If Conservatives don't think Trump should divest, are they admitting the pay-4-play attacks on Clinton were BS? (border, lobby)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 16 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,546 posts, read 16,524,552 times
Reputation: 6029
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd
wrong
short answer. NO.
Why because its against the law for a SecState to require people pay her for access.
It is specifically NOT against the law for a sitting President to hold business interests. and more importantly the US CODE excludes the president from conflict of interests laws.... THAT APPLY TO SECSTATE.
LOL.
I will answer this like my conservative Trump supporting friend did.
" I trust Donald Trump not to do what Hillary did"
Thats the most honest answer anyone has given to me, they simply trust him not to do what they claim Hillary did.
legality has nothing to do with it. Wrong is wrong no matter if it is legal or not.
I will answer this like my conservative Trump supporting friend did.
" I trust Donald Trump not to do what Hillary did"
Thats the most honest answer anyone has given to me, they simply trust him not to do what they claim Hillary did.
legality has nothing to do with it. Wrong is wrong no matter if it is legal or not.
That's the second most honest answer they could give. It's still a bad answer considering Trump already funneled $11M of campaign funds to his private businesses. It's not like he's above enriching himself where he's not supposed to.
It doesn't matter what the Democrats did. What matters is what Conservatives did, said, and thought.
We know people like you don't care what the dems did. THAT is the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good
You have Trump in nearly the same position Hillary was in, and you trumpeted your corruption allegations. Since you're not doing it now, are you admitting those allegations were always a BS argument...
You made this all up. There is no proof Trump has accepted bribes from nations like Hillary did.
And your argument is that Trump is already rich, so he can't be bought or influenced by getting MORE money. B/c if there's one thing that we know Trump doesn't do is find ways to try to get richer after he's already hit millionaire status, amirite?
Trump has not taken office yet. If he uses his office to expand his wealth, I do indeed have a problem. Because that's what Clinton did.
However, he is still a private citizen for now. I imagine it will take some time and a lot of lawyers to untangle his holdings. I am content to wait and let them do their thing.
Why because its against the law for a SecState to require people pay her for access.
It is specifically NOT against the law for a sitting President to hold business interests. and more importantly the US CODE excludes the president from conflict of interests laws.... THAT APPLY TO SECSTATE.
During her confirmation hearings, Clinton disclosed that the Clinton Foundation would continue to seek donations to the Clinton Foundation while she served as SoS, if confirmed. All but one Senator voted to confirm her.
The Clinton Foundation's Form 990, donors and tax returns are public information. The Clintons have disclosed 30+ years of tax returns.
The Clinton Foundation only be came controversial once it became apparent she was running for election.
The Clintons are idiots for not closing the foundation while she held office to avoid creating a perception of a conflict of interest.
It is nearly impossible to prove or disprove Pay for Play. It's not necessary because campaign rhetoric created the perception.
Trump enters office with unprecedented and very real conflicts of interest. He owns more than 500 businesses in 2 dozen countries. He owes $ billions to domestic and foreign banks. It is unreasonable to expect him to liquidate his assets as the WSJ recommended he do.
Signing over control to some/ all of his adult children does not eliminate the conflict especially while including those same children in the cabinet vetting process, phone calls with foreign officials and sitting meetings with titans of technology.
No one will ever know how many basis points Deutche Bank chooses to shave off of rates on Trump debt in acknowledgement of getting rid of banking regulations or vaporizing a penalty for a violation.
It is nearly impossible to prove/ disprove Pay for Play.
Avoiding creating a perception of a conflict of interest is ethics 101.
Trump has not taken office yet. If he uses his office to expand his wealth, I do indeed have a problem. Because that's what Clinton did.
However, he is still a private citizen for now. I imagine it will take some time and a lot of lawyers to untangle his holdings. I am content to wait and let them do their thing.
How would you know if Trump uses his position to expand his wealth?
Once Trump signs over his interest to some/ all his adult children, there is no way to know what's what.
It's a privately held business.
Bill Clinton is the third highest paid speaker on the circuit, after Reagan and Trump. And he has been one of the most prolific speakers on the circuit. Most ex politicians including presidents and corporate titans are on the speaker's circuit and earn more in an hour than most people earn in a year.
If Conservatives don't think Trump should divest, are they admitting the pay-4-play attacks on Clinton were BS?
Short answer, yes..
The Clintons made all of their money off of politics. They lied, cheated and pandered to whoever would write a check.
For their entire adult lives they nursed off the tit of taxpayers and became incredibly wealthy doing it.
That is a major character flaw.
Trump built an empire in the private sector, has so much wealth that he won't be impressed by potential largess from those that would try to buy access.
He's above that, and that is refreshing.
That's why he was elected overwhelmingly.
During her confirmation hearings, Clinton disclosed that the Clinton Foundation would continue to seek donations to the Clinton Foundation while she served as SoS, if confirmed. All but one Senator voted to confirm her.
The Clinton Foundation's Form 990, donors and tax returns are public information. The Clintons have disclosed 30+ years of tax returns.
The Clinton Foundation only be came controversial once it became apparent she was running for election.
The Clintons are idiots for not closing the foundation while she held office to avoid creating a perception of a conflict of interest.
It is nearly impossible to prove or disprove Pay for Play. It's not necessary because campaign rhetoric created the perception.
Trump enters office with unprecedented and very real conflicts of interest. He owns more than 500 businesses in 2 dozen countries. He owes $ billions to domestic and foreign banks. It is unreasonable to expect him to liquidate his assets as the WSJ recommended he do.
Signing over control to some/ all of his adult children does not eliminate the conflict especially while including those same children in the cabinet vetting process, phone calls with foreign officials and sitting meetings with titans of technology.
No one will ever know how many basis points Deutche Bank chooses to shave off of rates on Trump debt in acknowledgement of getting rid of banking regulations or vaporizing a penalty for a violation.
It is nearly impossible to prove/ disprove Pay for Play.
Avoiding creating a perception of a conflict of interest is ethics 101.
Thank you for your post. You are usually fair in your assessments.
Just one thing. We knew fully about Trump's businesses, and we happily elected him in spite of it.
I will answer this like my conservative Trump supporting friend did.
" I trust Donald Trump not to do what Hillary did"
Thats the most honest answer anyone has given to me, they simply trust him not to do what they claim Hillary did.
legality has nothing to do with it. Wrong is wrong no matter if it is legal or not.
What exactly did Hillary do?
That the foundation intended to continue to solicit donations was disclosed during her telecaster confirmation hearings. Why did all but one Senator confirm her under the circumstances? Where were the red flags and outrage? They could have insisted the foundation be closed while she served as SoS.
The foundation's form 990, donors and tax returns are public information. The Clintons disclosed 30+ years of tax returns.
Why did it become an issue only after she left office and her intent to run for president became obvious?
The Clintons failed to grasp that by not closing the foundation while she was SoS created a perception of a conflict of interest that would be impossible to overcome.
Did it ever occur to you the reason why the perception of conflict of interests will not be pursued is because it is impossible to prove just as it is impossible for the Clintons to disprove.
Unlike the Clinton thing, the beneficiary is not a charity. It's for profit privately- held businesses that are under no obligation to disclose anything to the public.
The right blames Hillary for breaking a law. The think she is also a liar.
What one does has nothing to do with ethics, morals or faith. Trump is golden. Pharisees rule.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
