Trump Doral resort to host G-7 summit — sparking yet another ethics fight for the White House

I really don't see the big fuss about this. Trump stole the election that put him into office, and has wasted billions beside turning our environment back at least a century along with destroying our international relations, A scandal of this magnitude would wreck any normal President, that is true, but I rate it just one Golden Toilet on the Trump Scale of Tempestuous Corruption.

If Trump had the slightest element of the generosity of soul that often characterizes very wealthy men he would "comp" ALL government expenses at his resorts and make twice what that cost him back in goodwill. Trump is like Rockefeller, who gave dimes to the children of families he had bankrupted and expected eternal gratitude.

 

And they're not getting even that, Unless they really can buy a second car or go on vacation, (maybe at a Trump hotel?) for ONE thousand dollars

 

Yup. The maestro is doing it again. Will the left ever learn? It's like they're a bunch of cats and Trump has a laser pointer.

 

Welcome back buddy.. I truly miss your meaningless posts...

 

Enriching Trump is enriching all Americans.

 

Where do you get that notion?

 

Where do you get the notion that Bonespurs is providing a magical discount, and why on Earth is it a good thing for him to violate the law by lining his own pockets?

 

Yes, because they should get out of the way while Bonespurs violates the Constitution and enriches himself.

 

I think that he's suggesting that Congress is amoral, so we should allow the immoral to govern their own ethics.

 

Me citing and quoting what the Mueller Report actually says is a valuable public service, even if Trumpers refuse to educate themselves about it.

 

I think Trump is just trying to piss off the house of representatives .

If i were him, I'd offer up the use of Trump facilities but not charge anyone for any of it. But don't say a word about it before hand.
Let the demoncrats get all uppity about it, let them investigate and when they find out Trump did it all for free. They can look like the vindictive idiots that they are.

 

How would you like to suggest that we ensure Trump only collects the "at cost?" Or how to ensure that the amount charged by Trump is a reasonable market rate?

 

You did no such thing when replying to me.. You went grammar nazi on me.

Its telling....

I'm glad you digested all that crow when the report came out strange you come back and trot it out again.. Hungry?

 

And even if you could prove that Trump did not get a single penny in profit from this decision, it would STILL be a massive conflicts of interest.

 

I'm supposed to try to educate you in every post?

I should get paid.

 

I sorry to inform you but the word you should be using is flamebait not educate.. I see how you are confused on the matter.

Now how does somehow get "enriched" when there will be "no cost".

Also how is it possible Trump has lost money during his term and yet you insist he is trying to "enrich" himself... You cant have it both ways.

 

The accountants in the procurement department will do that. He didn't force there was a bid process. Emoluments is hiring someone to work. He's not being hired.

Again Washington and Jefferson sold their agricultural products to foreign.

"Early American presidents often owned businesses, which they kept operating even while in office. As Greg Jarrett notes, “The first five presidents were farmers and plantation owners who maintained their businesses while in office. Some of their crops, especially tobacco, were sold abroad to companies and foreign governments.”....

....This odd reading of the Emoluments Clause is contrary to its historical understanding, notes Jarrett, since sales to foreigners by the Founding Fathers “were never regarded, even by their political opponents, as emoluments because they were unrelated to the holding of office.”

The framers of the Emoluments Clause were concerned about gifts to officials from foreign powers – such as the money France gave a British king to enter into a treaty ceding territory, and the pension it gave him that enabled him to avoid summoning parliament; and lavish gifts to diplomats by kings. There is little evidence that it was aimed at sales at market prices, even to foreign officials."
https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/...d-not-violate-constitutions-emoluments-clause

 

Why?

 

It's not a payment to Trump for direct employment.

 

The emoluments clause is not limited itself in that manner.

 

Trump sent a massive contract to his own personal and privately owned business. That is a massive conflict of interest because the person who made the decision benefits from the result of the decision.

 

Can you link to this "massive" contract.....

 

I believe they have been dismissed. Emolument is when a person is directly hired.

As I noted the early Presidents had business's and engaged in business even with foreigners and foreign governments and no one was charged with a violation of the emoluments clause. That was not their intent when THEY wrote it.

 

Apparently you didn't read my first post.

 

So you don’t remember Billy Beer. Might want to look into that.

And funny how the last president didn’t put his stuff in a blind trust either....

Trump owns a family business. His family is running it. The Kennedy family certainly didn’t stop their family businesses while plenty of family members were in government roles.

While you may wish potential upon Trump, I do not, and I didn’t on Jimmy either. It’s sad what happened to him and his farm.