D.C. and Maryland to sue President Trump, alleging breach of constitutional oath

a reply to: matafuchs

If you have to deflect to Obama, Hillary and their net worth, ya, you obviously don't get it.

This issue at it's heart is no so much about the money. It's about where it comes from, who benefits and potential ethical conflicts.

a reply to: introvertand this might be a good thing giving alphabet agencies a local to gather intel on foreign diplomats like they do us in other countries.

originally posted by: introvert
This issue at it's heart is no so much about the money. It's about where it comes from, who benefits and potential ethical conflicts.

I agree with this...that's why it's important the Clause be applied fairly and transparently...and not just on partisan whim.

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: introvertand this might be a good thing giving alphabet agencies a local to gather intel on foreign diplomats like they do us in other countries.

Forgive me, but I'm unsure of what you mean exactly.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert
This issue at it's heart is no so much about the money. It's about where it comes from, who benefits and potential ethical conflicts.

I agree with this...that's why it's important the Clause be applied fairly and transparently...and not just on partisan whim.

On that we can also agree. Ethics and accountability is above politics.

a reply to: introvert

Not deflection. It is called comparison. Showing how people have used their place in office to make money. I was also not referring to HRC, I was referring to BIll so maybe it is you who is not getting it. We are talking about presidents and ethics and...wait for it...money. It is very much so about money at heart for those I discussed. Not Trump who this is about. He did not need it and those two made it a point to exploit and make money.

Trump is not benefiting. His employees may be since they can work overtime at the hotels he own if they are so busy but, alas, they are not. He is not even at a 50% booking rate in DC and less in NY.

originally posted by: introvert

That is why many ethics and legal experts were saying he needed to put everything in to a blind trust, in order to create that degree of separation.

You would feel good about a *cough* blind trust situation?

Really? What kind of external oversight is there with a *blind* trust?

Seems like a gaping loophole, to me. But whatever...

a reply to: matafuchs

Not deflection. It is called comparison.

The situations are not comparable.

Showing how people have used their place in office to make money.

Obama made most of his through book deals that went through ethics committees beforehand and I believe the Clintons made most of their money after they left office, in a variety of ways.

We are talking about presidents and ethics and...wait for it...money. It is very much so about money at heart for those I discussed. Not Trump who this is about. He did not need it and those two made it a point to exploit and make money.

Did they do it in any way that potentially violated ethics rules?

Wouldn't you want that to be investigated if there were reason to suggest as much? If so, you should support an investigation in to Trump's matters.

Trump is not benefiting. His employees may be since they can work overtime at the hotels he own if they are so busy but, alas, they are not. He is not even at a 50% booking rate in DC and less in NY.

That is for a judge to decide if he is benefiting in an unethical manner. I reserve judgement of my own until then.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

You would feel good about a *cough* blind trust situation? Really? What kind of external oversight is there with a *blind* trust? Seems like a gaping loophole, to me. But whatever...

A blind trust is not above oversight, but the main goal is to create a degree of separation in which the trust runs the business and the politician, or whomever, cannot have direct influence. That cuts the ethical issues off at the knees, right off the bat.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You would feel good about a *cough* blind trust situation? Really? What kind of external oversight is there with a *blind* trust? Seems like a gaping loophole, to me. But whatever...

A blind trust is not abover oversight, but the main goal is to create a degree of separation in which the trust runs the business and the politician, or whomever, cannot have direct influence. That cuts the ethical issues off at the knees, right off the bat.

How is that oversight handled? Communications between the Trustee and Subject are monitored somehow?

To me, this reads as..."As long as the funds are diverted -- even though they will certainly make their way back to the subject -- then the People will have nothing to put their fingers on and will have to bend over for their clever screwing over."

a reply to: Krazysh0t

He did state he was donating whatever money to the treasury. Google it and find it yourself. Also you didn't seem to care when Clinton took billions in money and gifts from foreign entities whIle in the state department. Liberals are a bunch of hypocrites. Grow the f#ck up and stop whining when you didn't care when the libtards were doing it.

a reply to: toysforadults

They don't need that. They just need to audit the hotel. Trump owns the hotel. The Saudis pay the hotel, they've paid trump. Which is already public record because we know they've stayed there and rented entire floors.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

How is that oversight handled?

