Trump's conflicts of interest

[edwardmurphy]

Anyone interested in knowing more about Trump's conflicts of interests, why they're bad, and how they're likely to impact his presidency might want to listen to this interview between Terry Gross and two ethics lawyers (one who served G.W. Bush and one who served Obama).

[abelcainsbrother]

Anyone interested in knowing more about Trump's conflicts of interests, why they're bad, and how they're likely to impact his presidency might want to listen to this interview between Terry Gross and two ethics lawyers (one who served G.W. Bush and one who served Obama).

I can understand why the establishment especially liberal democrats will probably try to make this into a political issue however it is not a problem really. The fact that we are only use to politicians becoming the President and not businessmen for such a long time does not make it wrong for Trump. We have not had a President like Trump who has businesses all over the world,but technically Trump could keep all of his businesses and run them and the Presidency at the same time,but Trump has decided on his own to just focus on the Presidency and has turned his businesses over to his sons. It seems to me that you don't like rich businessmen but Trump does not have to sell his businesses in order to be President like liberals think. It does not disqualify a person from being the President because they are rich and successful in business.Now I know liberals despise rich people but it does not prevent anybody from being the President.His businesses and his success is one reason he is now the President.The people did not want a politician like the Bush's and Clinton's,etc who have no business sense instead tthey wanted an outsider and businessman like Trump who does have business experience.

[edwardmurphy]

Obviously you didn't listen to the show.

[abelcainsbrother]

Obviously you didn't listen to the show.

If you want to believe these people? Go ahead but they are lying and wrong and are ignorant of the facts. But go ahead,it won't be the last time you were wrong listening to partisan political hacks that have gotten everything wrong in this election. You can choose to still believe their lies but we that know the truth won't.I'm not worried about this issue at all being a Trump supporter because I know the facts. It is DOA as a political attack.They will get run over just like so far.Liberals certainly ignored the Clinton foundation and now want to try to use this against Trump? Go ahead but it won't work. Liberals should be focused on how many more Senate seats they are going to lose in two years because they have 24 seats to defend and Republicans only have four.

[edwardmurphy]

Says the guy who didn't listen to the interview and has no idea what was said...

[RickD]

ACB,

EdwardMurphy is right. You should listen. Npr is known as an unbiased news source. I'm sure they can be fair towards Trump. Remember, nobody ever accuses NPR of being left leaning.

I'm sure it's a fair article. No left wing middle of the road news has ever shown bias against Trump, so give them a fair chance.

[edwardmurphy]

NPR is great. They interview people with varying perspectives about an issue, ask them questions, and then allow them to speak. Nobody talks over anybody else, nobody screams and yells, and everyone gets their turn to talk. The people who call them biased don't listen to NPR and have no real idea what they're talking about.

It's an excellent, fair, factual, extremely informative interview. Here's a sample:

On how Trump's business loans could interfere with his ability to regulate banks

Richard Painter: Consider, for the example, the debt from Deutsche Bank. Now, Deutsche Bank is a private bank, but we already know about very large loans from Deutsche Bank, and so that's a dependency relationship, and yet the president is supposed to be regulating or supervising the people who regulate the financial services sector.

They're talking about repealing Dodd-Frank ... and scaling back on bank regulations, making it easier for banks to loan money against collateral, which is almost always real estate, and that's what they're talking about doing in this administration, and here's the president of the United States, dependent upon banks — some government-owned, some private banks, all over the world — and there's a serious conflict of interest there.

And here's another:

On the security risks posed by having the Trump name on buildings around the world

Painter: Do you want to put the name of the president of the United States on a building in a country with a high risk of terrorist attacks? ... I think that's asking for trouble. ... It certainly doesn't help to have a president who makes insulting comments about other people's religion — that certainly gets the extremists energized.

I think there's a serious global security concern with having the president's name up on these buildings, and we could get sucked into something overseas because something happens to one of those buildings and the people in it.

Seriously, Rick, ACB lives in a fact-free, all-spin, partisan echo chamber and has no idea that there's any other way to see the world. I give you more credit than that.

Listen to the interview, people.

[abelcainsbrother]

ACB,

EdwardMurphy is right. You should listen. Npr is known as an unbiased news source. I'm sure they can be fair towards Trump. Remember, nobody ever accuses NPR of being left leaning.

I'm sure it's a fair article. No left wing middle of the road news has ever shown bias against Trump, so give them a fair chance.

I read the page and I can tell it is filled with misinformation.This is really old news that has already came up and has already been debunked. I know how biased NPR is and they are misinforming people like our liberal friend ed.

[edwardmurphy]

I read the page and I can tell it is filled with misinformation.This is really old news that has already came up and has already been debunked. I know how biased NPR is and they are misinforming people like our liberal friend ed.

