At his Wednesday morning press conference — his first since winning the election more than two months ago — Donald Trump, the president-elect, stood beside a pile of paperwork and attempted to explain how he would separate himself from Donald Trump, the brand. Rather than putting his assets into a blind trust, as many have recommended for America’s first billionaire president, Trump said he would turn day-to-day control of his business over to two his children and a longtime Trump Organization executive. He also reneged on a promise that there would be “no new deals” done during his time in office.
Trump’s proposal, arriving nine days before he assumes the presidency, comes after weeks of delays and public feuding with the Office of Government Ethics, the federal office that is supposed to oversee potential conflicts of interests.
On November 30, Trump said he would discuss his potential business conflicts at a “major news conference,” which he subsequently cancelled. On December 12, he broadened the conference’s agenda and put it off until “the near future.” Trump tweeted that same day that “no new deals will be done during my term(s) in office.”
That, like so many of Trump’s forward-looking statements, turned out to fall short of the truth. As of Wednesday, it has been replaced by a new wave of promises, mixed in with Trump’s rambling thoughts about U.S.-Russian relations and his unfair treatment at the hands of the press.
The larger message was clear: Trump does not feel that he is required to do anything about his conflicts of interest. His own lawyers had told him so. Trump staked out turf that he will likely try to occupy for the duration of his presidency: The rules only apply to me insofar as I choose to follow them.
Most of the plan’s details were not delivered by Trump himself, but by Sheri Dillon, a private tax attorney with the firm Morgan Lewis. Dillon said that Trump’s conflict-of-interest plan had been developed with Fred Fielding, another Morgan Lewis attorney who served as White House counsel for presidents Reagan and George W. Bush. Fielding was also deputy White House counsel during the Watergate scandal, which ended the Richard Nixon presidency. Here is what was learned today about Trump’s current interpretation of the rules.
Dillon said she was describing “the wall that we’re building between President-elect Trump and the Trump Organization.” But it was clear that the wall was not complete. Trump appears to have not yet given the Don-Eric-Weisselberg-run trust certain “prexisiting, illiquid, but very valuable business assets,” including his branded businesses and real estate. When these promised transfers would be complete, Dillon did not say. She emphasized that Trump was doing all of this by choice.
“The conflicts of interest laws simply do not apply to the president and the vice president,” she said. According to a report by the Congressional Research Service, this is true of conflicts of interest laws laid out in Chapter 11 of the United States Code, which bars “revolving door” employment, outside compensation for governmental duties, conflicts of interest, and other forms of graft. But, according to C.R.S., the president is still subject to the emoluments clause, the 1978 Ethics in Government Act, and other laws against bribery. One potentially troublesome statue for Trump is 5 U.S. Code § 3110, an anti-nepotism law that prohibits officials from appointing their own relatives to agencies “in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction and control.” Trump recently announced that he would name his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to a senior White House post. Legal experts told the New York Times that the arrangement could be legal only so long as Kushner were an unpaid adviser.
Danielle Brian, the executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, took a hard line on the increasingly obvious overlap between Trump’s businesses, his administration, and his gene pool. “Firewalls work in businesses, not families,” she wrote in a statement following the press conference. “Retaining ownership and allowing his children to operate the family business is a page out of the Corruption 101 Handbook.”
Noah Bookbinder, the head of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, echoed Brian. “The only way for Donald Trump to avoid massive conflicts of interest is to sell his business outside the family and place the assets in a true blind trust,” he wrote.
Dillon, Trump’s tax lawyer, said that scenario was too much an imposition on the president-elect, particularly with regards to the royalties he derives from his personal brand. Trump “should not be expected to destroy the company he built,” she said. The price, she said, would be too low unless Trump sold the brand that is “key to the value of the Trump Organization’s assets.” The scenario where Trump would sell his brand, along with rights to future royalties, in return for the opportunity to serve as president of the United States, was never discussed.
Top photo: President-elect Donald Trump speaks during a news conference on Wednesday, Jan. 11, 2017, in New York.
