Trump's and his family's businesses.

[Chino]

I'm making this thread because of Kellyanne Conway's interview today on Fox.

"I do find it ironic that you have some executives all over the internet bragging about what they've done to her and her line, and yet they're using the most prominent woman — she's his daughter — who has been a champion for women empowerment, women in the workplace, to get to him"

"Go buy Ivanka's stuff, is what I would say. I hate shopping — I'm going to buy stuff today."

"It's a wonderful line. I own some of it," Conway said. "I'm going to give a free commercial here. Go buy it today, everybody. You can find it online."

1) This violates Trump's first simple rule of "buy American"

2) Code of Federal Regulations - 5 CFR 2635.702 - Use of public office for private gain.
An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity, including nonprofit organizations of which the employee is an officer or member, and persons with whom the employee has or seeks employment or business relations. The specific prohibitions set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section apply this general standard, but are not intended to be exclusive or to limit the application of this section.


Since Kellyanne said this from the White House briefing room, and is blatantly encouraging you to buy products (not made in America) sold by the president's daughter, how is she not in violation of the above?

[El Barto]

This is kind of what I was getting at when I asked if he could be held accountable for anything given the climate and political structure. I'm really more concerned about him leasing his own property back to the government, though. The GSA thing is going to be problematic since it's very likely a violation of the lease designed to prohibit this very thing. And the proper recourse would be for the GSA to sue the landlord, which is in this case its own boss, and who the hell is going to do that.

[kaos2900]

Pretty well detailed here.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/white-house-says-conway-has-been-%E2%80%98counseled%E2%80%99-after-touting-ivanka-trump%E2%80%99s-products/ar-AAmLCOB?li=BBnb7Kz

[Stadler]

This is kind of what I was getting at when I asked if he could be held accountable for anything given the climate and political structure. I'm really more concerned about him leasing his own property back to the government, though. The GSA thing is going to be problematic since it's very likely a violation of the lease designed to prohibit this very thing. And the proper recourse would be for the GSA to sue the landlord, which is in this case its own boss, and who the hell is going to do that.

Depends if HE personally owns the land, or is in direct control of the legal entity that does own the land.  If "The Trump Organization" leases the land, it's not likely a problem, technically.  It might smell bad, and certainly, Nancy Pelosi will have issue with it, but it's possible it's not technically "illegal". 

[El Barto]

This is kind of what I was getting at when I asked if he could be held accountable for anything given the climate and political structure. I'm really more concerned about him leasing his own property back to the government, though. The GSA thing is going to be problematic since it's very likely a violation of the lease designed to prohibit this very thing. And the proper recourse would be for the GSA to sue the landlord, which is in this case its own boss, and who the hell is going to do that.

Depends if HE personally owns the land, or is in direct control of the legal entity that does own the land.  If "The Trump Organization" leases the land, it's not likely a problem, technically.  It might smell bad, and certainly, Nancy Pelosi will have issue with it, but it's possible it's not technically "illegal".

It's not a matter of management. The terms of the lease state that he cannot profit from it. It wasn't boilerplate but rather very concisely contracted to prevent this. And the answer to your question, and problematic part for him, is that it's in a revocable trust with his SSN referenced to the sole beneficiary.

[hefdaddy42]

I'm curious where the attorneys stand on the possibility of Trump's being in violation of the emoluments clause since he didn't divest himself from his businesses, and they are certainly making money off of various foreign governments.

[El Barto]

I'm curious where the attorneys stand on the possibility of Trump's being in violation of the emoluments clause since he didn't divest himself from his businesses, and they are certainly making money off of various foreign governments.

I suspect we'll get two "weeeeeell, it's kind of hard to say without knowing the specifics of any number of things, and it's not reaaaaally me field, sooooo. . ." and then one "of course he fucking is!"

[Cyclopssss]

'Make America great again'...all those clothes are Made In China. 

[Stadler]

'Make America great again'...all those clothes are Made In China. 

But that's a different point entirely; that things are "Made in China" is irrelevant to "Making America Great Again" in the literal sense.  Yes, it's part and parcel to the slogan, but economically, American workers should not be making assembly line shirts, TVs or anything else that can be made to the same quality and cheaper overseas.  What we should be doing is doing what we do best; skilled labor, high tech, and services, and trading that - at a premium - for cheap (price wise, not quality) televisions.  That's where we've gone off the rails.   We have this ridiculous mindset that we should be able to do the SAME job, for the SAME company, in the SAME town, for the SAME boss, for our entire 40 year career, and at ever increasing wages, and it doesn't work that way.  It's a recipe for economic failure. 

I'm pretty far from Trump on most issues, but t's probably the one issue that I am farthest from him (and Hillary and Bernie, who both said the same thing):  we cannot artificially keep these low skill, low paying jobs in the U.S. and not have it hurt us.   We stagnated because we started doing this (via the unions), so to double down on it is economic suicide.

[Stadler]

I'm curious where the attorneys stand on the possibility of Trump's being in violation of the emoluments clause since he didn't divest himself from his businesses, and they are certainly making money off of various foreign governments.

