The strange greatness of Donald Trump

[oxmixmudd]

Do you know if there has been a significant increase in diplomats using the hotel since Trump became POTUS or has it remained the same?

I would say yes - here is the first page of links from a google search on the subject:

Itrump-foreign-leases

saudi-guests-boosted-revenue-at-trumps-new-york-hotel-reversing-drop

donald-trumps-suite-of-power

trump-hotel-is-the-new-go-to-for-foreign-diplomats

donald-trumps-new-dc-hotel-foreign-diplomats/

diplomats-are-lining-up-to-do-business-at-trumps-d-c-hotel

profitingfromthepresidency

donald-trump-properties-taxpayer-campaigns-presidency

trump-organization-applies-political-pressure-on-foreign-diplomats-to-stay-at-donald-trumps-d-c-hotel-report/


The bottom line is there is a clear conflict of interest here. What actually goes on behind those closed doors however is anyone's guess. Do you really suppose Congress is supposed to just look the other way and presume Donald Trump is an honorable man capable of resisting the temptation to abuse a situation like this? When in Donald Trump's life has he EVER shown the kind of integrity that could lead one to even hope he is not taking advantage of the situation?

Or in the Trump era, are conflicts of interest for certain people no longer a legitimate concern?



Jim

[Bill the Cat]

I would say yes - here is the first page of links from a google search on the subject:

Ihttps://www.cnn.com/2019/05/02/polit...ses/index.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/03/saud...sing-drop.html

http://time.com/donald-trumps-suite-of-power/

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2...diplomats.html

http://fortune.com/2016/11/19/donald...ign-diplomats/

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/...d-c-hotel.html

https://www.citizensforethics.org/pr...thepresidency/

https://www.axios.com/donald-trump-p...81ac509dd.html

https://www.axios.com/donald-trump-p...81ac509dd.html

https://www.salon.com/2016/12/20/tru...-hotel-report/


The bottom line is there is a clear conflict of interest here. What actually goes on behind those closed doors however is anyone's guess. Do you really suppose Congress is supposed to just look the other way and presume Donald Trump is an honorable man capable of resisting the temptation to abuse a situation like this? When in Donald Trump's life has he EVER shown the kind of integrity that could lead one to even hope he is not taking advantage of the situation?

Or in the Trump era, are conflicts of interest for certain people no longer a legitimate concern?



Jim

"Concerns" are not substantial grounds on which to dig through someone's life. That's blatant abuse of power.

[rogue06]

Only had time to skim the first two but they don't seem to answer my question of whether or not there has been a significant increase in diplomats using the hotel since Trump became POTUS, but rather confirm that diplomats are staying at the hotel. The first noted 17 cases of diplomats staying at his hotel but notes that 7 were from 2015 and the 10 others in the following 4 years (not exactly a run on staying there by any stretch of the imagination). It would be nice to know how many stayed there in prior years and how many booked rooms before and after June 16, 2015 when he announced he was running (although in 2015 his candidacy was widely regarded as a joke)

[oxmixmudd]

"Concerns" are not substantial grounds on which to dig through someone's life. That's blatant abuse of power.

It is a conflict of interest and a clear violation of the Emoluments Clause of the constitution:

Source: Emoluments Clause

“[N]o Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the
Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or
foreign State.”

© Copyright Original Source

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Only had time to skim the first two but they don't seem to answer my question of whether or not there has been a significant increase in diplomats using the hotel since Trump became POTUS, but rather confirm that diplomats are staying at the hotel. The first noted 17 cases of diplomats staying at his hotel but notes that 7 were from 2015 and the 10 others in the following 4 years (not exactly a run on staying there by any stretch of the imagination). It would be nice to know how many stayed there in prior years and how many booked rooms before and after June 16, 2015 when he announced he was running (although in 2015 his candidacy was widely regarded as a joke)

It is a clear violation of the Emoluments clause. He can't receive ANY sort of Emolument etc

Emolument: a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office.

Source: Emoluments Clause

“[N]o Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under
[the United States], shall, without the Consent of the
Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or
Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or
foreign State.”

© Copyright Original Source

Jim

ETA: To my point: The Emoluments clause exists because the founding fathers knew that NO PERSON is actually capable of being trusted in that situation.

[Bill the Cat]

It is a conflict of interest and a clear violation of the Emoluments Clause of the constitution:

Source: Emoluments Clause

“[N]o Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the
Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or
foreign State.”

