How is Pres Elect Trump supposed to handle his business?

PinkFridge

Mon, Nov 21 2016, 11:51 am

WhatFor wrote:

Okay, but straight serious answer to the original post: What can Trump do? He can liquidate his assets and put them in a blind trust.
From what I understand he's not likely to do that though, because a lot of the value of his assets is actually in his brand name (Trump) so when he liquidates his assets, the value of his brand automatically goes down because there's no more value to that name.

I'm not following this at all. (But I'll be happy to start a rumor that he met with Romney to create some sort of world-wide financial monopoly that we will not be able to escape bwahahaha.)
Now in theory I understand the concept of his brand value automatically going down but
a) how involved was he actually in the running of any of these companies anyway? Isn't that the Trump U defense?
b) the name now belongs to the president elect. Wouldn't that only add to the cachet?

Laiya

Mon, Nov 21 2016, 12:06 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

They are all on the executive committee of his transition team.

Nothing wrong with that. So long as they're not also going to be the administrator's of his so-called "blind trust."

They can, presumably, administer his assets through a blind trust (although there are difficulties there). But then they can't have anything to do with government.

That's the choice. He can't have both.

He already indicated that he's aware of the issue, and that white house counsel will ensure there are no conflicts of interest.

Being on the transition team does not necessarily mean having security clearance. (edited for clarity)

Fox

Mon, Nov 21 2016, 12:41 pm

I'm sort of interested in the reports coming from MSM and conservative media that Jared Kushner is likely to have a more influential role in a Trump administration than any of the kids.

Not sure if that's good, bad, or both. The problem with "outsider" presidents is that they're outsiders. They don't have the political relationships needed to get things done, and if they truly "drain the swamp," they're left with, um, a dried-out swamp. Kushner doesn't have a political career to protect, but neither does he have any experience in politics. Not having a history of favors done and owed comes at a price.

Anyway, while all right-thinking people agree that Milo should be press secretary (fashion questions on Tuesdays, remember!), surely we can all agree that Kanye West should be given a prominent role, too.

Instead of boring State of the Union speeches and similar solemn presidential addresses, a Kanye concert would be televised and he'd just rant whatever information needed to be shared. Then he'd complain about Beyonce, thus enraging Anderson Cooper. A no-lose situation for America and the world, I'd say!

Ooh, and Kim trying to upstage Melania and Ivanka? Ladies, we'd be so entertained we wouldn't even notice the economy or international relations or whatever issues are dear to our hearts.

Miri7

Mon, Nov 21 2016, 12:48 pm

Fox wrote:

Oh, I hadn't thought of Kanye doing the state of the Union. Brilliant!

Miri7

Mon, Nov 21 2016, 1:15 pm

To be specific about how it does make sense to say DT is "on track" to be in violation of law, take the example of the new Trump International Hotel in DC. Just last week, the hotel hosted an event for foreign diplomats to sell them on the hotel. Now, that's fine for any DC hotel to do. That's fine for DT to do as a private citizen. That is NOT ok once he takes office.

Foreign diplomats know this is his hotel and may choose to stay there in order to curry favor. As one attendee said:

"“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."

Link to article: https://www.washingtonpost.com.....19G=c

So, given this marketing of the Trump brand hotel directly to the representatives of foreign governments a mere two months before he takes office, I think that it's reasonable to say that DT is on course to violate the law. We have not heard that he's planning on selling the hotel.

This is compounded by the fact that this is a DC hotel, not one in Los Angeles or Anchorage. This hotel will come into play when foreign diplomats are visiting DC to do business with our government.

Regarding the rest of his business, his situation is unique as previous presidents assets haven't been a personal brand. Short of divesting himself completely, it's difficult to make the case that there can be anything like a blind trust as it will be clear to DT and the world what new ventures the Trump organization is undertaking. Foreign governments enamgaged in negotiations with the federal government will know that giving favors to Trump org is directly benefitting and personally enriching our President. Even giving DT and his kids the benefit of the doubt and assuming they never talk about business together, there isn't any way to make DT's assets "blind" to DT or the rest of the world short of his divesting himself of all interest in the business. This is a big problem and does deserve a lot of attention.

