(01-06-2017 10:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-06-2017 10:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-06-2017 10:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-06-2017 10:03 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(01-05-2017 05:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Not a quid pro quo with regards to staying at his hotel, but this doesn't pass the smell test right now. Trump gets investigated, Trump donates to presecuting AG's campaign, Trump investigation dropped, AG gets spot in White House.

Let's see if this holds true: https://www.salon.com/2017/01/05/donald-...ment-from/

Let's not forget it was an illegal donation, for which he was fined, from his "charitable" foundation.

Yeah, there are some things that do not meet the smell test. Kind of like Bill's dropping by Lynch's plane was unplanned and nothing of substance was discussed, no deals made. Yeah, sure. If you believe that, you will believe that Trump will sell influence for a three night stay at his hotel. Oh, wait a minute....

But the word used was corruption, and nothing has been shown to be for sale by Trump. No quid pro quos, either offered or taken. If the Florida AG sold her influence for something, that's on her. But nothing has been shown of Trump selling influence he doesn't yet have for benefits to himself and his family. Not saying it couldn't happen, although I think the odds long. But let's at least wait for some smoke before screaming "fire".

Have I screamed fire?

But isn't my example a perfect example of quid pro quo? It appears as if Trump tried to get rid of a lawsuit giving money, and then a position in the White House, to the investigating AD. Before any charges could be filed there would need to be some proof of collusion I assume, but this seems like a kind of quid pro quo, no?

Go back and read the first sentence of post # 1. It was not you that said it, but it is the genesis for the whole thread. Corruption is the fifth word.

If the Florida AG sold influence for cash, she would be the corrupt one. This thread is about Trump selling influence for material gain, which has not been shown, except by innuendo.

If you want to tie her position in the White House to a deal, do so with some facts. But wasn't the lawsuit thing well before he was elected? What is this, a player to be named later? How could he sell a white house position as part of the deal? It's not as if everybody expected him to win.

To the bolded, interesting that only one side of a corrupt deal would be considered corrupt. So back when the mob rules, Al Capone wasn't corrupt, it was only the cops who took his money that were? In my eyes, both are.

But this gets to the bigger point I have been trying to make about The Don. He doesn't seem to get that optics are important. That we expect our leaders to avoid all possible conflicts of interest when possible (see: Carter selling peanut farm). I'm not trying to say that, definitively, any of these conflicts of interest will amount to anything. I am, however, saying that we should expect our President to be proactive about avoiding said conflicts of interest.

Going back to the hotels, I don't expect Trump to grill foreign dignitaries about where they stayed, but how often have you, in passing conversation with a coworker in from out of town, asked them where they are staying? With Trump, I want him to be so far removed from his property that, should he decide to small talk, there isn't a potential underlying meaning to him asking somewhere where they are staying.

Under corruption-type laws--honest services statutes, the FCPA, etc.--the one seeking the influence also gets prosecuted. In fact, under the FCPA, all the DOJ cares about (and has jurisdiction to prosecute) is the side seeking the influence.

(01-06-2017 11:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-06-2017 10:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-06-2017 10:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-06-2017 10:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-06-2017 10:03 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Let's not forget it was an illegal donation, for which he was fined, from his "charitable" foundation.

Yeah, there are some things that do not meet the smell test. Kind of like Bill's dropping by Lynch's plane was unplanned and nothing of substance was discussed, no deals made. Yeah, sure. If you believe that, you will believe that Trump will sell influence for a three night stay at his hotel. Oh, wait a minute....

But the word used was corruption, and nothing has been shown to be for sale by Trump. No quid pro quos, either offered or taken. If the Florida AG sold her influence for something, that's on her. But nothing has been shown of Trump selling influence he doesn't yet have for benefits to himself and his family. Not saying it couldn't happen, although I think the odds long. But let's at least wait for some smoke before screaming "fire".

Have I screamed fire?

But isn't my example a perfect example of quid pro quo? It appears as if Trump tried to get rid of a lawsuit giving money, and then a position in the White House, to the investigating AD. Before any charges could be filed there would need to be some proof of collusion I assume, but this seems like a kind of quid pro quo, no?

Go back and read the first sentence of post # 1. It was not you that said it, but it is the genesis for the whole thread. Corruption is the fifth word.

If the Florida AG sold influence for cash, she would be the corrupt one. This thread is about Trump selling influence for material gain, which has not been shown, except by innuendo.

If you want to tie her position in the White House to a deal, do so with some facts. But wasn't the lawsuit thing well before he was elected? What is this, a player to be named later? How could he sell a white house position as part of the deal? It's not as if everybody expected him to win.

To the bolded, interesting that only one side of a corrupt deal would be considered corrupt. So back when the mob rules, Al Capone wasn't corrupt, it was only the cops who took his money that were? In my eyes, both are.

But this gets to the bigger point I have been trying to make about The Don. He doesn't seem to get that optics are important. That we expect our leaders to avoid all possible conflicts of interest when possible (see: Carter selling peanut farm). I'm not trying to say that, definitively, any of these conflicts of interest will amount to anything. I am, however, saying that we should expect our President to be proactive about avoiding said conflicts of interest.

Going back to the hotels, I don't expect Trump to grill foreign dignitaries about where they stayed, but how often have you, in passing conversation with a coworker in from out of town, asked them where they are staying? With Trump, I want him to be so far removed from his property that, should he decide to small talk, there isn't a potential underlying meaning to him asking somewhere where they are staying.

