Presidential Conflicts of Interest

[Aquapod770]

(11-20-2016, 06:17 PM)GMDino Wrote: While in office? Try again.

The complete and total loyalty to trump is kind of funny though.

Trump isn't in office yet, is he? 


P.s. I hate Trump too. I'm a libertarian. Just callin it like I see it.

[JustWinBaby]

He's already worth billions. I don't see this moving the needle much, if at all. Not like he's going to turn a career in politics into a $100M+ personal fortune.

IF it does cost the taxpayer a few million, even tens of millions....I'm not really going to let THAT get me bent out of shape when he's going to tack on TRILLIONS to the national debt.

[Belsnickel]

(11-21-2016, 01:52 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: He's already worth billions. I don't see this moving the needle much, if at all. Not like he's going to turn a career in politics into a $100M+ personal fortune.

IF it does cost the taxpayer a few million, even tens of millions....I'm not really going to let THAT get me bent out of shape when he's going to tack on TRILLIONS to the national debt.

You're right that this would be a drop in the bucket to both his back accounts and the increase to the debt he is going to be brining, but that doesn't make it any less unethical.

[GMDino]

(11-20-2016, 09:42 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: Trump isn't in office yet, is he? 


P.s. I hate Trump too. I'm a libertarian. Just callin it like I see it.

He is the President elect.  He should be showing how he will govern.  I fear he is. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(11-20-2016, 07:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: And that is unethical. Period. Personal gain from policy decisions in office is a conflict of interest and is an ethics violation for any branch of our government, and for the private sector for that matter (insider trading).

No it's not unethical, an exception has to be made, he is not going to allowed into the WH until the renovations are done. If he doesn't move in then, then you might have something to ***** about.

Where do you expect him to stay?
Obama didn't have a place nearby, Bush would've been in TX.

Trump Towers is perfect for foreign dignitaries and spacious enough for his WH Staff. I'm sorry you don't like it, but as I said, he's the perfect position to capitalize from the previous 2 POTUS's kicking the can down the road.

Now if he charges the same price he always has then it's fine, but if he were to overcharge, then yes, unethical.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(11-20-2016, 06:28 PM)Benton Wrote: One other thought/question that we'll have to see as things go forward.

Is he planning on upgrading his properties on taxpayer money? If he's planning on primarily staying at his own properties, is he going to renovate to accommodate on his own dime since it's taxpayer money, or use public funds for something he gets to keep later?

That really doesn't matter.
This situation is an exception to the rule not the norm.

And honestly, unless you can find one, there is NO Law that dictates that a POTUS must live in the White House, it's just a time honored tradition.

[BmorePat87]

(11-19-2016, 11:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Also, his whole not living at the WH thing is actually a hefty financial burden of the taxpayers asthey will have to provide the security and infrastructure of the WH at his alternate location.

This point is very true. Particularly troublesome should be Trump Tower. I imagine some people will move out now that it will have heavier security 24/7 (more so than during the election). 

The point of the White House, particularly in modern times, is to provide a government funded base of operation that includes everything the President would need without starting from scratch from day 1 of each administration. 

[Benton]

(11-21-2016, 01:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: That really doesn't matter.
This situation is an exception to the rule not the norm.

And honestly, unless you can find one, there is NO Law that dictates that a POTUS must live in the White House, it's just a time honored tradition.

Couple things.

The POTUS's security is mandated by Congress and carried out by the Secret Service. If the SS feels a location is unsafe, they will not take the POTUS there. He can fuss all he wants, the SS is working off Congressional mandate. And it has to stay within a budget determined by Congress. Remember a couple years ago when Obama said the SS canceled White House tours because of sequestration (in other words, they couldn't afford the security) but a former SS head said it was on the president because he refused to cancel travel plans that would have freed up SS agents to work the White House?

