How is Pres Elect Trump supposed to handle his business?

Mevater

Sun, Nov 20 2016, 11:29 am

How is a Billionaire supposed to handle his worldwide business interests, during his Presidency?

Trump will be criticized for putting his children in charge of his business and claiming hes totally not involved.

What can Trump do to satisfy the law and himself?

Trump poised to violate Constitution his first day in office, George W. Bush’s ethics lawyer says
The Constitution doesn’t allow presidents to seek gifts from foreign agents.

Friday evening, the Washington Post reported that about 100 foreign diplomats gathered at President-elect Donald Trump’s hotel in Washington, DC to “to sip Trump-branded champagne, dine on sliders and hear a sales pitch about the U.S. president-elect’s newest hotel.” The tour included a look at the hotel’s $20,000 a night “town house” suite. The Post also quoted some of the diplomats saying they intended to stay at the hotel in order to ingratiate themselves to the incoming president.
“Why wouldn’t I stay at his hotel blocks from the White House, so I can tell the new president, ‘I love your new hotel!’” said one diplomat from an Asian nation. “Isn’t it rude to come to his city and say, ‘I am staying at your competitor?’”
The incoming president, in other words, is actively soliciting business from agents of foreign governments. Many of these agents, in turn, said that they will accept the president-elect’s offer to do business because they want to win favor with the new leader of the United States.
In an exclusive exchange with ThinkProgress, Richard Painter, a University of Minnesota law professor who previously served as chief ethics counsel to President George W. Bush, says that Trump’s efforts to do business with these diplomats is at odds with a provision of the Constitution intended to prevent foreign states from effectively buying influence with federal officials.
The Constitution’s “Emoluments Clause,” provides that “no person holding any office of profit or trust under” the United States “shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”
The diplomats’ efforts in seek Trump’s favor by staying in his hotel “looks like a gift,” Painter told ThinkProgress in an email, and thus is the very kind of favor the Constitution seeks to prevent.

https://thinkprogress.org/trum.....e1vdh

WhatFor

Sun, Nov 20 2016, 12:11 pm

Very simple. He already said all his business will be in a "blind trust" with his children. So he won't be profiting. Rolling Eyes

Seriously though (okay maybe half facetiously) per that clause, all he really needs is approval from Congress.

I could easily believe, though, actually, that Congress wouldn't mind if he violates the Constitution. He has angered so many Republicans, besides for the fact that anyone with half a brain can easily see that he's simply not qualified to hold office. With congress entirely Republican, it would be easy to sit back, wait a few minutes until Trump does something stupid, impeach him, and make Pence president. I imagine many in the house would prefer working with him.

WhatFor

Sun, Nov 20 2016, 12:44 pm

Squishy wrote:

Maybe he should do like Hillary and just solicit $156,000,000 directly for access to himself? Did anyone not know who was behind the Clinton Foundation?

The liberals are crying wolf way too often. Who is going to listen to them when there are real issues? Do you think if he placed his assets in a totally blind trust and changed the name of the hotel it would make a difference? The diplomats would still compli

Only if Trump abdicates before he takes the throne will this barrage stop.

Squishy, I'm sure you're capable of addressing the above issue without deflecting to Hillary. Hillary doesn't hold office and she's not our president elect. Is your argument that we shouldn't be concerned with a president elect seemingly on track to violate the Constitution because Hillary and the left? It's really not convincing me because at the end of the day, I think we still have an issue with a president elect seemingly on track to violate the Constitution.

FranticFrummie

Sun, Nov 20 2016, 12:51 pm

Trump said that he would give all the decisions over to his children, he never said he wouldn't profit from that. Since when did profit become a crime? He's already refused the presidential salary, what more do you want from the guy?

He knows that every choice he makes will be under a microscope, so if he wants to run the country and be a diplomat, he has to make sure that his business holdings are not an influence on his decisions.

He's not even officially in office yet, and the panic is ridiculous. Rolling Eyes

For those of you who are freaking out, maybe you should wear a safety pin. It might make you feel better. Confused

Mevater

Sun, Nov 20 2016, 12:53 pm

WhatFor wrote:

If governmental scrutiny, and power to destroy those of the opposing party, was even and fair, Donald Trump wouldnt have any worries. A good example is billionaire George Soros, who would do almost anything to destroy Trump. I dont think theres a Republican equivalent of George Soros. By and large, Democrats are way more into destroying Republicans than the other way around.

Only because of Wikileaks, all the democrats horses and men couldnt put guilty Hillary Humpty Dumpty together again.

33055

Sun, Nov 20 2016, 1:14 pm

WhatFor wrote:

Why don't we lock up everyone who is on track to commit a crime? We could lock up a bunch of minorities wholesale. There is no need to wait?

I am confused about how owning a business that someone may use is the same as soliciting gifts from a foreign government. The element of solicitation is missing. If DT said that he would not meet with anyone who didn't enrich his pockets, like she who will remain nameless, then you would have a point.