© Copyright Original Source

Jim

The U.S. Justice Department, defending Trump in court, argued that the strict interpretation being applied by Trump’s critics would mean that “presidents from the very beginning of the Republic, including George Washington, would have received prohibited ‘emoluments.’” Trump pledged early in his presidency to donate to the U.S. Treasury “all profits” from foreign government patronage of his hotels. In March, the Trump Organization said it turned over $151,470 to the U.S. Treasury, representing profits from foreign governments in 2017.

Precedent says this clause isn't to be used in matters of simple and market-appropriate commerce or gifts that were more personal in nature. George Washington himself received the key to the Bastille from the Marquis de Lafayette and a print after an oil portrait of King Louis XVI from he French ambassador to the U.S.

[oxmixmudd]

The U.S. Justice Department, defending Trump in court, argued that the strict interpretation being applied by Trump’s critics would mean that “presidents from the very beginning of the Republic, including George Washington, would have received prohibited ‘emoluments.’” Trump pledged early in his presidency to donate to the U.S. Treasury “all profits” from foreign government patronage of his hotels. In March, the Trump Organization said it turned over $151,470 to the U.S. Treasury, representing profits from foreign governments in 2017.

Precedent says this clause isn't to be used in matters of simple and market-appropriate commerce or gifts that were more personal in nature. George Washington himself received the key to the Bastille from the Marquis de Lafayette and a print after an oil portrait of King Louis XVI from he French ambassador to the U.S.

Always the excuse.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

Nice Dodge.

Jim

Actually, I own a Toyota.

[Bill the Cat]

Always the excuse.

Jim

Facts don't care about your feelings.

[rogue06]

It is a clear violation of the Emoluments clause. He can't receive ANY sort of Emolument etc

Emolument: a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office.

Source: Emoluments Clause

“[N]o Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under
[the United States], shall, without the Consent of the
Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or
Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or
foreign State.”

© Copyright Original Source

Jim

ETA: To my point: The Emoluments clause exists because the founding fathers knew that NO PERSON is actually capable of being trusted in that situation.

I think the way you are approaching this it would be illegal not for just diplomats to stay at the hotel, but for anyone having any business with the government -- even conceivably anyone getting money in any fashion from the feds.

[oxmixmudd]

Actually, I own a Toyota.

hybrid?

[oxmixmudd]

Facts don't care about your feelings.

My feelings have nothing to do with. As Trump said, he could kill a person in cold blood and you wouldn't care.

Jim

[tabibito]

I think the way you are approaching this it would be illegal not for just diplomats to stay at the hotel, but for anyone having any business with the government -- even conceivably anyone getting money in any fashion from the feds.

Yep - if your politician owned a bakery that sold a doughnut to a foreign diplomat ... whammo, emolument.

[Bill the Cat]

My feelings have nothing to do with. As Trump said, he could kill a person in cold blood and you wouldn't care.

Jim

I posted the facts of the lack of the enforcement of the emoluments clause on ACTUAL gifts from foreign dignitaries to George Washington while he was President. The Constitution's ink was still damp. Of all people, those who wrote it would know how to interpret it, and they declined on something (2 things) that clearly violate your over-reading of it. Add to that the fact that Trump's hotels have given to the Treasury every penny of profit made from foreign dignitaries staying at his hotel, and you have actual and real facts that flat out rebut your claim. And you handwave all of that as an excuse. You've reached pathetic levels, Jim.

[oxmixmudd]

I think the way you are approaching this it would be illegal not for just diplomats to stay at the hotel, but for anyone having any business with the government -- even conceivably anyone getting money in any fashion from the feds.

Only if trump continued to profit from it. The problem is Trump profiting from them staying. Now if he's said he'll give all profits from such stays to the government, that helps, as long as he will allow such to be audited and he is not receiving anything under the table. But the way you folks aproach it, under the table is ok, and any sort of oversight would be seen as 'prying into his personal buisiness'.

Given Trumps propensity for lying, it really is totally false to pretend he does not need or deserve oversight. It just a little flag that says: "I an unobjectively, unabashedly for Trump no matter what he does."

No one that has any willingness to be honest and object here can deny such an arrangement needs to be watched closely - and that it doesn't matter who they are.

And the reality is anyone honest enough not to abuse their power in such a situation would never even allow the situation to exist in the first place!


Jim