PGT: President-Elect Donald J Trump

[octothorp]

Does anyone realistically think that "where's he staying?" doesn't become the first question Trump asks before meeting with a foreign diplomat? The actual money paid to the hotel and where it ends up is absolutely meaningless. Trump values his reputation above everything else, even above money, and staying at his hotel is clearly going to be a way to curry favor with him. It's not explicitly that he profits from anyone staying in his hotel that would worry me; it's that he can be influenced by anyone staying at his hotel.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Tacopuck

Fair point, but missing the pluralization doesn't mean explicitly she is referring to one hotel. It could be, but It could also have been a slip in her speech. Regardless the truth will come out once those payments to the US Treasury go on record.

How do they determine what the profits are from renting a single/batch of hotel rooms/food/etc?

Seems like something that is very easy to get around, kind of like how movie studios get around paying royalties by reducing the profits of a movie by paying surplus funds to separate company owned by the same owner.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Tacopuck

Fair point, but missing the pluralization doesn't mean explicitly she is referring to one hotel. It could be, but It could also have been a slip in her speech. Regardless the truth will come out once those payments to the US Treasury go on record.

Even if it is all hotels, that's still just one small portion of his business. And it's not the real issue, which is none of this prevents a conflict of interest on actions or decisions by Trump.

Not to mention the actual truth doesn't matter. If any media does actually bother to check down the road, it'll get printed in a newspaper, his supporters won't care, and the next tweet will jump to the front of the news cycle.

[HotHotHeat]

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/bbc...trump-dossier/

During a BBC 4 radio broadcast on Wednesday, Wood revealed that the former British spy was not the only source claiming to have knowledge that Russia is possession of sex tapes that could embarrass the president-elect.

“The rumors or the allegations or whatever you want to call them have been circulating for a number of months now,” Wood explained. “I saw the report, compiled by the former British intelligence officer, back in October. He is not, and this is the crucial thing, the only source for this.”

Wood said that he had been told by a member of the U.S. intelligence community that at least one East European intelligence service was aware “that the Russians had kompromat or compromising material on Mr. Trump.”

“It’s very, very difficult, of course, to talk to US intelligence people. They’re breaking the law if they talk to you,” the BBC correspondent pointed out. “But I did ask somebody with connections in the CIA to pass a message to them, and I got a message back that there was allegedly more than one tape, not just video, but audio as well, on more than one date, in more than one place, in both Moscow and St. Petersburg.”

Wood warned that “nobody should believe something just because an intelligence agent says it.”

He added: “But it is viewed as credible by the CIA, and that’s why it landed on President Obama’s desk last week, on the desk of the congressional leadership, and was given to Mr. Trump as well. And even congressional Republicans are talking about investigations, and Democrats, I know, are talking about impeachment.”

[rubecube]

Can't really be all that surprised when right-wing media pundits were so quick to dismiss Trump bragging about sexual assault as "locker room talk."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/b...ister=facebook

In the weeks after Roger Ailes was ousted as the chairman of Fox News in July amid a sexual harassment scandal, company executives secretly struck an agreement with a longtime broadcast personality who had come forward with similar accusations about the network’s top host, Bill O’Reilly.

The employee, Juliet Huddy, had said that Mr. O’Reilly pursued a sexual relationship with her in 2011, at a time he exerted significant influence over her career. When she rebuffed his advances, he tried to derail her career, according to a draft of a letter from her lawyers to Fox News that was obtained by The New York Times.

The letter includes allegations that Mr. O’Reilly had called Ms. Huddy repeatedly and that it sometimes sounded as if he was masturbating. He invited her to his house on Long Island, tried to kiss her, took her to dinner and the theater, and after asking her to return a key to his hotel room, appeared at the door in his boxer shorts, according to the letter.

In exchange for her silence and agreement not to sue, she was paid a sum in the high six figures, according to people briefed on the agreement. The agreement was between Ms. Huddy, 47, and 21st Century Fox, the parent company of Fox News. The company and Mr. O’Reilly’s lawyer said her allegations were false.

[photon]

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President-elect, can you stand here today, once and for all and say that no one connected to you or your campaign had any contact with Russia leading up to or during the presidential campaign. And if you do indeed believe that Russia was behind the hacking, what is your message to Vladimir Putin right now?

TRUMP: He shouldn’t be doing it. He won’t be doing it. Russia will have much greater respect for our country when I’m leading than when other people have led it. You will see that. Russia will respect our country more. He shouldn’t have done it. I don’t believe that he will be doing it more now.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Muta

LOL, I still can't believe Donald Trump is going to be the President of the United States, and represent them on the international stage for four years (if he makes it that long). He's going to get destroyed.

Well done America.

I don't know if the term is going to be destroyed. Based on America's play in terms of trade where they're running a trade deficit with most nations, and a huge one with China who's economy is really reliant on the Americans' buying their goods Trump and America have a large stick and they're going to play it.

If America decides to go protectionist or as Trump calls it, bring jobs back to America, India and China for example will see a great deal of harm done to their economy. If Trump says trade means trade and I'm sick of seeing Chinese freighters coming in full and going home empty, it will do real harm to the Chinese.

We can talk about the American's getting destroyed or crushed, but at the end of the day, the most significant damage will probably happen with America's relationship with their allies, but at the moment their relationships with Germany, Britain and Israel aren't exactly at a high point.

I tend to think that NATO is in significant trouble with Trump as a president. Other presidents have told NATO countries to pay their fair share under the agreement and been pretty much ignored. I'm pretty sure that Trump is going to put a great deal of pressure on NATO nations to increase their military spending and buy American gosh darnit, and I think that he will put a fairly big or else in their.