SixOfWands

Sun, Nov 20 2016, 1:24 pm

A blind trust is

Quote:

a financial arrangement in which a person in public office gives the administration of private business interests to an independent trust in order to prevent conflict of interest. Under the trust, the owner does not know how the assets are managed.

In other words, Trump would be entitled to profit from his business interests, but not to know how they are being handled.

In this case, Trump intends to allow his children to manage the business, calling it a "blind trust."

First question, is here an actual trust established?

Second, much to his credit, Trump seems to have an excellent relationship with all of his children, however bitter the relationship with their mothers. Is it really feasible that he will not have any knowledge of what they're doing?

Third, he has appointed his children to his transition team, and at least one (Ivanka) has already sat in on a preparatory meeting. A blind trust should not allow its trustees to have any governmental influence.

Fourth, in this case, because of the wind spread branding of the Trump name, even a blind trust is difficult. As others have noted, foreign dignataries may feel beholden to stay at Trump-branded hotels, or use Trump-branded products. There is also the question of government payments to Trump-owned facilities.

This is an issue that should have been discussed at greater length during the election, and which bears a lot of thought now. Particularly Republicans, who were vocally concerned about appearances of impropriety with respect to Clinton.

But really, I don't want to hear about Clinton. She's now a historical footnote. I want to hear about how the man who will be president as of January is going to handle this. How he will build a Chinese all betweeen himself and his children, and from knowledge of his business.

WhatFor

Sun, Nov 20 2016, 2:17 pm

Squishy wrote:

Your response is puzzling. Who said anything about locking people up? There is a legitimate question: The US president has billions of dollars in business tied up in foreign countries as well as in the US. How is he going to remove himself from his own interests when running the country to put the interest of the people ahead of his own?
This is something that should be of interest to all people in the US, regardless of whether you supported him or not. How is he going to do this?

He has not yet actually removed himself from his business, as he continues to hold business meetings. The element of solicitation is not missing when his brand hosted an event for foreign diplomats, and presented a sales pitch on his new hotel. This is a quote from one Asian diplomat:

Quote:

“Why wouldn’t I stay at his hotel blocks from the White House, so I can tell the new president, ‘I love your new hotel!’ Isn’t it rude to come to his city and say, ‘I am staying at your competitor?’ ” said one Asian diplomat.

Do you not see how his business could potentially become a conflict of interest?

WhatFor

Sun, Nov 20 2016, 2:22 pm

Squishy wrote:

Why don't we lock up everyone who is on track to commit a crime? We could lock up a bunch of minorities wholesale. There is no need to wait?

I just reread your post and caught that repulsive reference. That is disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself. The racism that has emerged across the nation since the election is not surprising. What keeps surprising me, over and over, is the racism that has emerged on this very website. We are all minorities on this site, Squishy.
It's not surprising to me, however, that Trump supporters find it difficult to justify his positions without resorting to tactics such as a deflecting to an irrelevant former candidate or distracting by espousing racist remarks.

WhatFor

Sun, Nov 20 2016, 3:46 pm

Fox wrote:

She was being sarcastic. Let me translate: just as we don't preemptively lock up members of various minorities because we believe they are likely to commit crimes, we shouldn't assume that successful business executives will automatically involve themselves in conflicts of interest.

Note to self: never, ever assume that people can detect sarcasm or irony. Rolling Eyes

I understood her sarcasm well, Fox. I took issue with her assertion that we believe that minorities are more likely to commit crimes. Many of us don't. That is racism.

The parallel is quite disturbing: The assumption that one might commit a crime because they were born to a minority race = the assumption that a president elect might have conflicts of interest and therefore be susceptible to crime because he has business tied up in foreign agencies.

Your eyeroll argument was quite compelling, but I'm not convinced.

ETA: The fact that minorities are more likely to be locked up is not sufficient evidence that they are more likely to commit crimes. Especially when, in some areas and cases, they are 10 times more likely than a white person to be arrested for the same crime.

Last edited by WhatFor on Sun, Nov 20 2016, 4:07 pm; edited 1 time in total

Fox

Sun, Nov 20 2016, 4:05 pm

WhatFor wrote:

I understood her sarcasm well, Fox. I took issue with her assertion that we believe that minorities are more likely to commit crimes. Many of us don't. That is racism.

Where did Squishy mention anything about racial minorities. There are plenty of minority populations that are more likely to commit crimes. Gang members, for example. Or ex-offenders. "Minority" does not necessarily refer to race.

This ridiculous insistence that everyone is a racist will, at this rate, ensure Trump a second term no matter how badly he does. Pinning the racist tag on people with meager evidence doesn't mean you aren't racist. It usually means you care more about virtue signaling than actual racism.

