Why Donald Trump should not divest

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

It's no secret I don't like (or trust) him.
Partisan? Like I said, do you think all Republicans don't care about his conflicts of interest?

No, I am sure some do. Those that don't like him.
I doubt any Trump supporter thinks that his plan is not adequate. In fact many would not care if he made billions as long as everyone else benefited.
I don;t think this is really a big issue beyond partisan politics, certainly not a big ethical issue people are REALLY worried about.

These days it costs hundreds of millions to run for POTUS. It's not something anyone can afford. Only billionaires like Trump can run. Billionaires are all businessmen. Ergo, it is not fair to impose POTUS divest. It is not realistic. It is not fair.

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: UKTruth

The presidential office is by its nature a public servant. Public servants are not allowed to use public resources or influence for private gains. There is no debate on this. To argue the contrary is foolish.

Sorry, but no. The conflict of interest law in the Constitution does not apply to the President (or indeed the Vice President)

Donald Trump is also an American citizen. If he makes America better off, then naturally he would also be better off financially. That is not a conflict of interest.

a reply to: UKTruth

I don;t think this is really a big issue beyond partisan politics, certainly not a big ethical issue people are REALLY worried about.

Time will tell and he will be closely observed.
Of course, no one but he knows where all his interests are (no tax returns) so he could screw us while helping himself and no one would be the wiser.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

I don;t think this is really a big issue beyond partisan politics, certainly not a big ethical issue people are REALLY worried about.

Time will tell and he will be closely observed.
Of course, no one but he knows where all his interests are (no tax returns) so he could screw us while helping himself and no one would be the wiser.

That is the point, he will be closely watched. Actually the fact we don't know means he has to be even more careful because ANY policy that, for example, greatly benefits the real estate industry is going to be reviewed. This is why Elizabeth Warren was on the offensive yesterday when discussing the HUD role with Ben Carson.

a reply to: UKTruth

Indeed.
He could push legislation which would directly benefit his unknown entities at government expense.

If he makes America better off, then he would naturally gain financially too, since he is an American citizen. No conflict there.

If he makes himself financially better off while making America worse off, that would be a conflict of interest. How would he do that? He could take a bribe from Putin and nuke America.

originally posted by: JeremySun
Donald Trump is also an American citizen. If he makes America better off, then naturally he would also be better off financially. That is not a conflict of interest.

The reason the President (and VP) are exempt is because their duties are so broad it is actualy impossible not to benefit themselves if they do a good job.

a reply to: UKTruth

The reason the President (and VP) are exempt is because their duties are so broad it is actualy impossible not to benefit themselves if they do a good job.

Citation?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

Indeed.
He could push legislation which would directly benefit his unknown entities at government expense.

The HUD, I believe, is the primary place to watch.
The issues will arise if legislation is skewed in a way that greatly benefits a certain segment within the industry. e.g Hotel chains get a boon, whilst boutique hotels and motels do not... that's the kind of thing to look for. Or if a trade deal opens up a new market and his business expands there (though he has said no new foreign deals)

a reply to: JeremySun

That isn't the question or the issue. The possibility and the temptation, without legal recourse or punishment, to make decisions that benefit him personally first and foremost is the issue. Article I, Section 9, Clause 8: the Emoluments Clause makes it clear. It has never been challenged by any president. Trump will be in direct violation of that clause upon swearing in to uphold and defend the constitution if he has any conflict of interest because directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally he will lie during his swearing in. Intent is not a prerequisite. The appearance or even the possibility of a conflict of interest is the problem. And he will violate it. Period.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

The reason the President (and VP) are exempt is because their duties are so broad it is actualy impossible not to benefit themselves if they do a good job.

Citation?

This principle was outlined in a 1974 letter from the Justice Department, issued at a time when Nelson Rockefeller was under consideration to be confirmed as vice president after Richard Nixon resigned and Gerald Ford became president. Rockefeller, then governor of New York, was heir to a fortune and consented to congressional hearings in which his business interests were closely examined. “The uniqueness of the President’s situation is also illustrated by the fact that disqualification of the President from policy decisions because of personal conflicting interests is inconceivable,” the letter noted. The 1978 Ethics of Government Act and the 1989 Ethics Reform Act later codified this principle.

a reply to: richapau

Emoluments clause does not apply unless Trump's salary as CEO of the Trump organization increases from hotel fees paid by foreign ambassadors staying at Trump hotels.

a reply to: Metallicus

Hilary is irrelevant in this discussion. What she may or may not have done has ZERO bearing on what Trump IS doing.

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: JeremySun

That isn't the question or the issue. The possibility and the temptation, without legal recourse or punishment, to make decisions that benefit him personally first and foremost is the issue. Article I, Section 9, Clause 8: the Emoluments Clause makes it clear. It has never been challenged by any president. Trump will be in direct violation of that clause upon swearing in to uphold and defend the constitution if he has any conflict of interest because directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally he will lie during his swearing in. Intent is not a prerequisite. The appearance or even the possibility of a conflict of interest is the problem. And he will violate it. Period.

The Emoluments clause is different to the Conflict of Interest rules.
It is not about conflict of interest, it is concerned primarily with bribery. There is no requirement contained within the emoluments clause for Trump to divest assets, only that he does not accept gifts or payments from foreign state interests.

You do not seem to have a grasp of the actual laws and rules pertaining to the President.

Where does it say that the potus has to give up his/her livelihood?

Did Washington and Adams give up their plantations and farms?

The Founders made public service just that, public service and then go home back to the life they left.

The public knows what they do, that's why hillary lost.

Accepting millions from foreign govt's to a foundation is a lot different than owning golf courses or hotels overseas where people pay for a service. Oh wait!!

I heard some idiot say that a Trump sign on a building would make that a bigger target for terrorists or blackmail.

He also questioned who would be paying for security. Like Trump would have marines protecting his property.

Really? Anything american is a target. That's what he wants to stop. His benefit or all americans?

a reply to: JeremySun

It absolutely applies. Because a conflict of interest can be possibly present where he benefits as a CEO of Trump corp directly from policies as President Trump. If you don't understand this simple concept there's nothing further to discuss because you don't understand the law and you are arguing from a position of absurdity.

a reply to: UKTruth

You don't clearly.

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: UKTruth

You don't clearly.

I can see the actual Constitution and laws of the land are not going to convince you to change your pre determined falsehood. Oh well, I tried.