Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bigtree

(85,974 posts)
Thu Dec 15, 2016, 08:32 PM Dec 2016

Senate Democrats Will Introduce Legislation to Force Trump to Deal With His Conflicts

David Corn ‏@DavidCornDC 3h3 hours ago
Senate 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 officials—except 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
11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Backwoodsrider

(764 posts)
1. what a waste of energy
Thu Dec 15, 2016, 08:59 PM
Dec 2016

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)
4. because that's how a minority party forces change
Thu Dec 15, 2016, 09:27 PM
Dec 2016

...not clear what you think is a good strategy. Cynicism does absolutely nothing.

Backwoodsrider

(764 posts)
5. maybe sometime in the past the minority party forced change this way, certainly not now
Thu Dec 15, 2016, 09:37 PM
Dec 2016

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)
7. that's not supported by our history
Thu Dec 15, 2016, 09:46 PM
Dec 2016

...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)
11. its not about you self worth Bigtree I have seen your posts and up until Nov 9 you were doing great
Fri Dec 16, 2016, 01:28 AM
Dec 2016

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)
6. so what would you say if they did nothing?
Thu Dec 15, 2016, 09:41 PM
Dec 2016

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)
2. And Majority Leader McConnell will be happy to let the Senate bring that to a vote.
Thu Dec 15, 2016, 09:09 PM
Dec 2016

Tomorrow's fairytale will be the "The Emperor's New Suit".

bigtree

(85,974 posts)
3. I wouldn't sell these efforts so short
Thu Dec 15, 2016, 09:24 PM
Dec 2016

...a far sight better strategy than the handwringing and cynicism that's occurring in some quarters.

procon

(15,805 posts)
8. Not surprisingly, pragmatism has greater appeal to me.
Thu Dec 15, 2016, 10:24 PM
Dec 2016

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)
9. as a negotiated amendment?
Thu Dec 15, 2016, 10:38 PM
Dec 2016

...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)
10. The difference, as you point out, was that Republicans opposed legislation
Thu Dec 15, 2016, 10:54 PM
Dec 2016

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.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Senate Democrats Will Int...