No issues with his business dealings. As long as he's not actively managing his business while trying to run the country I'm fine with it.

 

Also, isn't he President-Elect Trump now?

@Clyde I'll be honest some of his business ventures worry me. But the article link goes back to what I said when I first came back. You linked Mother Jones and a lot of what they discuss is semi in the grey. Does Trump have ventures across the world , yes. But it is written by someone who doesn't understand finance. You have continually reached for negative Trump articles, which is your right. I'm just waiting for you to admit it. You now have a problem with conflict of interest , one that hasn't even happened yet. But you didn't when Hillary made a joke of her position.

 

You have been on a campaign and I bow to you, you have now taken on moutainref and jessejames job.

 

I took on that job to call out the hypocrisy of the left. If anyone knows me personally they know I am not like that in real life. I do call bull crap when I see it though. Heck it took Trump being the last R standing for me to support him. I hope he does help the USA. We need it.

Educate me.

 

Does Deutsche Bank owe the US $14B?

Are they trying to settle it?

If it's settled for anything less than $14B could that LOOK like a conflict of interest?

If the Trump administration enforces the $14B will Deutsche survive? If not, what does that do to Mr Trump's loan and property?

 

Honestly by breaking it down this simply proves my point. You are trying to create hysteria. I did actually comment on the article. I said some of his business interests make me nervous. But if you want to discuss a serious topic we have to be willing to go deeper than that article or your post went. There are many more important questions that are being ignored for this sense of hysteria.

 

The main difference between Trump and the Clinton Foundation is the fact Trump hasn't held office yet. We know what Hillary did in office to some extent that was dirty. But you want me to get upset about something that hasn't even happened , not to mention leaving out relevant details. The reason I criticized the Mother Jones article because just listed debt isn't enough. There is a lot more that needs to be mentioned and again sorry if I don't get upset about a conflict that hasn't happened.

I took on that job to call out the hypocrisy of the left. If anyone knows me personally they know I am not like that in real life. I do call bull crap when I see it though. Heck it took Trump being the last R standing for me to support him. I hope he does help the USA. We need it.

 

My post was an unneeded shot at you , I was just phrasing and I failed , to show Clyde was becoming what he dislikes. So for that I apologize.

Honestly by breaking it down this simply proves my point. You are trying to create hysteria. I did actually comment on the article. I said some of his business interests make me nervous. But if you want to discuss a serious topic we have to be willing to go deeper than that article or your post went. There are many more important questions that are being ignored for this sense of hysteria.

 

The main difference between Trump and the Clinton Foundation is the fact Trump hasn't held office yet. We know what Hillary did in office to some extent that was dirty. But you want me to get upset about something that hasn't even happened , not to mention leaving out relevant details. The reason I criticized the Mother Jones article because just listed debt isn't enough. There is a lot more that needs to be mentioned and again sorry if I don't get upset about a conflict that hasn't happened.

 

Your one comment about making you nervous was vague. Why? Which ones?

 

I'm more than willing to have you educate me on what I've left out or have wrong them I'm all ears.

 

You cannot argue the optics part of the debate. Having a financial institution negotiating with the US government when the head of said government is on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars impacts the ability to govern. It would be true for HRC. It would be true for President Obama. It will be true for President Trump should it happen post Jan 20.

Your one comment about making you nervous was vague. Why? Which ones?

 

I'm more than willing to have you educate me on what I've left out or have wrong them I'm all ears.

 

You cannot argue the optics part of the debate. Having a financial institution negotiating with the US government when the head of said government is on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars impacts the ability to govern. It would be true for HRC. It would be true for President Obama. It will be true for President Trump should it happen post Jan 20.

 

I'm all for divesting. The problem is if we are going to hold the President to this standard shouldn't we hold all elected officals ? We can point to multiple members of congress on both sides of the aisle who have voted with a conflict of interest. The leader of the Democrats Nancy Pelosi has become rich because of this loophole.

 

So yes would I woulf like him to put all assets in a blind trust. The problem is as I read it if he doesn't he isn't breaking any laws.

I'm all for divesting. The problem is if we are going to hold the President to this standard shouldn't we hold all elected officals ? We can point to multiple members of congress on both sides of the aisle who have voted with a conflict of interest. The leader of the Democrats Nancy Pelosi has become rich because of this loophole.

 

So yes would I woulf like him to put all assets in a blind trust. The problem is as I read it if he doesn't he isn't breaking any laws.

 

You've raised the biggest challenge. How does one with the vast business empire like Mr Trump go about divesting? How long would that take? years? We can't make him take the first bid just in the name of speed.