In case you didn't, http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/03/13/ex-secret-service-agent-obama-absolutely-not-telling-the-truth-on-white-house-tours/

So, it's not a law and it's not a time honored tradition. It's national security and fiscal responsibility and unspecific laws.

Also, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/102

Quote:The President shall receive in full for his services during the term for which he shall have been elected compensation in the aggregate amount of $400,000 a year, to be paid monthly, and in addition an expense allowance of $50,000 to assist in defraying expenses relating to or resulting from the discharge of his official duties. Any unused amount of such expense allowance shall revert to the Treasury pursuant to section 1552 of title 31, United States Code. No amount of such expense allowance shall be included in the gross income of the President. He shall be entitled also to the use of the furniture and other effects belonging to the United States and kept in the Executive Residence at the White House.

That's pretty specific in laying out the reimbursement. It's not 'the President has free reign to spend what he wants upgrading personal property at taxpayer expense.'

[Mike M (the other one)]

(11-21-2016, 02:05 PM)Benton Wrote: Couple things.

The POTUS's security is mandated by Congress and carried out by the Secret Service. If the SS feels a location is unsafe, they will not take the POTUS there. He can fuss all he wants, the SS is working off Congressional mandate. And it has to stay within a budget determined by Congress. Remember a couple years ago when Obama said the SS canceled White House tours because of sequestration (in other words, they couldn't afford the security) but a former SS head said it was on the president because he refused to cancel travel plans that would have freed up SS agents to work the White House?

In case you didn't, http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/03/13/ex-secret-service-agent-obama-absolutely-not-telling-the-truth-on-white-house-tours/

So, it's not a law and it's not a time honored tradition. It's national security and fiscal responsibility and unspecific laws.

Also, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/102



That's pretty specific in laying out the reimbursement. It's not 'the President has free reign to spend what he wants upgrading personal property at taxpayer expense.'

Obama shutting down WH tours was his way of rebelling against the Sequester on Budget Funding, but that's not here or now.

I get what you are saying about the Budget, but because they are planning to renovate the WH, exceptions have to be made. So those rules might have to be suspended until they are done with the renovations and Trump can move in.

No it is a time honored tradition. Every POTUS has resided in the WH with the exception of George Washington (and he selected the sight). Truman stayed in the Blair House while renovations were being done, but moved it once they were done.

If the SS has their say, then Trump will be at Mar-a-Lago in Florida because it's much easier for them to secure than Trump Tower.

[*bfine32*]

(11-21-2016, 01:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: That really doesn't matter.
This situation is an exception to the rule not the norm.

And honestly, unless you can find one, there is NO Law that dictates that a POTUS must live in the White House, it's just a time honored tradition.

Nobody gets a bigger kick out of watching the snowflakes whine than I do. But anything Trump does as POTUS that solely benefits Trump financially should be frowned upon.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(11-21-2016, 02:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nobody gets a bigger kick out of watching the snowflakes whine than I do. But anything Trump does as POTUS that solely benefits Trump financially should be frowned upon.

There's pro's and con's.
Loss of business from Staff taking up rooms that he could've rented out.
That's why I said as long as he's charging the same rates, then it's not a COI.

It's almost as if people expect Trump to foot the bill for the entire staff to live elsewhere during the Renovations. It's just not going to happen that way.

Now if they were presenting other places he should stay, then fine. That's something to look at, but they are not providing any alternatives, so they will get what he wants.

[Benton]

(11-21-2016, 02:31 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Obama shutting down WH tours was his way of rebelling against the Sequester on Budget Funding, but that's not here or now.

I get what you are saying about the Budget, but because they are planning to renovate the WH, exceptions have to be made. So those rules might have to be suspended until they are done with the renovations and Trump can move in.

No it is a time honored tradition. Every POTUS has resided in the WH with the exception of George Washington (and he selected the sight). Truman stayed in the Blair House while renovations were being done, but moved it once they were done.

If the SS has their say, then Trump will be at Mar-a-Lago in Florida because it's much easier for them to secure than Trump Tower.

