Very true, could you imagine the political implications if the Trump organization DID reject the Chinese investment into an Indonesian state project? If acceptance of money is, ipso facto, a sign of political corruption, then would blocking the exchange of money between 2 sovereign nations be considered meddling in foreign economies? What intentions could be read from an act of rejection? How much of the invested money would have actually reached the Trump organization? The Trump organization is far too tied to the Trump presidency for comfort. But this has been true of the Clinton foundation during Bill and Barack's terms as well.

As an aside, the president should first and foremost, represent the nation's best interests. But I can't determine what Trump holds in higher regard, the office of the president, or himself. I imagine most people think being president of the US would be the highest position in the world. For any politician at least, US or foreign, the top of their food chain is the US President. But how does a billionaire like Bezos, with a business and news-media empire, view being president? Does someone like that look down or up? What I mean is, would and should a billionaire 'play' president the same way a politician would 'play' president? My imagination is that a billionaire would want to become president in order to use the office to accomplish political goals not possible simply with money, versus a career politician who might simply see the US Presidency as a goal in itself. At the end of the day, both want to see their desired outcomes come to fruition, both want to be in a position of governmental power to make their wants happen. Which one is better for the nation?