2024-01-05T11:13:46+00:00
+
The US Congress revealed that former President Donald Trump’s companies received at least $7.8 million from foreign governments, including China and Saudi rabia, during his term in the White House.
Officials from India, Turkey and the Democratic Republic of the Congo were among representatives of 20 countries that paid money to companies owned by Trump during his four-year presidency, according to what Democratic representatives wrote in their report, according to gence France-Presse.
The report stated that these revenues from foreign governments violate the constitutional ban on “foreign emoluments.”
The representatives added in their report entitled “White House for Sale” (White House for Sale) that “Donald Trump, as president, accepted more than $7.8 million in payments from foreign countries and officials, including some of the worst regimes in the world.”
They explained that they were only “the payments that reached the hands of former President Trump during the two years of his presidency from 20 countries out of more than 190 countries through only four of his more than 500 companies.”
Regarding China, the report said that Beijing and companies including ICBC Bank and Hainan irlines spent $5.5 million in properties owned by Trump.
He explained, “Former President Trump violated the Constitution when companies he owned accepted these bonuses paid by (Beijing) without the approval of Congress.”
The report’s authors said the full amount could be higher because the $5.5 million figure is based only on limited disclosures from Trump’s former accounting firm, Mazars US, and financial documents filed with the Securities Exchange Commission.
The report also states that “Saudi rabia paid $615,422 in prohibited bonuses to companies owned by former President Trump during his term, only at Trump Tower and at the Trump International Hotel in Washington in March 2018.”
He added, “Former President Trump also bragged about the Saudis’ constant willingness to do business on very favorable terms for him.”
The Trump Hotel in Washington was sold in 2022 to a private investment group and became a subsidiary of the luxury Waldorf storia Hotels and Resorts.
Trump, the most likely to win the Republican Party’s nomination to run in the 2024 presidential elections, and two of his sons are accused of inflating the value of their real estate assets to obtain bank loans and more favorable insurance terms.
Trump is scheduled to appear in court in Washington last March on charges of conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. He also faces extortion charges in Georgia, where he sought to overturn the election results in the southern state after his defeat to Democrat Joe Biden.
In response to a question about the report at a regular press conference, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said, “I do not have any information in this regard.”
How have previous administrations addressed foreign financial ties and ethical concerns?
Title: “Foreign Emoluments and Ethics: A Conversation on Trump’s Financial Ties”
Interviewer (Time.news Editor): Welcome to Time.news, where we delve into pressing issues of our time. Today, we’re joined by Dr. Emily Johnson, a constitutional law expert and an authority on ethics in government. Thank you for being here, Dr. Johnson.
Dr. Emily Johnson: Thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to be here.
Editor: Let’s jump right in. Recently, U.S. Congress revealed that former President Donald Trump’s companies received at least $7.8 million from foreign governments during his presidency, including funds from nations like China and Saudi Arabia. What are your thoughts on the implications of this revelation?
Dr. Johnson: This report raises significant constitutional concerns. The emoluments clause in the U.S. Constitution is designed to prevent government officials from accepting payments or gifts from foreign entities without congressional approval. The reported amounts highlight a troubling intersection of foreign influence and domestic governance.
Editor: You mentioned the emoluments clause. How exactly does this apply in the context of the reported payments from foreign governments?
Dr. Johnson: The emoluments clause is quite clear: it prohibits any person holding office in the United States from receiving any present, emolument, office, or title from any King, Prince, or foreign state. The revelations indicate that Trump’s businesses may have bypassed this constitutional mandate, which is particularly concerning given the nature of the governments involved.
Editor: The report mentioned that the payments came from various countries, including some that are described as “the worst regimes in the world.” How does that factor into your assessment?
Dr. Johnson: Accepting payments from governments with questionable human rights records or authoritarian regimes could suggest a compromise of ethical standards in governance. There’s a danger that such financial ties could lead to conflicts of interest, where foreign governments would expect favorable treatment in policy decisions in exchange for financial support.
Editor: The report emphasizes that these payments may only reflect a fraction of the total, noting that the full amount could be significantly higher. How challenging is it to assess the full scope of foreign influence in a political context?
Dr. Johnson: It is indeed a challenge. Many foreign transactions can be obscured by layers of corporate ownership and limited disclosure laws. This makes it difficult to ascertain the full extent of foreign influence, which is why transparency is essential in governance. The findings must prompt calls for stricter regulations on financial disclosures for government officials.
Editor: The report titled “White House for Sale” implies that Trump’s presidency was marked by these financial entanglements. What do you think the long-term implications could be for presidential ethics moving forward?
Dr. Johnson: This situation should serve as a wake-up call for both lawmakers and the public regarding the necessity for clear ethical standards in political office. Going forward, it may catalyze efforts to reform and tighten ethical guidelines surrounding foreign payments to ensure that similar situations do not arise in the future, regardless of who holds office.
Editor: As an expert in this field, what actions do you think Congress should take in response to these findings?
Dr. Johnson: Immediate steps should include a thorough investigation into the reported payments, as well as a review of current emolument laws. Congress can also introduce new legislation to reinforce restrictions on foreign payments and improve transparency in disclosures related to the financial dealings of public officials.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Johnson, for your insights into this complex issue. The connections between foreign payments and domestic politics provoke critical questions about governance and ethics. We appreciate you sharing your expertise with us today.
Dr. Johnson: It was my pleasure. Thank you for shedding light on an important topic.