Trump says won't divest from his business while president

[HomerJS]

The situation is unprecedented. It appears he's trying to deal with it, but we've never had a billionaire with 500+ entities, as POTUS before. The blind trust thing is just impossible, as not possible to escape from news, name on buildings, etc. It would be unreasonable to hold a fire sale and liquidate all his assets. Most reasonable people understand that dilemma. Maybe he didn't expect to win and since he has, the reality has set in. Frankly, I'd have no idea what to do, if I were in his shoes. His legal counsel seems to be navigating it as best they can. He's obviously as concerned about it, as we are.

Its called public service. It can be done if you really want the job as opposed to having everything.

Penny Pritzger who is a multi-billionaire before taking the job Sec of Commerce managed to divest.

 

[Jhhnn]

Time to just admit that he can't divest fully because he's too leveraged and would end up losing his shirt (made in China).

Yep. It's not in his interest for his bankers to go bust paying fines to Uncle Sam, either, & he's now in a position to help them out.

If Deutch Bank takes too big a hit from the US Govt they'll end up in receivership of some sort. That means liquidation & the calling of loans like Trump's. He'd have to re-borrow to pay, something that might force yet another creative bankruptcy.

As President, he can direct the DoJ to go easy on Deutch Bank, thus protecting his own mega-million dollar interests.

Much was made of the piddling speaking fees Clinton collected from Wall St by the very people who are now pooh-poohing issues & amounts of money of much greater importance.

It's not like she owed them money, is it?

 

[momeNt]

Yep. It's not in his interest for his bankers to go bust paying fines to Uncle Sam, either, & he's now in a position to help them out.

If Deutch Bank takes too big a hit from the US Govt they'll end up in receivership of some sort. That means liquidation & the calling of loans like Trump's. He'd have to re-borrow to pay, something that might force yet another creative bankruptcy.

As President, he can direct the DoJ to go easy on Deutch Bank, thus protecting his own mega-million dollar interests.

Much was made of the piddling speaking fees Clinton collected from Wall St by the very people who are now pooh-poohing issues & amounts of money of much greater importance.

It's not like she owed them money, is it?

She's earned 150+ million in speaking fees. Piddly may be the $4,000 Bernie has received. But please don't lose your tether to reality.

Also. If a bank goes under they call the loan? No they don't. It's a contract that can be bought just like anything else. If you had a mortgage was your bank going out of business and you being forced to repay "on call" an immediate concern of yours EVER? All of this speaks to a creeping insanity that is afflicting your mind now that Trump is about to be inaugurated and the reality is setting in. Keep calm and carry on my friend.

 

[IronWing]

I keep thinking his sons are named Sirrus and Achenar.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I keep thinking his sons are named Sirrus and Achenar.

I believe their names are Uday and Qusay.

 

[PokerGuy]

No they don't, they need to be viewed in the light of what's good for the country or not. That's the only thing that really matters.

"What's good for the country" is a highly subjective perspective. Everyone has their perspective, but the law is something everyone has to abide by, not some nebulous "what's good for the country".

You might consider the president taking official actions for his own financial benefit to be nothing but I sure don't.

Who said anything about the president taking official actions for his own financial benefit was nothing? Has that occurred? If / when that occurs, that will be a perfectly valid criticism. Your crystal ball is not a valid substitute for following the rules and law.

Impeachment IS the law, and Congress decides if taking those actions is acceptable or not. For the sake of basic good governance they should make it clear to him that it's not okay. That's how you make it something that Trump 'has' to do. In actuality that's the only thing that matters.

lol, you've completely lost it. Aside of the practical problem of needing control of the HOR which isn't going to happen over th next couple of years no matter what, based on the constitution requiring conviction of "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors", how exactly do you propose convicting someone of something for which there is no legal requirement for them to do? You're basically saying "the president has to do what congress wants him to do, whether required by law or not, or they should just impeach him and throw him out". That's essentially saying the president serves at the pleasure of congress, which the courts (including the scotus) has already specifically said is not the case.

