Report: Trump’s Stalled Buenos Aires Project Revived After Call with Argentinian President
Remember that call Trump had with the Argentinian President? There were rumors that he had discussed a Trump Organization project in Buenos Aires in that call. But Trump’s people argued that the project was already approved, and that the subject never came up. Now a new report says the project was stalled before the call, after which it suddenly was revived:
Three days after the phone call between Trump and Macri on Nov.14, Trump’s associates at Buenos Aires firm YY Development Group announced that the construction project would go ahead, in an interview with La Nación (link in Spanish). The tower’s construction had reportedly been held up for years, for various reasons, with YY Development actively restarting construction permit requests when pro-business Macri took over from statist former president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner in Jan. 2016.
There’s nothing substantive to confirm that the phone call and construction announcement are linked, but local news media have reported that the call itself was arranged in very unusual fashion. Macri, who is son of one of Latin America’s richest men and has reportedly known Trump since beating him at golf in the 1980s, had backed the wrong horse at the election, openly supporting Hillary Clinton. Accordingly, a crisis meeting was called to work out how to put relations on the right track (Spanish language) with Trump’s administration.
La Nación reports that foreign minister Susana Malcorra eventually made contact with Trump’s son Eric, with the assistance of close Trump business associate Felipe Yaryura. An Buenos Aires-based businessman and a co-owner of YY Development, Yaryura was with the Trump team and family at the post-election celebrations in the Hilton hotel in New York. Malcorra and Eric Trump reportedly had a “nice and cordial” conversation, with Eric telling Malcorra that his father would talk with Macri when his timetable allows. He then put her in touch with Trump’s foreign affairs team.
Trump has taken a very cavalier attitude towards the entire conflict of interest issue, telling the New York Times that the law is on his side and that the President can’t have conflicts of interest:
Trump on his businesses/conflict q's: "The law's totally on my side, the president can't have a conflict of interest."
— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) November 22, 2016
It’s reminiscent of Nixon’s dictum that it’s not illegal if the President does it.
Trump doesn’t even have to bring up a deal like this in a call with a foreign leader. As long as he still retains a financial interest in the Trump Organization, foreign governments will do him favors. And he seemingly has no intention of changing that scenario. It’s a side benefit!
Apparently Trump thinks that, having won the Presidency despite a lifetime of shady deals and questionable ethics, there’s no reason to change who he is now. Apparently he thinks he has no need to worry about the inevitable barrage of stories to come about the obvious inherent conflicts of interests between his businesses and his office.
Maybe he’s correct about that. But it doesn’t make it right.
[Cross-posted at RedState.]
Let’s keep politics in the hands of professional politicians. Businessmen have too many conflicts of interest.
Before you say “blind trust”, reflect that the “blind trust” would still be owned by Trump and its value still affected by its decisions.
Before you say “divest”, ask yourself about the justice of forcing someone to dispose of everything they’ve spent a lifetime building at fire sale prices. A forced sale is of course not a free market. Alternatively, the people who wish to bribe him might pay above market value.
There aren’t any easy solutions here–except to restrict politics to the professional politicians. How’s that been working out for us?
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/23/2016 @ 1:38 pmRead fausta’s blog (who isn’t a trump fan) to see what a nothingberger that post
narciso (d1f714) — 11/23/2016 @ 1:41 pmIn other words, there is no fair way to eliminate all conflicts of interest. That is an unreasonable expectation. A reasonable expectation is that conflicts of interest be a) disclosed and b) handled ethically.
How did the Obamas earn $10 million since 2009? Couldn’t have had anything to do with conflicts of interest, could it? Should he have had to divest of his book royalties?
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/23/2016 @ 1:42 pmI was thinking the same thing mr Hanna.
I guess career military would still be acceptable, but boy howdy, anyone that has signed the front of a paycheck are right out…
LBascom (2582ce) — 11/23/2016 @ 1:45 pmAlso, before you say “divest”–what is Trump then supposed to do with the money, that won’t involve a conflict of interest? Hide it in his mattress?
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/23/2016 @ 1:46 pmAnd if Trump does hide it in his mattress, now he has a conflict of interest in how the Fed manages the money supply.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/23/2016 @ 1:48 pmThank for this Patterico. It helps explain why he declines to take his salary. The salary’s merely an insulting payment, compared to what he plans to make off of his position. He gets free advertisements and billions, if not trillions, in building projects.
