We Need To Talk About Donald

[Tero]

This week Hawaii became the first state to pass bills out of the House and Senate requiring Presidential candidates to release their tax returns before appearing on the election ballot. The President and Vice President are currently exempt from federal conflict of interest laws, and when they refuse to put their assets in a blind trust, the only way to know they will be making decisions in the people's interest and not their own is to transparently show voters to whom they are beholden. #HB1581 #SB150

[Brian Peacock]

Spicer: "If you're looking at the C.B.O. for accuracy, you're looking in the wrong place,"

[Forty Two]

This week Hawaii became the first state to pass bills out of the House and Senate requiring Presidential candidates to release their tax returns before appearing on the election ballot. The President and Vice President are currently exempt from federal conflict of interest laws, and when they refuse to put their assets in a blind trust, the only way to know they will be making decisions in the people's interest and not their own is to transparently show voters to whom they are beholden. #HB1581 #SB150

Assets are not disclosed on tax returns, nor does a tax return disclose conflicts of interest.

But, bully for Hawaii. Require away.

[Brian Peacock]

Tax returns are one thing, placing assets in a blind trust are another.

[Forty Two]

Tax returns are one thing, placing assets in a blind trust are another.

Is Trump the first rich guy to become President? Man, the US is great, where only those with assets so insufficient, they need not be placed in trusts could become president before the present day! This is a novel issue!

Before, Presidents invariably divested themselves of all their real estate and business interests, and placed their liquid funds under power of attorney of someone else over whom they exercised no control

Placing assets in a blind trust really is quite another issue.... https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 115e21e459

[Brian Peacock]

Tax returns are one thing, placing assets in a blind trust are another.

Is Trump the first rich guy to become President? Man, the US is great, where only those with assets so insufficient, they need not be placed in trusts could become president before the present day! This is a novel issue!

Who said that? Oh, it was just you. OK then.

Before, Presidents invariably divested themselves of all their real estate and business interests, and placed their liquid funds under power of attorney of someone else over whom they exercised no control

OK, just like a blind trust then?

Placing assets in a blind trust really is quite another issue.... https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 115e21e459

Only in as much as the beneficiary of the trust has no legal right to knowledge or influence over how the assets are managed.

And your point is what? That tax returns are one thing, and placing assets in a blind trust are another perhaps?

[Forty Two]

Tax returns are one thing, placing assets in a blind trust are another.

Is Trump the first rich guy to become President? Man, the US is great, where only those with assets so insufficient, they need not be placed in trusts could become president before the present day! This is a novel issue!

Who said that? Oh, it was just you. OK then.

Yes, yes, well, then I'm sure in the past, Presidents were completely divested of control over any asset that might be benefited by some decision they make as President, yes?

That President owned a large estate on Martha's Vineyard and others all over New England! Decisions he made as President likely effected the real estate market! He should have been impeached early on, the traitor....

Before, Presidents invariably divested themselves of all their real estate and business interests, and placed their liquid funds under power of attorney of someone else over whom they exercised no control

OK, just like a blind trust then?

I was being sarcastic.

Placing assets in a blind trust really is quite another issue.... https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 115e21e459

Only in as much as the beneficiary of the trust has no legal right to knowledge or influence over how the assets are managed.

And your point is what? That tax returns are one thing, and placing assets in a blind trust are another perhaps?

That placing businesses employing thousands of people can't just be "placed in a blind trust" -- they would have to be liquidated (sold) in what would now be a "buyer's market" (and therefore sold at a significant loss or significantly lower price than would be negotiable if he wasn't being forced to put them in a blind trust), and then the liquid assets are put in a blind trust. You can't just sign a bill of sale of Trump Enterprises and let a trustee from the government ethics board run it.

I.e., put it in a blind trust sounds great until you try to understand the mechanics of doing so. Predecessors who used blind trusts were just liquidating securities portfolios. What Trump would have to do is sell off business holdings he's personally built and managed for a lifetime, and which employ thousands of people. It's not feasible, and not required by law.

Trump has suggested that he will let his adult children run the family businesses during his presidency, and there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents this arrangement. The emoluments clause, often invoked as the reason Trump must sell his businesses, is no bar. This constitutional provision prevents the president (and any other federal officer) from accepting gifts or compensation from foreign states. It does not limit Trump’s ability to benefit from dealings with non-state foreign entities.

[Brian Peacock]

You don't see the office of the President of the United States as one bearing a necessary ficundary duty?

[Forty Two]

...not a duty to divest oneself of all assets before taking office, no. Do you?

[Brian Peacock]

Do you know what a ficundary duty actually is - what it entails? Yes, I think those who operate our democratic systems bear a ficundary duty, particularly those who operate at the highest level.

[Forty Two]

Does that duty include the obligation to divest oneself of all assets? Sell real estate? If they own a business employing 500 people, they have to get rid of it? It's one thing to say that a duty exists, and it's another to be specific about what that duty entails.

[Svartalf]

Do you know what a ficundary duty actually is - what it entails? Yes, I think those who operate our democratic systems bear a ficundary duty, particularly those who operate at the highest level.

actually, I don't know what "ficundary" means, that word is absent from all dictionaries available to me... care to rephrase or define?

[Brian Peacock]

Do you know what a ficundary duty actually is - what it entails? Yes, I think those who operate our democratic systems bear a ficundary duty, particularly those who operate at the highest level.

actually, I don't know what "ficundary" means, that word is absent from all dictionaries available to me... care to rephrase or define?

It's a legal term that embodies the principle that those in positions of power and influence should not misuse or abuse their position for their personal benefit or gain - particularly that someone in positions of financial power and responsibility shouldn't abuse their position for personal financial gain. Think of it an obligation to maintain the highest standards of probity, accountability, practice and conduct - like a duty not to be corrupt, corrupted, or corrupting.

[Scot Dutchy]

That is not 45.

[Svartalf]

so not him, he's gonna milk the oval office for every benefit he can extract