A jaunt for Eric
Interesting – Eric Trump gets a publicly funded security detail when he travels to promote his profit-making business interests.
When the president-elect’s son Eric Trump jetted to Uruguay in early January for a Trump Organization promotional trip, U.S. taxpayers were left footing a bill of nearly $100,000 in hotel rooms for Secret Service and embassy staff.
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.
And we had to pay for it. (What, by the way, was embassy staff even doing there? Why was embassy staff there and billing us for their hotel rooms? Surely it’s not the embassy’s job to help the president’s kid flog their merchandise? And bill us for expenses?)
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 ignored the Post’s questions about the trip.
The bill for the Secret Service’s hotel rooms in Uruguay totaled $88,320. The U.S. Embassy in Montevideo, the capital city of Uruguay, paid an additional $9,510 for its staff to stay in hotel rooms to “support” the Secret Service detail for the “VIP visit,” according to purchasing orders reviewed by The Washington Post.
“This is an example of the blurring of the line between the personal interest in the family business and the government,” said Kathleen Clark, an expert on government ethics and law professor at Washington University in St. Louis.
How and why does embassy staff need to “support” the Secret Service? Especially on commercial junkets by the president’s adult offspring?
Despite the use of public funds, government agencies would not provide key details connected to the trip, including the duration of the stay, the name of the hotel or the number of booked rooms. A spokesman from the Secret Service, citing security concerns, declined to comment.
Telling the Post the duration of the stay and the number of rooms after the junket would not mess with their security concerns.
The money for the hotel rooms was paid through the State Department, but a spokesman there declined to comment on the trip. He instead referred reporters to the White House and back to the Secret Service, whose spokesman once again declined to comment. The White House also did not respond to requests for comment.
Why in hell was the money for the hotel rooms paid through the State Department?! This was not a diplomatic visit – Eric Trump is not a diplomat and he was there to promote his profit-making business…while his Daddy is president of the US. The State Department should have nothing to do with it.
“There is a public benefit to providing Secret Service protection,” Clark said. “But what was the public benefit from State Department personnel participating in this private business trip to the coastal town? It raises the specter of the use of public resources for private gain.”
To put it mildly. Trumps selling their tacky glittery sleazy trashy shit on our dime is not any kind of public benefit.
“The Secret Service does not have an option as to when it is, where it is, nor as to how much it costs, and whether it’s domestic or international,” said W. Ralph Basham, former director of the service. “Think about the consequences of something happening to one of the children. The security of it outweighs the expenses of it.”
Therefore Trumps should not go on profiteering junkets. They should stay the fuck home.
“Having refused to sever his own personal financial interests, [the president] is now sending his emissaries, his sons, out to line his own pockets, and he’s subsidizing that activity with taxpayer dollars,” said Norm Eisen, a former Obama administration ethics adviser who is part of a lawsuit accusing Trump of violating a constitutional provision barring presidents from taking payments from foreign governments.
Sleazy sleazy sleazy.
Well, Melania’s chances to take advantage of this once in a lifetime opportunity have been ruined, so somebody has to pick up the slack. Otherwise they might go bankrupt*. Again.
*I’m speaking of financial bankruptcy. Moral and ethical bankruptcy is chronic and, amazingly, worsening.
OK. I am now thinking about “the consequences of something happening to one of the children”- Eric is an adult, who has a job running a company. Part of his job duties is to travel to places like Uruguay to be a VIP. There are other people who have jobs that require them to travel, say to Yemen, to be for example Navy Seals. Something could happen to any of them. They are ADULTS who have selected careers with attendant dangers along with attendant perks.
Something happening to one of the children. . . hmmmm. I am getting a dial tone when I try to think about it. Nothing special to see there. I don’t want to pay for any Trump relative’s private citizen/profit-generating travels.
Nothing much to think about. Dial tone. . . .
Would anybody be surprised if it transpires that the hotel in question is a Trump establishment? Nah, me neither.
Maybe the concern is over kidnapping followed by political demands — and how Trump would likely react to that.
How? No idea. It might involve total appeasement. — with disastrous international fallout — or launching nuclear weapons — with disastrous global fallout. A nuanced, cautious, thoughtful response from Papa doesn’t seem likely.
I seem to remember outrage from various assorted Republicans (including my own brother, a die-hard Trump supporter, who can see nothing wrong in all this) when the Secret Service accompanied Amy Carter to school. How dare he use taxpayer money to keep his little girl safe? That was excessive. Now…
Of course, that was before Reagan showed the Republicans how to be really greedy (but after Nixon showed them how to be really corrupt).