Trump’s Business ‘Separation’ Plan Does Nothing of the Kind

[Rudy Canoza]

By RICHARD W. PAINTERJAN. 12, 2017

On Wednesday, President-elect Donald J. Trump finally announced his
plans to “separate” himself from his global business empire when he
assumes the presidency next Friday. His plans were announced in the
midst of worrisome news around the world, including renewed terrorist
attacks in the Middle East, rising tensions in the South China Sea and
Mr. Trump’s belated admission that the Russian government had conducted
espionage activities inside the United States.

This was his moment to announce a plan to separate himself from
ownership interest in his global business empire. It was his final
chance to disclose the identity of, and unwind his relationships with,
his business partners and creditors around the globe.

The plan Mr. Trump announced on Wednesday does none of these things. As
expected, he continues to refuse to release his tax returns, even though
many of his cabinet nominees will have to disclose theirs in order to
get confirmed by senators skeptical of, among other things, foreign
business entanglements. He also did not announce a divestment of
ownership interest in his businesses, even though this is a step that
his own cabinet appointees will have to take in order to comply with a
federal conflict of interest law.

Instead, Mr. Trump will simply turn management of the businesses over to
a trustee chosen by him, and to two of his sons, Donald Jr. and Eric.
This is not a separation at all, and from a conflict of interest vantage
point, it won’t work.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/opinion/trumps-business-separation-plan-does-nothing-of-the-kind.html?_r=0

Richard W. Painter, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law
School, was the chief White House ethics lawyer from 2005 to 2007.
ATTENTION, knuckle-dragging deplorables: that was during the G.W. Bush
administration.

[Martin Eastburn]

The Constitution says he didn't have to do anything. He did the
isolation to appease people like you that don't believe the Constitution.

Now I ask you - did :
Both Roosevelt's divest themselves ?
Washington didn't He had production farms and factories.
Jimmy Carter didn't - Peanut farms -
he couldn't or loose the peanut license. Billy Beer...
Jefferson didn't
LBJ did when he was a VP - the VP isn't covered by the constitution.
The Bushes did for the most part.
And the long list of business men were presidents and didn't divest.

The unique issue with Trump is he is a Billionaire.

Hillery violated the law since the $Billion Trust had her name on it -
while Secretary of State.

Martin

[edhun...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 11:52:26 PM UTC-5, Martin Eastburn wrote:
> The Constitution says he didn't have to do anything. He did the
> isolation to appease people like you that don't believe the Constitution.

The Constitution says no such thing. It says nothing about it at all. It's up to Congress.

--
Ed Huntress

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/12/2017 8:52 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
> The Constitution says he didn't have to do anything.

The Constitution specifies the Emoluments clause, and it applies to
Trump. He is in violation of it, and subject to impeachment, as soon as
he finishes taking the oath of office.

The Constitution doesn't say that he can't have conflicts of interest,
but it is obvious that Trump has *massive* conflicts of interest, and
that damages him politically, creating instability.

[Martin Eastburn]

Read the constitution.

[Martin Eastburn]

The clause excuses presidents. It doesn't excuse VP's and other members
of government.

There were allowances for Presidents who were expected to be men of
character and worth, not utter poor.

Lincoln was the poorest. He had little to begin with and his wife
was a big spender going through his 'pay'.

Presidents get two checks. One for being President. Another for
Commander in chief.

Most get to bank both as they live on expenses.

Recent former President claimed to be poor or destitute and managed to
own two or three homes. Lots of donations.....

Martin

[Larry Jaques]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 22:43:45 -0600, Martin Eastburn
<lion...@consolidated.net> wrote:

>Read the constitution.

Here's an online version: http://constitutionus.com/

--
There is s no such thing as a hyphenated American who is
a good American.  The only man who is a good American is
the man who is an American and nothing else.  We are a
nation, not a hodge-podge of foreign nationalities.  We
are a people, and not a polyglot boarding house.
--Theodore Roosevelt

[edhun...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 9:21:37 AM UTC-5, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 22:43:45 -0600, Martin Eastburn
> <lion...@consolidated.net> wrote:
>
> >Read the constitution.

So Martin says, "The Constitution says he didn't have to do anything. He did the isolation to appease people like you that don't believe the Constitution."

To which I reply, "The Constitution says no such thing. It says nothing about it at all. It's up to Congress."

And then Martin tells me to "read the Constitution."

I've done that many times, Martin, and I quote it here regularly. Now, how about if you show us where the Constitution says "he didn't have to do anything." With the quote from the text itself, please.

As Rudy says, the only part of this addressed by the Constitution is the Emoluments Clause -- Article I, Section 9, Clause 8. But that applies only to foreign sources. And it says the opposite of what you say. A large proportion of legal scholars say that Trump will be in violation of it the moment he takes office.

But more generally, as it would relate to businesses that have all domestic sources of income, the Constitution says NOTHING AT ALL! There is nothing in there that gives him some kind of right, or authority, or protection. It's a blank.

Now, since you're a student of the Constitution, surely you're aware that Congress has broad authority to regulate itself, but when it comes to the Executive, it only has powers conferred under Article I, Section 8, which includes "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Those "powers vested" include the implementation of the Emoluments Clause.

Ahem...Congress can write legislation to implement the Emoluments Clause that would shut down most of Trump's holdings -- or force him to divest himself of them. Most of them have some involvement with foreign governments or government officials.

So it comes back around to exactly what I said, and which you apparently don't accept: It's up to Congress.

> Here's an online version: http://constitutionus.com/

Thanks.

