Red Faced, Trump Backs Out Of Using Doral Resort As Host Of G7 summit

[Skwim]

Ergo as it was free it wasn't in violation of the clause.

What was free?

.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Ergo as it was free it wasn't in violation of the clause.

What was free?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What was free?

.

Whoops...snap!

 

[Jollybear]

Your own source tells you the difference:

"Nearly all of the gifts were turned over to the government."

Even though the gifts were given to Obama he did not keep them. He knew that he legally could not keep them. If Trump gave Doral to the government then I suppose he could have done that. But we all know he did not.

Nearly all, that means not literally all.

 

[Jollybear]

Um....I just answered that.

Because as President Lincoln noted, it's illegal for a President to accept any gift or payment from a foreign leader or government.

No, you didnt answer the question. Why is it wrong to accept the gift? Because its illegal? Why is ut illegal? Because the constitution? Why is it in the constitution?

Understand?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nearly all, that means not literally all.

Yes, he probably kept only personal gifts of little to no value. Those would be excluded from the emolument clause.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, you didnt answer the question. Why is it wrong to accept the gift? Because its illegal? Why is ut illegal? Because the constitution? Why is it in the constitution?

Understand?

it is in the Constitution. And why? So that a President does not even appear to have been bribed.

 

[Jollybear]

it is in the Constitution. And why? So that a President does not even appear to have been bribed.

Its not about appearence, its about actually doing something wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Its not about appearence, its about actually doing something wrong.

Not always. Try again.

 

[Terry Sampson]

no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Unless you derive substantial pleasure from kicking rocks, you might wanna walk away from the one you're talking with or finding a smaller one to kick..

 

[Terry Sampson]

At this point, I have to ask; (1) are you just trolling, or (2) are you seriously this ignorant of the concept of diplomatic corruption?

#2

 

[Jollybear]

They're a pain in the neck at times, but they're designed to ensure both the appearance of propriety, and to avoid overcharging, graft and corruption via provision of contracts in return for favours, friendships, etc.
They are commonly paired with approved supplier lists, for ease of implementation, and would typically kick in over a threshold.
Rules are particularly stringent where public monies are used, since redistribution of public money gathered via taxation to private pockets is an obvious point of corruption. Many, many countries have problems with this, although the degree varies.

Well then i consider these "appearence of propriety" tender laws phony laws. Because they as you said are a pain in the neck. They put unesesary burdens on society. They punish people before the people actually do any wrong. In fact, those that make these laws, pkus the laws thenselves ARE THE SWAMP. And that is corrupt government.

Ill add this. If i was doing business or was a national leader and someone gave me payment or a gift, id say thank you, however, by giving me this, dont expect me to give you some benefit that would hurt the interests of my country or business, because if thats what you have in mind, then take back the gift, i dont want it.

If they say thats not the intent, then id take the gift.

Whats wrong with that?

He shouldn't. He should have divested himself of shares and put The money raised from it in a blind trust, independently managed. This basic ethical position has been followed by former Presidents of both sides of politics. It's only the unusual laws limiting the President's legal exposure which makes this an ethical, rather than legal consideration.

Why is it unethical? You keep saying it, but, just because you say it means nothing. Why?

You can state that as much as you like. Both sides of politics agreed it was inappropriate. When you see bilateral agreement from a US Parliament, you might want to consider there is more to the rationale here than you seem willing to admit or understand.

And mayby the rebublicans just thought he should pick his battles wisely, which he did.

Leaders pay money to businesses indirectly controlled by another world leader. This is not based on the hotel being judged best, or best value or anything other than Trump's evaluation. If you see nothing wrong with that, fair enough, but you're clearly a Trump cheerleader at that point.

Im a trump cheerleader for saying i think its perfectly fine for a leader of a foreign country to pay for a room at a hotel thats owned by another leader? If it wasnt trump, ID STILL SAY IT.

I've lived in a country previously where this sort of thing happened routinely. Whether you think Trump was corrupt in this case, or misguided (I go for misguided) this is exactly how corruption works. Government funds channelled to areas personally benefitting individuals without due oversight.


Swing voter in Australia. Centrist, basically, although that makes me socially left by US standards.

Socially left!? Communist! Communist!

Economically I'm probably slightly right.

Well thats good, careful with the socially left, its a slippery slope into communism.

It's an opinion about what you posted.

Then the opinion is incorrect. So is it still your opinion now?

