She offered a competitive market rate based on what other hotels were charging. Ivanka then overcharged them
Shoveling money in his pocket from the very first day.
- Thread starter Syskatine
- Start date
She offered a competitive market rate based on what other hotels were charging. Ivanka then overcharged them
I've already addressed this - again, this is based on HER opinion on the market and ultimately they have to come to an agreement on the price. Also, we don't even know the final price. So...you saying there was an overcharge is an assumption that just can't be made.
Or that any alleged potential over charging was an attempt to buy influence into the administration.
I've addressed it. It's not uncommon for high profile individuals to use their own facilities to throw events and big parties. There are a number of reasons a person would choose to an event at their own place including a big one...they feel comfortable doing the event there and the people involved putting it together.
Do you think that President Elect Trump was going to get any price breaks from other venues in DC? (Shoot would probably get gauged himself with how polarized that city is).
Based on my own experience I've provided a range that as a major event planner - I would be very comfortable paying for a venue of this caliber. Not a single other poster has provided a range or price other than what Wolkoff put out. I've also addressed this as being a negotiation tactic and I commend her for pushing back on the initial quote...it was her job.
When Trump and his team get arrested and charged I sure hope they send the FBI to Midland, TX. If there has ever been any price gouging going on it is there too.
What do you not get about a POTUS -- the highest fiduciary in the country -- having a different obligation to the country beyond maximizing his person am revenue?
Your analysis just totally avoids the fact he's a president. An elected official.
But maybe you're right and the investigators clear him. We'll see. We"ll see who's spinning unfairly.
Maybe you are right about this.. I think the hotel did make some extra money here and Trump needs to pay it back. How about if he is forced to give up his entire salary as president for the 8 years in office?
Would that teach him a lesson and also make sure that no other hotel in the world would ever do that again?
Tell me the amount of revenue that was generated on the venue. I'll be right here waiting for you to come up with the figure.
When he's in the wrong he's wrong and I'm not afraid to call him out. I'm on record here on this board calling the President an asshole. This isn't spin, this is using my own personal experience in the industry to assess a situation and comment like I see it, no BS.
It's like your sixth consecutive post defending him when YOU don't know the numbers, either and where you totally ignore his office, his fiduciary responsibilities and the function of his office and the commitment to anything other than making money from every available source at every waking moment.
I also give a shit what precedent you can find of people spending other people's money. No question there will be some doozies of waste. This is kind of the point. His daughter is setting the price his business charges his inaugruartion. I can't imagine that kind of self dealing FROM A PRESIDENT. He's a tone deaf, lying ape and is capable of pulling off anything. And you've also ignored the previous inaugural planners cited in the article that were very surprised at the money they spent. They're probably being unfair, too?
Your posts are always awkward when you've obviously ventured way out of your knowledge base. This post is CowboyUp level awkward. Good luck, I guess?
I'm literally going off of the numbers (or lack thereof) from an article that YOU posted. When your own article can't tell you a final figure that was agreed to, and you dismiss any information that would support an alternative message you scream bloody murder and it confirms your inherent bias.
I'm not a rah rah cheerleader. I'm commenting on the situation as the information is presented. You might think the use of an event space owned by the Trump Organization for PE Trump's own event is unethical; cool. I've expressed my own opinion and experience, feel free to disagree.
Now, questions back to you:
1) What is the exact revenue amount the Trump Organization made for the rental of the ballroom space in reference to your article?
2) Can you site an article or provide an example of a comparable ball room for 1,250 people and the price it would be to rent this facility for 4 days; including hotel room stays, F&B - feel free to use Clinton as your expert here, and use of other meeting rooms?
I'll hang up and listen.
1. $82.76
2. I have no doubt that the chair of the Met Ball, who was recruited to serve for the inauguration, could answer that. She internally objected (not as a negotiating ploy, as you suggested and spinned) to the requested price. She was offended. Do you know the price that offended her? Congrats on like... the seventh consecutive post where you completely ignore the conflict of interest and elected official dimensions of this. You seem to be the one that has inherent bias.
