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.
Wait..your post doesn't make sense. No one is saying that a DoD employee cannot/should not go to a Trump hotel and have dinner or stay there using their PERSONAL finances.
These are DoD employees that, for whatever reason, are forced to spend DoD funds there because this administration is forcing them to do something there in the line of their duties. The president is profiting off his presidency by having government employees carrying out their duties at his business.
It's like the President owning a car dealership and forcing the government to buy the government vehicles from him.
He should be ensuring that NONE of his business intersect with those sort of government functions. Period.
Thank you for so aptly pointing out that which should have been obvious to the previous poster.
Wait..your post doesn't make sense. No one is saying that a DoD employee cannot/should not go to a Trump hotel and have dinner or stay there using their PERSONAL finances.
These are DoD employees that, for whatever reason, are forced to spend DoD funds there because this administration is forcing them to do something there in the line of their duties. The president is profiting off his presidency by having government employees carrying out their duties at his business.
It's like the President owning a car dealership and forcing the government to buy the government vehicles from him.
He should be ensuring that NONE of his business intersect with those sort of government functions. Period.
1. they are NOT FORCED
2. when a military member or a government employee are traveling, the travel funds are DoD funds, they put their travel in through DTS (the defense travel system), they ELECT where to stay based on per diem rates, Joint travel doctrine also states that they WILL NOT stay at fleabag motels (your drug/prostitute no-tell motels)...
3. POTUS is not forcing anyone.. that is just a lie from the fascist left
4. IF you happen to want to stay at something OVER the per diem amount..you PAY THE DIFFERENCE out of pocket..... that goes for your food rations (food per diem) daily.... for example if the per diem for rations is $55 per day.. that could work out to 15 Breakfast, 15 Lunch, and 25 Dinner.... OR you can skip breakfast and lunch and use the entire 55 for dinner at red lobster.....or you can eat real cheap, and pocket the daily ration dollars
If I travel to where-ever...and the per diem for lodging is $90.. and comfort inn charges 100, holiday inn charges 105, Hilton charges 110, and trump Inc. charges only 90 for government workers..guess where I am going to stay to keep within the per diem.....
2. when a military member or a government employee are traveling, the travel funds are DoD funds, they put their travel in through DTS (the defense travel system), they ELECT where to stay based on per diem rates, Joint travel doctrine also states that they WILL NOT stay at fleabag motels (your drug/prostitute no-tell motels)...
3. POTUS is not forcing anyone.. that is just a lie from the fascist left
4. IF you happen to want to stay at something OVER the per diem amount..you PAY THE DIFFERENCE out of pocket..... that goes for your food rations (food per diem) daily.... for example if the per diem for rations is $55 per day.. that could work out to 15 Breakfast, 15 Lunch, and 25 Dinner.... OR you can skip breakfast and lunch and use the entire 65 for dinner at red lobster.....or you can eat real cheap, and pocket the daily ration dollars
If I travel to where-ever...and the per diem for lodging is $90.. and comfort inn charges 100, holiday inn charges 105, Hilton charges 110, and trump Inc. charges only 90 for government workers..guess where I am going to stay to keep within the per diem.....
If you read the article, the costs were related to Trump's travel. So, yes, these employees *had* to stay there. I will agree on the point that if I was a DoD employee sent to Washington DC for a random conference and the Trump Hotel was within my per diem, I could legally stay there and there would be no conflict of interest.
If, as President, I travel to my own resorts and my entourage of military and civilians who support me are forced to travel with me and have to stay at my resort, then I (the President) and profiting off my self-imposed trips.
So - to the lefties who oppose this - would you be OK with this if it was Obama or Clinton?
It's legal.
I don't care for it - but it's legal.
Instead of having an emotional reaction to this - find out why it's legal... maybe there's a reason...
Trump is traveling to his own properties. His entourage that is working for him and protecting him and paid by government funds is actually also PAYING HIM BACK personally to travel with him. That's the conflict of interest.
If Obama or Clinton were traveling and they all stayed in a hotel, neither one of them would be profiting from it.
If you read the article, the costs were related to Trump's travel. So, yes, these employees *had* to stay there. I will agree on the point that if I was a DoD employee sent to Washington DC for a random conference and the Trump Hotel was within my per diem, I could legally stay there and there would be no conflict of interest.
If, as President, I travel to my own resorts and my entourage of military and civilians who support me are forced to travel with me and have to stay at my resort, then I (the President) and profiting off my self-imposed trips.
so If I am security for whom-ever.... I should stay in another hotel xx miles away from the person I am providing security for???
so If I am HR for whom-ever.... I should stay in another hotel xx miles away from the person I am providing HR (personnel assistance) for???
so If I am logistics for whom-ever.... I should stay in another hotel xx miles away from the person I am providing logistics for???
According to the mess in Nashville with the Mayor and her body guard, on one trip she stayed with friends and he stayed in a hotel. Body guards aren't on duty 24/7. They work in shifts and can move about freely when not working their shift.
Remember all the secret service that got in trouble over seas under Obama for contact with hookers and such that could have put them in a position to be black mailed? They did that on their own time and obviously weren't guarding Obama when it happened.
When I go to a conference at a hotel, I have the choice of staying there for convenience or staying somewhere else.
so If I am security for whom-ever.... I should stay in another hotel xx miles away from the person I am providing security for???
so If I am HR for whom-ever.... I should stay in another hotel xx miles away from the person I am providing HR (personnel assistance) for???
so If I am logistics for whom-ever.... I should stay in another hotel xx miles away from the person I am providing logistics for???
That makes no sense
I agree that this presents quite the conundrum. We've not yet had a president whose businesses have been able to some handsomely profit from becoming president.
So if none of this is a conflict of interest, then why is The Hill even reporting it? They certainly aren't a liberal rag by any means.
Trump has never distanced himself from his business as the President. He was supposed to, and he didn't. This is exactly why this is problematic. His private businesses are profiting from his duties as a public servant. Going back to some "whataboutism," if Obama were profiting in anyway, the Republicans would have served his head on a platter to Mitch McConnell. Right now, Trump is getting a pass at enriching himself with the Presidency.
Now we know that you don't care. I'll bookmark your posts for when a Democrat does the same thing in the future and compare your reactions then.
And going back to your previously examples, please tell me how you linked this situation (official travel with the president) back to, for example, no one should by a car from Don Beyer because he holds office? Tell me again how these two actions are analogous.
I agree that this presents quite the conundrum. We've not yet had a president whose businesses have been able to some handsomely profit from becoming president.
We have had quite a few actually. They just all do the right thing and divest, or put them in a blind trust. Heck one of them sold his family peanut farm to avoid issues.
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.
How is this legal..
