It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump Is Yet To Sever Ties With His Business, Despite Promises To Do So

page: 2
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

He hurt's himself as well.




posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 09:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grimpachi
That is extremely serious, but I will wait till his first week is up before condemnation. I am disappointed though because he should have already got his sh!t in order.

That's true as well. If he completely divests himself soon from all his businesses, great. For everyone.

I think it's his echoing Nixon in his "If the president does it, its not illegal" attitude that I have a problem with.

We'll see.
Has he said "it's not illegal if the president does it"? Or are you projecting that attitude onto him because you "don't like" him?



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

I expect every lawsuit possible to be thrown at him as well. He doesn't though, for some reason.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 09:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: underwerks

So, was Trump saying he was going to bow out of his businesses for the good of America and the American public just another "alternative fact"?


I never expected he would. Even though its mandatory (as far as I know).

I think he thinks he can do whatever he wants.

He might show up with some legal paper, but none of those businesses are leaving the family.
I don't think it is mandatory that he removes himself from his business. Can you find any statute that would make it "unlawful"?



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

It's not even mandatory that they release their taxes...just customary. But face it. Donald Trump's situation is not customary.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: underwerks

So, was Trump saying he was going to bow out of his businesses for the good of America and the American public just another "alternative fact"?


I never expected he would. Even though its mandatory (as far as I know).

I think he thinks he can do whatever he wants.

He might show up with some legal paper, but none of those businesses are leaving the family.
I don't think it is mandatory that he removes himself from his business. Can you find any statute that would make it "unlawful"?


NO. I don't know.

But, he won't do anything he doesn't benefit from - - IMO.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: underwerks

So, was Trump saying he was going to bow out of his businesses for the good of America and the American public just another "alternative fact"?


I never expected he would. Even though its mandatory (as far as I know).

I think he thinks he can do whatever he wants.

He might show up with some legal paper, but none of those businesses are leaving the family.
do you think he should be forced to sell his busineses because he is the pres now?



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

It's not mandated by law. No law being broken means I don't give a #.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kettu

originally posted by: Grimpachi
That is extremely serious, but I will wait till his first week is up before condemnation. I am disappointed though because he should have already got his sh!t in order.


That's exactly what Trump wants.

"Look over here! No puppet, no puppet..."

He'll just tweet some stupid crap and cause controversy about something else to distract the masses from this. People have short attention spans.
Can we at least find out if he needs to do this to be within the bounds of the law? Otherwise you are just making # up.
edit on 22-1-2017 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Woodcarver

He hurt's himself as well.
How? Please describe how, in depth.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grimpachi
That is extremely serious, but I will wait till his first week is up before condemnation. I am disappointed though because he should have already got his sh!t in order.

That's true as well. If he completely divests himself soon from all his businesses, great. For everyone.

I think it's his echoing Nixon in his "If the president does it, its not illegal" attitude that I have a problem with.

We'll see.
Has he said "it's not illegal if the president does it"? Or are you projecting that attitude onto him because you "don't like" him?

Not Nixon's exact words, no. What Trump said was:

"The law is totally on my side, meaning, the President can't have a conflict of interest,"


edition.cnn.com...

And while that may be legally correct in this instance, the statement echoes the attitude in the Nixon quote perfectly. Whether legal or not, if you believe its impossible for the president to have a conflict of interest, simply by being president, I've got a mountain home in Florida I'll sell you.

Deep freeze packed with Trump Steaks.

edit on 22-1-2017 by underwerks because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: underwerks

So, was Trump saying he was going to bow out of his businesses for the good of America and the American public just another "alternative fact"?


I never expected he would. Even though its mandatory (as far as I know).

I think he thinks he can do whatever he wants.

He might show up with some legal paper, but none of those businesses are leaving the family.
I don't think it is mandatory that he removes himself from his business. Can you find any statute that would make it "unlawful"?


NO. I don't know.

But, he won't do anything he doesn't benefit from - - IMO.
Is that another opinion or do you know him better than i do?



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 10:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grimpachi
That is extremely serious, but I will wait till his first week is up before condemnation. I am disappointed though because he should have already got his sh!t in order.

That's true as well. If he completely divests himself soon from all his businesses, great. For everyone.

I think it's his echoing Nixon in his "If the president does it, its not illegal" attitude that I have a problem with.

We'll see.
Has he said "it's not illegal if the president does it"? Or are you projecting that attitude onto him because you "don't like" him?

Not Nixon's exact words, no. What Trump said was:

"The law is totally on my side, meaning, the President can't have a conflict of interest,"


edition.cnn.com...

And while that may be legally correct in this instance, the statement echoes the attitude in the Nixon quote perfectly. Whether legal or not, if you believe its impossible for the president to have a conflict of interest, simply by being president, I've got a mountain home in Florida I'll sell you.

