The US Election, Part XI

[imaenoon]

Looks like ol' mad dog mattis might make the move to SecDef. Have we had a teufel hunden Secretary of Defense? Shame to see a Marine overseeing the Secretary of the Navy, but if you're going to have one, this is definitely the guy. I remember some controversy some years ago regarding Obama, but I can't remember what it was. I think he resigned or retired or some such in protest to something.

 

I've not been a big fan of Trump, and I think he talks more than he thinks, but it looks to me like he's threading the needle between renegades and establishment types so far, which is probably wise. I know folks hate Breitbart, but Bannon is already advising Trump. It's simply not reasonable to demand that Trump not keep his council. Sessions will probably be confirmed and I think he should. I don't like pile on Byrd, God rest his soul, but the explanation about his former comments was that he had made them long ago and didn't reflect his later views. Fair enough. I never used him as some sort of equalizing argument. Now, however, I think the other side should do the same thing and confirm Sessions. Hell, if nothing else, it gets him out of the Senate and that might actually appeal to some of the more strident Democrats.

 

The Mattis choice? I think it's brilliant and, if there hasn't been a former Marine in the office, I think it's probably about time. The leathernecks have earned one.

 

EDIT: sloppy typing making things unclear.

Edited November 20, 2016 by imaenoon

[Elerond]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/2016/11/18/9da9c572-ad18-11e6-977a-1030f822fc35_story.html

[imaenoon]

 

Yes? Sounds reasonable and there is no impropriety that I can see. It's smart for foreign dignitaries to stay at the Trump hotel and I seriously doubt there's quid pro quo related to people staying there.

 

If the left uses this as a way to impugn Trump, a man whose own words suffice for that purpose, it'll end up as a losing ploy. However, it is an interesting aside.

 

“'Believe me, all the delegations will go there,' said one Middle Eastern diplomat who recently toured the hotel and booked an overseas visitor. The diplomat said many stayed away from the hotel before the election for fear of a 'Clinton backlash,' but that now it’s the place to be seen."

Edited November 20, 2016 by imaenoon

[Elerond]

 

 

Yes? Sounds reasonable and there is no impropriety that I can see. It's smart for foreign dignitaries to stay at the Trump hotel and I seriously doubt there's quid pro quo related to people staying there.

 

If the left uses this as a way to impugn Trump, a man whose own words suffice for that purpose, it'll end up as a losing ploy. However, it is an interesting aside.

 

“'Believe me, all the delegations will go there,' said one Middle Eastern diplomat who recently toured the hotel and booked an overseas visitor. The diplomat said many stayed away from the hotel before the election for fear of a 'Clinton backlash,' but that now it’s the place to be seen."

 

 

When foreign diplomats and companies give money to The Clinton Foundation it seem to be source of controversy and clear indication that Clinton is corrupt and those moneys were given only to get favors from Clinton. So if giving money to charitable non-profit organization that carry a politician's name puts people's motives under question then one could think that giving money for-profit company owned by a politician would also rise some flags. But it seems that isn't the case then...

[imaenoon]

I disagree. Trump ran as a business man with business interests in place. The Clinton Foundation was started after Bill Clinton left office and as a direct offshoot of his presidency. Trump secured the rights to take the chance to build on a property that clearly had potential and built the hotel under budget and on time as far as I know. The Clintons built a foundation whose administration is unorthodox at best, had poor accounting, multiple documented ethical concerns as raised by their own audit, and was inextricably intertwined with the Clinton campaign and the Department of State, including people who worked interchangeably at both and at least one who drew a paycheck from both at the same time. Equivalency arguments are all well and good, but I don't think it's the same. What I would suggest, as the article states, is the president-elect should put his business concerns in a blind trust. Of course, I also thought he should divulge his taxes.

 

I'm going to tell you the same thing I told people who were concerned about the taxes (which was a far larger source of worry for me personally) it's a non issue right now. You're not going to make headway against Trump based on this small potato stuff. Now, if direct correlations arise between favors and diplomats staying at the Trump hotel, go after him. What the media needs to do now, however, is get a grip on themselves and stop trying to contrive a way to turn every Trump story into something bad. Over-reaching on the part of the press makes it easy for Trump supporters to view all negative stories with skepticism. How does that serve anyone?

