Trump Blind Trust

[Sedatedfork]

I don't think Trump is going to do this, which will create clear conflicts of interest and possibly could run afoul of the emoluments clause.

http://fortune.com/2016/11/15/donald-trump-conflicts-interest-ethics/

Trump Supporters: What do you think? Should Trump do a blind trust?

Having his kids run his business is not a blind trust at all. If he doesn't do this, could the litigation that will ensue be a huge distracti0n. I am very interested in what the GOP will have to say about all this and perhaps the side show that could surround a Trump presidency. Kind of ironic that Trump campaigned against "corruption" but could basically end up having the aura of corruption surrounding his entire presidency if he doesn't put his businesses in the hands of a true blind trust.

 

[blue32]

Hell, half the continent wanted to put up an already proven corrupted politician taking money for favors and enriching her family through them.

I fail to see why they should get upset about this. LOL.

Now, if you are a Republican and you hated the fact that Clinton was corrupt, then you should view this with scrutiny until it gets settled.

Edit:

Ok... more info to this:

"The conflicts of interest law—which carries federal criminal penalties—avoids those issues by exempting the President and Vice President from its provisions."

"Well, if Congress thinks an abuse of power becomes obvious and outlandish, it could impeach him. Federal criminal bribery statutes apply to presidents, too, but only for egregious and blatant abuses. "

"According to Painter, “every other President in modern times has tried as best they could to act as if the law did apply to them.” President Reagan, both Bushes, Clinton, and Obama, all used “blind trusts” to manage assets, he says."


So this blind trust is not required.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I don't think it's at all unreasonable to ask public servants to divest themselves of significant business interests while in office so as to avoid conflicts of interest. It will be frustrating if he refuses to accommodate this request.

 

[barfo]

The conflict of interest law does not apply, but the emoluments clause does apply.

Trump is not going to divest himself or do a blind trust (which is pretty much impossible for his business).

As Trump tweeted, this was all clear before the election. Voters decided they didn't care if the president uses the office to enrich himself.

So he will. Not likely that congress will impeach him for it.

barfo

 

[magnifier661]

I don't think a blind trust can work. He would still have interest in the success of the Trump empire. The best case scenario would be selling his interest to his children at fair market value. There still will be some conflict, but not as much as if he owned the empire outright like he does now. Still not sure he would do that though.

 

[Chris Craig]

The conflict of interest law does not apply, but the emoluments clause does apply.

Trump is not going to divest himself or do a blind trust (which is pretty much impossible for his business).

As Trump tweeted, this was all clear before the election. Voters decided they didn't care if the president uses the office to enrich himself.

So he will. Not likely that congress will impeach him for it.

barfo

Trump is the kind of guy who does what he wants when he wants

 

[blue32]

Trump is the kind of guy who does what he wants when he wants

Didn't you vote for Hillary?

 

[Chris Craig]

Didn't you vote for Hillary?

I didn't vote for Trump

 

[blue32]

I didn't vote for Trump

You sir lack reading comprehension.

 

[Chris Craig]

You sir lack reading comprehension.

And you sir lack an understanding of sarcasm

 

[blue32]

And you sir lack an understanding of sarcasm

Great, so, did you vote for Hillary or not? Just curious. Would like to establish your moral viewpoint on ethics regarding the Presidency.

 

[Sedatedfork]

I don't think a blind trust can work. He would still have interest in the success of the Trump empire. The best case scenario would be selling his interest to his children at fair market value. There still will be some conflict, but not as much as if he owned the empire outright like he does now. Still not sure he would do that though.

The problem with that is that the Trump organization's biggest asset is the Trump name (i.e. Donald Trump) and licensing. Places are paying to use Trump's name because of Donald Trump. I can't envision a situation where he would sell his assets and businesses to his children and not somehow be involved in the business. Which, I guess is why he is also balking at a blind trust.

 

[Chris Craig]

Great, so, did you vote for Hillary or not? Just curious. Would like to establish your moral viewpoint on ethics regarding the Presidency.

Yes, I did

 

[blue32]

Yes, I did

Fair enough. So, Trump not doing a blind trust shouldn't really bother you right?

 

[barfo]

Fair enough. So, Trump not doing a blind trust shouldn't really bother you right?

And, similarly, any suggestion of corruption involving the Clinton Foundation shouldn't bother you any, right?

And speaking of Foundations, the Trump Foundation just admitted to multiple illegal acts.

barfo

 

[blue32]

And, similarly, any suggestion of corruption involving the Clinton Foundation shouldn't bother you any, right?

And speaking of Foundations, the Trump Foundation just admitted to multiple illegal acts.

barfo

Clinton Foundation corruption does bother me, not sure why you are confused on my position.

 

[blue32]

Oh and Barfo to answer you about the Trump foundation. Had not heard about it. Seems rather different than the Clinton foundation corruption. Mainly because Trump's foundation actually admitted to the IRS in the FORMS that they did violate certain things.

