Donald Trump's Conflicts of Interest: A Crib Sheet

[revelarts]

Donald Trump's Conflicts of Interest: A Crib Sheet
Donald Trump's Conflicts of Interest: A Crib Sheet - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/)

A semi-comprehensive list of the business concerns that may influence the president during his time in office President Donald Trump
Peter Ryan JEREMY VENOOK JAN 25, 2017
President Donald Trump still has not taken the necessary steps to distance himself from his businesses while in office. In accordance with a plan that he and one of his lawyers, Sheri Dillon, laid out at a press conference on January 11, Trump has filed paperwork to remove himself from the day-to-day operation of his eponymous organization. However, numerous ethics experts have voiced strenuous objections to the plan, which they say does very little to resolve the issue: As long as Trump continues to profit from his business empire—which he does whether or not he is nominally in charge—they say, the possibility that outside actors will attempt to affect his policies by plumping up his pocketbook will remain very much in play.

This week, some of Trump’s critics moved forward with legal action. The watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, filed a lawsuit alleging that Trump’s business holdings violate the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, which makes it illegal for government officials to “accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” CREW’s bipartisan legal team includes, among others, Norm Eisen and Richard Painter, who served as ethics lawyers under Presidents Obama and George W. Bush, respectively; Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard University; and Zephyr Teachout, a professor at Fordham University (and former congressional candidate) who is considered an authority on the Emoluments Clause. All have been vocally critical of Trump’s continued refusal to sell off his business, and are now taking their case to court to argue that several of Trump’s businesses present avenues by which foreign governments could seek to influence the president by, for example, booking stays at one of his hotels or renting space at one of his properties. Additionally, the lawsuit seeks to force Trump to reveal his tax returns, something every president has done since Gerald Ford but which Trump has refused to do, significantly limiting the public’s ability to understand the president’s finances. When asked about the lawsuit, Trump described it as “totally without merit.” Eisen was quick to respond on Twitter, offering to “debate Trump (or his chosen champion) on the merits of our case anytime,” making it clear that CREW intends to continue to pursue its case. (CREW has also filed a separate complaint to the General Services Administration arguing that Trump has violated the lease on his Washington, D.C. hotel, which states that “no … elected official of the Government of the United States … shall be admitted to any share or part of this Lease, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom.”)....

...Below is an attempt to catalogue the more clear-cut examples of conflicts of interest that have emerged so far. The most recent entries appear at the top:


That Reality-Television Show
That Pipeline
Those HUD Grants
That Golf Course in Aberdeen
That Other Billionaire New York Real-Estate Developer
Those Indonesian Politicians
That Emirati Businessman
That Virginia Vineyard
That Las Vegas Labor Dispute
That Kuwaiti Event
Those Certificates of Divestiture
That Carrier Deal
That Blind-Trust Issue
Those Fannie and Freddie Investments
That Phone Call With Taiwan
That Deutsche Bank Debt
That Secret Service Detail
That Property in Georgia (the Country)
That Phone Call With Erdogan
That Hotel in Washington, D.C.
That Argentinian Office Building
Those Companies in Saudi Arabia
That British Wind Farm
Those Indian Business Partners
That Envoy From the Philippines
..."
IMO This is the thing can could take Trump out of office If He doesn't deal with it... and the Left doesn't mess it up.
But on the other hand every president since Nixon has gotten away with breaking the laws in various ways so here Trump would just be breaking new ground in presidential lawlessness with the OPEN conflicts of interest.




"I'm Not Conflicted TRUST ME."
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/2e/0e/73/2e0e732297543d137d4bac1ee47d122c.gif
"It's good to be the King."



SaveSave

[Black Diamond]

Is this like Dick Cheney's Rolodex?