 

I also suggest that many people will read that article and actually have a more positive view of Trump. I thought the article was pretty well balanced and well written, so maybe some in the media are getting their heads straightened. Now I just want to see what the New York Times prints about it. Good job, Washington Post. I sincerely think they did a good job pointing out a possible concern without seeming completely hell bent on Trump's personal destruction.

[Hurlshort]

Eh, they are both rotten, no need to try and justify any of them.

[Elerond]

Now, if direct correlations arise between favors and diplomats staying at the Trump hotel, go after him.

 

You realize that if diplomats, corporate lobbyists, etc people start to stay in Trump hotel in order to make favors with president we are speaking hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars going in Trump's pockets in next four years? Because there is lot of those people and they will spent lots of money in those hotels especially if they try to make "nice gesture" towards president of USA. It sounds very much same as doing business in Russia, where people in control are much richer than Trump because of such "nice gestures" etc. things that give companies, diplomats, etc. ability to do anything in Russia.

[imaenoon]

Should Trump divest of the hotel he was already in the process of leasing and developing before he announced his run for president? Trump is a developer. He should not have to sell his holdings to run for president. Is it reasonable that some of the people who come might just want to use his hotel because, well, hotels are in great demand? Listen, go ahead and say that he should. It's commendable to argue your point. It is not the equivalent of the Clinton Foundation debacle. Trump developed that hotel before he announced. Hell, he leased the property before the previous election. He didn't get out of office and use his influence to build the hotel. He clearly had plans to build it before he had solid plans to run.

 

As a matter of principle, I can see having strong feelings. However, as a matter of politics, I'm telling you it's a losing story. There are better reasons to go after Trump than him owning the hotel.

 

In fact, one such reason to go after him politically, which is also a matter of principle, is his decision to turn over the operation of his business to his children whom he also intends to maintain as political advisors. He should set up a blind trust for the operations while he is in office, but the idea that someone who actually *built* something in Washington DC should have to completely divest himself of his holdings is silly.

[BruceVC]

Should Trump divest of the hotel he was already in the process of leasing and developing before he announced his run for president? Trump is a developer. He should not have to sell his holdings to run for president. Is it reasonable that some of the people who come might just want to use his hotel because, well, hotels are in great demand? Listen, go ahead and say that he should. It's commendable to argue your point. It is not the equivalent of the Clinton Foundation debacle. Trump developed that hotel before he announced. Hell, he leased the property before the previous election. He didn't get out of office and use his influence to build the hotel. He clearly had plans to build it before he had solid plans to run.

 

As a matter of principle, I can see having strong feelings. However, as a matter of politics, I'm telling you it's a losing story. There are better reasons to go after Trump than him owning the hotel.

 

In fact, one such reason to go after him politically, which is also a matter of principle, is his decision to turn over the operation of his business to his children whom he also intends to maintain as political advisors. He should set up a blind trust for the operations while he is in office, but the idea that someone who actually *built* something in Washington DC should have to completely divest himself of his holdings is silly.

 

Now that Trump is going to be president he faces some important  legal considerations around his own personal business empire

 

There is real and valid criticism about conflict of interest once he is president and how any decision he makes could unduly benefit the vast  Trump corporation

 

But this has been discussed numerous times and what Trump needs to do to avoid any future issues, the most likely scenario is that he will hand over full control of all his private sector businesses to his children. He will legally separate himself from receiving any income and having any manageable decision making powers within all his companies

 

This is the fairest outcome. Trump is in an invidious position because I firmly believe he didn't become president to enrich himself, he really wants to " make the USA  great again " . Yet it cannot be denied he has  created  a vast business empire but  it seems unreasonable to expect him to just dissolve this empire because he is now president so giving control to his children seems like a good compromise ?

[Guard Dog]

Eh, they are both rotten, no need to try and justify any of them.

Hurlshot shoots and scores!