I guess the penalty for that is:
"Such violations can carry penalties including excise taxes, and the charity leaders can be required to repay money that the charity spent on their behalf."

Whereas the penalty for Clinton corruption, well, if they ever admit to it, will be unknown, other than not getting the White House.

Both items stink, but if you can't see a huge difference here..... IDK what to tell ya.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

its this disconnect that confounds me. why is hillary, reviled as the most corrupt and plastic candidate of our generation, the measuring stick of what is right and wrong?

both of them suck. just because one sucks more at something doesnt excuse the other.

simple fact, trump will be our next president. EVERY american needs to hold HIM to task.

 

[barfo]

Oh and Barfo to answer you about the Trump foundation. Had not heard about it. Seems rather different than the Clinton foundation corruption. Mainly because Trump's foundation actually admitted to the IRS in the FORMS that they did violate certain things.

I guess the penalty for that is:
"Such violations can carry penalties including excise taxes, and the charity leaders can be required to repay money that the charity spent on their behalf."

Whereas the penalty for Clinton corruption, well, if they ever admit to it, will be unknown, other than not getting the White House.

Both items stink, but if you can't see a huge difference here..... IDK what to tell ya.

Yeah, there's a big difference all right. One Foundation actually helps millions of people. Give you three guesses which of the two it is.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Clinton Foundation corruption does bother me, not sure why you are confused on my position.

You said that Chris Craig shouldn't be bothered by Trump's ethics issues because he voted for Clinton.
By the same logic, you shouldn't be bothered by Clinton's ethics issues since you voted for Trump.

barfo

 

[blue32]

Yeah, there's a big difference all right. One Foundation actually helps millions of people. Give you three guesses which of the two it is.

barfo

Ahh, so that's what the reasoning you use to allow corruption to occur with State officials. NICE. Always wondered what it took.

 

[blue32]

You said that Chris Craig shouldn't be bothered by Trump's ethics issues because he voted for Clinton.
By the same logic, you shouldn't be bothered by Clinton's ethics issues since you voted for Trump.

barfo

Big differences between the two, already highlighted above.

 

[barfo]

Ahh, so that's what the reasoning you use to allow corruption to occur with State officials. NICE. Always wondered what it took.

Allow corruption? No. If someone can provide evidence of corruption, that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

So far, only the Trump Foundation has been proven to be corrupt.

And while the good work done by the Clinton Foundation doesn't excuse any possible corruption, it does nevertheless matter.

barfo

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Allow corruption? No. If someone can provide evidence of corruption, that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

So far, only the Trump Foundation has been proven to be corrupt.

And while the good work done by the Clinton Foundation doesn't excuse any possible corruption, it does nevertheless matter.

barfo

Wait...a non-profit organization self-reporting tax-generating transactions to the IRS equals corruption?

You read from a strange dictionary.

 

[oldfisherman]

Our tax laws are so convoluted the clever accountants always find ways around them. Much like clever NBA GMs always find loopholes in the CBA and salary cap.

I am more concerned about what Trump will do when he finds out he can tell black helicopters what to do, and how he uses the “nuclear football” as a negotiating tool.

 

[barfo]

Wait...a non-profit organization self-reporting tax-generating transactions to the IRS equals corruption?

You read from a strange dictionary.

It equals admission of corruption, yes. They self-reported it after the press discovered it and publicized it.

It's Trump repeatedly using charity money to benefit himself. What else do you want to call it, if not corruption? A series of unfortunate incidents?

barfo

 

[PtldPlatypus]

It equals admission of corruption, yes. They self-reported it after the press discovered it and publicized it.

It's Trump repeatedly using charity money to benefit himself. What else do you want to call it, if not corruption? A series of unfortunate incidents?

barfo

The press discovered and publicized...that it was already listed on tax forms?

 

[barfo]

The press discovered and publicized...that it was already listed on tax forms?

No. It wasn't already listed on tax forms, in fact.

barfo

 

[PtldPlatypus]

No. It wasn't already listed on tax forms, in fact.

barfo

The article you linked didn't really indicate that. It indicated that the Post couldn't confirm if the forms that were posted have been sent to the IRS, that they don't know if the associated penalties have been paid, or any details on the self-dealing.

But sure, let's take the marking of a checkbox on an IRS form with absolutely no correlating information and call it corruption. That seems perfectly reasonable.

 

[barfo]

The article you linked didn't really indicate that. It indicated that the Post couldn't confirm if the forms that were posted have been sent to the IRS, that they don't know if the associated penalties have been paid, or any details on the self-dealing.

But sure, let's take the marking of a checkbox on an IRS form with absolutely no correlating information and call it corruption. That seems perfectly reasonable.

I take it you didn't read any of the previous reporting over the last several months about the Trump Foundation self-dealing? There's plenty of details available.

barfo