--
Ed Huntress

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/13/2017 8:43 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
> Read the constitution.

Stop top-posting, shitbag.

The Constitution does *NOT* "say he didn't have to do anything."

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/13/2017 8:51 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
> The clause excuses presidents.

Bullshit. You don't have a clue what you're bullshitting about.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/14/2017 9:11 AM, edhun...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 9:21:37 AM UTC-5, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 22:43:45 -0600, Martin Eastburn
>> <lion...@consolidated.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Read the constitution.
>
> So Martin says, "The Constitution says he didn't have to do anything. He did the isolation to appease people like you that don't believe the Constitution."
>
> To which I reply, "The Constitution says no such thing. It says nothing about it at all. It's up to Congress."
>
> And then Martin tells me to "read the Constitution."
>
> I've done that many times, Martin, and I quote it here regularly. Now, how about if you show us where the Constitution says "he didn't have to do anything." With the quote from the text itself, please.
>
> As Rudy says, the only part of this addressed by the Constitution is the Emoluments Clause -- Article I, Section 9, Clause 8. But that applies only to foreign sources. And it says the opposite of what you say. A large proportion of legal scholars say that Trump will be in violation of it the moment he takes office.

Correct, because he does business with foreign governments.

> But more generally, as it would relate to businesses that have all domestic sources of income, the Constitution says NOTHING AT ALL! There is nothing in there that gives him some kind of right, or authority, or protection. It's a blank.
>
> Now, since you're a student of the Constitution, surely you're aware that Congress has broad authority to regulate itself, but when it comes to the Executive, it only has powers conferred under Article I, Section 8, which includes "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
>
> Those "powers vested" include the implementation of the Emoluments Clause.
>
> Ahem...Congress can write legislation to implement the Emoluments Clause that would shut down most of Trump's holdings -- or force him to divest himself of them. Most of them have some involvement with foreign governments or government officials.
>
> So it comes back around to exactly what I said, and which you apparently don't accept: It's up to Congress.
>
>
>> Here's an online version: http://constitutionus.com/
>
> Thanks.

The issue isn't limited to the emoluments clause. *Constitutionally*,
that's all that's at issue, but *politically*, his massive conflicts of
interest are trouble.

[edhun...@gmail.com]

They'll probably haunt him throughout his term.

--
Ed Huntress

[Rudy Canoza]

He's going to have trouble with his own party in Congress, and if his
conflicts become very widely known, he could well lose one or both
houses of Congress in 2018.

[Martin Eastburn]

A large portion of who scholars ? don't you list them as libs or
righties ?

You never answered anything about the various presidents before that
didn't do anything. VP's did. Presidents didn't.

What did Washington do ?
What did the Roosevelts do - both of them.
What did Kennedy do ?
Hillery was in violation with her name on it - during her service.
and many more.

And his local businesses are all put in this son's name. The foreign
ones go to the Treasury. e.g. his Golf Courses and Hotels around the
world. But I wouldn't think you would know that. You just listen to
the lib stations and never see press conferences that show otherwise.
(little hard to see your 132 char lines)

Martin

[Martin Eastburn]

Slander.
Top posting prevents paging down 10 pages to see 1 line of crap.
Top posting has been in effect since the 60's when the number of
characters were charged. One could stop a view and reply on top.

The Brits were really hammered with charges like that.
Young jerks like yourself that slam people and not talk about metal
working and send to a dozen news groups are the real problem and reason
why news groups are dying. ISP's and users are flooded with crap.

It does and you are double what you call people for the rest of your
life.
Martin

[edhun...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 11:26:56 PM UTC-5, Martin Eastburn wrote:
> A large portion of who scholars ? don't you list them as libs or
> righties ?

Some of each. They're mostly equivocal because the clause has never been tested in the courts -- because we've never had a Trump.

>
> You never answered anything about the various presidents before that
> didn't do anything. VP's did. Presidents didn't.

You did a Texas two-step from *foreign* businesses and the Emoluments Clause to domestic business holdings. You presented nothing that I could answer.

>
> What did Washington do ?
> What did the Roosevelts do - both of them.
> What did Kennedy do ?

Which foreign holdings of theirs are you referring to?

> Hillery was in violation with her name on it - during her service.
> and many more.

Tell us about the "emoluments" she received during her service. Good luck.

>
> And his local businesses are all put in this son's name.

No they're not. He's putting them in a trust that he will regain control and management of when he leaves office. The kids will just manage it in the meantime. Trump retains ownership himself.

> The foreign
> ones go to the Treasury. e.g. his Golf Courses and Hotels around the
> world. But I wouldn't think you would know that.

You're right. I don't know that...because it's not true.

What in the hell are you reading that you come up with this crap? What Trump's lawyer claims is that what he's going to do is to take the PROFITS he gains from FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS at his FOREIGN BUSINESSES and donate *them* to the Treasury. He will retain the businesses and all other profits.

Here's the statement from Trump's attorney:

"So President-elect Trump has decided, and we are announcing today, that he is going to voluntarily donate all profits from foreign government payments made to his hotels to the United States Treasury." – Sheri Dillon, Trump tax attorney

You need a better class of reading material, Martin. d8-)

> You just listen to
> the lib stations and never see press conferences that show otherwise.

I could, but that would be awfully boring. Today I was watching videos on tying trout flies.

> (little hard to see your 132 char lines)

Sorry. Google Groups suck.

--
Ed Huntress

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/14/2017 8:32 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
> Slander.

No.

> Top posting prevents

Fuck off. Top posting is *universally* considered bad form, shitbag.
Stop doing it.