Trump’s Debts Are Widely Held on Wall Street, Creating New Potential Conflicts

apdst · Jan 9, 2017

JasperL said:
OK, you take the thread off topic, ask a question, I answer it, then you accuse me of being off topic.

I've had enough of your nonsense for this thread.

You're the one demanding we stay on topic, then you go off topic. What's going to be?

reinoe · Jan 9, 2017

JasperL said:
I've already done it on this thread and others. But the easiest one to recognize is the new D.C. hotel. What hotel do you think people asking Trump for favors will use, for their overnight stays and big meetings? Some no doubt will book the Trump owned hotel, knowing the nightly rate goes in part into his pockets and those of his kids, and "you scratch my back..." is a time honored poliitical tradition.

Or, they could stay at the hotel that is closest and most convenient for them. Shocker I know, but that is how these things tend to work.

JasperL · Jan 9, 2017

reinoe said:
Or, they could stay at the hotel that is closest and most convenient for them. Shocker I know, but that is how these things tend to work.

That is the way it SHOULD work, but if you can't recognize that those with business in front of Trump are far more likely to choose the hotel owned by the POTUS, there's no hope of you looking at the issue objectively. Any business person/lobbyist would see it as a no-brainer. Perhaps it does no good, but what they will also know is it might help and cannot hurt, unlike choosing a competitor's hotel for lodging or a big meeting.

reinoe · Jan 9, 2017

JasperL said:
That is the way it SHOULD work, but if you can't recognize that those with business in front of Trump are far more likely to choose the hotel owned by the POTUS, there's no hope of you looking at the issue objectively. Any business person/lobbyist would see it as a no-brainer. Perhaps it does no good, but what they will also know is it might help and cannot hurt, unlike choosing a competitor's hotel for lodging or a big meeting.

So a company MIGHT pay more and they MIGHT operate less efficiently because it MIGHT look good in Trump's eyes (even though he will have nothing to do with management of the hotel) and therefore it's definitely a conflict of interest.

Did I miss anything.

Absentglare · Jan 9, 2017

reinoe said:
So a company MIGHT pay more and they MIGHT operate less efficiently because it MIGHT look good in Trump's eyes (even though he will have nothing to do with management of the hotel) and therefore it's definitely a conflict of interest.

Did I miss anything.

Um, no, the conflict of interest is there either way.

Do you still not understand what a conflict of interest is? It is the existence of the incentive.

JasperL · Jan 9, 2017

reinoe said:
So a company MIGHT pay more and they MIGHT operate less efficiently because it MIGHT look good in Trump's eyes (even though he will have nothing to do with management of the hotel) and therefore it's definitely a conflict of interest.

Did I miss anything.

First of all, him transferring management to his kids is not relevant to anything. It's still HIS hotel, and the profits will flow to him and/or his immediate family, which is the same thing.

And you've got it about right. The point is pretty simple - anyone with business in front of Trump has a compelling motive to choose his hotel versus all others, and the functional result is to line his pocket, in a backdoor, indirect bribe. As potential conficts go, this is a flashing neon sign. If you don't want to look up and see it, as I said, there's no hope of you being objective on this issue, so we can just agree to disagree.

Mithros · Jan 9, 2017

reinoe said:
Or, they could stay at the hotel that is closest and most convenient for them. Shocker I know, but that is how these things tend to work.

No this is not how things work.

Do you think suppliers bring food to their customers just to be nice? Do you think airlines have frequent flyer programs out of the goodness of their hearts? Do you think pharmaceutical companies take doctors out to dinner because they're trying to show appreciation?

None of these are quid pro quo's, but they're done so that the person receiving the benefit treats the other person better. I don't see why this shouldn't terrify any conservative. Trump is the most easily influenced person ever to be elected. Right now he's saying what you want to hear. Tomorrow, who knows?

What if liberal groups contribute to his business and tell him how smart he is? He lives in one of the most liberal parts of the country. His friends are among the most liberal people in the country. He's a showman. An easy to please unsophisticated audience may have elected him, but the people he cares about are much different. How long do you think it would take him to forget about you? (If he hasn't already)

JasperL · Jan 9, 2017

Mithros said:
No this is not how things work.

Do you think suppliers bring food to their customers just to be nice? Do you think airlines have frequent flyer programs out of the goodness of their hearts? Do you think pharmaceutical companies take doctors out to dinner because they're trying to show appreciation?

