Trump already in violation of Constitution.

Would you impeach him? Are you ready for a Christian President Pence........are you?

 

Idiot democrats are wasting our money by taking him to court. They are also wasting time that can be spent on more important things like jobs.

Their lawsuit has NO merit TOSS it OUT! Profits from foreign governments are going to the US government and not trump!

Protest the giant waste of tax dollars!

 

Going no where the emoluments clause allows for fair market price of publicly sold goods or services.

 

So this is what the left has lowered themselves to, protests and nitpicking? Someone remind me again how tolerant the left is because I'm just not seeing it.

 

The hotel isn't necessarily the issue. The bank of China is the largest occupant of one of his towers and their contact is up in 2018. If they renew and it's in anyway conditional on favorable treatment from the US government, that's a pretty explicit violation of the clause. That is, if the clause applies to the president and Congress doesn't approve it.

 

When liberals demonstrate where the right to abortion is in the Constitution, I'll listen to their complaints about violating it. And I'm pro abortion.

 

No he isn't. Obama accepted $1.4 million in Nobel Prize money, please provide me a link to your outraged post over this "emolument".

But, of course, Constitutional Restrictions on Foreign Gifts Don’t Apply to Presidents

President Washington, for example, received two gifts from officials of the French government — including a diplomatic gift from the French ambassador. Washington accepted the gifts, he kept the gifts, and he never asked for or received congressional consent. There is no record of any anti-administration congressman or senator criticizing the president’s conduct. The precedents set by President Washington and his administration deserve special deference in regard to both foreign affairs and presidential etiquette.

When the Senate ordered Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton to supply a list of persons holding office under the United States and their salaries. Hamilton's list included appointed officers in each of the three branches, but did not include any elected officials in any branch. Why? because, officers under the United States are appointed; by contrast, the president is elected, so he is not an officer under the United States. Therefore, he Foreign Gifts Clause, and its operative office under the United States language, does not apply to the presidency.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...ons-on-foreign-gifts-dont-apply-to-presidents

The reason there are no court cases interpreting the Emoluments Clause is probably because it is non-justiciable. Good luck with standing and how would a court fashion a workable remedy?

 

Trump & Co are hardly stupid. If questions arise as to a specific deal or transaction I'm willing to wager that the money involved will be placed in escrow and Congress will, according to the Constitution, be asked to resolve the issue.

Cheers

 

Once again an underestimation of trump. You guys are gonna get so tired of losing all of these fights. He will continue to prove just how wrong you are, beginning with picking a establishment candidate in a change election and rigging the next president out of winning. The depth of stupidity required is so monumental. But the dems proved again what they are. They will continue repeating the same actions while expecting different results. I am almost embarrassed for them. But they know no shame.

It reminds me a scene from Dante's Inferno where people are pushing a huge round boulder up a steep hill and as they get to the apex, it breaks free and rolls to the bottom. They then repeat this for all of eternity. Reminds me of the current democrats.

 

Recounts, faithless electors, The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming! .

Reminds me of the Classic Monty Python Skit, libs gonna bite Trumps knee off next lol


[video=youtube;zKhEw7nD9C4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4[/video]

 

Wanna bet? What are you willing to stake on it?

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-...r-be-removed-former-bush-adviser-says/8205094

 

You obviously don't get that from the Constitution, so from where do you get it?

And your basis for this pronouncement is...?

 

I have read the constitution many times and don't recall any clause requiring the President to disclose... anything.

Please quote the relevant clause he is violating.

 

Read the thread, hell, just read the post you pulled that line out of. I doubt the folks that filed this suit will be able to show standing.

 

Enough strawmen in one post to light a fire all winter with.

 

The poor man only has a few more productive years of life to make money; leave him alone.

Most of us will be satisfied if he manages to set things up so that the rest of uis can get back to earning a living, too--so why should we deny him that?

 

Oh, so your "group in the RNC building the case" is one disgruntled "Never Trump" GWB's lawyer who has nothing to do with the RNC, running off his mouth? LOL, libs crack me up lately. No wonder you did not take Dutch's bet. Smart decision

 

Seriously? He is the most opaque president in recent memory. He has not released his tax returns, so what he does is NOT clear for all to see.

