(04-09-2019 08:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 05:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But I'm shocked that you think the ownership of a hotel that grossed $40 MM in revenue in 2017 is close to immaterial

Where did you get this number?

I have no idea what the Holiday Inn down the street grossed.

I know you are just an engineer, but gross numbers are not net numbers. Actually, that number seems low for a gross.

But it is immaterial to the release of Trump's tax returns. That number, and the net number, will not appear on Trump's tax returns. In fact there may be no entry at all that goes back to the hotel. But there certainly will be no entry that says "Minister from Slobovia, $250K for 6 months in Suite 2021". So why the need for Trump's 1040?

Oh, wait you say, we also need the tax return for Trump Hotel, Inc. But that will not show a line saying "Minister from slobovia, $250K for 6 month stay". It will just show gross revenue and total expenses, and the net will be either profit or loss.

Si then, you say, we need all the operating records of the hotel detailing every guest, the length of his stay, and the total bill.

Essentially a total audit By politically motivated amateurs. Nothing bad could happen there.

Then multiply this by 400, or whatever the number of properties and corporations represented on Trump's 1040 is.

Giant witch hunt. Lots of room for innuendo, which seems to be the DNC's main weapon.

Of course, we also have to investigate which properties did not show up on the 1040, and why.

Total witch hunt.

And all triggered by providing his 1040 to a bunch of people who want to make as much trouble for him as possible(your party, Lad, in case you don't get it.) just because he won an election in which he was an underdog. has no Democrat ever won as an underdog? AOC?

Makes more and more sense not to release the returns to me.

By the way, where is the list of lobbyists who ate at Nancy Pelosi's restaurants, and how much they spent? Won't find it on her 1040. But, I am pretty sure that influences her votes. She is a very vain person, just look at all those face lifts. She never appears in public with a hair out of place.

Most rich people are not motivated by greed, but if that is what you think of Gates, Buffet, Bezos, Stryer, Schultz, Rockefeller, Kennedy, and all the others, so be it.

I hear we are still waiting on Sanders' tax returns...from 2016. Now, $50K would make a big difference in his income.

I got that number from financial disclosures that were released: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org...-territory

edit: and the numbers I've seen on profit generated is that the hotel generated around $2MM in profit, which exceeded expectations by almost 200% (they were projecting that they would lose $2MM in 2017).

(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.

(04-09-2019 08:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 08:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 05:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But I'm shocked that you think the ownership of a hotel that grossed $40 MM in revenue in 2017 is close to immaterial

Where did you get this number?

I have no idea what the Holiday Inn down the street grossed.

I know you are just an engineer, but gross numbers are not net numbers. Actually, that number seems low for a gross.

But it is immaterial to the release of Trump's tax returns. That number, and the net number, will not appear on Trump's tax returns. In fact there may be no entry at all that goes back to the hotel. But there certainly will be no entry that says "Minister from Slobovia, $250K for 6 months in Suite 2021". So why the need for Trump's 1040?

Oh, wait you say, we also need the tax return for Trump Hotel, Inc. But that will not show a line saying "Minister from slobovia, $250K for 6 month stay". It will just show gross revenue and total expenses, and the net will be either profit or loss.

Si then, you say, we need all the operating records of the hotel detailing every guest, the length of his stay, and the total bill.

Essentially a total audit By politically motivated amateurs. Nothing bad could happen there.

Then multiply this by 400, or whatever the number of properties and corporations represented on Trump's 1040 is.

Giant witch hunt. Lots of room for innuendo, which seems to be the DNC's main weapon.

Of course, we also have to investigate which properties did not show up on the 1040, and why.

Total witch hunt.

And all triggered by providing his 1040 to a bunch of people who want to make as much trouble for him as possible(your party, Lad, in case you don't get it.) just because he won an election in which he was an underdog. has no Democrat ever won as an underdog? AOC?

Makes more and more sense not to release the returns to me.

By the way, where is the list of lobbyists who ate at Nancy Pelosi's restaurants, and how much they spent? Won't find it on her 1040. But, I am pretty sure that influences her votes. She is a very vain person, just look at all those face lifts. She never appears in public with a hair out of place.

