Presidential Conflicts of Interest

[GMDino]

Clearly this is a man we can trust, who will play by the rules, and will never self enrich himself while claiming to be doing good for others.

Right?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-foundation-apparently-admits-to-violating-ban-on-self-dealing-new-filing-to-irs-shows/2016/11/22/893f6508-b0a9-11e6-8616-52b15787add0_story.html?wpisrc=al_alert-COMBO-politics%252Bnation

Quote:President-elect Donald Trump’s charitable foundation has admitted to the Internal Revenue Service that it violated a legal prohibition against “self-dealing,” which bars nonprofit leaders from using their charity’s money to help themselves, their businesses or their families.


The admission was contained in the Donald J. Trump Foundation’s IRS tax filings for 2015, which were recently posted online at the nonprofit-tracking site GuideStar. A GuideStar spokesman said the forms were uploaded by the Trump Foundation’s law firm, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius.

The Washington Post could not immediately confirm if the same forms had actually been sent to the IRS.

In one section of the form, the IRS asked whether the Trump Foundation had transferred “income or assets to a disqualified person.” A disqualified person, in this context, might be Trump — the foundation’s president — or a member of his family or a Trump-owned business.

The foundation checked yes.

For 2015, the Trump Foundation checked “yes” when asked whether it had transferred “income or assets to a disqualified person” — which in this context might be Trump, a member of his family or a Trump-owned business — and checked “yes” again when asked if it had engaged in any acts of self-dealing in prior years. For 2014, The foundation answered “no” to these questions.

Another line on the form asked whether the Trump Foundation had engaged in any acts of self-dealing in prior years. The Trump Foundation checked yes again.

Such violations can carry penalties including excise taxes, and the charity leaders can be required to repay money that the charity spent on their behalf.

During the presidential campaign, The Post reported on several instances in which Trump appeared to use the Trump Foundation’s money to buy items for himself or to help one of his for-profit businesses.

But the new Trump Foundation tax filings provided little detail, so it was unclear if these admissions were connected to the instances reported in The Post.

[Trump boasts about his philanthropy. But his giving falls short of his words.]

The Trump Foundation tax forms did not, for instance, describe any specific acts of self-dealing. They also did not say whether Trump had paid any penalties already. That kind of detail would be submitted on a separate IRS form, which was not included in the information posted online by GuideStar.

Trump’s team did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday.


The New York attorney general’s office is investigating Trump’s charity, following up on reports in The Post that described apparent instances of self-dealing going back to 2007. A spokesman for Attorney General Eric Schneiderman declined to comment, other than to say “our investigation is ongoing.”

The IRS also did not immediately respond. That agency has not said if it is investigating the president-elect’s charity.

The Trump Foundation has existed since 1987. This appeared to be the first time that it had admitted committing such a violation.

Philip Hackney, who formerly worked in the IRS chief counsel’s office and now teaches at Louisiana State University, said he wanted to know why the Trump Foundation was now admitting to self-dealing in prior years — when, in all prior years, it had told the IRS it had done nothing of the kind.

“What transactions led to the self-dealing that they’re admitting to? Why weren’t they able to recognize them in prior years,” Hackney said. He said that, since the prior years’ returns were signed by Trump, that opened the president-elect to questions about what he had missed and how.

....

In September, a Trump campaign spokesman rejected the idea that Trump had done anything wrong, by using his charity’s money to buy art for his bar. Instead, spokesman Boris Epshteyn said, the sports bar was doing the charity a favor by “storing” its art free of charge.

Tax experts said that this argument was unlikely to hold water.

“It’s hard to make an IRS auditor laugh,” Brett Kappel, a lawyer who advises nonprofit groups at the Akerman firm, told The Post then. “But this would do it.”

Right?

[Belsnickel]

Apparently, the lease on his DC hotel may have to be renegotiated or terminated. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/29/503740464/law-professor-trump-cant-hold-lease-on-his-hotel-near-white-house

Quote:After Donald Trump is sworn in as president on Jan. 20, he will follow a time-honored tradition and make his way from the U.S. Capitol down Pennsylvania Avenue.

Along the way, just a few blocks before he reaches the White House, he'll pass the Trump International Hotel. The 263-room luxury hotel is becoming the focus of a debate over conflict of interest between Trump and his business dealings.

Trump doesn't actually own the landmark building, which was once the headquarters of the U.S. Post Office. In 2013, he signed a 60-year lease for the building with the General Services Administration, which helps manage and support federal agencies. The Trump Organization spent upwards of $200 million on renovations and reopened it as a hotel about a month before the Nov. 8 presidential election.