Tillman (a95660) — 11/23/2016 @ 1:55 pm@Tillman:He gets free advertisements and billions, if not trillions,
Trillions forsooth! Someone has innumerate as you has no business commenting on anything quantitative.
The entire US economy is about $18 trillion in a year, if Trump’s business is “trillions” thne he effective owns the country and he can do as likes, President or not.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/23/2016 @ 1:58 pmGabriel, it has been reported that he’s asking for a 1 trillion in infrastructure projects. Some have suggested that we need to even spend more -> x trillion.
Tillman (a95660) — 11/23/2016 @ 2:02 pm@Tillman:Gabriel, it has been reported that he’s asking for a 1 trillion in infrastructure projects.
If you had any notion of numbers, you would know that his businesses could not possibly provide more than the tiniest fraction of that trillion; there will be tens of thousands of businesses invovled in those projects.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/23/2016 @ 2:10 pmWell, this is depressing.
http://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2016/11/23/deray-mckesson-a-little-richer-after-settlement-from-baton-rouge-arrest-lousy-jailhouse-breakfast/
Steve57 (0b1dac) — 11/23/2016 @ 2:12 pmI’ll bet Baton Rouge wanted to settle.
Steve57 (0b1dac) — 11/23/2016 @ 2:14 pmPerry shockingly is innumerate, this story came down a telephone poll with spikes, now one wonders is there not a conflict with Paul singer’s. Argue tinean holders
narciso (d1f714) — 11/23/2016 @ 2:15 pmAs we discussed on an earlier thread, Gabriel, Trump can divest but then he wouldn’t profit from the Presidency — beyond the lucrative speaking fees he will one day get — so we know he won’t do that. Or create a blind trust and put his kids out of the family business so they have to work like the rest of us (Gasp!). Won’t do that either.
Or maybe Trump could DISCLOSE all foreign contacts, something he isn’t doing but some contacts are leaking out. (Leaking isn’t disclosure.) Yes, it’s unusual, but so is this President.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/23/2016 @ 2:19 pmGabriel, your big, gross, assumption is that he has no business partners or other interests who he’d love to pay back or scratch the back of so to speak. Get with it.
Tillman (a95660) — 11/23/2016 @ 2:21 pmIt’s reminiscent of Nixon’s dictum that it’s not illegal if the President does it.
Let me check my watch… oh, right, he’s not the “President” until sworn into the office at noon, EST, January 20, 2017.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 11/23/2016 @ 2:23 pmApparently Trump thinks that, having won the Presidency despite a lifetime of shady deals and questionable ethics, there’s no reason to change who he is now.
Of course not. He ran as a Republican.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 11/23/2016 @ 2:25 pmDRJ, although I rarely agree with you, I enjoy reading your well thought-out point of view nevertheless. I (for one, humbly) appreciate your comments.
Tillman (a95660) — 11/23/2016 @ 2:27 pm@DRJ: Trump can divest
And then what does he do with the money? You can’t just wave this aside.
Let’s say he sells Trump Organization for $10 billion. What can he do with that much money that does not create $10 billion in conflicts of interest?
Or create a blind trust
Ok, he creates a blind trust. Do the people running his trust not know he is President? Because, again, he has conflicts of interest because he owns it and the people running it might like to do him favors.
Again, you cannot juts wave away these issues. Whatever you propose to resolve the conflict of interest is POINTLESS if it CREATES ANOTHER ONE.
The Obamas did not own squat in 2008, yet somehow have acquired $10 million. Evidently they profited from the Presidency in some way. Evidently, their conflicts of interest were not eliminated.
Which is my whole point-they never can be. This is an unreasonable standard made up on the spot for Trump.
The rest of the world is expected to a) disclose conflicts of interest and b) handle them ethically.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/23/2016 @ 2:30 pmFor the record I do not say that Trump is disclosing all his conflicts of interest, and I am not saying he is handling them ethically.
I am saying that the expectation that he do those two things is reasonable, and the expectation that he eliminate all conflicts of interest is unreasonable, and impossible.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/23/2016 @ 2:32 pmIn fact blind trusts caused a scandal in the United Kingdom, and in the interests of transparent and ethical government, are now forbidden(!).