It's also amusing that you're trying to call anyone here a hypocrite. Do you really need me to go dredge up some of your more comically hypocritical statements?

Dredge up whatever of your misinterpretations of my actual position you'd like, have at it. You misinterpret or declare something to be my position and than assail that position, that's on you, not me.

I love all the "drain the swamp" *ssholes saying Trump's massive conflicts of interest are no problem for them.

Can you point to even a single post where someone said conflict of interest is no problem? If anyone has taken that position, I haven't seen it.

I love the ones who say they didn't vote for Trump, yet run to his defense in every thread. They just want to have plausible deniability should he be a disaster.

Hey, I might not like Trump or have voted for him, but I'm usually in these threads because of the pathetic hysteria by the left with all these insane accusations and positions. It has nothing to do with plausible deniability, I made my position on Trump clear long before he became the gop nominee.

 

[jackstar7]

"What's good for the country" is a highly subjective perspective. Everyone has their perspective, but the law is something everyone has to abide by, not some nebulous "what's good for the country".



Who said anything about the president taking official actions for his own financial benefit was nothing? Has that occurred? If / when that occurs, that will be a perfectly valid criticism. Your crystal ball is not a valid substitute for following the rules and law.



lol, you've completely lost it. Aside of the practical problem of needing control of the HOR which isn't going to happen over th next couple of years no matter what, based on the constitution requiring conviction of "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors", how exactly do you propose convicting someone of something for which there is no legal requirement for them to do? You're basically saying "the president has to do what congress wants him to do, whether required by law or not, or they should just impeach him and throw him out". That's essentially saying the president serves at the pleasure of congress, which the courts (including the scotus) has already specifically said is not the case.



Dredge up whatever of your misinterpretations of my actual position you'd like, have at it. You misinterpret or declare something to be my position and than assail that position, that's on you, not me.



Can you point to even a single post where someone said conflict of interest is no problem? If anyone has taken that position, I haven't seen it.



Hey, I might not like Trump or have voted for him, but I'm usually in these threads because of the pathetic hysteria by the left with all these insane accusations and positions. It has nothing to do with plausible deniability, I made my position on Trump clear long before he became the gop nominee.

Oh Poker, you're the poker-est!

 

[PokerGuy]

Oh Poker, you're the poker-est!

Indeed, and also the bigliest and yuugest.

 

[fskimospy]

"What's good for the country" is a highly subjective perspective. Everyone has their perspective, but the law is something everyone has to abide by, not some nebulous "what's good for the country".

Who said anything about the president taking official actions for his own financial benefit was nothing? Has that occurred? If / when that occurs, that will be a perfectly valid criticism. Your crystal ball is not a valid substitute for following the rules and law.

I don't think you've thought this through. Without him divesting, disclosing what he owns, or placing his assets in a blind trust he can literally do that every single day and you will have no way of knowing it. That's the whole point of why he has to do it. He could literally steal billions and no one would ever be the wiser. He could short Boeing stock, threaten to pull their federal contracts and watch their stock tank, then buy it up and declare he's changed his mind and profit again on the upswing. Again, without either divestment, a blind trust, or disclosure you would never know that it happened and it's not even illegal. It's a license for unlimited corruption for a guy who has proudly boasted of corruption in the past.

lol, you've completely lost it. Aside of the practical problem of needing control of the HOR which isn't going to happen over th next couple of years no matter what, based on the constitution requiring conviction of "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors", how exactly do you propose convicting someone of something for which there is no legal requirement for them to do? You're basically saying "the president has to do what congress wants him to do, whether required by law or not, or they should just impeach him and throw him out". That's essentially saying the president serves at the pleasure of congress, which the courts (including the scotus) has already specifically said is not the case.

If anyone's losing it it's you, haha. I said in my very first post about it that it depends on the Democrats retaking Congress, did you forget already?