But there's a hitch, according to Steven Schooner, a government procurement expert who is also a law professor at the George Washington University School of Law. Schooner has studied the 100-plus-page contract and says there's a clause that clearly states elected officials should have no role in the lease.

On top of that, using any of his properties for government business, whether federal or state business, could potentially be considered an emolument if there is payment for the use of the property. This is a potential breach of the Constitution (Article 2, Section 1, Clause 7). Expect a lawsuit to be filed by 13.00 on 20 January, 2017.

[Benton]

(11-29-2016, 05:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Apparently, the lease on his DC hotel may have to be renegotiated or terminated. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/29/503740464/law-professor-trump-cant-hold-lease-on-his-hotel-near-white-house


On top of that, using any of his properties for government business, whether federal or state business, could potentially be considered an emolument if there is payment for the use of the property. This is a potential breach of the Constitution (Article 2, Section 1, Clause 7). Expect a lawsuit to be filed by 13.00 on 20 January, 2017.

And most likely he'll sue and the case will drag on well beyond his term(s). It's going to be interesting when he's both the plaintiff and the defendant.

[Belsnickel]

(11-29-2016, 06:03 PM)Benton Wrote: And most likely he'll sue and the case will drag on well beyond his term(s). It's going to be interesting when he's both the plaintiff and the defendant.

I forgot to add, that if a foreign government pays for the use of one of his properties, it could also be potentially unconstitutional thanks to Article 1, Section 9, which prevents foreign emoluments for all elected officials. Congress can provide permission for those, however. But there is no such stipulation for Congress to approve the emoluments from the federal or state governments.

[Benton]

(11-29-2016, 06:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I forgot to add, that if a foreign government pays for the use of one of his properties, it could also be potentially unconstitutional thanks to Article 1, Section 9, which prevents foreign emoluments for all elected officials. Congress can provide permission for those, however. But there is no such stipulation for Congress to approve the emoluments from the federal or state governments.

I thought that pertained to granting of titles or gifts from foreign countries?

It may be in there, but it's one of those things that hasn't been practiced in a while. Presidents (or other federal agents) weren't supposed to accept gifts from other countries, but it's happened going back to at least the 1800s. Gift giving, I'm not so sure how our presidents stack up. Trump will probably be the first president to give Russia anything, like, say, America.

[Belsnickel]

(11-29-2016, 06:42 PM)Benton Wrote: I thought that pertained to granting of titles or gifts from foreign countries?

It may be in there, but it's one of those things that hasn't been practiced in a while. Presidents (or other federal agents) weren't supposed to accept gifts from other countries, but it's happened going back to at least the 1800s. Gift giving, I'm not so sure how our presidents stack up. Trump will probably be the first president to give Russia anything, like, say, America.

Emoluments are nothing more than returns for holding an office. So if a foreign state, the federal government, or a state government, utilizes a Trump property because of his position as President once he takes office, then that could be viewed in the courts as an emolument. We can't get a ruling on this until he is inaugurated, though, as it does not become justiciable until that point.

[JustWinBaby]

(11-26-2016, 10:58 AM)GMDino Wrote: Clearly this is a man we can trust, who will play by the rules, and will never self enrich himself while claiming to be doing good for others.

It's HILARIOUS watching you worry about how an already multi-billionaire might enrich himself with politics when you so vigorously defended/denied the obvious corruption by which the Clintons made 100M+ OFF OF POLITICS.

[GMDino]

(12-02-2016, 04:39 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: It's HILARIOUS watching you worry about how an already multi-billionaire might enrich himself with politics when you so vigorously defended/denied the obvious corruption by which the Clintons made 100M+ OFF OF POLITICS.

I more worried about how the current system of such folks will continue to get richer while folks like me who have a job and work for a living will continue to get nowhere.

What is funny is how you still think it is a fact that the Clintons are "corrupt" and still don't understand how they made their money after leaving office.

But whatever helps you sleep at night.

[Benton]

(12-02-2016, 04:39 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: It's HILARIOUS watching you worry about how an already multi-billionaire might enrich himself with politics when you so vigorously defended/denied the obvious corruption by which the Clintons made 100M+ OFF OF POLITICS.

Dirty, yes, but not really corruption.

The  money came from speaking fees. The speaking fees — most likely — are  lobbying dollars. Which, as neither one of them are lawmakers, it would be tough to call that corruption. Abuse of the system, yes, but as their influence isn't really securing a vote or policy directly, there's not any bribery. Now, if she'd been elected, then that might be different as those past dollars should have come back to haunt her.

But right now she's just an unemployed lady who bilked millions out of billionaires for services not rendered. And that is hilarious.

[JustWinBaby]

(12-02-2016, 03:16 PM)Benton Wrote: Dirty, yes, but not really corruption.