None of these are quid pro quo's, but they're done so that the person receiving the benefit treats the other person better. I don't see why this shouldn't terrify any conservative. Trump is the most easily influenced person ever to be elected. Right now he's saying what you want to hear. Tomorrow, who knows?

What if liberal groups contribute to his business and tell him how smart he is? He lives in one of the most liberal parts of the country. His friends are among the most liberal people in the country. He's a showman. An easy to please unsophisticated audience may have elected him, but the people he cares about are much different. How long do you think it would take him to forget about you? (If he hasn't already)

This thread is really an eye opener. We've got Trump apologists essentially asserting that basics of business/political relationships either do not exist, or don't apply to Trump, who is notoriously thin skinned. In one of my very first jobs out of school, we had a client who was a Budweiser distributor. Well, the engagement team had a dinner with the client and some of his staff, and what did the entire team order for drinks? Budweiser products! Not wine, not Miller Lite, not Heinekin, not even bourbon or vodka. And the partner didn't need to tell us this - if we weren't smart enough to figure out what was expected at a dinner with a Bud distributor, we were probably too stupid to work for the firm.

So it's sort of an obvious choice for a lobbyist working for a defense contractor and $billion contracts to choose Trump's hotel when he or she can. The only reason NOT to is if the press covering this stuff starts tracking which firms are choosing the Trump hotel, making a stink about it, and the firms are forced to avoid the conflict of interest for PR purposes that in fact should not exist to begin with.

Somerville · Jan 9, 2017

There is a Constitutional issue at stake with Trump refusing to disavow his ownership of the various corporations which owe money to foreign entities

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 8

from the ever so 'liberal' Heritage Institute (that's sarcasm by the way, for the clueless)

. . . the Framers intended the Emoluments Clause to protect the republican character of American political institutions. "One of the weak sides of republics, among their numerous advantages, is that they afford too easy an inlet to foreign corruption." The Federalist No. 22 (Alexander Hamilton). The delegates at the Constitutional Convention specifically designed the clause as an antidote to potentially corrupting foreign practices of a kind that the Framers had observed during the period of the Confederation. Louis XVI had the custom of presenting expensive gifts to departing ministers who had signed treaties with France, including American diplomats. In 1780, the King gave Arthur Lee a portrait of the King set in diamonds above a gold snuff box; and in 1785, he gave Benjamin Franklin a similar miniature portrait, also set in diamonds. Likewise, the King of Spain presented John Jay (during negotiations with Spain) with the gift of a horse. All these gifts were reported to Congress, which in each case accorded permission to the recipients to accept them. Wary, however, of the possibility that such gestures might unduly influence American officials in their dealings with foreign states, the Framers institutionalized the practice of requiring the consent of Congress before one could accept "any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from...[a] foreign State."

(. . .) St. George Tucker's explanation of the clause noted that "in the reign of Charles the econd of England, that prince, and almost all his officers of state were either actual pensioners of the court of France, or supposed to be under its influence, directly, or indirectly, from that cause. The reign of that monarch has been, accordingly, proverbially disgraceful to his memory." As these remarks imply, the clause was directed not merely at American diplomats serving abroad, but more generally at officials throughout the federal government.

Shall the Trump acolytes within Congress allow their Lord and Master to accept "emoluments" from foreign entities, we peasants shall at least be informed of the disconnection between those who see themselves as superior to those members of the commonwealth - the rest of us. Not like some of us don't understand this already, but it does seem that a substantial percent of the peasantry for some reason believe the propaganda pouring forth in regards to how they will be taken care of now that the Black Guy and his Marxist gang have been pushed out.

People, it seems to me that Trump is only in this game in order to further enrich himself - it's not like he really gives a **** about the commoners.

bluesmoke · Jan 9, 2017

Risky Thicket said:
Are you talking about Bayrock and his meeting with the Russian oligarchs?

No. It was very early in his career. The bankers were at the losing end, holding unredeemable debt. Trump said, rather than buy your debt at x cents on the dollar, you give me additional loan dollars and I'll improve on the property, attract retail dollars, and pay back all the debt plus the additional loan and you make more profit in the end than you thought of to begin with. Remember, there were other debtors involved besides the banks that gave additional loans whom Trump shirked to help finance the deal. Trump has always scraped the cream off the top before the rest went sour.