As for what the Constitution requires, Congress is the one that decides if the president has committed 'high crimes and misdemeanors' and no one else. The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over the decisions of Congress in that matter and has ruled that impeachment is a political question and is therefore nonjusticiable. From a legal perspective congress could remove the president for being ugly if they wanted to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._United_States

Dredge up whatever of your misinterpretations of my actual position you'd like, have at it. You misinterpret or declare something to be my position and than assail that position, that's on you, not me.

You said that the Pope was wrong about what Catholicism said and that you were right. lol. Misrepresenting that is impossible as it's completely obvious.

Can you point to even a single post where someone said conflict of interest is no problem? If anyone has taken that position, I haven't seen it.

Hey, I might not like Trump or have voted for him, but I'm usually in these threads because of the pathetic hysteria by the left with all these insane accusations and positions. It has nothing to do with plausible deniability, I made my position on Trump clear long before he became the gop nominee.

You may say it's a problem but then you defend ideas that make it impossible to address. If you do think it's a problem then you're advocating ideas that make it worse.

 

[soundforbjt]

Hey, I might not like Trump or have voted for him, but I'm usually in these threads because of the pathetic hysteria by the left with all these insane accusations and positions. It has nothing to do with plausible deniability, I made my position on Trump clear long before he became the gop nominee.

Then please post some of your objections to his cabinet picks?
Any actions he's taken so far you disagree with?
Since he's not your choice this shouldn't be hard.

 

[Jhhnn]

She's earned 150+ million in speaking fees. Piddly may be the $4,000 Bernie has received. But please don't lose your tether to reality.

Her's an overview of Hillary's speaking fees-

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...d-hillary-clinton-22-million-in-speaking-fees

Also. If a bank goes under they call the loan? No they don't. It's a contract that can be bought just like anything else. If you had a mortgage was your bank going out of business and you being forced to repay "on call" an immediate concern of yours EVER? All of this speaks to a creeping insanity that is afflicting your mind now that Trump is about to be inaugurated and the reality is setting in. Keep calm and carry on my friend.

You ain't been around. Business loans are structured in an entirely different way than mortgages. When the S&L situation was resolved the liquidators didn't care if a business was making their payments or not. Their job was to close out the books & lots of businesses were caught short because they didn't have the liquid assets & couldn't re-borrow at the time to cover. The same thing happened to some large trucking companies in the early 80's when Continental Illinois bank failed.

 

[momeNt]

Her's an overview of Hillary's speaking fees-

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...d-hillary-clinton-22-million-in-speaking-fees



You ain't been around. Business loans are structured in an entirely different way than mortgages. When the S&L situation was resolved the liquidators didn't care if a business was making their payments or not. Their job was to close out the books & lots of businesses were caught short because they didn't have the liquid assets & couldn't re-borrow at the time to cover. The same thing happened to some large trucking companies in the early 80's when Continental Illinois bank failed.

My mistake, Hillary and Bill's speaking fees. Let's pretend they are a team of sorts and that their wealth is earned jointly, almost as if they were married or something.

Without the details of how his loans are structured, are either of us able to intelligently comment on it? My guess is probably not.

 

[PokerGuy]

Then please post some of your objections to his cabinet picks?
Any actions he's taken so far you disagree with?
Since he's not your choice this shouldn't be hard.

Sure, that's very easy. I think Tillerson, Pompeo, Price, Perry and Carson are lousy picks for their particular roles (each for different reasons). Trump's been terribly unpresidential, can't stop his urges to tweet about stupid crap instead of handling things in a presidential (dignified) way. I also don't like that he hasn't released his tax statements and I don't like that he's not fully divesting his businesses on taking office.

He's not the president yet so he hasn't actually done anything in office yet to praise or criticize him for, but if he does something dumb I'm more than willing to criticize him for it.

There are many real reasons to disagree with Trump, his picks, his positions, whatever, but the hysteria and child-like tantrums by everyone on the left are amusing. Trump has made many on the left absolutely lose their marbles with rage.