I have no objection to Trump telling people to stay elsewhere when they come to see him. It would at least quiet these petty objections, and the accompanying innuendo, and as you say, avoid the appearance of evil. Now if he REQUIRED THEM TO STAY AT HIS HOTEL BEFORE GRANTING AN INTERVIEW, that would be a whole different kettle of fish, which is, BTW, my point.

Presidents sometimes make money just by being President. Being President certainly did nothing to hurt the sales of Obama's books, making him millions,yet I would hardly consider that to be corruption. Just making money is not corruption. I bet more than one visitor mentioned they read his books, to curry a little favor, but without any real expectation that would influence the result. I see staying at Trump's hotel the same way. No biggie. It's a drop in the bucket to Trump - you guys must think he crosses the street to pick up a penny.

(01-06-2017 12:33 PM)Barrett Wrote:  Under corruption-type laws--honest services statutes, the FCPA, etc.--the one seeking the influence also gets prosecuted. In fact, under the FCPA, all the DOJ cares about (and has jurisdiction to prosecute) is the side seeking the influence.

so it's like offering a bribe and accepting the bribe? All the same?


Well, get to it. show he offered a bribe and she accepted it. while you're at it, show that he included a White House post as a sweetener.


I used to bribe Mexican border agents all the time to NOT inspect my luggage. I guess that makes me corrupt. But I never tried that with American border agents, so I guess that makes me pure.

(01-06-2017 12:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-06-2017 11:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-06-2017 10:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-06-2017 10:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-06-2017 10:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Yeah, there are some things that do not meet the smell test. Kind of like Bill's dropping by Lynch's plane was unplanned and nothing of substance was discussed, no deals made. Yeah, sure. If you believe that, you will believe that Trump will sell influence for a three night stay at his hotel. Oh, wait a minute....

But the word used was corruption, and nothing has been shown to be for sale by Trump. No quid pro quos, either offered or taken. If the Florida AG sold her influence for something, that's on her. But nothing has been shown of Trump selling influence he doesn't yet have for benefits to himself and his family. Not saying it couldn't happen, although I think the odds long. But let's at least wait for some smoke before screaming "fire".

Have I screamed fire?

But isn't my example a perfect example of quid pro quo? It appears as if Trump tried to get rid of a lawsuit giving money, and then a position in the White House, to the investigating AD. Before any charges could be filed there would need to be some proof of collusion I assume, but this seems like a kind of quid pro quo, no?

Go back and read the first sentence of post # 1. It was not you that said it, but it is the genesis for the whole thread. Corruption is the fifth word.

If the Florida AG sold influence for cash, she would be the corrupt one. This thread is about Trump selling influence for material gain, which has not been shown, except by innuendo.

If you want to tie her position in the White House to a deal, do so with some facts. But wasn't the lawsuit thing well before he was elected? What is this, a player to be named later? How could he sell a white house position as part of the deal? It's not as if everybody expected him to win.

To the bolded, interesting that only one side of a corrupt deal would be considered corrupt. So back when the mob rules, Al Capone wasn't corrupt, it was only the cops who took his money that were? In my eyes, both are.

But this gets to the bigger point I have been trying to make about The Don. He doesn't seem to get that optics are important. That we expect our leaders to avoid all possible conflicts of interest when possible (see: Carter selling peanut farm). I'm not trying to say that, definitively, any of these conflicts of interest will amount to anything. I am, however, saying that we should expect our President to be proactive about avoiding said conflicts of interest.

Going back to the hotels, I don't expect Trump to grill foreign dignitaries about where they stayed, but how often have you, in passing conversation with a coworker in from out of town, asked them where they are staying? With Trump, I want him to be so far removed from his property that, should he decide to small talk, there isn't a potential underlying meaning to him asking somewhere where they are staying.

I have no objection to Trump telling people to stay elsewhere when they come to see him. It would at least quiet these petty objections, and the accompanying innuendo, and as you say, avoid the appearance of evil. Now if he REQUIRED THEM TO STAY AT HIS HOTEL BEFORE GRANTING AN INTERVIEW, that would be a whole different kettle of fish, which is, BTW, my point.

Presidents sometimes make money just by being President. Being President certainly did nothing to hurt the sales of Obama's books, making him millions,yet I would hardly consider that to be corruption. Just making money is not corruption. I bet more than one visitor mentioned they read his books, to curry a little favor, but without any real expectation that would influence the result. I see staying at Trump's hotel the same way. No biggie. It's a drop in the bucket to Trump - you guys must think he crosses the street to pick up a penny.

What books do you buy that go for $500 each? By the way, that's the starting price per night for the Trump hotel in DC for a regular room. But yes, the sheer act of Trump owning the hotel is not corruption and I have never stated that it is. However, have you not heard of conflicts of interest? I feel like you keep skating around that situation and the fact that owning large amounts of property that your name is on, that are actively being expanded and used for housing people, creates a decent potential conflict of interest - so much so that it would be best to completely disassociate from them, a la Carter.

What happens if Trump all of a sudden passes massive tax breaks for luxury hotels while he still holds stakes in the hotels? Or if there is say, a national labor issue that will greatly benefit his hotels should he sign/veto a bill? This is the bigger issue, IMO. I just felt that since we already had examples of foreign dignitaries stating that they were specifically staying at Trump's hotel to curry favor, that it was a quicker and more concrete example of the conflict of interest.