Fair enough.  I'm just pointing out how certain posters had no problem with the Clinton's money machine, but are deeply concerned about a multi-billionaire who had easier and more effective options to further enrichment than running for POTUS.

As for the Clintons, watch those speaking fees and charitable donations drop off a cliff (because, as you point out, it's effectively lobbying dollars...the difference being it goes to directly to their pockets rather than campaign funds).

[Belsnickel]

(12-02-2016, 03:49 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Fair enough.  I'm just pointing out how certain posters had no problem with the Clinton's money machine, but are deeply concerned about a multi-billionaire who had easier and more effective options to further enrichment than running for POTUS.

As for the Clintons, watch those speaking fees and charitable donations drop off a cliff (because, as you point out, it's effectively lobbying dollars...the difference being it goes to directly to their pockets rather than campaign funds).

The influence a POTUS wields over policy within this country and policy regarding how we deal with other countries is an extremely effective option for further enrichment, especially as there is no rule against presidential conflicts of interest since it is a constitutional office.

[Benton]

(12-02-2016, 03:49 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Fair enough.  I'm just pointing out how certain posters had no problem with the Clinton's money machine, but are deeply concerned about a multi-billionaire who had easier and more effective options to further enrichment than running for POTUS.

As for the Clintons, watch those speaking fees and charitable donations drop off a cliff (because, as you point out, it's effectively lobbying dollars...the difference being it goes to directly to their pockets rather than campaign funds).

I don't think either of them had transparent, good interests for the majority of people. Both would/are paying back the people who got them there. As far as the bold, I dunno. Trump's business requires investors. He was already having to look outside the U.S. for money as his past mismanagement and banking regulations didn't bode well for him. Now he can help out industries or companies who might make things easier for his own company to find capitol.

But I do agree that the foundation will most likely see a significant drop... until Chelsea announces her candidacy. Supposedly she's already trying to work her way into Congress.

Ah,  empires and their dynasties. She can compete against the Bush daughters ticket.

[GMDino]

Oops.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2016/05/19/donald-trump-profited-investment-carriers-parent-company/84593308/

Quote:Donald Trump profited from investment in Carrier's parent company




You can skip this ad in 4 seconds
Donald Trump profited from investing in the parent of a business he criticized for causing 2,100 layoffs in Indiana. Here's how candidates keep using Carrier Corp. to show why trade policies need to change to protect American workers. (Dwight Adams/ Wochit

Buy Photo

(Photo: Robert Scheer/IndyStar)

Donald Trump profited from an investment in the parent company of a business he has slammed for laying off 2,100 workers in Indiana and moving production to Mexico.

Trump earned interest income of $2,501 to $5,000 from an investment in a United Technologies Corp. bond, according to a new financial disclosure form he filed Wednesday with federal election officials.

The company owns two affiliates — Carrier Corp. and UTEC — that announced in February they were laying off workers at plants in Indianapolis and Huntington and moving manufacturing operations to Mexico. The companies make heating and air conditioning products.

Trump made Carrier's decision to eliminate about 1,400 jobs at its factory on the west side of Indianapolis a centerpiece of his campaign during the runup to Indiana's primary earlier this month. His victory in that contest sealed his status as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

During an April 20 rally in Indianapolis, Trump called the company "ruthless" and told the audience — which included several Carrier workers — that he would "tax the hell" out of its air conditioners. He promised things would be different if he was president.
[/url]

INDIANAPOLIS STAR

Exclusive: More than 100 lawsuits, disputes, tied to Trump and his companies

"You’re going to bring it across the border, and we’re going to charge you a 35 percent tax," he said. "Now within 24 hours they’re going to call back. 'Mr. President, we’ve decided to stay. We’re coming back to Indianapolis.'"

He did not mention his investment in United Technologies during his campaign appearances.

Trump's campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Chuck Jones, president of the union that represents Carrier employees, said he wasn't surprised by the disclosure.

"He wraps himself in the American flag," he said. "But he doesn't practice what he preaches."

The union, United Steelworkers Local 1999, has endorsed Democrat Bernie Sanders.

It's not the first time that Trump, a billionaire businessman and reality TV star, reported interest income from United Technologies. He also made $2,501 to $5,000 from a $100,001 to $250,000 investment in the company, according to his July 2015 disclosure form.

The Associated Press is reporting that he no longer owns stock in the company, but it's unclear from the documents whether he still has an interest in the company. On the disclosure form he filed Wednesday, he listed the value of the bond investment as "None (or less than $1,001)."

