Trump and emoluments thread

[T.Lex]

I think this came up back during the campaign, but I couldn't find an unlocked-thread on point.

First, this news story:

Trump Organization orders presidential seal replicas for golf courses: Report - ABC News

A Trump golf course has, apparently, ordered Presidential Seal golf tee box markers (from an Indiana company).

Oh. But there may be a constitutional problem. Emoluments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_of_Nobility_Clause

Now, probably not in this instance, as it appears that the profiteering would not come from a foreign state, but from his own businesses.

But a more basic question is whether a POTUS should be "allowed" to profit from simply being POTUS, while they are POTUS. After their time in office is over, sure - they can profit from speaking and authoring and whatever.

Do we think it is ok to do this while actually in office, though?

On a related note, while there is no recent reporting on it (that I could find), Trump has apparently not put his assets in a blind trust. For all we know, he can see the impact of his decisions on his own corporate bottom line whenever he wants.

 

[BugI02]

Good heavens, that's tacky. Doesn't the government control its trademarks in any way? Is he trying to insinuate that the course is Presidentially approved (technically correct in this case, I guess)?

It has the feel of those letters issued by The Crown designating HM's approval of certain commercial products. Tone deaf. I wish I could say I was shocked

On the blind trust thing, not sure if it was a response to the usual overreach. As I recall people wanted him to sell his intersts in Trump branded properties because they would benefit from the mere fact of his name. If your opponents in a legal wrangle make it plain that no amount of compromise or concession will ever be sufficient, why even start down that road. I would expect those that think the law clearly compels certain behavior by him would want such questions decided in court, especially lawyers
Has anyone threatened legal action?

 

[T.Lex]

Good heavens, that's tacky. Doesn't the government control its trademarks in any way? Is he trying to insinuate that the course is Presidentially approved (technically correct in this case, I guess)?

Short answer on the IP issue is: no. The gov't actually can't take out trademarks on its emblems. But, it can prevent others from using them because they are "official." Keep in mind, trademark law is intended to allow artists/owners to profit on their work.

It has the feel of those letters issued by The Crown designating HM's approval of certain commercial products. Tone deaf. I wish I could say I was shocked

There is a system that allows the POTUS (I think only him) to allow the use of the seal, but it has to go through a rule-making process.

On the blind trust thing, not sure if it was a response to the usual overreach. As I recall people wanted him to sell his intersts in Trump branded properties because they would benefit from the mere fact of his name. If your opponents in a legal wrangle make it plain that no amount of compromise or concession will ever be sufficient, why even start down that road. I would expect that think the law clearly compels certain behavior by him would want such questions decided in court, especially lawyers
Has anyone threatened legal action?

I've lost track. Probably.

I have never taken the position that he's required to divest in his own companies. Rather, my point has always been that he should put his assets in a trust, to be managed without any knowledge or oversight by him. Then, after he leaves office, he gets them back in whatever value they have.

It is a check/balance to have trust that he's making decisions for the best interest of the country, not his own self interests.

 

[BugI02]

Well, we both know how hard it is to get Trump to do what's reasonable, traditional or expected. What little I recall of the controversy, it wasn't like he had a lot of stock in third party companies that he could simply engage an investment company to manage opaquely. I don't recall the people pressing the issue as being willing to acknowledge that his business interests were unique, either. The goal of much of the dust up seemed to be the usual; generate bad press for Trump and inflict as much economic pain as possible if he complied. When the issues are structured that way, I expect that Trump's reaction would be "**** you, let's see you make me" nor would mine be any different

I would support some sort of dispassionate arbiter of the problem (and it is a problem), but in the partisan [STRIKE]US[/STRIKE] world of today, where would you ever find one? King Solomon is no longer taking new business

 

[BugI02]

Lex, do you let your financial advisor trade your account (as in, as he sees fit without consulting you)? I do not, and cannot imagine the level of trust it would take for Trump to do the same. So I sympathize

 

[T.Lex]

Well, we both know how hard it is to get Trump to do what's reasonable, traditional or expected. What little I recall of the controversy, it wasn't like he had a lot of stock in third party companies that he could simply engage an investment company to manage opaquely. I don't recall the people pressing the issue as being willing to acknowledge that his business interests were unique, either. The goal of much of the dust up seemed to be the usual; generate bad press for Trump and inflict as much economic pain as possible if he complied. When the issues are structured that way, I expect that Trump's reaction would be "**** you, let's see you make me" nor would mine be any different

I would support some sort of dispassionate arbiter of the problem (and it is a problem), but in the partisan [STRIKE]US[/STRIKE] world of today, where would you ever find one? King Solomon is no longer taking new business

No. No arbiter is necessary.

Some things are just obviously the right thing to do.

This is one of them.

There are many permutations of this that would work. Like I said, liquidation isn't necessary. But, it is simple enough to assign his interests to a trust, or several - since his investments span the globe.

There would be some complexities, but it does not appear that he is even aware of the conflict of interest, let alone interested in resolving it.

In fact, if this latest hubris is true, he seems intent on maximizing the personal value of his role as POTUS.

