Open Bribery of Trump Becomes Obvious

Was anyone else curious about why Trump would go out of his way to tweet about helping some random Chinese company? 

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/05/is-china-straight-up-bribing-donald-trump-zte

Was anyone else curious about why Trump would go out of his way to tweet about helping some random Chinese company? 

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/05/is-china-straight-up-bribing-donald-trump-zte

Saw this start to be publicised a few days ago, along with the confirmation that Russia interfered with the election on a massive scale in favor of Donald Trump. Can we have the results nullified and all the s#*t he's pulled since then reverted yet?

I thought it was going to be political bribery, China helps with N Korea in return for helping their business.

When I saw this story reported I realised it was just more plain old money bribery. The US is fast becoming a kleptocracy like many other “sh!thole countries” with corrupt leaders.

Actually I am OK with Trump personally enriching himself, at least he's not starting any big wars.  Seeing the footage of Palestinian protesters being shot as a direct result of Trump's policies reminded me that Trump has the real ability to kill hundreds of thousands of people and so far he's shown little interest in doing that.  Thankfully. 

Come on Mueller......

Actually I am OK with Trump personally enriching himself, at least he's not starting any big wars.  Seeing the footage of Palestinian protesters being shot as a direct result of Trump's policies reminded me that Trump has the real ability to kill hundreds of thousands of people and so far he's shown little interest in doing that.  Thankfully. 

Come on Mueller......

See, I blame him for those deaths. And whatever else comes out of the policies in Syria, Iran, NK etc. And the thousands that will die and go bankrupt without health insurance or food. Mueller I know is being methodical but the kind of ethical violations happening in the white house right now are nearly unprecedented. Hoping the elections in the fall swing things back in the right direction. Thank god the Senate protected net neutrality!

So, there’s no money from China. It’s a project with a foreign partner. The partner is in the lead. And the partner has contracted a Chinese construction company to do the construction, at what seems to be market rates.

I get that there’s potential for abuse in those kinds of deals, though this one seems on the up and up. But what’s the deal? Can no one (of either party) who owns a business hold elected office, stick the thing in a trust, and then go back to it after their time in office is over? Cause it’s a terrible system if only career politicians with no business entanglements are eligible for office. What about spouses? Is it a problem if a politician’s spouse gets sweetheart deals from the govt? Cause that’s the whole democratic leadership in congress and no one does anything about that.

You can hate Trump all you want, but you really have to be reasonable and logical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, there’s no money from China. It’s a project with a foreign partner. The partner is in the lead. And the partner has contracted a Chinese construction company to do the construction, at what seems to be market rates.

I get that there’s potential for abuse in those kinds of deals, though this one seems on the up and up. But what’s the deal? Can no one (of either party) who owns a business hold elected office, stick the thing in a trust, and then go back to it after their time in office is over? Cause it’s a terrible system if only career politicians with no business entanglements are eligible for office. What about spouses? Is it a problem if a politician’s spouse gets sweetheart deals from the govt? Cause that’s the whole democratic leadership in congress and no one does anything about that.

You can hate Trump all you want, but you really have to be reasonable and logical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He didn't put them in a trust though. He still owns and has active connections to those companies. He did not do what the ethics advisors recommended, and what every other president has done in the past when they are business owners with foreign dealings. Trump is likely in violation of the constitution's emoluments clause. He will be impeached, with likely criminal charges, it is just a matter of time.

But what’s the deal? Can no one (of either party) who owns a business hold elected office, stick the thing in a trust, and then go back to it after their time in office is over?

Yes, non-corrupt politicians do this with their investments routinely. Donald Trump, who throughout his life has defrauded his partners, investors, and clients to a degree that a reasonable and logical person would find disqualifying for public office, has not put his businesses or investments into a trust. He, and the members of his family who he has appointed to advisory positions in the White House, are still running all of his businesses, just as they were before he became president.

You can hate Trump all you want, but you really have to be reasonable and logical.

While we're doling out advice, you should watch less Fox News.

He didn't put them in a trust though. He still owns and has active connections to those companies. He did not do what the ethics advisors recommended, and what every other president has done in the past when they are business owners with foreign dealings. Trump is likely in violation of the constitution's emoluments clause. He will be impeached, with likely criminal charges, it is just a matter of time.

Exactly. He put his children in charge of his businesses and on top of that hired them into the Whitehouse.

He didn't put them in a trust though. He still owns and has active connections to those companies. He did not do what the ethics advisors recommended, and what every other president has done in the past when they are business owners with foreign dealings. Trump is likely in violation of the constitution's emoluments clause. He will be impeached, with likely criminal charges, it is just a matter of time.

All presidents put their personal assets in a trust, still own all of it, can still draw from it as needed, have active contact with the managers, and take it back when they leave office. The only difference here is it’s a large privately held business.