To the first bold, wouldn't Camp David make more sense? It's already used as a temporary home, so they know how to secure it. It's large enough to host the G8 summit and security details. But the big thing is, it's 60 miles from Washington, so the expenses of transporting the POTUS and family (or conversely those going to meet with him) is going to be a lot cheaper than flying lawmakers and guests from NY to DC every day.

The WH is the official residence, in part, because that's where the activity is. If we move the capital every 4 years, you're tacking on a lot of cost to transport officials, staff and guests. Considering it can be a six figure expense every time the POTUS wants to get away for a couple days, that's going to be some big expenses when you expand.

To the second, where did you hear that? I'm not seeing it as it still brings up the logistic expense issue.

[Benton]

(11-21-2016, 02:40 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote:  
That's why I said as long as he's charging the same rates, then it's not a COI.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-campaign-on-why-theres-been-a-sudden-rent-increase-at-trump-tower/

Quote:Federal Election Commission reports show that the Republican presidential nominee’s campaign paid $35,457 per month for rent and utilities to Trump Tower Commercial LLC when Mr. Trump’s campaign was largely self-funded, roughly between August 2015 and this April. The payment began increasing, however, in May, after he had agreed to launch a joint fundraising venture with the Republican National Committee. Last month, rent hit $169,758, nearly four times what he paid earlier in the spring. The Huffington Post first noted the increase in payments.

The Trump campaign said in a statement the rent hike came as the Trump team expanded the space it rented from just the fifth floor to the entire 14th and 15th floors. The campaign tripled its space, even though it only has about 70 people on its payroll and a few dozen consultants.

Which, is likely to be completely different now that he's not trying to win?

[GMDino]

(11-21-2016, 02:40 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: There's pro's and con's.
Loss of business from Staff taking up rooms that he could've rented out.
That's why I said as long as he's charging the same rates, then it's not a COI.

It's almost as if people expect Trump to foot the bill for the entire staff to live elsewhere during the Renovations. It's just not going to happen that way.

Now if they were presenting other places he should stay, then fine. That's something to look at, but they are not providing any alternatives, so they will get what he wants.

This is a unique situation given the "diversity" of businesses that Trump has.

Not the first time a business owner has been in office though and other have divested of everything to keep the public's trust.

Without having their family run it for them.

And let's face it, Trump will do whatever he wants, tell people that disagree that they are losers and the GOP controlled congress won't hold his feet to the fire about anything but the most sever accusations....if those even come to light during his time in office.

[Benton]

(11-21-2016, 03:17 PM)GMDino Wrote:  

And let's face it, Trump will do whatever he wants, tell people that disagree that they are losers and the GOP controlled congress won't hold his feet to the fire about anything but the most sever accusations....if those even come to light during his time in office.

I dunno. Congress may surprise some. Sure, they'll turn a blind eye to a lot if they're getting what they want. But if he pushes for some of the things he campaigned on (namely term limits) and blocks some things negative to his base (like reducing Medicaid benefits to the poor), he's not going to have any friends in the legislative branch. Mitch and Ryan aren't going to put up with much reform talk.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(11-21-2016, 02:55 PM)Benton Wrote: To the first bold, wouldn't Camp David make more sense? It's already used as a temporary home, so they know how to secure it. It's large enough to host the G8 summit and security details. But the big thing is, it's 60 miles from Washington, so the expenses of transporting the POTUS and family (or conversely those going to meet with him) is going to be a lot cheaper than flying lawmakers and guests from NY to DC every day.

The WH is the official residence, in part, because that's where the activity is. If we move the capital every 4 years, you're tacking on a lot of cost to transport officials, staff and guests. Considering it can be a six figure expense every time the POTUS wants to get away for a couple days, that's going to be some big expenses when you expand.

To the second, where did you hear that? I'm not seeing it as it still brings up the logistic expense issue.