Most rich people are not motivated by greed, but if that is what you think of Gates, Buffet, Bezos, Stryer, Schultz, Rockefeller, Kennedy, and all the others, so be it.

I hear we are still waiting on Sanders' tax returns...from 2016. Now, $50K would make a big difference in his income.

I got that number from financial disclosures that were released: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org...-territory

edit: and the numbers I've seen on profit generated is that the hotel generated around $2MM in profit, which exceeded expectations by almost 200% (they were projecting that they would lose $2MM in 2017).

Thanks for this nugget from that link:

Last year, the Trump Organization pledged to donate its profits from foreign governments to the U.S. Treasury at the end of every calendar year, and in February the company reported donating more than $150,000.

So if the profits are donated to the Treasury, where is the $$$ motive for stays from the Slobovian Minister? No net profit motive. The Minister is just taking up space that could be generating a profit if rented by an American.

(04-08-2019 05:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But I'm shocked that you think the ownership of a hotel that grossed $40 MM in revenue in 2017 is close to immaterial

So I rent a room for the night for $1,000, and that's somehow material to a business that grosses $40MM?

You're focusing on the wrong number. Trump is not going to lose whatever ownership interest he has in the property if I don't stay there. The property is still going to be worth the same to Trump regardless of whether I stay there or not.

I'm shocked that you think that whether I stay there or at some other overpriced DC hotel has any material impact on a property that grosses $40 MM a year, much less on whatever Trump's actual ownership is.

Nothing they are howling about in this thread is found on his tax returns, anyway.

(04-09-2019 08:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My understanding is that Trump DC is “owned” by the Trump Organization, which Donald Trump still owns. I saw “owned” because the Trump organization leases the building from the GSA.

But you are making a flawed assumption that the Trump Organization is Donald Trump. It isn't. How do I know? Because no competent tax lawyer or CPA would allow a client to do that. And I assume that Donald Trump received competent tax and business advice, Michael Cohen notwithstanding.

Cohen prettify obviously had a specific role to play. You don't build anything commercial in the northeast, particularly not casinos in Atlantic City, without having to deal with a lot of unsavory characters, between the unions and the mob (which may, in many cases, be one in the same). I suspect that he has a lot of dirt, or at least pseudo dirt--situations where he was told to "take care of" things and he would be reimbursed. But I doubt any of that dirt sticks on Donald Trump.

But back to his tax advice. With any kind of competent planning, the Trump Organization is a network of entities with all sorts of ownership structures--common stock, preferred stock, S Corps, partnerships (probably LPs), and LLCs, plus foreign ownership entities for foreign properties. To what extent Donald Trump individually got anything from any of of them would be difficult to trace.

(04-09-2019 08:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 05:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But I'm shocked that you think the ownership of a hotel that grossed $40 MM in revenue in 2017 is close to immaterial

So I rent a room for the night for $1,000, and that's somehow material to a business that grosses $40MM?

You're focusing on the wrong number. Trump is not going to lose whatever ownership interest he has in the property if I don't stay there. The property is still going to be worth the same to Trump regardless of whether I stay there or not.

I'm shocked that you think that whether I stay there or at some other overpriced DC hotel has any material impact on a property that grosses $40 MM a year, much less on whatever Trump's actual ownership is.

Hotel rooms: small beer. Kushner and Kushner Companies: "hold my beer."

To the googlenator: Kushner's Firm Deepens Ties with those with business in DC

Looking forward to our next binary choice in 2020.

(04-09-2019 09:20 AM)ausowl Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 08:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 05:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But I'm shocked that you think the ownership of a hotel that grossed $40 MM in revenue in 2017 is close to immaterial

So I rent a room for the night for $1,000, and that's somehow material to a business that grosses $40MM?
You're focusing on the wrong number. Trump is not going to lose whatever ownership interest he has in the property if I don't stay there. The property is still going to be worth the same to Trump regardless of whether I stay there or not.
I'm shocked that you think that whether I stay there or at some other overpriced DC hotel has any material impact on a property that grosses $40 MM a year, much less on whatever Trump's actual ownership is.

