Trump Business Will be Held in a Trust Run by Trump Sons -- Ethicists Not Pleased - Polidicks

[url]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/us/politics/trump-organization-business-conflicts.html?_r=0[/url] [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-finance-idUSKBN14V21I[/url] [Quote] By Andy Sullivan, Emily Stephenson and Steve Holland | WASHINGTON U.S. President-elect Donald Trump said on Wednesday he would maintain ownership of his global business empire but hand off control to his two oldest sons while president, an arrangement that watchdogs said would not prevent conflicts of interest in the White House. Trump told a news conference he would resign from all positions overseeing hotels, golf courses and hundreds of other businesses and move his assets into a trust to help ensure that he will not consciously take actions as president that would benefit him personally. Trump, a Republican, is under pressure to distance himself from his businesses before he moves into the White House on Jan. 20. Unlike other U.S. government officials, the president is not required by law to steer clear of conflicts of interest. "I could actually run my business and run government at the same time. I don’t like the way that looks, but I would be able to do that if I wanted to," Trump said. Ethics experts said the arrangement did not go far enough.[/quote] [url]http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/politics/Trump-to-Give-Up-Leadership-of-Trump-Organization-But-Will-Not-Create-Blind-Trust-410404205.html[/url] [Quote] President-elect Donald Trump will relinquish leadership of the Trump Organization to his adult sons and create a trust for his assets, but it will not be the blind trust that his critics and many ethics experts insist is necessary to eliminate concerns about conflicts of interest. Trump attorney Sheri A. Dillon said that Trump "should not be expected to destroy the company he built." Trump’s attorneys counter that a blind trust, in which Trump's assets would be managed by independent trustees, is not realistic. In addition, Trump will donate any profits from foreign governments, such as payments for staying at his hotels, to the Treasury Department to address arguments that he would violate the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.[/quote]

I mean they are his sons, he'll obviously have very intimate contact with them. I think that distance is still way too close, from what the ethics experts have said.

This just in Trump Hotel rewarded with Multi year multi million dollar government contract.

so whens that impeachment process gonna start?

[QUOTE=Judas;51656082]so whens that impeachment process gonna start?[/QUOTE] Why would there be impeachment?

[QUOTE=OvB;51656086]Why would there be impeachment?[/QUOTE] blatant corruption before he's even entered office

The Code of Federal Regulations Section 2634.402 gives this as a definition for an independent, blind trust: [QUOTE](c) Independence requirements. The Director shall determine that a proposed trustee is independent if: (1) The entity is independent of and unassociated with any interested party so that it cannot be controlled or influenced in the administration of the trust by any interested party; (2) The entity is not and has not been affiliated with any interested party, and is not a partner of, or involved in any joint venture or other investment or business with, any interested party; and (3) Any director, officer, or employee of such entity: (i) Is independent of and unassociated with any interested party so that such director, officer, or employee cannot be controlled or influenced in the administration of the trust by any interested party; (ii) Is not and has not been employed by any interested party, not served as a director, officer, or employee of any organization affiliated with any interested party, and is not and has not been a partner of, or involved in any joint venture or other investment with, any interested party; and (iii) Is not a relative of any interested party.[/QUOTE] It is more than evident that Trumps efforts to eliminate all conflicts of interest aren't yet sufficient and are not fulfilled by having his Qualified Blind Trusts run by his sons. I'm not entirely sure how bound Trump is to these regulations, but they certainly raise some questions. I'm starting to doubt that with how large and far-reaching Trump's business empire is, that he'll ever be able to entirely avoid conflicts of interest in his tenure.

this isn't a blind trust nor has he even admitted it was such. this is just fucking rediculous that he's going to get away with it. I hope to god that the democrats make a landslide victory in 2018, immedietly impeach his ass

[QUOTE=Judas;51656114]blatant corruption before he's even entered office[/QUOTE] Owning a business while being president is not grounds for corruption, though. Presidents and vice Presidents are exempt from conflict of interest laws. And a trust is enough to satisfy conflicts with using his name in branding. Like it or not, his business ventures are not enough to impeach him. Even if he does grant favors to his company, he is within his legal right to do so. [editline]11th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Duck M.;51656117]The Code of Federal Regulations Section 2634.402 gives this as a definition for an independent, blind trust: It is more than evident that Trumps efforts to eliminate all conflicts of interest aren't yet sufficient and are not fulfilled by having his Qualified Blind Trusts run by his sons. I'm not entirely sure how bound Trump is to these regulations, but they certainly raise some questions. I'm starting to doubt that with how large and far-reaching Trump's business empire is, that he'll ever be able to entirely avoid conflicts of interest in his tenure.[/QUOTE] This is not a blind trust, it is a regular trust with his sons as trustees. The title is wrong.

