You can do that with anything. A recent famous case in my country involved a shady real estate mogul who bought a $40 million piece of real estate and then turned around and sold it to a russian oligarch for $100 million. Was it a bribe? Who can say?
Two reasons why it wasn't bribery: First, it wasn't just bought and then sold - the property was bought, renovated by Trump, and then sold 4 years later. Secondly, the Russian that bought it subdivided the lot and is set to make a few tens of millions off of selling each subdivision: https://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/news/2017/10/06/rus...
I feel like US Presidents shouldn’t be allowed to participate in any large scale commercial enterprise while in office. Whether it’s innocent or not is largely besides the point, the potential for conflict of interest is huge and there’s no way to ensure their financial incentives align with those of the American people. Furthermore, there is a long tradition that previous Presidents have placed their assets into a blind trust, a tradition that Trump clearly disregards. Sure, you could argue it’s not a bribe, but it’s very shady.
I don’t see why it matters when it took place. I’m curious, don’t you think he may have an incentive to benefit his russian business partners, both for past and future deals they may make, at the expense of the American people? Why wouldn’t he choose to benefit his russian business partners, at your expense, if he has an opportunity to do so? The incentive is clearly there.
Because bribery usually happens when people are in power. I've never heard of preemptive bribes, where hopefully the bribee will run for office 10 years later.
You know what, this just isn't worth it. You calling them "business partners" shows me what I need to know. No reasonable person would call the counter party in a transaction a "business partner". You realize that Trump has done thousands of deals with people of all sorts of nationalities right? Do you expect them to all get favored treatment, or just Russians? Is that how good business people operate? "We did a transaction once, therefore I will favor you and give you free consideration for no other reason"
> Is that how good business people operate? "We did a transaction once, therefore I will favor you and give you free consideration for no other reason"
Suppose a person works in real estate their entire life, and then runs for political office but still maintains their real estate business. Is it not reasonable to assume, absent evidence to the contrary, that they have incentives to benefit the real estate industry and in particular their own business, over that of others? Why would they stop acting in a way that maximizes their own personal profit?
Would we not assume the same for really any professional background? If Mark Zuckerburg runs for President and wins, would we not assume that he would favor policies that benefit Facebook to the detriment of their competitors, simply because he has a strong financial incentive to do so? Indeed, would you be comfortable with a President Zuckerberg who remained in complete control of Facebook while in office?
Why then is it weird to be concerned that Trump has not distanced himself from his business interests? Trump has done thousands of deals, but those deals only benefited him and his counter parties. Those deals were not done for the benefit of the American public at large. That's fine for Trump the private citizen, but not Trump the President. I reasonably expect that all dealings that a President has while in office are exclusively on behalf of and for the benefit of the American people. If he were a banker, or wall street financier of any other type, wouldn't the same conflict of interest exist? Do you really not think this is a cause for concern?
The default assumption should be that a person is prone to corruption. That is the safe assumption for anyone granted power, and is the assumption of the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution. We should not give the benefit of the doubt to any leader. That is far too dangerous and runs contrary to the spirit of Democracy. If you want to believe a leader is a saint above reproach that is the realm of Authoritarianism, not Democracy.
> Oh, I didn't mean him. I mean, surely if this is so routine, it must happen a lot, right?
It's pretty routine for 'real estate moguls' to do real estate deals.
> Except the buyer immediately tore down most of the renovations.
So if this was a bribe, why did Trump even bother renovating? Why not just let it sit for 4 years?
> That's funny, the link you provided says he hasn't yet turned a profit. Where did you get the number you specifically cited?
From the article I linked. He hasn't turned profit because he is still sitting on 1/3rd of the subdivisions - the estimated profit was based on previous sales prices and current market conditions.
This is only shady because people, like you, hate Trump and basically think that he is guilty of everything he is accused of.
> So if this was a bribe, why did Trump even bother renovating? Why not just let it sit for 4 years?
Could be because the asset was not conceived as a bribe vehicle at first. Actually it is pretty dumb to use real estate goods for that as their values can be more objectively evaluated than paintings.
