It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Kali74
You bring up a great point. Obama wasn't as wealthy before entering the White House. Clinton either. Bush already had money.
Point being: they all profit from the office. I think it should be stopped. But not if the only reason is because all of a sudden its Trump and not Obama or Clinton.
just admit it....you guys hate him because he's wealthy and flaunts his wealth. So he needs to have an additional set of rules so he'll learn.
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
Of course they should.
No one person should be allowed to possess the benefits of both money AND power. They must be forced to choose from the outset which it is they want, and stick to it.
On a related note...i don't think i have to defend the tendency of humanity to exhibit jealousy and envy.
That language reads like a license for the President to extract as much money as he wants from his businesses, with no public disclosure, while he’s still in the White House. For example, it appears to suggest that the trustees could sell a Trump-owned asset anywhere in the world and forward the proceeds to Trump’s bank account without informing anybody.
Trump isn’t taking his annual Presidential salary of four hundred thousand dollars: on Monday, the White House announced that he would donate some of it to the National Park Service. So he may need income to pay his personal bills and contribute to the upkeep of his family. But legal experts consulted by ProPublica said that the language in the trust was so broad that it was almost unheard of.
It’s been clear from the start that the arrangements Trump made to separate himself from his businesses, and to avoid conflicts of interest, fall woefully short of what is needed. After Trump announced his plans in January, the director of the Office of Government Ethics, Walter Shaub, Jr., called them “wholly inadequate,” saying that they failed to “meet the standards that . . . every President in the last four decades have met.” This latest revelation just confirms how flimsy the divide between Trump and his businesses really is.
Until i see a better reason, its all I got.
If there is no problem with him spending his money....then what are we talking about that there is a problem with?
On Thursday and Friday, Trump will host Xi Jinping, the President of China, at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida. After a strained start, relations between the Administration and Beijing appear to have improved in recent weeks. That may be partly because, in late February, China granted preliminary approval for thirty-eight trademarks that the Trump business empire had applied for in the country, opening the way for the company to develop a range of Trump-branded businesses, including hotels and condominiums.
Chinese foreign-ministry officials insisted that the granting of all these trademarks was routine. But intellectual-property lawyers who know China said that it was unusual, and noted that it came just a couple of weeks after Trump, in a telephone conversation with Xi, said he would honor Beijing’s “One China” policy regarding Taiwan—a key demand of the Chinese.
Doubtless, this was all a coincidence. Just as it is a coincidence that Trump has sold a lot of property to wealthy Russians, and that his revised trust places virtually no restrictions on his ability to take out money from his businesses. In kleptocratic regimes, coincidences of this sort tend to be common.
Some legal experts said the trust agreement appears to offer no resistance if Trump did seek to receive money from private business dealings while deciding the nation’s affairs.
“He’s given up absolutely no control whatsoever,” said Fred Tansill, a trust attorney in McLean, Va. “If he wants to buy a fourth yacht or a jet plane, he can go to the trustees and say, ‘I’d like you to exercise your discretion,’ and they can give him anything he wants. If they say no, he can fire them.”
“This is trust law 101,” Tansill added. “Any trust lawyer understands that he’s given up no control. . . . There’s no blindness to this trust, and it’s not subtle.”