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

It would require more than just the expectation of some favor. It needs to be delivered and tied to motel room rentals.

And THEN Hillary will be president!

 

Nothing in the clause requires that. It just requires a "gift" -- which such a shift would certainly represent.

 

Yes, essentially you are issuing nothing more than farts through your keyboard.[/QUOTE]You also glossed right over the points:
1) Washington accepted gifts, never ask for, nor was granted by congress permission to accept them, and these are the folks who personally witnessed and participated in the drafting and ratification of the constitution and clearly they did not see the President as subject to the clause.
2) Alexander Hamilton when he listed the officers in the government, only listed the appointed officers, and did not include one single elected official! And he certainly had a better understanding of the clause than you do.

No. When presented with strong points that challenge your dogma, you run and hide!

Sad!

 

No, and no.

If what they're getting in return for their money is a service or a good, it's not a gift. Why they choose to do so is irrelevant.

If that was the case then anyone who gives a paid speech while in government service would be guilty of violating the emoluments clause.

That's why the Clinton's set up a "foundation" so they could legally accept personal gifts. How's that going by the way?

 

I think that's a question, not a clear answer. What if they overpay? What if the scale of the switch is such that it puts millions in Trump's pocket? Hard to see that as anything other than a bribe.

Um ... most government workers are prohibited from giving paid speeches.

When they DO give paid speeches, the fee must usually be turned over to the government or donated.

Did you really have to mess up a reasonable post with a bullshit conspiracy theory? Nothing given to the Clinton Foundation was a "personal gift." Not a dime of it went in the Clintons' pockets.

 

What if.....really?

Yeah I just mentioned the speeches because it's interesting how the "charity" that money goes to is the one in their own name.

Of course, we know that the Clintons did use that money, as Podesta's emails revealed, for personal benefit. She was also hiring her own State Department staff as employees on her foundation.

It makes one wonder how Clinton earned millions as SoS with a $300k a year salary eh?

Smoke but no fire right? LoL. What if indeed.

But I digress.

Clearly you don't know how government works, since gifts to candidates are what gets them in office, and keeps them in office.

I don't suppose you've ever heard of lobbyists, super PACs, and campaign "contributions".

Forest for the trees....

 

Um ... no.

No, they didn't.

Yes, some people were doing that.

Clinton released 40 years of tax returns. No need to "wonder". Unlike Trump.

You do indeed. And you seem willing to criticize Clinton for that, while giving Trump a pass on a situation that is, objectively, far worse.

Um, you were talking about government employees giving speeches. Now you're switching to campaign contributions. You are all over the place.

I have. I think money should be taken out of politics. Conservatives seem to disagree.

Regardless, even campaign contributions are not money into the candidate's own pocket -- unlike the case with Trump.

If you hate all that stuff, you should really hate what Trump has going. And yet you don't seem to. Double standard much?

 

You're right.

Holly crap...there's a George Soros connection to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)

I wonder who else is connected to this leftist organization ? -> http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=7309

CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON (CREW)
1400 Eye Street NW - Suite 450
Washington, DC
20005



Phone 202) 408-5565
URL :http://www.citizensforethics.org/

• Public interest organization that litigates against corrupt political leaders
• Targets almost exclusively Republicans
• Heavily funded by George Soros's Open Society Institute and by Democracy Alliance

What about the witch hunt and the lawsuit ?

 

Agreed totally and good for you in taking the time to discredit nonsense hidden behind a wall of words.

 

Sure, she made millions per year on a few hundred k salary. Talk about ignoring reality.

And yeah, Podestas emails clearly show the foundation paid for Chelsea's lifestyle and wedding.

That the Clinton Foundation was a clear pay to play scheme is backed up by one whopper of a fact:

As soon as she lost the Presidency, the Foundation bottomed out. That one is a fastball to the face at 100mph.

The Clintons have been involved in scandals since the 80's. How many scandals has Trump been involved in again?

There is no comparison between the two, sorry.

