Trump can now tap money from his business, raising ethics concerns

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.

Here's the difference: The advances for the book that Obama wrote (and the sales) were NOT from Obama selling his own self-published book to the government and then making the government sell the books and collecting all the monies from the government sales.

The president is a temporary job someone does for 4 or 8 years. A person cannot run for president until he or she is at least 35 years old. Considering only the richest people can be elected president given how expensive presidential campaigns are these days, it's a no brainer only the richest business men or women can be elected president. So why should people sell off their businesses if they are elected president? It makes 0 sense to me.

a reply to: mOjOm

That's not your concern. That's the press' concern. They have a team in the WH that follows the president around 24 7 365. If the president does anything illegal with his private business, it would be in the news.

Having a private business is more than a hobby. It is a personal freedom and human right. The US constitution protects the freedoms and rights of citizens. The president or anyone else cannot be forced to give up on his or her private business for any reason unless an illegal act is committed.

a reply to: Byrd

Congress should pass a law keeping Trump (and others) from doing what he is doing. To me, it looks like he took business as usual capitalized a little more. Maybe....we are only 70 days in and i don't think there is any evidence yet.

I don't disagree that our elected officials should not profit from their office. I only wonder why it wasn't so much an issue under Clinton or Obama? I remember all the griping about Cheney. This is a pure partisan issue. That is what i have trouble supporting.

a reply to: mOjOm

Is that what happened here?

What has happened here is he is able to access his wealth. Instead of begging his family for it. A step which, if you recall, was not legally required and was only taken to shut people up.

So what are you on about? That he can get some money from his mass of wealth? He isn't taking a salary....how else is he expected to pay for things?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

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.

This is what some of my conservative friends like to say about any criticism of people with money: You're just jealous

Covers a lot of territory

:-)

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.

Yes he is getting his pension. Is that a crime? Geez. Some people are just jealous he gets millions of pension a year. Deal with it.

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.

Allowed?

I can't even figure out how to reply here.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Until i see a better reason, its all I got.

Trump declines his salary because he is wealthy. He decides to use some of his wealth (since he donates his salary), and people throw a fit.

Why? Because he gets to have some of his cash and isnt living in austerity? What is the reason for everyone losing their collective minds over Trump accessing his vast wealth in the form of owner distributions? Its his money.

And why now on him profiting from the office? What i notice is that particular complaint is purely partisan. The GOP griped about Obama and Clinton making money in office. The DNC griped about the Cheney clan doing the same. No one does anything aout it.....they just wait until partisan convenience allows them to waste server space online.

On a related note...i don't think i have to defend the tendency of humanity to exhibit jealousy and envy.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

It would be disingenuous of you to state that being against politicians being able to live like kings rather than servants, is something which people only mention when their opposition are in power.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

On a related note...i don't think i have to defend the tendency of humanity to exhibit jealousy and envy.

I wasn't asking you to defend anything Tex. It's just a common conversation stopping comment that I've heard a lot. The public has a right to scrutinize our leaders - and every complaint is not about our personal longing - or envy

I hear a lot of right leaning people defending Trump - just like in this thread here

Appearances are not facts, but they do matter when it comes to the public's confidence and ability to trust their elected officials. Trump is rich. Duh. If our criticisms (and I'm including my self in that you guys) are to be reduced to nothing more than whining or envy, I wonder - how are we supposed to have a conversation?

Trump Kleptocracy Watch: An Update

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.

This latest complaint about using his own money? I actually have no problem with him accessing his own money. Why would I? But, is that all we're looking at here? Are we not supposed to wonder? Were Obama or Ms. Clinton given a free pass? God, I heard way too much about Michelle's dresses, the Obama vacations - Hillary's speaking fees...it was non-stop

This is where we are right now. There is an all out assault on Trump that a lot of people don't understand. If we're all honest - it's not just coming from a disgruntled left. It's coming from the right, from other world leaders - this is not a normal situation

There are rules that apply to everyone - even Trump. I can't speak for everyone, but I don't hate him because he's rich. I have no problem with money

a reply to: TrueBrit

they don't only. And its well rooted in US politics. Martin Van Buren was hated for, among other things, being too uppity around others.

But lets call it what it is: envy, jealousy, and greed.

If your only complaint is that someone lives more lavishly than you find tasteful, then it a complaint rooted in envy, jealousy, and/or greed.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

If there is no problem with him spending his money....then what are we talking about that there is a problem with?

Im not in disagreement that he shouldn't monetize the office. I agreed with that for my whole adult life. And at any given time half the nation agrees with me. But that half keeps changing. Thats pretty frustrating.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

If there is no problem with him spending his money....then what are we talking about that there is a problem with?

We would be idiots to sit here and complain about Trump spending his own money. There needs to be a separation between Trump the president (an elected official that works for us) and Trump the business man who might potentially profit from this position. I linked an article and posted a part I thought was relevant. Here's more:

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.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

That's not your concern. That's the concern of the press. If Trump steals money from tax payers and put them in his private business, it would be in the news.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

OK....no argument on that.

But it isn't really related to the article in the OP. What they are saying is that a change happened in that he can now access his money without having to ask his family members. I don't see why that action created any outrage.

He didn't do anything wrong. What is the purpose of the article?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

It's funny - we must be seeing completely different things. Between what Byrd posted and the article I posted - the concerns should seem obvious :-)

You've even agreed with them pretty much:

Trump and his attorneys have pointed to the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust as a response to widespread worries from ethics lawyers, who have said Trump’s refusal to divest ownership of his company creates the potential that he can derive personal profit from his public office.

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.”

That is a pretty good example of how this year is going I guess. I think if we removed the teams element from all of this, more of us would be agreeing than taking up contrary positions

Forcing the president to divest from his private business would probably go against the constitution, specifically the first amendment which protects individual rights and freedoms. Elizabeth Warren made an attempt to force the president to divest, but it was not considered by Congress.

link

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I fail to see how purchasing goods can be a problem. Its his cash and assets. If you can help me understand how there is a problem with him making purchases. Maybe he'll get a better deal because of who he is...that would be up to an audit to determine.

What am I missing?

ETA: Im of a mindset that his whole "trust" deal was circus and show done to simply placate squeaky wheels. I would like to see some legal direction put in place regarding this type of issue....but I suspect most of what the masses would prefer would actually violate his rights.

He was not obliged to do it. I wish he'd have not wasted time (and looked so stupid) making a spectacle out of it. I blame him as much as his detractors for the circus like atmosphere.