Camp David could be an option, but I think Trump is an "Urban Guy" like Obama is.

(11-21-2016, 02:59 PM)Benton Wrote: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-campaign-on-why-theres-been-a-sudden-rent-increase-at-trump-tower/


Which, is likely to be completely different now that he's not trying to win?

And you're forgetting that are some that are not on his payroll with him, such as SS.

$169,785 for 70 people, is $2,500 a month for rent. (with SS say 15 more) it's $2k per person in rent now.
That's not bad, if you use a realty listing for Trump Towers, most of the 1 bedrooms start at $5k and go as high as 10k. Oh and who says he's renting out only condo's that he owns?


As far as Mar A Lago? It was designed to be a Presidential Winter Getaway. It's Camp David with hotel Amenities. That's why I said the SS would prefer this more secluded place compared to Trump towers where there is lots of foot/car traffic to keep an eye on.

But as DINO said, Trump is one of the few POTUS's that is actually able to take an advantage of this situation.

[Benton]

(11-21-2016, 04:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Camp David could be an option, but I think Trump is an "Urban Guy" like Obama is.


 

If he's on taxpayer funds, I don't care if he's an ice cream guy like Biden but the only "free" stuff is froyo. I don't have any issue with him having an environment that's more like home, as long as it's not coming at taxpayer expense.

Quote:And you're forgetting that are some that are not on his payroll with him, such as SS.


$169,785 for 70 people, is $2,500 a month for rent. (with SS say 15 more) it's $2k per person in rent now.
That's not bad, if you use a realty listing for Trump Towers, most of the 1 bedrooms start at $5k and go as high as 10k. Oh and who says he's renting out only condo's that he owns?


As far as Mar A Lago? It was designed to be a Presidential Winter Getaway. It's Camp David with hotel Amenities. That's why I said the SS would prefer this more secluded place compared to Trump towers where there is lots of foot/car traffic to keep an eye on.

But as DINO said, Trump is one of the few POTUS's that is actually able to take an advantage of this situation.

I hadn't heard that. Wasn't sure if that was something you'd seen, or just basing it off the fact that it's difficult (and very expensive) any time the POTUS rolls through large urban areas. I was in Chicago once when Bush came through (or it might have been early in Obama's presidency, can't remember which) and pretty much everything from the airport to where ever he was going was shut down. I thought I was going to miss my flight because you were stuck in traffic for an hour, but luckily it backed up the airport for a lot longer and all the planes got held.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(11-21-2016, 04:42 PM)Benton Wrote: If he's on taxpayer funds, I don't care if he's an ice cream guy like Biden but the only "free" stuff is froyo. I don't have any issue with him having an environment that's more like home, as long as it's not coming at taxpayer expense.


I hadn't heard that. Wasn't sure if that was something you'd seen, or just basing it off the fact that it's difficult (and very expensive) any time the POTUS rolls through large urban areas. I was in Chicago once when Bush came through (or it might have been early in Obama's presidency, can't remember which) and pretty much everything from the airport to where ever he was going was shut down. I thought I was going to miss my flight because you were stuck in traffic for an hour, but luckily it backed up the airport for a lot longer and all the planes got held.

I did see it on a website, a former SS agent was talking about how Trump Towers might not fly with the SS, but Mar A Lago would be Trumps best option. Something like 59 rooms, not including Trump's living space. Trump would love this, cause them he could give the middle finger to the Palm Beach council for the SS making it a no fly zone. He's been fighting that fight for years.

They had planned to initially start the renovations during Obama's last year, but he told them to save it for the next POTUS. I'm surprised Obama didn't agree as it was the perfect excuse for him to get more golfing done on our dime.

And it irritates the hell out me because the last 2 times the Democrats have left the White House it was not a smooth transistion for the incoming Republican POTUS. The Clintons vandalized and stole stuff from the White House and it cost taxpayers to clean up their shit.