[revelarts]

Published on Dec 28, 2016
http://democracynow.org (http://democracynow.org/) - Could Donald Trump be in violation of the Constitution on his first day in office? That’s the conclusion of some leading constitutional law experts. .... Law experts say many of Trump’s businesses are already benefiting from his presidency. Kuwait, for example, recently moved its National Celebration Day from the Four Seasons in Georgetown to the Trump International Hotel instead. According to ThinkProgress, Kuwait faced political pressure from the Trump camp to move the location. Other diplomats have reportedly been urged to hold events at Trump’s hotel. Trump and his family also have holdings or projects in Argentina, Brazil, Georgia, India, Ireland, Japan, Philippines and Turkey. In addition, Trump’s businesses owe hundreds of millions of dollars to foreign banks, including Deutsche Bank, UBS and Bank of China. We speak to Richard Painter, professor of corporate law at the University of Minnesota. He was the chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush from February 2005 to July 2007.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0w_6NYrrpc

"8: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

U.S. Constitution
you know, highest law in the land
(at least the 2nd amendment part means what it says amiright fellas?!! http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/images/smilies/wink.gif http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/images/smilies/eek.gif )



Add to that the Other laws on the books having to do with Bribery and Gratuities

The federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201
(b), criminalizes the corrupt promise or transfer of any thing of value to influence an official act of a federal official, a fraud on the United States, or the commission or omission of any act in violation of the official's duty.[33] 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(1)–(2) provides:
(b) Whoever –
(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent –
(A) to influence any official act; or
(B) to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;
(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person . . .
shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.[34]
The federal gratuity statute,
18 U.S.C. § 201(c), criminalizes the transfer of any thing of value to a federal official for or because of an official act.[35] 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1) provides:
(c) Whoever –
(1) otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty –
(A) directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official; or
(B) being a public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official or person . . .
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.[36]

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1,

criminalizes the corrupt offer, by mail or in commerce, of anything of value from a publicly traded company to a foreign official for an official act to do business.[53]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa..._United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_prosecution_of_public_corruption_in_the_Un ited_States)


He'd be subject to suspicion of and inditment for any number of acts that might otherwise seem innocent.

And it goes not only for him But those in his cabinet.
the Former head of Exxon must divest himself from all of his exxon holdings.
as Secretary of sate might HE ... As Hillary's Emails suggest she did... influence Oil rich nations to favor exxon?

Look, either we're going to PRETEND that it WILL NEVER happen,
OR where going to demand that they divest themselves as ALL public officials are REQUIRED to do.
THIS is part of the CLEARING the SWAMP Trump CLAIMED he was going to Washington to do. To remove the Corporate and Foreign MONETARY Influence.

either he's going to set an example or he's going to leave the appearance of CONTINUED Washington corruption and leave himself open for indictments and impeachment. And Feign Innocence while getting fat just like the rest of the corrupt politicians.


SaveSave

[CSM]

"demand that they divest themselves as ALL public officials are REQUIRED to do."

Except the President and Vice President are NOT. Minor detail I know

[revelarts]

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3Czet2W8AEbSWp.jpg

[revelarts]

"demand that they divest themselves as ALL public officials are REQUIRED to do."

Except the President and Vice President are NOT. Minor detail I know

Well there are those lawsuits based on the constitution and other laws about gifts and bribes, more Minor details right?


Look if he's sincere about "serving the country" as the best most fantastic president ever then He needs to step up and be above reproach on this issue. Or he'll look like every other corrupt politician that he condemned during the campaign.

[NightTrain]

Paying for a hotel room is not a gift.

It's an exchange for services rendered.

[revelarts]

Paying for a hotel room is not a gift.

It's an exchange for services rendered.

When there's a choice for "services rendered" and one is favored over others because of gov't connections or to gain favors or special attention. Or you feel if you DON'T use that service that you WON'T get the attention from officials you hoped. well yeah
that's the problem.. and more NT
you know this.

[NightTrain]

When there's a choice for "services rendered" and one is favored over others because of gov't connections or to gain favors or special attention. Or you feel if you DON'T use that service that you WON'T get the attention from officials you hoped. well yeah
that's the problem.. and more NT
you know this.

I read a really good article on this silly lawsuit a few days ago, and they did a great job at shredding this lawsuit - the people behind it may find themselves paying some steep costs when the Judge goes over it.

This won't go anywhere... it's conspiracy theory stuff.