His lawyer explained it very well… it was, however, badly reported in the media.
I actually thought it was a good thing that he will pay the profits of foreign leaders staying at his hotels/resorts directly to the government and it would be vetted by an ethics adviser. Such funds could go into housing for all. It would have been of more interest to know what projected figure this might be and how that can be used for target schemes that are dear to the country.
I am more concerned with him lowering taxes for the population and creating jobs rather than what his taxes are.
GOOD.
1. BROKE IS NOT BEST. The dumb&dumbers currently running the USGov are asking that only a person who has done nothing all his life with no possible conflicts of interest can be president.
2. LAWYERS DONT LEAD. The dumb&dumbers currently running the USGov are really saying that only lawyers, not business people, should rule over the people.
3. OWNERSHIP IS NOT DO’ERSHIP. The dumb&dumbers currently running the USGov dont understand that ownership of shares of stock is the same thing because Trump’s businesses are organised the same way.
Mr Schwartz,
I take issue with your descriptor of “billionaire.” Unless and until he can prove his actual worth, he is a “real-estate developer” or find your own.
Had you read up on prior testimonies given by him and one of his sons, you would be better armed in your article.
DT’s value depends on his “gut” and on which side of the bed he does his early morning tweets. His son mentioned hundreds of millions in whatever year it was. His son also mentioned Russian oligarchs investing in his hotels.
Biographers and investigative reporters seem to agree that he would not release his tax returns because 1. he doesn’t want people to know he’s not as wealthy as he claims to be, and 2. he’s not as generous as he claims to be. I don’t know who asked him for an IRS audit letter, but he hasn’t released that, either.
For a man who has a short attention span and no expiration date on revenge, he has infinite patience to punish people who have embarrassed or shamed him. His arguments with the press go back to his days as a young pup in NYC, as does his disdain for the “monied elite” of NYC, who never and would never accept a crass, callow, narcissistic boor, goes back to his early years as a camera and press-averse publicity hound (sic), known well for his public affairs, his pretend affairs, and his general, all-around pretty obnoxious behavior.
At least your article was a counterbalance to Mr Mackey’s article. I tried to listen to yesterday’s press conference this morning, because DT’s ridding his portfolio of potential (!) conflicts was barely touched on in yesterday’s piece. As an American, I find this primed-for-corruption soon-to-be head of an administration with a compliant House/Senate, and a cabinet full of questionables, a loathsome situation.
Yesterday, I posted in response to Mr Mackey’s article, when I should have listened to the conference first. With some writers, you really need to do that. I face any live interaction between the press corps and Agent Orange with mostly dismay, but I have more of a problem listening to hyperbole and overblown use of his !!!!!adjectives!!!!
Dwight Eisenhower fired the Secretary of the Navy for using gov’t stationary for a personal business letter.
Matt’s little BS signal about the ‘opportunity to serve as president’ at the end of this rant shows a Clintonite trying but failing to surmount the piles of shit they inhabit. Trump earned the right to become POTUS by winning the contest with the support of enough voters to prevail. He created the opportunity for voters to choose someone from outside the stink and corruption that our parasitic politicians reek of.
It’s pathetic watching these humiliated losers trying to extract a pound of flesh from the winner of this contest so they don’t have to feel like such humiliated losers. He is doing what is necessary to distance himself from the daily business and decisions to be made while he is POTUS but only a fool would destroy their family business to placate whining losers.
One thing is certain and that is Trump is taking a huge pay-cut and reduction in his standard of living to become president. He’s moving into old subsidized housing in the middle of a run down city full of high priced criminals, this is what is meant by sacrifice for the good of the country.
Yeah, he won. Now he has to accept all the responsibility and criticism that comes with the presidency.
If he and his supporters (you) are having a hard time with that, tough shit.
I heard George Washington had to sell all of Martha’s slaves, the plantation and his fleet of rental horses in order to not appear to have any conflicts of interest.
That’s actually true. He did. That is why the seat of government wound up being so far away from his former plantation and business interests.