SixOfWands

Mon, Nov 21 2016, 1:48 pm

Miri7 wrote:

Its a problem. It needs to be dealt with. I've no idea how, though.

In the meantime, there are reports coming out of Argentina that when Argentine President Mauricio Macri called President-Elect Trump to congratulate him on his election, Trump asked Macri to deal with permitting issues that are currently holding a Trump project in Argentina. Now, I know that Trump supporters are going to claim its a lie. But that's not the point. The point is that Trump needs to immediately deal with these issues, and divorce himself from his businesses entirely, in order to avoid these issues, or the appearance of these issues. The procedures should have been ready to go, and the trigger pulled on November 9.

33055

Mon, Nov 21 2016, 3:12 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

USA Today, hardly a Trump supporter, carries the denial. How can Trump possibly protect himself from lies like this? That is the point.

There is no Constitutional requirement that presidents and vice-presidents put their assets into blind trusts. FDR and Rockefeller did not do so. The founders of our nation were the Trumps of their day. Congress declined to impose a blind trust on Rockefeller's assets when Rockefeller was confirmed as Ford's VP because it is not Constitutionally required. Do you think it is even remotely possible to divorce Rockefeller from Standard Oil? Any thinking person will realize the fiction of a blind trust in these cases.

I have no idea what triggers you think should be in place. Do you think there is some law of the land higher than the Constitution that applies only to Donald Trump?

WhatFor

Wed, Nov 23 2016, 5:48 pm

Squishy wrote:

I have been the one saying you cannot predict someones behavior. You can't predict anyone's future behavior based on their behavior right now. You certainly can't predict based on race or ethnicity. Why can't you understand that? Parole boards know they can't predict who will commit future crimes and they have a lot more experience over a bigger population. No one is on track to commit crimes unless they are actually in the process of breaking the law like your person A.

I was being extremely sarcastic when I said to lock em up based on minority status. That being said, there are group norms which differ between groups. I don't believe it is because someone is born that way, so don't even start that again.

Since you agree with Fox now to give him.a chance, her work here is done.

You actually asserted that people's race/ethnicity is indicative of their propensity to commit crimes and then tried to back it up by posting "data" from a white supremacist site. But whatever.

To your last comment, I don't agree with Fox. I just acknowledged the existence of various opinions. I'm not sure what you mean that "her work here is done". Was the entire purpose of her posting on this thread to try to get me to agree with her opinion? I can't speak for Fox, but if her previous postings are any indication, I think she appreciates a diversity of viewpoints.

Fox

Wed, Nov 23 2016, 6:31 pm

WhatFor wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean that "her work here is done". Was the entire purpose of her posting on this thread to try to get me to agree with her opinion? I can't speak for Fox, but if her previous postings are any indication, I think she appreciates a diversity of viewpoints.

How can my work be done when it's nearly Thanksgiving and the foot-dragging Trump transition team has yet to appoint Kanye to a post in the new administration?

Even if you're not a Kardashian fan, and I'm not, the prospect of Kim and her family sashaying around Washington throwing shade at Melania and Ivanka is simply too delicious to pass up.

There was recently a post on my Facebook feed that said, "George Orwell was right. He just didn't anticipate that we'd be buying the cameras ourselves and worrying that not enough people were watching."

amother

Seashell

Wed, Nov 23 2016, 6:44 pm

Fox wrote:

I know jokes aren't funny once explained, but I'm really curious about this kanye west thing. I know he's a singer, and he was recently hospitalized for a nervous breakdown supposedly, but what does he have to do with Trump??

youngishbear

Wed, Nov 23 2016, 7:06 pm

Fox wrote:

I don't find the K's worthy of a moment of my attention, but the thought of someone - anyone! - who isn't Trump giving the SOTU address makes me reconsider.

Can you find the source for this last quote? It made my day. LOL

33055

Wed, Nov 23 2016, 7:30 pm

WhatFor wrote:

That is an incredible twisting of my words. Wow!!! I don't think you understand how statistics work and how they cannot be used to predict any individuals behavior. As I have stated, no one can predict behavior. No one is on track to commit a crime even if they are a convicted felon already incarcerated.

