And you must have missed the last part where I said it was blatantly illegal to hold it at the President's own resort.
Trump Will Host Next G7 Summit at His Doral Resort
- Thread starter firm_bizzle
- Start date
i thought trump divested himself from much of his companies when he became president. either way i dont really care if it goes to one of the lower bidders.
He didn't.
Trump understands how to flood the zone so well. He's constantly making so much news that it is hard to keep up, so you just tune out. It makes no sense to announce that you are holding the G7 at your own property at the same time you are about to be impeached for a quid pro quo, while at the same time pulling the troops out of Syrian. Then he reverses himself on the Doral and Syrian while leasing 2000 troops to Saudi Arabia. Then he throws some campaign rallies, attacks a few people on Twitter, announces that he's made a trade deal with Mexico, China, etc. (but doesn't) and your mind can't keep up.
Last edited:
Trump actually said that he was trying to offer Doral for free. I'm going to guess that there are indeed cities that use politician's facilities when they can if they are free of charge or cheaper than the other options.
I don't think people realize that the government charges itself for services and facilities all of the time. Sometimes its for the simple use of a facility or even a field that wouldn't be making any money and the use doesn't require any services, but whoever is responsible for the field can get a budget increase just because they can. It can actually get quite expensive. In the end, it's the taxpayers that end up paying for the bills.
He did move everything into a Trust, where he's the sole trustee, and Jr and Eric are in charge of said trust. That's my understanding and what he announced way back prior to swearing in. Not sure if it's morphed from that or not...
You can spin this a million ways from Sunday but it doesn't change THE FACT that this would have been ILLEGAL. Period.
Even if we were to suspend common sense and believe that this event would be held at the Trump National Doral "for free," are you telling us that the media attention given to the resort and the Trump brand all by itself isn't worth tons more in worldwide advertising and name recognition than the cost of hosting it?
Is that like when he “refused” his 400K salary as president and then went on to cost taxpayers $400 million playing golf?
Nah, it's probably more like the time he said he would release his tax records and just never did, and is currently spending millions in lawyer fees to keep them sealed.
He just lies. Idiots believe him for some reason.
To be fair, Ninja, his tax returns are still under Federal audit. Once that baby is finally over, I'm sure he'll release them.
I understand that it is illegal for him to use his office to enrich himself. I have to take government conflict of interest training every year. And you make a good point about the benefits of free publicity. But should a politician be able to donate goods, services, or facility use to the government?
I hear ya, sk8. One would HOPE that a politician could, in fact, donate goods, services, or even a facility for the well-fare of all his or her constituents (at the local, state, or Federal level.)
But quite frankly, I would always be a bit suspicious of the generosity of politicians of either political stripe. But if it checked out, I'd be all for it. But as we've all seen on both sides of the aisle, it's unusual for that to truly be the case.
It's a good question but I think the answer should generally be "no." There could be a process to make donations that get cleared through some ethics process but keep in mind that, even doing something at cost or free, could strategically be helping your own business interests at the expense of your competition. Loss leader kind of thing.
Let's say Jimmy Carter stays in the Peanut Farm business when he becomes president. He gives himself a bunch of contracts to deliver peanuts to the government at massively reduced costs. Great for the taxpayers right? But not so good for Jimmy's competition. "At cost" still covers the expenses relating to upping production to support the larger contracts, pay the ballooning salary of staff, etc. But Jimmy looks at the profit from all government contracting activities and donates it back to the treasury during his time in office to save the taxpayer more coin.
During those 4 years, Jimmy's company becomes the biggest player in the Peanut Market. Industries outside of government come to Jimmy's Peanuts to curry favor with the administration, and buy peanuts whether they need it or not. Much of the competition has been squeezed out. After he leaves office, Jimmy still gives the government a good deal - cheap enough that none of his beaten down competitors can compete, but he does keep a nice little profit now. But Old Jimmy did nothing wrong cause he saved the tax payer money, right?
Your scenario is a fairly obvious OCI, but I’m not really talking about an ongoing program of that scale. Let’s say a mayor of a small town, like Wahoo, NE, owns the local movie theater. The Wahoo city hall was hit by a tornado and is unusable, so the mayor has donated his theater for city meetings until the city hall can be repaired.
The issue is personally benefiting from your elected position. In the scenario you laid out, I think the mayor's actions would be a welcome and generous gesture. If, on the other hand, the Mayor was charging the city instead of donating the space, that would be a different deal. Charging the city would only be appropriate if no other Wahoo business or city resident stepped forward to volunteer space for their meetings.
How can he give it away for free when he doesn't run his business?
We have the president of Finland here. Ask him the questions.How can he give it away for free when he doesn't run his business?
Good questionHow can he give it away for free when he doesn't run his business?
If trump follows in the footsteps of Obama and Clinton, within 10 years he'll be worth half a trillion dollars.
He didn't. It was a poor look for him. But in his defense, really no one else has either.
It would have been interesting what Ross Perot would have done, had he been elected in '92.
