Posted on 12/13/2016 9:50:12 AM PST by SeanG200
The media are full of warnings by self-appointed ethics watchdogs about President-electDonald Trump’s potential conflicts of interests. That Mr. Trump’s vast, complicated business empire presents a piñata of targets is undisputed. For his part, Mr. Trump has promised to hold a news conference on Dec. 15 to discuss his plans to leave his business operation “in total” so that he can “fully focus on running the country.”...
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
The watchdogs fear that third parties, again including foreign state-owned entities, will lavish favorable deals on the Trump businesses, including staying at Trump hotels or entering into new partnerships, in the hope of currying favor with a Trump administration.
While no one outside the Trump family appears to know the details of the Trump businesses, a few key facts are known. They are complicated and based on two illiquid assets—real estate and the Trump name. Although the basic federal conflict-of-interest ban specifically exempts the president, some have proposed measures designed to avoid real or apparent conflicts of interest, generally based on the federal rules.
This newspaper editorialized on the subject, suggesting that Mr. Trump “liquidate his stake in the company” through a plan similar to one endorsed by Richard Painter andNorman Eisen, ethics lawyers for George W. Bush and President Obama, respectively. They have called on Mr. Trump to divest all of his holdings in the Trump Organization through an initial public offering or a leveraged buyout. Yet divestiture is unrealistic for many reasons. Besides their complexity and the time required to see them through, an IPO or buyout would generate other ethical issues.
An IPO would have to be cleared by the Securities and Exchange Commission. By the time Mr. Trump becomes president, there will be three SEC vacancies, and in the time required to organize and implement an IPO, the other two commissioners’ terms would expire. Mr. Trump would thus be appointing all five members of the agency regulating his IPO. Similarly, a leveraged buyout would require lending by Trump-regulated banks.
But the biggest problem with divestiture is that the value of Trump businesses is significantly dependent on, and inextricably tied to, the Trump name. Even if a buyer could be found who would pay what the Trump family considers the name to be worth, the buyer would certainly insist on perpetual, exclusive use of the Trump name. This would require that all users of the name—including Mr. Trump’s first wife, his minor son Barron and present and future grandchildren—relinquish their rights to the name.
In recent tweets on the subject, Mr. Trump has said he would turn over the running of his businesses to his children, and that “legal documents are being crafted which take me completely out of business operations.” The watchdogs want him to go further by establishing a “firewall” between himself and those running the Trump businesses, i.e., his children.
Clearly, this is unrealistic and would constantly generate allegations of unauthorized communications, shifting the focus from real conflicts of interests to whether the firewall has been breached. This would likely lead to demands for the installation of an intrusive “corporate monitor,” typically a $1,000-1,500 an hour ($2 million a year) ex-federal prosecutor.
If I were advising Mr. Trump, I would strongly urge him to pledge that as president he will make no decision for the primary purpose of benefiting any family financial interest, and any decision involving an entity that has a Trump business relationship will be transparent so questions of favoritism can be scrutinized. I do not see how he can effectively promise more, and I do not believe more is needed.
Appearances of conflicts will be impossible to avoid. Almost any decision Mr. Trump makes as president will have an effect—good or bad—on his business interests. There is nothing that he can do to prevent those who believe that staying in his hotels or otherwise doing business with the Trump Organization will improve their relationships with the U.S.
There has been much talk about the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, which provides that “no person holding any Office of Profit or Trust . . . shall without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.”
The problem is that no court or the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has considered the clause in a context that is helpful in discerning how it will apply to the Trump businesses. So, we do not know what the clause means in the Trump context—other than that paying a market price to stay at a Trump hotel is not a violation.
My suggestion? Let’s all take a step back, listen to Mr. Trump’s Dec. 15 proposal and see how he conducts himself as president, rather than conjuring up complex solutions to imagined problems that only exacerbate matters. Likewise, let’s confront the Emoluments Clause issue when there is clear evidence that a “King, Prince or foreign State” has made a real run, other than through a Trump hotel booking, at influencing or corrupting the integrity of President Trump.
All this panic and hysteria from the same people who have yet to take a look at the Clinton Foundation.
Sorry Fake Media hypocrites, you have no moral standing to suddenly start worrying about business ethics now
The most peon of federal employees who are involved with contracting must report their financial affiliations to the office in their agency which deals with conflicts of interests.
At the senior levels of U.S. government, officials place their financial affairs in blind trusts. This is routine. It affects many officials.
Trump is not the first rich guy to hold high federal office.
And remember, even the most peon of peons dealing with contractors have to report and act on their holdings.
This is a non-issue.
Why was there no concern about hillary’s conflicts of interest and bribery while in office? I don’t understand the new found interest in “ethics”
"Ceterum censeo Islam esse delendam."
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
Chris Wallace was equating the Clinton Crime Foundation and Donald’s businesses on Sunday. But Donald’s businesses are ACTUAL businesses, not drop-boxes for bribes.
The man's name is his reputation, and it is literally proclaimed in giant letters in plain sight on high towers across the globe. Right out in the open because after all, he built that. His name; his business empire.
Meanwhile, those continually clamoring for transparency and ethics skulk around in the underground, dank, murky sewers of government corruption, because accountability is the lot of the productive class up there in the realms of fresh air and sunshine.
Obama's name, what's that on? Government schools in MLK Blvd. neighborhoods, and other places of lies, lawlessness and decay.
The epitome of conflict of interest is when a President of the United States of America sets about to fundamentally transform and permanently divide and conquer the United States of America.
Trump: "Make America Great Again"
That's a tall vision after the past eight years of subterfuge and overt malevolence has hurled the nation down to the 49th level of impurity. How to lift up America? It requires a guy for whom it is "just another day at the office" to hoist his name (reputation) up on a tall tower.
Must be the Days of the Messiah (Divine Rectification) if the depraved, bottom-feeding political world is providing a flood of insight from above. Everything has been flipped to the contrary..
Trump needs to ignore his liberal critics. ALL of 'em - every last one of the liberal liars and their trolls in the press. He should NOT give them the time or day... not buy their lies for a second.
He shouldn't allow them in press conferences or believe they 'care' about ethics - they don't. They care about protecting democrats. They care about hurting Republicans. Period.
The big problem here is that Trump understands business. Even if he were completely divested he would still be trying to organize US agreements, relationships, laws, and treaties to improve the business climate.
Just try to prove that the purpose isn’t due to undue influence. It would be impossible.
Which is why the press is pushing so hard to put the burden of proof on Trump and the negative case.
I like the idea, hinted at by the article, of Trump being transparent and then pushing for a presumption of innocence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.