Donald Trump pulls his Doral property from consideration for G-7 after bipartisan blowback

Convence me the other properties were doing it at cost.

 

There are only two federal positions in the entire government where trump's actions (awarding yourself a no-bid contract) are not illegal: The President and the Vice President.

 

You can't even tell me the names of the other properties, so how the **** would you like me to prove their costs?

 

As I said it is a moot issue now why are you still upset?

 

I am quite happy at watching a dumb decision get repealed

 

You again assert, without any evidence beyond the word of a man who constantly lies about his businesses and finances, that it would be no-profit. And you are losing track of the conversation. I've already asked you on what basis do you claim that emoluments refers only to profits and not revenues. You "answered" by trying to change the subject and saying "I base it on the clause, it requires gifts, titles, emoluments, offices accepted from a foreign entity. None is involved and the host nation foots the bill, not foreign nations." This indicates that you were not mindful of the existence of the domestic clause. Now that your attention has been called to the fact that it doesn't matter if it is a foreign nation paying or the US paying, I'll repeat the question that you didn't answer:

"On what basis do you claim that emoluments refers only to profits and not revenues"

If the payments help Trump break even, they still financially benefit him.

 

Dude, it's called accounting. Duh oh and the burden of proof is on you, and it's called jurisprudence. If you were a lawyer instead of playing one on the internet, you'd probably know.

And the Emolument clause speaks of gifts, titles, emoluments, offices, foreign governments and the total absence of all these components in the matter can't be changed by leftist spin posted on leftist fake news sites and concocted by the same idiots who spent years pushing Russia conspiracy hoax and similar garbage.

These links are for the leftists internal consumption, not for people with brains and common sense. Lol

 

You might want to familiarize yourself with Trump's "creative" accounting. He's been caught double bookkeeping and you should also read some of his business records. He doesn't allow independent accountants to do any audit of their own. His businesses provide the numbers and the accountants prepare statements accordingly, along with a statement at the end clarifying that they can't personally vouch for the numbers. "Accounting" will mean whatever Trump wants it to mean . . . as he has bragged about in the past.

You once again went back to forgetting the domestic emoluments clause.

And you still haven't answered why you think that only profits, and not revenue, count as emoluments.

 

1. I recited (and posted the actual quote in this thread) what the Emolument clause explicitly refers too. It doesn't refer to anything else even if you would like it to. Sorry. Laws are like that in the real world.

2. Whether you believe Trump or not, at this moment he is INNOCENT. But do let us know if he profits from a foreign government and thus violates the Emolument clause, we can continue this conversation when it stops being utterly speculative, hypothetical and without a scintilla of merit. Yes my friend, your disbelief doesn't amount to even one tiniest scintilla of merit. Lol

 

You did indeed "recite" one of the emoluments clauses. And you still failed to answer the question. Your assumption is that emoluments refer only to profits and not to revenue. You've been asked to explain why twice now and have failed both times. I'll ask again and anticipate yet another failure to answer.

For someone who claims to be familiar with the domestic emoluments clause, you sure do seem to forget it every other post or so. On what do you base your argument that only profits count and that revenue does not? I know you've managed to convince yourself that what you quoted answers that question, but it doesn't. Do you have an answer? If not, sorry, but third strike, you're out. There's no "scintilla of merit" to your argument if you can't even state your argument.

And, no, it doesn't matter if the money comes from a foreign government or from the US (or any state) government. In case this is one of the posts where you forget about the domestic emoluments clause again.

 

Also, just to crush this argument before it comes up again, you should be aware that this forum has a search function and that it took less than a minute to find several examples of you accusing people of being criminals despite the fact that they've never been found guilty of those crimes in a court of law.

 

No, he realized that seeing a bunch of world leaders covered in bedbug bites at the photo ops would make him look bad.

 

Just as I predicted, even when he reverses what the left were crying about it doesn't make a difference at all, they simply cry about it either way...

Comical and concerning all at the same time ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯

 

This happened not long after a Camp David meeting with Republicans. He probably backed off when he realized that no one was willing to back him up. I don't think he's self aware enough to concern himself about legal ramifications.

 

Well there is the hyperbole we have all come to marvel at from those on the left

 

The cornerstone principle of the jurisprudence in the western world is "EVERYTHING WHICH IS NOT FORBIDDEN IS ALLOWED". It's a constitutional principle too.

The Emolument clause explicitly lists the things that are forbidden. See if you can work out whether things the clause doesn't list are allowed. Good luck, take whatever time you need.

 

. . . except there are is already an example of a guest with photos of himself covered in bed bug bites.

 

Like i said, i couldn't care less whether you think Trump WILL commit a violation of the Emolument clause.

WHEN he actually does, do not hesitate to immediately let us know. Looking forward to hearing from you then.

 

It says emoluments aren't allowed. You say emoluments only refers to profits and can't refer to revenues. I'm. Asking. For. Your. Argument. Supporting. That.

According to your "logic" it doesn't say, using the exact word, that he can't accept profits either.

We are talking about the meaning of the word emolument. Please catch up.

 

Really? And the reason you didn't post it or link IS?

 

At that time, hopefully you will understand the existence of the domestic emoluments clause instead of playing make-believe that only the foreign clause exists and you will be prepared to actually talk about what the word "emolument" means.

 

The belief that people were informed. The Trump Organization settled a lawsuit about it in 2017. You can look it up if you want.

 

Who the **** is releasing the data for accountants to verify the definition of "at cost" or whether the "at cost" promise will be met.

This word does not mean what you think it means. There are almost zero judicial decisions on the emoluments clause as it relates to the President because this is the first President willing to flaunt the Constitution so dramatically and the emoluments cases against Trump are mostly still being held up by the Standing requirement for the plaintiffs.

And seriously guy, you have zero credentials and zero sources for your argument. And no, quoting the Emoluments clause does not qualify when you refuse - again and again - to even attempt a definition of the word "emoluments." You have been given multiple sources and citations for the exact opposite conclusion and your response is, "lol."

You are not worthy of engaging further.

 

The at cost no profit arrangement Trump was proposing is in full and unquestionable compliance with the domestic clause.