First blood to Trump

Well, actually, I think we do have to accept that Trump is the president-elect, as do US citizens, whether we and theyike it or not. That is the whole point. Obama knew exactly what he was saying and I think he meant it, however distasteful it felt to say it.

Depends what the arrangement is, surely, ww (if there is one at all)?

yes, thatbags, I appreciate and recognise that Obama had no choice but to make that comment. It doesn't mean it's something we gransnetters have to accept, does it. In previous cases I'd have supported the need for a a peaceful and civilised handover. Mr T seems to me to be the exception to that rule, at least so far as the US population is concerned. I accept that someone in Obama's position and those in congress must do all they can to ensure a peaceful transition. Mr T has a part to play in that as well and currently, he seems to be the problem.

Even if he's found to have been in some arrangement with the Russians?

That last paragraph was rather a jumble, Elegran...

Even when you don't like and disagree profoundly with the new incumbent.

I think bettyB's point is exactly what she said with the implication that Obama has the right idea. One of the great strengths of strong democracies is that power is handed over in a peaceful and civilised manner.

And 'when President-elect Trump today seemed to suggest that he believes the intelligence community leaked this, saying it would be a blot if they had done so, there’s absolutely no indication that the intelligence community is the source of the documents.

^ .. the organization that published this document, . . is actually not even an intelligence community document. It is a private company. It’s not even classified material. And so a little bit, there is a suspicion that once again Donald Trump is using his personal attacks on the intelligence community a little bit to divert attention away from the substance of the allegations.^

|And your point is BettyB?

Selection from the PBS item in Lewlew's link at 16:30:28
'The real story is that the intelligence community thought it was appropriate to brief the president of the United States and the president-elect.

That means that serious people are taking this seriously. That’s different than saying that the intelligence community believes the allegations or has substantiated them. But this is a matter that is not just simply a matter of fake news or something that we should disregard.

It clearly passes some degree of preliminary credibility.'

obama told the people to get behind the new President and a peaceful transfer.

Did anyone else notice the throwaway remark that nobody cares about his tax returns any more now he's president-elect?

It's not true. There are many articles today asking for them.
Is that tradition or law?

(if you click on it it comes up larger - I nearly managed to read it without my glasses - but not quite!)

Hope you can read this - a good Catholic joke.

It just surprises and saddens me that the son/grandson of immigrants now wants to pull up the drawbridge and not allow others to enjoy the opportunities that he had.

[groan]

Oh Cherrytree that's a groaner!

Thanks lewlew
GN comes up *Trumps' yet again

Hitler loved his dog.
We don't know for certain if the feeling was reciprocated though.

Hi thanks WW
I have googled Blind trusts

jamila thanks also
Very interesting info re Abraham Lincoln.

cherrytree This Forbes article explains how it works. There is no law, it's a tradition to avoid being in the hot seat. The Obamas didn't do it as they had a general investment portfolio without any influence.

www.forbes.com/sites/jenniferwang/2016/11/15/why-trump-wont-use-a-blind-trust-and-what-his-predecessors-did-with-their-assets/#4f582cf57915

It's more if you get caught influencing decisions based upon your access to insider information. Trump, unlike even the Bush dynasty, has hundreds of interests...and includes the far east as well.

“There’s a deep seated principle about not using public office for private gains. The press and the public and the Congress will certainly focus on these issues,” Kiernan pointed out. “There are numerous laws still applicable to the president, including the financial disclosure laws, the bribery laws. He can be impeached.”

I did wonder about VP Cheney, though... he had Halliburton and supplied the Iraq war effort with all those ready meals.

www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/us/a-closer-look-at-cheney-and-halliburton.html?_r=0

Several US Presidents were businessmen but presumably relinquished their interests upon taking office.
www.bankrate.com/finance/politics/businessmen-as-us-president-8.aspx
Former president Abraham Lincoln may be credited with helping bring an end to slavery and with being one of our finest presidents, but he failed when it came to running a business. In his twenties, Lincoln opened a general store in Illinois with a business partner. He bought inventories from other stores on credit to try and make a profit by reselling the items. The economy was doing well at the time, but Lincoln's store wasn't. He eventually had to sell his share of the store. When his partner died, he accrued $1,000 in back payments, which led him to declare bankruptcy. His creditors required him to pay them back over a period of 17 years

But it is still not clear what happened to their businesses when they took office, whether or not they left them in the hands of someone else, 'ticking over' ready for when they left.

Blind trusts I think similar to what Mays done I suppose

My wish is that we do away with this sushtem.
it's enough to drive anyone to drink

Please can I ask a question
I don't mind who answers is it.
What has past U.S Presidents done with their business interests while in office.
I take on board what has been said about inside information & the ability to affect share prices.
But unless the businesses are sold on, it would not matter whether it was a Family member or an outsider in charge, any information could still passed on and used.