Several times now you have mentioned his fiduciary responsibilities. Could you please explain exactly what those responsibilities are?
He is entrusted with the highest office and most power in the country. The attendant responsibilities are so vast and varied I lack the time to list them all.
Surely you know what are the fiduciary responsibilities in the scandal being discussed on this thread? Why else would you bring them up? Could you at least hit on a couple of the most important responsibilities as they pertain to the situation as you see it?
What do the hotels in Stillwater charge on Game Day weekends compared to norma
Of course I'm serious! Why wouldn't I be serious? You have claimed the man has fiduciary responsibilities as it relates to renting rooms in his hotel during the inauguration. It is perfectly reasonable to ask you to say what those responsibilities consist of. I don't understand how requesting such information from you is unnerving. You wouldn't have insisted he was shirking his fiduciary responsibilities if you didn't know what they are, and in what manner they were being shirked. I don't know what they are, nor do I know how they have been shirked. You do know. I was hoping you could enlighten me. I'm not trying to put you on the spot. I truly do not know what you are referring to.
You all are clinging to BS non-analogies lol. This isn’t a logical argument, no matter how many times it’s made. Period.
Yes, I know what fiduciary means. I'm beginning to think you don't. What was Donald Trump's fiduciary duty as it regarded renting hotel rooms during the inauguration? And how/to whom did he betray that duty? You're the one making the accusation. I'm simply asking for the evidence. I assume you have evidence or you wouldn't make a public accusation. It will bolster your argument if you provide such evidence. For the record I am not denying the truthfulness of your claim. I don't know whether it's true or not. I'm asking you to show the evidence and convince me. If the evidence is there it shouldn't be a difficult persuasion. I am on record as repeatedly saying I despise Donald Trump. I am willing to believe you. Your claim is plausible, but without evidence it lacks teeth. It becomes another in a long line of made-for-tv-news scandals that have begun to fall on deaf ears of the public, which I perceive to be growing tired of the unrelenting antagonism directed at the man. There are so many valid reasons to oppose him it is unproductive to try to overwhelm with what is increasingly recognized as fake news. So I would say "put up shut up." What does a good defense attorney say? "Prove it!"
Dan, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I get paid to do that, I'm not really inclined to work for free on an internet message board. Feel free to read the article, do some of your own research, and contribute. A second generation fo reporting about the same deal now suggests the investigation is focusing on arab donations, which would be illegal. That would explain the extravagant haul referenced by the Bush inauguration guy.
As I've told our friend @OSU_Orlando (who has a picture of Rick Carlysle?) we'll see. The disagreemnt is noted and we'll see. I predict Orlando's narrative in a year or two will be, "Oh I was only saying we didn't know all the numbers, I agreed he was a criminal and the inauguration had plenty of smoke."
To elaborate on my other statement in response to your other point a couple minutes ago-- one reason the senate won't convict is so many of them have themselves taken Russian money. Taking money from foreigners won't get much legs in a GOP-controlled senate. The only way to get him out before 2020 is if his family gets convicted. Even then, I don't think he cares enough about another human to let that modify his behavior.
I confess I am a little surprised at your reluctance to produce evidence of your assertion. I have no doubt (well, maybe I have a little doubt) that you are in possession of evidence. Your unwillingness to “come clean” leaves one wondering why you made the assertion to begin with.
If you’re not trying to convince me - or anyone/everyone else - on this board the correctness of your opinion why are you on this board expressing your opinion? That seems to be the action of a troll.
The link you provided said from the very beginning that the “scandal” COULD be a violation of the law. That single descriptive is reason to be skeptical of the rest of the story. Skepticism does not mean denial. It just means, as Missourians would say, “show me.”
Now you’re making another charge, that Arabs are involved. And apparently the fact that Arabs may be involved is illegal. Why would charging Arabs for use of the hotel be illegal? Once again I ask you to back your claim. Just throwing out charges to see if something will stick is beneath you, sys. You are better than that!
And a third claim: Republicans are part and parcel owned by the Russians. Do you believe this stuff? Or are you trying to get an angry response from others?
