Trump children's roles blur line between transition, company

[webfact]

Trump children's roles blur line between transition, company

By JONATHAN LEMIRE

 

NEW YORK (AP) — Nearly every morning since their father's stunning victory on Election Day, three of Donald Trump's grown children walk through the Trump Tower lobby and board an elevator. But are Don Jr., Ivanka and Eric going to the campaign office on the fifth floor? Their business offices on the 25th floor? The president-elect's penthouse on the 56th floor?

 

That uncertainty highlights the multiple roles the children play for their father. For the past year, the lines were constantly blurred between political campaign and business empire, raising questions about a possible conflict of interest between Trump's White House and his sprawling business interests.

 

The children are poised to wield incredible influence over their father, even if they don't follow him to Washington. Trump said consistently during the campaign that if he won, those children would stay in New York and run his business. But the three — plus Ivanka's husband, Jared Kushner — were all named to the transition team's executive committee.

 

So far, they've been heavily involved in shaping the new administration. They've sat in on meetings and taken late night calls from their father. They advocated for making Reince Priebus, the Republican National Committee chairman, the White House chief of staff. They counseled against bringing back Corey Lewandowski, Trump's first campaign manager, who was fired in June on their advice.

 

On Thursday, Ivanka Trump and Kushner were present for the president-elect's meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe at Trump Tower.

 

Trump has insisted he will build a wall between his White House and his company by placing his holdings into a blind trust, but with his children as its trustees. Federal requirements are that independent outsiders run such trusts.

 

"We are in the process of vetting various structures with the goal of the immediate transfer of management of The Trump Organization and its portfolio of businesses to Donald Jr., Ivanka and Eric Trump as well as a team of highly skilled executives," Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks said. She said the structure "will comply with all applicable rules and regulations."

 

Trump's company would be the largest business portfolio to belong to a modern sitting president. Federal ethics rules would allow Trump to run his business interests from the White House, or, perhaps more likely, influence decisions made by his children.

 

That raises conflict of interest concerns. For example, Trump could set domestic policy while making deals abroad that could affect his corporation, even if it were technically in his children's hands.

 

Kellyanne Conway, a senior adviser, disputed the idea that the Trump children's involvement in the transition could lead to a breach of trust.

 

"You're presuming that they are doing certain things that they should not be doing," Conway said. "They are his children. And they've been his business colleagues for a long period of time. They obviously will support their father as president."

 

But the potentially problematic entanglement revealed itself this past week when Ivanka Trump's company promoted a $10,800 bracelet she wore during a "60 Minutes" interview on CBS. The spokeswoman for the company later apologized.

 

The children — they were not made available for interviews — are limited in what formal role they could take in a Trump administration.

 

Congress passed an anti-nepotism law in 1967 that prohibits the president from appointing a family member to work in the office or agency they oversee. The measure was passed as a reaction to President John F. Kennedy appointing his brother Robert as attorney general.

 

But the law does not appear to prevent the children — or Kushner, who is one of Trump's closest aides and is said to be weighing a White House role — from serving as unpaid advisers or providing informal counsel.

 

The three grown children — their mother is Ivana Trump, Trump's first wife — delivered well-received speeches at this summer's Republican National Convention in which they tried to humanize their father.

 

Don Jr. and Eric were staples on conservative radio and on the road, trekking to campaign offices and small rallies across battleground states like Ohio and North Carolina. Ivanka Trump, meanwhile, was utilized in some of the campaign's biggest moments, including introducing her father before his convention speech, unveiling his family leave plan and campaigning across the crucial Philadelphia suburbs.

 

Another daughter, Tiffany Trump, a recent college graduate whose mother is Trump's second wife, Marla Maples, also made appearances on her father's behalf. Trump's youngest child, 10-year-old Barron, whose mother is the president-elect's current wife, Melania, is enrolled at a private Manhattan school. Trump on Sunday told reporters that Mrs. Trump and their son will move to Washington after the school year ends.

 

For the three eldest Trump kids, there were bumps in the road.

 

Eric and Ivanka were the subject of some embarrassing headlines when it was revealed that they were not registered to vote in time for their father in the New York primary. An African big-game safari Eric and Don Jr. took drew criticism from animal rights activists. And Don Jr. has received criticism for tweeting images likening Syrian refugees to a poisoned bowl of Skittles candy and a cartoon character appropriated by white supremacists.

 

But now they stand poised to be the most influential presidential children in decades, as recent White House offspring have been far younger than the eldest Trump children, who are all in their 30s. During the campaign, Eric Trump insisted that the children's main focus "was the company," but "we'd always be one phone call away" if needed, the younger Trump told The Associated Press in May. "We'd do anything for the man."