The Neill Committee’s report in 1998 found the use of blind trusts to be “inconsistent with the principles of openness and accountability” and recommended that such trusts be “prohibited as a mechanism for funding political parties, party leaders or their offices, Members of Parliament or parliamentary candidates”. This was incorporated into the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 as section 57 “Return of donations where donor unidentifiable”.
Blind trust do not make the problem go away. The problem is inherent. It cannot be eliminated. It can only be disclosed, and handled ethically.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/23/2016 @ 2:39 pmFurthermore, read that linked article. Does everyone here calling for a “blind trust” understand that the law requires that the trust dispose of every asset known to the beneficiary?
In other words, what you are calling for is that Trump Organization be broken up and sold piecemeal, at fire sale prices. How is this fair? I know you all hate Trump–I hate Trump. But that doesn’t mean that he should have to be stripped of all that he owns.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/23/2016 @ 2:41 pmPerhaps Trump should have thought about that before running for President.
Sean (41ed1e) — 11/23/2016 @ 2:47 pm@Sean:Perhaps Trump should have thought about that before running for President.
Actually, what happened is that you all thought of this JUST NOW and are acting like it is some kind of rule, and proposing meaningless solutions out of animus.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/23/2016 @ 2:48 pmAt the behest, I might add, of a thoroughly corrupted media that was covering up corruption that went far beyond conflicts of interest.
I’m starting to wonder who here is even employed. I have annual conflict-of-interest disclosures and training at my place of work. No one where I work is required to eliminate them entirely, they’re expected to disclose them and handle them ethically.
This is freakin’ insane.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/23/2016 @ 2:51 pmRight Gabriel, while we can forget about the Wall built across the Mexican border, instead we will get Trump’s huuuge ethical wall. “Believe me. That I can tell you.”
Tillman (a95660) — 11/23/2016 @ 2:57 pm14Or maybe Trump could DISCLOSE all foreign contacts, …
This is silly, sometimes the President needs to keep contacts secret at least for awhile. As when Nixon started talking to China.
James B. Shearer (4ecdaf) — 11/23/2016 @ 2:59 pm5Also, before you say “divest”–what is Trump then supposed to do with the money, that won’t involve a conflict of interest? Hide it in his mattress?
Put 60% in an index fund covering the total US stock market and 40% in an index fund covering the total US bond market. This would reduce conflicts. Not that I really care so far but Trump would be wise to avoid doing anything too egregious.
James B. Shearer (4ecdaf) — 11/23/2016 @ 3:06 pmso josh marshall makes a squirrel out of molehill
http://faustasblog.com/2016/11/argentina-did-trump-press-macri-for-a-building-approval/
and if you read the entire transcript, rizzotto tray carrier, haberman, did not actually correctly relate the entirety of the exchange, shockah.
narciso (d1f714) — 11/23/2016 @ 3:07 pmWhatever Trump gains in his business as President will be peanuts compared to what the Clinton mafia would have taken, and Trump will actually BUILD something, where all they do is shake people down.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/23/2016 @ 3:08 pm“Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton seems to be adapting well to her new life as lesbian spinster with 25 cats. She just needs the 25 cats and all set.”
— Ace
Colonel Haiku (603887) — 11/23/2016 @ 3:29 pmnow we know frum commits category error quite frequently.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/23/david-frum-jeffrey-lord-debate-impeachment-is-where-this-is-going-video/
narciso (d1f714) — 11/23/2016 @ 3:30 pmTillman’s a day early. No turkey until tomorrow!
Colonel Haiku (603887) — 11/23/2016 @ 3:30 pmAll of a sudden the NYT’s Maggie Haberman is Patterico’s go-to reporter? Twice in less than a fortnight?
Dan Rather hardest hit…
Colonel Haiku (603887) — 11/23/2016 @ 3:34 pmwell she’s a fmr politico reporter, who’s fast on the tweet trigger,
narciso (d1f714) — 11/23/2016 @ 3:37 pmDon’t get me started.
USS Phoenix/General Belgrano.
Just, not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgrano_(C-4)
Steve57 (0b1dac) — 11/23/2016 @ 3:40 pmGabriel Hanna, I agree with you. There really is no way to absolutely guarantee he does not profit from his office. Maybe disclosure is the only remedy, and let the people decide if they can stomach that or not.