The commercial transaction of paying for a hotel room may not be an emolument, but the choice of staying in a Trump hotel in the first place is an emolument. Staying in his hotel, and letting him know about it, will be an effort to curry favour with the president. Increasing the occupancy of the hotel will give the hotel an opportunity to bump up prices. Even his statement that he will donate profits to the Treasury is not enough. The hotel in Washington is, by all accounts, losing money. So there will be no profits to donate. But he will lose less money than if foreign officials didn't stay there, so he will gain a financial advantage.

He has another, really easy option to draw a line under this issue: ban foreign officials from using his hotels and other properties during his presidency. Then there can be no possible appearance of impropriety, at least in that regard.

Really? Do you feel the same about the Clintons? That you don't care how much they profited from their various enterprises as long as they left fair from for you to do so as well?

 

IMO Hillary had a track record of selling out the US for her own interests and/or Marxist ideology. Of course I do not support that,


Regarding hotel fees, the potential penny ante amounts to be gained for a reputed billionaire are laughable.


IMO nothing could be found in Trump's tax records that would rival what could have been found in Obama's academic ones. If you ever find out what was in those, bring it up and we can re-discuss this whole topic.

 

Sorry, but the theory of Hillary selling out the US for her own interests just doesn't stand up. There is no indication of personal benefit to her for anything she did as SoS. The only allegations that I have seen are that the Clinton Foundation received donations - that didn't benefit her personally.

As for Marxist ideology, I think you need to research a bit on what Marxism is. In some respects Trump's rhetoric is quite Marxist. He bases a lot of what he says on the class divide between workers and Wall Street. That is actually a Marxist analysis. Just so you know.

We are not talking about penny ante amounts, for anyone. I don't know what the nice suites cost in the Trump hotel in Washington, but I'm guessing at least $1000 per night - probably more and maybe much more. Other rooms maybe $400-$500. Let's be conservative and say $500. That, on its own, is chump change to Trump. But. But. That isn't the end of the story.

Foreign governments will not send one person to Washington. They will send teams of a dozen. Or dozens. Not just to meet with Trump, but for conferences, staff-level meetings etc. etc. etc. Not just one night, but for several days. A team of 10 for 5 nights will be $25,000. Multiply that by several countries, several times per year and you quickly get into millions. That is not chump change. That can be the difference between the hotel surviving or not. Being profitable or not.

Trump should just ban foreign officials from staying in his hotel.

Trump remains the only presidential candidate for decades not to release his tax returns. There is a reason he refuses, and that is because he knows it would hurt him. I am not that presidential candidates have disclosed their school records as a matter of routine (or at all). Is there a specific reason Obama should have done something that (to my knowledge) no-one else has done?

 

So if it turns out that he's a crook will you still trust him to run your country honestly, or is that irrelevant? His refusal to reveal his tax situation should raise eyebrows. It's no wonder that suspicions arise if the person who preaches transparency in government cloaks himself in a veil of secrecy.
Of course those who now defend Trump's reticence are the same who were calling for Obama's head on a stake if he didn't show them his birth certificate. One of those, of course, was Donald J. Trump.

 

Absolutely irrelevant, all politicians are crooks, liars, corrupt, incompetent elitist clowns, selling themselves to the highest bidder and getting in bed with lobbyists and special interests, Hillary and Obama certainly were. He'll be judged by his performance as president and nothing else and if it turns out that his accountants took every tax deduction and exploited every tax loophole - good for them and good for us.

You're confusing his personal and business affairs prior to his public life with transparency in government. The confusion is understandable and wide-spread among leftists but nevertheless absurd. Anyway, keep bleating about his taxes, it's a winner, no one will vote for him till they see his 1040, right? You people just never learn, you've lost the election on this and other similarly absurd and irrelevant attacks and smear.

 

Of course you would never dream of indulging in smearing Obama, or whining about his place of birth, right? We had months of it.

 

LOL, The Clintons are worth at least a quarter of a billion and last I checked they were public servants with modest public salaries, they did not run a successful startup, did not inherit, did not gamble on the stock market, did not win the lottery..... Oh, $300,000/hr paid to them by wall street hedge funds and brokerages is a modest and customary speaking fee, not a legalized bribe intended to buy them. What was I thinking... on a separate note, would you be interested in buying the Brooklyn bridge, I'll give you a great price?