 

-- © Associated Press 2016-11-21

[craigt3365]

This is really bothersome.  Look at the pictures here:

http://qz.com/841160/ivanka-and-donald-trump-and-shinzo-abes-meeting-isnt-the-only-reason-these-photos-are-problematic/?utm_source=YPL&yptr=yahoo

[NumbNut]

Yes it is a worrying sign, further explored in the clip below.

 

 

And it looks like Ivanka is getting a little bit of strategic 'product placement' happening... you go girl!

 

Ivanka's Jewellery Ad

 

Seems pretty straight forward to me. This kind of caper might fly in some benighted third world banana republic maybe, but surely not in any first world country.

[ClutchClark]

One source hinted to the New York Times, Trump’s team may not be aware of the ethical pitfalls that he and his family keep charging toward:

“Mr. Trump has always encouraged Ivanka and his children to attend meetings with him,” the person close to the family said. “This meeting in question was very informal. However, they obviously need to adjust to the new realities at hand, which they will.”

The GOP handlers have no doubt been exploring how to "fit" all of this together.

 

Obviously, having never held public office means this is new territory to Trump and he will bristle at a loss of authority on his business enterprises; however, this has been a "known" factor from the start and it will be resolved by handlers, accountants, attorneys and a PR firm to make sure the rules are complied with.

 

Lets face it, all politicians have these conflicting interests and have long ago figured out how to give the appearance they are complying...regardless of whether they actually are.

 

 

[NumbNut]

^

 

The "appearance they are complying" is called a Blind Trust, as noted in the OP.

 

Here's Don junior trying to misunderstand what a Blind Trust is:-  

 

 

Not a good look!

 

Do they really think that average Americans folks will think this is acceptable behaviour?

Edited November 21, 2016 by NumbNut

[helpisgood]

56 minutes ago, NumbNut said:

^

 

The "appearance they are complying" is called a Blind Trust, as noted in the OP.

 

Here's Don junior trying to misunderstand what a Blind Trust is:-  

 

 

Not a good look!

 

Do they really think that average Americans folks will think this is acceptable behaviour?

 

You're right!

You do not need to be a legal expert, only someone with  a modicum of common sense, to know that Don, Jr. is not describing a blind trust.  Sure, like the kids will not tell Daddy when a significant sum of their money is being affected by what Daddy does, or does not do, in the Oval Office.  

Another related point is that even if we naively say that there is some truth with what Don, Jr. is saying, the mere obvious appearance of such a conflict of interest will reflect poorly on the new presidency.  And, is that not from the same camp that loudly accused Hillary Clinton of having conflicts of interests with Wall Street banks and those donating to the Clinton Foundation?

The scarier part is that they are willing to go on a major network and state that the very obvious conflict of interest does not exist.  Reading between the lines, they are essentially saying, "Yeah, we know we are not supposed to do that, but what are you going to do about it?"

 

So much for "draining the swamp," well at least not the Trump swamp.

 

[bassman]

Following all the corruption in the Obama administration, [such as:  the pay for play at State and Clinton foundation; the "accidental meeting" of the AG and Bill during the security investigation of Hillary's many breaches of national security; the IRS debacle with Obama's illegal attack on conservative organizations; and the most famous saying by the current administrations top appointments: "I decline to answer that question on the advice of lawyers and take the 5th amendment."],  I say America is tired of corruption and Trump does need to distance himself from the Trump Organization while president.

 

Time to drain the swamp for real, Americans seen the most corrupted government ever in US history and the next president needs to heed to "enough is enough"

[Prbkk]

Extraordinary that the son in law was at the meeting with Abe. The arrogance of this mob will see them fall from grace in very short order. 

[kamahele]

11 minutes ago, bassman said:

Following all the corruption in the Obama administration, [such as:  the pay for play at State and Clinton foundation; the "accidental meeting" of the AG and Bill during the security investigation of Hillary's many breaches of national security; the IRS debacle with Obama's illegal attack on conservative organizations; and the most famous saying by the current administrations top appointments: "I decline to answer that question on the advice of lawyers and take the 5th amendment."],  I say America is tired of corruption and Trump does need to distance himself from the Trump Organization while president.

 

Time to drain the swamp for real, Americans seen the most corrupted government ever in US history and the next president needs to heed to "enough is enough"

Actually there has been no corruption in the Obama administration. It was and is the cleanest administration in modern history. Take a look at previous presidencies of both parties. You'll find the Obama administration the cleanest and most scandal free of any in my lifetime at least and that is half a century. Stop listening to right wing propaganda and do some real research.

[ClutchClark]

9 minutes ago, helpisgood said:

 

You're right!

You do not need to be a legal expert, only someone with  a modicum of common sense, to know that Don, Jr. is not describing a blind trust.  Sure, like the kids will not tell Daddy when a significant sum of their money is being affected by what Daddy does, or does not do, in the Oval Office.  

