Discussion in 'Current Events' started by MrTLegal, Apr 20, 2017.
he wont last 2 years
It is a nowhere case. "Trump could have used my restaurant instead of his own for the Prime Minister" type claims are laughable. Quite frankly, they have probably weakened their standing.
My fear is WE won't last 2 years!
He is THAT dangerous.
For example, if Lil Kim in N Korea hurts his ego, who knows??
We have a so-called president with an inferiority complex, no moral compass, bad judgement, surrounded only by butt-kissers.. What could go wrong?
They don't care.
yeah..that last illegally released one sure hurt him....der...
So it's cost free to host world leaders at the White House...or just a lot more DULL for the leaders visiting ???
Mar-A-Lago is an international hit, all visiting foreign leaders want to meet there, and enjoy golf diplomacy.
Pres.Trump has accomplished more diplomatically in a few months, than Obama did in 8 years.
Unlike the "community organizer" Trump has been on the world stage for a long time, and is far more skilled on it , than Pres.Mommy Pants ever was.
The results already prove this to be OBVIOUS....
And the meltdown continues.
How do you know that they all want to meet there?
He's up to 2 years now?
I thought you said he wasn't a serious candidate and would never be elected.
If you think there is even a chance that Trump is guilty of violating the emoluments clause, and the fact that you basically said "let's see what the courts decide" is evidence that you do, then you should understand at least part of the reason why the left is criticizing him. A reason beyond merely being sore losers.
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.”
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.
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.
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?
What results are you referencing?
In your mind, is it impossible to prove harm based on lost economic opportunity?
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.
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.
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.
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....
Separate names with a comma.