General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSenate Democrats Will Introduce Legislation to Force Trump to Deal With His Conflicts
David Corn @DavidCornDC 3h3 hours agoSenate Democrats Will Introduce Legislation to Force Trump to Deal With His Conflicts
Five top Senate Democrats say they will introduce legislation when Congress returns for its new session in January that would force Donald Trump to sell off at least some of his assets and solve his complicated conflict-of-interest problems. Trump owns hundreds of businesses and has a broad range of financial interests, from traditional investments such as stocks and bonds to large real estate holdings to licensing deals in the United States and abroad. Trump also has significant debts, totaling at least $713 million. But even as pressure has mounted on the president-elect to deal with the minefield of conflicts created by his holdings, Trump has indicated he will not divest himself of his interests. Instead, in a series of tweets, Trump has indicated he plans to simply stop actively managing his businesses. That's not enough, say the group of Senate Democrats.
Conflict-of-interest rules currently apply to all top federal officialsexcept the president and vice president. The carve-out was enshrined during the George H.W. Bush administration, at least in part because the president and vice president can't recuse themselves from their duties if they run into the same strict conflict-of-interest rules governing other federal employees. Since then, presidents and vice presidents have voluntarily taken steps to avoid even the appearance of conflicts, often by placing their assets in blind trusts. For example, in preparation for his 2008 campaign, Barack Obama put almost his entire personal stock portfolio in Treasury notes and the remainder into widely held mutual funds. Obama also declined to refinance his home mortgage, even though far lower rates are now available, so as not to create even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Sponsored by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Chris Coons (D-Del.), the proposed legislation would change that, though it would stop short of requiring Trump and future presidents to divest themselves entirely. Instead, the legislation would require that all assets that pose a conflict be sold off and the proceeds be placed in a blind trust. The sale of assets and management of the proceeds would be handled by an independent trustee.
The proposal also would define a presidential violation of the conflict-of-interest law as a "high crime or misdemeanor"an impeachable offense. Democrats backing the legislation may face an uphill battle because few Republicans have expressed an interest in joining the fight.
read more: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/12/senate-democrats-will-introduce-law-force-trump-divest
Backwoodsrider
(764 posts)why even try and get a bill like this introduced when there is not 1 chance in a million the repubs are going to support this not 1. Oh is it so the democrats can LOOK GOOD for their next election?
That's where we are at folks the wolf has gotten in to the chicken coop and the guard dogs are writing the wolfs family to complain.
thank you beltway democrats for reinforcing in everyones mind what a bunch of losers we have became
bigtree
(85,974 posts)...not clear what you think is a good strategy. Cynicism does absolutely nothing.
Backwoodsrider
(764 posts)IT IS A LOSING PROPOSITION READ THE WRITING ON THE WALL
We have to let go of the old political codes we have held for decades they don't work anymore we will be making new ones but you go ahead keep posting useless info reminding everyone what a losing proposition the established democrats have become.
I am going to go meditate because no matter what happens in DC I'm going to be ok.
bigtree
(85,974 posts)...Trump's not the first political obstacle we've faced as a minority party.
If posting Democratic responses is 'useless' to you, ignore it.
But, trying to convince everyone in CAPS that 'it'll never work' is useless and self-defeating. Hell, we have an opposition party doing much the same thing, working to discourage their opponents.
I'm all for folks offering solutions but, if this is all you have to offer...ridiculing me? Pathetic.
Backwoodsrider
(764 posts)But now that old way of thinking has been pushed I am just using this thread to put the idea out there that the old way of democratic thinking no longer helps our cause and might be part of the reason voters chose an aggressive male over 8 more years of political correctness.
Open your mind maybe read the NY Times editorial 12/15/16
treestar
(82,383 posts)accuse them of rolling over?
If the Rs refuse to vote on this, then it shows them for what they are. They should be concerned about Orange Hitler's conflicts.
procon
(15,805 posts)Tomorrow's fairytale will be the "The Emperor's New Suit".
bigtree
(85,974 posts)...a far sight better strategy than the handwringing and cynicism that's occurring in some quarters.
procon
(15,805 posts)However, if you can outline any plausible scenario where McConnell allows the Republican controlled Senate to vote on a bill from the minority party that the Dems would use to bash Trump or threaten their Trifecta, I'm all ears.
bigtree
(85,974 posts)...political pressure frequently forces even opposition parties in control to accept minority legislation. Scandal has a way of moving political mountains.
How did republicans manage to stop legislation and appointments they opposed?
procon
(15,805 posts)that was from Democrats by filibustering almost everything. Republicans complained vociferously that Harry Reid was holding up hundreds of their bills and not allowing them to be voted on, just as McConnell has done, and will continue to do.