By Curt_Anderson January 4, 2024 8:50 am Category: President (0.0 from 0 votes) Rules of the Post Write A New Article How To Post Here Rate this article (5=best, 0=poor)

Donald J. Trump’s businesses received at least $7.8 million from 20 foreign governments during his presidency, according to new documents released by House Democrats on Thursday that show how much he received from overseas transactions while he was in the White House, most of it from China.

The transactions, detailed in a 156-page report called “White House For Sale” that was produced by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee, offer concrete evidence that the former president engaged in the kind of conduct that House Republicans have labored, so far unsuccessfully, to prove that President Biden did as they work to build an impeachment case against him.

Using documents produced through a court fight, the report describes how foreign governments and their controlled entities, including a top U.S. adversary, interacted with Trump businesses while he was president. They paid millions to the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.; Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas; Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue in New York; and Trump World Tower at 845 United Nations Plaza in New York.

Cited and related links:

1. nytimes.com

Comments Start Below

by oldedude on January 4, 2024 11:26 am It's out in a book. Why isn't he indicted over it? Or is it just bullshit, because if they got it from SARs, there's no fact to back anything up (synopsis of what you've said). by HatetheSwamp on January 4, 2024 11:37 am ...interacted with Trump businesses while he was president. Oh. I thought he'd accepted bribes. Y'know. Ten percent for the Big Guy!!!!!? Baha. Here's the difference. No one here will be voting for Trump. You... apparently EFFINall of you... will be voting for "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap." Fershame! by Indy! on January 4, 2024 3:01 pm I'm glad the Ds are dumb enough to open that can of worms because maybe now we'll hear about all the other cash other presidents took before during and after their time in office. by Curt_Anderson on January 4, 2024 5:51 pm Indy, You cannot fairly say that the Democrats opened this can of worms. Republicans have been investigating Hunter Biden at least since Trump's "perfect phone call" to Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Democrats show that Trump engaged in the same kind of conduct that James Comer, Jim Jordan and House Republicans failed to show that President Biden did. A major difference in the Democrats and GOP investigations, is that nothing the the Republicans allege about Joe or Hunter happened while Joe Biden was in office much less president. Hunter was never in office of course. That dimwit James Comer said, "former President Trump has legitimate businesses, but the Bidens do not". Eric Trump claims they voluntarily handed over profits from Trump's business* with foreign governments to the US treasury (I am skeptical). But the Constitution doesn't allow any business (emoluments) with foreign states. U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8) No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument**, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State. **In constitutional law, an emolument is any perquisite, advantage, or profit that comes from holding an office. The Foreign Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibits federal officers from accepting foreign emoluments without congressional consent. *NEW YORK (AP) — The Trump hotel in Washington took in more than $750,000 from six foreign governments at sensitive moments in their U.S. relations, with guests spending as much as $10,000 per room a night, according to documents from the Trump family company’s former accountants released Monday by a congressional committee. See link. Trump sold the hotel after he left office. apnews.com by oldedude on January 4, 2024 7:00 pm A major difference in the Democrats and GOP investigations, is that nothing the the Republicans allege about Joe or Hunter happened while Joe Biden was in office much less president. Hunter was never in office of course. They have information back to when he was VP. Remember the payoffs and nepotism to is brother and sister? Walter Shaub, director of the US Office of Government Ethics from 2013 to 2017, gained fame for frequently faulting the Trump administration, but turned his fire on President Biden on Friday. “I’m sorry, I know some folks don’t like hearing any criticism of him. But this royally sucks. I’m disgusted. A lot of us worked hard to tee him up to restore ethics to government and believed the promises. This is a real ‘f— you’ to us—and government ethics,” Shaub tweeted. Shaub was responding to reports that many children, spouses and siblings of top Biden aides got official jobs — despite harsh criticism of President Donald Trump for naming his