WhatFor

Sun, Nov 20 2016, 4:15 pm

Fox wrote:

Yeah, I'm sure she was talking about that protected minority class of gang members. Or that protected minority class of ex-offenders that we're constantly hearing so much about.

It would have been unreasonable to assume that she was referring to the groups more commonly referenced when one mentions the word "minority", specifically people of color, the immigrant population, the LGBTQ community, and certain religious minorities.

Nice attempt to shut me down by accusing me of "virtue signaling" rather than standing up for my friends and family members who are tired of being described as criminals based on their race. I won't stay silent when I see racism because I am a decent human being. And I make no apologies for that.

FranticFrummie

Sun, Nov 20 2016, 5:02 pm

Back on the subject...

Name me one president who wasn't problematic in some way. Nobody grows up in an immaculate vacuum.

Jefferson owned slaves. Kennedy slept with anyone who had an XX chromosome. I could go on and on. IMHO, owning a lot of very successful businesses falls pretty low on my list of concerns. Everyone has an agenda of some sort.

I'll judge this presidency as I see it unfolding, based on actions, not conjecture of doom and gloom.

Edited. Thanks for pointing that out, Sequoia! embarrassed

Last edited by FranticFrummie on Sun, Nov 20 2016, 8:30 pm; edited 1 time in total

33055

Sun, Nov 20 2016, 6:30 pm

WhatFor wrote:

The fact that certain groups are more likely to commit crimes is separate and apart from the fact they are punished disproportionately for the same crimes. Your logic is seriously flawed and has been so since throughout this thread.

The DOJ studies (and others) show that certain groups will commit more crimes than other groups. Where are your facts to back up that race and ethnicity is a neutral factor in group crime rates? You can't come up with facts because your assertions are absurd. Group norms differ amoung groups. This is different than the fact someone is born to a race. I don't expect you to understand that. That differentiation is too complex for you.

I am not the one who claims predictive powers of individuals who are on track to commit crime. That super power belongs to you. You didn't claim he was susceptible to committing crime. You claimed twice he was on track to commit said crimes.

Amarante

Sun, Nov 20 2016, 7:49 pm

A blind trust is impossible for the Trust business holdings because every other official who has put their holdings in a blind trust truly doesn't know what is in there or what the Trustee is doing because they own stock or bonds so the trustee buys and sells.

It is especially impossible for Trust to do so since he is asking for top security clearance for his children who would then be privy to the most insider of insider trading knowledge.

But what else can one expect from a man who was elected despite flouting the almost 50 year old tradition of providing tax returns. By his own actions, he would not be able to have been his own Vice President or serve in the Cabinet.

And I don't think any other President has been able to directly benefit knowingly his business interests in the way that Trump will be able to do especially since by not releasing his returns, no one has any idea of exactly what those interests are and who he owes money to.

Fox

Sun, Nov 20 2016, 8:21 pm

WhatFor wrote:

Nice attempt to shut me down by accusing me of "virtue signaling" rather than standing up for my friends and family members who are tired of being described as criminals based on their race. I won't stay silent when I see racism because I am a decent human being. And I make no apologies for that.

You didn't see racism. You saw somebody make the following comparison: people who assume that Trump will violate ethics standards are like people who assume certain minorities will commit crimes. They are both prone to stereotyping and prejudice.

Here's a little exercise: when you say Trump is "on track" to violate the Constitution, try substituting his name with "African Americans" or "Latinos" or "Native Americans". Do you see the problem? If you can't swap the group out without it becoming racist/sexist/whatever-ist, then you are the one promoting stereotypes and prejudices.

I personally happen to believe that all of us are somewhat racist/tribalist -- even when we work hard not be be. In fact, there's evidence that our brains are hard-wired to be distrustful of people who don't look like us. With due respect to South Pacific, we don't have to be "carefully taught" to hate; we have to be carefully taught not to hate.

When you accuse someone of racism because you disagree with her metaphor, you are actually hurting your friends and family members. You are participating in an excercise that ensures that they and you will be less likely to be taken seriously when confronted with real racism.

We are now at a point where many people no longer care if they're called racists -- they've been called racists or seen others called racists so many times and on such ridiculous grounds that they simply shrug, as if you'd called them vampires. Sure, fine, whatever. If you care about combating racism, don't let the epithet lose its meaning.

As for President-elect Trump and potential conflicts of interest, I'm not sure why he's different than any other president. Every president enters the office with a history of favors done and favors owed; allegiances to people who got him elected; people with whom he has to curry favor and people who want to curry favor with him.

I'm sure there will be people who think they can influence President-elect Trump by staying at his hotel; sending gifts to his kids; being nice to his wife; or whatever crazy scheme they hatch. It will be up to him to do as much as possible to discourage the notion that he will engage in pay-for-play practices. To his detriment in these matters, he is often naive about how things appear. To his credit, he doesn't mind offending people or making them mad. We'll have to wait and see how he handles it.