I would not recommend doing business with secret email accounts and servers, either. I hear that those are not really ever secret! 😉
Patricia (5fc097) — 11/23/2016 @ 3:44 pmDeRay’s settement should tide him over until he gets ahead a little. He only makes $165,000/year for the City of Baltimore in his new job there. Must be tough.
Patricia (5fc097) — 11/23/2016 @ 3:47 pmF***ing Argentines. She would have been better off turned into a reef.
Steve57 (0b1dac) — 11/23/2016 @ 3:47 pmDisclosure + scrutiny is the only reasonable way to handle this for a president with major assets like Trump. That worked just fine for the guys on Mt Rushmore. The nepotism and conflict of interest rules don’t work anyway. Better to just face up to it and let the chips fall where they may. The interesting question is how the kids will be able to run the family business with all the eyes that will be watching.
crazy (d3b449) — 11/23/2016 @ 3:48 pmwith poppy and later w, the blind trust didn’t shield them, and let’s not even go into the way cheney was treated,
narciso (d1f714) — 11/23/2016 @ 3:49 pmI guess Patterico missed the correction at the bottom of the story that said while Trump’s business partners have announced and intention to move forward with the project in 2017 — which is a process they began in Jan. 2016 with the ousting of the left-wing Argentine Gov’t that had held up the project for years — there has been NO ANNOUNCEMENT by the Argentine government that it has yet issued the required building permit.
So, the Argentine Gov’t has done NOTHING.
But even if they did, the fact that the Argentine’s take action they perceive to be in their national interest does not create a circumstance that makes their action a conflict of interest for Trump.
You might want to whine that Trump’s businesses will continue to make money while he’s in office — heck they might make more money — but that doesn’t make it unethical on his part to not sell off his businesses.
What I expect is going to end up happening is that Trump is going to be convinced that all his holdings — with the exception of some more liquid assets that can be managed easily in a blind trust — be placed into a testamentary non-revocable trust as is the case with many many similar estate plans put together by very wealthy individuals. The trust can name his three oldest children as the Co-Trustees, and whatever portion of Trump, Inc., they don’t already own, will be owned by the Trust for the benefit of the beneficiaries under the terms of the trust, and the Co-Trustees are charged with managing Trump, Inc., in their ficuciary capacities as trustees.
Trump would no longer own the assets, and they would not be title in the name of his family. The trust could provide for whatever distribution terms Trump, his family, and his lawyers come up with.
He would not be a beneficiary, and he would not be Trustee. The ethics laws do not require any more than that.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 11/23/2016 @ 3:51 pmTo me it’s the fact the Argentinians didn’t do right by the Phoenix.
But also they didn’t pay their bills.
http://www.businessinsider.com/hedge-fund-elliott-capital-management-seizes-ara-libertad-ship-owned-by-argentina-2012-10
Steve57 (0b1dac) — 11/23/2016 @ 4:03 pmthat doesn’t make up for the hms sheffield
narciso (d1f714) — 11/23/2016 @ 4:12 pmI’m disturbed that Donald Trump let a foreign Hillary supporter win a round of golf.
papertiger (c8116c) — 11/23/2016 @ 5:02 pmMacri, was sort of a precursor, even though he was a public official for a short time.
narciso (d1f714) — 11/23/2016 @ 5:06 pmnow there are some parallels, that are unhelpful
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/08/argentina-president-maurio-macri-fights-back-after-panama-papers-reveal-offshore-links
narciso (d1f714) — 11/23/2016 @ 5:09 pmIt is awkward, James B, but sometimes we have to find a balance.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/23/2016 @ 5:09 pmdid you note, how that panama papers disappeared from the radar, so really this story ‘is much about nothing’
narciso (d1f714) — 11/23/2016 @ 5:22 pmI really don’t care if the remedy is fair to the individual (Trump in this case) or not. That should not be a consideration. What should be a consideration, above all else, is whether it’s even possible.
Let’s say Trump, when he looked like he was going to win the primaries, decided to divest and create a real blind trust. It’s impossible on two grounds; many of his assets are in partnership deals, so he’d have to sell at fire sale prices, and even so some might take years (We’re talking commercial real estate here). The second impossibility involves Trump’s name. It’s literally a brand, and it has value – billions, somewhere around 1/3 of his net worth. Part of his licensing deals are the use of his name. It’s not possible to unwind some of those deals, and even if it were, what then? His surname is a brand worth billions, and there’s no way to divest himself from that, even if he signed the brand over to a blind trust (And even if he did, he’s bound to notice which buildings have his name on them, including the one he can see from the White House windows).