At the end of the day Trump is a weird mixture of isolationist and trader. I think he believes in trade agreements if in his mind they rightfully lean in the direction of American jobs. However I believe foreign policy wise he's going to have a simplified foreign policy or leave us alone, and we won't hit you with this enormous nuclear powered stick. But attack us or our interests or our allies interests and we will come down on you like the wrath of Xenu.

Its going to be interesting to see what happens over the next 4 years. I think that the landscape is going to change in terms of how America deals with friendly and unfriendly nations, and how American deal with Nations that Trump believes are taking advantage of the US's more easy tone especially in terms of trade.

Or he could hold a fourth of July celebration where he nukes Iran, North Korea and Iceland to the beat of a disco version of America the Beautiful.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/bbc...trump-dossier/

How can they impeach based on a rumor, which is what this is. The evidence is discussions with un named agents and there's no tape.

Unless they can produce actual witnesses and actual tapes isn't this all right now just witch hunting?

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Muta

LOL, I still can't believe Donald Trump is going to be the President of the United States, and represent them on the international stage for four years (if he makes it that long). He's going to get destroyed.

Well done America.

It's ridiculous, isn't it?

Picture him at a G8 meeting.

Picture him giving the State of the Union address.

It's ludicrous.

[HotHotHeat]

The Watergate building is on fire.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/lo...410422245.html

It.Never.Ends.

[photon]

Not sure why it won't embed.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

How can they impeach based on a rumor, which is what this is. The evidence is discussions with un named agents and there's no tape.

Unless they can produce actual witnesses and actual tapes isn't this all right now just witch hunting?

Obviously the intelligence community has evidence, otherwise they wouldn't take it to the President. You'll note it was comments from Reid during the election cycle about the seriousness of the allegations. He was the one with greatest access, so he should know. Trump may be the shortest serving President in history. 31 days is the record. Beat it Comacho! You know you want the record!

[Izzle]

Lol BBC... well done.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

How can they impeach based on a rumor, which is what this is. The evidence is discussions with un named agents and there's no tape.

Unless they can produce actual witnesses and actual tapes isn't this all right now just witch hunting?

If congress was motivated to, they definitely could, using the Clinton playbook: authorize the special counsel to conduct an investigation into Trump's russian ties; that leads to Trump being required to testify before a grand jury. Then ask Trump literally any question, and use the resulting lie as grounds for impeachment. You don't need a smoking gun: you just need an unpopular president who'd rather lie than lose face [check and check], grounds to investigate even without any sort of smoking gun [check], and a congress willing to take those steps[not yet, but give it a few months or a most a couple years].

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by New Era

Obviously the intelligence community has evidence, otherwise they wouldn't take it to the President. You'll note it was comments from Reid during the election cycle about the seriousness of the allegations. He was the one with greatest access, so he should know. Trump may be the shortest serving President in history. 31 days is the record. Beat it Comacho! You know you want the record!

Based on the past history of the US intelligence community that sometimes reads like a combination of mad magazine and mutt and jeff, I wouldn't be too sure about the contents of what they've taken to the president.

I'm not here to defend Trump, furthest thing from it actually, but I would assume the burden of proof to impeach a president is fairly high.

Unless they can produce the intelligence asset in open testimony or produce the tape, this is going to go nowhere.

[Tacopuck]

Originally Posted by Rathji

How do they determine what the profits are from renting a single/batch of hotel rooms/food/etc?

Seems like something that is very easy to get around, kind of like how movie studios get around paying royalties by reducing the profits of a movie by paying surplus funds to separate company owned by the same owner.

Originally Posted by photon

Even if it is all hotels, that's still just one small portion of his business. And it's not the real issue, which is none of this prevents a conflict of interest on actions or decisions by Trump.

Not to mention the actual truth doesn't matter. If any media does actually bother to check down the road, it'll get printed in a newspaper, his supporters won't care, and the next tweet will jump to the front of the news cycle.

Without seeing the actual pen to paper details myself (which I assume will be released seeing as they had them sitting there at the front of the press conference, or supposedly so) I cant comment any further regarding the details. I would hope ANY revenue from foreign state orgs (Rental in Trump Tower, Hotel stays, gov sponsored golf trips ect...) would goto the US treasury but again without knowing the exact details I'll reserve judgement.

[GGG]

It's interesting they use the word profit rather than revenue in regard to his hotels. He still benefits from people using his hotel at a break even basis.

Also asset appreciation would be a benefit though not directly from the foreign state.

[photon]

Even if all profit from any foreign state orgs goes into the US Treasury, that's still only a subset of the potential conflicts of interest.

[photon]

Kushner's plan to remove conflicts of interest: http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-c...tment-strategy

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by octothorp

If congress was motivated to, they definitely could, using the Clinton playbook: authorize the special counsel to conduct an investigation into Trump's russian ties; that leads to Trump being required to testify before a grand jury. Then ask Trump literally any question, and use the resulting lie as grounds for impeachment. You don't need a smoking gun: you just need an unpopular president who'd rather lie than lose face [check and check], grounds to investigate even without any sort of smoking gun [check], and a congress willing to take those steps[not yet, but give it a few months or a most a couple years].

Pretty much. All they need is Trump on the stand, and he'll either repeatedly commit perjury, or be honest which likely cooks him too. And when the intelligence community leaks the tax returns and exposes Trump even worse, there's likely nowhere to go at that point except removing him.