I believe by the house oversight committee. I'm not 100% sure. Good question.

Communications between the Trustee and Subject are monitored somehow?

Again, not entirely sure.

To me, this reads as..."As long as the funds are diverted -- even though they will certainly make their way back to the subject -- then the People will have nothing to put their fingers on and will have to bend over for their clever screwing over."

A blind trust allows the business to continue-on without the elected official knowing what they are working on or investing in. Therefore, the official cannot make official decisions as an elected representative that would benefit their personal holdings.

originally posted by: introvert
A blind trust allows the business to continue-on without the elected official knowing what they are working on or investing in. Therefore, the official cannot make official decisions as an elected representative that would benefit their personal holdings.

I know what it is...I'm just not convinced it's meaningful.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert
A blind trust allows the business to continue-on without the elected official knowing what they are working on or investing in. Therefore, the official cannot make official decisions as an elected representative that would benefit their personal holdings.

I know what it is...I'm just not convinced it's meaningful.

If you want to keep our elected officials from using their position of power to personally benefit in an unethical manner, I'd say it is meaningful.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert
A blind trust allows the business to continue-on without the elected official knowing what they are working on or investing in. Therefore, the official cannot make official decisions as an elected representative that would benefit their personal holdings.

I know what it is...I'm just not convinced it's meaningful.

If you want to keep our elected officials from using their position of power to personally benefit in an unethical manner, I'd say it is meaningful.

Without any understanding of the formal oversight of a blind trust, then, no, I do not believe for a moment that it would prevent any elected official from using their position of power to personally benefit in an unethical manner.

Nope.

Arguing about blind trusts and such doesn't nullify the fact that those bringing suit are pretty well qualified to do such things.

These guys don't bother filing a suit unless they have reliable information that they can likely win.

Bout Time.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert
A blind trust allows the business to continue-on without the elected official knowing what they are working on or investing in. Therefore, the official cannot make official decisions as an elected representative that would benefit their personal holdings.

I know what it is...I'm just not convinced it's meaningful.

If you want to keep our elected officials from using their position of power to personally benefit in an unethical manner, I'd say it is meaningful.

Without any understanding of the formal oversight of a blind trust, then, no, I do not believe for a moment that it would prevent any elected official from using their position of power to personally benefit in an unethical manner.

Nope.

As someone that does not know the exact system of oversight BT's have, I can see how your skepticism would be reasonable.

Perhaps that's something we should look in to and better inform ourselves.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: toysforadults

They don't need that. They just need to audit the hotel. Trump owns the hotel. The Saudis pay the hotel, they've paid trump. Which is already public record because we know they've stayed there and rented entire floors.

No, the Federal Government owns the Hotel,
The Trump Organization (not to be confused with President Trump) has a 60 year lease.
The hotel was completely refurbished.

If the Hotel needs audited, the IRS building is in the back.

Trump resigned from any control.

If he has stock, not a problem.

The money would have to go directly in his hands for there to be a glimmer of hope in this (yet another) attempt to detract/distract

This is an arcane clause and will be hard to apply to today's world (should look it up, that and the Federalists' Papers) .

Most presidents had businesses at the time. Starting with George Washington and T. Jefferson...

mg

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
Arguing about blind trusts and such doesn't nullify the fact that those bringing suit are pretty well qualified to do such things.

These guys don't bother filing a suit unless they have reliable information that they can likely win.

Bout Time.

They may be qualified, but do they have standing? It remains to be seen, but I believe I read the CREW Complaint was already amended because of standing issues. I feel like Maryland and DC may run into similar standing issues.

Congress is approaching from a different direction -- they are claiming they were denied the right to vote on any possible Emoluments Clause violations. And even then, I am not sure they would have standing because (according to what I read about the Obama Era), the president is supposed to approach them if there is a possible conflict of interest? So they would need to prove that he would have done so if not for proceeding without doing so???

I find it all difficult to wrap my head around.

If someone can shed light on how violations of the Emoluments Clause is enforced/handled by the Courts, who has had standing in such cases and why, I would appreciate it.

I am new to this subject matter.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Which Saudi officer stayed at his hotel?