I suspect we'll get two "weeeeeell, it's kind of hard to say without knowing the specifics of any number of things, and it's not reaaaaally me field, sooooo. . ." and then one "of course he fucking is!"

Not sure which one of those I am, but while I haven't read the actual laws yet, and it's not really my expertise (oh, so that one), I'm less and less comfortable every day.   I don't know that the next obvious call is the right one ("IMPEACHMENT!!!"), since it could just be a matter of tweaking the financial arrangements and creating more distance (it's ironic that this would be called a "Chinese Wall").   But something has to be done, and I don't think an independent investigation is out of order.   

I also think that it's not illegal, it's not indicative of his ability to lead, or anything like that, but personally I think it unbecoming to be having Twitter wars with Target and Nordstroms while dealing with serious issues like immigration and foreign relations.   

[Chino]

'Make America great again'...all those clothes are Made In China. 

But that's a different point entirely; that things are "Made in China" is irrelevant to "Making America Great Again" in the literal sense.  Yes, it's part and parcel to the slogan, but economically, American workers should not be making assembly line shirts, TVs or anything else that can be made to the same quality and cheaper overseas.  What we should be doing is doing what we do best; skilled labor, high tech, and services, and trading that - at a premium - for cheap (price wise, not quality) televisions.  That's where we've gone off the rails.   We have this ridiculous mindset that we should be able to do the SAME job, for the SAME company, in the SAME town, for the SAME boss, for our entire 40 year career, and at ever increasing wages, and it doesn't work that way.  It's a recipe for economic failure. 

Trump needs to do a better job of conveying that to his followers. I feel that many of those who voted for him (not those who voted against Clinton) genuinely believe that he will bring those kind of jobs back to the US. Buy American, hire American. It's that simple. If everything is made in America and bought by Americans, all will be great without having to be involved with other countries outside of bombing them. It'll be just like the middle of 1900s again.

[chknptpie]

'Make America great again'...all those clothes are Made In China. 

But that's a different point entirely; that things are "Made in China" is irrelevant to "Making America Great Again" in the literal sense.  Yes, it's part and parcel to the slogan, but economically, American workers should not be making assembly line shirts, TVs or anything else that can be made to the same quality and cheaper overseas.  What we should be doing is doing what we do best; skilled labor, high tech, and services, and trading that - at a premium - for cheap (price wise, not quality) televisions.  That's where we've gone off the rails.   We have this ridiculous mindset that we should be able to do the SAME job, for the SAME company, in the SAME town, for the SAME boss, for our entire 40 year career, and at ever increasing wages, and it doesn't work that way.  It's a recipe for economic failure. 

I'm pretty far from Trump on most issues, but t's probably the one issue that I am farthest from him (and Hillary and Bernie, who both said the same thing):  we cannot artificially keep these low skill, low paying jobs in the U.S. and not have it hurt us.   We stagnated because we started doing this (via the unions), so to double down on it is economic suicide.

But in Trump's inauguration speech he said "We will follow two simple rules: Buy American and hire American."

[?]

'Make America great again'...all those clothes are Made In China. 

Yeah, I'm surprised Trump is mad at Nordstrom for following his "buy American" guideline

[Stadler]

'Make America great again'...all those clothes are Made In China. 

But that's a different point entirely; that things are "Made in China" is irrelevant to "Making America Great Again" in the literal sense.  Yes, it's part and parcel to the slogan, but economically, American workers should not be making assembly line shirts, TVs or anything else that can be made to the same quality and cheaper overseas.  What we should be doing is doing what we do best; skilled labor, high tech, and services, and trading that - at a premium - for cheap (price wise, not quality) televisions.  That's where we've gone off the rails.   We have this ridiculous mindset that we should be able to do the SAME job, for the SAME company, in the SAME town, for the SAME boss, for our entire 40 year career, and at ever increasing wages, and it doesn't work that way.  It's a recipe for economic failure. 

I'm pretty far from Trump on most issues, but t's probably the one issue that I am farthest from him (and Hillary and Bernie, who both said the same thing):  we cannot artificially keep these low skill, low paying jobs in the U.S. and not have it hurt us.   We stagnated because we started doing this (via the unions), so to double down on it is economic suicide.

But in Trump's inauguration speech he said "We will follow two simple rules: Buy American and hire American."

No, no, you're right.  We're in agreement here.  I'm just saying that I don't agree with Trump in that regard.   Chino nailed it, I think.  I think people heard what they wanted to hear (and it's not like it was just Trump blowing that horn.  Hillary was also doubled-down on "Buy American, Hire American").   I think we should "Buy American, Hire American" where it makes sense, not as an absolute rule.    Funny how we don't have any problem "buying Chinese" when the chip inside means we can buy a $250 laptop, or a $100 phone, or a $200 tablet.   

[cramx3]

While I find the advertisements for Ivanka's brand to be bad...

'Make America great again'...all those clothes are Made In China. 

Yeah, I'm surprised Trump is mad at Nordstrom for following his "buy American" guideline

I am more personally bothered by this.  How can a leader who is promoting Buy American, also be promoting this?