U.S. Embassy Advertises Mar-a-Lago

Regarding the “U.S. Embassy is promoting Mar-a-Lago” outrage, it’s my impression that all the state department posted was a history factoid about how before Trump owned Mar-a-Lago, it belonged for a while to the U.S. government, as a retreat like Camp David, and that’s where the “winter white house” name came from.

I posted something similar myself a few weeks back, because it’s interesting. Not exactly a travel commercial.

This does, however, point to why conflicts of interest are a mess. In normal circumstances, it’s reasonable and appropriate for the U.S. government to tweet about the history of the U.S. government and how cool it is. It’s similarly normal to talk about a president’s privately-owned retreat, like Crawford Ranch, because if you’re interested in where the president is spending his time, don’t you want the government to tell you?

But neither Camp David nor Crawford Ranch sold memberships for $200,000 a year, which turns what would usually be neutral information into an advertorial.

My sympathies are with you, social media strategists at the State Department. I don’t know what to do either.

Peggy says:  I smell a big orange rat. Why should a private citizen make money off of the Presidential privledge, Outraged.

Jonathan says: I was waiting to hear someone excuse this bullshit.

Romie: I think maybe you’ve misunderstood me. I’m saying it’s not possible for even low levels of the government to do their jobs right now because Trump has refused to eliminate his conlicts of interest. I’m saying Trump’s greed is actively destructive to the workings of the government, transforming even minimal normally innocent actions into collusion to enrich a crook.

I’m glad you said something, though. I am reassured that we share rage over this.

Deb: Rage of a whole new level.

Jonathan: This is *unpresidented (sic). I hope there’s someone out there with standing who can sue the pants off of the resort.