I'm not all over the place. All of these monies are tainted by foreign investors, governments, banks, you name it.

You can sit here and play ridiculous what-ifs all day, it's not going to get you anywhere.

Trying to say people renting hotel rooms is going after the emoluments clause is high humor, to say the least.

So march on with your imaginary scenarios.

Clinton still isn't president.

 

It's a specious convoluted argument to suggest that "payment-for-services rendered" is a "gift." Judges will interpret "presents" in the literal sense as "gifts."

 

How would you know? You have no legal degree. Have no legal education. Have never worked in the legal field. Frankly, I would trust my own dog to interpret the law over you. Please prove you have ANY legal training and if not... GeThFuOu.

 

I find it through the looking glass bizzaro-world ridiculousness meets Idiocracy to EVER criticize ANY OTHER public figure or politician for ANYTHING after excusing the monumental, never to be topped, pinnacle of hypocrisy and insurmountable conflict of interests and blatant nepotism that is malignant within Trump's administration. If the Obamas had even contemplated one tenth of one percent of this type of spitting in the eye of the American people, the right wing would be drowning in their own foaming of the mouth and convulsing en masse.

 

Because it is a luxury resort in a warm climate, as opposed to the White House. People are people, and if you think diplomats and foreign leaders prefer the stiff confines of the White House to a beautiful suite in a golf resort, you don't know much about people.
Trump CLEARLY does....

 

So it's like my balls...

 

A luxury resort where the food poisoning is compliments of the house.

 

Hey, I just want to give you a heads up that there are a lot of people reading your posts and you are doing a great job. Don't let these retards get you down. You are in the heart of the beast and doing a great job of representing the law.

 

If Obama had one tenth of one percent of Trumps level of immense wealth you might have a point.

No president in history has, of course.

If anything, Trump is probably losing money by being POTUS.

 

You wont ever seen an impeachment that leads to a forced removal from office.

Study up on exactly what that takes and understand the differences between what it means in the House versus in the Senate.

 

An argument can be made that the gift is the choice of a Trump hotel.

That generates profits for the president, or at least helps cover overheads and fixed costs, even if the hotel is not profitable.

 

If that were true it would be a good reason for the President to go to a high-end golf resort. There must be hundreds in the country, and a good many that are closer to Washington and more convenient than Mar a Lago.

He doesn't go there because it is good for diplomacy. He goes there because he can charge the federal government (and foreign governments) for the rooms. And the food and beverage tab that the government picks up must be astronomical.

Tax dollars out of your pocket and into his.

 

And the dollars don't stop at go and collect $200...

 

Sure, if you'd like to change the meaning of the word gift.

gift
ɡift/
noun
noun: gift; plural noun: gifts

1. 1.
   a thing given willingly to someone without payment; a present.
   "a Christmas gift"
   synonyms: present, handout, donation, offering, bestowal, bonus, award, endowment; More
   tip, gratuity;
   largesse;
   care package;
   goody bag;
   informalfreebie, perk;
   formalbenefaction
   "he gave the staff a gift"
   • an act of giving something as a present.
     "his mother's gift of a pen"
   • informal
     a very easy task or unmissable opportunity.
     "that touchdown was an absolute gift"
2. 2.
   a natural ability or talent.
   "he has a gift for comedy"

 

So it's okay for foreign governments to line Trump's pockets, because he's already wealthy?

And wouldn't this conversation be a lot more informed if we could see Trump's tax returns, and see precisely where his money comes from and who he owes money to? Because right now, you're just taking it on faith that a) he has immense wealth and b) he has no serious conflicts of interest.

Given Trump's history of flat-out lying -- and taking on massive debt -- why would you take something that important on faith?

 

"What? You don't like Trump? You must want Hillary Clinton to be president! Everyone knows there are only two ways you can feel about the election. Either you want Trump or you want Hillary? What? You don't like either of them? Nonsense! Poppycock! That's impossible! *brain explodes*"