The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Conflicts of WHAT-trist? Non-Russian [Trump Corruption]
Spoit
*twitch twitch*Registered User regular
*twitch twitch*Registered User regular
So following the derail in the Russian thread the other day, ElJeffe has given provisional permission to reopen this thread. Provided we can stay on topic this time.
Examples of things that are on topic:
His continued inability to divest himself: https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2017/03/24/after-promising-not-donald-talk-business-with-father-eric-trump-says-president-give-him-financial-reports/#792375cb359a
Nepotism: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/us/politics/ivanka-trump-federal-employee-white-house.html?_r=0
Use of power for personal profit: https://www.propublica.org/article/tom-price-intervened-rule-hurt-drug-profits-same-day-acquired-drug-stock
Maybe even some questionable legal opinions? http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/donald-trump-asserts-us-constitution-bars-apprentice-stars-defamation-suit-office-989276
What is not on topic for this thread:
Reminder: Stay on Topic. And don't meta-mod, use the report button.
Examples of things that are on topic:
His continued inability to divest himself: https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2017/03/24/after-promising-not-donald-talk-business-with-father-eric-trump-says-president-give-him-financial-reports/#792375cb359a
Eric Trump sits behind his desk on the 25th floor of Trump Tower on a late February day in New York City, dressed in a slightly less formal version of his father’s go-to power uniform—blue suit, white buttoned-down shirt, no tie. There are reminders of Donald Trump everywhere in this office, including the TV in the corner that beams out wall-to-wall news about the president any time his son turns it on. Amidst it all, Eric Trump, who now manages the Trump Organization with his brother Don Jr., wants to emphasize that the Trump business is separate from the Trump presidency.
“There is kind of a clear separation of church and state that we maintain, and I am deadly serious about that exercise,” he says, echoing previous statements from his father. “I do not talk about the government with him, and he does not talk about the business with us. That’s kind of a steadfast pact we made, and it’s something that we honor.”
But less than two minutes later, he concedes that he will continue to update his father on the business while he is in the presidency. “Yeah, on the bottom line, profitability reports and stuff like that, but you know, that’s about it.” How often will those reports be, every quarter? “Depending, yeah, depending.” Could be more, could be less? “Yeah, probably quarterly.” One thing is clear: “My father and I are very close,” Eric Trump says. “I talk to him a lot. We’re pretty inseparable.”
Nepotism: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/us/politics/ivanka-trump-federal-employee-white-house.html?_r=0
Ivanka Trump, the elder daughter of President Trump, is becoming an official government employee, joining her husband, Jared Kushner, in serving as an unpaid adviser to her father in the White House.
The announcement on Wednesday amounts to the formal recognition of the value Mr. Trump places on the judgment and loyalty of both his daughter and his son-in-law. While relying on family members for advice is hardly unusual for a president, giving them a formal role has few precedents.
Ms. Trump, 35, will be an assistant to the president; Mr. Kushner, 36, has the title of senior adviser.
When questions were raised about whether Mr. Kushner’s appointment violated federal anti-nepotism laws, the Justice Department wrote a memo in January concluding that the rules did not apply to the White House.
Use of power for personal profit: https://www.propublica.org/article/tom-price-intervened-rule-hurt-drug-profits-same-day-acquired-drug-stock
On the same day the stockbroker for then-Georgia Congressman Tom Price bought him up to $90,000 of stock in six pharmaceutical companies last year, Price arranged to call a top U.S. health official, seeking to scuttle a controversial rule that could have hurt the firms’ profits and driven down their share prices, records obtained by ProPublica show.
Stock trades made by Price while he served in Congress came under scrutiny at his confirmation hearings to become President Trump’s secretary of health and human services. The lawmaker, a physician, traded hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of shares in health-related companies while he voted on and sponsored legislation affecting the industry, but Price has said his broker acted on his behalf without his involvement or knowledge. ProPublica previously reported that his trading is said to have been under investigation by federal prosecutors.
On March 17, 2016, Price’s broker purchased shares worth between $1,000 and $15,000 each in Eli Lilly, Amgen, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, McKesson, Pfizer and Biogen. Previous reports have noted that, a month later, Price was among lawmakers from both parties who signed onto a bill that would have blocked a rule proposed by the Obama administration, which was intended to remove the incentive for doctors to prescribe expensive drugs that don’t necessarily improve patient outcomes.
What hasn’t been previously known is Price’s personal appeal to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services about the rule, called the Medicare Part B Drug Payment Model.
...
The six companies that Price invested in were steadfastly opposed to the rule. McKesson formally warned investors in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing that such a change could hurt share prices. The firms lobbied the government to kill the plan.
And at two of the six companies Price invested in, people who used to work for the congressman were part of the lobbying effort.
Price’s former chief of staff, Matt McGinley, lobbied House members for Amgen, disclosure records show. Another former Price aide, Keagan Lenihan, lobbied on behalf of McKesson, where she was director of government relations at the time. Lenihan has since reunited with Price, returning to government to work as a senior adviser to her old boss at HHS.
Maybe even some questionable legal opinions? http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/donald-trump-asserts-us-constitution-bars-apprentice-stars-defamation-suit-office-989276
Donald Trump is making a big legal move that may shape his presidency over the next four years. In New York Supreme Court, his longtime lawyer Marc Kasowitz looks to throw up a roadblock to a defamation lawsuit filed by Summer Zervos, who appeared on season five of The Apprentice.
Zervos, represented by Gloria Allred, claims that Trump tarnished her reputation by denying acts boasted to Access Hollywood's Billy Bush about grabbing women's genitals. The Apprentice alum accuses Trump of kissing her twice in 2007 and attacking her in a hotel room. In response to this, Trump put out a statement that he "never met [Ms. Zervos] at a hotel or greeted her inappropriately," along with tweets how his accuser "made up events THAT NEVER HAPPENED."
