Trump says won't divest from his business while president

[MongGrel]

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

There have been plenty of examples.

Just his renting the the GSA building for the DC hotel is a conflict of interest the instant he takes the oath.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
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.

Trump's business loans ARE mortgages. (At least the few that are done with banks, most appear to be thru private r/e estate trusts.)

The Deutsche Bank loan would be sold to another bank.

I think the idea of Deutsche Bank ("DB") going bust over some gov fines is preposterous. Our gov is going to fine a large (too big to fail) bank out of existence? That's absurd.

Moreover, Trump's loan is handled by a private banking arm of DB. If DB did go bust the private banking arm would be sold off, as we saw done during the last banking crisis.

Fern

 

[Fern]

There have been plenty of examples.

Then it should be easy to state them.

Just his renting the the GSA building for the DC hotel is a conflict of interest the instant he takes the oath.

What is the conflict of interest? The lease Trump has with GSA was created before he was President (heck, he still isn't President yet).

Fern

 

[MongGrel]

Then it should be easy to state them.



What is the conflict of interest? The lease Trump has with GSA was created before he was President (heck, he still isn't President yet).

Fern

I have, several times.

Onward.

 

[fskimospy]

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

Sure. Workers at one of his hotels attempt to unionize. The NLRB head in charge of adjudicating it is a Trump appointee.

Let me know how many more you want as I could probably think of thousands.

 

[Fern]

Sure. Workers at one of his hotels attempt to unionize. The NLRB head in charge of adjudicating it is a Trump appointee.

Let me know how many more you want as I could probably think of thousands.

Yeah, I'd like some more. Pls try to use those that are both realistic and substantial.

TIA

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah, I'd like some more. Pls try to use those that are both realistic and substantial.

TIA

Fern

How is that not both realistic and substantial? You just got exactly what you asked for.

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah, I'd like some more. Pls try to use those that are both realistic and substantial.

TIA

Fern

Also by the way it's pretty funny that your original request said that you thanked me in advance and then when I gave you exactly what you asked for you ignored it, made a new request, and thanked me in advance again.

Lol. I guess a birther never changes his stripes.

 

[jackstar7]

Yeah, I'd like some more. Pls try to use those that are both realistic and substantial.

TIA

Fern

Be vague in your demands, it will keep the goalposts light enough to move with frequency.

 

[Jhhnn]

Trump's business loans ARE mortgages. (At least the few that are done with banks, most appear to be thru private r/e estate trusts.)

The Deutsche Bank loan would be sold to another bank.

I think the idea of Deutsche Bank ("DB") going bust over some gov fines is preposterous. Our gov is going to fine a large (too big to fail) bank out of existence? That's absurd.

Moreover, Trump's loan is handled by a private banking arm of DB. If DB did go bust the private banking arm would be sold off, as we saw done during the last banking crisis.

Fern

Well, the way that Deutsche Bank & Trump supporters have been squealing they seem to think it's possible. It's not like Deutsche Bank hasn't been skating on thin ice for a lot of reasons, either. It's bad enough that Merkel had to deny any plans for bailing them out.

Now that Trump is Prez I figure international bankers will lend him whatever he wants, anyway. All lovey-dovey.

 

[fskimospy]

Be vague in your demands, it will keep the goalposts light enough to move with frequency.

It is kind of funny that he seemed totally unprepared for someone to give an obvious answer to his easy question.

 

[Victorian Gray]

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.

You must be on pot.

 

[FelixDeCat]

You must be on pot.

No, its true. Donald trump will be considered one of the greatest presidents of this century.

 

[Brainonska511]

No, its true. Donald trump will be considered one of the greatest presidents of this century.

You're such a boring troll. You need a new schtick.

 

[FelixDeCat]

You're such a boring troll. You need a new schtick.

Let me ax you a question - did you vote for Bronco Bama? Did you have hope based on what you thought he was going to change in America? If so, did you consider yourself a "boring troll" for supporting him?

I suppose you want me to be critical of Trump? I find no reason to be critical at this juncture.

 

[Meghan54]

Figures. Even his Cabinet appointees are disagreeing with Trump, yet you continue to gargle his scrotum.

I suppose you want me to be critical of Trump? I find no reason to be critical at this juncture.

 

[Victorian Gray]

No, its true. Donald trump will be considered one of the greatest presidents of this century.

