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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.)
>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?
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.
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.
> 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.
This wasn't a concern for most presidents because no one has ever lost a presidential election after his first term and then won a subsequent election. Presidents typically serve all their time as president and then permanently leave office.
> The idea that putting the businesses in a blind trust would completely avoid any sort of knowledge is just ridiculous.
The idea is not to avoid all knowledge, but rather to eliminate influence (in either direction) between the president and the business. The president should have no more knowledge of the business than the public does.
An ethical president would have simply made a rule at the business that foreign government representatives stay at hotels he doesn't own. Instead, Trump steered them to his hotels.
>This wasn't a concern for most presidents because no one has ever lost a presidential election after his first term and then won a subsequent election.
Not true. This happened with Grover Cleveland.
>Presidents typically serve all their time as president and then permanently leave office.
Sure, but my point is that it has happened before and could happen again.
>The idea is not the avoid all knowledge, but rather to eliminate influence (in either direction) between the president and the business. The president should have no more knowledge of the business than the public does
Trump would not have access to the records, but somebody could just call him from one of his hotels like I said. Putting the businesses in a blind trust doesn't solve this problem.
>An ethical president would have simply made a rule at the business that foreign government representatives stay at hotels he doesn't own.
What if one of his hotels was the best option? Price, location, security, etc? What if they would have stayed there if Trump wasn't president?
It would also require Trump to break a contract: "On Thursday, Eric Trump said in an email that the Chinese bank mentioned in the report had signed a 20-year lease at Trump Tower in 2008, almost a decade before his father took office"
If Trump did that he would be getting all sorts of grief over that. "Trump thinks he is above the law and can just break contracts because he is president".
>Instead, Trump steered them to his hotels.
I might have missed that in the article. I read it kinda fast. Could you point out where it said that?
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.
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?
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?
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.
24 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 67.1 ms ] threadRather 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.
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.
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.
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.)
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?
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.
This wasn't a concern for most presidents because no one has ever lost a presidential election after his first term and then won a subsequent election. Presidents typically serve all their time as president and then permanently leave office.
> The idea that putting the businesses in a blind trust would completely avoid any sort of knowledge is just ridiculous.
The idea is not to avoid all knowledge, but rather to eliminate influence (in either direction) between the president and the business. The president should have no more knowledge of the business than the public does.
An ethical president would have simply made a rule at the business that foreign government representatives stay at hotels he doesn't own. Instead, Trump steered them to his hotels.
Not true. This happened with Grover Cleveland.
>Presidents typically serve all their time as president and then permanently leave office.
Sure, but my point is that it has happened before and could happen again.
>The idea is not the avoid all knowledge, but rather to eliminate influence (in either direction) between the president and the business. The president should have no more knowledge of the business than the public does
Trump would not have access to the records, but somebody could just call him from one of his hotels like I said. Putting the businesses in a blind trust doesn't solve this problem.
>An ethical president would have simply made a rule at the business that foreign government representatives stay at hotels he doesn't own.
What if one of his hotels was the best option? Price, location, security, etc? What if they would have stayed there if Trump wasn't president?
It would also require Trump to break a contract: "On Thursday, Eric Trump said in an email that the Chinese bank mentioned in the report had signed a 20-year lease at Trump Tower in 2008, almost a decade before his father took office"
If Trump did that he would be getting all sorts of grief over that. "Trump thinks he is above the law and can just break contracts because he is president".
>Instead, Trump steered them to his hotels.
I might have missed that in the article. I read it kinda fast. Could you point out where it said that?
Instead, Trump routinely steered the US govt and its guests to Trump businesses, and they were "coincidentally" charged extremely high rates -- essentially a bribe.
"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?
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.