Another related point is that even if we naively say that there is some truth with what Don, Jr. is saying, the mere obvious appearance of such a conflict of interest will reflect poorly on the new presidency.  And, is that not from the same camp that loudly accused Hillary Clinton of having conflicts of interests with Wall Street banks and those donating to the Clinton Foundation?

The scarier part is that they are willing to go on a major network and state that the very obvious conflict of interest does not exist.  Reading between the lines, they are essentially saying, "Yeah, we know we are not supposed to do that, but what are you going to do about it?"

 

So much for "draining the swamp," well at least not the Trump swamp.

 

 

Whoa. Just slow down Cowboy.

 

President-Elect Trump has not been sworn in yet and this is a new type of obstacle facing this First Family since in recent memory, all newly elected POTUS have been career politicians and long since learned how to exploit the "Blind" Trust.

 

To use your words, it does not take much common sense to know that politicians have always known how legislation will influence their investments. In fact, its common practice for politicians to trade in stocks of companies that they have legislative influence over. Republicans have always known this and it has always turned our stomach. I had assumed Democrats knew of these long-standing practices as well so I am surprised you have not mentioned them. 

 

I do get a chuckle over the fact you have already written off his time as office as having failed to drain the swamp. Perhaps your Liberal friends and yourself can atleast wait until his actual first day in office to condemn his entire term.

 

Just for appearance sake of being open-minded.

[louse1953]

1 hour ago, NumbNut said:

^

 

The "appearance they are complying" is called a Blind Trust, as noted in the OP.

 

Here's Don junior trying to misunderstand what a Blind Trust is:-  

 

 

Not a good look!

 

Do they really think that average Americans folks will think this is acceptable behaviour?

55,Jnr said trust me.He does not and will not understand "blind trust."

[ClutchClark]

6 minutes ago, kamahele said:

Take a look at previous presidencies of both parties. You'll find the Obama administration the cleanest and most scandal free of any in my lifetime at least and that is half a century.

 

Lets see, the ACA was written by and for the medical industry and a scandal to ALL working Americans.

 

He single-handedly started a new "race" war...well, Holder did lend an important hand.

 

Please do remember that Benghazi was as much Obama's fiasco as it was hill's...and Americans died.

 

Please do not attempt to white wash our first black POTUS.

 

 

[NumbNut]

Clutch, Trump and family have to hit the ground running.  All this talk of 'draining the swamp' has left him precious little wriggle room. 

 

It will be interesting to see how this plays out up to the inauguration 

 

[helpisgood]

10 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Whoa. Just slow down Cowboy.

 

President-Elect Trump has not been sworn in yet and this is a new type of obstacle facing this First Family since in recent memory, all newly elected POTUS have been career politicians and long since learned how to exploit the "Blind" Trust.

 

To use your words, it does not take much common sense to know that politicians have always known how legislation will influence their investments. In fact, its common practice for politicians to trade in stocks of companies that they have legislative influence over. Republicans have always known this and it has always turned our stomach. I had assumed Democrats knew of these long-standing practices as well so I am surprised you have not mentioned them. 

 

I do get a chuckle over the fact you have already written off his time as office as having failed to drain the swamp. Perhaps your Liberal friends and yourself can atleast wait until his actual first day in office to condemn his entire term.

 

Just for appearance sake of being open-minded.

 

I am not a liberal and have not condemned his entire term. 

 

Why should I mention the Democrats?  I am not a Democrat.  It is also irrelevant to my points unless you are playing "my team against your team."  Regardless of what Democrats have done in the past, their actions do not affect my points in the least.

 

"A new type of obstacle"?  I don't get that.  The issue is simple, and I am sure that their camp had figured it out before Don, Jr. got on the air with his statement.   

 

I think you are the one without an open mind on this issue.  

Edited November 21, 2016 by helpisgood
grammar

[Scott]

An off-topic, troll post has been removed.   Continue and you will face suspension.  

 

It's a good idea to read a post before posting, instead of reading a lot into it.  

 

 

[ClutchClark]

11 minutes ago, helpisgood said:

 

The issue is simple, and I am sure that their camp had figured it out before Don, Jr. got on the air with his statement.   

 

 

 

The issue is "simple" but any intelligent person understands that the application of the issue is not.

Why don't you take a chill pill and see what develops between now and when he actually takes office.

 

When obama won in 2008, I gave the man the benefit of the doubt for quite a long time...until the ACA actually.

 

Edited November 21, 2016 by ClutchClark

[bark]

2 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

The issue is "simple" but any intelligent person understands that the application of the issue is not.

Why don't you take a chill pill and see what develops between now and when he actually takes office.

 

When obama won in 2008, I gave the man the benefit of the doubt for quite a long time...until the ACA actually.

You look like a person that loves to turn a conversation into bickering so that silence you hear after reading this is the result of me having already left the discussion.