Your entire post wasn't trolly or ranty in my opinion. But towards the end you were playing the man instead of the ball. (Err...does that saying translate?)

Dont understand

Nope. I'm pretty chilled on that sort of stuff. I come here to talk to people of various flavours. I don't expect them to agree. Just thought you started going on about lefties and Dems, and whatever. Both folks in the centre and right of politics have had issue with this too. It's not a witch-hunt, it's an ethics issue.

All extreme leftists in my view are evil people.

Because he is involved in decisions where he has a vested interest, such as with Turkey. It's hamstrings his ability to make decisions on behalf of the US without fear and favour.
You can disagree with my take, but separation of decision making at the Presidential level with personal profit-taking is a key tenet of a healthy democracy.

This makes no sense given the fact hes a nationalist.

Why was his hotel selected?
How would a hotel have been selected in a dictatorship?

Dictatorship or not, its a petty thing to say its wrong.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You still havent answered my question. And anyone that does not answere my question is wrong in my book.

Ill ask it again. Why is it wrong for forign leaders to pay him for rooms at his hotel?

Also, if this is wrong, ill just go ahead again and point out the democrats double standard. Joe biden and obama recieved gifts from foreign leaders. Obama given pricey gifts from foreign leaders

Because the emoluments clause says it is. Ya know, that one Trump referred to as "phony" yesterday. It's only in the Constitution, but Trump apparently doesn't know that.

Why is it wrong for foreign leaders to pay Trump for stuff? You don't see anything wrong with foreign leaders buying off the President of the United States? You don't see how such bribes may influence the President into doing what these foreign leaders want him to do? The Founding Fathers were quite aware that this could happen, hence the reason they included the emoluments clause in the Constition.

Trump isn't supposed to be profiting from his job as President. He's supposed to be serving the people of the country.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You know darn well what im talking about. You know how to read. Read what i said and answer it. Dont waste my time responding like that.


Ya, ok, foreign leaders paying for a hotel is corrupt, ya, sure, if you say so.

People like you need to be more grateful for how dam good you have it in america. Why not go to a country where REAL corruption is happening instead of making up corruption like foreign leaders paying for a hotel.

People like you need to realize that it's only so "dam good" in America because the Constition and rule of law have been safeguarded all this time by people who value it.
Once the rule of law starts getting eroded, ignored and thrown out, then things will start to get bad. This is why Trump can't get away with this stuff.

Trump providing rooms at a hotel isnt trump eccepting a bribe. I already told you that and its a logical statement.

Further, even if they go to another hotel, he could STILL eccept a bribe.

Where they meet has no bearing or none bearing on bribes given, not given, eccepted or not eccepted.

Do you understand any logic?

Do you understand its corrupt to try to punish someone who hasnt even done wrong?

Um what? He's much more likely to be bribed by the people staying at his hotel than people staying somewhere else because people staying in his hotel will be paying him money. Like seriously, you need to think this over a bit more and stop floundering around looking for excuses to defend this guy because you just love him so much or whatever. Think, man.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, you didnt answer the question. Why is it wrong to accept the gift? Because its illegal? Why is ut illegal? Because the constitution? Why is it in the constitution?

Understand?

Several people have answered you. You should slow down and take the time to read the responses.

 

[Jose Fly]

No, you didnt answer the question. Why is it wrong to accept the gift? Because its illegal? Why is ut illegal? Because the constitution? Why is it in the constitution?

It's illegal because it violates the emoluments clause in the Constitution, which is in there because the founding fathers wanted government officials, including the President, to work for the people and the country, rather than using their offices for their own personal benefit.

 

[Jollybear]

Emoluments clause.

And according to some scholars interpretation of that clause, its refering to not accepting bribes. Trump letting leaders pay for rooms at his hotel isnt a bribe. Its an innocent transaction.

Look up the definition of emoluments clause to learn definition

Already did. Have you been reading any of my posts? I feel im wasting my time debating with left wingers.

He is a businessman, a terrible one.

For being so terrible he certainly seams very successfull. If terrible makes one that successfull, ill take terrible any day.

What's wrong with people coming to his hotel? Nothing when he isn't president. See emoluments clause.

Thats how your interpreting that clause. I quoted in my first or second post that some scholars dont agree with your interpretation. So, tell me why you hold to this interpretation? In otherwords, WHY do you believe the clause says what it does?

The topic at hand has nothing to do with bribes.

Oh ok, so why does the clause say what it does then? Laws are made for a reason after all.

