Trump directs G-7 conference to his own hotels and violates the Constitution

[evoeth]

Trump broke the emoluments clause plain and simple by directing resources to his own real estate empire. He owns the Doral resort, and he draws an income from managing this Doral resort... Yes even now during his presidency.

Yet you cons were completely unconcerned with him 1) failing to divest his assets and 2) hiding his tax returns and this is where we are now.

Trump has directly, blatantly violated the Constitution.

 

[miggles]

Trump broke the emoluments clause plain and simple by directing resources to his own real estate empire. He owns the Doral resort, and he draws an income from managing this Doral resort... Yes even now during his presidency.

Yet you cons were completely unconcerned with him 1) failing to divest his assets and 2) hiding his tax returns and this is where we are now.

Trump has directly, blatantly violated the Constitution.

he's not making a profit off it tho.

 

[evoeth]

he's not making a profit off it tho.

Lol whut?

Trump is directing revenue to his coffers. You don't have to turn a profit for it to be a violation of the emoluments clause and it's not like he's doing it for free or cost, they're paying retail rate for the rooms.

 

[BeholdenGlory]

I agree this is a rather moronic thing for him to do.

But I'm far more concerned about the covert methods most politicians have been employing to get rich off their government position for decades and longer. That's the graft that involves them making money by selling out the country, the people or our future.

 

[The_Barmecide]

he's not making a profit off it tho.

First: profit does not matter in terms of emoluments as I understand

Second: businesses do this sort of thing all the time (offer a service or good at cost) to increase sales/revenue elsewhere (a form of "advertising" if you will.)

Third: how do we know there is no "profit"? The Trump organization SETS THE COSTS for their services, so providing it "at cost" doesn't mean that money won't flow into Trump's pockets directly from it. (And given his propensity to both lie and not really know details on anything, why would we assume he isn't going to profit?)

 

[The_Barmecide]

Lol whut?

Trump is directing revenue to his coffers. You don't have to turn a profit for it to be a violation of the emoluments clause and it's not like he's doing it for free or cost, they're paying retail rate for the rooms.

Given the Trump family's past behavior (raiding CANCER charities for kids for their own gain) it would really be SHOCKING if they weren't going to find a way to profit off of this!

 

[GoldenBoy89]

.

 

[DaisyDay]

he's not making a profit off it tho.

Why would you believe that? Has he said how much he intends to charge yet or what he is offering? Has he given an estimate of what the State Department and secret service will be pitching in for "security upgrades"? Does he have an estimate of the publicity value? Is he comping the hangers on and support staff of the guest leaders?

We've already seen that he appears to keep two sets of books - one for applying for loans (exaggerated profits and occupation rates) and one for the tax man. Will he be opening either for scrutiny for the Doral? Smart money says, "No, absolutely not!"

 

[GoldenBoy89]

he's not making a profit off it tho.

Would it be problematic if he was making a profit?

 

[rambot]

I remember that. I read that Jr sent a cheque for the profits (109,000 or something like that) from govt. contract. Strange, that article pointed out that ONE group staying in his tower in NY had a bill for 204Gs).

I'm more concerned that taxpayers have spent, what 109million on Trump's golf trips....and we're supposed to believe 109gs is ALL the profit he's received?


To say nothing of the hotel rooms booked by foreign dignitaries who then don't show up or use their rooms.

 

[Kenny'sID]

.

Seriously?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Seriously?

Truly.

 

[Basil the Great]

Some official on CNN this morning said that if he took no money in for the event and did it all for free, then he would not be violating the Constitution.

 

[Kaon]

Trump broke the emoluments clause plain and simple by directing resources to his own real estate empire. He owns the Doral resort, and he draws an income from managing this Doral resort... Yes even now during his presidency.

Yet you cons were completely unconcerned with him 1) failing to divest his assets and 2) hiding his tax returns and this is where we are now.

Trump has directly, blatantly violated the Constitution.

He will remain in office.

 

[The_Barmecide]

Some official on CNN this morning said that if he took no money in for the event and did it all for free, then he would not be violating the Constitution.

That would be questionable. Since businesses do this sort of thing to garner improved sales elsewhere (promoting the brand). For instance some companies sell things like printers _at a LOSS_ to the company (meaning they are incuring a cost...not even making the cost of production) so they can actually make the money on the supplies end (expensive inks). This I believe is called the razor and blades model.

So even if Trump were to give Doral to the G7 AT A LOSS to himself, then he'd still be possibly taking benefit from it. Emoluments.

 

[Basil the Great]

That would be questionable. Since businesses do this sort of thing to garner improved sales elsewhere (promoting the brand). For instance some companies sell things like printers _at a LOSS_ to the company (meaning they are incuring a cost...not even making the cost of production) so they can actually make the money on the supplies end (expensive inks). This I believe is called the razor and blades model.

So even if Trump were to give Doral to the G7 AT A LOSS to himself, then he'd still be possibly taking benefit from it. Emoluments.

It was a Democratic official who gave the interview. He said that the President would probably not be in a technical violation of the Constitution if he provided free housing to the G-7 participants, but since he would be gaining by the publicity involved, it would still be improper for him to host the event at his facility.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Donald must know that his days in office are numbered... he's only got a few more opportunities to stuff his own pockets before he's run out of Washington on a rail.

 

[The_Barmecide]

It was a Democratic official who gave the interview. He said that the President would probably not be in a technical violation of the Constitution if he provided free housing to the G-7 participants, but since he would be gaining by the publicity involved, it would still be improper for him to host the event at his facility.

I could literally not care less about who was doing the interview. I'm just pointing out that it is irrational to assume that this isn't "self dealing" on the part of Trump because of some arbitrary "profit" discussion.

Technically speaking it IS profit. (Which is why so many companies DO IT. It yields DIRECT INCOME to the bottom line. There's a reason companies pay money for advertising and it isn't "charity")

 

[The_Barmecide]

Donald must know that his days in office are numbered... he's only got a few more opportunities to stuff his own pockets before he's run out of Washington on a rail.

Interestingly for years now Trump has been making beaucoup bucks simply licensing his name to go on buildings which he has no actual investment in. So this man, while he is of limited intellectual capacity overall, knows how to make money off doing nothing but "existing".

 

[miggles]

Lol whut?

Trump is directing revenue to his coffers. You don't have to turn a profit for it to be a violation of the emoluments clause and it's not like he's doing it for free or cost, they're paying retail rate for the rooms.

it's not against rules because he makes no profit. he's not stupid.