[Longknife]

 

 

 

Yes? Sounds reasonable and there is no impropriety that I can see. It's smart for foreign dignitaries to stay at the Trump hotel and I seriously doubt there's quid pro quo related to people staying there.

 

If the left uses this as a way to impugn Trump, a man whose own words suffice for that purpose, it'll end up as a losing ploy. However, it is an interesting aside.

 

“'Believe me, all the delegations will go there,' said one Middle Eastern diplomat who recently toured the hotel and booked an overseas visitor. The diplomat said many stayed away from the hotel before the election for fear of a 'Clinton backlash,' but that now it’s the place to be seen."

 

 

When foreign diplomats and companies give money to The Clinton Foundation it seem to be source of controversy and clear indication that Clinton is corrupt and those moneys were given only to get favors from Clinton. So if giving money to charitable non-profit organization that carry a politician's name puts people's motives under question then one could think that giving money for-profit company owned by a politician would also rise some flags. But it seems that isn't the case then...

 

 

The difference is in the transparency.

 

Trump's private business colliding with his presidency was more or less expected, and sure enough, we have immediate knowledge of it. Clinton's dozens of scandals are all kept secret, all while we're presented with an attitude that suggests nothing fishy is going on and that all that money is going towards a great cause, when in actuality that much is highly questionable.

 

Call us when Trump is actively abusing his power himself by using the presidency to benefit his own businesses directly (aka, not foreign diplomats deciding of their own accord to pay Trump this kindness) while attempting to hide this from the public, then you'll have angry people, and even then so long as he's not involving the same establishment names people have grown to loathe, I get the sense that anger would be more out of principle and still seen as a preferred alternative.

 

And no, that was not an attempt to justify anything I suspect Trump will eventually do, but rather a mere attempt to highlight and explain key differences. There are clear differences and seeing as this is foreign diplomats acting of their own initiative, this is merely a perk of the position, not corruption (yet).

Edited November 20, 2016 by Longknife

[Elerond]

 

 

 

When foreign diplomats and companies give money to The Clinton Foundation it seem to be source of controversy and clear indication that Clinton is corrupt and those moneys were given only to get favors from Clinton. So if giving money to charitable non-profit organization that carry a politician's name puts people's motives under question then one could think that giving money for-profit company owned by a politician would also rise some flags. But it seems that isn't the case then...

 

 

The difference is in the transparency.

 

-cut to save space-

 

Yeah less, as private businesses need to keep much less public record who has paid them and how much than charitable organizations. But if one don't see any problems in this kind arrangement, I would call them bit naive if I didn't think that it is just because people aren't really worried as much about governmental corruption as one could think based on what topics were talked before election.

 

As side note there isn't actually holding evidence that Clinton gave preferential treatment for those who gave money for Clinton foundation. When it comes to plain corruption there is actually more holding evidence against Trump, with him settling those law suits against Trump university, but of course as he settled those suits it means that we don't really know for sure even in his case.

[imaenoon]

I say this without meaning to start a fight, Elerond, but if Hillary Clinton runs again, I hope her campaign relies on these same distinctions. If she actually came up with plans for the country and talked about those sometimes instead of running down her opponent all the time, she could actually win. *shudder*

[Elerond]

I think you mix me to BruceVC, if you think that I am Clinton supporter.

[redneckdevil]

Main difference between trump's hotels and clintons foundation is one is a visible albeit "cheap" purchase while the other is an "investment" where u have a say in spreading/hindering products/ideals/technology/etc.

Apples and oranges.

[licketysplit]

I say this without meaning to start a fight, Elerond, but if Hillary Clinton runs again, I hope her campaign relies on these same distinctions. If she actually came up with plans for the country and talked about those sometimes instead of running down her opponent all the time, she could actually win. *shudder*

 

She won't be running again. The dems would be fools to back her. 

[Zoraptor]

 

 

As side note there isn't actually holding evidence that Clinton gave preferential treatment for those who gave money for Clinton foundation.