(01-06-2017 03:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-06-2017 12:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-06-2017 11:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-06-2017 10:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-06-2017 10:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Have I screamed fire?

But isn't my example a perfect example of quid pro quo? It appears as if Trump tried to get rid of a lawsuit giving money, and then a position in the White House, to the investigating AD. Before any charges could be filed there would need to be some proof of collusion I assume, but this seems like a kind of quid pro quo, no?

Go back and read the first sentence of post # 1. It was not you that said it, but it is the genesis for the whole thread. Corruption is the fifth word.

If the Florida AG sold influence for cash, she would be the corrupt one. This thread is about Trump selling influence for material gain, which has not been shown, except by innuendo.

If you want to tie her position in the White House to a deal, do so with some facts. But wasn't the lawsuit thing well before he was elected? What is this, a player to be named later? How could he sell a white house position as part of the deal? It's not as if everybody expected him to win.

To the bolded, interesting that only one side of a corrupt deal would be considered corrupt. So back when the mob rules, Al Capone wasn't corrupt, it was only the cops who took his money that were? In my eyes, both are.

But this gets to the bigger point I have been trying to make about The Don. He doesn't seem to get that optics are important. That we expect our leaders to avoid all possible conflicts of interest when possible (see: Carter selling peanut farm). I'm not trying to say that, definitively, any of these conflicts of interest will amount to anything. I am, however, saying that we should expect our President to be proactive about avoiding said conflicts of interest.

Going back to the hotels, I don't expect Trump to grill foreign dignitaries about where they stayed, but how often have you, in passing conversation with a coworker in from out of town, asked them where they are staying? With Trump, I want him to be so far removed from his property that, should he decide to small talk, there isn't a potential underlying meaning to him asking somewhere where they are staying.

I have no objection to Trump telling people to stay elsewhere when they come to see him. It would at least quiet these petty objections, and the accompanying innuendo, and as you say, avoid the appearance of evil. Now if he REQUIRED THEM TO STAY AT HIS HOTEL BEFORE GRANTING AN INTERVIEW, that would be a whole different kettle of fish, which is, BTW, my point.

Presidents sometimes make money just by being President. Being President certainly did nothing to hurt the sales of Obama's books, making him millions,yet I would hardly consider that to be corruption. Just making money is not corruption. I bet more than one visitor mentioned they read his books, to curry a little favor, but without any real expectation that would influence the result. I see staying at Trump's hotel the same way. No biggie. It's a drop in the bucket to Trump - you guys must think he crosses the street to pick up a penny.

What books do you buy that go for $500 each? By the way, that's the starting price per night for the Trump hotel in DC for a regular room. But yes, the sheer act of Trump owning the hotel is not corruption and I have never stated that it is. However, have you not heard of conflicts of interest? I feel like you keep skating around that situation and the fact that owning large amounts of property that your name is on, that are actively being expanded and used for housing people, creates a decent potential conflict of interest - so much so that it would be best to completely disassociate from them, a la Carter.

What happens if Trump all of a sudden passes massive tax breaks for luxury hotels while he still holds stakes in the hotels? Or if there is say, a national labor issue that will greatly benefit his hotels should he sign/veto a bill? This is the bigger issue, IMO. I just felt that since we already had examples of foreign dignitaries stating that they were specifically staying at Trump's hotel to curry favor, that it was a quicker and more concrete example of the conflict of interest.

Whoosh. The relative price of a book and a room is not the salient fact. The salient fact that that people will often try to curry a little favor by using/buying what they can, and that it doesn't matter because the prez just doesn't give a damn.

For example, I would expect that lots of job seekers/foreign dignitaries would arrive in American made cars, dressed in American made clothes, smoking American cigarettes, you get the picture, in an attempt to curry favor. What is lacking in your scenarios is any smidgen of an idea that those these things (a) influence the PEOTUS, or (B) have any effect, or © are adequate to seal the deal, if one is on the table.

Now if you can show that the prez-elect gives a damn where you slept, show me. If you can show that he is swayed by where you slept, let me know.

If I am going to see Trump, I probably would stay there. Convenient, and no more cost than down the street. I might even find it worth mentioning. What I would not expect is that it would mean diddly-squat in getting me what I wanted.

I agree, he needs to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest, just to avoid specious charges like these. But asking somebody to divest thousands of properties in a few weeks is just not feasible. another solution will have to be found.

If/when those tax breaks/labor issues come to pass, we can all make our judgments as to whether the president's actions were dictated by personal gain. I think I know which way you will see it. I will be more concerned about if the tax breaks/labor issues are decided in ways I think benefits the country as a whole.

This thread started as a journal to preserve a record of corruption. So far it is only a journal of perceived possible conflicts of interest and unproven conjectured past misbehavior. Maybe some cannot conceive of a rich man being motivated by anything but greed, needing to grab every penny he can every minute of every day. Well, maybe so, but show me.

BTW, I didn't realize those rooms were so cheap. Maybe people are staying there to save money. But even if they take several suites for week, do you really think that would be enough to turn his head? A Cabinet post for only $10K, before tax? To a multi-billionaire?

"President-elect Donald Trump pledged to step away from his family-owned international real estate development, property management and licensing business before taking office Jan. 20. With less than two weeks until his inauguration, he hasn’t stepped very far.

