• Electoral college must not elect Donald Trump unless he sells his business, say Obama and Bush's eth
    138 replies, posted
[url]http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/electoral-college-must-not-elect-donald-trump-unless-he-sells-his-business-say-obama-and-bushs-ethics-lawyers/ar-AAkLn2N?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=DELLDHP[/url] [url]https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-11-21/trump-s-hotel-lodges-a-constitutional-problem[/url] - What this means [QUOTE]The former ethics lawyers for president Barack Obama and George W Bush have asked the electoral college to not appoint Donald Trump as the next president due to his potential conflicts of interest. Richard Painter, former chief ethics counsel for Mr Bush, and Norman Eisen, former chief ethics counsel for Mr Obama, said that the president-elect must sell out from his real estate and business holdings before 19 December, when the electoral college officially appoints the next president. As reported by ThinkProgress, Mr Eisen pointed to Article 1, Section 9 of the US constitution which prohibits presidents from accepting "any present, emolument, office, or title, or any kind whatever, from any king, price, or foreign state". [/QUOTE]
Any more context on what this is/means exactly? how can trump get around this? and is this serious or? maybe i simply haven't read well enough, but I'm no law dude so
Is this a suggestion or is it actually a thing anyone can enforce.
George Washington didn't have to give up his real estate holdings.
[QUOTE=Dr McNinja;51427811]Is this a suggestion or is it actually a thing anyone can enforce.[/QUOTE] Well its in the constitution, to which its being considered seriously. Obama consulted a lawyer before accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, so I can see how Trump owning his business is going to be a real problem.
[QUOTE=J!NX;51427802]Any more context on what this is/means exactly? how can trump get around this? and is this serious or? maybe i simply haven't read well enough, but I'm no law dude so[/QUOTE] [URL]https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-11-21/trump-s-hotel-lodges-a-constitutional-problem[/URL] heres a bit of reading, but heres what it boils down to [QUOTE]But what about the letter of the law? Trump’s hotel, after all, may be overpriced, but its guests would get beds and a roof over their heads. Their payment therefore isn’t a gift. Is it an emolument? The answer is a qualified yes. Richard Painter, Bush’s ethics lawyer, has said that government officials may legally engage in ordinary business transactions such as the sale of an automobile or real estate at face value to a foreign government, but that the Constitution would be violated by a sweetheart deal or special benefits for the official. I think the clause covers hotel rooms, even without special benefits. An “emolument” in 18th century English didn’t just mean a free gift. It included ordinary compensation for services or other profit, such as salary or fees. A hotel room rented with the goal of profit should count.[/QUOTE] if foreign emissaries stay at his hotel, it violates[URL="http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/article-i-section-9"] Artcile I Section 9[/URL] for receiving payment from a foreign power. techinically i think.
Can't help but be reminded of that saying of how it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle then for the rich to get to heaven. Let's see what he cares about more, his money or the presidency?
Always wondered how Trumps businesses would affect his chance at presidency, and now that he's president-elect, I wonder if he'll have to give up his businesses before taking office or it's just something that'll be swept under the rug. If Trump has to ultimately sell his businesses, I wonder if he'll commit or if he'll fight it.
[QUOTE=KillRay;51427825][url]https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-11-21/trump-s-hotel-lodges-a-constitutional-problem[/url] heres a bit of reading, but heres what it boils down to[/QUOTE] so basically, what it means is he can't legally receive (foreign) money for products and services he markets? Remember guys Trump has planned this presidency over for decade(s) now.
[QUOTE=th0rianite;51427822]George Washington didn't have to give up his real estate holdings.[/QUOTE] he was also george washington. I don't think there was much lobbying and special interests going on back then.
i'm excited to see the constitution get trampled on /sarcasm
TBH, I don't agree. A person shouldn't have to get rid of their entire outside life when becoming president. That would just solidify that only lifetime politicians would ever run for president. I'm not sure how that section of the constitution applies.
Trump would rather conceed Presidency before the selling of his assets. Does't matter he's going to get elected with his business Empire still in his hands..
The law seems pretty cut and dry, if weirdly worded. Seems like he'd have to (at least temporarily) let go of his ownership of any real estate.
nothing will happen. he'll be president, he'll have the "Blind" trust set up with Ivanka, and nothing will stop the two from crossing over and causing conflicts of interest but that doesn't matter anymore
[QUOTE=Lolkork;51427920]It's weird that this wasn't brought up much earlier. Feels like such an obvious argument against Trump.[/QUOTE] It was brought up many times, along with [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/20/us/politics/donald-trump-business-reaction.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytpolitics&smtyp=cur"]issues pertianing to his foreign investments[/URL]. Clinton decided to focus on name calling instead. Now we have presidential ethics lawyers from past presidents from both parties saying this is an issue that needs to be addressed as well.
Um, don't we already know that he's going to be giving control of his holdings over to his family, ala his sons, so this doesn't really matter? I feel like we heard about that.
can't he easily get around this by letting his family run his businesses? edit: damn i got ninja'd AND got a reply for the post that ninja'd me within the minute. the magic of SH
[QUOTE=jonu67;51427949]Um, don't we already know that he's going to be giving control of his holdings over to his family, ala his sons, so this doesn't really matter? I feel like we heard about that.[/QUOTE] his blind trust is not blind so no, it doesn't count, and it doesn't work these lawyers are talking specifically about that [editline]25th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51427954]can't he easily get around this by letting his family run his businesses?[/QUOTE] Ivanka sat in on the meeting with Shinzo Abe and Trump, so how is that a "blind" trust?
Absolutely desperate. I can't wait for January 20.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51427955]his blind trust is not blind so no, it doesn't count, and it doesn't work these lawyers are talking specifically about that[/QUOTE] Then couldn't he just get someone he trusts and temporary give them power, this really doesn't seem like that much of a hard thing to get around.
[QUOTE=jonu67;51427961]Then couldn't he just get someone he trusts and temporary give them power, this really doesn't seem like that much of a hard thing to get around.[/QUOTE] doubt his ego would let him tbh
[QUOTE=Lolkork;51427920]It's weird that this wasn't brought up much earlier. Feels like such an obvious argument against Trump.[/QUOTE] He promised to put his business aside during the primaries but this is trump so what even are promises?
[QUOTE=jonu67;51427961]Then couldn't he just get someone he trusts and temporary give them power, this really doesn't seem like that much of a hard thing to get around.[/QUOTE] Trump needs to relinquish control, custody, and care of all of his commercial assets. He's given Eric and Ivanka a "Blind" trust over the company, except it doesn't fit the definition of a blind trust by any legal experts wildest imaginations. It doesn't work that simply.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51427972]He promised to put his business aside during the primaries [b]but this is trump so what even are promises?[/b][/QUOTE] They're lies.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51427960]Absolutely desperate. I can't wait for January 20.[/QUOTE] on the contrary, i think the worries over trump's possible business practices while in office is probably one of the opposition's most well-founded concerns yet
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51427960]Absolutely desperate. I can't wait for January 20.[/QUOTE] How hard are you trying to lie to yourself on a daily basis right now
This happened to Reagan and Carter.
[QUOTE=Cructo;51428011]ah I see we're back at the "Trump is only in it for the money" point again[/QUOTE] Ive yet to see any evidence that suggests otherwise.
[QUOTE=Cructo;51428011]ah I see we're back at the "Trump is only in it for the money" point again[/QUOTE] if he leaves himself/his family in control of his businesses, who's to say he isn't just going to lobby for special interests concerning them, constantly?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.