How Trump fused his business empire to the presidency

We all knew this was happening … here it is in print.

Scotties Toy Box

He has spent one out of every three days as president visiting one of his luxury resorts, hotels or golf courses. He has leveraged his powerful international platform to promote his developments dozens of times. And he has directed millions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers to his businesses around the globe.

Trump’s early decision to maintain his grip on his sprawling real estate empire — despite his pledge to put his business aside while in the White House — has created a vast web of potential conflicts of interest, accusations about his policies being driven by his business interests and even possible violations of the law, according to documents and interviews.

The intersections between Trump Inc. and President Trump are everywhere: A Chinese state-owned company was awarded a multimillion dollar contract to help develop a Trump golf course in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, amid a U.S.-China trade war. T-Mobile…

View original post 426 more words

7 thoughts on “How Trump fused his business empire to the presidency

  1. The man is an out and out crook. It’s no wonder he refuses to reveal his tax details. The emoluments clause is in the constitution for a reason, it shouldn’t be ignored so blatantly or be allowed to be ignored at all. Why is this not part of the impeachment?


    • Why indeed! If push came to shove, he could be impeached on DOZENS of things he’s done! But his lackeys in the Senate keep ignoring/covering up/denying all his wrongdoings.

      How did we come to this in America??!?!


      • How did we get here? By too many people forgetting to align actions with principle.

        I know when I mention principles as the guiding framework into which actions and policies can then be measured, compared, and contrasted, you think I’m talking airy-fairy stuff but this approach really is the foundation for ethical behaviour by each and every voter based on defensible morality. Remove the principle framework, remove ethical behaviour. Night follows day.

        If principles are not the FIRST consideration, then we get only reactions in behaviour and policies, always responding after the fact rather than proposing responsible planning and acting with foresight. Without the public demanding a framework of principles first in politics, that means we get a bunch of partisan followers and set the conditions for a bunch of Trump-like leaders to rise to power who can use and abuse public office and rely on unprincipled support from minions, and that is EXACTLY what we have now: a partisan landscape of followers and unprincipled leaders accountable only to themselves and their own rationalizations. Everything is equivalent to everything else and accountability no longer matters.

        Liked by 2 people

        • I’m assuming you’re using “principles” as the justification for doing something … as in “planning and acting with foresight.” (Of course in the case of the current leader, he fails to demonstrate another meaning — the rule or standard of good behavior.)

          But more to the point — isn’t the Constitution essentially made up of “principles”? IOW, if our elected leaders would focus more of their attention on the standards put forth in that written document, we might have a more equitably run country.

          One thing seems certain — we wouldn’t have a Congress that allows a POTUS to essentially enrich himself and his family while in office.


          • Yes, the Constitution is very much a principled document concerned not just with with specific rights and freedoms and power distribution but describes what makes it’s authority of public offices like the Presidency legitimate and binding. It is this latter part that has been widely attacked/forgotten/dismissed/abused by generations of office holders held to no account by voters, and disregarded by much of the media, but it is central to the resurfacing of why the impeachment process is both necessary and important.

            If this Congressional process does not succeed to gain a vote of impeachment from the Senate, then I dare any Republican partisan supporter to explain the Constitutional difference between (and protection from) the next Trumpwannabe-as-President and acting as the Trumpwannabe-as-King. That’s the real issue here – whether the elected representatives uphold legitimate authority or go along with exercise of illegitimate authority. These Trump Senators are waving away this permanent legitimacy and substituting temporary rationalizations. They are not acting as US senators representing the country here nor upholding their oath of office, nor upholding their oath to participate with legitimate authority during the impeachment process, nor are they upholding the Constitution that disallows the President from acting contrary to Congress, but are acting as agents of a clear and present danger to it by their partisanship allegiance to Trump in direct contradiction to its stated principles, that is to say, acting as an ‘enemy domestic’ to the Constitution). This kind of partisanship allegiance in the extreme falls under the category of treason but at the very least is an abdication of responsibility that accompanies the office of Senator and so the voting they do is in fact a Constitutionally illegitimate because it does not have the authority from the Constitution to abdicate their duty to country. That’s why this rising and risible partisanship throughout the political sphere from all sides is anti-American to its core.

            Liked by 2 people

            • Wouldn’t it be great, after the Senate has presented their “case(?),” that SCJ Roberts would essentially repeat what you just wrote? Especially that last part.


            • In the same way religious people (especially in the military or judiciary) who put obeying their religious doctrine above obeying the Constitution should be called out publicly for their anti-Americanism, so too should politicians. I think they should be stripped of Office at a minimum as an oath-breaker.

              Liked by 2 people

Don't Be Shy -- Tell Us What You Think!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.