But, they're certainly entitled to bring that suit and have their day in court. That's what America is about, right?

[revelarts]

I read a really good article on this silly lawsuit a few days ago, and they did a great job at shredding this lawsuit - the people behind it may find themselves paying some steep costs when the Judge goes over it.
This won't go anywhere... it's conspiracy theory stuff.
But, they're certainly entitled to bring that suit and have their day in court. That's what America is about, right?

NT please Post the article link, id like to see the legal details on why it's a poor lawsuit.. legally speaking. I don't care about the people's supposed motives or their backgrounds , or if others want to call it "conspiracy".
that has nothing to do with the law or the real and obvious ethics question here.

If you can find it id like to see it , they may have points that need to be considered.

[NightTrain]

NT please Post the article link, id like to see the legal details on why it's a poor lawsuit.. legally speaking. I don't care about the people's supposed motives or their backgrounds , or if others want to call it "conspiracy".
that has nothing to do with the law or the real and obvious ethics question here.

If you can find it id like to see it , they may have points that need to be considered.

I already spent 15 minutes trying to find it, but failed... google is clogged with 80,000 bloggers suddenly talking about it.

It was a very good article that discussed the merits of the suit itself - you know I don't need any help dismissing conspiracy theories! :laugh:

Dammit Rev... I'll try to find it again.

[NightTrain]

Not the one I was thinking of, but this one does a nice breakdown :


The plaintiffs claim President Donald Trump began violating the “emoluments clause” of the U.S. Constitution the moment he took office because the businesses that bear his name are surely receiving some money from foreign governments, even though he has relinquished management control and elected to donate foreign profits at Trump-owned hotels to the U.S. Treasury. Forget that the revenue derives directly from his businesses, not his high office.

The lawsuit is pure legal folly because the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that these kinds of circumstances do not violate the Constitutional emoluments prohibition. The plaintiffs, for all their academic prowess, manage to define emoluments incorrectly.


What The Hell Is An “Emolument”?


And that is precisely the question: what constitutes an “emolument”? Never heard of it?


I encourage you to read the excellent legal and historical analysis of Andy S. Grewal at the University of Iowa College of Law who published a recent study entitled, The Foreign Emoluments Clause And The Chief Executive. His review of the issues is smart, insightful and comprehensive.


But if you have neither the time nor inclination to wade through 43 pages and 187 annotations, here is the abridged version.


Article I, section 9, clause 8 of the Constitution states:


“…no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under (the United States) shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State”.


The Framers were concerned that U.S. officials might be seduced by greed to use their office for personal profit, conferring benefits to foreign governments in a quid pro quo scheme for money. So they crafted the “emoluments clause” to prevent other countries from essentially bribing American officials, including the president. But our Founders did not define what is or is not an emolument.


In search of a definition, a basic and prominent legal source, "Black’s Law Dictionary," is useful. It defines the term emolument as, “Any advantage, profit, or gain received as a result of one’s holding of office”. The original Webster’s Dictionary defines it as, “profit arising from office”. The Oxford English Dictionary offers a near identical definition.


None of these interpretations apply to President Donald Trump nor the many businesses that pre-date his presidency. Any payments to his Trump Organization do not arise from his holding the office he just assumed days ago. To the contrary, any realized profit emanates from his businesses, not his presidency.


Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court has visited this very subject not once, but three times. In each case, the high court has consistently adopted the same definition of emoluments. That is, ordinary business transactions are not emoluments. There must be a nexus between the payment and the office. An emolument arises “when a pecuniary profit is derived from a discharge of the duties of the office.” (Hoyt v. United States, 51 U.S. 109)


Only when a president uses his office to confer a benefit in exchange for foreign money is he in violation of the Constitution. President Trump has done no such thing. The plaintiffs accuse him of no such conduct.


What is astonishing is how the plaintiffs ignore history in the context of the Framers’ intent. The first five presidents were farmers and plantation owners who maintained their businesses while in office. Some of their crops, especially tobacco, were sold abroad to companies and foreign governments. These sales were never regarded, even by their political opponents, as emoluments because they were unrelated to the holding of office.


