Trump Is Running His Transition Team on Secret Money
www.nytimes.com
Breaking with past practice, President-elect Donald J. Trump has not agreed to disclose the donors paying for his planning effort or to limit their contributions.

Summary

Donald Trump’s transition team is raising unlimited funds from undisclosed donors, including foreign nationals, bypassing federal transparency rules by refusing to sign agreements with the Biden administration.

This breaks from tradition, sparking concerns about potential conflicts of interest and influence over the incoming administration.

The team has also failed to enable FBI background checks for appointees and has not submitted an ethics plan required for pre-inauguration access to federal agencies.

Critics warn that this secrecy undermines accountability during the critical handover of power.

Non-paywall link

    • @fukhueson
      6•5 days ago

      I truly don’t understand this line of reasoning.

      “I can’t treat the patient so I’m not gonna tell them about their disease.”

        • @fukhueson
          2•4 days ago

          Are you bending my perfectly apt analogy to insinuate the US is over and to lose hope? Because only you are insinuating anything terminal.

          Let me just see what even Google AI says about this obvious fallacy:

          The fallacy of arguing that we shouldn’t report on issues we can’t directly change is often called the “do-nothing fallacy” or “perfectionist fallacy”; it essentially states that because a perfect solution isn’t available, we should not report on a problem at all, effectively dismissing important information and ignoring potential avenues for awareness and discussion.

          Key points about this fallacy:

          Ignoring the value of awareness:

          Just because a direct action can’t be taken immediately doesn’t mean reporting on an issue can’t raise public awareness, prompt further investigation, or encourage future policy changes.

          Oversimplification of complex issues:

          It often ignores the potential impact of public discourse on shaping public opinion and influencing decision-makers.

          Potential for silencing important voices:

          This fallacy can be used to discourage reporting on issues that may be uncomfortable or politically sensitive.

          Damn, good points Google, I absolutely agree.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

          The nirvana fallacy is the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives. It can also refer to the tendency to assume there is a perfect solution to a particular problem. A closely related concept is the “perfect solution fallacy”.

          By creating a false dichotomy that presents one option which is obviously advantageous—while at the same time being completely unrealistic—a person using the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect. Under this fallacy, the choice is not between real world solutions; it is, rather, a choice between one realistic achievable possibility and another unrealistic solution that could in some way be “better”.

          It is also related to the appeal to purity fallacy where the person rejects all criticism on basis of it being applied to a non ideal case.

          “We can’t outright fix the problem right now, so we may as well not report on it.” Hmm…

          Edit: gotta love ninja edits… So now you’re saying it’s “terminal but treatable and we decided to do nothing”? Why did you back down from just “terminal”? Please restore your original comment. That doesn’t break your argument from the fallacy I described above.

          Edit 2: now they’ve deleted their comments. Put em back up, own your fallacy.