 

 

By its nature that's far more difficult to prove as an accusation than diplomats staying at a Trump hotel though, especially since she lost. If Saudi donated $25 million in the hope of arms deals they got said arms deals- but you can't prove that the donation influenced that and both parties want and benefit from the deal anyway- and if they donated in the hope of preference when she became President you also can't prove that, since she lost. If that money got diverted in part to her campaign that too is hard to prove. On the other hand, a diplomat saying they'll stay at Trump Washingon (or whatever) to curry favour is both volunteered information and easy to check.

 

Having gulf states are various other kleptocracies like a near bankrupt Ukraine donate in the order of $10 million or more a piece is inherently far more suspicious than Bill and Melinda Gates donating similar amounts because unlike Bill&Mel they are not big on altruistic donations- they're big on corruption, influence peddling and spreading their ideology via 'charity' mosque building that just happen to all be wahhabi/ salafi. Plus you'd have to have a lot of diplomatic missions to get to $10 million worth of accommodation. I'd be more worried about sudden concessions and agreements for hotels, golf courses and the like being granted rather than accommodation as that's pretty small fry.

 

None of that proves anything corruption wise, of course. But at best I'd have to say that the CF almost certainly dangled the thought of potential influence in the faces of those corrupt enough to try and buy it.

 

(Should be noted that GWB's charity almost certainly- no disclosure so can't be sure- accepted Gulf money as well, though the circumstances there are somewhat different since Laura was not even entertaining the idea of going for President, albeit Jeb! was)

Edited November 20, 2016 by Zoraptor

[Elerond]

 

 Plus you'd have to have a lot of diplomatic missions to get to $10 million worth of accommodation. I'd be more worried about sudden concessions and agreements for hotels, golf courses and the like being granted rather than accommodation as that's pretty small fry.

 

I am not sure that is true. Lets take for example Finland's diplomatic envoy, every time we sent one to negotiate with new US president. At first it may not look that much as we sent only our president, prime minister, or foreign minister to do the official talk with the US president. But soon one realizes that such diplomatic envoy has actually lots of other people, as there will be assistants, interpreters and body guards for the our country's delegate. And then addition to these there will be several (dozen or so) bureaucrats that will negotiate with us bureaucrats and these bureaucrats will also have assistants. And then this opportunity is also used by some Finnish companies, that want to do business with US government or ensure that business will continue as it is now, who will sent their delegates to negotiate deals to them. And end result you will have envoy that consist of hundred to two hundred people, whom most of will stay in US for week or two. These people will, lets say downplayed estimate, pay 500 dollars per night per person for hotels they stay in, plus additional room services and conference rooms etc.. Which would make about 50k to 200k per day they are there . Totalling to somewhere from 350k to 3 million dollars (three million is more typical than 350k for such trip) for Finnish tax payers. Which is of course usually justifiable because they usually make several billions worth of deals during such trip. 

[imaenoon]

Apart from what will be largely a non-issue of the Trump hotels, there is nothing that compares to the Clinton apparatus in American politics today. This false equivalency is quite remarkable. I would point out, Elerond, that you're the one who brought up the Clinton Foundation when you cited the article that started this discussion as a comparison to the Trump hotel in Washington DC. Had that not been the case, I wouldn't be addressing the Clinton Foundation at all. I've already spoken about a solution, which is probably a good avenue of attack on Trump. If people come forward and, without sounding like it's the typical anti-trump Phillippic, then it will probably come across as reasonable to suggest a blind Trust. I don't think he'll go for it. I think he'll get away with it. ...And I think that's because of the press mishandling Trump and his supporters from the very beginning. Clearly, his children should not receive clearances and work as presidential advisors while also administering the Trump brand, but that's a harder fight to win at this point.

 

So, I'll ask, and I'm not being snotty, what would you do? If your solution is to say he should be deprived of everything he's built, I don't think you'll get anywhere with the electorate. Seriously, what solution do you have that wouldn't force Trump to divest? The hotel in Washington DC is a wise decision for citizen Trump before and after a Trump administration. The sort of lavish hotel we're talking about is in demand in Washington DC. And if you count the Washington hotel as an insurmountable conflict of interest, why wouldn't you do the same for all Trump holdings? Why wouldn't someone stay at Trump Tower in New York in order to show off that he frequents the hotel and possible engender good will? It's silly. Trump Tower has been there quite some time.

