This is a non-issue. These foreign diplomats aren't going to gain favor by staying at Trump Hotel. Also, the "fair market value" is decided by who. The suite in question is $20,000 a night already. The value of the room is whatever people are willing to pay. This whole issue is a stretch.

 

 

The attorney addressed the issue you raise in the article.

The attorney addressed the issue you raise in the article.

 

I read it. It is a stretch. It is the lawyer's opinion. Trump is not trading anything. The lawyer is assuming staying at the hotel adds value. There is no proof that it will add any value. The value is perceived and is by no means a gift to Trump unless the going rate is $5000 for regular people and $20,000 for diplomats.

People actively involved in running businesses normally don't run for political office due to these kind of ramifications. I believe we need some business sense in our government, so hope this can be resolved by Trump being hands off and the kids run the business. It is hard to be in a blind trust like normal investments because his businesses are so public. Might need a "shusser"at all family dinners, also. I hope it works.

I read it. It is a stretch. It is the lawyer's opinion. Trump is not trading anything. The lawyer is assuming staying at the hotel adds value. There is no proof that it will add any value. The value is perceived and is by no means a gift to Trump unless the going rate is $5000 for regular people and $20,000 for diplomats.

 

 

"It's a stretch."

 

I must ask what your legal background is to say that an attorney whose job it was is giving a legal opinion that is a stretch.

"It's a stretch."

 

I must ask what your legal background is to say that an attorney whose job it was is giving a legal opinion that is a stretch.

 

Weird because the original article they quote from the Washington Post says there are no ethic violations for the president.

 

For foreign diplomats, Trump hotel is place to be - The Washington Post

 

If diplomats, as well as corporate representatives and executives — whom the hotel hosted in a separate room Tuesday — want to spend lavishly at Trump properties, there appears to be no ethics rule to stop it, short of an act of Congress.

 

The Trumps opened the hotel in the Old Post Office pavilion, a 117-year-old property the company leases from the federal government. Officials at the General Services Administration, the landlord, have consulted the Office of Government Ethics about how to handle such conflicts, but the measures preventing other federal employees from profiting from their positions do not apply to the president.

"It's a stretch."

 

I must ask what your legal background is to say that an attorney whose job it was is giving a legal opinion that is a stretch.

 

 

None. I don't need a law degree to figure this one out. The whole Think Progress article is about perception and opinion of the lawyer and the author.

 

Per the Think Progress article,

"To explain, the ordinary rule under the Emoluments Clause is that federal officials may do business with foreign governments so long as they do not receive special treatment. If the president owns a $200,000 Rolls Royce, Painter told ThinkProgress, they can sell that car to the Queen of England, so long as they only receive its fair market value. If Her Majesty The Queen pays $250,000 for the Rolls Royce, however, that would violate the Emoluments Clause." (This is my exact example of the Hotel Room cost)

"There’s a catch, however, for someone like Trump who trades on the value of his own name. “Anything in excess of fair market value is a gift,” according to Painter, “and I don’t think you can take into account the value of the name Trump in calculating fair market value.” The diplomats are not staying in one of Trump’s expensive luxury hotels because Trump is charging their nation a reasonable market rate for a night’s stay. They are staying in the hotel because of the added value that comes from doing business with the President of the United States." (This is the stretch. It is his opinion. There is not a basis of fact)

 

The idea that staying at Trump's hotel for market price is a "gift" to the president and constitutional violation is a stretch. You want to call it a conflict of interest, then fine, but that is not against the law per the information below.

 

This is from the Washington Post article:

"If diplomats, as well as corporate representatives and executives — whom the hotel hosted in a separate room Tuesday — want to spend lavishly at Trump properties, there appears to be no ethics rule to stop it, short of an act of Congress."

"The Trumps opened the hotel in the Old Post Office pavilion, a 117-year-old property the company leases from the federal government. Officials at the General Services Administration, the landlord, have consulted the Office of Government Ethics about how to handle such conflicts, but the measures preventing other federal employees from profiting from their positions do not apply to the president."

"Consequently, there is no current legal requirement that would compel the President to relinquish financial interests because of a conflict of interest,” an analysis produced last month by the Congressional Research Service at the Library of Congress said."

 

For foreign diplomats, Trump hotel is place to be - The Washington Post

Funny how Bush's didnt have much to say about the crooked Clinton Foundation. Maybe because they are in the elite group and know how the system is crooked.

Think Progress ? I'm with the 90% of old , grouchy ,white , "get off my lawn " Bible Thumping KY gun nuts who think the paper that article was written on would make good paper balls to start a winter fire with.

 

Maybe those diplomats are getting a deal since all those NBA teams wont stay there ?