This is exactly the mentality of every CEO & CFO I’ve ever worked for. There is nothing new regarding this behavior, especially for sitting presidents.
Typical Nixonian thinking.”If the president does it, it’s not illegal.”
There might be nothing novel about the wealthy, the powerful, and their groupies believing that rules don’t apply to them, but they do usually recognize that this special treatment violates our social norms. What’s new here is that DT has for all intents and purposes publicly announced that the law is subject to him. It was already difficult to describe the U.S. as a “nation of laws” with a straight face.
That’s just what Nixon thought.
I agree.
To be honest, I prefer this stuff where it’s all out in the open and plain for all to see.
Who knows all the money changing hands in secret due to lobbying, revolving doors etc.?
Nepotism is about your family making money off connections. But his family already has money, and lots of it, apparently. The advantage of being rich is no-one can buy him off. I hope.
So…your contention is that rich people aren’t interested in money?
What were you saying? Think you need to read this article on his business dealings Just a sample of why you should read and understand his conflicts of interest and I quote”The bank is trying to restructure some of Trump’s roughly $300 million debt as part of an attempt to reduce any conflict of interest between the loan and his presidency, according to a person familiar with the matter. Normally, the removal of a personal pledge might lead to more-stringent terms. But there is little normal about this interaction. Trump’s attorney general will inherit an investigation of Deutsche Bank related to stock trades for rich clients in Russia — where Trump says he plans to improve relations — and may have to deal with a possible multibillion-dollar penalty to the bank related to mortgage-bond investigations.” Might want to read the whole thing. Here is the link:https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-22/deutsche-bank-s-reworking-a-big-trump-loan-as-inauguration-nears
Nepotism is about favoring kin/a relative by placing him/her in a special position, a la Bobby Kennedy, Attorney General to his brother, JFK.
Money has nothing to do with it.
It’s hard to know how fabulously wealthy they all are, isn’t it?
Your hope is no more well founded than your understanding of nepotism, but I am with you there on transparency.
But let’s not forget that the quid pro quo of government officials is generally in terms of future profits; watch, for example, the choices Obama is going to make going forward. We know money in politics is already the single biggest problem for U.S. democracy; so there’s some hypocrisy in focussing on Trump as special in this respect, b/c he’s going in with a fortune. In some ways, he might be considered less “hungry” than Obama, whose fortune is in the future.
Hey, I think it’s the same guy sending the envelopes that sent the envelope to ABC news and Dan Rather about George W Bush and the Texas Air National Guard. I think they made a movie about it even called “Truth”.
at the hands of the press
Trump’s hands are larger….
(rim shot) Thank you!!
Get real. Certainly nothing Trump has outlined is more corrupt than Hillary Clinton’s conflicts at Secretary of State with foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation (and the quid pro quo that Wikileaks revealed) — but the liberal media has determined that was fine and dandy. Therefore, Trump is in clover.
I’ll go with… for an official to follow financial ethics would make him look powerless. Big players would want to talk to the people who stand in judgment over the official, not the schmuck himself. Why, you might as well ask the Democrats and Republicans alike to give up their parties over at Jeremy Epstein’s place. Afghan princes would send selfies from their bachi bazi parties making horns gestures with their fingers and saying the American politicians have no balls at all, no balls at all.
My theory is that he can’t put his assets in a blind trust or otherwise divest them as their net value is probably zilch or even negative, and the garbage can is being kicked down the road until the inevitable happens.
That explanation would explain much of the behavior we’re witnessing, e.g., the lack of transparency on his tax returns, and makes him a lot like Bernie. Not the Senator from Vermont, but the other one currently serving his 150 years sentence.
Geez, Schwartz, I’m correcting you again…
Did you actually listen to Mr. Trump and Ms. Dillon?
Point of order. The USA has NEVER had a president who is this rich and has such substantial assets.
Did you recognize that Trump is donating his profits from foreign governments directly to the US Treasury? I missed that in your report.
He really does not have to do any of this, and I don’t care if he does, just like many other Americans; I just want a decent president.