[imaenoon]

 

I say this without meaning to start a fight, Elerond, but if Hillary Clinton runs again, I hope her campaign relies on these same distinctions. If she actually came up with plans for the country and talked about those sometimes instead of running down her opponent all the time, she could actually win. *shudder*

 

She won't be running again. The dems would be fools to back her.

 

I also think this, but I keep thinking of Nixon and his little dog checkers. BTW: That's somewhat analogous to scandals in this thread. ...But, yeah, I'm with you and I hope you're right.

[Zoraptor]

 

 

 Plus you'd have to have a lot of diplomatic missions to get to $10 million worth of accommodation. I'd be more worried about sudden concessions and agreements for hotels, golf courses and the like being granted rather than accommodation as that's pretty small fry.

 

I am not sure that is true. Lets take for example Finland's diplomatic envoy, every time we sent one to negotiate with new US president. [..] Totalling to somewhere from 350k to 3 million dollars (three million is more typical than 350k for such trip) for Finnish tax payers. Which is of course usually justifiable because they usually make several billions worth of deals during such trip. 

 

 

In order to get to $25 million you'd have to be having those negotiations on that (top end) scale every year for a double term Trump presidency, it seems unlikely that you'd even have the 3 you'd need to get close to $10 million over 8 years unless you're doing something wrong. It's not really a fair comparison anyway, since;

 

A hotel room is a proper service where the hotel has fixed costs, major staffing, etc and those Finns staying at 'Trump DC' take up bed/ room space that is fundamentally limited. None of those apply to the CF- well, the 'costs' one does obviously, but a single donation by itself has negligible cost associated with it, there's no/ very limited added cost with scale and there is no physical limit to how many donations can be accepted. Critically, in that scenario Trump also only gets extra money from people staying in rooms that would otherwise be empty*, else it's just getting money from a different source and might be counter productive to his business long term if private clients cannot stay and become loyal to alternatives instead; and if Finns are staying there for 2 weeks and taking up half the rooms or whatever then the delegation from Sweden might be able to be there as well, but nobody else can.

 

It's not a good look, potentially, but it is also an inevitable consequence of him running a huge business with the best hotels, let me tell you I know hotels and Trump hotels are just the best, just the best. Tremendous. No wonder diplomats want to stay at them when they're that good. It's certainly not equivalent to the Crooked Foundation and its illegal money laundering, such comparisons are just sad! As previous, I'd be far more concerned with concessions and the like being granted to the Trump businesses as favour currying, as those are where there's a lot of quick money to be made with little scrutiny.

 

*yeah, he could jack up prices for diplomats as well

[Elerond]

 I would point out, Elerond, that you're the one who brought up the Clinton Foundation when you cited the article that started this discussion as a comparison to the Trump hotel in Washington DC. 

 

I brought it up because it has been mentioned earlier conversations here as example of governmental corruption and as such I compared it to possibilities of governmental corruption that rise from Trump's company's hotels and diplomats telling that they will give Trump money through those hotels in order to get in favorable decisions from him. 

[imaenoon]

I get ya, bud. I really do, but the kids running the foundation is bad whether or not Clinton's foundation is better or worse. I think bringing up the Foundation dilutes your argument because, if you say there's a possibility of serious issues, I've been agreeing with that since my first response.

Edited November 20, 2016 by imaenoon

[redneckdevil]

I don't think it dilutes, they bringing it up because the end result can/are/could be the same, just a different path.

Scandals and bribes and etc still could go on, just gotta do it differently and not unanimously.

 

Imho it's basically they gotta spend that money for that service anyways, might as well spend the money u was already gonna spend on hotels at his for a friendly gesture.

Edited November 20, 2016 by redneckdevil

[imaenoon]

I guess that would be my point, Red. The fire warnings of a hotel are misplaced. That's nothing compared to the possible conflict if the children continue to run the organization. If folks hear an argument about the specific hotel, the larger holdings will end up getting lost. This is all strategy on how to a. Attack Trump effectively and b. Prevent malfeasance.

Edited November 20, 2016 by imaenoon