Lex, do you let your financial advisor trade your account (as in, as he sees fit without consulting you)? I do not, and cannot imagine the level of trust it would take for Trump to do the same. So I sympathize

Neither of us are POTUS.

You and I (I expect) manage what investments we have to maximize them. We probably even structure our lives to maximize the value of our investments (both earthly and otherwise).

I would be profoundly angry if our POTUS followed the same course.

N.B. I have absolute faith in my 2 primary financial advisors. They both are diligent about following the letter and spirit of the regulations and best practices involved. But, they also know my risk tolerance and if they thought there was a deal to be had that I would agree with, we basically have standing instructions to take certain actions.

 

[cordex]

Short answer on the IP issue is: no. The gov't actually can't take out trademarks on its emblems. But, it can prevent others from using them because they are "official." Keep in mind, trademark law is intended to allow artists/owners to profit on their work.

How does the Marine Corps do it?
DivPA Marine Corps Trademark Licensing Program

 

[BugI02]

I was just running a search to see what requirements there were for Presidential action (as I didn't know); if I read the results correctly, none of the actions being called for are statutorily required. Like the release of tax returns, it is basically traditional.
This excerpt from a Forbes article seems to lay it all out nicely

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jennif...decessors-did-with-their-assets/#1d197b5d29c0
Why Trump Won't Use A Blind Trust And What His Predecessors Did With Their Assets

The wealthiest Commander-in-Chief in American history will be exempt from conflict of interest statutes and most prohibitions against gifts (as are all U.S. presidents and vice presidents), so nothing stops Trump from maintaining the status quo and running his business from the White House. He’ll have to file a Federal Elections Committee disclosure document annually, which lists his assets and income. Tax returns, which Trump has steadfastly refused to release, do not have to be made available to the public.


The Donald, who listed roughly 500 companies (some operational, some defunct) on his latest FEC filing, including ones for his new Washington D.C. hotel and Scotland golf resorts, has expressed multiple times that he will walk away from his businesses to focus on his presidential duties. Longtime counsel Michael Cohen recently told CNN that the Trump Organization chairman will sever all connections and put his assets into a blind trust, leaving them for his three oldest children -- Donald Jr., Ivanka and Eric -- to manage.

However, that’s not as easy as it sounds. “You typically cannot simply transfer existing assets into a blind trust. As a practical matter it’s likely a complete non-starter,” says Leslie Kiernan, a partner at law firm Akin Gump and a former Deputy White House Counsel under President Barack Obama. For the trust owner to be truly “blind” to his portfolio, the assets typically have to be liquidated first, Kiernan says. The cash can then be funneled into the trust, to be managed by an independent trustee approved by the Office of Government Ethics. Trump would not receive any information on what has been bought or sold with his money, though he could get reports on how much income the portfolio generated as a whole.


This means the New York billionaire would have to sell prized properties like Manhattan’s Trump Tower or Palm Beach’s Mar-a-Lago, and give control of his company to a virtual stranger instead of his children. Moreover, some of his holdings, such as his 30% stake in two office towers majority owned by real estate investment firm Vornado, cannot be sold unless he acquires his partner’s consent.

I get that you think it would be the right thing to do to give people the confidence Trump is not conducting affairs of state for personal gain. The problem is that 40% of the public or so already believe this, and 50% or so will never believe it - so the supposed reasoning is specious

Now that I know he is not breaking any laws by doing it, I'm even more firmly in the **** it corner. The legal complexities and financial losses would only amount to virtue signaling to people who will never admit to the possibilty of Trump virtue. Cost/benefit analysis is a mere formality

Oh, and from the same Forbes article

Outside of the blind trusts that held their investments, the Bushes and Clintons kept personal real estate, cash accounts, life insurance, bonds and mutual funds. The Obamas bucked the trend when they decided against using blind trusts, but their mix of bank accounts, treasury notes, index funds and college savings was unlikely to pose a direct conflict of interest.

 

[T.Lex]

How does the Marine Corps do it?
DivPA Marine Corps Trademark Licensing Program

That's a great question.

I'm familiar with other .gov entities that have affiliated support groups, like a Chamber of Commerce or a Foundation that actually hold the IP and license it.

Here's an outline of what I was familiar with:
PUBLIC LAW: Lanham Act's Prohibition of Trademarking Governmental Insignia Applies Even to the Governmental Entity Itself

 

[T.Lex]

I was just running a search to see what requirements there were for Presidential action (as I didn't know); if I read the results correctly, none of the actions being called for are statutorily required. Like the release of tax returns, it is basically traditional.
This excerpt from a Forbes article seems to lay it all out nicely

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jennif...decessors-did-with-their-assets/#1d197b5d29c0
Why Trump Won't Use A Blind Trust And What His Predecessors Did With Their Assets

I see where you got the idea of complete liquidation. That's beyond a reasonable expectation.