Yes I agree with you. Cheers.

[wanderluster]

oh this is going to be an interesting and or entertaining 4 yrs

[helpisgood]

10 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

The issue is "simple" but any intelligent person understands that the application of the issue is not.

Why don't you take a chill pill and see what develops between now and when he actually takes office.

 

When obama won in 2008, I gave the man the benefit of the doubt for quite a long time...until the ACA actually.

 

 

Who are you kidding?

 

We are talking about the video of Don, Jr., right?  He stated that the kids would be running the business while Daddy is president.  Very simply, that is a conflict of interest if not at the very least, as I had stated, the obvious appearance of one.  So, why wait for "what develops" when Don, Jr. has announced what has been decided.  Am I supposed to wait to see if they really didn't mean it?  I’m sorry, but that’s doesn't make any sense.   

 

Before Don, Jr. went on the air on a major network to talk about what to do with Trump's business and money, I am sure that the Trump camp thought through what he would say and its affect.  It is that simple.  So, why wait?

   

Your Obama reference is an obvious false analogy.  You have stated that you gave the candidate himself "the benefit of the doubt" while I am referring to one decision by Trump and his camp. 

 

And, yet again, you really like to play "my team against your team" instead of truly addressing the issue.   

 

 

[boomerangutang]

I'll say it again, as this is the best I can characterize it:

 

If someone was casting a movie and needed two Nazi SS guards to watch over a concentration camp, Trump's two sons would get the parts without even auditioning.  

 

 

[JLCrab]

So maybe this is a new way to conduct foreign diplomacy: Just tell any visiting head-of-state that  if he or she cuts back the US foreign aid they receive by 10%, the head-of-state and their entourage will get 5 free nights at the Trump International Hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue WashDC right near the White House.

[ilostmypassword]

3 hours ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Lets see, the ACA was written by and for the medical industry and a scandal to ALL working Americans.

 

He single-handedly started a new "race" war...well, Holder did lend an important hand.

 

Please do remember that Benghazi was as much Obama's fiasco as it was hill's...and Americans died.

 

Please do not attempt to white wash our first black POTUS.

 

 

This is about conflict of interest. Not policy matters.

[elgordo38]

After all they are Trumps fame and the right to make your own laws will soon make the cream float to the top. 

[ClutchClark]

4 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

I'll say it again, as this is the best I can characterize it:

 

If someone was casting a movie and needed two Nazi SS guards to watch over a concentration camp, Trump's two sons would get the parts without even auditioning.  

 

 

 

And you don't see the racism in your comment?

 

 

[WaywardWind]

5 hours ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Lets see, the ACA was written by and for the medical industry and a scandal to ALL working Americans.

 

He single-handedly started a new "race" war...well, Holder did lend an important hand.

 

Please do remember that Benghazi was as much Obama's fiasco as it was hill's...and Americans died.

 

Please do not attempt to white wash our first black POTUS.

 

 

This is absolute nonsense.

 

The original universal health care bill proposed by the administration was a single-payer program - health care would be financed by payroll deductions in much the same fashion as Medicare, and which has worked in other countries. The insurance industry went to work with their Republican sycophants in the Congress, and that plan went nowhere. The net attempt gave the lion's share of premiums to the insurance industry, but even that was not enough, as the legislation contained a public option provision, whereby people could choose to have a policy through the government. That plan was dropped. Then the ACA, which was designed by Republicans and championed by Romney, and gives all of the insurance premiums to insurance companies, passed muster with the Republicans in Congress.

 

Obama started a race war? That's crap. He did everything he could to bring people together, but a segment of the American population was having none of it, and were horrified that a black man occupied the White House.

And finally Benghazi.  After 5, count them, 5 investigations by the Republicans in the Senate and the House, the end result was an admission that nothing could have been done by the administration nor our military to save the Ambassador and the other three individuals.

 

Try turning off Fox News and then download the reports and read them.  Hundreds of pages, but well worth the effort.

[derator01]

Several inappropriate posts have been removed from view.  No more disrespectful posts like that, please.

[KBsinter]

5 hours ago, Prbkk said:

Extraordinary that the son in law was at the meeting with Abe. The arrogance of this mob will see them fall from grace in very short order. 

 

 

And I for one thought ABE is a very good P.M................LOL

[KBsinter]

"Blind trust" Hypocrisy, when you know what horse won

or will win,how can you lose,look at the Clintons,"jeese"

[Morch]

5 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

I'll say it again, as this is the best I can characterize it:

 

If someone was casting a movie and needed two Nazi SS guards to watch over a concentration camp, Trump's two sons would get the parts without even auditioning.  

 

 

 

OT & OTT in one stroke, well done. This is why we can't have nice things.

[boomerangutang]

what's OT and OTT ?   ....off topic, and over the top?