Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-22-2017, 09:57 AM
 
10,225 posts, read 7,587,698 times
Reputation: 23162

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretzelogik View Post
He is not...his son's are.
Trump owns them, even thought he has designated his sons as managers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-22-2017, 09:58 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,863 posts, read 46,634,918 times
Reputation: 18521
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
Looks like Trump is violating lease laws with his D.C. hotel housed is a historic former post office. Electeds are prohibited from leasing from the Feds.



President Trump hit immediately with ethics complaint over hotel lease - Jan. 20, 2017

Why is Trump still running his businesses?

Here is the funny thing about that... He can pardon himself.

Elections have consequences.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2017, 09:58 AM
 
10,225 posts, read 7,587,698 times
Reputation: 23162
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty View Post
Why are you going to CNN for facts?

How about posting from a reputable site. Say one that didn't help Hillary to cheat at the debates.
Trying to change the subject?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2017, 09:59 AM
 
Location: United States
12,390 posts, read 7,098,861 times
Reputation: 6135
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
Here is the funny thing about that... He can pardon himself.

Elections have consequences.
There is no reason to pardon himself.

The president cannot have a conflict of interest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2017, 10:17 AM
 
37,315 posts, read 59,878,910 times
Reputation: 25341
Quote:
Originally Posted by stburr91 View Post
There is no reason to pardon himself.

The president cannot have a conflict of interest.
A KING who rules by heredity and divine right can have conflicts of nterest--
So Trump who is a mere citizen of America, elected via public vote and the electoral college process certainly CAN have conflicts of interest---
Nixon left office because of them
Clinton was accused of them incessantly
Carter and Bush1 were also troubled by them
Bush2 as well...

You can claim Trump is immune but he isn't...
And I garantee you that when the GOP power brokers in Congress tire of Trump and his inept narcissistic attempts to play a President, those are the charges they will use to impeach--thaose or just "treason" based on contacts with Russia...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2017, 10:23 AM
 
Location: *
13,240 posts, read 4,927,027 times
Reputation: 3461
Quote:
Originally Posted by legalsea View Post
I guess I am in a minority among Hillary supporters: I do not believe that President Trump must liquidate his business empire in order to be president. I am satisfied that he turned over management to his two eldest sons. To ask a person to essentially destroy a business he spent years building is simply not fair.

If you, the conservative reader, agree with me, then I would hope you would recall this stance when, in future, some very wealthy Democrat attains the White House. Let us not have changing of minds about the propriety of keeping the source of the wealth intact.
You're more trusting than I, I tend to go with the earlier Designers of the Constitution, in this particular situation, specifically Article I, section 9, clause 8, the main gist being to decrease the likelihood of corruption & corrupting influences, particularly foreign sway.

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 22 wrote, “In republics, persons elevated from the mass of the community, by the suffrages of their fellow-citizens, to stations of great pre-eminence and power, may find compensations for betraying their trust, which, to any but minds animated and guided by superior virtue, may appear to exceed the proportion of interest they have in the common stock, and to overbalance the obligations of duty. Hence it is that history furnishes us with so many mortifying examples of the prevalency of foreign corruption in republican governments."

Can anyone honestly say President Trump's mind is "animated & guided by superior virtue"?

Personally, I think this clause was included with someone like him in mind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2017, 10:23 AM
 
Location: United States
12,390 posts, read 7,098,861 times
Reputation: 6135
Quote:
Originally Posted by loves2read View Post
A KING who rules by heredity and divine right can have conflicts of nterest--
So Trump who is a mere citizen of America, elected via public vote and the electoral college process certainly CAN have conflicts of interest---
Nixon left office because of them
Clinton was accused of them incessantly
Carter and Bush1 were also troubled by them
Bush2 as well...

You can claim Trump is immune but he isn't...
And I garantee you that when the GOP power brokers in Congress tire of Trump and his inept narcissistic attempts to play a President, those are the charges they will use to impeach--thaose or just "treason" based on contacts with Russia...
Sorry, but congress has make it clear, the president, and vice president cannot have conflicts of interest.

Legal experts have already covered this, you are just plain wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2017, 10:32 AM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
28,226 posts, read 36,883,248 times
Reputation: 28563
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erratikmind View Post
It's not an issue as much as it is a talking point . . . Whining point or whatever you prefer.
Why don't we talk a little bit about inconsistency.

At the moment, since Trump hasn't handed off control of his businesses he is breaking the law. Clinton, with her email scandal, was investigated by the Feds and the charges were dismissed yet some people are labeling her a criminal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2017, 11:46 AM
 
Location: *
13,240 posts, read 4,927,027 times
Reputation: 3461
Quote:
Originally Posted by stburr91 View Post
Sorry, but congress has make it clear, the president, and vice president cannot have conflicts of interest.

Legal experts have already covered this, you are just plain wrong.
Was that before or after Donald Trump made it clear to Congress "that he could push back attempts by his rivals to knock him off his top perch, saying he could stand on New York's Fifth Avenue "and shoot somebody," and still not lose voters?

Demonstrates a whole new ballgame.

