3 ms·

It was the huffington post which first pointed out the timing of Trump's ZTE concessions relative to a Trump Organization-affiliated project the Chinese governm

It was the huffington post which first pointed out the timing of Trump's ZTE concessions relative to a Trump Organization-affiliated project the Chinese government agreed to finance. Financing article: http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/2145808/trump-indonesia-project-latest-stop-chinas-belt-and-road http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/2145808... HuffPo correlation story: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-china-zte_us_5af9f701e4b0200bcab7fa66 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-china-zte_us_5af9... This is not to say that the two are necessarily connected so much as it's to say that not investigating the timing of the two is to exhibit a lack of due diligence.

wyldfire 8y ago
> This is not to say that the two are necessarily connected so much as it's to say that not investigating the timing of the two is to exhibit a lack of due diligence. They don't even have to be connected with any explicit quid pro quo between the parties. It could all be implicit from the Chinese government knowing full well who the owner of the Trump Organization is. Trump had a recourse, he could have easily put his assets in a blind trust. Instead, he should suffer the consequences.
- toufka 8y ago
  Further, when it comes to other high offices, like judges, the appearance of conflicts are as problematic as actual conflicts. Such that care beyond standard conflict checks is required to prevent having to investigate every relationship and decision.
  - actsasbuffoon 8y ago
    I've always found this deeply disturbing. By not putting his assets into a blind trust, Donald Trump made it easy for foreign governments to create the appearance of impropriety. This suggests that he may not fully grasp how dangerous it is to give someone the power to blackmail you. Anyone in public service should understand this, though clearly Trump isn't alone on this one.
    - goalieca 8y ago
      Oh he did this on purpose. He clearly wants the money.
      - actsasbuffoon 8y ago
        Yes, but the money can't possibly be worth the punishment normally associated with what he's done. My net worth is dramatically lower than what Trump claims to be worth, and I wouldn't take anywhere near this much risk just to make money. Mind you, I dabble in day trading. I do stupid, risky things to make money with far more of my money than is probably wise (I lost $4k yesterday, which sadly, wasn't that bad compared to some of my previous losses). So clearly my sense of risk/reward is a little off kilter. That said, I'd never do something blatantly illegal (possibly unconstitutional!) in order to make money! Especially not if it represented 1/20th of my self-reported net worth! That would be a positively stupid amount of risk for such a small reward.

wyldfire 8y ago

> This is not to say that the two are necessarily connected so much as it's to say that not investigating the timing of the two is to exhibit a lack of due diligence. They don't even have to be connected with any explicit quid pro quo between the parties. It could all be implicit from the Chinese government knowing full well who the owner of the Trump Organization is. Trump had a recourse, he could have easily put his assets in a blind trust. Instead, he should suffer the consequences.

toufka 8y ago
Further, when it comes to other high offices, like judges, the appearance of conflicts are as problematic as actual conflicts. Such that care beyond standard conflict checks is required to prevent having to investigate every relationship and decision.
- actsasbuffoon 8y ago
  I've always found this deeply disturbing. By not putting his assets into a blind trust, Donald Trump made it easy for foreign governments to create the appearance of impropriety. This suggests that he may not fully grasp how dangerous it is to give someone the power to blackmail you. Anyone in public service should understand this, though clearly Trump isn't alone on this one.
  - goalieca 8y ago
    Oh he did this on purpose. He clearly wants the money.
    - actsasbuffoon 8y ago
      Yes, but the money can't possibly be worth the punishment normally associated with what he's done. My net worth is dramatically lower than what Trump claims to be worth, and I wouldn't take anywhere near this much risk just to make money. Mind you, I dabble in day trading. I do stupid, risky things to make money with far more of my money than is probably wise (I lost $4k yesterday, which sadly, wasn't that bad compared to some of my previous losses). So clearly my sense of risk/reward is a little off kilter. That said, I'd never do something blatantly illegal (possibly unconstitutional!) in order to make money! Especially not if it represented 1/20th of my self-reported net worth! That would be a positively stupid amount of risk for such a small reward.