The fact that Trump, as president, would have major conflicts of interest is old news. It’s been glaringly obvious from the start (and is one of the reasons why I didn’t support him in the primary). It’s worth remembering though that Hillary had a far larger conflict of interest (Clinton Foundation) and wasn’t even going to step down from it, or stop accepting foreign donations. And that fact explains why the press has waited until after the election to slam Trump on the conflict of interest issue – now they can freak out about it without tarring their own far worse candidate.
Arizona CJ (191c8a) — 11/23/2016 @ 5:33 pmand that’s really one of the last straws they have, but falling for that squirrel, is disappointing but not surprising,
narciso (d1f714) — 11/23/2016 @ 5:38 pm“THE NUMBERS ARE IN: Trump wins Michigan by 10,704.”
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/250043/
Colonel Haiku (603887) — 11/23/2016 @ 5:52 pmCount me in with the “Trump’s properties are a nothing-burger” votes. I don’t know who first started the “blind trust” horses***t, but it is horses***t. The President is not Father General of the Order of St. Francis, and a vow of poverty is neither a part of the oath of office nor one of the Article II qualifications.
When we catch him steering government contracts to his own businesses, family, and friends, then maybe we’ll have something to talk about.
nk (dbc370) — 11/23/2016 @ 5:54 pmI’m comforted by the fact Trump is wealthy beyond the point of avarice already.
He’s like one of those guys on American Pickers that call Danielle for help getting rid of their collection because they can’t find the bathroom for all the junk piled in front of the door, and they realize maybe it’s time to let go of this stuff.
papertiger (c8116c) — 11/23/2016 @ 5:58 pmOnly with Trump it’s stacks of money.
this report sounded better in the original Italian, you change the labels and it’s what they hounded Silvio for fifteen years,
narciso (d1f714) — 11/23/2016 @ 5:59 pmif I read the story right, it was the Argentinian side, that tried to seek favor with trump, not the other way around,
narciso (d1f714) — 11/23/2016 @ 6:05 pmLike they were thumbing Trump in the eye on a deal because they were siding with Hillary.
papertiger (c8116c) — 11/23/2016 @ 6:08 pmI can’t think of a better way to get the Clinton Foundation investigated than to keep on with this.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/23/2016 @ 6:43 pmyes, but they won’t make the connection, recall slate, which they should rename papyrus, last minute breathless hack of the communications with alfa bank, when sherbank which was actually sanctioned was not mentioned, interesting Romney parallel if he becomes foreign minister, macri’s choice, malcorra was a long time ibm executive, and highlevel in official,
narciso (d1f714) — 11/23/2016 @ 6:54 pmHopefully a group of about five or six Senators (McCain, Graham, Paul, Lee, Cruz, Flake, Sasse come to mind) that will stand up and say they will vote “present” on any and all of Trump’s cabinet picks until and unless he puts his assets in a true blind trust where neither he, his wife, or his kids know what is going on with respect to Trump businesses. Ideally he should divest and have the cash managed in a blind trust. He he can’t do these things the only honorable thing left for Trump to do is resign.
Joe (99318e) — 11/23/2016 @ 8:00 pmTrump is going to get a lot of business favors whether he solicits them or not
steveg (5508fb) — 11/23/2016 @ 8:07 pmjoe is not for real is he?
narciso (d1f714) — 11/23/2016 @ 8:33 pmJoe is Hillary’s beard.
papertiger (c8116c) — 11/23/2016 @ 9:04 pmGo make me a turkey sandwich,
Hillaryum , Joe.And a beer.
papertiger (c8116c) — 11/23/2016 @ 9:06 pmI don’t think we should elect anyone to the Presidency who owns more than one change of clothes and does not live in a cardboard box, myself.
Capitalists!
nk (dbc370) — 11/23/2016 @ 9:11 pmapropos of nothing, prince al waleed owns more of twitter than the founder, wonder why they suspended milo and glenn Reynolds,
narciso (d1f714) — 11/23/2016 @ 9:18 pmWell, he’s right about the law. He is exempt from the conflict of interest law, as is the vice president, members of congress, and federal judges.