Hotel rooms: small beer. Kushner and Kushner Companies: "hold my beer."
To the googlenator: Kushner's Firm Deepens Ties with those with business in DC
Looking forward to our next binary choice in 2020.

If that choice is crook versus communist, I'll gladly vote crook.

(04-09-2019 08:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(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.

You saw where I wrote this, correct? "More likely you believe that the money potentially directed to Trump is too small to interest him"

Quote: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.

Again... if there was no money making its way to Trump I'm not sure why the courts haven't thrown out those DC hotel lawsuits by now. It would seem to be a pretty straightforward defense.

Quote: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.

Agree... if the money doesn't flow to him it would not be an issue. I don't believe this to be the case.

(04-09-2019 09:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 09:20 AM)ausowl Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 08:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 05:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But I'm shocked that you think the ownership of a hotel that grossed $40 MM in revenue in 2017 is close to immaterial

So I rent a room for the night for $1,000, and that's somehow material to a business that grosses $40MM?
You're focusing on the wrong number. Trump is not going to lose whatever ownership interest he has in the property if I don't stay there. The property is still going to be worth the same to Trump regardless of whether I stay there or not.
I'm shocked that you think that whether I stay there or at some other overpriced DC hotel has any material impact on a property that grosses $40 MM a year, much less on whatever Trump's actual ownership is.

Hotel rooms: small beer. Kushner and Kushner Companies: "hold my beer."
To the googlenator: Kushner's Firm Deepens Ties with those with business in DC
Looking forward to our next binary choice in 2020.

If that choice is crook versus communist, I'll gladly vote crook.

And I'll gladly vote for the non-Trump, Goldman Sachs pimpin', TPP supportin', deep state statist (assuming Joe Pa Biden gets the nomination and not Bernie or the other Castro brother).

(04-09-2019 09:44 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  You saw where I wrote this, correct? "More likely you believe that the money potentially directed to Trump is too small to interest him"

OK, so you got that. Then why lead with the, "You seem to be implying," comment? What purpose did that serve?

Quote:Again... if there was no money making its way to Trump I'm note sure why the courts haven't thrown out those DC hotel lawsuits by now. It would seem to be a pretty straightforward defense.

Maybe because the AGs of Maryland and DC are hard left partisan who forum-shopped to get equally hard-left partisan judges?

Quote:Agree... if the money doesn't flow to him it would not be an issue. I don't believe this to be the case.

The money doesn't flow to him. You seem to have the notion that Trump's properties are set up like Dave's Hardware, where Dave is a sole proprietor and at the end of the day he takes home what's in the cash register and he and Mrs. Dave go out to a nice dinner. Assuming he had competent tax and legal advice, as I said Michael Cohen notwithstanding, then that's not how these deals work. And his wealth is based on the value of the enterprise, which if it took in $40MM last year, is little affected by the prime minister of Slobbovia's room bill. Or remember that the left was suggesting about a year ago that Trump had been forced out of an operating interest in his deals by the banks, and now all he got was a fee for naming rights? If that's the case, then actually zero flows to him.

There's a lot of confusion about the difference between how people who work for a paycheck measure wealth--how much is in the bank and in their investment accounts--and how entrepreneurs measure wealth--the value of their enterprises. To affect Donald Trump's wealth, you have to affect the value of his enterprises. And staying at a Trump hotel simply doesn't move that needle very far, if at all.

(04-09-2019 10:02 AM)ausowl Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 09:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If that choice is crook versus communist, I'll gladly vote crook.

And I'll gladly vote for the non-Trump, Goldman Sachs pimpin', TPP supportin', deep state statist (assuming Joe Pa Biden gets the nomination and not Bernie or the other Castro brother).

Then our votes will cancel each other. Ain't democracy great?

Question. Would you vote for a non-Trump orangutan? I ask because I have a leftist friend who told me in 1972 why she was, unsurprisingly, voting for McGovern, "I'd vote for a monkey in the zoo before I would vote for Richard Nixon." To which I replied, "So would I. But he's not running against a monkey in the zoo. He's running against George McGovern."

