same time, making plans to team up with the Saudis to buy a company that would benefit from the policy change, according to documents obtained by a House committee.

If your argument is that this is nothing new, your argument is that you're OK with graft and corruption.

https://www.propublica.org/article/trump...lear-deal#