I don't think you've thought this through. Without him divesting, disclosing what he owns, or placing his assets in a blind trust he can literally do that every single day and you will have no way of knowing it. That's the whole point of why he has to do it.

No, he doesn't HAVE TO do it, because the law does not say he has to do it. If you think those are compelling reasons for him to have to do it, then by all means change the law to make it so. Just because you say he "has to" doesn't mean he has to. It might be good for him to do so (and I actually agree there's a significant possibility or even appearance of conflict of interest), but he is not under any obligation to do so.

I said in my very first post about it that it depends on the Democrats retaking Congress, did you forget already?

... and I said "Aside of the practical problem of needing control of the HOR", having trouble focusing because of your Trump hatred?

As for what the Constitution requires, Congress is the one that decides if the president has committed 'high crimes and misdemeanors' and no one else. The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over the decisions of Congress in that matter and has ruled that impeachment is a political question and is therefore nonjusticiable. From a legal perspective congress could remove the president for being ugly if they wanted to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._United_States

Based on that interpretation, the president serves at the pleasure of congress, and that is obviously not true. Findlaw has a nice summary of the issues and process here.

You said that the Pope was wrong about what Catholicism said and that you were right. lol. Misrepresenting that is impossible as it's completely obvious.

On queue, you provide a good example of you misrepresenting and misinterpreting my position, as usual. Nice going!

You may say it's a problem but then you defend ideas that make it impossible to address. If you do think it's a problem then you're advocating ideas that make it worse.

Just because something is a problem doesn't mean you fix it by any means necessary. The law does not demand that he divest, so he doesn't have to. The public knew that when they elected him, and chose to elect him anyway. Your opinion (or mine, or anyone elses) of what he should do does not overrule the law. The law says he doesn't have to, so he doesn't have to. If you want to criticize him for that, have at it.

 

[fskimospy]

No, he doesn't HAVE TO do it, because the law does not say he has to do it. If you think those are compelling reasons for him to have to do it, then by all means change the law to make it so. Just because you say he "has to" doesn't mean he has to. It might be good for him to do so (and I actually agree there's a significant possibility or even appearance of conflict of interest), but he is not under any obligation to do so.

I do think there are compelling reasons to have him do it and no change in the law is necessary. It would also probably be unconstitutional to try and subject the president to those laws. He's under no obligation to divest, but the country is under no obligation to keep him as the president either. Easy peasy!

... and I said "Aside of the practical problem of needing control of the HOR", having trouble focusing because of your Trump hatred?

So you just wanted to repeat what I already said? lol.

Based on that interpretation, the president serves at the pleasure of congress, and that is obviously not true. Findlaw has a nice summary of the issues and process here.

I would suggest that you read your own link more closely as well as the link I provided to the SCOTUS case referenced. SCOTUS has ruled that impeachment is nonjusticiable. The concurring opinions basically said that if the Senate in effect declared itself the new president that perhaps they would step in, but that's dicta, not part of the opinion. It also describes a pretty fanciful situation. If Congress decided to impeach Trump for his large financial conflicts of interest I am very sure that SCOTUS would not try to stop them.

On queue, you provide a good example of you misrepresenting and misinterpreting my position, as usual. Nice going!

Only in Pokerguy land does simply repeating what you said act as misrepresenting your position. You should talk to DSF about this as he seems to have the same problem! You poor guys are always misinterpreted!

Just because something is a problem doesn't mean you fix it by any means necessary. The law does not demand that he divest, so he doesn't have to. The public knew that when they elected him, and chose to elect him anyway. Your opinion (or mine, or anyone elses) of what he should do does not overrule the law. The law says he doesn't have to, so he doesn't have to. If you want to criticize him for that, have at it.

So what you really mean is just because something is a problem you don't fix it at all. How convenient!

 

[agent00f]

Sure, that's very easy. I think Tillerson, Pompeo, Price, Perry and Carson are lousy picks for their particular roles (each for different reasons). Trump's been terribly unpresidential, can't stop his urges to tweet about stupid crap instead of handling things in a presidential (dignified) way. I also don't like that he hasn't released his tax statements and I don't like that he's not fully divesting his businesses on taking office.