(04-09-2019 09:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 08:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My understanding is that Trump DC is “owned” by the Trump Organization, which Donald Trump still owns. I saw “owned” because the Trump organization leases the building from the GSA.

But you are making a flawed assumption that the Trump Organization is Donald Trump. It isn't. How do I know? Because no competent tax lawyer or CPA would allow a client to do that. And I assume that Donald Trump received competent tax and business advice, Michael Cohen notwithstanding.

Cohen prettify obviously had a specific role to play. You don't build anything commercial in the northeast, particularly not casinos in Atlantic City, without having to deal with a lot of unsavory characters, between the unions and the mob (which may, in many cases, be one in the same). I suspect that he has a lot of dirt, or at least pseudo dirt--situations where he was told to "take care of" things and he would be reimbursed. But I doubt any of that dirt sticks on Donald Trump.

But back to his tax advice. With any kind of competent planning, the Trump Organization is a network of entities with all sorts of ownership structures--common stock, preferred stock, S Corps, partnerships (probably LPs), and LLCs, plus foreign ownership entities for foreign properties. To what extent Donald Trump individually got anything from any of of them would be difficult to trace.

Per Morgan Lewis, Trump is the sole or principal owner of all entities included in the Trump Organization.

https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Tax_Doc.pdf

(04-09-2019 09:44 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 08:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(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.

You saw where I wrote this, correct? "More likely you believe that the money potentially directed to Trump is too small to interest him"

Quote: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.

Again... if there was no money making its way to Trump I'm not sure why the courts haven't thrown out those DC hotel lawsuits by now. It would seem to be a pretty straightforward defense.

Quote: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.

Agree... if the money doesn't flow to him it would not be an issue. I don't believe this to be the case.

The point is not whether or not it flows to him. Money does flow to (and from) owners of properties.

The point is whether or not it sways any decisions/actions. There is zero evidence that it does. Just a lot of conjecture that Trump is so venal that he would sell his influence for a pittance. it's not like he is renting out the Lincoln Bedroom in exchange for campaign support. That is not unprecedented.

I would like to apologize to Rice93 and Lad -- I was awfully crabby yesterday, and you guys bore the brunt of it.

I've been sick as a dog, with the pernicious effect of being simultaneously exhausted and unable to sleep. It has made everything seem aggravating. And for an outdoor sports fan like me, being stuck at home in this great weather (finally!), with the Astros in town and the Clay Court Championships underway and much else going on, has not helped. But while all that may be a cause, it's not an excuse. My bad.

So, if Hamas'representative and Israel's representative are both staying at the hotel, which one will he favor? The one in the most expensive room? The one with longest stay? The one who runs up the biggest room service bill?

The answer, of course, is that he will favor the one he would have favored anyway, regardless of those petty considerations.

Anybody think otherwise? If so, what do you think he will base his actions on? Total bill? Repeat business. Good tippers?

(04-09-2019 10:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 09:44 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  You saw where I wrote this, correct? "More likely you believe that the money potentially directed to Trump is too small to interest him"

OK, so you got that. Then why lead with the, "You seem to be implying," comment? What purpose did that serve?

Quote:Again... if there was no money making its way to Trump I'm note sure why the courts haven't thrown out those DC hotel lawsuits by now. It would seem to be a pretty straightforward defense.

Maybe because the AGs of Maryland and DC are hard left partisan who forum-shopped to get equally hard-left partisan judges?

Quote:Agree... if the money doesn't flow to him it would not be an issue. I don't believe this to be the case.

The money doesn't flow to him. You seem to have the notion that Trump's properties are set up like Dave's Hardware, where Dave is a sole proprietor and at the end of the day he takes home what's in the cash register and he and Mrs. Dave go out to a nice dinner. Assuming he had competent tax and legal advice, as I said Michael Cohen notwithstanding, then that's not how these deals work. And his wealth is based on the value of the enterprise, which if it took in $40MM last year, is little affected by the prime minister of Slobbovia's room bill. Or remember that the left was suggesting about a year ago that Trump had been forced out of an operating interest in his deals by the banks, and now all he got was a fee for naming rights? If that's the case, then actually zero flows to him.

