(04-09-2019 08:05 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  You seem to be implying that the ultra-rich are somehow immune to conflicts of interest? History seems to disagree with that notion. More likely you believe that the money potentially directed to Trump is too small to interest him (you keep citing a one room/one night stay as an example). As has been previously cited, there is potential for 6-figure and probably 7-figure revenue to be directed to these properties.
Also... most of the ultra-rich people that I know seem to be keenly interested in further building their fortunes.

Whatever gave you the notion that I was implying that the ultra-rich are somehow immune to conflicts of interest?

If that's your takeaway, then you are badly misunderstanding my point.

My first point us that everybody has a choking price, it's just going to be a lot higher for the ultra-rich.

My second point is that there is ample reason to believe that exactly none of that money gets directed to Trump personally. Normally, properties such as this are held through a network of corporations, S Corps, partnerships (generally LPs) and LLCs, and attributing any one dollar through to any particular owner is very dicey at best. And there was once a big talking point from the left that the banks had somehow forced Trump out of operating his properties and now all he got was a naming rights fee. If that's in fact true, then the room rentals would have zero to do with his income.

OK, so I said no, the rich are not immune to conflicts of interest. What are things that would raise the specter of conflict of interest? Let's say that he had come out of Hanoi with announcements that 1) we were dropping sanctions against North Korea, and 2) construction was starting in a new Trump Pyongyang hotel. Trump is primarily in the real estate business, and you'd have to structure something as a property deal to get his attention. Staying a night in his hotel, or a bunch of nights, is not going to get you there, particularly if the money does not flow to him.