Trump's conflicts of interest

Put it out in the yard and up on blocks in the Hamptons. Let the neighbors complain.

Apparently the president doesn't really legally need to put his private assets and businesses etc into a trust.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/nov/16/rudy-giuliani/giuliani-president-trump-will-be-exempt-conflict-i/

Quote: Dalex64

Apparently the president doesn't really legally need to put his private assets and businesses etc into a trust.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/nov/16/rudy-giuliani/giuliani-president-trump-will-be-exempt-conflict-i/

There's a principle in government which states it's not enough to avoid impropriety, but also to avoid the appearance of impropriety. This year it seems not to apply to Trump.

But if he begins to make policy to benefit his business, things ought to turn interesting. His supporters may have the hots for him, but things can be summed up with Bill Clinton's campaign mantra: "It's the economy, stupid."

Of all the properties in Trump's portfolio of assets, the first one Trump should sell ASAP is The Trump International Hotel Washington, DC.

It's way more trouble than it's worth.

Trump tweets this morning that they should cancel the order for the new Air Force One because $4 billion is too much money (seems reasonable actually - why $4 billion?!). Boeing's stock drops.

How do we know no one on Trump's team shorted Boeing stock before this tweet?

How do we know no one on Trump's team will do this in the future when Trump inevitably lodges hate-tweets at various public companies and their stocks go down?

Quote: ams288

How do we know no one on Trump's team shorted Boeing stock before this tweet?

Why would we think they did?

Good for Trump! Given how much wast has been found in Pentagon spending we should question such a cost.

Quote: ams288

Trump tweets this morning that they should cancel the order for the new Air Force One because $4 billion is too much money (seems reasonable actually - why $4 billion?!). Boeing's stock drops.

List price is $379 million. No one buys at that price, though, so assume $325-350 million out of the factory. Multiply by two, as the Air force always keeps to planes designated as AF1. That's $650-700 just for the planes.

Next there's the price of outfitting them. The lower deck is straightforward, with the president's bedroom and bathroom (with shower) up front, meeting room(s), galleys, premium seating for cabinet officials and guests, coach seating for the press and others. The upper deck houses state-of the art avionics and communication equipment, including satellite antennae, and that's quite expensive. Next add the missile/radar jammers, various other countermeasures the big, fat target requires, possibly bigger or additional fuel tanks, and who knows what else that isn't public knowledge.

I've no idea how much all that costs. I also don't know what modifications, if any, are required from Boeing, making the plane more expensive. I think AF1 needs to be capable of in-flight refueling, but I'm not sure. Lastly i don't know if $4 billion is the purchase price alone or whether is also includes things like training and certification (as far as I know, the AF has no existent 747-8s, which requires qualifying pilots on the type), flight testing, etc.

and then there's how the Defense dept, procurement process works. No clue, but probably it overpays because governments buy paper requirements more than they buy goods or services.

In short, a tweet is not the place to discuss policy.

The Orange Man has access now. He can ask for an explanation on the price tag.

Quote: AZDuffman

Why would we think they did?

Good for Trump! Given how much wast has been found in Pentagon spending we should question such a cost.

Kurt Eichenwald is on the case. Maybe Trump was lying (as usual) about the $4 billion contract to hurt Boeing:

Quote: @kurteichenwald

Trump is priv citizen. $4 bill, Air Force One falsehood cratered Boeing stock. He "sold" shares in June. Shareholders can sue him 4 fraud.

Air Force One tweet tantrum -- a lie pushed just after Boeing says concerned about Trump trade policies -- is a frightening abuse of power.

If any person associated with Trump purchased Boeing shares today, that could be charged as a market manipulation called "stock bashing

Total awarded in 3-wk-old Air Force One contract: $169 million. Trump invented $4B, killed stock, after Boeing said scared of his policies.

In any real world of actual government oversight, this Air Force One lie that cratered stock wuld be subject of congressional investigation.

TRUMP SUPPORTERS: Explain how a 3-wk old contract has $4B in cost overruns. Trump is lying because Boeing said something he didnt like.

Trump just showed he will scream lies 2 cripple the share price of any company that raises concerns about him. They will go silent. Obscene.

I have searched everywhere. I cannot find anything saying there was a $4B cost overrun in 3wk old Air Force One contract. Trump made it up.

The Wall Street Journal has an article (paywalled) this morning titled "How Donald Trump's Web of LLCs Obscures His Business Interests." The subtitle reads: "The opacity of his holdings makes it impossible to gauge the full extent of potential conflicts he may face as president." The whole article is worth reading.

Quote: Wall Street Journal

None of the 96 LLCs examined by the Journal appear to regularly release audited financial statements. That opacity-- compounded by Mr. Trump's decision to break with decades of precedent by declining to release his tax returns-- makes it impossible to gauge the full extent of potential conflicts between his business interests and presidential role.

It's not clear how much Mr. Trump's businesses would benefit from his proposal to cut business tax rates.

Mr. Trump's wealth is impossible to measure with precision. His financial disclosure form isn't externally audited and--following government rules-- often uses bands, such as more than $50 million, rather than exact amounts to report assets and revenue or income. Only a handful of the hundreds of entities listed in Mr. Trump's financial disclosure publish audited financial statements-- and those figures don't necessarily illuminate Mr. Trump's financial situation.

He's gambling that these hidden details never come to light. Betting against disclosure in the era of WikiLeaks is usually a bad bet.

Surely the President of the United States has more pressing items on his daily agenda than lodging attacks at Nordstrom department stores for not carrying certain clothing lines.

Apparently not. Here's what he Tweeted this morning: "My daughter Ivanka has been treated so unfairly by @Nordstrom. She is a great person -- always pushing me to do the right thing! Terrible!"

Quote: Red State Blog

Nordstrom says their decision was based on business saying Trump’s clothing line is not selling well enough to justify keeping the clothing in their stores. Some are saying the decision is political, but there’s no evidence to suggest that. These kinds of decisions are made all the time, especially in retail. If a product is not moving, you remove it from the racks and shelves for something that will sell.

The President of the United States, with that tweet, is attempting to bully a company that stopped doing business with a family member who happens to work in his administration. If this is not crossing an ethical line, then what does it look like to do so? What happens when Eric and Donald Trump Jr. have an issue with another company? Will Dad call them out as well?