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.

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.

The losers do not get to set the terms by which Trump lives.

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.

"If the President does it, it can't be against the law"?

The letter does not appear to cite any law whatever. It cites an "ethical imperative."

The letter does not appear to cite any law whatever.

It may be based on the Emoluments Clause. But, if so, it's probably misapplied.

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

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.

TRUMP shouldn't have to sell nothing. All you asshole crybabies who didn't get your way can stfu.

Everybody here already knows you are a moron. You don't need to keep proving it.

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.

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.

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.

You are a Jesuit,ain't ya? Nobody else can twist themselves into knots to justify their own immorality like the Jesuits.

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.

Everybody here already knows you are a moron. You don't need to keep proving it.

Was that the best you got, faggot patriarch?

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.

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:

He [Trump] will set aside management to his children, he will run the country, meet with his children when he wants to …

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.

Please identify the law that is allegedly violated by not putting the Trump business assets and investments in a blind trust as demanded.

WRONG! This is what every other president in modern times has done,and it's done for multiple reasons,all of them good.

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:

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.

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.

http://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/articles/article-i/the-foreign-emoluments-clause-article-i-section-9-clause-8/clause/34

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.

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.

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.

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.

There is no moral or legal requirement dor the President to be required to use a blind trust.

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.

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.

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.

Please identify the law that is allegedly violated by not putting the Trump business assets and investments in a blind trust as demanded.

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?

WRONG! This is what every other president in modern times has done,and it's done for multiple reasons,all of them good.

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.

Please identify the law that is allegedly violated by not putting the Trump business assets and investments in a blind trust as demanded.

I don't know of any such law nor do I recall claiming any such a law exists.

Please swell up and explode from your own magnificent pompous gas explosion.

I can't help it if you are a senile old fucking idiot.

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.

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.

I don't know of any such law nor do I recall claiming any such a law exists.

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.

Well, what is their right to demand that Trump put all his business assets and investments in a blind trust?

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.

I can't help it if you are a senile old fucking idiot.

Better that than a giant human fart.