By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sundin13 on 19 September 2016
Edit Thread
fatslob-:O said:
sundin13 said:

Like...someone said, when you are Secretary of State, everyone wants to get involved. There is no evidence that any decisions were made due to this email. Again, this is the definition of circumstancial. Again, I agree that there are conflicts of interest involved with the Clinton Foundation, but there isn't direct evidence of quid pro quo.

Now, speaking about Trump for a second, I have already posted that Trump receives $8million per year from his South Korean deal. Now, your sources indicate that Soros provided the Clinton Foundation (again, this money goes to charity, not into Clinton's pockets) $7mil during the election cycle, so any way you slice it, Trump is making more money from a single source than Clinton is here. The fact that Clinton recieves more money total really only implies that she has more sources of income for her foundation and that there are more interests involved (meaning that the interests of her donors would be more likely to conflict). 

Also, you are acting like Trump licensing his name isn't central to his business strategy, when that has been his business strategy for years now (and its very worth noting that the federal disclosure form is far from complete due to it not exactly being written for someone like Trump).  Additionally, there are and have been many other deals involving this licensing, so if the South Korean deal is anything to go by, factoring in an increase in Trump's name power as president, it wouldn't be unlikely that future licensing deals which he could directly affect as President would make him over $10million per year each.

I'm not really sure why we are arguing anymore. This has become a pissing contest. Both of them have clear, undeniable conflicts of interest. Theres no two ways about it.

However, worth noting that Hillary has already made it clear that Bill and several other members will step away from the foundation (Hillary has already stepped away), it will go independent, and donations would only be accepted from US citizens if she were to become president. Trump on the other hand has said that his kids would be in charge of his business, which doesn't separate him any where near far enough from the conflict of interest imo.

Well if you've read the article ever since that $43 billion dollar accounting fraud, Daewoo E&C made revisions to the contract. You say he's getting $8 million dollars but his financial disclosure form says otherwise ... 

You're convinced that the Clinton Foundation is a charity but on what grounds do you have to really substantiate that claim ? Furthermore, why exactly does the Clinton Foundation have so many insiders as their top staff when a practice of good governance is that board members are to have term limits ? 

Even if his name does rise to fame, how likely do you think he'll be able to break the low double digit barrier for licensing ? 

Rhe source I posted earlier did say that Trump was making $8mil per yea, but it wasn't clear whether that was now or when the contract was first penned. Regardless, it sets up a ballpark for how much these deals are worth annually. And as I've stated, the financial disclosure form is far from all encompasing. Due to the fact that Donald Trump also operates his business, some things were left out of the report because all that was required to disclose were Trump's personal finances, not his business's finances. That means that money flowing through Trump Organization is handled differently than money flowing directly to Trump himself and it also means that some money is being unaccounted for. Not saying that is illegal, just that the form wasn't designed to be used for someone like Trump. 

As for the other stuff...I'm not sure what you are trying to prove. Clinton Foundation is a charity any way you slice it. An IRS investigation doesn't make the Clinton Foundation not a charity (especially when the investigation is not concluded) and the Clinton Foundation donating money to another charity run by someone they know also doesn't say anything about whether or not they are a charity. Not sure what you are trying to prove. 

As for how likely it would be to break the low double digit barrier, I don't know and I really don't think it matters. We are still talking about values in the tens of millions per year for a single deal, and that is if the Trump business has absolutely no stake whatsoever in the properties which really depends on how the contracts are ironed out (according to the WSJ, Trump typically does get a management contract or a portion of future sales which wouldn't be counted in the "licensing" category of his finances). We lack the information to determine exactly how much Trump stands to make off of each of these deals, but we do know that the properties involved are typically worth in the hundreds of millions of dollars range. Licensing is a big part of the expansion of Trump's business and his business plan for the last few years. I don't see any sane way to deny that this creates a conflict of interest.

EDIT: According to this ( http://www.newsday.com/news/world/donald-trump-s-company-fired-by-panama-city-development-1.10947710 ), Trump was expected to take in $75.4 million in licensing fees for one property back in 2007 but due to bankruptcy, he "only" got $32-55million instead and that is ignoring any addition stake contingent on the contract. We aren't talking pocket change here.