chutzpah

[baldo]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-tells-the-new-york-times-presidents-cant-have-a-conflict-of-interest-2016-11-22

[Wizzard]

So whats the point? Last I saw he was turning his business over to his kids? How many other presidents had foreign investments? Probably many you dont even know about.

[baldo]

So whats the point? Last I saw he was turning his business over to his kids? How many other presidents had foreign investments? Probably many you dont even know about.

The same sons that are on his transition team? Or his daughter that sits in on meetings with the Japanese PM?

And a blind trust is exactly what it says. Not something that your sons, who are working with you on a daily basis, are supposedly running. Do you really accept that he'll have nothing to do with that?

[G-Man]

But Hillary makes $200 Million while "serving" others and there's no conflict of interest?

       

[Oss]

nothing to see here

what does it matter

(sound familiar)   

[baldo]

But Hillary makes $200 Million while "serving" others and there's no conflict of interest?

       

As we all know, she's not Prez-Elect.

And wasn't that one of his campaign promises? To completely divorce himself from all his businesses?

[Wizzard]

you actually think Hillary would have divested herself if she was elected?  I hardly think so. To me its a non issue
  And maybe turning it over to  his kids is divorcing it from himself to him,, just not to you.

[Moonshot_1]

This to me seems to be somewhat unchartered waters.
I don't recall a Modern US President having such an extensive business interest and actually owning a corporation.

At least not with the dynamics we see here.

While we would certainly have to have address the vast potential conflicts of interest in regards to the Trump businesses, it would also seem ridiculous to strip anyone of what they have earned so they can be President.

That is probably one of the problems we have getting "well qualified" people to take on such tasks.
"Why yes, you can be President but first, we must ruin your life and destroy all you've worked for"

The Justice Department and the Congress are going to have to develop some kind of legal mechanism to address this. I don't think current law was ever written for this kind of dynamic. I think it was written for more of an establishment politician concept.

I'm pretty sure they are on it and I'm pretty sure it'll get balled up something fierce.

Should be fun to watch.

[baldo]

you actually think Hillary would have divested herself if she was elected?  I hardly think so. To me its a non issue
  And maybe turning it over to  his kids is divorcing it from himself to him,, just not to you.

You can surmise what HC would have done until you're blue in the face. You'll never know, will you?

Whereas we do have a pretty good idea what DT is doing....or not, as the case may be.

[The emperor has no clothes]

you actually think Hillary would have divested herself if she was elected?  I hardly think so. To me its a non issue
  And maybe turning it over to  his kids is divorcing it from himself to him,, just not to you.

blind trust :

a financial arrangement in which a person in public office gives the administration of private business interests to an independent trust in order to prevent conflict of interest. Under the trust, the owner does not know how the assets are managed.

I don't see how that can possibly be the case with your children running the business.
I don't think it matters what we think Clinton would have done. She lost.

[baldo]

This to me seems to be somewhat unchartered waters.
I don't recall a Modern US President having such an extensive business interest and actually owning a corporation.

At least not with the dynamics we see here.

While we would certainly have to have address the vast potential conflicts of interest in regards to the Trump businesses, it would also seem ridiculous to strip anyone of what they have earned so they can be President.

That is probably one of the problems we have getting "well qualified" people to take on such tasks.
"Why yes, you can be President but first, we must ruin your life and destroy all you've worked for"

The Justice Department and the Congress are going to have to develop some kind of legal mechanism to address this. I don't think current law was ever written for this kind of dynamic. I think it was written for more of an establishment politician concept.

I'm pretty sure they are on it and I'm pretty sure it'll get balled up something fierce.

Should be fun to watch.

No one is stripping anyone of anything. He's supposed to be placing it in someone else's hands to run for him while President. It looks to me like he has no intention of doing so. He actually said today that he sees no reason why he can't do both...

You're right about it being fun to watch.

[Jersey mike]

If you really believe these so called blind trusts are really all that "blind" and none of the presidents who have used them didn't know what was going on with their money and investments you're fooling yourselves.

[MP]

you actually think Hillary would have divested herself if she was elected?  I hardly think so. To me its a non issue
  And maybe turning it over to  his kids is divorcing it from himself to him,, just not to you.

You can surmise what HC would have done until you're blue in the face. You'll never know, will you?

Whereas we do have a pretty good idea what DT is doing....or not, as the case may be.

You have been telling us for MONTHS exactly what Trump thinks, feels, and will do if elected.  Sucks when the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it?

[Moonshot_1]

This to me seems to be somewhat unchartered waters.
I don't recall a Modern US President having such an extensive business interest and actually owning a corporation.

At least not with the dynamics we see here.