Trump has canceled a handful of international deals and dissolved a few shell companies created for prospective investments. Still, he continues to own or control some 500 companies that make up the Trump Organization, creating a tangle of potential conflicts of interest without precedent in modern U.S. history.

...

Ethics experts have called for Trump to sell off his assets and place his investments in a blind trust, which means something his family would not control. That’s what previous presidents have done."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trum...companies/

And many Trump nominees have not filed their ethics paperwork but Senate Republicans are trying to ram them through anyway. Funny how they were OK with basically refusing to even hold votes or hearings on so many Obama nominees in an attempt to cripple his administration, but now, even sticking to the standard traditional process is a outrageous delay....

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/07/508699137/...g-too-fast

(01-09-2017 09:57 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  "President-elect Donald Trump pledged to step away from his family-owned international real estate development, property management and licensing business before taking office Jan. 20. With less than two weeks until his inauguration, he hasn’t stepped very far.

Trump has canceled a handful of international deals and dissolved a few shell companies created for prospective investments. Still, he continues to own or control some 500 companies that make up the Trump Organization, creating a tangle of potential conflicts of interest without precedent in modern U.S. history.

...

Ethics experts have called for Trump to sell off his assets and place his investments in a blind trust, which means something his family would not control. That’s what previous presidents have done."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trum...companies/

"Without precedent" means nobody has faced this problem before. So suggesting he do what "previous Presidents have done" seems a little inane.

No doubt he needs to remove himself as far as possible, although it seems inevitable that his enemies will harp on conflicts of interest from now to the end of his term(s).

But a fire sale of all his assets in the ten weeks before Inauguration would seem excessive. Would anybody here do that? I know I could not begin to sell my real estate holdings, which are pretty extensive but a drop in the bucket compared to his. Putting them all into a blind trust is probably harder than it sounds. How about a semi-permanent proxy of his shares in everything to Eric? By semi-permanent, I mean while he is in office.

I am sure previous presidents had much less to shield and much easier assets to manage. What did Obama, Bush 43, Clinton, Bush 41, and Reagan do? Did Reagan still own his ranch? Did Bush 43? what did Washington do?

(01-09-2017 10:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-09-2017 09:57 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  "President-elect Donald Trump pledged to step away from his family-owned international real estate development, property management and licensing business before taking office Jan. 20. With less than two weeks until his inauguration, he hasn’t stepped very far.

Trump has canceled a handful of international deals and dissolved a few shell companies created for prospective investments. Still, he continues to own or control some 500 companies that make up the Trump Organization, creating a tangle of potential conflicts of interest without precedent in modern U.S. history.

...

Ethics experts have called for Trump to sell off his assets and place his investments in a blind trust, which means something his family would not control. That’s what previous presidents have done."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trum...companies/

"Without precedent" means nobody has faced this problem before. So suggesting he do what "previous Presidents have done" seems a little inane.

No doubt he needs to remove himself as far as possible, although it seems inevitable that his enemies will harp on conflicts of interest from now to the end of his term(s).

But a fire sale of all his assets in the ten weeks before Inauguration would seem excessive. Would anybody here do that? I know I could not begin to sell my real estate holdings, which are pretty extensive but a drop in the bucket compared to his. Putting them all into a blind trust is probably harder than it sounds. How about a semi-permanent proxy of his shares in everything to Eric? By semi-permanent, I mean while he is in office.

I am sure previous presidents had much less to shield and much easier assets to manage. What did Obama, Bush 43, Clinton, Bush 41, and Reagan do? Did Reagan still own his ranch? Did Bush 43? what did Washington do?

As I have said multiple times, Carter sold his farm.

(01-09-2017 04:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-09-2017 10:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-09-2017 09:57 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  "President-elect Donald Trump pledged to step away from his family-owned international real estate development, property management and licensing business before taking office Jan. 20. With less than two weeks until his inauguration, he hasn’t stepped very far.

Trump has canceled a handful of international deals and dissolved a few shell companies created for prospective investments. Still, he continues to own or control some 500 companies that make up the Trump Organization, creating a tangle of potential conflicts of interest without precedent in modern U.S. history.

...

Ethics experts have called for Trump to sell off his assets and place his investments in a blind trust, which means something his family would not control. That’s what previous presidents have done."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trum...companies/

"Without precedent" means nobody has faced this problem before. So suggesting he do what "previous Presidents have done" seems a little inane.

No doubt he needs to remove himself as far as possible, although it seems inevitable that his enemies will harp on conflicts of interest from now to the end of his term(s).

But a fire sale of all his assets in the ten weeks before Inauguration would seem excessive. Would anybody here do that? I know I could not begin to sell my real estate holdings, which are pretty extensive but a drop in the bucket compared to his. Putting them all into a blind trust is probably harder than it sounds. How about a semi-permanent proxy of his shares in everything to Eric? By semi-permanent, I mean while he is in office.

I am sure previous presidents had much less to shield and much easier assets to manage. What did Obama, Bush 43, Clinton, Bush 41, and Reagan do? Did Reagan still own his ranch? Did Bush 43? what did Washington do?

As I have said multiple times, Carter sold his farm.

and Washington didn't.

Just out of curiosity, did Carter sell when he was governor-elect or President-elect? If he held the farm during his terms as Governor, what does that say?

Part of the reason i thought he would make a good president is that business experience he touted, but really didn't have, and his knowledge as a nuclear engineer, gained in a 10 week training course in the Navy.

