Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Farmer77

196 dems to sue Trump over emoluments clause

91 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Farmer77

Nearly 200 Democratic members of Congress agreed to file a lawsuit Wednesday against President Trump alleging that by retaining interests in a global business empire he has violated constitutional restrictions on taking gifts and benefits from foreign leaders.

The lead senator filing the complaint in federal district court, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), said Tuesday that the lawsuit has already drawn more congressional plaintiffs — 196 — than any legal action previously taken against a president. No Republicans had joined in the lawsuit so far, although they will be invited to do so, Blumenthal said.

Congressional Democrats to file emoluments lawsuit against Trump 

This of course comes just days after the Attorney Generals for DC and Maryland filed similar suits  D.C. and Maryland AGs: Trump ‘flagrantly violating’ emoluments clause 

I really think in the end this is how they end up getting trump and he only has his own hubris to thank. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oldrover

I don't understand this, can someone explain it to me please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Just now, oldrover said:

I don't understand this, can someone explain it to me please?

Theres a rule that says elected officials cant make make profits from foreign leaders/nations while they are in office.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Emoluments Clause 

That's why presidents generally put their assets into a blind trust while in office as to avoid any appearance of impropriety. Trump of course did not do that and has been caught a couple of times now using his name as POTUS as a selling point for his rental properties, even adding in a brochure for one of his properties that he would make an appearance if guests booked their weddings there.  On top of doubling his membership rates at his FL golf club and raising rental property rates as soon as he got elected. 

The argument from team trump has thus far been that he's the president therefore above the law. I personally find that mindset abhorrent. 

Edited by Farmer77
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.ZZ.
7 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Theres a rule that says elected officials cant make make profits from foreign leaders/nations while they are in office.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Emoluments Clause 

That's why presidents generally put their assets into a blind trust while in office as to avoid any appearance of impropriety. Trump of course did not do that and has been caught a couple of times now using his name as POTUS as a selling point for his rental properties, even adding in a brochure for one of his properties that he would make an appearance if guests booked their weddings there.  On top of doubling his membership rates at his FL golf club and raising rental property rates as soon as he got elected. 

The argument from team trump has thus far been that he's the president therefore above the law. I personally find that mindset abhorrent. 

LOL, looks like they gave up on the collusion crap. :lol: 

This has been brought up before, POTUS is exempt as far as I know.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Just now, .ZZ. said:

LOL, looks like they gave up on the collusion crap. :lol: 

This has been brought up before, POTUS is exempt as far as I know.

No dude trump is just that bad. Now you have collusion, obstruction of justice and violations of the emoluments clause being looked into. 

Why on earth would POTUS be exempt? I keep hearing people say he is , but have yet to hear an actual argument as to why he is. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oldrover
8 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Theres a rule that says elected officials cant make make profits from foreign leaders/nations while they are in office.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Emoluments Clause 

That's why presidents generally put their assets into a blind trust while in office as to avoid any appearance of impropriety. Trump of course did not do that and has been caught a couple of times now using his name as POTUS as a selling point for his rental properties, even adding in a brochure for one of his properties that he would make an appearance if guests booked their weddings there.  On top of doubling his membership rates at his FL golf club and raising rental property rates as soon as he got elected. 

The argument from team trump has thus far been that he's the president therefore above the law. I personally find that mindset abhorrent. 

Thank you for explaining that. 

I'm not entirely sure what the position is here with our PM but as I understand the job of shafting up the state and making their party unelectable for their successors takes up most of their time, so I don't think they operate any private concerns while actually in office. 

And I don't comment one way or the other on American internal politics because I'm from  different perspective and not there but this

16 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

even adding in a brochure for one of his properties that he would make an appearance if guests booked their weddings there

Sounds incredible to me, are you sure? 

I agree in principle though, that the idea of separating public from private affairs is essential.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
6 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

No dude trump is just that bad. Now you have collusion, obstruction of justice and violations of the emoluments clause being looked into. 