While we would certainly have to have address the vast potential conflicts of interest in regards to the Trump businesses, it would also seem ridiculous to strip anyone of what they have earned so they can be President.

That is probably one of the problems we have getting "well qualified" people to take on such tasks.
"Why yes, you can be President but first, we must ruin your life and destroy all you've worked for"

The Justice Department and the Congress are going to have to develop some kind of legal mechanism to address this. I don't think current law was ever written for this kind of dynamic. I think it was written for more of an establishment politician concept.

I'm pretty sure they are on it and I'm pretty sure it'll get balled up something fierce.

Should be fun to watch.

No one is stripping anyone of anything. He's supposed to be placing it in someone else's hands to run for him while President. It looks to me like he has no intention of doing so. He actually said today that he sees no reason why he can't do both...

You're right about it being fun to watch.

I guess it depends on your perspective.
I would see it as stripping away that which they've earned.

The only solution that would satisfy the Democrats and the left is if he totally liquidates all of his holdings. Sell it all off. Put the proceeds in a blind trust.

If this is going to be what it takes to serve our Country as President we will not get the best and brightest because the best and brightest will say "Hell no I ain't doing that"

All we'll get is establishment political hacks who bring their experience of theoretical discussions of business and world politics  from their college days.

Personally, I'd like the best and brightest and cut them some slack on some of this stuff. 

[baldo]

you actually think Hillary would have divested herself if she was elected?  I hardly think so. To me its a non issue
  And maybe turning it over to  his kids is divorcing it from himself to him,, just not to you.

You can surmise what HC would have done until you're blue in the face. You'll never know, will you?

Whereas we do have a pretty good idea what DT is doing....or not, as the case may be.

You have been telling us for MONTHS exactly what Trump thinks, feels, and will do if elected.  Sucks when the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it?

Well my friend. I can tell you what's going to suck.

When all the people that voted for him, 'because he wasn't Hillary' are going to realize just how badly they've been duped.

When and if Medicare gets privatized, when your Social Security is given to Wall Street to 'manage', and it's anyone's guess what else he could do.

And I'll say it again, I hope he does well. But for us, not just him.

[baldo]

This to me seems to be somewhat unchartered waters.
I don't recall a Modern US President having such an extensive business interest and actually owning a corporation.

At least not with the dynamics we see here.

While we would certainly have to have address the vast potential conflicts of interest in regards to the Trump businesses, it would also seem ridiculous to strip anyone of what they have earned so they can be President.

That is probably one of the problems we have getting "well qualified" people to take on such tasks.
"Why yes, you can be President but first, we must ruin your life and destroy all you've worked for"

The Justice Department and the Congress are going to have to develop some kind of legal mechanism to address this. I don't think current law was ever written for this kind of dynamic. I think it was written for more of an establishment politician concept.

I'm pretty sure they are on it and I'm pretty sure it'll get balled up something fierce.

Should be fun to watch.

No one is stripping anyone of anything. He's supposed to be placing it in someone else's hands to run for him while President. It looks to me like he has no intention of doing so. He actually said today that he sees no reason why he can't do both...

You're right about it being fun to watch.

I guess it depends on your perspective.
I would see it as stripping away that which they've earned.

The only solution that would satisfy the Democrats and the left is if he totally liquidates all of his holdings. Sell it all off. Put the proceeds in a blind trust.

If this is going to be what it takes to serve our Country as President we will not get the best and brightest because the best and brightest will say "Hell no I ain't doing that"

All we'll get is establishment political hacks who bring their experience of theoretical discussions of business and world politics  from their college days.

Personally, I'd like the best and brightest and cut them some slack on some of this stuff. 

Really?

How about when there's some trade deal with Japan, for instance. He happens to be building hotels in the country and they're making it difficult for him because they know he would have some influence on his people sitting at the table.

And I don't want him to liquidate all his holdings. He needs to have an independent party manage his interests with no interference from him. That's the way it's supposed to work.

He's already pushing the envelope waaayyyyy too far, and he hasn't even been sworn in yet. He's giving the impression that it's going to be.....'Yeah, I know you don't like it, what are you going to do about it?'

[Alpha Dog]

I have heard several so called legal scholars over the past several days say there is no law that demands the President put his businesses in any kind of blind trust. Now I  was surprised by this.

If someone knows of this law please present it as it is written.

[Moonshot_1]

Really?


And I don't want him to liquidate all his holdings. He needs to have an independent party manage his interests with no interference from him. That's the way it's supposed to work.'
[/quote]

And therein lies the dilemma. You wish to have an independent party manage his interests. But his interests is the Trump brand. His business interest is himself and his name. As I said earlier, unchartered waters.