The investment is one of hundreds that Trump listed. The 104-page disclosure also included [url=http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/05/18/trump-invests-same-companies-he-bashes/84558700/]investments in several other companies Trump has criticized, including Ford Motor Credit Co. and the parent company of cookies and snacks manufacturer Nabisco.

"Drop in the bucket...but it's gonna be a lot of drops in a pretty yuge bucket."

[GMDino]

And they all trust the "con man".

[JustWinBaby]

(12-02-2016, 04:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The influence a POTUS wields over policy within this country and policy regarding how we deal with other countries is an extremely effective option for further enrichment, especially as there is no rule against presidential conflicts of interest since it is a constitutional office.

LOL, no.  Govt policy doesn't have a whole hell of a lotta impact on hotel revenues.

You guys need to start thinking for yourselves.  This isn't hard, you don't even have to have good business sense to have "common sense" in this case.

[JustWinBaby]

(12-02-2016, 06:28 PM)Benton Wrote: I don't think either of them had transparent, good interests for the majority of people. Both would/are paying back the people who got them there. As far as the bold, I dunno. Trump's business requires investors. He was already having to look outside the U.S. for money as his past mismanagement and banking regulations didn't bode well for him.

I was thinking more along the lines of he's already a 70-yr old multi-billionaire.  He's won.  The idea that he would subject himself to a longshot Presidential campaign, especially the time nevermind the tens of millions of dollars such a "greedy bastard" would be throwing at a longshot, to further enrich himself.....is just complete and total horse shit. 

If making a few hundred million more or whatever was that important, it's much easier and probably more effective to funnel that money to lobbying and kickbacks.  If you want to tell me this is about ego, legacy and family dynasty (a.k.a Kennedy's) then I'm buying....anyone claiming this is to pad his wallet should honestly be embarassed for themselves.

[GMDino]

(12-03-2016, 01:39 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I was thinking more along the lines of he's already a 70-yr old multi-billionaire.  He's won.  The idea that he would subject himself to a longshot Presidential campaign, especially the time nevermind the tens of millions of dollars such a "greedy bastard" would be throwing at a longshot, to further enrich himself.....is just complete and total horse shit. 

If making a few hundred million more or whatever was that important, it's much easier and probably more effective to funnel that money to lobbying and kickbacks.  If you want to tell me this is about ego, legacy and family dynasty (a.k.a Kennedy's) then I'm buying....anyone claiming this is to pad his wallet should honestly be embarassed for themselves.

If making more money is not important to the (alleged) billionaire why hasn't he stepped aside to let his children run the business already?  Or done things like Bill and Melinda Gates have done?

Instead he has a phony charity that he uses to buy himself stuff.

[GMDino]

(12-03-2016, 01:34 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: LOL, no.  Govt policy doesn't have a whole hell of a lotta impact on hotel revenues.

You guys need to start thinking for yourselves.  This isn't hard, you don't even have to have good business sense to have "common sense" in this case.

it does when you own the hotels.

[Belsnickel]

(12-03-2016, 01:34 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: LOL, no.  Govt policy doesn't have a whole hell of a lotta impact on hotel revenues.

You guys need to start thinking for yourselves.  This isn't hard, you don't even have to have good business sense to have "common sense" in this case.

Umm, how do you figure? There are any number of policies that can influence hotel revenues, and that is not even taking into account the policies that he could use to directly influence government use of his properties. Yeah, I am thinking for myself on this one. This isn't something I need to read about to see the glaringly obvious concerns. There is no lack of common sense in my understanding of this, I know that much.

[Dill]

(12-02-2016, 04:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The influence a POTUS wields over policy within this country and policy regarding how we deal with other countries is an extremely effective option for further enrichment, especially as there is no rule against presidential conflicts of interest since it is a constitutional office.

There are no effective conflict of interest laws at the moment because there has never been a president with so many potential conflicts. How will union conflicts with his hotels affect his labor policies? He owes money to the bank of China. He won't release his tax returns. But there are rules against gifts and bribes. And the perception of self-dealing could unite enough opposition in Congress to plug some of these apparent holes with legislation.

Trump has some breathing space at the moment. No one is sure how to identify all the potential conflicts or how to hold him accountable for them.  But he shows little interest in the kind of self-regulation important to previous presidents. Can he talk to any world leader without discussing building permits or tax breaks for his hotels?  And I don't think he can let go of his Trump "empire" the way Obama could convert most of his assets to treasury bonds. So conflict is inevitable. And he doesn't handle pressure well, which will exacerbate matters.

Also, I think he himself did not really think through these potential problems, or assumed he could manage them on the fly with smoke and mirrors, as he has done for much of his real estate business. In the next few months, I expect some ad hoc attempts to create an appearance of distance between himself and his business, and then use legal means to stall and deflect accountability as long as possible.