Hacker News Reader

Comment by magpi3 | Hacker News Reader

> Do you think Trump's being paid by ByteDance to lift the ban?

There is never a need to be that direct. Republican and Democrat donors tell politicians what positions to take. Trump doesn't need to take money directly from a company. He takes it from his donors, who in turn take it from the company in some form.

In this case, the theory is that billionaire Jeff Yass (an investor in Tik Tok) has "persuaded" Trump to flip his position.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/jeff-yass-billionaire...

View on HN

rbanffy's comment was exactly as direct as I specified, and I'll reiterate their comment for posterity - "I’m sure they expect the issue to be resolved by paying the incoming president".

My understanding now is that now we've shifted from "ByteDance pays Trump to flip" to "American businessman Jeff Yass meets with Trump and convinces him to flip"

I hope you can understand that as a non-American observer I see a lot of distance between those two claims and find myself confused when they're treated with equivalency.

It doesn’t even need to go through Jeff Yass. It can just be a new Trump resort and casino getting expedited approval in Hong Kong, or some other place. Imagine the business opportunities being POTUS will bring to him and his family. The possibilities for corruption are endless.

It doesn't take much imagination; he spent 4y as POTUS and most people agree it was to his personal benefit. I'm not aware of this leading to expedited approvals for Trump resorts in other countries, but it seems you're more familiar with his dealings than I am.

I'd still love your clarification though - do you still stand by the claim that Trump is being paid to reneg on his position re. TikTok, as per https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42755872 ?

Yes. It's not going to be hard 'traceable' cash, but it'll be favours and other permits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Tower_Moscow

I'm a bit confused by the connection you're trying to make - it sounds as if the project never went anywhere?

He never loses his own money - he gets paid for licensing his name and brand and for his "expertise". It's the investors who get defrauded.

The only difference is that the money given is laundered through donors. I am an American, and I am very cynical.

How out of touch with general politics are you? This is how things are done, globally, in every democracy, since forever, you just need to look close enough. I can see similar type of corruption all over Switzerland for example where I live, mostly in public projects and decisions. Locals mostly don't see anything, so everybody is happy. You just have to have a keen eye for corruption, which is easy for somebody coming from eastern Europe since there its ingrained in the system(s) and permeates every aspect of societies.

Non-democratic places have more direct path for bribes but otherwise its same.

I’d say I’m generally fairly in touch with global politics, it’s a bit inflammatory for you to ask, truthfully.

I think that local level corruption in my small town in Canada or in yours in Switzerland is pretty markedly different from what’s been originally presented, which is that DJT was paid directly by ByteDance to adjust his position.

I said that ByteDance expects that paying Trump will make everything go away. From his comment on an executive order, it seems clear he’s willing to go over a law passed by the Congress.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com