George Washington was one of the richest people in the USA - and the richest president we ever had until Donald Trump. Washington had plantations and substantial business interests - all that could be affected by the federal government. There is no record of George Washington divesting himself of any business interests. The same for Thomas Jefferson, the 2nd richest until Trump. Lawyers and business people in Congress do not divest themselves of their business interests, nor do officials in state and local government. But according to the Democratic Party and Democrat MSM talking heads it is different for presidents. So, should George Washington have been investigated and impeached for not giving up control of his business interests?
I think Trump should automatically comply with any demands by liberals because the moral superiority of liberals is beyond dispute. They are saintlike and pure in heart and mind. Everyone knows this.
Democrats only whine about a theoretical conflict because Trump is not their man. Democrats didn't care about the Bill & Hilary foundation, and the Clintons selling favors, in fact the D's defended the Clintons. Its just the typical "progressive" BS.
George Washington had substantial business interests in England, France, Spain and other countries and was looking to expand those interests in those countries and other countries relevant to US policy?
Yes he did. He exported tobacco, hemp (rope), and other products to Europe. US policy in many regards would apply such as tariffs and taxes. BUT you seem to think it is only FOREIGN interests that could be a conflict. Any laws related to taxes and commerce domestically also directly affected his personal wealth. So nice try, but your searching for a distinction didn't work.
Why the veil? Why not just come out with what you really wish to debate? Your question is only slightly, and i mean very slightly more relevant than asking how long is a piece of string.
I don't know if this code is already furnished at that time. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/208
Well, maybe he should have sold off his businesses. And even if not, he probably had more moral character than Trump to resist temptations. You seem to take that further and think of him as some kind of nationalistic Jesus, but ethics back then are pretty suspect given slavery. For me personally, the conflict of interest issue with Trump is not the most serious of my problems with him, at least not until he clearly does put his business ahead of America, which would not surprise me.
Do you have the same position on members of Congress and legislatures? That the condition of being in politics is to give up your business and future income after Congress? Do you apply that to lawyers in Congress and legislatures? Their lawyer's oath REQUIRES them to REPRESENT the best interests of their clients. Isn't THAT a conflict of interests since their oath of office is to represent the best interests of the USA and Constitution? Do you claim lawyers should have to give up their law license and "sell-off" their law practice if elected to Congress? Or do you make exception for those business people?
I do not believe Congress may place any restrictions on who may be president other than what it stated in the Constitution - no more than President Trump could sign an executive order claiming having a current law license is prohibited from any member of Congress.
He can always veto any laws passed as well. But George Washington was the first president of the USA, right? then is the checks and balance already existed during his presidency or else who would check if he do have wrong doings?
The US at the time was a tiny little nation compare to any of the European powers of no important on the world stage so why should the same rules apply to such a nation compare to the now most important nation on earth?
All the ranting about claimed "conflicts of interest" is just a reflection on how many Democrats truly hate capitalism and business people. ALL POLITICIANS in any legislative or executive position vote and act on matters that affect them personally, no exceptions. ANY politician who votes on any matters concerning taxes, criminal laws, and most regulation is affected PERSONALLY by their vote or action. In short, this all is just hate-on-business crap that is 100% hypocritical.
LOL in fact the former mayor of Homestead FL was just send to prison for one of those votes. All in fact over a vote for putting in a larger sewer pumping station for the needs of 'friends'.
Footnote if Trump had pull the kind of nonsense during George Washington era as he did in the 1990s he would most likely had been in debtor prison not running for president.
Your message is 100% false. His convict was for special favors in exchange for money. It had NOTHING to do with any business he owned.
You mean like how George Washington was forced to have pay? If the laws existed at the time to prevent conflicts of interest, then yes he should have.
Well, first I'd make a distinction between what should be illegal and ethics. In an ideal, ethical world, they would minimize potential conflicts to avoid temptation. As far as something being punishable by jail time or removal from office, it should be actually acting in the interests of their business at the expense of the interests of their constituents. People suspect Trump will do this. Also as a legal minimum, I think their business interests should be known so that they can be called out on it and face political consequences. With Trump we don't even have that because he didn't release his returns. Depending upon the specific interest, it may toe the line of unethical or illegal. For example, a congressman who owns a business that sells weapons to foreign powers we may come into conflict with may be subject to more scrutiny. Or somebody who is actively trying to open businesses in Russia while voting on sanctions for Russia, for example. I also think the standard should be higher for the president, since more power is concentrated in one person. But there is a more easily fixable problem with elected officials and it comes in the form of getting campaign contributions from known special interests. There is no inherent conflict of interest in taking clients. One could imagine exceptions like representing a business and voting on legislation that would affect that business, but usually a lawyer's task is to convince judges/juries of their side under existing law, and the laws they are writing will not yet apply. A conflict of interest doesn't mean having any interest outside of your office, it means having interests that are likely to come into conflict with your oath. A law practice is low on that scale, while being a weapons contractor for terrorists would be high on that scale. Wanting to expand your business into a country that wants something from the US, well that's significant if you're the president, less-so if you're just a representative.
Being a lawyer is the very top of the scale due to conflicting oaths. Most lawyers will never see the inside of a courtroom. A representative can sneak something thru far easily than a president. Trump's business interests are largely known. What he would not release is information no business person would ever release publicly or to competitors such as would be found in tax returns.
I'm sure that hyperliberal, radical Democrats could show us a long list of all of George Washington's sins.... Including, having a plantation with 318 Black slaves (Gasp! ). He was an old, White guy, and no matter what else he was or wasn't, but today's standards that alone would be enough for him to be condemned throughout history. So, how were any of the Founding Fathers of this nation supposed to have supported themselves if they weren't business people? Why, today's liberal Democrat would immediately respond that they should have given away everything they owned and started taking welfare from the government. Unfortunately for this viewpoint, the Founding Fathers did not (NOT) put hand-out welfare in the Constitution. Anybody who would have even suggested such a thing back when this nation was begun would have been cursed as a pathetic parasite and thrown in same harbor that the patriots threw the English tea in.... . "Hey, what's so bad about welfare-for-life?!"
To compare George Washington to donnie-boy is beyond ridiculous. Washington risked his life (and fortune) during nearly a decade of fighting the best fighting force in the world: the British. If Washington and his poorly paid, poorly fed, poorly trained and equipped, soldiers had failed, there would have been NO America. Washington was a giant, a great leader. He more than earned the right to be considered for the presidency of our then, new, country. Trump has done nothing to serve this country. He is a cheap, narcissistic, bigoted, scumbag. He serves only himself and the sleaze he surrounds himself with -- such as his cabinet members and staff. He defrauded college students (think he paid 25M because he was innocent?), stiffed suppliers, workers, contractors, etc. There’s much more bad news about this creep, but you get the idea. It would be better to compare Trump with Bernie Madoff or Al Capone or Daffy Duck.