Deep freeze packed with Trump Steaks.
In your link, it says this is only about one of his buildings. He is leasing the land from the govt on a 60 yr contract. Because of this, There is a clause in the original contract that prohibits any elected official to make money off of the hotel. He is giving it to his two sons. What a super cool dad. The hotel is gorgeous.

Thread over.
edit on 22-1-2017 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grimpachi
That is extremely serious, but I will wait till his first week is up before condemnation. I am disappointed though because he should have already got his sh!t in order.

That's true as well. If he completely divests himself soon from all his businesses, great. For everyone.

I think it's his echoing Nixon in his "If the president does it, its not illegal" attitude that I have a problem with.

We'll see.
Has he said "it's not illegal if the president does it"? Or are you projecting that attitude onto him because you "don't like" him?

Not Nixon's exact words, no. What Trump said was:

"The law is totally on my side, meaning, the President can't have a conflict of interest,"


edition.cnn.com...

And while that may be legally correct in this instance, the statement echoes the attitude in the Nixon quote perfectly. Whether legal or not, if you believe its impossible for the president to have a conflict of interest, simply by being president, I've got a mountain home in Florida I'll sell you.

Deep freeze packed with Trump Steaks.
In your link, it says this is only about one of his buildings. He is leasing the land from the govt on a 60 yr contract. Because of this, There is a clause in the original contract that prohibits any elected official to make money off of the hotel. He is giving it to his two sons.

Thread over.

Haha. Yeah, "thread over".

What you're talking about isn't even what the OP is about.

Good try though. Almost.

edit on 22-1-2017 by underwerks because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 10:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grimpachi
That is extremely serious, but I will wait till his first week is up before condemnation. I am disappointed though because he should have already got his sh!t in order.

That's true as well. If he completely divests himself soon from all his businesses, great. For everyone.

I think it's his echoing Nixon in his "If the president does it, its not illegal" attitude that I have a problem with.

We'll see.
Has he said "it's not illegal if the president does it"? Or are you projecting that attitude onto him because you "don't like" him?

Not Nixon's exact words, no. What Trump said was:

"The law is totally on my side, meaning, the President can't have a conflict of interest,"


edition.cnn.com...

And while that may be legally correct in this instance, the statement echoes the attitude in the Nixon quote perfectly. Whether legal or not, if you believe its impossible for the president to have a conflict of interest, simply by being president, I've got a mountain home in Florida I'll sell you.

Deep freeze packed with Trump Steaks.
In your link, it says this is only about one of his buildings. He is leasing the land from the govt on a 60 yr contract. Because of this, There is a clause in the original contract that prohibits any elected official to make money off of the hotel. He is giving it to his two sons.

Thread over.

Haha. Yeah, "thread over".

What you're talking about is the b-side to what this thread is actually about.

Good try though. Almost.
What is the A side then?



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grimpachi
That is extremely serious, but I will wait till his first week is up before condemnation. I am disappointed though because he should have already got his sh!t in order.

That's true as well. If he completely divests himself soon from all his businesses, great. For everyone.

I think it's his echoing Nixon in his "If the president does it, its not illegal" attitude that I have a problem with.

We'll see.
Has he said "it's not illegal if the president does it"? Or are you projecting that attitude onto him because you "don't like" him?

Not Nixon's exact words, no. What Trump said was:

"The law is totally on my side, meaning, the President can't have a conflict of interest,"


edition.cnn.com...

And while that may be legally correct in this instance, the statement echoes the attitude in the Nixon quote perfectly. Whether legal or not, if you believe its impossible for the president to have a conflict of interest, simply by being president, I've got a mountain home in Florida I'll sell you.

Deep freeze packed with Trump Steaks.
In your link, it says this is only about one of his buildings. He is leasing the land from the govt on a 60 yr contract. Because of this, There is a clause in the original contract that prohibits any elected official to make money off of the hotel. He is giving it to his two sons.

Thread over.

Haha. Yeah, "thread over".

What you're talking about is the b-side to what this thread is actually about.

Good try though. Almost.
What is the A side then?

What the OP is actually about.

ETA: Sometimes I feel like I should just go ahead and sew my palm to my face.

edit on 22-1-2017 by underwerks because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 10:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grimpachi
That is extremely serious, but I will wait till his first week is up before condemnation. I am disappointed though because he should have already got his sh!t in order.

That's true as well. If he completely divests himself soon from all his businesses, great. For everyone.

I think it's his echoing Nixon in his "If the president does it, its not illegal" attitude that I have a problem with.

We'll see.
Has he said "it's not illegal if the president does it"? Or are you projecting that attitude onto him because you "don't like" him?

