politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Trump says the president 'can't have a conflict of interest' and that selling his empire would be a 'really hard thing to do' – as he complains if it were up to some people 'I would never, ever see my daughter Ivanka'
Source:
Daily Mail Online
URL Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art ... erseas-conflicts-interest.html
Published: Nov 22, 2016
Author: Geoff Earle, Deputy U.s. Political Edito
Post Date: 2016-11-22 17:48:16 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 12921
Comments: 27
President-elect Donald Trump is brushing back at critics who want him to liquidate his real estate empire and put professional distance between himself his closest family members to avoid potential conflicts of interest – saying if it was up to some people 'I would never, ever see my daughter Ivanka again.' Trump's pushback came in an interview with staff members of the New York Times Tuesday afternoon, where he addressed some of the swirling questions about how he will structure his business relationships during the transition and his presidency. Asked about simply selling his empire of hotels and golf courses, Trump said, 'That’s a really hard thing to do, because I have real estate.' As he did during the campaign, Trump said: 'My company's so unimportant to me relative to what I'm doing.' President-elect Donald Trump is blasting the media for focusing on his business dealings, and says liquidating his business is 'a really hard thing to do' But so far he is refusing to liquidate the business, and has yet to announce steps to remove himself from its operation. The last plan he announced was to have three of his adult children, Eric, Ivanka, and Donald Trump Jr., run the company while he is president. Trump brushed off criticisms that having his children in such a prominent role could allow for conflicts. 'If it were up to some people, I would never, ever see my daughter Ivanka again,' the president-elect said. Trump noted that laws setting up severe limitations on federal government employee conduct in business do not apply to the president, saying, 'The law's totally on my side, the president can't have a conflict of interest,' Trump said. In other comments, Trump gave the impression that he has not yet decided on how to handle the task of providing separation with his company, which in financial disclosures he has valued at more than $10 billion. 'I'd assumed that you'd have to set up some type of trust or whatever and you don't,' Trump told the reporters and editors. 'I would like to do something.' He also stated: 'In theory I could run my business perfectly and then run the country perfectly. There's never been a case like this.' Trump's comments were his most extensive on the pressing topic since the election. He hasn't given a press conference since he got elected. Trump responded to a series of reports about his overseas business dealings Monday night by bashing the media and arguing the public had already been forewarned. 'Prior to the election it was well known that I have interests in properties all over the world. Only the crooked media makes this a big deal!' Trump wrote. The article quoted media consultant Andy Wigmore, who was present at the meeting, as saying: 'He did not say he hated wind farms as a concept; he just did not like them spoiling the views.' Wigmore said the president-elect 'did suggest that we should campaign on it' and 'spurred us in and we will be going for it' in a campaign in England, Scotland, and Wales. Trump's transition denied to the paper that the conversation happened, but Trump said in Tuesday's interview with the Times, 'I might have brought it up.' Atul and Sagar Chordia and Kalpesh Mehta meet with President-elect Donald Trump at Trump Tower If accurate – the Trump transition has denied the conversation happened – it would be only the latest example of business intruding on Trump's time since the November 8 elections. Trump met last week with Indian business partners in one of his luxury hotel projects, the Economic Times of India reported. Ivanka, Eric, and Donald Trump Jr. were present in the meeting, the outlet reported. Trump said during the campaign that he would put his company into a 'blind trust' if elected, although he also has said he would turn over the country to his children, which would make its status less than blind. Ethics groups are demanding that Trump establish a 'clear firewall' with his children over business matters The letter was signed by leading ethics watchdogs in Washington 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: cranky (#0)
TRUMP shouldn't have to sell nothing. All you asshole crybabies who didn't get your way can stfu. After his 8 years as president, he'll still need his empire to hand down to family. This capitalist society needs the rich Trumps just as bad as the working poor. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
The losers do not get to set the terms by which Trump lives. He will set aside management to his children, he will run the country, meet with his children when he wants to, and if he discusses business with them then, that's his business, not the country's. He should never release his tax returns, simply because his opponents are demanding it.
What was it Nixon said? "If the President does it, it can't be against the law"? Something like that. Trump reminds me of that remark.
If Nixon had had a Republican Congress, he would have been right.
Or if a constitutional republic could be a monarchy, he could be right.
The letter does not appear to cite any law whatever. It cites an "ethical imperative."
It may be based on the Emoluments Clause. But, if so, it's probably misapplied.