Again, we cannot say that people, in order to hold office, must sell any business interests never to have control again nor be able to pass down what they’ve built. That’s crazy. And that’s pretty close to what the ethics team suggested because this hasn’t happened before and no one knows how to deal with it in a way that he still has his company after he leaves the White House. Frankly, this is much much better than every other president in history. When some partner in Malaysia or wherever does a deal with a Chinese construction company, you know about it. As long as there’s pretty good transparency, and there has been, then it’s greater accountability than has ever existed before. When any other president had a stock portfolio, you had no idea if they owned a stock that benefited from some act that was taken. There was zero transparency of what their trust owned and zero real time visibility of any conflict between those investments and anything they did. Yet, all presidents seem to leave office with a lot more money than they started with.

Emoluments are pensions or salaries. Not business deals for fair market value. That aside, there is no law that says taking an emolument is a crime. Only that it makes one ineligible to hold office. Those cases have already come up and been dismissed. You may feel uncomfortable with the situation, but that’s not going to be a problem for him. Again, this situation affords far greater accountability, absolutely everything is scrutinized as never before in history, and the American people knew about this concern and chose to elect him anyway so it’s pretty much a free pass as long as it isn’t abused.

There is zero chance of him being removed from office prior to the next presidential election. No matter what happens in the midterms, it is not possible for democrats to pick up enough votes to impeach & convict. And all presidents are immune from criminal prosecution while in office. So, if you think dems are going to sweep the house seats in play and run a political impeachment like republicans ran at Clinton, but similarly not have the votes in the senate, then great, that might be some drama to pull ratings for the news, but it doesn’t actually matter at all. And if you think he’s going to be indicted after leaving office, then great, that doesn’t matter to national policy either.

You may not like the outcome of the election, (I was disappointed with the outcome of both primaries) but he did rightfully win it and he is going to be the president till at least 2021. Anything else is pure fantasy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, non-corrupt politicians do this with their investments routinely. Donald Trump, who throughout his life has defrauded his partners, investors, and clients to a degree that a reasonable and logical person would find disqualifying for public office, has not put his businesses or investments into a trust. He, and the members of his family who he has appointed to advisory positions in the White House, are still running all of his businesses, just as they were before he became president.

While we're doling out advice, you should watch less Fox News.

You assume most other politicians or former presidents are not corrupt or do not routinely have greater conflicts of interest than this, and facts/history indicate otherwise.

You’re saying because you feel his past business dealings were in your opinion shady that he is presently engaged in criminal acts on a spectacular scale? That is not how it works. Either you can prove a case against present acts or you can’t.

I agree his past dealings were shady. He’s a freakin NYC developer. Just getting a union to show up to work requires a couple felonies. I don’t like a lot he’s done in business and I think he’s personally a scumbag. But, the people knew all of that before they voted and they chose to elect him anyway. Legally that makes it a political question decided by the people, that they’re perfectly able to reverse in 2020 if they choose, and basically inoculates him against all of that. You don’t have to like it, I don’t like that this guy is the president either, but it’s still a fact.

Also I don’t watch fox or any tv news, or much tv at all for that matter. I read the random apolitical selection that pops up on the google news feed like most everyone else. I haven’t been twisted up by some news outlet with an agenda. I just don’t believe any side of any sensationalized breaking story with more emotion than verified facts. Wait a couple days till things aren’t a breaking headline and you start to see better journalism. You might have to read competing perspectives to find the truth in the middle, but it’s usually there. And I don’t let my personal biases or emotions interpret things for me. I just follow the facts and see where they lead. It’s not that hard if you’re not cheering for either side.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly. He put his children in charge of his businesses and on top of that hired them into the Whitehouse.

It’s a revokable (after leaving office) blind trust instructed not to sell his stake in his company. It’s not held by his family. He doesn’t have visibility over any of the other assets and the trustees can/must act without his input to maximize the value of the trust.

The voting rights of his stake in the company are proxy to his son rather than the trustees. And that’s necessary cause he was not a silent investor but a controlling owner. No trustee can run a company for the CEO for years. It has to go to an expert selected and trusted by the beneficiary. That’s the only way. In this case, if he’d selected anyone but the person who is supposed to be the successor when he dies, that would be a commercially unacceptable decision.

He did not hire that son at the White House. He hired his daughter and her husband.

I know these are nuanced technicalities, but they do matter.

What I think you mean is... he has communication with his son who controls the company and visibility from public source information on what the business owns and is up to. That creates a potential for him to do things the benefit the company.

And you’re right. But he’s made a lot less money since taking office, not more. There is incredible visibility and scrutiny on those transactions as has never existed before for anyone. And at the end of the day the people knew about this potential conflict, excused it, and voted for him anyway. No one has to like it, but it really does seem to be on the up and up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But, the people knew all of that before they voted and they chose to elect him anyway. Legally that makes it a political question decided by the people, that they’re perfectly able to reverse in 2020 if they choose, and basically inoculates him against all of that.

