‘Emoluments’ Challenge To Donald Trump’s Ethics Conflicts Gets A Big Boost

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by MrTLegal, Apr 20, 2017.

  1. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,424
    Likes Received:
    51,240
    Trophy Points:
    113
    HuffPo's Fake News Horse ****:

    18 U.S.C. Section 202 specifically states, as relating to Section 208 which deals with financial interests:

    “the terms ‘officer’ and ’employee’ in sections 203, 205, 207 through 209, and 218 of this title shall not include the President, the Vice President, a Member of Congress, or a Federal judge.”
     
  2. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The lawsuit spells out and explains the valuable gifts that Trump can, and has, obtained from foreign dignitairies. A gift can be for "services rendered" if those services would not have ordinarily been selected but for the intent of providing a benefit (i.e. choosing to stay in his hotel when you otherwise would have gone elsewhere) or when the cost of that service was disproportionate to the market value (you pay a lot more to stay at his specific "High end" location).

    And then you have gifts that are not in exchange for a service rendered, like granting the exclusive use of a trademark that has been sought by the person for years and which would be worth millions of dollars.

    Those are just PART of the reason I, and others, think he is violating the emoluments clause.
     
  3. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know that you're trying to imply this as an example of librulz melting down, but the emoluments clause is part of the US Constitution. If you care about its laws, then I ask you to contribute to the conversation by telling me why you don't believe it applies or why you believe Trump is not in violation.
     
  4. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    None of those clauses appear in the US Constitution. Are you claiming that those statutes supersede the U.S. Constitution? Or did you think that Congress could pass a law that just "explains" and thereby limits the meaning of the U.S. Constitution?
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2017
    Meta777 likes this.
  5. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What results are you referencing?
     
  6. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In your mind, is it impossible to prove harm based on lost economic opportunity?
     
  7. Drago

    Drago Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2008
    Messages:
    1,175
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Make millions/billions of dollars prior to becoming president= problem. Making nothing other than donations prior to becoming president but making millions after leaving office= ok.

    gotcha
     
    SeaFury and In The Dark like this.
  8. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh it's a perfect example of librulz melting down.

    You clearly don't understand the difference, as others have already pointed out, between receiving gifts from foreign governments (like the Clintons), and business transactions by businesses that pre-existed his presidency.

    Please continue with your straw grasping.
     
    SeaFury likes this.
  9. reality1

    reality1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2009
    Messages:
    1,482
    Likes Received:
    366
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Your logic is flawed. I personally believe this is a witch hunt by a bunch of sore losers who have been having a tantrum since the man legitimately won our Presidency. That does not however mean some court with an agenda won't pursue it.
     
  10. ThorInc

    ThorInc Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2017
    Messages:
    19,183
    Likes Received:
    11,126
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I see you still have not gotten anyone to actually answer this question.......I will answer it for you. He is in violation of the constitution but because he tells Trump supporters what they want to believe and hear, they will exempt him from accountability. He is the last hope....
     
    MrTLegal likes this.
  11. Deckel

    Deckel Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    Messages:
    17,608
    Likes Received:
    2,043
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Supreme Court requires a plaintiff to have concrete and particularized injury to have standing, not some vague theoretical possibility to have standing. Bringing this group in will likely give the Courts some concrete details to chew on when issuing its dismissal Order and spitting them out since they are Associations as opposed to a specific hotel that could say, "Diplomat A booked a room at my place and the cancelled and booked their room at Mar Largo after Trump became President."
     
    In The Dark likes this.
  12. ThorInc

    ThorInc Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2017
    Messages:
    19,183
    Likes Received:
    11,126
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This will be one of many cases on this................eventually, they will win in the SC.
     
  13. Deckel

    Deckel Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    Messages:
    17,608
    Likes Received:
    2,043
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not until they have standing. The Supreme Court has a very long history of tossing out cases on lack of standing.
     
    SeaFury and Ddyad like this.
  14. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I hope that you realize simply labeling them "business transactions" and pretending like there is some easy to define line will not suffice in this situation.

    I laid out several examples in post #52 where the line is extremely murky. I will quote those examples for you here and I ask that you work harder than to simply say that I "clearly don't understand the difference."

     
  15. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, in your mind, is it impossible for him to be in violation of the emoluments clause?
     
  16. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Setting aside that Associations are essentially a class of specific hotels that can allege your specific harm, there is also another specific plaintiff that is alleging almost verbatim your claim.
     
  17. Deckel

    Deckel Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    Messages:
    17,608
    Likes Received:
    2,043
    Trophy Points:
    113
    None of them can allege that they have suffered a specific injury, and being President gives him a "marketing advantage" is about a ridiculous as they come in terms of standing or merit.
     
    SeaFury and Ddyad like this.
  18. ThorInc

    ThorInc Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2017
    Messages:
    19,183
    Likes Received:
    11,126
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fortunately, the justice system will decide this.......be patient.
     
  19. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You just gave a perfectly legitimate example of a specific injury that they could allege - namely an example of someone that would have (or did) engage the entities for a service and then cancelled that service so that they could funnel the purchase towards one of his entities.

    And perhaps you could explain why being President does not confer an unfair marketing advantage. Or at least why such is a ridiculous claim.
     
    ThorInc likes this.
  20. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,424
    Likes Received:
    51,240
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't see much SCOTUS precedent on the issue, so, essentially your "interpretation" is so much wish-casting as you labor in the still fresh psychic pain of the surprise 9pm loss of the Krunken Kleptocrat, on election night.

    [​IMG]

    7 sitting federal officers, including 3 Presidents, have accepted a prize worth ten million Swedish Kroner and a gold medal from the Nobel Committee, including Barack Millhouse Obama and all without a peep out of you tearing your hair out in melodramatic agony over your imagined knife twisting violence done to the Emolument's clause, a phrase you never heard of before some wack-job progressive claimed Trump had violated it. Now suddenly it approaches the level of holiness you previously held only for the sacrament of abortion.

    https://bol.bna.com/five-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-emoluments-clause/
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2017
    SeaFury, Labouroflove and Ddyad like this.
  21. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your inability to address why the statute you cited was relevant to the emoluments clause is duly noted.

    The emoluments clause is designed to prevent a Government official from receiving a gift from a foreign dignitary because the Government official could then be persuaded to put the interests of that foreign country above the best interests of the United States. Please tell me you want to make the argument that the Nobel ****ing Peace Prize falls under that category.
     
    ThorInc likes this.
  22. Deckel

    Deckel Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    Messages:
    17,608
    Likes Received:
    2,043
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They will and it will be to the detriment of the powerless DNC
     
    SeaFury likes this.
  23. Montegriffo

    Montegriffo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2017
    Messages:
    10,672
    Likes Received:
    8,941
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How long is this ''sore losers having a tantrum'' meme going to be used instead of actually addressing the grievances? I have to say it is getting old already and cannot last much longer.
    It is weak and shows an inability to debate or accept criticism.
    Same with the ''but the popular vote'' type wailing from the other side.
    This is a forum for debating, if you don't want to debate then just say nothing..........
     
    Curious Always likes this.
  24. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,909
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your source is Huffpo.

    Nothing more than a tabloid.
     
  25. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which has nothing to do with the lawsuit.
     

Share This Page