There's a lot of confusion about the difference between how people who work for a paycheck measure wealth--how much is in the bank and in their investment accounts--and how entrepreneurs measure wealth--the value of their enterprises. To affect Donald Trump's wealth, you have to affect the value of his enterprises. And staying at a Trump hotel simply doesn't move that needle very far, if at all.

To the bolded - as I showed, Trump is either the sole or primary proprietor of all entities controlled by the Trump Organization.

(04-09-2019 10:24 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  I would like to apologize to Rice93 and Lad -- I was awfully crabby yesterday, and you guys bore the brunt of it.

I've been sick as a dog, with the pernicious effect of being simultaneously exhausted and unable to sleep. It has made everything seem aggravating. And for an outdoor sports fan like me, being stuck at home in this great weather (finally!), with the Astros in town and the Clay Court Championships underway and much else going on, has not helped. But while all that may be a cause, it's not an excuse. My bad.

Apology gratefully accepted. No issues. Hope you feel better and get to enjoy our all-too-brief Houston spring.

(04-09-2019 10:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 10:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 09:44 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  You saw where I wrote this, correct? "More likely you believe that the money potentially directed to Trump is too small to interest him"

OK, so you got that. Then why lead with the, "You seem to be implying," comment? What purpose did that serve?

Quote:Again... if there was no money making its way to Trump I'm note sure why the courts haven't thrown out those DC hotel lawsuits by now. It would seem to be a pretty straightforward defense.

Maybe because the AGs of Maryland and DC are hard left partisan who forum-shopped to get equally hard-left partisan judges?

Quote:Agree... if the money doesn't flow to him it would not be an issue. I don't believe this to be the case.

The money doesn't flow to him. You seem to have the notion that Trump's properties are set up like Dave's Hardware, where Dave is a sole proprietor and at the end of the day he takes home what's in the cash register and he and Mrs. Dave go out to a nice dinner. Assuming he had competent tax and legal advice, as I said Michael Cohen notwithstanding, then that's not how these deals work. And his wealth is based on the value of the enterprise, which if it took in $40MM last year, is little affected by the prime minister of Slobbovia's room bill. Or remember that the left was suggesting about a year ago that Trump had been forced out of an operating interest in his deals by the banks, and now all he got was a fee for naming rights? If that's the case, then actually zero flows to him.

There's a lot of confusion about the difference between how people who work for a paycheck measure wealth--how much is in the bank and in their investment accounts--and how entrepreneurs measure wealth--the value of their enterprises. To affect Donald Trump's wealth, you have to affect the value of his enterprises. And staying at a Trump hotel simply doesn't move that needle very far, if at all.

To the bolded - as I showed, Trump is either the sole or primary proprietor of all entities controlled by the Trump Organization.

I don't think you know what "sole proprietor" means. If Trump is indeed a sole proprietor, he is incredibly stupid, and I don't think even your guys have hurled that at him yet.

I think you mean sole stockholder or majority stockholder. But it is hard for me to know what you mean if you don't know what you mean.

(04-09-2019 10:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So, if Hamas'representative and Israel's representative are both staying at the hotel, which one will he favor? The one in the most expensive room? The one with longest stay? The one who runs up the biggest room service bill?

The answer, of course, is that he will favor the one he would have favored anyway, regardless of those petty considerations.

Anybody think otherwise? If so, what do you think he will base his actions on? Total bill? Repeat business. Good tippers?

The point is not that someone staying at the hotel immediately creates a conflict of interest.

It's that people using the hotel COULD create a conflict of interest.

The whole point of the term conflict of interest is pointing out that it could be present and could affect someone's judgement. You don't turn down a client that could be a conflict of interest because you know it will affect your judgement, but because it COULD affect your judgement. You don't sell your peanut farm because you'll make policy decisions that will affect peanut prices, but because you COULD do so. You don't put your stocks in a blind trust because you are making policy decisions to favor your assets, but because you COULD do so.

Sheesh.