Posted on Feb 3, 2017
Eric Trump’s trip to Uruguay cost taxpayers $97,830 in hotel bills
1.33K
18
9
2
2
0
You have to be kidding me! Does Eric Trump hold a US Government position? The answer is either Yes or No.
It is quite interesting that the Left (Democrats by extension) is outraged. They (the Democratic Party) are responsible for this, they are the ones that created/changed the law, it was their candidate (Robert Kennedy) that was assassinated, they were the ones in power in the House, in the Senate, and in the White House. Ironically the assassin was a Palestinian with Jordanian citizenship, even more ironic he was an Orthodox Christian and changed church denominations several times.
I do not know of any place in the law of the United States where it is mandated that a non political adult has to divest themselves of personal or business property, or one that states that they have to do so because a parent is an elected official. I really do not think that eminent domain would apply, and I believe that it would be contrary to the Fifth and Ninth Amendments to the Constitution.
I forgot to add the following in the initial post - I also believe that curtailing the 'freedom of movement' of an adult citizen under these circumstances also would violate the 'Privileges and Immunities Clause', nor do I believe that Eric Trump is in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 and the current provisos of any subsequent updates. If the freedom of movement is curtailed, then it could be a violation of the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution.
It was a high-profile jaunt out of the country for Eric, the fresh-faced executive of the Trump Organization who, like his father, pledged to keep the company separate from the presidency. Eric mingled with real estate brokers, dined at an open-air beachfront eatery and spoke to hundreds at an “ultra exclusive” Trump Tower Punta del Este evening party celebrating his visit.
The Uruguayan trip shows how the government is unavoidably entangled with the Trump company as a result of the president’s refusal to divest his ownership stake. In this case, government agencies are forced to pay to support business operations that ultimately help to enrich the president himself. Though the Trumps have pledged a division of business and government, they will nevertheless depend on the publicly funded protection granted to the first family as they travel the globe promoting their brand.
It is quite interesting that the Left (Democrats by extension) is outraged. They (the Democratic Party) are responsible for this, they are the ones that created/changed the law, it was their candidate (Robert Kennedy) that was assassinated, they were the ones in power in the House, in the Senate, and in the White House. Ironically the assassin was a Palestinian with Jordanian citizenship, even more ironic he was an Orthodox Christian and changed church denominations several times.
I do not know of any place in the law of the United States where it is mandated that a non political adult has to divest themselves of personal or business property, or one that states that they have to do so because a parent is an elected official. I really do not think that eminent domain would apply, and I believe that it would be contrary to the Fifth and Ninth Amendments to the Constitution.
I forgot to add the following in the initial post - I also believe that curtailing the 'freedom of movement' of an adult citizen under these circumstances also would violate the 'Privileges and Immunities Clause', nor do I believe that Eric Trump is in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 and the current provisos of any subsequent updates. If the freedom of movement is curtailed, then it could be a violation of the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution.
It was a high-profile jaunt out of the country for Eric, the fresh-faced executive of the Trump Organization who, like his father, pledged to keep the company separate from the presidency. Eric mingled with real estate brokers, dined at an open-air beachfront eatery and spoke to hundreds at an “ultra exclusive” Trump Tower Punta del Este evening party celebrating his visit.
The Uruguayan trip shows how the government is unavoidably entangled with the Trump company as a result of the president’s refusal to divest his ownership stake. In this case, government agencies are forced to pay to support business operations that ultimately help to enrich the president himself. Though the Trumps have pledged a division of business and government, they will nevertheless depend on the publicly funded protection granted to the first family as they travel the globe promoting their brand.
Eric Trump’s trip to Uruguay cost taxpayers $97,830 in hotel bills
Posted from msn.com
Constitution
Election 2016
Donald Trump
Edited 8 y ago
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 5
4
4
0
So the security provided is where the cost was incurred. I wonder what the cost of day to day security is.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
PO3 Paul Lowrey
All the Democratic Party does 24/7 is bitch, Moan, whine, corrupt, resist, spread hate and discontent, divide, lie and spend tax dollars like it belongs to them. I'd like to know what it cost the American tax payers annually to support their Tom foolery.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Say what? It's the law and has nothing to do with conflict of interest. From the article...
Immediate family members of presidents have for decades been guaranteed taxpayer-funded safeguards, and their safety is paramount to national security, especially as they travel to foreign and potentially dangerous hot spots.
In 1917, Congress first authorized the then-Secret Service Division of the U.S. Treasury Department to protect the immediate family of the president. In 1984, a statute extended that protection for other key individuals, including the immediate family of the vice president.
Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton even authorized Secret Service protection for their adult daughters for an unspecified period of time after the presidents left office.
Immediate family members of presidents have for decades been guaranteed taxpayer-funded safeguards, and their safety is paramount to national security, especially as they travel to foreign and potentially dangerous hot spots.
In 1917, Congress first authorized the then-Secret Service Division of the U.S. Treasury Department to protect the immediate family of the president. In 1984, a statute extended that protection for other key individuals, including the immediate family of the vice president.
Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton even authorized Secret Service protection for their adult daughters for an unspecified period of time after the presidents left office.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google