The problem is your information sources are telling you he did nothing wrong. Are you sure your information sources are telling you the truth?

The problem is your information sources are telling you he did something wrong. Are you sure your information sources are telling you the truth?

I suggest Trump stop skirting laws and acting unfit for the presidency. How often do you watch Fox?

I suggest the democrats stop pushing double standards and bullying trump. There unfit to remain as a party. How often do you watch CNN?

For the record, i watch both and use my own critical mind.

 

[Shad]

What was free?

.

Trump said he was going to do it at costs or free. Ergo no gift involved thus no violation.

 

[Skwim]

Trump said he was going to do it at costs or free. Ergo no gift involved thus no violation.

I asked because:

Trump’s Decision to Host G7 at Doral Resort Raises Questions About Struggling Property, Deutsche Bank Loans

By Rey Mashayekhi ........... October 18, 2019



Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s acting chief of staff, appeared to try to preempt such concerns Thursday in announcing that Doral would indeed host the international gathering. He noted that the administration’s vetting process concluded that Doral is “by far and away, the best physical facility for this meeting,” and stressed that Trump would not profit from staging the summit at his own property. In fact, Mulvaney said, Doral would host the G7 “at cost.”

Yet it’s not apparent how the Trump Organization would ensure that it is the case. For instance, Mulvaney didn’t specify whether the company would refuse compensation and opt to pay for the event out of its own pocket. (The most recent G7 summit, held this year in Biarritz, France, reportedly cost French taxpayers north of $40 million—with previous summits in Canada and Italy said to have cost considerably more.)

​

(Think Trump would eat $40 million+? I don't)

It’s also unclear why it would choose to go to such lengths, given the extent to which Doral has struggled financially in recent years. In May, the Washington Post reported that the 643-room resort had been hit by declining revenues and profits between 2015 and 2017, with both occupancy and room rates well below competing resorts in its area. The New York Times, meanwhile, reported that Doral actually lost money to the tune of $2.4 million in 2014, the most recent year for which the Times was able to obtain documents specifying the Trump Organization’s profits.

That’s less than ideal, especially considering that the Trump Organization borrowed $125 million from its most prolific creditor, Deutsche Bank, to finance the resort’s acquisition and renovation. Like many of Deutsche Bank’s dealings with Trump, that loan remains shrouded in mystery; it’s unclear how much of the balance on the loan remains outstanding, or when it comes due for repayment. A spokesperson for Deutsche Bank declined to comment on the matter.
source and more

.​

 

[Shad]

I asked because:

Trump’s Decision to Host G7 at Doral Resort Raises Questions About Struggling Property, Deutsche Bank Loans

By Rey Mashayekhi ........... October 18, 2019



Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s acting chief of staff, appeared to try to preempt such concerns Thursday in announcing that Doral would indeed host the international gathering. He noted that the administration’s vetting process concluded that Doral is “by far and away, the best physical facility for this meeting,” and stressed that Trump would not profit from staging the summit at his own property. In fact, Mulvaney said, Doral would host the G7 “at cost.”

Yet it’s not apparent how the Trump Organization would ensure that it is the case. For instance, Mulvaney didn’t specify whether the company would refuse compensation and opt to pay for the event out of its own pocket. (The most recent G7 summit, held this year in Biarritz, France, reportedly cost French taxpayers north of $40 million—with previous summits in Canada and Italy said to have cost considerably more.)

​

(Think Trump would eat $40 million+? I don't)

It’s also unclear why it would choose to go to such lengths, given the extent to which Doral has struggled financially in recent years. In May, the Washington Post reported that the 643-room resort had been hit by declining revenues and profits between 2015 and 2017, with both occupancy and room rates well below competing resorts in its area. The New York Times, meanwhile, reported that Doral actually lost money to the tune of $2.4 million in 2014, the most recent year for which the Times was able to obtain documents specifying the Trump Organization’s profits.

That’s less than ideal, especially considering that the Trump Organization borrowed $125 million from its most prolific creditor, Deutsche Bank, to finance the resort’s acquisition and renovation. Like many of Deutsche Bank’s dealings with Trump, that loan remains shrouded in mystery; it’s unclear how much of the balance on the loan remains outstanding, or when it comes due for repayment. A spokesperson for Deutsche Bank declined to comment on the matter.
source and more

.​

Not specifying when there is no event nor bill is irrelevant. The rest is just throwing shade.