Trump says won't divest from his business while president

[Thebobo]

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

I think your spell checker is broken, I fixed it for you.

 

[jackstar7]

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.

You don't understand his argument that he doesn't want corruption and unethical doings within the government?

Seems rather straightforward, if perhaps unrealistic. But his idealism doesn't seem so confounding.

 

[momeNt]

How is anyone prosecuted for insider trading then?

Well you were saying we would have no way of knowing. Why not just keep an eye on him? Is the best solution to be proactive and have him divest of a brand tied directly to his image? Romney putting what is mostly portfolio wealth in a blind trust is a pretty simple solution. Trump and Clinton having brands with their name on it is definitely far more tricky. Is oversight an acceptable solution?

 

[PokerGuy]

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?

I read the decision just fine, and again you fail to understand the point. In general the court would stay away from a political question, but the congress would still need to convict the president of "bribery, treason, high crimes or misdemeanors" in order to impeach.

In the nixon case, the court decided that it should not review impeachments, but the concurring statements are pretty clear that that's not always the case. From Justice Souter: "If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results...judicial interference might well be appropriate."

From this link, you seem to be advocating the "Congressional Interpretation" position. From the link,

This view has been rejected by most legal scholars because it would have the effect of having the President serve at the pleasure of Congress. However there are some, particularly in Congress, who hold this opinion.

Obviously the findlaw writers are well aware of the nixon case as it is referenced several times with citations. They must all be completely wrong, as you are obviously the expert on everything

Now you're flailing and (hypocritically) misrepresenting me in an attempt to escape with your pride intact.

Funny you'd say that because that pretty much sums up 95% of your posts. Misrepresent or twist someone's position to claim you are correct.

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.

That's because you seem to have come unhinged from the Trump election, whereas with the Bush election you were mad but not completely unhinged yet There simply is no basis for impeachment, unless you can explain what "bribery, treason, high crimes or misdemeanors" you think Trump is guilty of by not doing something that isn't required by law?

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.

Holy crap, why didn't you tell us all along that you wanted to have Bill impeached and Hillary removed from her position as SoS?? They fit your definition to a T. Nice!

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.

Yeah, because calling for the impeachment of a not-yet-even-president based on him not breaking any laws is perfectly reasonable and rational, only someone blinded by their hatred for liberals would be against it. Unhinged man, you've come unhinged. It's comical.

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.

Another perfect example of your standard mo: misrepresent and then argue against the misrepresented position.

I think conflict of interest and ethics issues with businesses etc can be a problem, but your proposed "solution" is obviously insane so I don't support it and neither do even your fellow loons on the left. I don't know what an effective solution would be, but I do know that what you're advocating is lunacy.

 

[fskimospy]

I read the decision just fine, and again you fail to understand the point. In general the court would stay away from a political question, but the congress would still need to convict the president of "bribery, treason, high crimes or misdemeanors" in order to impeach.

That is not what the decision says at all. In any way.

In the nixon case, the court decided that it should not review impeachments, but the concurring statements are pretty clear that that's not always the case. From Justice Souter: "If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results...judicial interference might well be appropriate."

That is dicta and not part of the actual opinion. The actual opinion said that impeachment was nonjusticiable. It's funny to see you twist yourself up into knots to avoid this uncomfortable fact.

From this link, you seem to be advocating the "Congressional Interpretation" position. From the link,

Obviously the findlaw writers are well aware of the nixon case as it is referenced several times with citations. They must all be completely wrong, as you are obviously the expert on everything

You should go back to my previous statements on this and see that's not the case. As I mentioned before I'm sure that there could be a situation extreme enough where SCOTUS would intervene but I highly doubt it would be because the Senate was removing the president for acting in a way where he could engage in massive corruption without anyone knowing.

Funny you'd say that because that pretty much sums up 95% of your posts. Misrepresent or twist someone's position to claim you are correct.

That's because you seem to have come unhinged from the Trump election, whereas with the Bush election you were mad but not completely unhinged yet There simply is no basis for impeachment, unless you can explain what "bribery, treason, high crimes or misdemeanors" you think Trump is guilty of by not doing something that isn't required by law?

lol, I had no doubt of your ability to rationalize away inconvenient facts.

Holy crap, why didn't you tell us all along that you wanted to have Bill impeached and Hillary removed from her position as SoS?? They fit your definition to a T. Nice!

They sure didn't. If you think they did then please provide specific examples.

Yeah, because calling for the impeachment of a not-yet-even-president based on him not breaking any laws is perfectly reasonable and rational, only someone blinded by their hatred for liberals would be against it. Unhinged man, you've come unhinged. It's comical.

