(04-08-2019 06:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 06:37 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 05:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 04:54 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 04:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My guess is you're alluding to the Clinton Foundation, that both 93 and I have said represented a significant conflict of interest, no?

And I think you actually make a great point that 93 said earlier - the Clinton Foundation, just like university foundations, are net set up solely to be conduits of influence. They have broader missions that they serve. However, they can be taken advantage of by both parties (givers and receivers).

I find it interesting that such smart people seem to poo-poo the idea that a hotel (or business in general) could be a conduit for influence peddling. I have to imagine there are lots of legal cases that deal with this very issue.

In theory it could be, but the risk seems quite small, and there does not seem to be evidence that it actually is.

On the other hand, we know that buying a politician's book, and making it known that one has bought it, has often been used to curry favor by signaling loyalty. Does a politician selling books disturb you? The reach of your standard seems to be that a politician should not be allowed to reap satisfaction from any activity outside politicking, lest someone engage in that activity in order to flatter the politician.

On the third hand, we have the Clinton enterprise -- one of the most notorious vehicles for influence peddling in recent history. And THAT's the one you think is readily excused?

I have analyzed many actual and potential conflicts of interest in my career, and have provided professional opinions on them (in fact, I'm involved right now in tow such analyses). Some situations are serious, some are moderate, and some are immaterial. On that spectrum, mere ownership of a non-monopoly hotel seems pretty close to immaterial; whereas directing a foundation for receiving gifts from influence-seekers and for employing cronies seems extremely serious.

None of these disturb me and the Clinton Foundation is not readily excused.

How many times do I have to say that had Clinton become president, the Foundation would have been a significant conflict of interest?

But I'm shocked that you think the ownership of a hotel that grossed $40 MM in revenue in 2017 is close to immaterial. This isn't some Motel 6 we're talking about here. I just don't get how willingly ignorant so many people can be to the fact that POTUS' having known financial stakes in any business creates a significant conflict of interest that can be exploited. Just like the Trump, tt doesn't mean that the exploitation will happen, but the conflict of interest is present, in broad daylight.

And calling that out doesn't mean I'm disturbed by it. And wanting Trump to have divested in his businesses doesn't mean I'm disturbed by the fact that he didn't.

Regarding the Clinton Foundation, outside of articles that point to a drop in revenue (but that leave out the closing of the Clinton Initiative), I am not aware of what makes it the most notorious vehicles for peddling influence. Can you send me some articles? Similar to Trump, I definitely understand the concern for it being used as that, given who Hillary worked with as SOS and what groups the Clinton Foundation worked with.

Lad, you're a good guy, but you're out of your depth here. There are just too many fallacies in your latest reply to refute line-by-line. Give it a rest.

What fallacies? And I’m not sure what I should rest, standing by my opinion that owning a hotel in DC that brings in $40 MM in revenue is a conflict of interest for the POTUS?