 

We all agree it's not against the law (as far as my limited legal knowledge goes).

 

We still get back to the conflict issue that I raised. I am failing to see how it would not be a conflict. Someone above mentioned him not being "involved" directly. That doesn't remove the conflict IMO. If he has a financial interest other than a blind trust then there will always be the issue of conflict of interest.

 

Deutsch Bank is just one example. It's a bigger issue with Mr Trump than others you reference simply due to a)position and b)scale.

 

It's going to be an issue that he had best be prepared to deal with. He's human. He is not going to turn a blind eye to his financial interests.

His lease of the Old Post Office in DC from the government might present a more straightforward conflict. The least stipulates:

 

"No member or delegate to Congress, or elected official of the Government of the United States or the Government of the District of Columbia, shall be admitted to any share or part of this Lease, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom; provided, however, that this provision shall not be construed as extending to any Person who may be a shareholder or other beneficial owner of any publicly held corporation or other entity, if this Lease is for the general benefit of such corporation or other entity."

 

I'm not a lawyer, but that seems pretty straightforward. What's going to happen on Jan. 20?

 

GSA releases statement on Old Post Office lease

Trump is on target to violate the Constitution the moment he takes the oath of office - The Washington Post

 

Careful review of the Emoluments Clause shows that the Clause unquestionably applies to the President of the United States; that it covers an exceptionally broad and diverse range of remunerative relationships (including fair market value transactions that confer profit on a federal officeholder); and that it reaches payments and emoluments from foreign states (including state-owned and state-controlled corporations).

...

In the context of Trump, they cite multiple sources of foreign revenue that on their face would, the moment Trump is inaugurated, put him in violation of the Constitution. They enumerate multiple instances in which he already improperly blurred private and public conduct. (For example: “Most troubling, Ivanka has participated in several meetings between Mr. Trump and foreign heads of state, including those from Turkey, Argentina, and Japan. Ivanka’s presence at Mr. Trump’s meeting with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan is especially striking, since Ivanka is currently in talks with Sanei International (whose largest shareholder is wholly owned by the Japanese government) to close a major and highly lucrative licensing deal.”) They then list multiple holdings that would provide prohibited revenue. (For example: “Trump International Hotel, a major new project in Washington, D.C. and a new hot spot for foreign diplomats”; “the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China—owned by the People’s Republic of China—is the single largest tenant in Trump Tower”; “even as debates rage over American/Russian relations and Russian cyberattacks on U.S. interests and even on the recent presidential election, it has been reported that Russian financiers play a significant (albeit concealed) role in Mr. Trump’s organization.”)

...

Democrats should confront their colleagues with a choice: Sign onto the bill to require divestment or join Democrats in demanding Trump rectify his constitutional violation forthwith by other means (e.g., withhold confirmation of any Cabinet nominees until Trump divests). If not, Democrats in the House should be prepared, yes, to file articles of impeachment and let the voters decide in 2018 if they want a president who won’t follow the Constitution and won’t put country above his family fortune.

Democrats Start the Ball Rolling to Impeach Trump Before He's Even in Office - The Ring of Fire Network

 

I think when it is all said and done this will be nothing more than another attempt to invalidate his Presidency.

Democrats Start the Ball Rolling to Impeach Trump Before He's Even in Office - The Ring of Fire Network

 

I think when it is all said and done this will be nothing more than another attempt to invalidate his Presidency.

Did you read the article above? Seems to have some validity?

Did you read the article above? Seems to have some validity?

 

Yes, and I've heard others say it isn't the issue they are trying to make it out to be. We will see, but I don't think rental space that was leased before he ran for President or hotel rooms is a violation. If he orders someone in Government to order 1000's of copies of his book to pass out as gifts, then I'd agree he was using his position to profit.

The first lawsuit regarding the emolument clause is expected to be filed this week per NYT.

The first lawsuit regarding the emolument clause is expected to be filed this week per NYT.

 

Here's the story: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/22/us/politics/trump-foreign-payments-constitution-lawsuit.html?_r=0

 

I can't say I know much about the Emoluments Clause. Should be interesting to research. I'm curious about some of the legal wrangling about to unfold. One of our lawyers (paging @Getslow) might have to weigh in. How do you prove standing or jurisdiction in a case like this?

They don't have near enough votes to impeach Trump the way the Senate is comprised now. Now I guess it is possible enough R's go along to get rid of Trump (and there are definitely some R's that do not like him at all). If so, the R party will be toast for many years. The Trump loyalists will stick it to them for a long time.

 

I am not saying this as partisan - just fact...