Boy, was I wrong.

Oh, and he slung his coat over his shoulder like a regular guy.

Just saying it is much harder to sell 500 farms. We have never had a President with this much personal wealth and this wide a variety of sources.

I have a farm. It boggles my mind to think how hard it would be to sell it in 10 weeks. Actually, I have been trying to sell it for 10 years. Only problem is price. I could sell it tomorrow for $20/acre, a little tougher to get what I think should be market price. Really need to sell. You in the market?

Sold some of it in 2015, to a developer. Took about 6 months, from handshake to closing, and this guy REALLY wanted it. Title searches, surveys, etc.

Never owned a hotel, but I did have an office building. Took years to get rid of that thing. Bought it from a bank.

So, Lad, what is your experience in moving real estate? Everybody there in Houston gets quick sales at the price they want?

(01-09-2017 05:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-09-2017 04:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-09-2017 10:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-09-2017 09:57 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  "President-elect Donald Trump pledged to step away from his family-owned international real estate development, property management and licensing business before taking office Jan. 20. With less than two weeks until his inauguration, he hasn’t stepped very far.

Trump has canceled a handful of international deals and dissolved a few shell companies created for prospective investments. Still, he continues to own or control some 500 companies that make up the Trump Organization, creating a tangle of potential conflicts of interest without precedent in modern U.S. history.

...

Ethics experts have called for Trump to sell off his assets and place his investments in a blind trust, which means something his family would not control. That’s what previous presidents have done."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trum...companies/

"Without precedent" means nobody has faced this problem before. So suggesting he do what "previous Presidents have done" seems a little inane.

No doubt he needs to remove himself as far as possible, although it seems inevitable that his enemies will harp on conflicts of interest from now to the end of his term(s).

But a fire sale of all his assets in the ten weeks before Inauguration would seem excessive. Would anybody here do that? I know I could not begin to sell my real estate holdings, which are pretty extensive but a drop in the bucket compared to his. Putting them all into a blind trust is probably harder than it sounds. How about a semi-permanent proxy of his shares in everything to Eric? By semi-permanent, I mean while he is in office.

I am sure previous presidents had much less to shield and much easier assets to manage. What did Obama, Bush 43, Clinton, Bush 41, and Reagan do? Did Reagan still own his ranch? Did Bush 43? what did Washington do?

As I have said multiple times, Carter sold his farm.

and Washington didn't.

Just out of curiosity, did Carter sell when he was governor-elect or President-elect? If he held the farm during his terms as Governor, what does that say?

Part of the reason i thought he would make a good president is that business experience he touted, but really didn't have, and his knowledge as a nuclear engineer, gained in a 10 week training course in the Navy.

Boy, was I wrong.

Oh, and he slung his coat over his shoulder like a regular guy.

Just saying it is much harder to sell 500 farms. We have never had a President with this much personal wealth and this wide a variety of sources.

I have a farm. It boggles my mind to think how hard it would be to sell it in 10 weeks. Actually, I have been trying to sell it for 10 years. Only problem is price. I could sell it tomorrow for $20/acre, a little tougher to get what I think should be market price. Really need to sell. You in the market?

Sold some of it in 2015, to a developer. Took about 6 months, from handshake to closing, and this guy REALLY wanted it. Title searches, surveys, etc.

Never owned a hotel, but I did have an office building. Took years to get rid of that thing. Bought it from a bank.

So, Lad, what is your experience in moving real estate? Everybody there in Houston gets quick sales at the price they want?

OO, why so confrontational about this? You asked for other examples and I provided you one. Also, you yourself even admit that he needs to avoid the many conflicts of interest that he has at the moment.

I don't think that trump needs to sell his buildings, however, I imagine that Trump owns significant stock in his company and is paid by said company. I would like for him to completely divest his shares as well as remove himself from any active/paid role (which I believe he has done). If he personally currently holds the titles for the buildings, I imagine things get trickier as you suggest, and I am too ignorant in the field to suggest a viable solution.

Trump is unprecedented in regards to how wealthy he is and how many ventures he is a part of as he takes office. All I want is an honest attempt by him to remove as many conflicts of interest as possible so that, at least on paper, it appears as if the legislation and agenda he pushes is what he thinks is best for the country, and not his own bottom line.

(01-09-2017 05:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So, Lad, what is your experience in moving real estate? Everybody there in Houston gets quick sales at the price they want?

Actually, if you're talking about inside the Loop, yes.

Joking aside, I see your point. But what is the alternative in your mind? Are you saying that, because Trump has a large portfolio of assets, he shouldn't have to worry about divesting? I know you're not saying that, but what, to you, is a reasonable timeline for him to divest? Is it reasonable for him to cite his large portfolio as a basis for still maintaining some conflicts of interest?

Look, the guy knew what he was running for, and what would be required if he won. (Actually, maybe he didn't. But ignorance is no excuse.)

If anything, the conflicts laws are MOST important when people have large wealth and holdings. If all Trump had was a lemonade stand with $100 in revenue a month, it would be easy to divest. But here's the rub: we also wouldn't care too much about the potential conflicts of interest there. So, to me, the need for propriety (and the appearance of propriety) is more heightened and immediate with Trump and his vast holdings, not less.

I hear you on the practical issue of the laboriousness of and time required for divesting. Is that the primary reason that Trump is giving in this controversy? (I ask earnestly, I honestly don't know.) And is he saying that, just give him enough time, and he will divest everything people are clamoring for? What is the acceptable outcome here in your mind?