Disinformation. No one is telling him to sell his businesses. They are just demanding he put them all in blind trusts until he leaves office in order to avoid the charges of setting public policy for personal profits. And I hope they keep his feet to the fire on this one. Putting your daughter in charge of your businesses is NOT putting them in a blind trust. BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO! ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
Everybody here already knows you are a moron. You don't need to keep proving it. BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO! ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
WRONG! This is what every other president in modern times has done,and it's done for multiple reasons,all of them good. He will set aside management to his children, he will run the country, meet with his children when he wants to, and if he discusses business with them then, that's his business, not the country's. You are a Jesuit,ain't ya? Nobody else can twist themselves into knots to justify their own immorality like the Jesuits. BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO! ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
The only President we've ever had as rich and powerful as Trump BEFORE he came into office was George Washington. Precedent isn't law. There is no precedent for a billionaire taking the presidency. There certainly is a precedent for politicians disclosing their tax returns: Trump never did. He got elected anyway, and there's no law that says he has to. Given that Congressmen engage in egregious conflicts of interest but don't apply the laws to themselves, I don't care if Trump puts his businesses into a blind trust or not. If it's necessary, then Congress can pass laws that bind the whole government. If they won't, well, then Trump can do as he pleases.
I do not see immorality in the failure to follow precedent. I don't see immorality in self-interest. I don't see immorality in the desire to have one's family run a business. I don't see immorality in the refusal to pay taxes. I see immorality in the trail of dead people that follows the Clintons. I see immorality in taking contributions from foreign leaders as payment for influence.
Was that the best you got, faggot patriarch? I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
There is no moral or legal requirement dor the President to be required to use a blind trust. I already told you this. When you were still delusional saying Trump was not really running and that he was going to drop put.
WRONG! This is what every other president in modern times has done, If you check it out, Pete, you will find that you are wrong. While “most” presidents in modern times created a blind trust, not “every other” president in modern times has done it. I won’t bother to look it up, but I would need to check back no further than the present time and find one notable exception….is Barack Obama. Time will tell, but I think we will find out that:
Please identify the law that is allegedly violated by not putting the Trump business assets and investments in a blind trust as demanded.
That they may have done something does not make it required by law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section9 Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8: Note that the emoluments clause only involves an item given by a king, prince, or foreign state; foreign governments, not all foreign sources. History suggests that it applies to appointed positions and not to elected positions. What about the Legislative Branch? In 1792, the Senate asked Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton to compile a list of all persons holding Offices . . . under the United States and their salaries. Hamilton’s 1793 response included nonelected officials in each branch, including the Legislative Branch. The question whether this category, and therefore the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause, reaches any or all federal elected positions—i.e., Representative, Senator, Vice President, President, and presidential elector—poses a difficult interpretive challenge. For example, Hamilton’s list did not include members of Congress or any other elected state or federal positions. Likewise, George Washington, while President, accepted and kept two diplomatic gifts, but he never asked for or received congressional consent. However, subsequent presidents, such as Andrew Jackson, in similar circumstances, sought congressional consent. Whose practice should we rely on? Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. An "assigned duty" or "function." Synonyms are "post", "appointment", "situation", "place", "position", and "office" commonly suggests a position of (especially public) trust or authority. Also right to exercise a public function or employment, and to take the fees and emoluments belonging to it. A public charge or employment, and he who performs the duties of the office is an officer. Although an office is an employment, it does not follow that every employment is an office. A man may be employed under a contract, express or implied, to do an act, or to perform a service, without becoming an officer. But, if the duty be a continuing one, which is defined by rule prescribed by the government, which an individual is appointed by the government to perform, who enters upon the duties appertain to his status, without any contract defining them, it seems very difficult to distinguish such a charge or employment from an office, or the person who performs the duty from an officer. In the constitutional sense, the term implies an authority to exercise some portion of the sovereign power, either in making, executing, or administering the laws. Elected positions are not conferred by the government. They are conferred by the people.
No,but there should be. Anyone that doesn't think this won't give the Dims grounds to rally protests for every decision he makes by claiming he made the decisions to enrich himself is a fool. If he doesn't go the blind trust route,Trump Inc is going to make the Clinton Foundation look like shop lifters by comparison when it comes to selling access and legislation. BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO! ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
Bathhouse Barry HAD investments before going to the WH? Yeah,he had bribe money hidden here and there,but no money he could actually claim until he became a US Senator,and above arrest. Given that he was only a US Senator for the blink of an eye before becoming "The Savior of 'murika",he didn't have a whole lot of time or enough influence to bank any money. Granted,he has banked MILLIONS for selling his office since taking it,but blind trusts are for money made BEFORE becoming president. BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO! ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
Please swell up and explode from your own magnificent pompous gas explosion. What part of the word "CUSTOM" is it that you don't understand,gas bag? BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO! ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
That they may have done something does not make it required by law. That is true,but Presidential blind trusts are required by CUSTOM,and if you have nothing to hide,you have no reason to not follow custom when it comes to putting your finances in a blind trust because people are elected to the office of President to serve the country,NOT serve themselves. A sitting President should do whatever he or she needs to do to avoid even a suggestion of conflict of interest when it comes to the bills they sign or suggest. BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO! ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
I don't know of any such law nor do I recall claiming any such a law exists.