Why on earth would POTUS be exempt? I keep hearing people say he is , but have yet to hear an actual argument as to why he is. 

Here's an argument:

Quote

In fact, 18 U.S.C. Section 202 specifically states, as relating to Section 208 which deals with financial interests:

“Except as otherwise provided in such sections, 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.”

Even the WashPo begrudgingly admits this to be true.

Quote

The law doesn’t say the president can’t have a conflict of interest. But Congress, under Title 18 Section 208 of the U.S. code, did exempt the president and vice president from conflict-of-interest laws on the theory that the presidency has so much power that any possible executive action might pose a potential conflict.

This will be an interesting case to watch. Also, how did 196 Democrats blindly agree to support this case? :huh:

I have zero political experience and I was able to resolve this with a 10 second Google search. It's troubling how little effort Senators put in to what they do.

 

Edited by Dark_Grey
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Just now, oldrover said:

Thank you for explaining that. 

I'm not entirely sure what the position is here with our PM but as I understand the job of shafting up the state and making their party unelectable for their successors takes up most of their time, so I don't think they operate any private concerns while actually in office. 

And I don't comment one way or the other on American internal politics because I'm from  different perspective and not there but this

Sounds incredible to me, are you sure? 

I agree in principle though, that the idea of separating public from private affairs is essential.

Youre welcome and i cant speak for all Americans on the board but I always appreciate an outside perspective. 

 

As for the Trump wedding drop ins im mostly sure TRUMP, THE PRESIDENT, LIKES CRASHING PARTIES AND MAKING MONEY OFF COUPLES' HAPPINESS 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.ZZ.
2 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

No dude trump is just that bad. Now you have collusion, obstruction of justice and violations of the emoluments clause being looked into. 

Why on earth would POTUS be exempt? I keep hearing people say he is , but have yet to hear an actual argument as to why he is. 

Says Pelosi/Cryin' Schumer :lol: 

They are just throwing things against the wall hoping something will stick.

They never expected Trump to win and they will not rest until they see him out of office. They don't like him personally as a human.

Can I include you on the list? Frankly my friend, I don't understand how a cool guy such as yourself from a great state would side with those folks. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
2 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

Here's an argument:

Even the WashPo begrudgingly admits this to be true.

This will be an interesting case to watch. Also, how did 196 Democrats blindly agree to support this case? :huh:

I have zero political experience and I was able to resolve this with a 10 second Google search. It's troubling how little effort Senators put in to what they do.

 

More from the first link:

Quote

And while Trump is right to say conflict-of-interest rules don’t apply to him, other laws governing this type of behavior do like the federal bribery statute and the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act which explicitly prohibits the President from accepting gifts from foreign governments or international organizations except as permitted under the law.

If the Dems are bringing a case against Trump, they better bring their A-game: Trump has lawyers fit to represent Satan himself in front of God Almighty. Plus, the public is growing weary of all these impeachment teasers. Especially since the Russia collusion turned out to be a lot of nothing.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Just now, Dark_Grey said:

Here's an argument:

Even the WashPo begrudgingly admits this to be true.

This will be an interesting case to watch. Also, how did 196 Democrats blindly agree to support this case? :huh:

I have zero political experience and I was able to resolve this with a 10 second Google search. It's troubling how little effort Senators put in to what they do.

 

Its not political experience its the legal experience that counts. Im thinking the two attorney generals who filed the earlier suit probably have a decent handle on whether they were wasting their time or not. 

 

As for the code you posted are you sure that the emoluments clause is covered in U.S.C Section , 205, 207 through 209, and 218 ? Honest question, I dont know the answer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Just now, .ZZ. said:

 They never expected Trump to win and they will not rest until they see him out of office. They don't like him personally as a human.

Can I include you on the list? Frankly my friend, I don't understand how a cool guy such as yourself from a great state would side with those folks. :unsure:

Just remember im siding with those folks in an enemy of my enemy kind of situation here. Truthfully from my outlook im just watching two great threats to my freedom tear each other apart and enjoying the hell out of it. Hopefully at the end of this nightmare both parties will have been dismantled , many in jail and the American people ban together to ensure we never have a lose/lose election again like we did in 2016. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
2 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

As for the code you posted are you sure that the emoluments clause is covered in U.S.C Section , 205, 207 through 209, and 218 ? Honest question, I dont know the answer. 