(01-09-2017 10:03 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  And many Trump nominees have not filed their ethics paperwork but Senate Republicans are trying to ram them through anyway. Funny how they were OK with basically refusing to even hold votes or hearings on so many Obama nominees in an attempt to cripple his administration, but now, even sticking to the standard traditional process is a outrageous delay....

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/07/508699137/...g-too-fast

Holy hell, this is too good to be true. I hope to God that the letter sent to McConnell really looks like that.

For those who won't follow the link, Schumer tweeted a letter that McConnell sent Reid in 2009 about how the Senate would not hear any nominees until the demands that the Dems are now requiring were met. He literally just crossed out Reid's name and but McConnell in its place. I love this hypocrisy. So spicy.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/se...ominations

(01-09-2017 06:16 PM)Barrett Wrote:  

(01-09-2017 05:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So, Lad, what is your experience in moving real estate? Everybody there in Houston gets quick sales at the price they want?

Actually, if you're talking about inside the Loop, yes.

Joking aside, I see your point. But what is the alternative in your mind? Are you saying that, because Trump has a large portfolio of assets, he shouldn't have to worry about divesting? I know you're not saying that, but what, to you, is a reasonable timeline for him to divest? Is it reasonable for him to cite his large portfolio as a basis for still maintaining some conflicts of interest?

Look, the guy knew what he was running for, and what would be required if he won. (Actually, maybe he didn't. But ignorance is no excuse.)

If anything, the conflicts laws are MOST important when people have large wealth and holdings. If all Trump had was a lemonade stand with $100 in revenue a month, it would be easy to divest. But here's the rub: we also wouldn't care too much about the potential conflicts of interest there. So, to me, the need for propriety (and the appearance of propriety) is more heightened and immediate with Trump and his vast holdings, not less.

I hear you on the practical issue of the laboriousness of and time required for divesting. Is that the primary reason that Trump is giving in this controversy? (I ask earnestly, I honestly don't know.) And is he saying that, just give him enough time, and he will divest everything people are clamoring for? What is the acceptable outcome here in your mind?

I don't know. I think I would like to see his assets placed under management, maybe Eric or Don Jr., but since ownership would still lie with the prez that may not suffice for his critics. This is new ground.

More than that I would watch to see what policies/laws/regulations he enacts that could reasonably be considered self-serving. A law exempting hotels from tax would be an obvious one. More subtle might be laws exempting hotels from immigration searches.

Somewhere, sometime, something will be enacted or enforced that might benefit him. The test will have to be, does it benefit the country as a whole? Tax cuts are an example. I think tax cuts, especially death tax and capital gains cuts, are good moves, but does he have to shy away from them because they might affect him positively? Are the only things he can advocate policies that hurt him?

It is a thorny problem. I doubt it will ever be resolved to everybody's satisfaction.

(01-09-2017 06:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  For those who won't follow the link, Schumer tweeted a letter that McConnell sent Reid in 2009 about how the Senate would not hear any nominees until the demands that the Dems are now requiring were met. He literally just crossed out Reid's name and but McConnell in its place. I love this hypocrisy. So spicy.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/se...ominations

And the fact that the Democrats are now requesting/demanding what they did not provide for in 2009 and had the same density (or denser considering the two day set of 5 hearing days then) of confirmation hearings as present is not hypocritical in your book. Interesting.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the...ked-again/

To this uneducated eye, it looks like both sides are highly hypocritical vis a vis the letter.

(01-09-2017 06:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-09-2017 05:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-09-2017 04:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-09-2017 10:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-09-2017 09:57 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  "President-elect Donald Trump pledged to step away from his family-owned international real estate development, property management and licensing business before taking office Jan. 20. With less than two weeks until his inauguration, he hasn’t stepped very far.

Trump has canceled a handful of international deals and dissolved a few shell companies created for prospective investments. Still, he continues to own or control some 500 companies that make up the Trump Organization, creating a tangle of potential conflicts of interest without precedent in modern U.S. history.

...

Ethics experts have called for Trump to sell off his assets and place his investments in a blind trust, which means something his family would not control. That’s what previous presidents have done."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trum...companies/

"Without precedent" means nobody has faced this problem before. So suggesting he do what "previous Presidents have done" seems a little inane.

No doubt he needs to remove himself as far as possible, although it seems inevitable that his enemies will harp on conflicts of interest from now to the end of his term(s).

But a fire sale of all his assets in the ten weeks before Inauguration would seem excessive. Would anybody here do that? I know I could not begin to sell my real estate holdings, which are pretty extensive but a drop in the bucket compared to his. Putting them all into a blind trust is probably harder than it sounds. How about a semi-permanent proxy of his shares in everything to Eric? By semi-permanent, I mean while he is in office.

I am sure previous presidents had much less to shield and much easier assets to manage. What did Obama, Bush 43, Clinton, Bush 41, and Reagan do? Did Reagan still own his ranch? Did Bush 43? what did Washington do?

As I have said multiple times, Carter sold his farm.

and Washington didn't.

Just out of curiosity, did Carter sell when he was governor-elect or President-elect? If he held the farm during his terms as Governor, what does that say?

Part of the reason i thought he would make a good president is that business experience he touted, but really didn't have, and his knowledge as a nuclear engineer, gained in a 10 week training course in the Navy.