I can't help it if you are a senile old fucking idiot.
Perhaps he should do, or refrain from doing, many things. That does not make doing such things prohibited or illegal. Presidential blind trusts are not required, just as the release of tax returns is not required.
Well, what is their right to demand that Trump put all his business assets and investments in a blind trust? It seems like the right to demand that he release his tax returns.
I'm not sure anyone has such a right although I understand the rationale for wanting Trump to put all his assets in a blind trust. Personally, I fully expect Trump to do what Trump thinks is best for Trump, whatever he thinks that might be.
Better that than a giant human fart. BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO! ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
#2. To: cranky (#0)
#3. To: Vicomte13 (#2)
The losers do not get to set the terms by which Trump lives.
#4. To: cranky (#3)
#5. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
If Nixon had had a Republican Congress, he would have been right.
#6. To: cranky (#3)
"If the President does it, it can't be against the law"?
#7. To: nolu chan (#6)
The letter does not appear to cite any law whatever.
#8. To: cranky (#0)
President-elect Donald Trump is brushing back at critics who want him to liquidate his real estate empire and put professional distance between himself his closest family members to avoid potential conflicts of interest
#9. To: GrandIsland (#1)
TRUMP shouldn't have to sell nothing. All you asshole crybabies who didn't get your way can stfu.
#10. To: Vicomte13 (#2)
He will set aside management to his children, he will run the country, meet with his children when he wants to, and if he discusses business with them then, that's his business, not the country's.
#11. To: sneakypete (#10)
#12. To: sneakypete (#10)
You are a Jesuit,ain't ya? Nobody else can twist themselves into knots to justify their own immorality like the Jesuits.
#13. To: sneakypete (#9)
(Edited)
Everybody here already knows you are a moron. You don't need to keep proving it.
#14. To: sneakypete (#8)
#15. To: sneakypete, Vicomte13 (#10)
(Edited)
He will set aside management to his children, he will run the country, meet with his children when he wants to, and if he discusses business with them then, that's his business, not the country's.
He [Trump] will set aside management to his children, he will run the country, meet with his children when he wants to …
Of course you know there is no federal law requiring presidents to create a blind trust…I only mention this for those who read this thread and do not know.
#16. To: sneakypete, cranky (#8)
They are just demanding he put them all in blind trusts until he leaves office in order to avoid the charges of setting public policy for personal profits.
#17. To: sneakypete, Vicomte13, cranky (#10)
WRONG! This is what every other president in modern times has done,and it's done for multiple reasons,all of them good.
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, 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.
Scope. However, the text of the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause is not limited to American ambassadors or even to American diplomatic personnel. Instead, the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause applies to Offices of Profit or Trust under the United States: a substantially wider category. It is undisputed that this category applies to all officials holding appointed positions in the Judicial and Executive Branches of the national government.
Office. A right, and correspondent duty, to exercise a public trust. A public charge or employment. An employment on behalf of the government in any station or public trust, not merely transient, occasional, or incidental. The most frequent occasions to use the word arise with reference to a duty and power conferred on an individual by the government; and, when this is the connection, "public office" is a usual and more discriminating expression. But a power and duty may exist without immediate grant from government, and may be properly called an "office;" as the office of executor. Here the individual acts towards legatees in performance of a duty, and in exercise of a power not derived from their consent, but devolved on him by an authority which quoad hoc is superior.
#18. To: A K A Stone (#14)
There is no moral or legal requirement dor the President to be required to use a blind trust.
#19. To: Gatlin (#15)
If you check it out, Pete, you will find that you are wrong. While “most” presidents in modern times created a blind trust, not “every other” president in modern times has done it. I won’t bother to look it up, but I would need to check back no further than the present time and find one notable exception….is Barack Obama.
#20. To: nolu chan (#16)
Please identify the law that is allegedly violated by not putting the Trump business assets and investments in a blind trust as demanded.
#21. To: nolu chan (#17)
WRONG! This is what every other president in modern times has done,and it's done for multiple reasons,all of them good.
#22. To: nolu chan (#16)
Please identify the law that is allegedly violated by not putting the Trump business assets and investments in a blind trust as demanded.
#23. To: sneakypete (#20)
Please swell up and explode from your own magnificent pompous gas explosion.
#24. To: sneakypete (#21)
A sitting President should do whatever he or she needs to do to avoid even a suggestion of conflict of interest when it comes to the bills they sign or suggest.
#25. To: cranky (#22)
I don't know of any such law nor do I recall claiming any such a law exists.
#26. To: nolu chan (#25)
Well, what is their right to demand that Trump put all his business assets and investments in a blind trust?
#27. To: nolu chan (#23)
I can't help it if you are a senile old fucking idiot.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]