4 ms·

Trump Received Millions from Foreign Governments as President

30 points by MBCook 3y ago

bradley13 3y ago
I'm not exactly a Trump fan, but this isn't necessarily any sort of smoking gun. Trump's business empire has a lot if properties, and foreign officials stayed at some of them. Did they do so more than before he was President? If not, then there is no impropriety. Rather like Congress and their stock trading: one really needs to demand that federal officials put their investments and businesses into a blind trust while they are in office.
- fgsfds028374 3y ago
  [dead]
- smt88 3y ago
  Every other president has put their business interests into a blind trust. Trump broke convention by giving control to family members and business associates, and he clearly continued to be involved with them during his presidency.
  - ImJamal 3y ago
    Trump would still have received the money even if the businesses were in a blind trust though?
    - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
      In a way that made it clear, he was not favoring them. He chose to flaunt that. It's definitely what you call a 'smoking gun'. Give me money, let me know you're doing it, then ... what? What other plausible reason is there to not use a blind trust? It's an obvious conclusion, the most likely one, and the one everybody but those blind to his egregious violations will come to.
      - ImJamal 3y ago
        I don't think you understand what putting businesses in a blind trust would do. If somebody went to one of Trump's hotels it is not like he wouldn't be capable of knowing they went there. The person at the hotel could literally just call Trump from the hotel room phone and Trump could see the number and know they were at the hotel. They could also do a video call so Trump would know if they were staying at an expensive room. The idea that putting the businesses in a blind trust would completely avoid any sort of knowledge is just ridiculous. The next problem is, even if Trump had put the businesses in a blind trust and if they worked the way you think, Trump is not currently president. He would take back control of his businesses and then could look at who stayed at his hotels and who did business with his companies while he was president. If he wins this year he would then have that knowledge going into his next term.
        isleyaardvark 3y ago
        > The idea that putting the businesses in a blind trust would completely avoid any sort of knowledge is just ridiculous. That is what a blind trust is, by definition. If the person has any knowledge then it is not in a blind trust. The key to a blind trust is that the trust can sell assets at any time without the beneficiary's knowledge, so that the beneficiary doesn't know what assets they have and could benefit from. With Trump there is the unusual problem of him having recognizable businesses. The only practical way to solve that problem would have been for a blind trust to sell off properties like that and invest the proceeds, holding/investing those for the benefit of the trustee. This is why ideas Trump floated before being elected, like turning over the business to his sons, were described as "not a blind trust". (And also why "Jimmy Carter had to sell his peanut farm" became a meme.)
        ImJamal 3y ago