Is this the way you conduct yourself in court? You’re a lawyer, right? Do you get many juries to vote with you by using this tactic? I’m asking sincerely. I will tell you if I were on your jury and you used this tactic my “skeptic meter” would be on overdrive!
Now you've really triggered me...of course it's a picture of Rick.
Your "prediction" about me and my opinion is completely unfounded and frankly wrong. I stand by my view of the evidence presented from the article you posted. In my professional opinion and my understanding of event spaces/the marketplace - a negotiation took place and eventually an agreement was made by two consenting parties.
You have jumped off of a cliff into a deep pool of assumptions including tax code violation, foreign interference and pay for play, and political corruption all from an article that is unclear and/or lacking entirely on monumentally important facts. That my friend shows you are either:
1) Political Hack
2) A troll trying to get his rocks off on a message board
Thanks, sys! That wasn't so hard, was it? I have to work, too, so I couldn't do much more than quickly scan the links. I'll try to look at them more closely later today. A couple of things I did notice. They are a little over a year old. I suspect if there was something to the story I would have heard more about it. And secondly, they are in the "Opinion" section of the paper, not the news section. So essentially they are someone's opinion, not necessarily "just the facts." Still, I will read them later. Those of us who believe every rotten thing ever written about the Clintons (and I definitely fall into that category) owe it to ourselves to consider what these links say.
I'm going to check in later, scold you for your self-imposed ignorance, and possibly provide more reading material. I have NOT yet dropped the "passive aggressive" JD bomb on you, I wanna see where this goes.
In the meanwhile, don't read an editorial and say, "Well that's all opinion." Have intellectual curiosity, click on links provided, conduct google search queries on your own, like an objective, intellectually honest and mature person. And you can find lots of information about the GOP taking loads of Russian money. This is nothing new.
It's been reported widely, but I'll bet none of your libertarian periodicals have touched it. Why is that?
In addition, please google "mcCarthy Paul Ryan recording Russia washington post" and you'll probably get a link to a transcript and audio recording of a candid conversation between republican house leadership that muses Trump and Rohrbacher are getting paid by the Russians. They knew it, and did nothing, and made sure nobody repeated it. I've posted it before.
Dan, there's no way I will convince you of anything. I can look at your information ecosystem and posting history and guarantee that up front. Your invulnerability to differing perspectives has been noted by JD.
Yes, "could" by definition contemplates possibility and not definitive proof.
No, I'm not making another charge. I'm referencing an investigation that is examining whether arabs are involved. I don't know if they contributed money. The feds don't typically waste time with quixotic investigations, and reading between the lines, it was the Met gal that drew attention to the inaugural hanky panky and that led to a widened investigation. Apparently she ran her mouth to everyone in Manhattan about what they tried to pull, if other press accounts are to be believed.
This is another good example of what JD calls passive aggression. I'm not your lawyer or secretary, and am not really interested in convincing you of something. If you're interested in that and I've triggered some curiosity, go to www.google.com. There's a window. Type in something directly in that little window like "inauguration arab money investigation" and I'll bet there will be multiple stories and sources. Or you could type in, "Is it illegal for Arab countries to contribute to an American inauguration?" If you click one of the links that comes up, many times that link you click will have links to other stories and sources. For instance, the Dallas Morning News columns I posted. You can open them and they have links that lead to primary source docs and filings, if that's the level of persuasion you are seeking.
Yes and no. I believe they were and would be today if there wasn't so much scrutiny and the media hadn't picked up on the Russian money. Now that there's scrutiny and sunshine, I doubt the Russians will get as much bang for their buck. Although McConnell has stopped bills to protect Mueller, so..... maybe. I don't know. I'm in Oklahoma and haven't conducted an investigation.
No, this is a recreational, anonymous message board without consequence. Come on. I would hope you intuitively understand the difference between bullshitting on here and trying a case.
Well I'm not trying to trigger you. Why do you have a picture of Rick Carlysle as your avatar? I'm not poking at you, the guy is a great coach and I just wondered if that was Rick Carlysle and why you have him as your avatar.
