Senate Dems rolling out bill to force Trump to shed conflicts of interest

[mystery-ak]

Senate Dems rolling out bill to force Trump to shed conflicts of interest
By Jordain Carney - 12/15/16 10:53 AM EST

A group of Senate Democrats will introduce legislation requiring President-elect Donald Trump to divest any financial assets that pose a conflict of interest and place the money into a blind trust.
 
The bill would also consider any violation by Trump of conflict of interest or ethics laws a "high crime or misdemeanor under the impeachment clause of the U.S. constitution," according to a fact sheet on the forthcoming bill from Sen. Elizabeth Warren's office.
 
"The American people deserve to know that the President of the United States is working to do what's best for the country — not using his office to do what's best for himself and his businesses," the Massachusetts Democrat said.

more
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/310537-senate-dems-rolling-out-bill-to-force-trump-to-shed-conflicts-of

[thackney]

Senate Dems rolling out bill to force Trump to shed conflicts of interest
By Jordain Carney - 12/15/16 10:53 AM EST

A group of Senate Democrats will introduce legislation requiring President-elect Donald Trump to divest any financial assets that pose a conflict of interest and place the money into a blind trust.
 
The bill would also consider any violation by Trump of conflict of interest or ethics laws a "high crime or misdemeanor under the impeachment clause of the U.S. constitution," according to a fact sheet on the forthcoming bill from Sen. Elizabeth Warren's office.
 
"The American people deserve to know that the President of the United States is working to do what's best for the country — not using his office to do what's best for himself and his businesses," the Massachusetts Democrat said.

more
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/310537-senate-dems-rolling-out-bill-to-force-trump-to-shed-conflicts-of

I notice they want the restriction applied to Trump's 10 year old son, but not to themselves.

[libertybele]

Knowing Trump he's probably already one step ahead of them.  His son's are going to be running the businesses and he's sold off some stock; the most recent that I know of were those affiliated with the Dakota Access project.  He also has set up a blind trust.  I think Wigwam Warren is trying to look like she's right on top of things making sure the new President-elect doesn't pull some of the same crap as the current president.

[HonestJohn]

I notice they want the restriction applied to Trump's 10 year old son, but not to themselves.

That's because there are already conflict of interest laws on the books for Congress.  Those laws, however, did not include the Executive branch.

[bilo]

What a bunch of garbage. If liberals didn't have double standards they wouldn't have any standards.

There is no reason for a businessman to divest his interests if he assumes public office. If that person acts to his own benefit than he should be voted out of office. If he sells his office for personal gain he should go to jail. In Trump's case giving over control of the family business to his children until he is done serving should be sufficient.

[thackney]

That's because there are already conflict of interest laws on the books for Congress.  Those laws, however, did not include the Executive branch.

Lucky for Congress, Blatant Conflict of Interest Is Still Perfectly Legal
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/lucky-congress-blatant-conflict-interest-still-perfectly-legal/322790/

While insider trading is banned in Congress, it's still completely legal for lawmakers to sponsor bills that could benefit the businesses and industries or their family members have invested in, and according to The Washington Post, 73 congressmen and women have figured out how to use this loophole—a jump from the 16 they found when they published this study in February. In March, Congress passed a ban on insider trading after being embarrassed by 60 Minutes last November on the ways members had taken advantage of their information to trade stock on hot legislative tips. President Obama gave the practice mention in his State of the Union, and after some protests from members, some new rules went into effect like requirements to disclose stocks purchased on the Internet.

So no more sneaky legislators financially benefiting from legislation! Now, as The Washington Post's team of Kimberly Kindy, David Fallis, and Scott Higham explain, it's all about legislators blatantly benefiting from legislation. Due to the remaining loopholes, to name just one example, Rep. Mike Kelly, a Republican of Pennsylvania, was allowed to sponsor a natural gas bill the same month Exxon negotiated a multimillion-dollar deal with his wife. Across the aisle, former Rep. Dennis Cardozo, Democrat of California, helped pass a bill that involved tax breaks for racehorses and was then bought seven such racehorses when the new tax breaks came into effect.

[thackney]

That's because there are already conflict of interest laws on the books for Congress.  Those laws, however, did not include the Executive branch.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/trump-is-right-conflict-of-interest-rules-dont-apply-to-him/

In fact, 18 U.S.C. Section 202 specifically states, as relating to Section 208 which deals with financial interests:

“Except as otherwise provided in such sections, the terms ‘officer’ and ’employee’ in sections 203, 205, 207 through 209, and 218 of this title shall not include the President, the Vice President, a Member of Congress, or a Federal judge.”

The theory behind exempting the President and Vice President from this law is that they need to carry out their constitutional duties without legal restraints.