I get that you think it would be the right thing to do to give people the confidence Trump is not conducting affairs of state for personal gain. The problem is that 40% of the public or so already believe this, and 50% or so will never believe it - so the supposed reasoning is specious

Absolutely not. If you're referring to the election stats, that was before he was POTUS.

If you're not talking about that, then I'm curious which camp you fall into.

Now that I know he is not breaking any laws by doing it, I'm even more firmly in the **** it corner. The legal complexities and financial losses would only amount to virtue signaling to people who will never admit to the possibilty of Trump virtue. Cost/benefit analysis is a mere formality

What? That's really absurd.

Actually being virtuous is now virtue signalling?

Is it your position, now, that we ought not expect our POTUS to have allegiance to the benefit of the nation above his own benefit?

Oh, and from the same Forbes article

Outside of the blind trusts that held their investments, the Bushes and Clintons kept personal real estate, cash accounts, life insurance, bonds and mutual funds. The Obamas bucked the trend when they decided against using blind trusts, but their mix of bank accounts, treasury notes, index funds and college savings was unlikely to pose a direct conflict of interest.

So, is it fair to expect at least meeting the same level as the worst president in my lifetime (maybe ever)? At this point, Trump's not even meeting THAT ethical low bar.

 

[T.Lex]

How does the Marine Corps do it?
DivPA Marine Corps Trademark Licensing Program

Ah, according to this doc:
https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/D...of seals logos insignia medals-16 Oct 15F.PDF

There are other regulations/laws that give the DOD trademark rights. I did not know that.

 

[printcraft]

But a more basic question is whether a POTUS should be "allowed" to profit from simply being POTUS, while they are POTUS. After their time in office is over, sure - they can profit from speaking and authoring and whatever.

No. Across the board, this includes all politicians.

If a senator or congressman becomes a multi millionaire while serving on a $175,000 salary well, it looks bad at a minimum.
Are they just really that much better at investment than everyone else?
Or is their some "squid pro quo" going on?
I'm not sure since hillary clinton can take $10,000 in cattle futures and turn it into $100,000 in seven months.....

 

[T.Lex]

No. Across the board, this includes all politicians.

If a senator or congressman becomes a multi millionaire while serving on a $175,000 salary well, it looks bad at a minimum.
Are they just really that much better at investment than everyone else?
Or is their some "squid pro quo" going on?
I'm not sure since hillary clinton can take $10,000 in cattle futures and turn it into $100,000 in seven months.....

Yeah, there does seem to be something magical that happens when people get elected to Congress. They are supposed to be more impaired in terms of investing, but they somehow leave with more than they went in with.

So would using the POTUS seal as advertising for Trump's personal businesses be a problem for you?

 

[printcraft]

Yeah, there does seem to be something magical that happens when people get elected to Congress. They are supposed to be more impaired in terms of investing, but they somehow leave with more than they went in with.

So would using the POTUS seal as advertising for Trump's personal businesses be a problem for you?

Yes.

 

[T.Lex]

Yes.

Wow.

We agree.

How freaky is that?

(One of us is probably wrong.)

 

[Trigger Time]

I think this is a TERRIBLE idea. Whether it's constitutionaly legal or not it sends a very bad image or message

 

[T.Lex]

I think this is a TERRIBLE idea. Whether it's constitutionaly legal or not it sends a very bad image or message

Ok.

I'm officially freaking out a little bit now.

Just to be clear, I'm pretty sure this use of the POTUS seal is neither unconstitutional nor illegal. I'm not even sure it is unethical (in the legal sense), since I think POTUS is exempt from many of the ethical standards imposed on federal employees.

 

[Trigger Time]

It's just a bad idea. I'm sure the president isn't even the one who ordered it done. But image wise it's disasterouse. Just napalm on a village. For ZERO gain. They aren't gonna retire off the money they will even make off this now. So I just don't get it
I will be firing off a couple emails about this

 

[MarkC]

Ah, according to this doc:
https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/D...of seals logos insignia medals-16 Oct 15F.PDF

There are other regulations/laws that give the DOD trademark rights. I did not know that.

Thanks for finding that; I was wondering the same thing about the trademarked Army logo stuff I get at the PX.

 

[BugI02]

I am in the camp that agrees only to the necessity of meeting the letter of the law and not go further seeking to appease the forces that hate you anyway and will never be satisfied no matter what you do.

I have found a Politico poll (no exactly a friendly pollster) that found 69% of respondents thought Trump's plan for his assets (the revocable trust headed by his children) would be acceptable and that he should not be forced to sell assets.

It also states:

Fifty-one percent of respondents said they are either very or mostly confident that Trump will put the nation’s interests ahead of his family financial interests in his international dealings with foreign leaders.

but it is also from prior to the inauguration (7 Dec 16). I can link it if you wish

If something is not a legal requirement, I see no point in aquiescing to a demand that will settle nothing. And labeling what you want him to do "the right thing" doesn't make it so, it merely begs the question

Perhaps the other side of the issue should authoritatively get together and produce a list of demands, with the inducement that satisfying them would end all future questioning by politicians and the press about Trump's finances. That you know that's impossible to deliver should tell you why I wouldn't bother