No, really. You're obviously one of those pot smokers and you're 'high' right now.

You should stop. I've seen the documentaries. It's the work of Satan.

 

[1prophet]

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.

If you pretend liberals actually cared about "what's good for the country or not" like Democrats used to, instead of catering to corporate America neither Trump nor Clinton would have made it past the primaries.

 

[PokerGuy]

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

He is not in violation of any emoluments law or the constitution. If that changes and there is an actual crime committed, then it's perfectly fine to charge him with a crime accordingly.....

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.

You're confused. I'm not saying there is no mechanism for impeachment. The constitution lays out the charges that can be levied against someone and if they are convicted of those charges they can be impeached. The "no basis in law" item refers to the fact that he has violated no law or requirement, yet you are advocating the Congress impeach him based on finding him guilty of "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors”. Basically, you want him convicted of disagreeing with your liberal dogma. Fortunately, not everyone is that batsh*t insane.

Speaking of someone who can't think logically anymore you're just furiously attempting to ignore plan factual evidence presented directly to you.

lol , you're the nutcase talking about impeaching the not-even-president-yet because of lib dogma, and you think I'm the one who can't think logically. Sure thing. Perhaps some professional help is in order for ya to help with this grieving process, you seem to be taking the election results very hard

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

Given the confines of the constitution, I don't know if there's an easy fix. I don't know if it's a huge problem either. Of course without a requirement to divest all holdings there's the possibility of corruption, conflicts of interest and other bad things.... but voters knew that and made their decision.

 

[momeNt]

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.

This argument only holds water if every President before him wouldn't even have been allowed to hold a brokerage account in their name. Even then not really, any President with a rich friend could have pulled a similar tactic and could have got a piece of the action under the table by way of future speaking fees or something of that nature. It's simply because you don't like Trump, which is perfectly valid, that the gears in your head are churning up all sorts of terrible things he could do, but any President could have done them. Neutering his ability to do something unethical is a different subject. Being President creates opportunities to exploit unethical behavior, that is the chance we take by having the office in the first place.

 

[fskimospy]

He is not in violation of any emoluments law or the constitution. If that changes and there is an actual crime committed, then it's perfectly fine to charge him with a crime accordingly.....

No criminal statute covers the emoluments clause so that will never happen.

You're confused. I'm not saying there is no mechanism for impeachment. The constitution lays out the charges that can be levied against someone and if they are convicted of those charges they can be impeached. The "no basis in law" item refers to the fact that he has violated no law or requirement, yet you are advocating the Congress impeach him based on finding him guilty of "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors”. Basically, you want him convicted of disagreeing with your liberal dogma. Fortunately, not everyone is that batsh*t insane.

You're very confused. As per Nixon v. US, the Senate having the sole power means they decide what meets the standard and no one else. That's what it means when it says impeachments are nonjusticiable. Didn't you read the decision I linked?

lol , you're the nutcase talking about impeaching the not-even-president-yet because of lib dogma, and you think I'm the one who can't think logically. Sure thing. Perhaps some professional help is in order for ya to help with this grieving process, you seem to be taking the election results very hard

Now you're flailing and (hypocritically) misrepresenting me in an attempt to escape with your pride intact. I don't want to impeach Trump because of his ideology. Bush was more conservative than Trump in many ways and I wasn't in favor of impeaching him. In fact I'm not even sure Trump has an ideology.

What I am in favor of however, is removing ANY official who attempts to profit off of their office OR structures their finances and disclosures deliberately in a way that prevents the public from knowing if they are engaging in corruption. It's frankly baffling that anyone would try to argue against this, but such are the wages of partisanship. If the Hated Liberals are for something you have to be against it.

Given the confines of the constitution, I don't know if there's an easy fix. I don't know if it's a huge problem either. Of course without a requirement to divest all holdings there's the possibility of corruption, conflicts of interest and other bad things.... but voters knew that and made their decision.

So you claimed that I was misrepresenting you by saying you wanted to do nothing and then when I ask you what you want to do your answer is... nothing.

That's pretty funny.

 

[fskimospy]

This argument only holds water if every President before him wouldn't even have been allowed to hold a brokerage account in their name. Even then not really, any President with a rich friend could have pulled a similar tactic and could have got a piece of the action under the table by way of future speaking fees or something of that nature.

False, in that case the rich friend could be prosecuted for insider trading. The president could also be prosecuted for accepting a bribe.