You can tell, huh? Ok then. I guess you know more about law and ethics than the two former White House lawyers who specialized in presidential ethics and now run a nonpartisan ethics watchdog group. That's amazing, since you don't seem to grasp rudimentary civics, but whatever.

Let me throw something out to you, counselor, and you can explain it to me:

Trump owns a D.C. hotel, which hosts tons of foreign diplomats, events paid for by foreign governments, and such. Trump gets paid by said governments, so he looks to be in violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution (to put it mildly). What are the potential legal ramifications of that situation?

[Hortator]

Every media source is biased, most towards one hazy left-wing ideology or another, but NPR also has another reputation.

Of being boring.

Ed, you have to advertise the article you like in your OP. I realize you find the article interesting, but that's apparent, otherwise you would not have posted it to begin with. Like I said, advertise, entice, sell it to us. Make it sexy and appealing. Make it fun on yourself, pretend this article is real estate and you're Donald Trump. "It's terrific! Great piece, great piece."

I merely eyeballed the article, I'll be completely honest. Trump is a big boy, he has been in big business for a lo0ong time. He is the kind of savvy business tycoon probably can tell you the zoning ordinances of any given New Hampshire county for a swimming pool of 25 x 10 meters. I am positive he wasn't as sloppy as to chop off his legs at the advent of the biggest and riskiest decision of his life.

[abelcainsbrother]

I read the page and I can tell it is filled with misinformation.This is really old news that has already came up and has already been debunked. I know how biased NPR is and they are misinforming people like our liberal friend ed.

You can tell, huh? Ok then. I guess you know more about law and ethics than the two former White House lawyers who specialized in presidential ethics and now run a nonpartisan ethics watchdog group. That's amazing, since you don't seem to grasp rudimentary civics, but whatever.

Let me throw something out to you, counselor, and you can explain it to me:

Trump owns a D.C. hotel, which hosts tons of foreign diplomats, events paid for by foreign governments, and such. Trump gets paid by said governments, so he looks to be in violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution (to put it mildly). What are the potential legal ramifications of that situation?

Like I said,if you want to believe them? Go ahead. But they are wrong and I'm not sure you can claim this is nonpartisan when everybody knows that much of the Republican establishment was against Trump too. The fact is that the Bush family and Clinton family have been close friends for years,going on vacations together,etc all while making it seem like they were political foes in the media and they have controlled politics for years getting nothing really done while promising so much and yet politicians still run on the very same things they ran on to fix. The conservative movement was hyjacked by the Republican establishment that allows the Democrats everything they want,while both parties have abandoned the Constitution,made secret deals with globalists and have been pushing the globalist agenda while America and the American people suffer. Things could be so much better and now they will be that we don't have a sold out globalist politician in the White House.

[edwardmurphy]

The interview will give you a detailed, unbiased explanation of the ethical ramifications of Trump's refusal to divest and put his wealth into a blind trust, as well as its likely impact on his presidency. If that's not enough to pique your interest then skip it. I like to be informed. You might not care. To each his own.

[abelcainsbrother]

The interview will give you a detailed, unbiased explanation of the ethical ramifications of Trump's refusal to divest and put his wealth into a blind trust, as well as its likely impact on his presidency. If that's not enough to pique your interest then skip it. I like to be informed. You might not care. To each his own.

If that's true then how come what I read had so much misinformation in it? It does not matter that Trump refused to put his wealth in a blind trust because he did not have to even do that. He could run his businesses and the Presidency and although it might be bad for him politically,it is not illegal. It is wrong for anybody to claim you must sell your businesses,etc in order to be the President.Trump chose to allow his sons to run his businesses but he did not have to. This info you've got is coming from people who think only politicians can be the President but it is not true.

[edwardmurphy]

Nobody has said that Trump is legally required to divest. What they've said is that declining to do so creates huge ethical and optics problems and will guarantee future scandals. Long story short, it's a stupid, selfish decision that will cause him problems. For example:

The Emoluments Clause of the Constitution says that the president cannot receive money from foreign governments. Trump's D.C. hotel is currently doing just that, and in a big way. If Trump's hotel, banquet room, restaurant, and so forth are getting more foreign business it stands to reason that other hotels, bed and breakfasts, banquet halls, and restaurants are getting less. Why? Because Trump is the President, obviously, and that makes his hotel the place to be if you're a foreign diplomat.

Why is that a problem? If Trump takes in more foreign government money while his competitors get less they have grounds to take him to court for violating the Emoluments Clause. Trump is already involved in a great many law suits, and that one hotel will probably pull him into a lot more.

Anyway, that's the tip of the iceberg. If you want to know more then listen to the interview. If you'd prefer to stick with the narrative you've been given then so be it.

[abelcainsbrother]

Trump Unveils Ethics Policy To Avoid Conflicts Of Interest
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... cs-policy/