You obviously do not like Mr. Trump, and it shows…if you are going to be an independent journalist, then be one. We already have enough liberal left neocon liars in the business. Stand out – like Greenwald – all the news that’s fit to print, unbiased and independent…
Yeah, he’s a standup guy Will you can believe everything he says. Like his charity Foundation.
You wouldn’t happen to be a former student of Trump U…would you?
a president who is this rich
Rich how?
This is a guy that lies at the drop of a dime on a very public and daily basis.
You’d be mistaken to assume anything.
Trump supporters are hilariously partisan and lack ability of self reflection. Keep fitting the bill
Obama sold ambassadorships. I really don’t care at this point if Trump sells hotel rooms.
We can thank W. and Obama for setting the table. Now Trump can do whatever he damn well pleases.
They all sell/have sold ambassadorships. That’s what the rank is coming from the USA. Otherwise, your comment seems to encourage a (food) fight.
Weren’t the not-yet-filthy-rich Clintons renting out the WH Lincoln bedroom to some of their more generous ‘donors’?
Swartz… you little commie, you!
You missed the part in the press conference where Trump is donating any and all profits from foreign sources to ‘Trump Industries’ to the US Treasury.
TRUMP IS NOT EVEN REQUIRED TO DO THAT under the quid-pro-quo statutes.
I don’t think he missed it. I thought he brought it up and asked the question as to how it would be calculated and reported. One of us has an issue with comprehension…
The issue, I believe, is the interpretation…
[[[ The issue, I believe, is the interpretation… ]]]
Yeah…. interpretation.
Ever wonder why AmeriKa is run Kommies? And, that “good” Americans don’t want to run for office?
The Kommies expect every elected official to sacrifice all of their property to the State.
Case in point.
I watched the press conference and I was persuaded that his temporarily separating himself form his business was done in a way that should eliminate the conflicts and corruptions that plague Clinton’s pay-to-play Foundation.
Of course, it’s practically impossible to place a multi-billion-dollar corporation made up of hundreds of subsidiaries into a ‘blind trust’ so he did the best he could. Unless I hear of Yvanka or his sons being paid millions of dollars for 10-minute speeches followed by meetings with Trump or members of his cabinet being arranged, I’m not worried much.
And, no, I do NOT believe that there won’t be attempts to ‘buy’ access to Trump or to his administration. That’s a given and, sadly, it’s been going on for quite a while with lobbyists from AIPAC and the NRA to the AARP and the NAACP always active and aggressive.
If the House Ethics Committee doesn’t allow this he’ll sue them.
“[…] so he did the best he could […]”
…with no legal obligation to do any of this.
But still whingeworthy, nonetheless.
You ain’t seen nothin’ yet and there you have it. Not different from any despot he has created jobs.. for rich friends and kids. Disgusting.
“She did not explain what this vetting process would entail, beyond saying that the unnamed ethics adviser would have to sign off.”
Um obviously it’s extreme vetting; a staple Trump position.
Remember that everything Hitler did was perfectly legal..
Only reporters interested in his tax returns?
Sure its their role to translate their findings and report to the public.
Geez, when are you children going to stop with the Hitler stuff?
You impugn your own intelligence…
Were Trump to divest himself even just of the hotel in DC at the Old Post Office, it could cost him tens of millions of dollars in tax credits he would have to either repay or not be able to take. (See section 50 of the tax code, which lays out the rules for what happens when a building is sold on which the “owner” claimed the historic rehabilitation credit, which the OPM website indicates was part of the financing of the project). How that amount would be divided up (between repaying credits and not being able to take them in the future) would, of course, depend on (among other things) the IRS conforming its form that computes that (Form 4255) to the code and the IRS’s regulations; if it leaves it the way it is (which is known to be in conflict with the statute, regulations, and IRS Chief Counsel opinion), that could save him almost all of his out of pocket repayment.
Also, you might want to check your cite to “chapter 11 of the US Code.” Perhaps you mean (and the CRS report should have said) “chapter 11 of title 18 of the US Code.”
Not OPM. GSA. Apologies.