Boy, was I wrong.

Oh, and he slung his coat over his shoulder like a regular guy.

Just saying it is much harder to sell 500 farms. We have never had a President with this much personal wealth and this wide a variety of sources.

I have a farm. It boggles my mind to think how hard it would be to sell it in 10 weeks. Actually, I have been trying to sell it for 10 years. Only problem is price. I could sell it tomorrow for $20/acre, a little tougher to get what I think should be market price. Really need to sell. You in the market?

Sold some of it in 2015, to a developer. Took about 6 months, from handshake to closing, and this guy REALLY wanted it. Title searches, surveys, etc.

Never owned a hotel, but I did have an office building. Took years to get rid of that thing. Bought it from a bank.

So, Lad, what is your experience in moving real estate? Everybody there in Houston gets quick sales at the price they want?

OO, why so confrontational about this? You asked for other examples and I provided you one. Also, you yourself even admit that he needs to avoid the many conflicts of interest that he has at the moment.

I don't think that trump needs to sell his buildings, however, I imagine that Trump owns significant stock in his company and is paid by said company. I would like for him to completely divest his shares as well as remove himself from any active/paid role (which I believe he has done). If he personally currently holds the titles for the buildings, I imagine things get trickier as you suggest, and I am too ignorant in the field to suggest a viable solution.

Trump is unprecedented in regards to how wealthy he is and how many ventures he is a part of as he takes office. All I want is an honest attempt by him to remove as many conflicts of interest as possible so that, at least on paper, it appears as if the legislation and agenda he pushes is what he thinks is best for the country, and not his own bottom line.

I guess I was reacting to the bit about Carter selling his farm.

agree on removing himself from any active role.

Not so sure about removing himself from being paid. Is he required to live on his Presidential salary? I thought he offered to work for $1/year. Have other president's restricted themselves to their presidential salary? Obama, both Bushes, anybody?

I think he doesn't have to sell his shares. I think he should give his proxy to one of his sons, let them manage the business(es).

As an aside, when did it become necessary for a president to give it all up? It certainly was not always the case. Washington returned to his farm. did FDR divest? Did Eisenhower give up his military pension? Did LBJ sell his ranch on the Pedernales?

(01-10-2017 11:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-09-2017 06:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  For those who won't follow the link, Schumer tweeted a letter that McConnell sent Reid in 2009 about how the Senate would not hear any nominees until the demands that the Dems are now requiring were met. He literally just crossed out Reid's name and but McConnell in its place. I love this hypocrisy. So spicy.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/se...ominations

And the fact that the Democrats are now requesting/demanding what they did not provide for in 2009 and had the same density (or denser considering the two day set of 5 hearing days then) of confirmation hearings as present is not hypocritical in your book. Interesting.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the...ked-again/

To this uneducated eye, it looks like both sides are highly hypocritical vis a vis the letter.

Oh it isn't definitely hypocritical on both side seats. However, I think whoever calls at the first act is Moreno hypocritical when they repeat it themselves down the road. It's as if they forgot the hullabaloo they created when they didn't like the same situation they are now creating. Two sides can be guilty, but the guilt isn't always equal.

(01-10-2017 11:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-09-2017 06:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-09-2017 05:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-09-2017 04:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-09-2017 10:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  "Without precedent" means nobody has faced this problem before. So suggesting he do what "previous Presidents have done" seems a little inane.

No doubt he needs to remove himself as far as possible, although it seems inevitable that his enemies will harp on conflicts of interest from now to the end of his term(s).

But a fire sale of all his assets in the ten weeks before Inauguration would seem excessive. Would anybody here do that? I know I could not begin to sell my real estate holdings, which are pretty extensive but a drop in the bucket compared to his. Putting them all into a blind trust is probably harder than it sounds. How about a semi-permanent proxy of his shares in everything to Eric? By semi-permanent, I mean while he is in office.

I am sure previous presidents had much less to shield and much easier assets to manage. What did Obama, Bush 43, Clinton, Bush 41, and Reagan do? Did Reagan still own his ranch? Did Bush 43? what did Washington do?

As I have said multiple times, Carter sold his farm.

and Washington didn't.

Just out of curiosity, did Carter sell when he was governor-elect or President-elect? If he held the farm during his terms as Governor, what does that say?

Part of the reason i thought he would make a good president is that business experience he touted, but really didn't have, and his knowledge as a nuclear engineer, gained in a 10 week training course in the Navy.

Boy, was I wrong.

Oh, and he slung his coat over his shoulder like a regular guy.

Just saying it is much harder to sell 500 farms. We have never had a President with this much personal wealth and this wide a variety of sources.

I have a farm. It boggles my mind to think how hard it would be to sell it in 10 weeks. Actually, I have been trying to sell it for 10 years. Only problem is price. I could sell it tomorrow for $20/acre, a little tougher to get what I think should be market price. Really need to sell. You in the market?

Sold some of it in 2015, to a developer. Took about 6 months, from handshake to closing, and this guy REALLY wanted it. Title searches, surveys, etc.

Never owned a hotel, but I did have an office building. Took years to get rid of that thing. Bought it from a bank.

So, Lad, what is your experience in moving real estate? Everybody there in Houston gets quick sales at the price they want?

OO, why so confrontational about this? You asked for other examples and I provided you one. Also, you yourself even admit that he needs to avoid the many conflicts of interest that he has at the moment.