S. CON. RES. 4

Clarifying any potential misunderstanding as to whether actions taken by President-elect Donald Trump constitute a violation of the Emoluments Clause, and calling on President-elect Trump to divest his interest in, and sever his relationship to, the Trump Organization.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
January 4, 2017
Mr. Cardin (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Ms. Warren, Mr. Carper, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Reed, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Brown, Mr. Casey, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Udall, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Franken, Mr. Coons, Mr. Blumenthal, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Murphy, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Markey, Mr. Booker, Mr. Peters, Mr. Van Hollen, and Mrs. Feinstein) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Clarifying any potential misunderstanding as to whether actions taken by President-elect Donald Trump constitute a violation of the Emoluments Clause, and calling on President-elect Trump to divest his interest in, and sever his relationship to, the Trump Organization.

Whereas article I, section 9, clause 8 of the United States Constitution (commonly known as the “Emoluments Clause”) declares, “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.”;

Whereas, according to the remarks of Governor Edmund Randolph at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, the Emoluments Clause “was thought proper, in order to exclude corruption and foreign influence, to prohibit any one in office from receiving or holding any emoluments from foreign states”;

Whereas the issue of foreign corruption greatly concerned the Founding Fathers of the United States, such that Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 22 wrote, “In republics, persons elevated from the mass of the community, by the suffrages of their fellow-citizens, to stations of great pre-eminence and power, may find compensations for betraying their trust, which, to any but minds animated and guided by superior virtue, may appear to exceed the proportion of interest they have in the common stock, and to overbalance the obligations of duty. Hence it is that history furnishes us with so many mortifying examples of the prevalency of foreign corruption in republican governments.”;

Whereas the President of the United States is the head of the executive branch of the Federal Government and is expected to have undivided loyalty to the United States, and clearly occupies an “office of profit or trust” within the meaning of article I, section 9, clause 8 of the Constitution, according to the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice;

Whereas the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice opined in 2009 that corporations owned or controlled by a foreign government are presumptively foreign states under the Emoluments Clause;

Whereas President-elect Donald J. Trump has a business network, the Trump Organization, that has financial interests around the world and negotiates and concludes transactions with foreign states and entities that are extensions of foreign states;

Whereas Michael Cohen, an attorney for Donald J. Trump and the Trump Organization, initially stated that the Trump Organization would be placed into a “blind trust” managed by Donald Trump’s children, Donald Trump, Jr., Ivanka Trump, and Eric Trump;

Whereas the very nature of a “blind trust” is such that the official will have no control over, will receive no communications about, and will have no knowledge of the identity of the specific assets held in the trust, and that the manager of the trust is independent of the owner, and as such the arrangement proposed by Mr. Cohen is not a blind trust;

Whereas, on November 30, 2016, President-elect Donald J. Trump announced on Twitter that “I will be holding a major news conference in New York City with my children on December 15 to discuss the fact that I will be leaving my great business in total in order to fully focus on running the country in order to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”;

Whereas, on December 12, 2016, President-elect Donald J. Trump abruptly canceled the planned December 15, 2016, news conference, and has provided no set date for a future announcement;

Whereas, on December 12, 2016, President-elect Donald J. Trump stated on Twitter, “Even though I am not mandated by law to do so, I will be leaving my busineses [sic] before January 20th so that I can focus full time on the Presidency. Two of my children, Don and Eric, plus executives, will manage them. No new deals will be done during my term(s) in office”;

Whereas numerous legal and constitutional experts, including several former White House ethics counsels, have made clear that, notwithstanding the problems inherent in temporarily ceding control of the Trump Organization to his children, such an arrangement, in which the President-elect fails to exit the ownership of his businesses through use of a blind trust or equivalent, will leave the President-elect with a personal financial interest in businesses that collect foreign government payments and benefits, which raises both constitutional and public interest concerns;

Whereas Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, William J. Clinton, and George W. Bush have set the precedent of using true blind trusts, in which their holdings were liquidated and placed in new investments unknown to them by an independent trustee who managed them free of familial bias;

Whereas the continued intermingling of the business of the Trump Organization and the work of government has the potential to constitute the foreign corruption so feared by the Founding Fathers and to betray the trust of America’s citizens;

Whereas the intent of this resolution is to prevent any potential misunderstanding or crisis with regards to whether the actions of Donald J. Trump as President of the United States will violate the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, Federal law, or fundamental principles of ethics; and

Whereas Congress has an institutional, constitutional obligation to ensure that the President of the United States does not violate the Emoluments Clause and is discharging the obligations of office based on the national interest, not based on personal interest: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That Congress—

(1) calls upon President-elect Donald J. Trump to follow the precedent established by prior Presidents and convert his assets to simple, conflict-free holdings, adopt blind trusts managed by an independent trustee with no relationship to Donald J. Trump or his businesses, or take other equivalent measures, in order to ensure compliance with the Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution;

(2) calls upon President-elect Donald J. Trump not to use the powers or opportunities of his position as President-elect or President of the United States for any purpose related to the Trump Organization; and

(3) regards, in the absence of such actions outlined in paragraph (1) or specific authorization by Congress, dealings that Donald J. Trump, as President of the United States, may have through his companies with foreign governments or entities owned or controlled by foreign governments as potential violations of the Emoluments Clause.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...p%22%5D%7D&r=1
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2017, 12:03 PM
 
Location: Haiku
7,132 posts, read 4,769,652 times
Reputation: 10327
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
Here is the funny thing about that... He can pardon himself.

Elections have consequences.
He cannot pardon his way out of a civil matter. He is in breach of contract. The contract is null and void because he refused to divest his holdings. The contract does not allow the leasee to hold public office. No more Trump Hotel in the old post office building for him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:46 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top