[John Schmidt]

Quarter-backing before the game even starts. None of us know what's going on behind the scene, probably never will know the finite details. Give it some time to develop, wait and see what happens, see what he does to cover that side of the issue. Until then, get a good night's rest. And, while we're at it.... stop cranking out some new issue to worry about....something none of us can do anything about anyway.

[Robert]

I'm glad he did this to the Times they have been in the pocket of every administration and the plans for change in the US. Most all the media was self serving and self absorbed and did not pick up on what was really happening. Its about time someone shook their tree and called them what they are LIARS. I will never forget the polls, news clips and insults about Trump running, he deserves to get in their faces. The media made every Trump voter question their vote, they could have swayed the election with the bias of Clinton of 75% to  25% even to the day of voting. Its about time they were actually unbiased news outlets and made to pay for making each question if a vote for Trump will do anything. 

As for the future and his future plans not only are they all speculation now but at least he will keep the US money, business and trade in the US and not give the US away to make a deal with foreign governments. Maybe that is why the stock market is the highest its ever been. I'm sure that Obama promised the US would pay for all the deals they did. Obama had it so easy to sell out his personal slaves.

All the rest is personal fears and jeers espoused from the left. If we haven't died yet from the Obama admin then I doubt the bogey man will gets us now.

Didn't everyone burn inside of themselves even liberals when Obama apologized for the US? When he wouldnt call a terrorist a terrorist or call all the racial riots wrong, Trump has the chutzpah to do it and I'm glad.

Whos Laughing now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzl8xjkgXCo

OH SO SWEET.

[baldo]

Really?


And I don't want him to liquidate all his holdings. He needs to have an independent party manage his interests with no interference from him. That's the way it's supposed to work.'

And therein lies the dilemma. You wish to have an independent party manage his interests. But his interests is the Trump brand. His business interest is himself and his name. As I said earlier, unchartered waters.
[/quote]

You're right. Uncharted waters....He ran, knowing full well what the rules regarding blind trusts were. Yet he ran, and won, knowing full well what he was going to do if (once) he got there.

That's the point of this original post.

[Jersey mike]

I have heard several so called legal scholars over the past several days say there is no law that demands the President put his businesses in any kind of blind trust. Now I  was surprised by this.

If someone knows of this law please present it as it is written.

There isn't any law requiring it.

And like I said previously, if anyone believes these blind trusts are actually blind and previous presidents did not know what was happening with their money and investments then those are the blind ones.

[Willow]

blind trust :

a financial arrangement in which a person in public office gives the administration of private business interests to an independent trust in order to prevent conflict of interest. Under the trust, the owner does not know how the assets are managed.

I don't see how that can possibly be the case with your children running the business.
I don't think it matters what we think Clinton would have done. She lost.

Uhh?  Isn't the Secretary of State a public office?

[Bighead]

You can surmise what HC would have done until you're blue in the face. You'll never know, will you?

And we can thank GOD ALL MIGHTY himself for this

[The emperor has no clothes]

blind trust :

a financial arrangement in which a person in public office gives the administration of private business interests to an independent trust in order to prevent conflict of interest. Under the trust, the owner does not know how the assets are managed.

I don't see how that can possibly be the case with your children running the business.
I don't think it matters what we think Clinton would have done. She lost.

Uhh?  Isn't the Secretary of State a public office?

yes, I'm not sure if they have invented the time machine yet though 

[Hef]

you actually think Hillary would have divested herself if she was elected?  I hardly think so. To me its a non issue
  And maybe turning it over to  his kids is divorcing it from himself to him,, just not to you.

You can surmise what HC would have done until you're blue in the face. You'll never know, will you?

"You'll never know, will you?" Thank God your right, but if she had won I would be willing to bet the farm on what she would do!

[..]

you actually think Hillary would have divested herself if she was elected?  I hardly think so. To me its a non issue
  And maybe turning it over to  his kids is divorcing it from himself to him,, just not to you.

You can surmise what HC would have done until you're blue in the face. You'll never know, will you?

Whereas we do have a pretty good idea what DT is doing....or not, as the case may be.

You have been telling us for MONTHS exactly what Trump thinks, feels, and will do if elected.  Sucks when the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it?

 

[Wizzard]

Baldo,, you are so good at pointing out what MIGHT, MAYBE, and COULD and distorting it all to fit your views that you should go work for the press. You would fit in real well.

[MP]

Baldo,, you are so good at pointing out what MIGHT, MAYBE, and COULD and distorting it all to fit your views that you should go work for the press. You would fit in real well.

Maybe New York Times reporter?  They claim to be impartial too!