daughter Ivanka Trump and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, as unpaid White House advisers. pedojoe's brother is also making "pocket change" for the VP. $1.5B contract in Iraq for Biden’s little brother exposes Obama ahead of debate HillStone International won a coveted government contract in part because the company has “the little brother of the vice president as a partner,” as David Richter, president of HillStone’s parent company explained to investors in a recent meeting reported on by Fox Business today. “Since November 2010, James Biden has been the executive vice president of Hill International’s housing subsidiary despite little if any documented work history in residential construction,” Fox explains. “And if the company’s projections are accurate, both Hill and Biden are on the verge of a huge payday, beneficiaries, some analysts believe, of James Biden’s connections to the Obama Administration through his older brother.” nypost.com washingtonexaminer.com by oldedude on January 4, 2024 7:02 pm So you need to show that it went to trumpster per se (to DJ TRUMP) and not "Trump, Inc" or any other entity. Start with that. FYSA, this is the same thing you do to us, so no whining please. More questions to follow. by HatetheSwamp on January 5, 2024 3:11 am OD, I'm thinking that the Dems may be realizing that, when the Biden impeachment inquiry hearings begin, he'll be in deep$#!t, and they're hoping to convince voters that Trump's just as bad. He ain't but what else can they do? by oldedude on January 5, 2024 5:51 am So here's the hook the sheep selectively skim over. And of course, not knowing what a federal politician has to do to "distance" themselves from business practices. Trumpster gave up control of all his businesses during his tenure. This HAS been looked at and investigated at the beginning of his campaign, then when he won. I figured if he showed it then to the dims, I'm good. Obviously, once he wasn't president anymore, he didn't have an many restrictions on him. Donald J. Trump’s businesses received at least $7.8 million from 20 foreign governments during his presidency, according to new documents released by House Democrats on Thursday that show how much he received from overseas transactions while he was in the White House, most of it from China. My question is; What are the international/global companies does pedojoe control to earn his money from international money? And, has he stepped back from those "companies" while being a politician to negate a conflict of interest. by HatetheSwamp on January 5, 2024 6:05 am Yeah, OD. And, it seems to me that moderate and independent voters, who vote one time every four years, have caught on to the truth about Joe's cognitive decline and all mountain of lies he's told, over the years, about knowing nuthin about Hunter's and Jim's swindles with foreign businesses. Our former poster, Donna, calls them low information voters but, by now, truth has reached the lowest of the low. by Ponderer on January 5, 2024 7:15 am I guess I'm kinda curious... Why didn't the Trump administration Justice Department ever indict Biden or his son during the entire time the GOP essentially controlled all branches of government? Why is it that all we ever hear about is how much you idiots have got on Biden and how he committed crimes, but we never get to see any of the evidence or even know what the crime was that he supposedly committed? What thefuck are you saving it all for? The Republicans are truly unbeatable when it comes to making baseless accusations precisely when they need them. But they are complete and total losers when it comes to ever actually providing a shred of evidence to back up anything they say with. "But wait! Here are a bunch of other people, famous people even, making the same vague, unspecified, baseless accusations without even mentioning what crime was supposedly committed also! That absolutely proves that the accusations, whatever they end up being, are totally true!", the MAGA Hats here expect us to swallow. Another failing of Republicans is that they think that everyone else is as brain-dead gullible as they are. by HatetheSwamp on January 5, 2024 7:37 am Why didn't the Trump administration Justice Department ever indict Biden or his son during the entire time the GOP essentially controlled all branches of government? Good question, again, po. Sadly, you won't answer mine, but, that's you, and I'm unsurprised. pb has two answers: 1. In his awesome book, ONE DAMN THING AFTER ANOTHER, Bill Barr says that he left his role as Attorney General with everything in place for prosecutions to proceed. He doesn't outright accuse Merrick Garland of corruption, but he's does everything necessary to make the case. 2. Donald Trump is a bull$#!tter. You know d@ng well that he talks big but does virtually nuthin. Build a wall. Make Mexico pay for it. Deport more illegals than any President in history. He's 100% hot air. He knew everything Barr had unearthed... and