He's not the president yet so he hasn't actually done anything in office yet to praise or criticize him for, but if he does something dumb I'm more than willing to criticize him for it.

There are many real reasons to disagree with Trump, his picks, his positions, whatever, but the hysteria and child-like tantrums by everyone on the left are amusing. Trump has made many on the left absolutely lose their marbles with rage.



No, he doesn't HAVE TO do it, because the law does not say he has to do it. If you think those are compelling reasons for him to have to do it, then by all means change the law to make it so. Just because you say he "has to" doesn't mean he has to. It might be good for him to do so (and I actually agree there's a significant possibility or even appearance of conflict of interest), but he is not under any obligation to do so.



... and I said "Aside of the practical problem of needing control of the HOR", having trouble focusing because of your Trump hatred?


Based on that interpretation, the president serves at the pleasure of congress, and that is obviously not true. Findlaw has a nice summary of the issues and process here.



On queue, you provide a good example of you misrepresenting and misinterpreting my position, as usual. Nice going!



Just because something is a problem doesn't mean you fix it by any means necessary. The law does not demand that he divest, so he doesn't have to. The public knew that when they elected him, and chose to elect him anyway. Your opinion (or mine, or anyone elses) of what he should do does not overrule the law. The law says he doesn't have to, so he doesn't have to. If you want to criticize him for that, have at it.

Take some time to ponder what it says about someone whose sole purpose here is to defend this Trump character you've described. Taken in the context of losing it, seems obvious what's been happening to loyalists evidently obliged to defend their own no matter their opinion of the leadership.

 

[Jhhnn]

My mistake, Hillary and Bill's speaking fees. Let's pretend they are a team of sorts and that their wealth is earned jointly, almost as if they were married or something.

Without the details of how his loans are structured, are either of us able to intelligently comment on it? My guess is probably not.

I point out real debt & real possibilities. I also point out that the Clintons don't owe anybody anything in a legal sense, something that's obviously not true of Trump. Hell- his indebtedness over this one deal exceeds the Clintons' net worth.

 

[PokerGuy]

I do think there are compelling reasons to have him do it and no change in the law is necessary. It would also probably be unconstitutional to try and subject the president to those laws. He's under no obligation to divest, but the country is under no obligation to keep him as the president either. Easy peasy!

No, what you're advocating is essentially congress just deciding on a whim to toss out the results of the election for a reason that has no basis in law. Yeah, what could possibly go wrong with that approach, screw the checks and balances and all that crap, the president is just there at the pleasure of congress and can be removed at any time for any reason. If you don't see a problem with that, then you are obviously so blinded by hatred of Trump that you can't think logically anymore.

I would suggest that you read your own link more closely as well as the link I provided to the SCOTUS case referenced. SCOTUS has ruled that impeachment is nonjusticiable. The concurring opinions basically said that if the Senate in effect declared itself the new president that perhaps they would step in, but that's dicta, not part of the opinion. It also describes a pretty fanciful situation. If Congress decided to impeach Trump for his large financial conflicts of interest I am very sure that SCOTUS would not try to stop them.

Actually, congress simply stepping in an impeaching a president and convicting him of a "crime" without any basis in law is very much a situation where the scotus would be expected to step in and make sure congress doesn't wipe out the executive branch and bring it under their control. You might be "very sure", but I assure you we won't find out because (fortunately) most members of congress are not batsh*t insane enough to try to overturn the will of the voters based on no legal basis whatsoever.

Only in Pokerguy land does simply repeating what you said act as misrepresenting your position. You should talk to DSF about this as he seems to have the same problem! You poor guys are always misinterpreted!

Yeah, because context and all that nonsense doesn't matter. Just pick a part of a post, then misrepresent what was meant and go with that.

So what you really mean is just because something is a problem you don't fix it at all. How convenient!

