General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsimanamerican63
(13,671 posts)Demovictory9
(32,324 posts)imanamerican63
(13,671 posts)lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)That's a lot of hush money, Ivanka. You must be a VERY special Princess.
keithbvadu2
(36,369 posts)Silent3
(15,020 posts)KS Toronado
(16,911 posts)Hair-Doo wouldn't give any of his kids that much money while being cash poor.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Going rate for the front door is $130K, per Stormy.
robbob
(3,514 posts)Wasnt there a story that young Donald was on daddys payroll making 30k a month at age 3? Or something like that. Grifters with a long history of grifting.
PatSeg
(46,804 posts)Is it really that hard to do things legally? Does everything have to be underhanded and corrupt? Maybe if Trump had tried running his businesses transparently and legitimately, he might not be in debt over $1 billion. Apparently crime does not pay and has never worked for Donald Trump. Damn, the man is even a failure at being a crook!
Wounded Bear
(58,440 posts)LiberalArkie
(15,686 posts)Wounded Bear
(58,440 posts)Gibbs was wrong a lot.
CaptYossarian
(6,448 posts)rainin
(3,010 posts)This article from The Atlantic written in 2016 is worth revisiting:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/trump-holdings-conflict-of-interest/503333/
Excerpt:
"There is, however, a law outside of the conflict-of-interest statutes that could deter Trump from retaining his business interests while in officeand one that has received insufficient attention. Introduced in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, it prohibits any senior noncareer officer of the government from permitting his or her name to be used by any firm that provides professional services involving a fiduciary relationship. While the conflict-of-interest statutes exempt the president, the text of the use-of-name law does not, though its use in court would require the repeal of a 25-year-old executive-branch regulation that does exempt the president and vice president. As important, Congress explicitly said this statute was meant to ban the use of an officers name not only in traditional fiduciary-based firms, such as law partnerships, but in a range of other ventures including real estate, consulting and advising, [and] architecture. The U.S. Office of Government Ethics regulations that apply the law adopted this broad definition.
This is where Trumps business interests come in: It would appear that many of his organizations activities fall under those barred by the use-of-name law. On its website, the Trump Organization says that it engages in real estate sales and brokerage services. Even on a narrow, technical understanding, University of Houston Law professor Teddy Rave told me, a real-estate broker
can certainly be in a fiduciary relationship with a buyer or seller. More broadly, the Trump Organization speaks of its collaborative relationships and intimate involvement with the companies that license Trumps name; one can, the website boasts, see the touch of the Trump brand in every aspect of the properties it works with. That suggeststo use the laws broad understanding of the kinds of organizations to which an officer of government cant lend his or her namethat a fair bit of consulting and advising might be going on in Trumpworld.
****snip****
Trump, for his part, has shown no indication he plans to sell off his assets, and his camp has resisted, in particular, suggestions that he set up a blind trust. Trumps solution is to have his children run the company. Yet it would appear that a sell-off is the only way he could adhere to the use-of-name statute as Congress understood it: as an instrument for preventing an officer, including the president, from being in a position where others could advance his or her financial interests in return for favorable policy decisions.
liberalla
(9,166 posts)the capable hands of the youngins but they had to run things by him first...
rainin
(3,010 posts)to his children. Can he still actively pay consulting fees when he's not in "control"?
dalton99a
(81,080 posts)RustyWheels
(123 posts)I'm wondering if the others, Don Jr., Eric, Tiffany and Barron, received similar treatment? And if not, how do they feel about Ivanka getting an extra $747,000 ?
Asking for a friend, ya' know!!
rainin
(3,010 posts)Wounded Bear
(58,440 posts)CaptYossarian
(6,448 posts)grantcart
(53,061 posts)aggiesal
(8,864 posts)It's only on paper.
She kicked back to daddy the full amount.
I'm sure the dumb one's understand at least that, except for Eric.
djacq
(1,633 posts)Don't miss the Ivanka Trump bombshell buried in the Times tax story;
[link:https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/28/politics/ivanka-trump-donald-trump-tacves/index.html|
CaptYossarian
(6,448 posts)Blue Owl
(49,937 posts)Cha
(295,929 posts)Susan Calvin
(1,644 posts)Is that Trump's hardcore supporters don't care.