And Still The Deception Goes On

[Old_Trapper70]

Of course, this is how Trump is going to fight against China's trade policies, bring jobs back to America, just like he is going to stand up to Russia. And the sheep dutifully bleep at his behind:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/...nary-approval-to-38-new-trump-trademarks.html

"China has granted preliminary approval for 38 new Trump trademarks, paving the way for President Donald Trump and his family to potentially develop a host of branded businesses from hotels and golf clubs to bodyguard and concierge services, public documents show.

Trump's lawyers in China applied for the marks in April 2016, as Trump railed against China at campaign rallies, accusing it of currency manipulation and stealing U.S. jobs. Critics maintain that Trump's swelling portfolio of China trademarks raises serious conflict of interest questions.

China's Trademark Office published the provisional approvals on Feb. 27.

If no one objects, they will be formally registered after 90 days. All but three are in the president's own name. China already registered one trademark Opens a New Window. to the president, for Trump-branded construction services on Feb. 14, the result of a 10-year legal battle that turned in Trump's favor after he declared his candidacy.

Ethics lawyers across the political spectrum say that if Trump receives any special treatment in securing trademark rights, it would violate the U.S. Constitution, which bans public servants from accepting anything of value from foreign governments unless approved by Congress. Concerns about potential conflicts of interest are particularly sharp in China, where the courts and bureaucracy are designed to reflect the will of the ruling Communist party"

 

[grumpy]

Believe or not , This Washington post story paints Trump in a little better light..
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...dent-either/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.a6c65d1122c8

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Believe or not , This Washington post story paints Trump in a little better light..
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...dent-either/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.a6c65d1122c8

Yep:


"Trump has also promised that his business will do “no new foreign deals” during his presidency.

But Norman Eisen, who served as chief White House ethics lawyer for President Barack Obama, argued that China could use Trump’s desire to control his brand to influence policy, especially as its courts and bureaucracy reflect the will of the Communist Party.

“There can be no question that it is a terrible idea for Donald Trump to be accepting the registration of these valuable property rights from China while he’s a sitting president of the United States,” Eisen told the Associated Press. “It’s fair to conclude that this is an effort to influence Mr. Trump that is relatively inexpensive for the Chinese, potentially very valuable to him, but it could be very costly for the United States.”

Eisen is involved in a lawsuit alleging that Trump’s foreign business ties violate the Constitution. Trump has dismissed the lawsuit as “totally without merit.”

 

[grumpy]

Yep:


"Trump has also promised that his business will do “no new foreign deals” during his presidency.

But Norman Eisen, who served as chief White House ethics lawyer for President Barack Obama, argued that China could use Trump’s desire to control his brand to influence policy, especially as its courts and bureaucracy reflect the will of the Communist Party.

“There can be no question that it is a terrible idea for Donald Trump to be accepting the registration of these valuable property rights from China while he’s a sitting president of the United States,” Eisen told the Associated Press. “It’s fair to conclude that this is an effort to influence Mr. Trump that is relatively inexpensive for the Chinese, potentially very valuable to him, but it could be very costly for the United States.”

Eisen is involved in a lawsuit alleging that Trump’s foreign business ties violate the Constitution. Trump has dismissed the lawsuit as “totally without merit.”

If I had been working on this for 10 years and spent millions, I would accept them too.. I wouldn't act on them..

 

[Old_Trapper70]

If I had been working on this for 10 years and spent millions, I would accept them too.. I wouldn't act on them..

Awfully stupid. Fight for ten years, spend millions, and then don't use them. And he is a "genius" in your mind.

Oh yes, his sons can though.

Then too, you can think about this, or ignore it since it shows Trump in the negative light he deserves:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...ause-do-they-intersect-trump-presidency.shtml

"Suddenly, in April of last year, Trump suddenly went back to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board, which had ruled against his appeal of the original rejection of his trademark application, and asked it to simply review its previous decision. Strangely, the Review Board suddenly reversed course, invalidating Dong's trademark. Trump's trademark was not codified until November 13th, in the immediate aftermath of his winning the Presidency. Immediately after that, the Trump organization applied for nearly fifty other trademarks in China, all of which are pending.

In the context of this complete reversal, the timing of which coincides with Donald Trump becoming President of the United States, does this register as a violation of the emoluments clause? If we can finally resolve this question about whether the clause applies to the President in a way that preserves both the framers' intentions as well as the realm of common sense, it sure seems to be.

It’s not bribery, exactly, that we’re trying to prevent in this clause. We don’t need a special constitutional provision prohibiting office-holders from taking bribes, because taking bribes is already illegal under the common law, and it is also one of the “high crimes and misdemeanors” for which office-holders can be impeached. But it’s a close cousin to bribery; accepting an emolument introduces an improper element — personal gain — into the decision-maker’s calculus, less obviously and overtly than in cases of actual bribery, but no less serious for that.