I'm not sure as I am not a legal expert on the Constitution but the first site I referenced on this upcoming lawsuit used this quote for a reason

Quote

In fact, 18 U.S.C. Section 202 specifically states, as relating to Section 208 which deals with financial interests:

“Except as otherwise provided in such sections, 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.”

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oldrover
19 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Youre welcome and i cant speak for all Americans on the board but I always appreciate an outside perspective. 

 

As for the Trump wedding drop ins im mostly sure TRUMP, THE PRESIDENT, LIKES CRASHING PARTIES AND MAKING MONEY OFF COUPLES' HAPPINESS 

 

Thing is, we have a very divided political landscape here too, and it really, really, makes me mad when I hear a non UK resident without the whole facts criticise the sides from a completely outsider perspective, it smacks of those trying to impose their world view on my problems, if you see what I mean. I don't want to do that, but of course, like many people I am interested in U.S politics, so I think a respectful neutrality means I can ask both sides questions. 

Again, thanks for explaining this to me, I will say that it does sound unusual to me. I don't think the link works over here though. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
travelnjones

One thing I dislike about this is it empowers the political class.  A person from business would have to be a fool to run in politics with our rules.  You effectively have to turn your back on everything you have build in your business life.  That is not asked of politicians, they grow their power throughout their career.  It almost a protection clause keeping on group of parasites in place and not allowing others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Just now, travelnjones said:

One thing I dislike about this is it empowers the political class.  A person from business would have to be a fool to run in politics with our rules.  You effectively have to turn your back on everything you have build in your business life.  That is not asked of politicians, they grow their power throughout their career.  It almost a protection clause keeping on group of parasites in place and not allowing others.

Shouldnt that speak more to how we allow business to operate than anything else? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
2 minutes ago, travelnjones said:

One thing I dislike about this is it empowers the political class.  A person from business would have to be a fool to run in politics with our rules.  You effectively have to turn your back on everything you have build in your business life.  That is not asked of politicians, they grow their power throughout their career.  It almost a protection clause keeping on group of parasites in place and not allowing others.

Jimmy Carter had to give up his families peanut farm.

But let's be honest, once they get into office, they are set for life between the pension, the speaking opportunities, the lobby jobs, and media commentators. 

The problem is that people with other interests (like personal businesses) won't act against those interests.  So to make sure our politicians are non-biased, we make them sever those connections before they serve in government office.  But all that has blurred in recent years.  Stuff like Sessions who wants to bring back mandatory minimums for small crimes while simultaneously holding investments in privatized prisons, for example. 

You do realize that the very definition of political corruption is using your office for personal gain right?  What 18 USC section 208 shows is that politicians have legalized corruption for the president.  Pretty sad that our founding fathers felt the need to put the emoluments clause in the constitution only for it to be wiped out in the US code.  It's even sadder that we have a president who will dance and beg at any chance at getting a dollar too, though. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
12 hours ago, oldrover said:

I don't understand this, can someone explain it to me please?

200 sooky-la-las are stamping their feet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
12 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Its not political experience its the legal experience that counts. Im thinking the two attorney generals who filed the earlier suit probably have a decent handle on whether they were wasting their time or not. 

 

As for the code you posted are you sure that the emoluments clause is covered in U.S.C Section , 205, 207 through 209, and 218 ? Honest question, I dont know the answer. 

Being that their goal is to just continue with the negative headlines, I'd say they aren't wasting their time at all. They are wasting our time. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Just now, preacherman76 said:

Being that their goal is to just continue with the negative headlines, I'd say they aren't wasting their time at all. They are wasting our time. 