Not Nixon's exact words, no. What Trump said was:

"The law is totally on my side, meaning, the President can't have a conflict of interest,"


edition.cnn.com...

And while that may be legally correct in this instance, the statement echoes the attitude in the Nixon quote perfectly. Whether legal or not, if you believe its impossible for the president to have a conflict of interest, simply by being president, I've got a mountain home in Florida I'll sell you.

Deep freeze packed with Trump Steaks.
In your link, it says this is only about one of his buildings. He is leasing the land from the govt on a 60 yr contract. Because of this, There is a clause in the original contract that prohibits any elected official to make money off of the hotel. He is giving it to his two sons.

Thread over.

Haha. Yeah, "thread over".

What you're talking about is the b-side to what this thread is actually about.

Good try though. Almost.
What is the A side then?

What the OP is actually about.
So no? You don't want to explain it? Where does it say that he needs to relinquish his businesses to anyone? You have not posted the statute which makes this necessary. Nor have you posted where he said he would.
edit on 22-1-2017 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grimpachi
That is extremely serious, but I will wait till his first week is up before condemnation. I am disappointed though because he should have already got his sh!t in order.

That's true as well. If he completely divests himself soon from all his businesses, great. For everyone.

I think it's his echoing Nixon in his "If the president does it, its not illegal" attitude that I have a problem with.

We'll see.
Has he said "it's not illegal if the president does it"? Or are you projecting that attitude onto him because you "don't like" him?

Not Nixon's exact words, no. What Trump said was:

"The law is totally on my side, meaning, the President can't have a conflict of interest,"


edition.cnn.com...

And while that may be legally correct in this instance, the statement echoes the attitude in the Nixon quote perfectly. Whether legal or not, if you believe its impossible for the president to have a conflict of interest, simply by being president, I've got a mountain home in Florida I'll sell you.

Deep freeze packed with Trump Steaks.
In your link, it says this is only about one of his buildings. He is leasing the land from the govt on a 60 yr contract. Because of this, There is a clause in the original contract that prohibits any elected official to make money off of the hotel. He is giving it to his two sons.

Thread over.

Haha. Yeah, "thread over".

What you're talking about is the b-side to what this thread is actually about.

Good try though. Almost.
What is the A side then?

What the OP is actually about.
So no? You don't want to explain it? Where does it say that he needs to relinquish his businesses to anyone? You have not posted the statute which makes this necessary.

Nowhere. As I've stated twice in this very thread. It's not legally required.

Why do you believe Trump to be immune from conflict of interest?



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 10:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grimpachi
That is extremely serious, but I will wait till his first week is up before condemnation. I am disappointed though because he should have already got his sh!t in order.

That's true as well. If he completely divests himself soon from all his businesses, great. For everyone.

I think it's his echoing Nixon in his "If the president does it, its not illegal" attitude that I have a problem with.

We'll see.
Has he said "it's not illegal if the president does it"? Or are you projecting that attitude onto him because you "don't like" him?

Not Nixon's exact words, no. What Trump said was:

"The law is totally on my side, meaning, the President can't have a conflict of interest,"


edition.cnn.com...

And while that may be legally correct in this instance, the statement echoes the attitude in the Nixon quote perfectly. Whether legal or not, if you believe its impossible for the president to have a conflict of interest, simply by being president, I've got a mountain home in Florida I'll sell you.

Deep freeze packed with Trump Steaks.
In your link, it says this is only about one of his buildings. He is leasing the land from the govt on a 60 yr contract. Because of this, There is a clause in the original contract that prohibits any elected official to make money off of the hotel. He is giving it to his two sons.

Thread over.

Haha. Yeah, "thread over".

What you're talking about is the b-side to what this thread is actually about.

Good try though. Almost.
What is the A side then?

What the OP is actually about.
So no? You don't want to explain it? Where does it say that he needs to relinquish his businesses to anyone? You have not posted the statute which makes this necessary.

Nowhere. As I've stated twice in this very thread. It's not legally required.

Why do you believe Trump to be immune from conflict of interest?
Where is the conflict of interest? Which foriegn dignitary did he rent a room to?

Also, from your OP link

Trump said at a Jan. 11 press conference that he and his daughter Ivanka have signed documents giving up control of all Trump-branded companies. Next to him on a table were stacks of documents he said transferred "complete and total control" of the companies to his sons Eric and Donald Jr and another employee.


Also, he took his oath on friday, it's sunday now.
edit on 22-1-2017 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-1-2017 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 10:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
That is extremely serious, but I will wait till his first week is up before condemnation. I am disappointed though because he should have already got his sh!t in order.


Why wait another week? This should have been set up before the election. Clinton had plans before the election. He has had since nov 8th and so far the only thing he has done is lie, go on victory tour and nominate only ~30 of thousands of nominations?



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join