You statements that Trump is "on track to violate the Constitution" is simply nonsense. 1. Back to that same old pesky fact that you can't predict future behavior.
2. Back to the other pesky fact that there is no Constitutional requirement that he put his assets in a blind trust.
3. Back to the illogical jump that he will be seeking gifts from foreign governments (the only Constitutional violation I see mentioned here) because a diplomat chooses to stay at his hotel. Presumably, everyone who pays to stay overnight in his hotel doesn't get access to the President.
That someone will choose to pay for a service his business provides morfs into Trump himself seeking gifts in your scenario. This isn't a pay for play democratic scheme. Trump doesn't have the required intent to seek gifts by owning a hotel that someone could stay at.

Besides not being required, a blind trust in this case could not truly be blind even with independent trustees.

If I did inadvertently cite to a White Supremacist site, the underlying data is from the US DOJ which I learned about in a graduate program. I got into this part of the discussion being facetious about predicting crime. Fox said it better calling it tribal characteristics. A liberal bastion graduate school I attended refers to it as group norms.

I thought you said that it was fair to give DT time and see what happens. This is unlike your up-thread statements that he is on track to commit crimes. I thought Fox was being reasonable and you were also at that point in time.

I can't speak for Fox either as to why she posts or what she appreciates.

Fox

Wed, Nov 23 2016, 7:53 pm

amother wrote:

During a recent concert, he treated the audience to a 40-minute rant about the fact that he didn't vote, but had he voted, he would have voted for Trump. Then he complained a bit about Jay-Z and Beyonce.

Of course, the jokes nearly make themselves: "What's wrong with Kanye?" "Well, in California, voting for Trump is enough to land you in the hospital for an evaluation."

Squishy wrote:

can't speak for Fox either as to why she posts

Because Yael hasn't thrown me off the forum yet for using up too much server space.

Squishy wrote:

or what she appreciates.

Caramel corn

youngishbear wrote:

Can you find the source for this last quote? It made my day.

I'll look. I'm not so adept on Facebook, though. I was a latecomer to that party.

amother

Seashell

Wed, Nov 23 2016, 8:00 pm

Fox wrote:

33055

Wed, Nov 23 2016, 8:26 pm

Fox wrote:

Squishy wrote:
can't speak for Fox either as to why she posts

Because Yael hasn't thrown me off the forum yet for using up too much server space.

Hysterical Rolling Laughter

WhatFor

Wed, Nov 23 2016, 9:20 pm

Let's rehash:

Whatfor:

Quote:

You actually asserted that people's race/ethnicity is indicative of their propensity to commit crimes and then tried to back it up by posting "data" from a white supremacist site. But whatever.

Squishy:

Quote:

I understand how statistics work. Based on your response to my post, I can only assume that you didn't actually understand the meaning of the words I wrote because your post was not responsive to mine.

Propensity means "an inclination or natural tendency to behave in a particular way."

So WhatFor said,

Quote:

"Squishy said that people's race or ethnicity indicates that someone might have a natural tendency to behave in a particular way."

And Squishy said,

Quote:

"That is an incredible twisting of my words. Wow!!! I don't think you understand how statistics work and how they cannot be used to predict any individuals behavior."

So let's backtrack. How did WhatFor come up with the idea that Squishy said that someone's race or ethnicity is indicative of someone's natural tendency to behave a certain way?

The original post that set this off, was this:

Quote:

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?

Now sarcasm or not, that looks like someone is insinuating that minorities are likely to commit crimes. But let's accept your argument that you didn't mean it that way. (Translation: This does not mean that I actually believe that you didn't mean it that way. It means that for the purposes of this discussion, it's irrelevant, because my argument can stand without even using this particular quote.)

What else did Squishy write that gave WhatFor the idea that Squishy believes that race or ethnicity is indicative that someone might have a natural tendency to behave a certain way?

Well, let's see:

Squishy wrote this:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

I cited DOJ studies showing that certain minorities are more likely to commit crimes. You cited nothing. You gave your personal opinion and stated it as such. Your rebuttal ignored the DOJ study, and then re-stated your personal opinion as fact but didn't back it up with any facts.