        >That is what a blind trust is, by definition. If the person has any knowledge then it is not in a blind trust. Did you not read my example where Trump could get the knowledge without having any access to the business records? A blind trust cannot prevent somebody from doing a video call in a hotel room. >The key to a blind trust is that the trust can sell assets at any time without the beneficiary's knowledge, so that the beneficiary doesn't know what assets they have and could benefit from. Just because they can, doesn't mean they would. Yes, there is a possibility that a hotel was sold and Trump thought it was still his, but it probably wouldn't have happened. Why would a blind trust sell off a business doing well that probably would continue to do well? Also since it is so well known everybody would know it got sold which would make the blind trust pretty much useless. >With Trump there is the unusual problem of him having recognizable businesses. The only practical way to solve that problem would have been for a blind trust to sell off properties like that and invest the proceeds, holding/investing those for the benefit of the trustee. I agree and it sounds like you are agreeing with my entire point that a blind trust wouldn't really be of any use. I'm not sure why you are trying so hard to disagree with me?
    - smt88 3y ago
      Yes, but he shouldn't have personally been involved enough to know who was staying there and when. There should have been a firewall. Instead, Trump routinely steered the US govt and its guests to Trump businesses, and they were "coincidentally" charged extremely high rates -- essentially a bribe.
      - ImJamal 3y ago
        I made a reply to another person that I think is fitting "I don't think you understand what putting businesses in a blind trust would do. If somebody went to one of Trump's hotels it is not like he wouldn't be capable of knowing they went there. The person at the hotel could literally just call Trump from the hotel room phone and Trump could see the number and know they were at the hotel. They could also do a video call so Trump would know if they were staying at an expensive room" Having a firewall would stop that right? >Instead, Trump routinely steered the US govt and its guests to Trump businesses, and they were "coincidentally" charged extremely high rates -- essentially a bribe. This is a different issue. If a blind trust held the hotels, I don't see how this would be stopped? It is not like Trump wouldn't get the money, he would just not have the records? I think I missed this part in the article. Did they mention it?
TurkishPoptart 3y ago
Right now, House Republicans are trying to pin Hunter and Joe Biden with the same allegation. Is this intended to deflect from that?
- HocusLocus 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - ashman5 3y ago
    Interesting. For me, your comment is grey and the one you responded to is normal text.
    - HocusLocus 3y ago
      Wrongthink can move. I upvoted and his grey disappeared. Now they're piling onto me (-4 points now). I'm melting! What a world, what a world!
- MBCook 3y ago
  I doubt it. Republicans have been trying to come up with evidence for years and have never managed to find a useful shred. No smoke. No fire. So there’s no real need to deflect from it. However Trump is kind of a one-man smoke bomb. So this shouldn’t be surprising at all. I’m sure the extra irony is great, but I don’t think that’s why it was done.
- klyrs 3y ago
  Trump's disregard for the foreign emoluments clause has been a scandal since before he took office -- during his campaign vs Clinton. This investigation predates the Hunter Biden investigation by about 4 years. Which is the deflection?
FrankWilhoit 3y ago
What is relevant is not what he received, but what he paid out and to whom.
TurkishPoptart 3y ago
There've been hundreds of articles like this for 6+ years, what makes this one exceptional? Honestly, even if true, earning $7.8 million is chump change compared to what Congress (both parties) make trading stocks on the regular.
- garciasn 3y ago
  Whataboutism. You're right and it sucks. It doesn't make a President having favor curried via financial investment ok.
poulsbohemian 3y ago
There's gambling in this establishment? I'm shocked! Shocked I say!