[QUOTE=Sableye;51656200]this isn't a blind trust nor has he even admitted it was such. this is just fucking rediculous that he's going to get away with it. I hope to god that the democrats make a landslide victory in 2018, immedietly impeach his ass[/QUOTE] Just to be clear, Trump has repeatedly referred to this as a "blind trust."

[QUOTE=OvB;51656201]Owning a business while being president is not grounds for corruption, though. Presidents and vice Presidents are exempt from conflict of interest laws. And a trust is enough to satisfy conflicts with using his name in branding. Like it or not, his business ventures are not enough to impeach him. Even if he does grant favors to his company, he is within his legal right to do so. [editline]11th January 2017[/editline] This is not a blind trust, it is a regular trust with his sons as trustees. The title is wrong.[/QUOTE] STOCK act.

Fixed your title BDA.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51656216]Just to be clear, Trump has repeatedly referred to this as a "blind trust."[/QUOTE] ok, the cnn article i read on this earlier implied he didn't even pretend anymore

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51656216]Just to be clear, Trump has repeatedly referred to this as a "blind trust."[/QUOTE] This. Trump himself claims this is somehow a 'blind' trust. Amazing doublethink.

[QUOTE=OvB;51656201]Owning a business while being president is not grounds for corruption, though. Presidents and vice Presidents are exempt from conflict of interest laws. And a trust is enough to satisfy conflicts with using his name in branding. Like it or not, his business ventures are not enough to impeach him. Even if he does grant favors to his company, he is within his legal right to do so. [editline]11th January 2017[/editline] This is not a blind trust, it is a regular trust with his sons as trustees. The title is wrong.[/QUOTE] The title is not wrong, it is a quote. Trump has repeatedly referred to this arrangement as a "blind trust."

[QUOTE=OvB;51656220]Fixed your title BDA.[/QUOTE] That was a bad call IMO, OVB. Trump himself calls it a blind trust, hence the title. Please restore it.

[QUOTE=OvB;51656220]Fixed your title BDA.[/QUOTE] Title was not wrong. It's a quote. Changed it back.

Where does he call it a blind trust? It's no where in the sources.

Actually from searching it myself Trump hasn't referred to this as a blind trust? Doesn't obviously make what he's doing right but the title isn't correct.

[QUOTE=OvB;51656236]Where does he call it a blind trust? It's no where in the sources.[/QUOTE] Actually, I stand corrected. While Trump and his lawyers have repeatedly called this arrangement a "blind trust" in the past, they finally gave up the ghost. Here's an article from four hours ago: [url]http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/politics/Trump-to-Give-Up-Leadership-of-Trump-Organization-But-Will-Not-Create-Blind-Trust-410404205.html[/url] [Quote] President-elect Donald Trump will relinquish leadership of the Trump Organization to his adult sons and create a trust for his assets, but it will not be the blind trust that his critics and many ethics experts insist is necessary to eliminate concerns about conflicts of interest. Trump attorney Sheri A. Dillon said that Trump "should not be expected to destroy the company he built." Trump’s attorneys counter that a blind trust, in which Trump's assets would be managed by independent trustees, is not realistic. In addition, Trump will donate any profits from foreign governments, such as payments for staying at his hotels, to the Treasury Department to address arguments that he would violate the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.[/quote] Still extremely unethical, but at least they're calling it by the right name now lol. I'll fix the title. Sorry for the mix-up!

The way I understand it, the necessity for Blind Trusts is not that they're inherently required by law for presidential candidates, but that they protect elected officials from conflicts of interest during their administration. Trump is walking on very thin ice by not committing more effort towards distancing himself from his business interests considering how far-reaching and prolific they are.