Thanks for clearing that up. You can also pull the stick out of your butt, Francis.
This is maybe your 8th consecutive post where I've articulated the context of all this -- a publicly elected official -- and you completely avoid it. You keep steering the analysis toward whether the final price was fair, and anything that happened before that was just negotiating. I can't decide if you've adopted a deliberate "see and hear no evil" position on this, or if you're too thick to distinguish between issue of the ultimate price charged (assuming it's fair) and what happened and what was attempted in the lead- up to that price.
At the end of the analysis I appreciate the perspective of the facility's rental fmv in D.C, and that'a helpful and may result in the investigation being a blind alley. Or it may be that it's totally inappropriate for surrogates of the POTUS to engage in attempted gouging and self dealing and this "smoke" leads to other fires. It sounds like the arab $ investigation has legs.
I still cant' understand why Trump's inaugural committee took in so much money and didn't do nearly as much with it, like the Dumbya guy talked about. There are so many angles to this, and you've focused on the final amount charged and the attempted gouge from the surrogate of a President being normal.
We'll see.
Out of curiosity, would you have a problem if he charged twice the amount that he did? Where's your choke point on this deal, assuming you have one?
Wow! That is a long reply!
1). You are mistaken in thinking you’re wasting your time trying to convince me of something. You are correct that you have not convinced me of anything yet. I would say that’s because you have said nothing convincing. But that does not mean I’m not open to persuasion. Besides, there are plenty of others on this board that might hear what you say and think you’ve made a good point. If you aren’t trying to make a persuasive argument then why argue? Just to hear yourself be full of bluster?
2). You most certainly made another charge. Your initial links had to do with hotel fees during the inauguration. I didn’t enter the conversation until well into the thread. And I only entered it because you kept harping on his betrayal of his fiduciary responsubility. I asked (actually I had to ask several times) for you to explain what those duties consisted of, and how did DJT betray them. Those were perfectly legitimate questions, but you dodged them for all you were worth. Finally I suppose you felt cornered and so you deflected to Arabs and GOP corruption. Never did you even attempt to defend your “fiduciary” charges. Instead you went on a tangent about Arabs and GOP corruption as regards the Russians, and posted a couple of links to opinion pieces that are over a year old. That was the action of a coward, sys (is that non-passive aggressive enough for you?).
3). I told you way back that I am far more interested in theory and philosophical
principles as they play out historically than the daily criminal activities of politicians. That's why I avoided this thread until you kept bellowing about “fiduciary responsibility,” but would never clarify. You STILL haven’t clarified! Is it because you didn’t know what you were talking about, and are embarrassed to be called out?
4). You claim to be an attorney. I would think an attorney would need very sharp debating skills. From that perspective you need a lot of work. If this is your style in front of a jury I would never want you advocating for me.
5). There. I’ve tried to be as insulting and non-passive aggressive as you seem to want me to be. Expect to be disappointed in the future. I detest rudeness. If you want to call my attempts at politeness and civility while strenuously disagreeing with you as being passive aggressive, be my guest. I don’t intend to change my style for you or anyone else.
Rick's face in the avatar is a solid representation of what my face looks like when someone says something odd on this board; quite fitting.
Name calling is a great way to get a jury on your side counselor.
I've addressed your thoughts and conjecture numerous times. You taking incomplete information and assessing that not only was there unethical behavior but illegalities at hand shows incredible bias.
Your view of the situation is completely different than mine and that is incredibly apparent. You make assumptions on issues with no evidence (you have no idea what was offered at the start, you have no idea what ultimately was agreed to) and yet you believe a serious violation of the law has occurred and the article you posted is taken as gospel. Multiple posters on this board have pointed out serious concerns, questions, and have used their own personal knowledge and background to spell out for you their views...yet you either choose to ignore it or continue on with your troll attempts.
I've focused on the amount of a venue cost because you started this thread with the article. That's how the discussion began, it's simple. The article shows no evidence of being overcharged, pay for play, Ivanka negotiating the deal on behalf of Trump Hotels.
