6 ms·

> 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 defi

> 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?
- isleyaardvark 3y ago
  I'm disagreeing with you because you still don't understand what a blind trust is. You keep saying a "blind trust" would be useless while describing things that would, by definition, be a "not blind trust". I agree with you a "not blind trust" would be useless but I am not going to call that a "blind trust", because it is not a blind trust.
  - ImJamal 3y ago
    How would a blind trust prevent somebody staying in a Trump hotel from calling Trump from the hotel phone? How would it prevent them from doing a video call so Trump can see they are in a Trump hotel? If a Trump hotel was sold by the blind trust it would be public and Trump would know that it wasn't his hotel anymore. It would literally be impossible for a blind trust to work in this situation. A blind trust only works if you don't know what you are holding. It would be impossible for Trump to not know what he is holding since the sale of a hotel would make the news.

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?

isleyaardvark 3y ago
I'm disagreeing with you because you still don't understand what a blind trust is. You keep saying a "blind trust" would be useless while describing things that would, by definition, be a "not blind trust". I agree with you a "not blind trust" would be useless but I am not going to call that a "blind trust", because it is not a blind trust.
- ImJamal 3y ago
  How would a blind trust prevent somebody staying in a Trump hotel from calling Trump from the hotel phone? How would it prevent them from doing a video call so Trump can see they are in a Trump hotel? If a Trump hotel was sold by the blind trust it would be public and Trump would know that it wasn't his hotel anymore. It would literally be impossible for a blind trust to work in this situation. A blind trust only works if you don't know what you are holding. It would be impossible for Trump to not know what he is holding since the sale of a hotel would make the news.