(Just a little tip on that last one, you actually didn't cite to a DOJ study. Citing doesn't mean what you think it means. It means actually posting the source. You may have posted a source via a White Supremacist website, but as previously stated, I won't be trafficking that site.)

So how did WhatFor come to the conclusion that Squishy said that people's race or ethnicity indicates that someone might have a natural tendency to behave in a particular way (specifically to commit crimes)? Just, you know, all those quotes above, where Squishy wrote that

Quote:

certain minorities are more likely to commit crimes

.

2- I never claimed that there was a Constitutional requirement that he put his assets in a blind trust but your statement is noted, thanks for sharing.

3- It's irrelevant whether he will be seeking gifts from Foreign Governments, because the Constitutional Clause states he's not allowed to "accept" gifts from Foreign Governments. Aside from that, it seems like you're interpreting the word "gift" very literally, so here's a little information about myself to help you understand this. I worked for the U.S. Department of Justice. (I no longer do, and nothing I say here reflects the opinion of the DOJ) For the duration of my employment there, I was not allowed to accept "gifts" from anyone related to any cases I was working on. A "gift" even meant a $20 token of appreciation. I couldn't do business with them. I was even limited to the kind of work I could do outside of the Department of Justice, because if the work I was doing outside of the Department of Justice was the kind that could even hypothetically wind up before the department I was in within the Department of Justice, it could be a conflict of interest. So when we’re talking about “gift” over here, it doesn’t mean only those things that are wrapped up in a bow and given to you on your birthday or on your holiday. The US Code defines this for us, as follows: ““gift” means a tangible or intangible present (other than a decoration) tendered by, or received from, a foreign government.” 5 U.S. Code § 7342 (a) (3) (also, that is what a citation looks like.) This is a link to access the text: https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...../7342
A good president will want to foster trust among the people and will take reasonable steps to minimize the appearance that he is taking a gift. That is why, in recent times, Presidents would put their assets into blind trusts- because then the people the President is serving can trust that the President is not making decisions to pad his own pocket at their expense.
So back to the original post, you know the one where foreign diplomats are being encouraged to stay at the President-elect’s hotels during his reign as President? Who do you think is paying for foreign diplomats to come here and meet with the President? Isn’t it more than plausible to assume that that funding would be coming from…Foreign Governments? And who is going to be on the receiving end of this income? Isn’t it plausible to believe that it might be…the man who has been non-stop boasting his success building this hotel? (Translation: I’m using the word “plausible” ironically. If you’re going to latch onto that word to say that I’m making a leap that Donald Trump will be profiting from the Trump hotel he’s been boasting about on Pennsylvania Avenue, it will just seem silly.)
So that’s what I meant when shortly after the original post I wrote that he was on track to commit a crime by violating the Constitution.
I anticipate you’re going to argue that he’s allowed to do business with whomever he wants and it’s not taking a gift. He can try doing whatever he wants. When he’s in power and there are representatives of foreign governments putting money into his pocket using his hotel as a channel (“we were just staying at his hotel!”) it won’t take long before someone hauls him into court, because he will be giving them good reason to do so. Even assuming that he doesn’t charge more than a regular fee for foreign diplomats, any businessman will tell you that “the customer is always right” and any businessman knows that success depends on the customers’ happiness. So how is that going to work when he has to negotiate foreign policy with his customer base?
As to your assertion that he “can’t” put his assets in a blind trust—of course he can. He can sell all of his assets, place them in a trust, and not have anything to do with them until the expiration of his presidency. Is that too much to expect of someone? Frankly, nah. I don’t think it’s too much to ask that the President of the U.S. divest from their conflicting interests before taking office. If it’s too much for them—if their business takes priority—that’s totally understandable. But in that case, just don’t run for president of the U.S. Because the President of the U.S. should be able to put the interests of the nation ahead of his own.

Laiya

Wed, Nov 23 2016, 10:00 pm

Arguably, let's say Tump sells all his shares in his 500 or however many subsidiaries of his privately held corporation, to his kids.

Would that actually satisfy anyone? They'll argue that he wants to do good by his kids, so it's still a conflict. Regardless of whether his kids have any role (paid or unpaid) in his administration.