And that is precisely the situation Trump is now in. He has 49 additional applications pending before the Chinese Trademark Office. He has been given a nice, valuable gift, and he could be forgiven for thinking that other similar gifts could follow (if he behaves himself well).

It's worth repeating that this question could have easily been avoided had Trump bowed to the norms of the presidency and gone further to divest or partition his office from his business than he has. The only reason we're having this conversation is because our current President made the decision to make such questions relevant. And since Trump currently has the status both of President and businessman, benefits to the one must be considered benefits to the other. The granting of trademarks ought to be included in this, particularly given the circumstances surrounding how and when those trademarks went from being wholly rejected to suddenly being granted."

 

[grumpy]

It’s not bribery, exactly, that we’re trying to prevent in this clause. We don’t need a special constitutional provision prohibiting office-holders from taking bribes, because taking bribes is already illegal under the common law, and it is also one of the “high crimes and misdemeanors” for which office-holders can be impeached. But it’s a close cousin to bribery; accepting an emolument introduces an improper element — personal gain — into the decision-maker’s calculus, less obviously and overtly than in cases of actual bribery, but no less serious for that.

And that is precisely the situation Trump is now in. He has 49 additional applications pending before the Chinese Trademark Office. He has been given a nice, valuable gift, and he could be forgiven for thinking that other similar gifts could follow (if he behaves himself well).

I thought you were talking about the Clintons in this part of your post, This opinion just fits YOUR narrative that's all, You see what you want to see. Lets not count our eggs before they hatch.. already the liberals are backing off the Trump connection to Russia..Go figure..

 

[Old_Trapper70]

I thought you were talking about the Clintons in this part of your post, This opinion just fits YOUR narrative that's all, You see what you want to see. Lets not count our eggs before they hatch.. already the liberals are backing off the Trump connection to Russia..Go figure..

Again you show your ability to ignore the written word to post your own ignorance. It has to do with China. Russia is not even mentioned.

And you wonder why I call you a fool.

 

[grumpy]

Again you show your ability to ignore the written word to post your own ignorance. It has to do with China. Russia is not even mentioned.

And you wonder why I call you a fool.

Clearly, the point I was trying to make here before I was so rudely responded to was you may be counting your eggs before they hatch on China, and you may end up backing off like the Dems on Russia..But a person looking for faults in others might have seen it your way..

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Clearly, the point I was trying to make here before I was so rudely responded to was you may be counting your eggs before they hatch on China, and you may end up backing off like the Dems on Russia..But a person looking for faults in others might have seen it your way..

Then I guess you should have said so instead of backpedaling now with your off handed BS.

 

[grumpy]

Then I guess you should have said so instead of backpedaling now with your off handed BS.

Your just to quick to jump to the wrong conclusion ..I thought my statement was clear..

 

[Openmind]

Clearly, the point I was trying to make here before I was so rudely responded to was you may be counting your eggs before they hatch on China, and you may end up backing off like the Dems on Russia..But a person looking for faults in others might have seen it your way..

I didn't know "the gems backed off on Russia!" It is true that Trump and co are doing all they can to stop the investigation, or at least to put their own "men" on it. . .but I haven't heard that they have succeeded yet!
Do you know why they are so fearful of that investigation? Why trying so hard to stop it?

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Your just to quick to jump to the wrong conclusion ..I thought my statement was clear..

When you said this:

"I thought you were talking about the Clintons in this part of your post, This opinion just fits YOUR narrative that's all, You see what you want to see. Lets not count our eggs before they hatch.. already the liberals are backing off the Trump connection to Russia..Go figure.."

How does that in any sane world apply to Trump, and China? O know that in some way it does in your alternative reality, however, rational people actually think about issues.

 

[grumpy]

When you said this:

"I thought you were talking about the Clintons in this part of your post, This opinion just fits YOUR narrative that's all, You see what you want to see. Lets not count our eggs before they hatch.. already the liberals are backing off the Trump connection to Russia..Go figure.."

How does that in any sane world apply to Trump, and China? O know that in some way it does in your alternative reality, however, rational people actually think about issues.

you miss interpreted .. Go figure.. I should have made myself more clear..

 

[Old_Trapper70]

you miss interpreted .. Go figure.. I should have made myself more clear..

No, you should have stayed on topic. However, that would not have suited your idea of defending your god.

 

[grumpy]

No, you should have stayed on topic. However, that would not have suited your idea of defending your god.

I CAN TALK SLOWER IF YOU NEED ME TO...