So, how they can these “learned” professors, in good conscience, sue the President for something which the Supreme Court has said is perfectly constitutional? Well, I tend to think that professors view the law through the prism of an alternative reality. Or their political beliefs corrupt their legal judgments.


Two of the plaintiff professors published a column shortly before the presidential election demanding that Trump release his tax returns. This lawsuit appears to be nothing more than a pretext to force him to do so. If true, this is egregious misconduct. The federal court system should never be used and abused for political purposes.


The Plaintiffs Have No “Standing” To Sue


In order to maintain a legitimate lawsuit in federal court, the plaintiffs must demonstrate they have or will sustain a direct harm that that the court can remedy or rectify. It is called “standing”. Being displeased with a president does not constitute standing to sue.


So how are the plaintiffs harmed? The simple and obvious answer is they are not. And their own, rather laughable arguments prove it.


Beginning on page 23 of their civil action, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington asserts that it has been harmed because it “has received hundreds of requests from the media” about the emoluments clause and has been forced to “divert its time and resources from its public-education activities to respond to these questions”.


OK, you can laugh now. That sentence makes no sense. By taking the time to educate the public through the media, it has been unable to fulfill its public-education activities. A genius argument.


The plaintiffs also claim their attorneys have spent so much time researching the new president and exploring potential legal actions against him that their costs have increased. Really? Isn’t that their own fault? If they had bothered to read the Supreme Court decisions on the emoluments clause, they could have dispensed with the entire matter in a leisurely afternoon.


Frivolous = Sanctions & Contempt


This case is not just lacking any legal merit, it is manifestly absurd. Under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, someone who brings a frivolous lawsuit can be sanctioned by the court, or even held in contempt.


In my experience, some law professors live in a land of make-believe. There is something about the seclusion of an ivory tower’s academic existence that twists and distorts reality.


Perhaps it is time a federal judge slap these profs with some meaningful sanctions. Maybe that will wake them up from their pedantic slumber.


And give them pause the next time they consider misusing our system of justice for purely political purposes.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/01/24/gregg-jarrett-first-and-frivolous-lawsuit-against-president-trump.html



It's driving me nuts that I can't find it... must have been a sidelink off one of my usual sites and those get changed up frequently.

[Gunny]

Not the one I was thinking of, but this one does a nice breakdown :



http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/01/24/gregg-jarrett-first-and-frivolous-lawsuit-against-president-trump.html



It's driving me nuts that I can't find it... must have been a sidelink off one of my usual sites and those get changed up frequently.

I got a crib sheet for ya NT .... should get the hotn spicy wings n onion rings? Or the roast beef sandwich and cheese sticks? I'm kinda undecided ....

Oh and the chef salad ...

[NightTrain]

I got a crib sheet for ya NT .... should get the hotn spicy wings n onion rings? Or the roast beef sandwich and cheese sticks? I'm kinda undecided ....

Oh and the chef salad ...

At 8 in the morning? Have you gone mad, man?

I'm still downing the coffee and chasing it with nicotine.

[Gunny]

At 8 in the morning? Have you gone mad, man?

I'm still downing the coffee and chasing it with nicotine.
It's lunch time here. Almost 11:30. They start delivering at noon, I think. Just scrolling down this menu. And I was sick the past few days and am hungry as Hell. I want all this crap. Just know it'll go bad before I can eat it all.

[NightTrain]

It's lunch time here. Almost 11:30. They start delivering at noon, I think. Just scrolling down this menu. And I was sick the past few days and am hungry as Hell. I want all this crap. Just know it'll go bad before I can eat it all.

You flatlanders and your goofy time zones.

We need to do away with those so you guys can conform to Alaska Standard Time.

[fj1200]

Donald Trump's Conflicts of Interest: A Crib Sheet
Donald Trump's Conflicts of Interest: A Crib Sheet - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/)

Meh. At this point there really is nothing to be done with it. He is not in a business where one can just divest like Cheney or Tillerson and even if he "divested" to his kids their is still the same inherent conflict.