30 points by MBCook 3y ago

I'm not exactly a Trump fan, but this isn't necessarily any sort of smoking gun. Trump's business empire has a lot if properties, and foreign officials stayed at some of them. Did they do so more than before he was President? If not, then there is no impropriety. Rather like Congress and their stock trading: one really needs to demand that federal officials put their investments and businesses into a blind trust while they are in office.

fgsfds028374 3y ago
[dead]
smt88 3y ago
Every other president has put their business interests into a blind trust. Trump broke convention by giving control to family members and business associates, and he clearly continued to be involved with them during his presidency.
- ImJamal 3y ago
  Trump would still have received the money even if the businesses were in a blind trust though?
  - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
    In a way that made it clear, he was not favoring them. He chose to flaunt that. It's definitely what you call a 'smoking gun'. Give me money, let me know you're doing it, then ... what? What other plausible reason is there to not use a blind trust? It's an obvious conclusion, the most likely one, and the one everybody but those blind to his egregious violations will come to.
    - ImJamal 3y ago
      I don't think you understand what putting businesses in a blind trust would do. If somebody went to one of Trump's hotels it is not like he wouldn't be capable of knowing they went there. The person at the hotel could literally just call Trump from the hotel room phone and Trump could see the number and know they were at the hotel. They could also do a video call so Trump would know if they were staying at an expensive room. The idea that putting the businesses in a blind trust would completely avoid any sort of knowledge is just ridiculous. The next problem is, even if Trump had put the businesses in a blind trust and if they worked the way you think, Trump is not currently president. He would take back control of his businesses and then could look at who stayed at his hotels and who did business with his companies while he was president. If he wins this year he would then have that knowledge going into his next term.
      - isleyaardvark 3y ago
        > The idea that putting the businesses in a blind trust would completely avoid any sort of knowledge is just ridiculous. That is what a blind trust is, by definition. If the person has any knowledge then it is not in a blind trust. The key to a blind trust is that the trust can sell assets at any time without the beneficiary's knowledge, so that the beneficiary doesn't know what assets they have and could benefit from. With Trump there is the unusual problem of him having recognizable businesses. The only practical way to solve that problem would have been for a blind trust to sell off properties like that and invest the proceeds, holding/investing those for the benefit of the trustee. This is why ideas Trump floated before being elected, like turning over the business to his sons, were described as "not a blind trust". (And also why "Jimmy Carter had to sell his peanut farm" became a meme.)
        ImJamal 3y ago
        >That is what a blind trust is, by definition. If the person has any knowledge then it is not in a blind trust. Did you not read my example where Trump could get the knowledge without having any access to the business records? A blind trust cannot prevent somebody from doing a video call in a hotel room. >The key to a blind trust is that the trust can sell assets at any time without the beneficiary's knowledge, so that the beneficiary doesn't know what assets they have and could benefit from. Just because they can, doesn't mean they would. Yes, there is a possibility that a hotel was sold and Trump thought it was still his, but it probably wouldn't have happened. Why would a blind trust sell off a business doing well that probably would continue to do well? Also since it is so well known everybody would know it got sold which would make the blind trust pretty much useless. >With Trump there is the unusual problem of him having recognizable businesses. The only practical way to solve that problem would have been for a blind trust to sell off properties like that and invest the proceeds, holding/investing those for the benefit of the trustee. I agree and it sounds like you are agreeing with my entire point that a blind trust wouldn't really be of any use. I'm not sure why you are trying so hard to disagree with me?
  - smt88 3y ago
    Yes, but he shouldn't have personally been involved enough to know who was staying there and when. There should have been a firewall. Instead, Trump routinely steered the US govt and its guests to Trump businesses, and they were "coincidentally" charged extremely high rates -- essentially a bribe.
    - ImJamal 3y ago
      I made a reply to another person that I think is fitting "I don't think you understand what putting businesses in a blind trust would do. If somebody went to one of Trump's hotels it is not like he wouldn't be capable of knowing they went there. The person at the hotel could literally just call Trump from the hotel room phone and Trump could see the number and know they were at the hotel. They could also do a video call so Trump would know if they were staying at an expensive room" Having a firewall would stop that right? >Instead, Trump routinely steered the US govt and its guests to Trump businesses, and they were "coincidentally" charged extremely high rates -- essentially a bribe. This is a different issue. If a blind trust held the hotels, I don't see how this would be stopped? It is not like Trump wouldn't get the money, he would just not have the records? I think I missed this part in the article. Did they mention it?

TurkishPoptart 3y ago

Right now, House Republicans are trying to pin Hunter and Joe Biden with the same allegation. Is this intended to deflect from that?

HocusLocus 3y ago
[flagged]
- ashman5 3y ago
  Interesting. For me, your comment is grey and the one you responded to is normal text.
  - HocusLocus 3y ago
    Wrongthink can move. I upvoted and his grey disappeared. Now they're piling onto me (-4 points now). I'm melting! What a world, what a world!
MBCook 3y ago
I doubt it. Republicans have been trying to come up with evidence for years and have never managed to find a useful shred. No smoke. No fire. So there’s no real need to deflect from it. However Trump is kind of a one-man smoke bomb. So this shouldn’t be surprising at all. I’m sure the extra irony is great, but I don’t think that’s why it was done.
klyrs 3y ago
Trump's disregard for the foreign emoluments clause has been a scandal since before he took office -- during his campaign vs Clinton. This investigation predates the Hunter Biden investigation by about 4 years. Which is the deflection?

FrankWilhoit 3y ago

What is relevant is not what he received, but what he paid out and to whom.

TurkishPoptart 3y ago

There've been hundreds of articles like this for 6+ years, what makes this one exceptional? Honestly, even if true, earning $7.8 million is chump change compared to what Congress (both parties) make trading stocks on the regular.

garciasn 3y ago
Whataboutism. You're right and it sucks. It doesn't make a President having favor curried via financial investment ok.

poulsbohemian 3y ago

There's gambling in this establishment? I'm shocked! Shocked I say!