I don't think that trump needs to sell his buildings, however, I imagine that Trump owns significant stock in his company and is paid by said company. I would like for him to completely divest his shares as well as remove himself from any active/paid role (which I believe he has done). If he personally currently holds the titles for the buildings, I imagine things get trickier as you suggest, and I am too ignorant in the field to suggest a viable solution.

Trump is unprecedented in regards to how wealthy he is and how many ventures he is a part of as he takes office. All I want is an honest attempt by him to remove as many conflicts of interest as possible so that, at least on paper, it appears as if the legislation and agenda he pushes is what he thinks is best for the country, and not his own bottom line.

I guess I was reacting to the bit about Carter selling his farm.

agree on removing himself from any active role.

Not so sure about removing himself from being paid. Is he required to live on his Presidential salary? I thought he offered to work for $1/year. Have other president's restricted themselves to their presidential salary? Obama, both Bushes, anybody?

I think he doesn't have to sell his shares. I think he should give his proxy to one of his sons, let them manage the business(es).

As an aside, when did it become necessary for a president to give it all up? It certainly was not always the case. Washington returned to his farm. did FDR divest? Did Eisenhower give up his military pension? Did LBJ sell his ranch on the Pedernales?

OO, I think it's on you to provide examples of modern presidents that maintained either shares in their personal company or directly managed/oversaw the management of their stock holdings and other assets. I believe most, if not all, put all their holdings into blind trusts during their time in office.

(01-10-2017 12:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 11:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-09-2017 06:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-09-2017 05:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-09-2017 04:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  As I have said multiple times, Carter sold his farm.

and Washington didn't.

Just out of curiosity, did Carter sell when he was governor-elect or President-elect? If he held the farm during his terms as Governor, what does that say?

Part of the reason i thought he would make a good president is that business experience he touted, but really didn't have, and his knowledge as a nuclear engineer, gained in a 10 week training course in the Navy.

Boy, was I wrong.

Oh, and he slung his coat over his shoulder like a regular guy.

Just saying it is much harder to sell 500 farms. We have never had a President with this much personal wealth and this wide a variety of sources.

I have a farm. It boggles my mind to think how hard it would be to sell it in 10 weeks. Actually, I have been trying to sell it for 10 years. Only problem is price. I could sell it tomorrow for $20/acre, a little tougher to get what I think should be market price. Really need to sell. You in the market?

Sold some of it in 2015, to a developer. Took about 6 months, from handshake to closing, and this guy REALLY wanted it. Title searches, surveys, etc.

Never owned a hotel, but I did have an office building. Took years to get rid of that thing. Bought it from a bank.

So, Lad, what is your experience in moving real estate? Everybody there in Houston gets quick sales at the price they want?

OO, why so confrontational about this? You asked for other examples and I provided you one. Also, you yourself even admit that he needs to avoid the many conflicts of interest that he has at the moment.

I don't think that trump needs to sell his buildings, however, I imagine that Trump owns significant stock in his company and is paid by said company. I would like for him to completely divest his shares as well as remove himself from any active/paid role (which I believe he has done). If he personally currently holds the titles for the buildings, I imagine things get trickier as you suggest, and I am too ignorant in the field to suggest a viable solution.

Trump is unprecedented in regards to how wealthy he is and how many ventures he is a part of as he takes office. All I want is an honest attempt by him to remove as many conflicts of interest as possible so that, at least on paper, it appears as if the legislation and agenda he pushes is what he thinks is best for the country, and not his own bottom line.

I guess I was reacting to the bit about Carter selling his farm.

agree on removing himself from any active role.

Not so sure about removing himself from being paid. Is he required to live on his Presidential salary? I thought he offered to work for $1/year. Have other president's restricted themselves to their presidential salary? Obama, both Bushes, anybody?

I think he doesn't have to sell his shares. I think he should give his proxy to one of his sons, let them manage the business(es).

As an aside, when did it become necessary for a president to give it all up? It certainly was not always the case. Washington returned to his farm. did FDR divest? Did Eisenhower give up his military pension? Did LBJ sell his ranch on the Pedernales?

OO, I think it's on you to provide examples of modern presidents that maintained either shares in their personal company or directly managed/oversaw the management of their stock holdings and other assets. I believe most, if not all, put all their holdings into blind trusts during their time in office.

I have no idea where to find such a list. That's why I asked what FDR, for instance, did. he was a rich guy. We are asking an unprecedented president to act in ways that are considered required, but actually haven't been.

We have had rich President's before, but none who match the breadth of Trump's holdings. Carter had a peanut farm, not an agribusiness with branches in 43 states. Kennedy had a trust fund. Trump is unprecedented, and so what others did will likely not work.

I asked why/when it became a necessity for presidents to divest themselves of all ties to the world they came from. We act as if this is just what the founding Fathers required, but they didn't.

I think we are all in agreement that he cannot continue to run his empire at the same time as he runs the country. How this is to be accomplished is not something we can look to history to see how to do. Calls for complete divestment seem to me to be extreme. I think a layer or two of insulation would work. isn't that what a blind trust does? is it the only way to do that?

I expect we will see some arrangement that will not satisfy the Left. I think there is no arrangement that will satisfy the Left. Will the arrangement satisfy me? maybe, maybe not. I guess i will have to see how it works.

going back to my post #49, it appears we are still trying to find precedents on how to handle an unprecedented situation.