It's simply because you don't like Trump, which is perfectly valid, that the gears in your head are churning up all sorts of terrible things he could do, but any President could have done them. Neutering his ability to do something unethical is a different subject. Being President creates opportunities to exploit unethical behavior, that is the chance we take by having the office in the first place.

Oh save it with that bullshit about people only criticizing him because they don't like him. Let me know how many dozen links you would like from ethicists, government ethics agencies, scholars, etc, that all say Trump's actions here represent an unprecedented ethical issue and enable massive corruption. Just give a round figure. Let me guess though, they are all just haters too?

 

[momeNt]

False, in that case the rich friend could be prosecuted for insider trading. The president could also be prosecuted for accepting a bribe.



Oh save it with that bullshit about people only criticizing him because they don't like him. Let me know how many dozen links you would like from ethicists, government ethics agencies, scholars, etc, that all say Trump's actions here represent an unprecedented ethical issue and enable massive corruption. Just give a round figure. Let me guess though, they are all just haters too?

You're initial premise is that we'd have no way of knowing what stock positions he held? If that's true, then how is it that any previous President's rich friend could have held a similarly veiled stock position and not be prosecuted for insider trading? I feel like you're creating a boogey-man here argument here. Are you saying that there is no way it would be at all possible for a President of meager wealth to be unethical? This would have been the same problem with Romney? Or is $250m not really a conflict of interest? What about the Clintons and their wealth?

I honestly just don't understand your argument. You could take $10,000 and only have to double it 17 times to become a billionaire. 17 unethical stock manipulations as President and you can leave office as a billionaire. If you serve 2 terms, that is less than 1 every quarter.

 

[fskimospy]

You're initial premise is that we'd have no way of knowing what stock positions he held? If that's true, then how is it that any previous President's rich friend could have held a similarly veiled stock position and not be prosecuted for insider trading?

How is anyone prosecuted for insider trading then?

I feel like you're creating a boogey-man here argument here. Are you saying that there is no way it would be at all possible for a President of meager wealth to be unethical? This would have been the same problem with Romney? Or is $250m not really a conflict of interest? What about the Clintons and their wealth?

Of course I'm not saying it's not possible for a less wealthy president to be unethical, what gave you that ridiculous idea? Any president can be unethical, but Trump has far, far more opportunity to be unethical and for larger sums of money. Romney is actually a great example of how someone of significant wealth could act ethically as president as he pledged to place all of his investment assets into a blind trust, meaning that he wouldn't have known what investments he had and so would not be able to act corruptly to further his own financial interests in that way.

I honestly just don't understand your argument. You could take $10,000 and only have to double it 17 times to become a billionaire. 17 unethical stock manipulations as President and you can leave office as a billionaire. If you serve 2 terms, that is less than 1 every quarter.

If you are looking to understand the argument better I'll refer you to the office of government ethics:

https://qz.com/883628/under-walter-...battling-donald-trumps-conflicts-of-interest/

The Trump Organization does business in dozens of countries, where its profits are sometimes directly reliant on payments from entities linked to foreign governments, or tied directly to decisions made by foreign government officials. The company has rented apartments to Middle Eastern royalty, for example, and partnered with a businessman in the Philippines who is also part of controversial president Rodrigo Duterte’s government.

Because the Trump Organization often leases out its name and takes a percentage of ongoing profits, the arrangement in the Philippines means that Trump is, essentially, on the payroll of someone who is part of Duterte’s government. Ethics lawyers and foreign policy experts are concerned that Trump’s relationship with these foreign powers could impact US policy. Regarding the Philippines, for example, US military experts are eager to more aggressively contain China’s spread in the South China Sea, but Duterte says he is reluctant to confront China over Filipino territory China occupies, setting up an immediate conflict of interest for Trump. Trump also owes millions of dollars in debt to foreign banks, some of which have been investigated and fined by US regulators in recent years for misconduct.

NPR has some more on this:

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/12/50953...-his-businesses-is-lacking-ethics-experts-say

I'm kind of baffled that you don't think this is a problem and that you seem to think that the only people who have a problem with it are partisans. Basically everyone involved in any kind of ethics in governance regardless of party is united in the opinion that what he's doing is a huge, huge problem.

 

[Thebobo]

Talk of impeachment already?

Hahaha, Jeebus. The insanity flows onward.

fern

Hell I got my bumper sticker already.