...

And at the end of the day the people knew about this potential conflict, excused it, and voted for him anyway. No one has to like it, but it really does seem to be on the up and up.

There is absolutely no legal basis for your position.  In fact, whether a sitting President can be criminally prosecuted for acts s/he engaged in prior to taking office is an undecided area of law (i.e., they are not automatically "inoculated", as you suggest).  Furthermore, in Clinton v. Jones (1997), the Supreme Court ruled that a sitting President is not immune from civil litigation as long as the case would not interfere in the President's ability to carry out his/her duties as President.  Meanwhile, everybody knows that the President can be impeached for actions engaged in while in office.  This means the President is not immune by virtue of being elected, even if the public were aware of the potential for wrongdoing when they voted.  Thus, despite what you and the Trump Administration seem to think, the U.S. President is not above the law.

There is absolutely no legal basis for your position.  In fact, whether a sitting President can be criminally prosecuted for acts s/he engaged in prior to taking office is an undecided area of law (i.e., they are not automatically "inoculated", as you suggest).  Furthermore, in Clinton v. Jones (1997), the Supreme Court ruled that a sitting President is not immune from civil litigation as long as the case would not interfere in the President's ability to carry out his/her duties as President.  Meanwhile, everybody knows that the President can be impeached for actions engaged in while in office.  This means the President is not immune by virtue of being elected, even if the public were aware of the potential for wrongdoing when they voted.  Thus, despite what you and the Trump Administration seem to think, the U.S. President is not above the law.

Clinton v Jones is a civil case. Presidents can be sued while in office and can be compelled to testify in those cases subject to reasonable restrictions of the court. That has nothing to do with criminal.

In a criminal case, the president would have to be impeached first and then criminally charged. As a parallel, a member of the House of Lords accused of a felony would be prosecuted in the House of Lords. It’s a bit more clear with the Lords as the UK judiciary is by design less independent.

If by “undecided” you mean no enterprising district attorney has ever attempted to circumvent the constitutional impeachment process to charge a sitting president, faced a sovereign immunity defense, and had lower courts side with the prosecutor so the Supreme Court could clearly restate what the constitution says... sure. No one no matter how extreme their politics has ever wasted time on such a thing that even they knew was a dead end.

I said inoculated in reference to the political question doctrine on which the court has ruled multiple times in multiple contexts. They simply will not allow courts to overturn the results of a properly conducted election where the people had their say. Even in really clear cases - like members of congress are constitutionally prohibited from simultaneously holding a commission in the reserves - the court has held that it is up to the people in the electoral process to hold politicians accountable to those rules. If they choose not to, then the court will find the judiciary doesn’t have jurisdiction over the issue.

If the guy is guilty of some past felony that wasn’t revealed before the election, or some felony or crime or moral turpitude since the election, then by all means impeach him and then feel free to charge him criminally. But pragmatically, it is not possible to gain enough votes in the midterms to do that. So short of him murdering kids on tv in the rose garden or something sufficient to make a critical mass of republican senators to vote for his removal, it just is not a reasonable possibility.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What I think you mean is... he has communication with his son who controls the company and visibility from public source information on what the business owns and is up to. That creates a potential for him to do things the benefit the company.

And you’re right. But he’s made a lot less money since taking office, not more. There is incredible visibility and scrutiny on those transactions as has never existed before for anyone. And at the end of the day the people knew about this potential conflict, excused it, and voted for him anyway. No one has to like it, but it really does seem to be on the up and up.

  My Bold

You said it yourself, and what you have just conceded would have been enough to get any other President impeached a thousand times over.

Plenty of Presidents have dealt with putting their business interests in a blind trust, there is nothing new in that.  Trump is the first President in modern times to openly profit from the Presidency and put a middle finger up to the constitution and the American People smart enough to know what is going on.  You yourself admit that this trust is a farce, why continue to argue?  I would imagine that a man educated in the law would be the least tolerant to Trump's contempt for it. 

 I've never heard the theory that since the public should have known he was a crook when they voted for him then it is okay for him to continue .  I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think the law works like that.  Does that work for *bleep* Grabbing as well?  Is he like 007 and has a license to sexually assault ? 

I think this line of reasoning is a bit much.  It's even funnier that you think these transactions are OK because they are under a lot of scrutiny.  Yes they are, and most people who hear about this and the other bribes funnelled through Cohen are Incensed!  Just because we are in the middle of working out the corruption charges doesn't mean they have been scrutinised and found to be OK, it's just that there is so much corruption coming from everywhere there's a long queue. 

I'm also very surprised that someone as intelligent as you could be so certain that Trump will see the end of his term and state that almost as a fact. Nobody has any idea, including you.  Anything is possible in this crazy news season.  Your certainty to be able to tell the future lowers your credibility significantly.