And really there’s no way for him to truly divest himself of his interests, so what do you expect him to do? What would you be saying if he weren’t a crook, and you supported him? Suppose a paragon such as David Koch were to become president, what would you say? How could he prevent conflicts of interest from arising? He couldn’t, he’d just have to manage it as best he could, trying his best to put the nation’s interests ahead of his own.
In this case it looks like previous Argentine administrations had unjustly been strangling his project out of a general hostility to capitalism, so if the prospect of having to deal with Trump as president has induced the current administration to take its foot off his neck, I see no reason to object. They’re not doing him a favour, they’ve just decided that if they need his goodwill maybe they should start treating him like decent human beings. Even if he actually raised the issue with them I wouldn’t mind, so long as he would do the same for any other American company in a similar situation. Now if he has rivals in the industry there, and the government starts crippling them, that would be of great concern.
Milhouse (40ca7b) — 11/23/2016 @ 10:05 pmExactly.
Milhouse (40ca7b) — 11/23/2016 @ 10:07 pmGood news, Joe. Trump is going to drop out any day now.
Pinandpuller (2e7935) — 11/23/2016 @ 10:15 pmSomeone needs to conjure a mirror dimension for Trump’s company to operate in, a la Dr. Strange.
Pinandpuller (2e7935) — 11/23/2016 @ 10:18 pmAre you seriously saying that successful businessmen should be barred from public office?! Yes, I think that really is what you’re saying. Amazing.
Milhouse (40ca7b) — 11/23/2016 @ 10:19 pmThe ethics laws don’t require anything, because they don’t apply. This entire discussion is about the ethics themselves, not the laws about them. And the fact is that however you dress it up such an arrangement would not lessen the conflict even one little bit. After all, do you think he’s working now for himself?! Like anyone else who has enough money to last the rest of his life, he’s working for his children and grandchildren, and their future children, so a trust that exists for their benefit would pose exactly the same conflicts that his business does now.
Milhouse (40ca7b) — 11/23/2016 @ 10:29 pmshipwreck,
The post was scheduled hours before it posted.
Patterico (cb99de) — 11/23/2016 @ 10:38 pmThat’s how corruption works.
Patterico (cb99de) — 11/23/2016 @ 10:49 pmOff topic, but enjoy
Milhouse (40ca7b) — 11/24/2016 @ 12:02 amTrump’s cabinet picks until and unless he puts his assets in a true blind trust where neither he, his wife, or his kids know what is going on with respect to Trump businesses
Oh, balls. Other people do this because they are passive investors or coupon clippers. Trump and his sons RUN THE EFFING businesses. Anyone who thinks you can put the running of a closely-held business into the hands of BANKERS has no idea of what they are talking about.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/24/2016 @ 1:29 amHe is exempt from the conflict of interest law, as is the vice president, members of congress, and federal judges.
Congress has it’s own rules on this, as does the judiciary. The President (and VP) are governed by politics. If they are seen to be unethical swine, it will affect their support and re-election prospects. If they are total swine, they can be impeached for conduct unbecoming (or whatever the House wants to call it).
Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/24/2016 @ 1:33 amApropos of everything that is good and right, at this moment all over the world United States military cooks are working their tails off to make sure the troops have a Happy Thanksgiving.
Happy Thanksgiving to all of you.
Steve57 (0b1dac) — 11/24/2016 @ 3:27 amStill PO’d about the Phoenix/Belgrano.
This would have been a more dignified end.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xa5KqLGvXsw
The Thach went down in service to her country.
Steve57 (0b1dac) — 11/24/2016 @ 3:30 amHappy Thanksgiving. This is a great read for today.
https://mises.org/blog/great-thanksgiving-hoax
Remember envy and greed are both sins.
gbear (70736b) — 11/24/2016 @ 4:15 amMaybe? Hey man, you’re a lawyer. Should be pretty simple to determine whether it’s legal or not.
Donald (bd230b) — 11/24/2016 @ 5:12 amAnd part of that work is roasting “plastic turkeys” for display on each table 🙂 Since we’re constantly talking now about reporters making idiots of themselves.
Milhouse (40ca7b) — 11/24/2016 @ 5:34 amgbear (70736b) —11/24/2016 @ 4:15 am
So the first three years weeded out the colony by making sure that only those who were good at stealing food, or otherwise exploiting their fellow colonists, survived? Traits that later proved useful in stealing the Indians’ land, brutalizing African and European slaves, and exploiting new immigrants?
nk (dbc370) — 11/24/2016 @ 6:33 amgbear,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/24/2016 @ 6:36 amMy understanding is that the “Pilgrims” were not all motivated by religious beliefs, but that there was an assembly of various others.