LMAO no their goal isnt to contnue with negative headlines. It started out that way but now we all would love for Trump to do something which is unequivocally good, ya know actually do something worthy of generating positive headlines 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
15 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

LMAO no their goal isnt to contnue with negative headlines. It started out that way but now we all would love for Trump to do something which is unequivocally good, ya know actually do something worthy of generating positive headlines 

How exactly do you expect him to do that? The man is surrounded by corrupt globalist hell bent on stopping anything he tries, on both sides of the isles. 

The law they are suing him over directly exempts him. The only rational conclusion anyone could draw is that they are doing it for more negative headlines.

Heck CNN has basically endorsed violence towards the party now. 

Edited by preacherman76

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Just now, preacherman76 said:

Heck CNN has basically endorsed violence towards the party now. 

CNN's header all day yesterday was "THE NEW FACE OF EVIL" right over the shooters picture so no theyre not promoting violence against the party.

 Ive been online for 15 minutes and have read that same take 3 different times now, im guessing Rush, Alex Jones or Hannity made that their mantra for the day yesterday, regardless its not true. 

 

Just now, preacherman76 said:

The law they are suing him over directly exempts him. The only rational conclusion anyone could draw is that they are doing it for more negative headlines.

The first ones to file a similar suit were the attorney generals of DC and Maryland because Trumps actions are directly affecting their constituents ability to be profitable. Im guessing they have the legal knowledge to say whether he is exempted of not. Im still to see something that concretely exempts him , someone posted a random US code that gave a definition for other parts of the US code but im not sure that applies over the constitution.

Just now, preacherman76 said:

How exactly do you expect him to do that? The man is surrounded by corrupt globalist hell bent on stopping anything he tries, on both sides of the isles. 

What has he tried that was legal? Seriously. Everything the dude has tried and done has been foul , rotten from its core and he certainly isnt keeping his promises to you the Trump voter so why should he get positive headlines? Just because he beat Hillary? NO he's got the job, the time to act like a grown up has come and he has proven that he cant rise to the challenge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buzz_Light_Year
13 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

No dude trump is just that bad. Now you have collusion, obstruction of justice and violations of the emoluments clause being looked into. 

Why on earth would POTUS be exempt? I keep hearing people say he is , but have yet to hear an actual argument as to why he is. 

Where were those 196 democrats when Obama chaired the UN?

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

When it comes time for the US to chair the UN this duty falls to the Ambassador which in Obama's case would've been Susan Rice. Obama accepted the UN chair in direct violation of the Emoluments Clause.

And the outrage....<crickets>

Edited by Buzz_Light_Year
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Just now, Buzz_Light_Year said:

Where were those 196 democrats when Obama chaired the UN?

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

When it comes time for the US to chair the UN this duty falls to the Ambassador which in Obama's case would've been Susan Rice. Obama accepted the UN chair in direct violation of the Emoluments Clause.

And the outrage....<crickets>

Dude ive been saying all along the best thing to come from this disastrous presidency should be that the republicans learn to use the same playbook as the dems. That can ONLY be good for us Americans, lets call every politician out on all shadiness every time from here on out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles
13 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Jimmy Carter had to give up his families peanut farm.

But let's be honest, once they get into office, they are set for life between the pension, the speaking opportunities, the lobby jobs, and media commentators. 

The problem is that people with other interests (like personal businesses) won't act against those interests.  So to make sure our politicians are non-biased, we make them sever those connections before they serve in government office.  But all that has blurred in recent years.  Stuff like Sessions who wants to bring back mandatory minimums for small crimes while simultaneously holding investments in privatized prisons, for example. 

You do realize that the very definition of political corruption is using your office for personal gain right?  What 18 USC section 208 shows is that politicians have legalized corruption for the president.  Pretty sad that our founding fathers felt the need to put the emoluments clause in the constitution only for it to be wiped out in the US code.  It's even sadder that we have a president who will dance and beg at any chance at getting a dollar too, though. 

With accepting gifts and favors from lobby groups being legal and used by all, I don't know that supporting something that helps your business earn money is much different.  Just a whole screwed up system. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.