So we go from Clinton's "Pay to Play"

to

Trump being accused of "Stay to Play"

 

I wonder if the Trump White House will be checking on hotel reservations before agreeing to see foreign dignitaries?

None. I don't need a law degree to figure this one out. The whole Think Progress article is about perception and opinion of the lawyer and the author.

 

Per the Think Progress article,

"To explain, the ordinary rule under the Emoluments Clause is that federal officials may do business with foreign governments so long as they do not receive special treatment. If the president owns a $200,000 Rolls Royce, Painter told ThinkProgress, they can sell that car to the Queen of England, so long as they only receive its fair market value. If Her Majesty The Queen pays $250,000 for the Rolls Royce, however, that would violate the Emoluments Clause." (This is my exact example of the Hotel Room cost)

"There’s a catch, however, for someone like Trump who trades on the value of his own name. “Anything in excess of fair market value is a gift,” according to Painter, “and I don’t think you can take into account the value of the name Trump in calculating fair market value.” The diplomats are not staying in one of Trump’s expensive luxury hotels because Trump is charging their nation a reasonable market rate for a night’s stay. They are staying in the hotel because of the added value that comes from doing business with the President of the United States." (This is the stretch. It is his opinion. There is not a basis of fact)

 

The idea that staying at Trump's hotel for market price is a "gift" to the president and constitutional violation is a stretch. You want to call it a conflict of interest, then fine, but that is not against the law per the information below.

 

This is from the Washington Post article:

"If diplomats, as well as corporate representatives and executives — whom the hotel hosted in a separate room Tuesday — want to spend lavishly at Trump properties, there appears to be no ethics rule to stop it, short of an act of Congress."

"The Trumps opened the hotel in the Old Post Office pavilion, a 117-year-old property the company leases from the federal government. Officials at the General Services Administration, the landlord, have consulted the Office of Government Ethics about how to handle such conflicts, but the measures preventing other federal employees from profiting from their positions do not apply to the president."

"Consequently, there is no current legal requirement that would compel the President to relinquish financial interests because of a conflict of interest,” an analysis produced last month by the Congressional Research Service at the Library of Congress said."

 

For foreign diplomats, Trump hotel is place to be - The Washington Post

 

If I'm following you correctly the analysis by Congressional Research Service is correct but the analysis/opinion by the former ethics attorney as well as that by a Harvard law professor are just an "opinion?"

 

Do I have that correctly?

If I'm following you correctly the analysis by Congressional Research Service is correct but the analysis/opinion by the former ethics attorney as well as that by a Harvard law professor are just an "opinion?"

 

Do I have that correctly?

 

To be fair, the reason we have trials and judges is because Lawyers can differ in their opinions. This guy calling out what "Could" happen as being illegal could probably be argued against by a different attorney.

This issue is just one of many that will surface due to the unique background of Mr Trump.

 

Millions/hundreds of millions in outstanding loans to the Bank of China. Business with many foreign entities.

 

It will be an interesting follow.

To be fair, the reason we have trials and judges is because Lawyers can differ in their opinions. This guy calling out what "Could" happen as being illegal could probably be argued against by a different attorney.

 

No question. My point is that he dismisses one thought as opinion and then cites an opinion as basis for him being correct. It's the law and it's a moving line. It's never as simple as some try to make it out to be.

"It's a stretch."

 

I must ask what your legal background is to say that an attorney whose job it was is giving a legal opinion that is a stretch.

 

If I'm following you correctly the analysis by Congressional Research Service is correct but the analysis/opinion by the former ethics attorney as well as that by a Harvard law professor are just an "opinion?"

 

Do I have that correctly?

 

No question. My point is that he dismisses one thought as opinion and then cites an opinion as basis for him being correct. It's the law and it's a moving line. It's never as simple as some try to make it out to be.

 

The CRS is a government agency within the Library of Congress charged by congress with providing analysis based upon facts. There is no ethics rule nor "legal requirement that would compel the President to relinquish financial interests because of a conflict of interest." That is not an opinion. The CRS looked at it and there isn't any legal requirement. About CRS - Congressional Research Service (Library of Congress)

 

This on the other hand is an opinion.

"Anything in excess of fair market value is a gift,” according to Painter, “and I don’t think you can take into account the value of the name Trump in calculating fair market value.”

 

He thinks "fair market value" is skewed due to the name Trump being on the building and therefore "could" be seen as a gift.

 

Conflict of interest, yes. Violation of the Constitution, no.

 

Who is going to be the "Fair market value" police of the hotel industry to decide if diplomats staying at Trump's hotel is a "gift" to him?

Who is going to be the "Fair market value" police of the hotel industry to decide if diplomats staying at Trump's hotel is a "gift" to him?

 

ThinkProgress.org ? :ylsuper::ylsuper: