CH Runners
Not Running => The Open Pub => Topic started by: tenacious1 on November 14, 2016, 09:16:20 AM
-
Late in the interview Ivanka answered a question and then Trump reinforced what she had said. Ivanka was polished. Trump was blunt. It was interesting to see the contrast side by side.
Also, none of the Trump family members will be taking positions in the new administration. That's probably a good thing.
Your thoughts?
-
Late in the interview Ivanka answered a question and then Trump reinforced what she had said. Ivanka was polished. Trump was blunt. It was interesting to see the contrast side by side.
Also, none of the Trump family members will be taking positions in the new administration. That's probably a good thing.
Your thoughts?
If he expects them to run his business while he's president I think its a very good idea.
-
I don't want his kids anywhere near the WH, and I was disappointed with his abortion answer, it was not well thought out.
Sent from my SM-G900T1 using Tapatalk
-
Just read a really interesting article on the conflict of interest question. According to the author, Trump is pretty much unable to place himself in a non-conflict of interest position because of the vastness of his holdings and his knowledge of them. Even if he put it in a blind trust, he would be aware of any personal benefits he would be receiving through his government work.
I suspect a Trump Presidency may lead to changes in the conflict of interest legislation around the President and Vice President positions if this turns out to be a big deal over his term(s) in office.
-
She has always been more polished. At the convention, her speech was good - women's equality.
And now he has asked for his kids to get clearance. How can they run his companies and be privy to info?
-
She has always been more polished. At the convention, her speech was good - women's equality.
And now he has asked for his kids to get clearance. How can they run his companies and be privy to info?
She's very impressive. Hopefully the tree never grows far from the fallen apple :)
-
Just read a really interesting article on the conflict of interest question. According to the author, Trump is pretty much unable to place himself in a non-conflict of interest position because of the vastness of his holdings and his knowledge of them. Even if he put it in a blind trust, he would be aware of any personal benefits he would be receiving through his government work.
I suspect a Trump Presidency may lead to changes in the conflict of interest legislation around the President and Vice President positions if this turns out to be a big deal over his term(s) in office.
Conflict of interest legislation? Are there any legislative constraints on the President or Vice President in this area?
-
Conflict of interest legislation? Are there any legislative constraints on the President or Vice President in this area?
The article I read mentioned the emoluments clause of the constitution as the one legal factor:
"What’s the emoluments clause and how does it factor in?
Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution bars federal officers from, among other things, accepting, without the consent of Congress, payments and gifts “of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.” The Justice Department has interpreted this provision very broadly.
A retired Army officer, for instance, who wanted to take a post as a visiting professor at a foreign university, would have to jump through multiple hoops, seeking permission from both the Army and the State Department. The same would go for a Navy reservist who joins a private law firm that happens to have a sovereign wealth fund as a client—even if the reservist doesn’t work on that account.
In Donald Trump’s case, according to the New York Times, at least one of his businesses has outstanding loans from the Bank of China, which is majority owned by the state. Loans typically have dozens of conditions, and if the bank were to ever forgive or forbear on any of those, or Trump were to negotiate a refinancing, it would be scrutinized microscopically to see if it was a “gift.” If Trump’s policy toward China were tough, it might look like was exerting pressure in an effort to win better terms on his company’s loans. If his policy were accommodating, it might look like he feared retaliation by the bank in the form of tighter terms on those same loans.
White House ethics lawyers ordinarily pore over presidents’ tax forms each years (and those of cabinet members and nominees) to make sure there are no emoluments problems. Because Trump has refused to make his returns public, scrutiny of potential problems has been impossible so far."
-
Doh, of course, the emoluments clause! I'm actually in the middle of a case involving an emoluments clause violation by one of my client's employees. The in-house lawyers are positively giddy! Most of them will never get anywhere near a case involving an actual violation of the U.S. Constitution. But back to Trump, he's definitely on the hook there. Potentially he could obtain "consent of the Congress" for an exception, but the optics involved would be politically prohibitive.
-
Doh, of course, the emoluments clause! I'm actually in the middle of a case involving an emoluments clause violation by one of my client's employees. The in-house lawyers are positively giddy! Most of them will never get anywhere near a case involving an actual violation of the U.S. Constitution. But back to Trump, he's definitely on the hook there. Potentially he could obtain "consent of the Congress" for an exception, but the optics involved would be politically prohibitive.
Sounds like he needs to refinance with another lender.
-
Doh, of course, the emoluments clause! I'm actually in the middle of a case involving an emoluments clause violation by one of my client's employees. The in-house lawyers are positively giddy! Most of them will never get anywhere near a case involving an actual violation of the U.S. Constitution. But back to Trump, he's definitely on the hook there. Potentially he could obtain "consent of the Congress" for an exception, but the optics involved would be politically prohibitive.
I know - what were you thinking. Everyone knows about the emoluments clause.
-
I know - what were you thinking. Everyone knows about the emoluments clause.
Lol, that's exactly what my perp is arguing. Unfortunately, he took the pledge:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
You shouldn't swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States unless you've read it. All of it.
-
Lets hope the President Elect has read it.
-
Lets hope the President Elect has read it.
He has people to read for him ;)
-
He has people to read for him ;)
Ivanka, give me the Coles Notes version of the constitution please.
-
Also, none of the Trump family members will be taking positions in the new administration.
Well this didn't come to pass....