he could have forced Barr to move forward at breakneck speed, or resign. But, to his core, Trump is full of $#!t...EFFIN%#!t. If you doubt that the Biden Crime Family stuff was unknown under Trump, go to the library. Skim Barr's book. amazon.com by Curt_Anderson on January 5, 2024 8:36 am OD thinks Trump’s business affairs while president was scrutinized enough. Lol! Read what Politico reported in 2020. That report was before the Republican-friendly United States Supreme Court effectively quashed lawsuits against Trump in two emolument cases Trump ignored calls to fully separate from his eponymous company, which comprises more than 500 businesses and includes properties in nearly two dozen countries, after he was sworn in to office. Sheri Dillon, a lawyer for the Trump Organization, said in January 2017 that Trump “wants there to be no doubt in the minds of the American public that he is completely isolating himself from his business interests.” That never happened. Trump still owns his business, though he asked his adult sons to run it. His holdings were placed in a trust designed to hold assets for his benefit from which he can draw money at any time without the public’s knowledge. Trump has responded to repeated criticism by denying he is using the presidency to boost spending at his resorts, insisting people frequent them because “they’re the best” and calling the emoluments clause “ phony.” “It’s not a big deal — you people are making it a big deal,” he told reporters in December 2016. Trump joined others in his administration who argued that voters don’t care. “They all knew I had big business all over the place.” politico.com by HatetheSwamp on January 5, 2024 8:44 am Trump is despicable. Increasingly, voters agree. "That feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap's" despicable-r. by Indy! on January 5, 2024 12:17 pm Curt's argument in one sentence or less... "I know you are - but what am I?" by Indy! on January 5, 2024 12:18 pm *Also works for peebs' argument. by Indy! on January 5, 2024 12:19 pm Let's try this one... by Indy! on January 5, 2024 12:19 pm Okay - back to this one... by oldedude on January 5, 2024 1:36 pm That never happened. Trump still owns his business, though he asked his adult sons to run it. His holdings were placed in a trust designed to hold assets for his benefit from which he can draw money at any time without the public’s knowledge. It's interesting. The dims had the opportunity to use this heavily during the multiple attempts at getting trumpster out. This one would have stuck too! And again, they chose not to? Maybe they didn't have enough (even questionable) "evidence?" And the bar is set pretty low. My point is that you can read all you want, and you also have to view the results if everyone "knew" it was true. And as you should be getting by now, you're "legal" "analysis" isn't. Either. by Curt_Anderson on January 5, 2024 1:57 pm OD, actually it was not a case of the Democrats choosing not to pursue an emoluments charge. The courts came to Donald Trump’s rescue. Democrats lack legal standing to sue Trump over alleged emoluments violations, appeals court rules The suit, which was dismissed on technical grounds, argued the president has violated the Constitution with his businesses, including a hotel popular with foreign A federal appeals court on Friday dismissed Democratic lawmakers' lawsuit against President Donald Trump alleging he has violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution on technical grounds. In the ruling, the three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found the members of Congress did not have legal standing to bring the lawsuit against the president for violating the clause, which bars federal officials from collecting payments from foreign governments without the approval of Congress. ’Phony.' Donald Trump mocks 'emoluments' clause of U.S. Constitution WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump rejected suggestions Monday that hosting the G-7 summit of world leaders at his resort in Doral, Florida, would have run afoul of the U.S. Constitution. Speaking to reporters in the White House Cabinet Room, Trump dismissed as “phony” a section of the Constitution that bars federal office holders from accepting gifts from foreign governments. nbcnews.com usatoday.com by oldedude on January 5, 2024 6:35 pm Democrats lack legal standing to sue Trump over alleged emoluments violations, appeals court rules Not having legal standing is nothing more than a rookie move. The first thing you do is find someone that DOES have a legal standing in the court. AND it's NOT a "technicality." It means they lack any reason to actually go to court. That's why it's a rookie move. Shoulda looked that one up. Go To Top

Find old posts & articles

Show Most Recent Articles Articles by category: Politics+ Religion+ Law & Crime Military News Media History Health Sports+ Humor Entertainment Misc.

Report spam & abuse SelectSmart.com home page