Supreme Court dismisses cases questioning Trump profits from private businesses

Didn't say it was I noted the left wanted an impeachment fornthis to which would have made the current one number three so what's your point.

 

Uh, you're right. A phony, bullshit 'emoluments' beef isn't the same thing as the original bullshit impeachment ploy (in which Democrats didn't even bother to list any 'crimes' Trump supposedly committed).

And, it isn't the same as the current charge that he was instigating a violent overthrow of the government or whatever the hell Democrats imagine that the idiocy on January 6th actually was....

I don't excuse Trump for running-off his garrulous MOUTH -- he's never exercised any control of THAT thing! But, if he, as president, wanted to, uh, 'neutralize' his opponents among radical Democrats, he could have found much 'cleaner' and less-visible ways to accomplish that. And, after all, he had four years to get that done, if he had really WANTED to.... Is it clear enough now?

 

Whose THE President. And no not just like every other there are specific Constitutional stipulations concern impeachment of THE President. But here the dismissive claims are "well he's not President now" OK then like this case the impeachment and removal so be tossed if that is the claim.

 

Your side don't want a President then, you want a King... Nobody is above the law and no crime should be ignored. You don't get to escape justice just because you were fired from your job, president or not.

 

Just count to ten and i bet someone will chime in and comment, "yea the charges where dismissed, but he was not forgiven, so there."

I wouldn't compare Democrooks to farts, farts, unlike Democrooks have a purpose.

 

Then why is Hillary not in prison?

 

Because Trump and McConnel didn't really want to go there. It was a distraction nothing more.
He could've instructed the DoJ to go after her but he didn't because he bloody well knew that it would've backfire and in fact DID backfire.

 

Immainative attempt at diversion but still a fail just like "FPT"s attempted coup. I give you an A for effort and an F for your reason. LOL!!

 

Well I guess sometimes the best rebuttle is to parrot Trump supporters.

"Deep state Trump judges ignoring the rule law!"

 

He didn't get away with anything, nor did he win anything, the case was moot as he is no longer president. Had he not lost the election then the SC would have had a reason to hear the case.

 

He profited off his office for 4 years. He got away with it.

 

Not yet. That case was essentially a cease and desist order and he has complied by ceasing being president.

Let the civil suits begin!

 

Well as you have clearly stated, it is his office, so why can he not make a profit was there?

And who in recent US history hasn't done the same?

However with Trump things are a little different, had he not been President, he would have made way more money in those four years, then he did as President, which is totally different then anyone else who has held that position, a lot of who went in broke and came out millionaires like Klinton did.

 

What crime and what evidence?

 

Civil suits for what? We get it you hate the man...

 

Hillary was investigated and there was no evidence found that she could be prosecuted for

Unlike Trump who up til now has been hiding behind the office of the Presidency

Now that Trump Lost the Election state and Federal Prosecutors are Lining up

We'll see if Trump is innocent or Guilty

 

I will use the rightie, trump supporting argument here.

The SCOTUS didn't make a ruling. We need to have investigations because the people in our Country are very concerned that Trump has been using his office to make money.

 

Trump had these hotels before he became president, he made profit even before he became president, so I understand agree with this verdict, but how about this:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/5/15/17355202/trump-zte-indonesia-lido-city

 

No, but I do believe that the lower courts made rulings. Since SCOTUS has dismissed the case based on mootness then the lower court verdict stands. Meaning Trump did not violate the emoluments clause.

 

Why? Because they dismissed the case based on mootness? You do realize that there was no dissent in dismissing it right? Which means the liberal judges agreed that it was right to dismiss the case. You just proved that the only reason that you want to "rebalance" is because of your political agenda. Not because there is actually any cause for concern.

 

We will see exactly how much he profiteered from his businesses, in VIOLATION OF THE EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE, now that he is out of office and their receipts are already tanking even at Mar A Lago where he is currently residing. Thy have all begun to lose their appeal as have his golf courses. His enterprises which attracted foreign delegations during his presidency will no longer be bailing him out..

 

There was plenty of evidence found, but it was suppressed, the Klinton Crime Family made sure of that.

 

Senate republicans, trump, trumps DOJ and trumps AG all suppressed evidence to protect Democrat Hillary Clinton? lol

 

No... because they sat on it to run out the clock.... I agree it's moot now, but it wasn't in May 2020, when it hit the SCOTUS...

A fully balanced court could have and likely would have made a ruling....

Ergo, time to rebalance...

 

I don't know..why are you celebrating election fraud?