[GMDino]

(11-22-2016, 01:05 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I did see it on a website, a former SS agent was talking about how Trump Towers might not fly with the SS, but Mar A Lago would be Trumps best option. Something like 59 rooms, not including Trump's living space. Trump would love this, cause them he could give the middle finger to the Palm Beach council for the SS making it a no fly zone. He's been fighting that fight for years.

They had planned to initially start the renovations during Obama's last year, but he told them to save it for the next POTUS. I'm surprised Obama didn't agree as it was the perfect excuse for him to get more golfing done on our dime.

And it irritates the hell out me because the last 2 times the Democrats have left the White House it was not a smooth transistion for the incoming Republican POTUS. The Clintons vandalized and stole stuff from the White House and it cost taxpayers over 1 million to clean up their shit.

Jimmy Carter forget to take Billy with him?

Edit:

http://www.salon.com/2001/05/23/vandals/

Quote:The “scandal” broke benignly enough, with an item in Lloyd Grove’s dishy Reliable Source column in the Jan. 23 Washington Post, three days after the inauguration of George W. Bush.

“Incoming staffers of the Bush White House,” Grove wrote, were “apparently victims of a practical joke.” Bush aides in the Old Executive Office Building (EOB), adjacent to the White House, discovered that “many computer keyboards in their work spaces are missing the W key — as in President Bush’s middle initial.”

Some W keys were discovered “taped on top of the doorways,” while others were broken.

The report was more cute than cutting, with Grove quoting former Al Gore spokesman Chris Lehane, who quipped: “I think the missing W’s can be explained by the vast left-wing conspiracy now at work.”

But within two days, Grove’s playful item had morphed into one more full-blown Clinton scandal. Suddenly newspapers and TV news shows were featuring extensive reports of Clinton administration “vandalism,” stretching from the EOB offices of former Vice President Gore to the West Wing. Reports alleged expletive-ridden graffiti, sliced computer and telephone wires, file cabinets glued shut, presidential seals steamed off doors, stolen pictures and so-called porn bombs, which were never exactly described.

VideoDonald Trump and The Precedent of Japanese Internment Camps
The technological problems the vandals wrought were so severe that, according to a report in the New York Daily News, “a telecommunications staffer with more than a quarter-century of service was seen sobbing.”

“Phone lines cut, drawers filled with glue, door locks jimmied so that arriving Bush staff got locked inside their new offices,” a disapproving Andrea Mitchell reported on NBC News. The message seemed clear: The trailer-trash Clintons and their staff had enjoyed one last bacchanal at taxpayer expense.

Now it seems those closely detailed stories were largely bunk. Last week it was revealed that a formal review by the General Accounting Office, Congress’ investigative agency, “had found no damage to the offices of the White House’s East or West Wings or EOB” and that Bush’s own representatives had reported “there is no record of damage that may have been deliberately caused by the employees of the Clinton administration.”

While cautious GSA staffers won’t issue a blanket exoneration of the Clinton team, Bernard Ungar, the agency’s director of physical infrastructure, told Salon the media clearly exaggerated the extent of the damage. According to the terse GSA statement that formed the basis of Ungar’s conclusion, “the condition of the real property was consistent with what we would expect to encounter when tenants vacate office space after an extended occupancy.”

Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., the ardent Clinton foe who requested the GAO review, has tried to interpret the agency’s findings to mean no “record of damage” had been compiled, not that no damage had occurred. But the lack of records “cataloging” any damages — which Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer promised in January the White House would compile — would seem to suggest one thing: Widespread acts of vandalism never occurred.

More at the link.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(11-22-2016, 08:01 AM)GMDino Wrote: Jimmy Carter forget to take Billy with him?

Edit:

http://www.salon.com/2001/05/23/vandals/


More at the link.

Well you are right. I can't find the original document that from the website I found. I had trusted it because it claimed it was pulled by a FOI request.

However, vandalizing the WH is very childish and petty and just shows their character.