I have never seen mention whether the laziness and lack of virtue was at all correlated with these two factions. In principle, those with Biblical conviction could easily appeal to passages dealing with “work with your hands so that you have something to give” and “work as unto the Lord”.
Non-believers would not be impressed with such reasoning,
and of course those of claimed religious conviction don’t always live them out.
The propaganda wing of the peddler class, and I mean “free market” economic theorists, are just as ruthless in spinning history to support their positions as Communists, is what I think.
nk (dbc370) — 11/24/2016 @ 6:43 amThey make real ones, too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EunDiDKOLk8
The Phoenix needed a destroyer screen in the 1940s. To send her into the teeth of the Royal Navy nuclear submarine force in the 1980s was madness. She deserved better.
Steve57 (0b1dac) — 11/24/2016 @ 6:47 amhttp://ace.mu.nu/archives/ath.jpeg
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 11/24/2016 @ 6:58 amI thought KP was a thing of the past and the military is being fed by civilian contractors these days. Along with all the rest of the housekeeping.
nk (dbc370) — 11/24/2016 @ 7:01 amWell it William Bradford’s account so there should be some credit due, after wolf hall, we see how arbitrary a sect allied to a sovereign can be,
narciso (d1f714) — 11/24/2016 @ 7:26 amRe Fred kaplan, trump did not repudiate aggressive intetrogation, as Carlos slim suggests.
narciso (d1f714) — 11/24/2016 @ 7:52 amHolman Jenkins has a good article up at the WSJ which says its pretty much impossible for Trump to truly “divest” given the nature of his holdings. The biggest problem is simply the fact that “Trump” is a “brand” which has a market value simply in the name, and he can’t divest himself of his name. The value of that brand has already increased significantly — the fact that diplomats report wanting to staying in a “Trump” hotel is evidence of that. But the brand stretches across a vast array of holdings.
He owns a great deal of real estate in partnership — what about his partners? Are the partnership agreements such that he can simply sell his stake? Likely not. Its quite possible he would open himself up to litigation if he were to suddenly begin to liquidate holdings in a fashion that hurts the value of the property and thereby does financial damage to his partners. And we know from Jones v. Clinton, a sitting President is not immune from civil suits while in office.
Also, his children are going to benefit financially from his Presidency whether he can “divest” or not. There is no legal basis to force them to divest, and they own significant portions of the “Trump” brand. So every diplomat who stays in a Trump hotel is putting money into the pockets of his adult children, so that “conflict” — it isn’t one really — will never go away.
And that is really the basis of the Jenkins’ piece — his critics are going to attack him regardless of the actual facts with regard to conflicts. They aren’t going to care whether he actually owns anything himself. If his family benefits — and they will — that is going to be the basis of the attack.
Jenkins concludes that the fact of his wealth and finances was not a secret prior to the election — in fact it was cited by a large number of voter interviews as the reason they voted for him. His opponents and the media are going to attack him regardless of how he tries to navigate this problem.
If his businesses make money as a collateral consequence of the fact that he has won the Presidency, oh well. That’s not the same as saying actions taken by him as President have as their ulterior motive to enrichment of him and his family.
That would be the Clinton Foundation authorizing the sale of 20% of the US uranium production capacity to a Russian company because several US investors made a fortune on the sale, and in return they contributed millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation which was a shadow campaign for HRC and Clinton, Inc.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 11/24/2016 @ 8:43 amThe last sentence should read the “Clinton State Department” authorizing the sale.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 11/24/2016 @ 8:45 amnk, your inner antisemite is showing again. Better put him back to sleep.
Milhouse (40ca7b) — 11/24/2016 @ 9:15 amUm, you know that didn’t happen, don’t you? The most Clinton could have done was influence one vote out of nine, on a committee giving non-binding advice to the president on whether to allow the Russian company to buy 51% of the Canadian company that owns the mines in question. And the State Dept’s representative on that committee says she never took an interest in the committee’s work, let alone ever told him how to vote on it. And only one investor donated to the Clinton Foundation during and after the Russian takeover, giving a total of 1.3M over the course of 3 years; he had also donated before the Russian deal was even thought of, so there’s no reason to believe that the later donations were “in return” for help that Clinton didn’t give and was not in any position to give.