Another perfect example of your standard mo: misrepresent and then argue against the misrepresented position.

I think conflict of interest and ethics issues with businesses etc can be a problem, but your proposed "solution" is obviously insane so I don't support it and neither do even your fellow loons on the left. I don't know what an effective solution would be, but I do know that what you're advocating is lunacy.

lol. You claimed I misrepresented you and then your own follow on post showed that was a lie. You are now trying to lie your way out of your previous lie. Amazing! hahaha.

 

[soundforbjt]

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2415
Latest poll shows most Americans are concerned with Trump's holdings.

 

[PokerGuy]

That is dicta and not part of the actual opinion. The actual opinion said that impeachment was nonjusticiable. It's funny to see you twist yourself up into knots to avoid this uncomfortable fact.

You should go back to my previous statements on this and see that's not the case. As I mentioned before I'm sure that there could be a situation extreme enough where SCOTUS would intervene but I highly doubt it would be because the Senate was removing the president for acting in a way where he could engage in massive corruption without anyone knowing.

So the people at findlaw and most legal scholars .....

This view has been rejected by most legal scholars because it would have the effect of having the President serve at the pleasure of Congress.

have it all completely wrong, and you, the expert on everything, are right. Of course. How utterly unsurprising

lol. You claimed I misrepresented you and then your own follow on post showed that was a lie. You are now trying to lie your way out of your previous lie. Amazing! hahaha.

Standard eski-m.o., misrepresent, misinterpret, then argue. Not gonna work dude.

 

[fskimospy]

So the people at findlaw and most legal scholars ..... is just completely wrong, and you, the expert on everything are right. Of course. How utterly unsurprising

This is a sad attempt to misrepresent what I wrote and what they wrote because you know you're trapped. Pretty funny that you'd do that while hypocritically complaining about other people supposedly misrepresenting you.

It's also funny that you're a big enough hypocrite that you would have the gall to say anyone considers themselves an expert on everything considering you claimed to know more about Catholicism than the Pope. You are absolutely hilarious.

Standard eski-m.o., misrepresent, misinterpret, then argue. Not gonna work dude.

You said you didn't say that the answer was to do nothing. I then asked you what you wanted to to. You responded with nothing. Your posts are there for everyone to see.

 

[PokerGuy]

This is a sad attempt to misrepresent what I wrote and what they wrote because you know you're trapped. Pretty funny that you'd do that while hypocritically complaining about other people supposedly misrepresenting you.

Misrepresent you? I simply repeated your position, and showed how "most legal scholars" reject that position. How am I "trapped"? I'm not the one advocating insanity, you're just lashing out because you don't like reality.

It's also funny that you're a big enough hypocrite that you would have the gall to say anyone considers themselves an expert on everything considering you claimed to know more about Catholicism than the Pope. You are absolutely hilarious.

Another instance of eski-m.o., misrepresent and misinterpret. Wheeeeeee, fun

You said you didn't say that the answer was to do nothing. I then asked you what you wanted to to. You responded with nothing. Your posts are there for everyone to see.

I didn't say the answer was to do nothing, I said I don't know what a good (plausible) solution would be. Two entirely different things, and you're trying to divert from the insanity of your proposed "solution" which obviously can't possibly work.

 

[fskimospy]

Misrepresent you? I simply repeated your position, and showed how "most legal scholars" reject that position. How am I "trapped"? I'm not the one advocating insanity, you're just lashing out because you don't like reality.

No, you misrepresented my position. You're trapped because you made the claim that Congress needs to meet an externally verified standard of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' in order to impeach someone, which is demonstrably untrue as shown in Nixon v. US. You keep trying to get around this by quoting dicta and by noting that it could be possible for Congress to act egregiously enough that it would require external intervention, which is entirely beside the point.

If Congress wanted to impeach Trump for these conflicts of interest it could easily do so. Hell, it could impeach him for plenty of other things as well like Trump University.

Another instance of eski-m.o., misrepresent and misinterpret. Wheeeeeee, fun

Look, we both know you said you knew more about Catholicism than the Pope. It's there for everyone to read. The mistake you made was instead of just owning up to it and saying that you misspoke you doubled down and declared that somehow your statements didn't mean what they plainly said. The lesson here is that everyone makes mistakes now and then and trying to lie your way out of them is usually more trouble than its worth.

I didn't say the answer was to do nothing, I said I don't know what a good (plausible) solution would be. Two entirely different things, and you're trying to divert from the insanity of your proposed "solution" which obviously can't possibly work.