And again, on queue, misrepresent my position and go from there. You have an uncanny knack of proving my points correct! The point is, the end does not justify the means. If the law doesn't say he has to divest, and the public voted him into office anyway, then he will be in office and won't have to divest, no matter what crazy impeachment nonsense you dream up.

 

[Pens1566]

Actually, congress simply stepping in an impeaching a president and convicting him of a "crime" without any basis in law is very much a situation where the scotus would be expected to step in and make sure congress doesn't wipe out the executive branch and bring it under their control. You might be "very sure", but I assure you we won't find out because (fortunately) most members of congress are not batsh*t insane enough to try to overturn the will of the voters based on no legal basis whatsoever.

The "basis in law" is present in the constitution itself. Emoluments clause.

 

[fskimospy]

No, what you're advocating is essentially congress just deciding on a whim to toss out the results of the election for a reason that has no basis in law. Yeah, what could possibly go wrong with that approach, screw the checks and balances and all that crap, the president is just there at the pleasure of congress and can be removed at any time for any reason. If you don't see a problem with that, then you are obviously so blinded by hatred of Trump that you can't think logically anymore.

Of course it has a basis in law, it has a basis in the Constitution that grants the Senate the sole power to try impeachments. It's important not to blind yourself to the facts presented to you just because it involves admitting you're wrong.

Actually, congress simply stepping in an impeaching a president and convicting him of a "crime" without any basis in law is very much a situation where the scotus would be expected to step in and make sure congress doesn't wipe out the executive branch and bring it under their control. You might be "very sure", but I assure you we won't find out because (fortunately) most members of congress are not batsh*t insane enough to try to overturn the will of the voters based on no legal basis whatsoever.

Ok gotcha, so despite SCOTUS precedent that says you're wrong and that impeachments aren't justiciable you're going to declare that something will happen anyway because of dicta in a concurrance saying that it would technically be possible for Congress to come up with an extreme enough situation where they think intervention would be necessary. Speaking of someone who can't think logically anymore you're just furiously attempting to ignore plan factual evidence presented directly to you.

Yeah, because context and all that nonsense doesn't matter. Just pick a part of a post, then misrepresent what was meant and go with that.

You said it, not me. Only you are responsible for it. If you believe there is context that you can provide that somehow change the meaning of what you said then by all means provide it!

And again, on queue, misrepresent my position and go from there. You have an uncanny knack of proving my points correct! The point is, the end does not justify the means. If the law doesn't say he has to divest, and the public voted him into office anyway, then he will be in office and won't have to divest, no matter what crazy impeachment nonsense you dream up.

Well then by all means tell me what you think should be done to fix it!

 

[Fern]

Talk of impeachment already?

Hahaha, Jeebus. The insanity flows onward.

fern

 

[jackstar7]

Talk of impeachment already?

Hahaha, Jeebus. The insanity flows onward.

fern

I know right? We haven't even seen his interns yet or checked their bathroom schedules.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
He could short Boeing stock, threaten to pull their federal contracts and watch their stock tank, then buy it up and declare he's changed his mind and profit again on the upswing.

Well, OK! Finally an example of a possible conflict of interest instead of just throwing around the term.

Can you think of a plausible scenario of conflict of interest involving his (domestic) hotel empire?

TIA

Fern

 

[jackstar7]

Well, OK! Finally an example of a possible conflict of interest instead of just throwing around the term.

Can you think of a plausible scenario of conflict of interest involving his (domestic) hotel empire?

TIA

Fern

They must be protected as terrorist targets!

Huh. Looks like rates just went way up, too!

 

[FelixDeCat]

Donald Trump's moral and ethical stance to the presidency was demonstrated by the creation of a trust that will hold his assets. I suspect he will probably the greatest president of the 21st century.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, OK! Finally an example of a possible conflict of interest instead of just throwing around the term.

Can you think of a plausible scenario of conflict of interest involving his (domestic) hotel empire?

TIA

Fern

I noted another way back at #27 & have subsequently elaborated on it. Perhaps you'd care to address that.