Now, Trump is looking to bifurcate the litigation so that "the threshold issue of whether the United States Constitution bars this Court from adjudicating this action against President Trump during his Presidency" can be briefed and resolved first.
Kasowitz writes that Trump intends to file a motion to dismiss arguing that the Supremacy Clause immunizes the President from being sued in state court while in office. The attorney adds the "crucial threshold issue was raised, but not decided, by the U.S. Supreme Court in Clinton v. Jones."
That refers to a lawsuit that Paula Jones filed against Bill Clinton in 1994, while he was serving his first term in the White House. Jones alleged that Clinton sexually harassed her while serving as Governor of Arkansas. Clinton's attorneys argued that in all but the most exceptional cases, any litigation against the president should be deferred until he left office.
In 1997, the high court came back with its answer that a president can't escape private litigation.
What is not on topic for this thread:
- Russia, probably including financial ties that he, or his advisors have historically had with the Oligarchs.
- Congress
- Really, pretty much anything we have a thread for. And if it's a major, continuing news story, there probably is one, so look first
- Whatever inane bullshit Spicer is spouting today, unless it's directly on topic
- Poll numbers
- Probably a bunch of other stuff, mods feel free to chime in
Reminder: Stay on Topic. And don't meta-mod, use the report button.
+13
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
Is that, like, actually illegal or one of those "gentleman's agreement" arrangements?
Some of it is not specifically codified in law, but a lot of it is.
But even if none of it was illegal, the fact remains that there would still be legitimate reasons why he should divest himself, and the fact that he has stated he would divest himself (in some ways) but he never did.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
American justice system?
He's rich enough. 4 months probation, tops.
What a savage end to a just the facts New York Times piece.
Clinton had argued it would violate the separation of powers if civil cases could proceed in federal court against a sitting president, because then the judge could exert undue dominance over the executive branch by setting a burdensome case schedule and by holding the president in contempt
The Supreme Court concluded, with no dissent, that this was a silly argument which depended on an imaginary problem — a defendant rarely needs to appear for anything in person, and obviously a judge would be willing to accommodate the president's official responsibilities in the rare situation where the president could not simply send a lawyer
And then, after the Court shut down Clinton's craven and silly argument, you got a footnote: We recognize you could revive this argument in a state court, if you really wanted to, by citing the Supremacy Clause and then raising pretty much the same factual concerns
Well, sure, good luck with that, but the rationale is just as flimsy regardless of what you're citing
Believe this is what Preet was referring to when he said he knew what being on the Moreland Commission felt like.
We'll probably never know if Bharara's firing was an act of utter incompetence or protection from criminal investigation.
Though I guess if it was the latter it's still the former.
But more relevant to this thread, is the new arguments made by his legal team:
When you actually manage to cross the (legal) line on speech in the US...
Ironically, I wonder if the 1st amendment applies to Trump's crazy claim that POTUS has immunity. Right of petition.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Paula Jones proved that when Bill Clinton tried to use that defense.
What a coincidence. Just happening to dine with Xi Jinping the night the Chinese government decides to award some personally beneficial trademarks. As always, it's difficult to prove quid pro quo, and still it doesn't really matter that it can't be proven. The endless stream of stories about obvious money raking takes a toll on any administration.
Use of power for personal profit: fun for the whole family!
Two plaintiffs join suit against Trump, alleging breach of emoluments clause
Not sure if this will go anywhere, but it's a start.
Standing I think is going to be the biggest challenge to an emoluments case. I am not really certain if the house won't bring the charges who has standing to do so.
Well at least they've upgraded their claim of harm to unfair competition instead of "We are harmed by having to file this suit at all"
Someone posited this as the right approach back when they originally filed; I'm not qualified or inclined to argue with the logic. The real challenge, then, would be to actually show harm to the other DC properties; which still seems like a longshot.
Trump is still in violation of the contract he signed for that latest DC hotel.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Didn't at least one foreign nation switch to the Trump DC hotel from an event planned previously at the Four Seasons
I can't remember the details, but that seems like unfair competition
NNID: Hakkekage
The GSA settled that last month.
Technical compliance is the best kind of compliance! This fits with the GSA drones I know.
(Drones is unfair, they are actually quite passionate about their nightmarishly complicated stewardship. It's just... I like technical minutiae more than the next guy, but yeesh.)
I think the Somalia delegation moved their founding-day celebration, yes.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Excellent! Especially if it happened prior to the fiscal realignment in my post up there. (Hopefully still valid either way)
He's been putting up foreign officials in his own hotels and taking them to Mar-a-Lago. There's a good case to be made that he's using his power to undercut the competition in the area, which thrives on hosting dignitaries and their personal baggage train.
Do not engage the Watermelons.
I assume that Trump gets as much out of the publicity and ego-stroking as he would from the profits. A better trust would completely hide the identities of everyone who attends from him.
This goes back to what a blind trust actually is, and what divesting oneself actually is, and how Trump hasn't done either of those things.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
http://fortune.com/2017/04/20/donald-trump-inauguration-donors/
Basically, raised an assload of money, nobody has any idea where it went (doesn't need to be reported like FEC stuff), but a bunch of the big donors immediately found themselves with personal audiences with Trump. One thing in particular, a subsidiary of Venezuela's state-run oil company chipped in half a mil (while in the middle of a financial collapse), which makes the bizarre/inexplicable audience of people with the NSC to lift Venezula sanctions a lot more explicable.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/20/news/economy/venezuela-trump-inauguration/
https://mic.com/articles/172936/trump-tied-businessmen-met-nsc-officials-bannon-over-venezuela-sanctions-sources-say#.2wj1xHSlX
It's like the very definition of pay for play.