So nothing, exactly. Stop trying to lie your way out of this.

 

[PokerGuy]

No, you misrepresented my position. You're trapped because you made the claim that Congress needs to meet an externally verified standard of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' in order to impeach someone, which is demonstrably untrue as shown in Nixon v. US.

Speaking of demonstrably untrue: The constitution specifically states what the grounds for impeachment are. "Bribery, treason, high crimes and misdemeanors". Now what exactly constitutes a "high crime" or "misdemeanor" is not defined, so Congress has room to maneuver, but the constitution specifies what the grounds are for impeachment.

You keep trying to get around this by quoting dicta and by noting that it could be possible for Congress to act egregiously enough that it would require external intervention, which is entirely beside the point.

If Congress wanted to impeach Trump for these conflicts of interest it could easily do so. Hell, it could impeach him for plenty of other things as well like Trump University.

You keep ignoring the fact that I pointed you to a link discussing this exact issue of what exactly congress can do, and in that very link your assertion is specifically stated as being "rejected by most legal scholars". Are we to believe that they are wrong, and you are right?

Look, we both know you said you knew more about Catholicism than the Pope. It's there for everyone to read.

No, what we both know is that you're trying to pull the usual eski-m.o. of misinterpreting and misrepresenting. You're just trying to divert from the fact that your proposed solution is so insane that nobody -- even on the left -- is willing to go down that rabbit hole.

The mistake you made was instead of just owning up to it and saying that you misspoke you doubled down and declared that somehow your statements didn't mean what they plainly said. The lesson here is that everyone makes mistakes now and then and trying to lie your way out of them is usually more trouble than its worth.

lol, physician, heal thyself, this is a perfect example of when you should heed your own advice. Just admit you were just ranting and you're wrong, everyone can accept that.

So nothing, exactly. Stop trying to lie your way out of this.

So, just to be clear, you don't see a difference between saying "nothing should be done" and "I don't know what a good solution would be"?

 

[fskimospy]

Speaking of demonstrably untrue: The constitution specifically states what the grounds for impeachment are. "Bribery, treason, high crimes and misdemeanors". Now what exactly constitutes a "high crime" or "misdemeanor" is not defined, so Congress has room to maneuver, but the constitution specifies what the grounds are for impeachment.

And SCOTUS said that their decisions were not reviewable by outside parties.

You keep ignoring the fact that I pointed you to a link discussing this exact issue of what exactly congress can do, and in that very link your assertion is specifically stated as being "rejected by most legal scholars". Are we to believe that they are wrong, and you are right?

Nope, what I've said and what they said are not in conflict. As I have said repeatedly there is likely some extremity of behavior that would necessitate intervention but that is not even remotely the case here. So no, my position is not even remotely rejected by most legal scholars. In fact, my position is the exact holding of SCOTUS in Nixon v. US, the complete and obvious precedent for what we're talking about here.

The precedent is written down. You can (and should!) read it. There's no escaping this

No, what we both know is that you're trying to pull the usual eski-m.o. of misinterpreting and misrepresenting. You're just trying to divert from the fact that your proposed solution is so insane that nobody -- even on the left -- is willing to go down that rabbit hole.

By all means then show us how you were misrepresented! I can't wait. (we both know you won't do this)

lol, physician, heal thyself, this is a perfect example of when you should heed your own advice. Just admit you were just ranting and you're wrong, everyone can accept that.

Well then you better call up the Supreme Court as they were apparently ranting and wrong too! lol. Really though, I've lost track of how many times you've done this. You start ranting and say something stupid and then just doggedly refuse to admit you made a mistake until people throw their hands up and leave.

So, just to be clear, you don't see a difference between saying "nothing should be done" and "I don't know what a good solution would be"?

I see no difference in practice because in both cases you aren't doing anything.

 

[PokerGuy]

Nope, what I've said and what they said are not in conflict. As I have said repeatedly there is likely some extremity of behavior that would necessitate intervention but that is not even remotely the case here. So no, my position is not even remotely rejected by most legal scholars. In fact, my position is the exact holding of SCOTUS in Nixon v. US, the complete and obvious precedent for what we're talking about here.

The precedent is written down. You can (and should!) read it. There's no escaping this

Again: "This view has been rejected by most legal scholars because it would have the effect of having the President serve at the pleasure of Congress." They are well aware of the nixon case. Your position that the president effectively serves at the pleasure of congress because they can boot him out at any time for any reason is false. The justices in the nixon case also made that clear.