Milhouse (40ca7b) — 11/24/2016 @ 9:33 amTrump didn’t talk with the president of Argentina about the project, but he put his daughter Ivanka on the phone.
Sammy Finkelman (1190c5) — 11/24/2016 @ 9:38 amSometimes right, more frequently wrong, but never in doubt.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 11/24/2016 @ 9:48 amnk, your inner antisemite is showing again. Better put him back to sleep.
Milhouse (40ca7b) — 11/24/2016 @ 9:15 am
Get f***ed. If you think that predatory money-grubbing is a Jewish trait, and any criticism of it is a criticism of Jews, then you’re the antisemite.
nk (dbc370) — 11/24/2016 @ 9:58 amMr. nk isn’t against jewish people anymore than Mr. Bannon is or HUD Secretary Dr. Ben Carson (lol) is but who *are* jew-haters are include Barack Obama and Tila Tequila and uber-loyal bush klanster James Baker
happyfeet (28a91b) — 11/24/2016 @ 10:06 amglad we could get that straightened out
happyfeet (28a91b) — 11/24/2016 @ 10:07 amThank you, happyfeet.
“Amateur psychiatric prognosis can be fascinating when there is absolutely nothing else to do.”
nk (dbc370) — 11/24/2016 @ 10:13 am― Richard Condon, The Manchurian Candidate
88. Ugh, that’s how Red Dawn started.
urbanleftbehind (55e7de) — 11/24/2016 @ 10:43 amHostility to commerce and merchants, the bourgeoisie, “the peddler class” as nk so sneeringly puts it, including calling them such names as “predatory money-grubbers”, “bloodsucking capitalists”, “rootless cosmopolitans”, etc. is antisemitism. That’s basically what antisemitism has been about, ever since the Greeks invented it more than 2000 years ago.
Milhouse (0218bb) — 11/24/2016 @ 1:19 pmUSS Cushing SINKEX.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EunDiDKOLk8
Stand my to stand by. You will not like it. But I will stand by.
You know, her crews stood by her.
Steve57 (0b1dac) — 11/25/2016 @ 12:40 amTrump is not sworn in yet and is still a private citizen. How a phone call affects the office of the presidency is hard to see. Macri could be worried that the business deal might be abandoned as not worth the trouble they were giving him.
dunce (ce5e2d) — 11/25/2016 @ 1:40 amshipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 11/24/2016 @ 8:43 am
He could sell the trademark, as some fashion designers have done. I don’t think he’d want to. But it actually has lost value because now some people want to avoid anything having to do with Trump.
What they could do is
1) Simplify – some of which has happened already because he’s mostly or entirely out of the entertainment business as a result of the campaign – no more beauty pageant and no more TV show and
2) Try to arrange to sell things (like hotel rooms) at fixed prices, and maybe buy insurance.
Now the Secret Service wants to rent 2 vacant floors in Trump Tower. They are in the commercial section – about 40 floors below but would be more conventient than in another building.
Actually, about the only realistic thing he can do is keep himself out of the negotiations. Joe Biden, by the way, rented a cottage by his home in Wilmington to the Secret Service, so this has happened before. All he can do is stay out of the negotiations or hire some arbiter to determine the price.
They may not even care if there an actual conflict of interest or not. Remember Vice President Dick Cheney and Haliburton? He did everything he could to avoid it. He changed his deferred compensation it to a fixed severance payment and gave up some.
Sammy Finkelman (1190c5) — 11/25/2016 @ 11:40 amAnd he still got accused of trying to benefit Haliburton – although his critics were careful not to explain why he might have an interest in the well being of Haliburton (aside from it not going bankrupt)
The Founders wanted people to come from business, take office, then go home. They would not have asked a businessman to sell his hotels in case someone rented a room to curry favor. The Trump business is his legacy to his kids, you cannot ask him to sell it at auction.
For perspective, compare it to Harry Reid getting rich in congress by gaming various “deals”, Nacy Pelosi’s husband getting government contracts, and Hillary’s whitewater deal, and now the Clinton Foundation.
Get over it. If it looks like he is using the position to double his wealth, then worry.
Smarty (0bab40) — 11/26/2016 @ 1:15 pm