Now if he AND his kids ALL sold their interests in all of their businesses, the companies' values would immediately decline because an inherent part of the value is the name. A Trump Hotel, for example, with no Trumps involved, would have to be sold for a steep discount.

This is not nearly comparable to Obama buying Tbills. Since Trump is worth a few billion dollars, this depreciation--if buyers for his businesses were even found--could end up costing him hundreds of millions of dollars.

That doesn't strike me as fair, and I am curious to see how his lawyers will advise him on this.

33055

Wed, Nov 23 2016, 11:16 pm

Laiya wrote:

The reason I say it is not practical for him enter his assets into a blind trust is the size of his assets. If it has the Trump name, it is obviously his. If the trustee goes to sell, his assets can move markets. Anyone who puts their mind to it will know what is owned in the blind trust. Any large sale of his assets will have a corresponding large purchase of other assets. It is tough to hide billions.

Imagine how much more those that are carrying on about a foreigner staying at his hotel will carry on if he sold said hotel to a foreigner. They will claim he is accepting gifts and the hotel was only worth X, but he got X+Y.

I think rather than his net worth declining in a firesale, I think it will greatly appreciate because it is an excellent way to help out a President-elect-in-need.

I don't see how either way solves the ethics problem.

33055

Wed, Nov 23 2016, 11:36 pm

WhatFor wrote:

Let's rehash:

Whatfor:

Quote:

You actually asserted that people's race/ethnicity is indicative of their propensity to commit crimes and then tried to back it up by posting "data" from a white supremacist site. But whatever.

Squishy:

Quote:

"Squishy said that people's race or ethnicity indicates that someone might have a natural tendency to behave in a particular way."

And Squishy said,

Quote:

"That is an incredible twisting of my words. Wow!!! I don't think you understand how statistics work and how they cannot be used to predict any individuals behavior."

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

certain minorities are more likely to commit crimes

1. I don't believe, never thought, and never stated that race or ethnicity indicates that someone has a NATURAL TENDENCY to behave a certain way (specifically to commit crimes).

Where did you get the words NATURAL TENDENCIES? Are they from the White Supremacist site that you knew about?

I can't figure out if you are twisting my words deliberately or you just don't understand.

I believe that people are socialized to their tribal characteristics/group norms/ethnic identifies. I do NOT believe they are created that way.

2. The above goes for your twisting of statistics.

3. You are positing that a costumer stays at his hotel. To make said costumer happy, he gives diplomatic concessions instead of a chocolate on his pillow ??????

I am leaning towards you not understanding.

WhatFor

Wed, Nov 23 2016, 11:40 pm

Laiya wrote:

Selling his assets to his children is unlikely to be considered a blind trust, so you're correct- people would probably be unsatisfied with that.

As far as whether it is "fair" or not, all Presidents of the U.S., equally, should remove themselves from conflicts of interest. Does that mean that an individual with more potential conflicts may have to more to lose when taking on the role of President of the US? Of course that could mean that. But that would only be unfair if he was forced into the position of the President of the U.S.
He voluntarily chose to run for one of the most prestigious positions in the world. In this position, he has an obligation to serve the people of the U.S.
At the same time, as the CEO of a company (or as an Executive member), he actually has fiduciary obligations to the shareholders. Meaning, by regulation, if a good financial opportunity comes his way, he should be working in the best interest of his business.
I think the OP example is a good one. But outside of that, it's not difficult to see where things might quickly conflict. For example, say he wants to build a large set of condos in a country but there's a bunch of red tape to get past and that country's regulations ban building in that area (let's say it's a conservation space). But if the President of the U.S. wants to build a set of condos, how much easier will it be to jump through all those hoops and get that exception for those condos. Would that be considered accepting a gift? It can get even more complicated when he requires permission from a government to build somewhere and that government also wants something from the U.S. (We think the US tax on our country's import is too high). Of course those last few are hypotheticals but they're not "crazy" hypotheticals.
Trump is in the business of building condos. Every time he wants to build in another country, he needs permission from some level of government official...and so it goes.

None of this is to say that he has to be some cruel and evil person to do this. He simply has to keep doing what he's doing, being a businessman, and he's easily going to wind up having to consider whose interests to put first: his corporation's or the nation's.