By all means then show us how you were misrepresented! I can't wait. (we both know you won't do this)

Of course, because as the expert on everything you also insist you know my position better than I do, so there's no point in debating it with you, other than just to point and laugh. Just typical eski-m.o.

Well then you better call up the Supreme Court as they were apparently ranting and wrong too! lol.

I wasn't aware the scotus was advocating impeaching a president (elect)? Can you link us up? That's your nutty "solution". Notice that nobody else embraces that? A pretty good indicator......

Really though, I've lost track of how many times you've done this.

It's OK that you've lost track, I can help. The number is the exact same number of times as you've misrepresented, misinterpreted or misstated my position and then argued against your imagined position for me, all the while telling me you know my position on the matter better than I do. There, that should help you keep track

You start ranting and say something stupid and then just doggedly refuse to admit you made a mistake until people throw their hands up and leave.

Say something stupid kind of like "hey, we should impeach the president (who's not even the president yet) because he's failed to do something he's not required to do by law. You mean that kind of stupid?

I see no difference in practice because in both cases you aren't doing anything.

Good to know that saying "do nothing" and saying "I don't know what to do" are the same in your mind. That speaks for itself.

 

[fskimospy]

Again: "This view has been rejected by most legal scholars because it would have the effect of having the President serve at the pleasure of Congress." They are well aware of the nixon case. Your position that the president effectively serves at the pleasure of congress because they can boot him out at any time for any reason is false. The justices in the nixon case also made that clear.

That is not my position as has been clearly stated several times. Your own link goes into the dicta that form the basis for this, which mirrors my position.

Of course, because as the expert on everything you also insist you know my position better than I do, so there's no point in debating it with you, other than just to point and laugh. Just typical eski-m.o.

I can only go off what you write. If you are failing to communicate your position that's your fault, not mine. I can't help but note that I was correct in saying that you will whine about being misrepresented but will not ever actually show how you've been misrepresented. This is because you're lying to cover up for saying something dumb.

I wasn't aware the scotus was advocating impeaching a president (elect)? Can you link us up? That's your nutty "solution". Notice that nobody else embraces that? A pretty good indicator......

Nonsensical statement.

It's OK that you've lost track, I can help. The number is the exact same number of times as you've misrepresented, misinterpreted or misstated my position and then argued against your imagined position for me, all the while telling me you know my position on the matter better than I do. There, that should help you keep track

Say something stupid kind of like "hey, we should impeach the president (who's not even the president yet) because he's failed to do something he's not required to do by law. You mean that kind of stupid?

Nope!

Good to know that saying "do nothing" and saying "I don't know what to do" are the same in your mind. That speaks for itself.

Since they both result in not doing anything they are in practice the same position. Nice try with the lying to cover up your mistake again though.

 

[sandorski]

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

Top 25 for sure!

 

[Darwin333]

At an absolute minimum put the company in the hands of an independent third party.

Frankly though, the excuse of 'I have to have massive and damaging conflicts of interest for the most powerful country in the world or else I would lose money' is one of the worst excuses ever.

Even in a blind trust he knows what he owns and so does everyone else. We are talking about property, not stocks and stuff. So if it's in a blind trust and some foreign ambassador rents the most expensive suite for a month Trump would still profit from it would he not? Wouldn't you still consider that a conflict of interest? Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to argue for or against him, just making a point.

I'm not exactly sure where I stand on the entire "family members must divest themselves of their businesses because their (insert family member) was elected to public position" thing yet. I understand the concerns and potential benefits but it still doesn't quite sit right with me. I'm not really comfortable in forcing someone to do something because someone else made a choice that they had no real say in. Also, what if it was an estranged son or brother who has nothing to do with the politician, why should they be forced to do anything because of a choice made by someone they don't even like?

 

[momeNt]

Even in a blind trust he knows what he owns and so does everyone else. We are talking about property, not stocks and stuff. So if it's in a blind trust and some foreign ambassador rents the most expensive suite for a month Trump would still profit from it would he not? Wouldn't you still consider that a conflict of interest? Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to argue for or against him, just making a point.

I'm not exactly sure where I stand on the entire "family members must divest themselves of their businesses because their (insert family member) was elected to public position" thing yet. I understand the concerns and potential benefits but it still doesn't quite sit right with me. I'm not really comfortable in forcing someone to do something because someone else made a choice that they had no real say in. Also, what if it was an estranged son or brother who has nothing to do with the politician, why should they be forced to do anything because of a choice made by someone they don't even like?

Actually they are saying that he divest totally. So that he basically would be left with nothing but the cash, and then invest THAT in a blind trust.

