yoe that president doubled the entrance fees. so that is the president s businesses doubled the entrance fees. it s the same as the president doing it. he still owns that business, anna. he broke within long tradition and refused to give up his ownership interests. that raises a conflict issue because he s profiting from the presidency. that s not what american presidents are supposed to do. how do you prove that s what is happening though? that that s the reason people are going to these properties? anna, if it were one property where you had a combination of americans that have business before the government, of lobbyists, of foreign individuals coming, okay, you d say well, it s one isolated incident. but it s not like that at all. the trump international hotel in washington, d.c., has become a mecca where there s a swirl of special interests influence.
negotiations. she and jared are going to have to stay out of that because she is retaining ownership interests in companies that are importing clothes. richard, if they don t i m sorry to interrupt. if thedon t stay out of any of those things you listed, from taxes, from trade, from dodd-frank, and they don t give up ownership, what happens? is there anyone there that would force consequences on them? is this something that would fall to jason chaffitz, potentially? it s a criminal offense if they put themselves in jeopardy of their economic position. there are a lot of career lawyers over there. this is not something that attorney general jeff sessions or a bunch of political people will be able to sweep under the rug. so this is not something jeff sessions would be able to no. absolutely not. expand on that. they re going to be career lawyers. they re going to say this is a crime, and they would prosecute anybody in the white house or
protect him and his family, but not necessarily all of his holdings and ownings across the world, and we want to know whether there s a legal obligation to protect them and what is the cost, if there is such a protection, and whether, in fact, we should be seeking reimbursement. i feel we should be. do you know if anybody within the trump organization has requested protection at these properties? that s part of what we re asking. very, very important question because if they requested it and the federal government complied, it raises the additional spectrum of conflict of interests, and we are in uncharted waters, and equally unprecedented or more so is his refusal to sell his ownership interests. if it sid identified federal
is that the typical disciplinary action for this type of ethic violation? john, thanks for having me. and no, this is not the typical disciplinary action. there is nothing typical about the trump administration approach to ethics. this is the latest in a series of actions by mr. trump himself, by his wife, by his children to capitalize on his election and now his service as president of the united states. it stems from mr. trump s own refusal to do what every president has done for four decade, democrat and republican. give up his ownership interests. sever them. appoint a trustee. everybody is getting in on the unethical act. and the latest was kellyanne conway. so something like this had happened during the obama administration, what would have happened to that staffer? i can tell you one thing.
nordstroms, he s made claims that they say are not true. if that s accurate, it s unfair and american law does not allow unfair business practices. as you noted, we don t know, does he have a financial investment? we know his daughter has given up, apparently, only her management, not her ownership interests. so it hits the family pocketbook, and it s unfair competition and california and other states prohibit that, and it goes to the constitutional questions, chuck, because this is a warning to the foreign governments who are paying him amoul ewements, don t yank were payments or benefits or you re going to get it. i think he s gone too far this time and i think he s exposed himself to legal liability. well, it s interesting to you say that, richard painter, it s my understanding, nordstrom doesn t have to full-time the suit, although they could, apparently the state of california could. so the attorney general of california could do so whether