[QUOTE=Sableye;51656217]STOCK act.[/QUOTE] That would have to be determined on a case by case basis. Simply owning shares does not seem to violate the stock act. Donald Trump would have to inform his sons Trust about state information on which they act on and Donald profits from. I'd imagine his lawyer team is carefully navigating the language to protect themselves from that. [editline]11th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Duck M.;51656291]The way I understand it, the necessity for Blind Trusts is not that they're inherently required by law for presidential candidates, but that they protect elected officials from conflicts of interest during their administration. Trump is walking on very thin ice by not committing more effort towards distancing himself from his business interests considering how far-reaching and prolific they are.[/QUOTE] The key difference is that the beneficiary/settlor has no knowledge of the assets in a blind trust, and have no control over the operations or contents of said trust. They basically sit back and cash in. A regular trust on the other hand, the beneficiary is still aware of the operations and contents. It just transfers asset ownership from Trump to his sons. The fact that his sons are the trustees means by definition it cannot be a blind trust. As a trustee, the Sons are basically signing a contract that says we'll own your property, but its still yours.

[QUOTE] Trump will donate any profits from foreign governments, such as payments for staying at his hotels, to the Treasury Department [/QUOTE] cant argue w that

This is the best we're going to get, and we're lucky it got even this far. The only thing to do now is wait and see how it works out and hope for the best. If conflicts arise, we can tighten up the legislation in the future to prevent this. The part about donating foreign profits to Treasury is interesting and unorthodox but I'd almost rather the profits go right back into his business. This is almost like pseudo-nationalizing Trump Org.'s overseas operations.

[QUOTE=Chonch;51656349]This is the best we're going to get, and we're lucky it got even this far. The only thing to do now is wait and see how it works out and hope for the best. If conflicts arise, we can tighten up the legislation in the future to prevent this. The part about donating foreign profits to Treasury is interesting and unorthodox but I'd almost rather the profits go right back into his business. This is almost like pseudo-nationalizing Trump Org.'s overseas operations.[/QUOTE] You say we're lucky we got "this far," but I'm not seeing how is this an improvement? We didn't "get" anywhere. It's the exact same arrangement they have been promising from day one. The only change is that they stopped calling it a "blind trust," because it is not a blind trust by any accurate definition.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51656371]You say we're lucky we got "this far," but I'm not seeing how is this an improvement? We didn't "get" anywhere. It's the exact same arrangement they have been promising from day one. The only change is that they stopped calling it a "blind trust," because it is not a blind trust by any accurate definition.[/QUOTE] Yes. I'm sure if this decision were 100% Trump's, he would rather run his business simultaneously. It's fortunate that the situation is as under control as it is, seeing as the President maintains he is under no obligation to comply with these ethics rules.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51656266]Actually, I stand corrected. While Trump and his lawyers have repeatedly called this arrangement a "blind trust" in the past, they finally gave up the ghost. Here's an article from four hours ago: [url]http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/politics/Trump-to-Give-Up-Leadership-of-Trump-Organization-But-Will-Not-Create-Blind-Trust-410404205.html[/url] Still extremely unethical, but at least they're calling it by the right name now lol. I'll fix the title. Sorry for the mix-up![/QUOTE] Sorry for causing such a fuss! I'm a little bit embarrassed cause I sorta jumped the gun. I shouldn't have messed with it

[QUOTE=OneFourth;51656343]cant argue w that[/QUOTE] except for the fact he's basically provided a way for foreign governments to add money to the treasury department? "hey so uh if you pull your troops out of Arstotzka we'll send a bunch of dignitaries to the trump post office hotel"

[QUOTE=OneFourth;51656343]cant argue w that[/QUOTE] Remember all those things Trump said he would do during his campaign. Why believe him now?

[QUOTE=Chonch;51656442]Yes. I'm sure if this decision were 100% Trump's, he would rather run his business simultaneously. It's fortunate that the situation is as under control as it is, seeing as the President maintains he is under no obligation to comply with these ethics rules.[/QUOTE] and a president was never under any obligation not to wiretap the DNC, but that didn't end well for Nixon either. Just because its not explicitly illegal, does not mean he won't be opening himself and the government up to countless lawsuits, which can draw upon countless legal statutes to prove a case