As to how you sell a brand, and at what price? Very difficult, how could the sale itself not open itself to unethical issues? What is the brand valuation based on? How did it get valuated the way it did and why?

It's just a big problem and I think the best course of action is to wait and see, and be ready to take action if something is corrupt.

Simply being able to impeach him because the potential exists is ludicrous, but you have people here actually endorsing that.

 

[Brainonska511]

Even in a blind trust he knows what he owns and so does everyone else. We are talking about property, not stocks and stuff. So if it's in a blind trust and some foreign ambassador rents the most expensive suite for a month Trump would still profit from it would he not? Wouldn't you still consider that a conflict of interest? Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to argue for or against him, just making a point.

That's why the OGE director was calling for total divestment in Trump's case.

 

[fskimospy]

Actually they are saying that he divest totally. So that he basically would be left with nothing but the cash, and then invest THAT in a blind trust.

As to how you sell a brand, and at what price? Very difficult, how could the sale itself not open itself to unethical issues? What is the brand valuation based on? How did it get valuated the way it did and why?

It's just a big problem and I think the best course of action is to wait and see, and be ready to take action if something is corrupt.

Simply being able to impeach him because the potential exists is ludicrous, but you have people here actually endorsing that.

No, you hand it over to someone else to sell for you. Nobody is saying he should be impeached because the potential exists, I'm saying he should be impeached for actively refusing to take any steps to limit his corruption outside of comically transparent token gestures.

 

[momeNt]

No, you hand it over to someone else to sell for you. Nobody is saying he should be impeached because the potential exists, I'm saying he should be impeached for actively refusing to take any steps to limit his corruption outside of comically transparent token gestures.

What corruption? Corruption stemming from the fact that he could use his powers as President to influence business deals? Is that corruption or the potential for corruption? You both denied then affirmed exactly what I said in the same sentence.

 

[Jhhnn]

What corruption? Corruption stemming from the fact that he could use his powers as President to influence business deals? Is that corruption or the potential for corruption? You both denied then affirmed exactly what I said in the same sentence.

Begin with a man whose whole life has been about corruption & greed. WTF do you think will happen, anyway?

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/this-is-why-you-dont-kiss-the-ring-1791079856

 

[fskimospy]

What corruption? Corruption stemming from the fact that he could use his powers as President to influence business deals? Is that corruption or the potential for corruption? You both denied then affirmed exactly what I said in the same sentence.

Foreign diplomats have already stated that they are staying in Trump branded properties to influence his behavior and curry favor. That's them exactly saying that they are putting money in his pocket to get what they want from him.

I'm seriously confused that you don't see how enormous an issue this is. I mean ethicists around the world, our own government, everyone is screaming at the top of their lungs how bad this is.

 

[momeNt]

Begin with a man whose whole life has been about corruption & greed. WTF do you think will happen, anyway?

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/this-is-why-you-dont-kiss-the-ring-1791079856

To arms my brothers!

Hopefully you are on the smart side of the 2nd amendment. I know I am.

 

[momeNt]

Foreign diplomats have already stated that they are staying in Trump branded properties to influence his behavior and curry favor. That's them exactly saying that they are putting money in his pocket to get what they want from him.

I'm seriously confused that you don't see how enormous an issue this is. I mean ethicists around the world, our own government, everyone is screaming at the top of their lungs how bad this is.

And will they?

Do you think Hillary would have been capable of separating a meeting in which she cashed a $250,000 check with the guy one time, and then the next time discuss policy? How is a $1,000 night stay in a hotel going to have any impact on a billionaire?

I'm just advocating to keep an eye out, and be ready, like me and Jhhnn are, to rise up with our arms and take back what is ours.

 

[fskimospy]

And will they?

Do you think Hillary would have been capable of separating a meeting in which she cashed a $250,000 check with the guy one time, and then the next time discuss policy? How is a $1,000 night stay in a hotel going to have any impact on a billionaire?

I'm just advocating to keep an eye out, and be ready, like me and Jhhnn are, to rise up with our arms and take back what is ours.

Uhmm, that didn't happen with Clinton though. Regardless, I would have argued that Clinton should shut down her foundation while president if that had come to pass.

As for $1,000 a night, are you seriously arguing that he can't be corrupted in that way because he's already rich? First, his own history shows he's willing to violate the law for extremely petty sums of money, (look at Trump University, all the shady self dealing with his charity, etc) second all of human history shows that rich people are just as easily corrupted as anyone else, maybe more easily.

Keeping your eye out isn't good enough because what he's doing is ensuring that you can't keep an eye out because you won't see it happening. You'll never know.