196 dems to sue Trump over emoluments clause

[Farmer77]

Just now, Myles said:

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. 

Lobbyists are the worst thing to ever happen to this nation. 

[preacherman76]

44 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

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. 

 

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.

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. 

I haven't see anything from CNN renouncing this. I for damn sure didn't see them rightfully take part responsibility for it. I did see Wolf Blitzer play a clip from the shooters friend saying the guy wasn't evil, and they just moved on to the next thing. Didn't renounce the guy at all. Never mind all the other liberal writers who were tweeting their support of this all day. They have been endorsing violence since before he took office. Even going so far as to talk about the chain of events that would happen after a potential assassination at the inauguration. Talking about it like it was a perfectly reasonable subject.  

Well you keep on guessing. I guess anything that takes away from the obvious truth here is somehow necessary.

Are you kidding me? The guy single handedly removed us from the jaws of the most extreme, globalist, American killing, UN agenda ever brought forth. Twice. That alone puts him above any president Ive seen in my life time. As far as getting things done, it takes many people to accomplish a administrations agenda. he is the only president ever to get called a child for being obstructed. Please tell me what he has done that's soo vial?

  

[Farmer77]

Just now, preacherman76 said:

Are you kidding me? The guy single handedly removed us from the jaws of the most extreme, globalist, American killing, UN agenda ever brought forth. Twice. That alone puts him above any president Ive seen in my life time. As far as getting things done, it takes many people to accomplish a administrations agenda. he is the only president ever to get called a child for being obstructed. Please tell me what he has done that's soo vial?

Pay closer attention, Trumps people let everyone know that his plans for NAFTA were to basically incorporate the framework of the TPP into it so I think the celebration is a little premature, and you and I just disagree fundamentally about Paris. 

What has he done thats so vial? 

Hired his friend who he knew was corrupt 

Fired the man investigating his friend 

Lied to you the trump voter about pretty much everything 

Wrote an executive order which declared that he and only he can decide who is allowed to be a lobbyist 

Hired a man who LITERALLY got permission from oil companies to conduct his state's business as the head of the EPA 

He has intentionally worked to shake confidence in one of the branches of government because he dislikes the checks and balances 

Bombed Syria after saying he wouldnt in a 'wag the dog' type scenario 

Allowed coal mine waste to be dumped in rivers 

is trying to take public lands away from us so corporate interests can develop them 

Said he wouldnt prosecute hillary 

 

The above only encompasses what came to me off the top of my head and doesnt include anything from before the election like mocking the handicapped guy or his mildly rapist "grab em by the ***** " comment. 

 

 

 

 

[RAyMO]

2 hours ago, 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.

OK - I am not american - so maybe the nuances are evading me. But how is chairing the UN relevant.

How is assuming the position of rotating chair a present, Emolument, Office, or Title

How is the the UN a King, Prince, or foreign State

How is Obama considered a Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust while the Ambassador is apprarenttly not.

Thanks

[Buzz_Light_Year]

30 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

OK - I am not american - so maybe the nuances are evading me. But how is chairing the UN relevant.

How is assuming the position of rotating chair a present, Emolument, Office, or Title

How is the the UN a King, Prince, or foreign State

How is Obama considered a Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust while the Ambassador is apprarenttly not.

Thanks

Obama chaired the UN on the nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament and the role as UN Security Council chair would allow him to make decisions, influence legislation and resolutions, and set the agenda. Usually when it's time for the US to chair the UN the role is assumed by the Ambassador. Having an ambassador to the UN means we regard the UN as a foreign state and the ambassador represents the US as its representative.

Being a chair of the UN is a title and in this case the title of a foreign entity.  Can this be construed as venturing into muddy waters? Of course!

[White Unicorn]

16 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. 

I'm no lawyer either, but there would seem to be something provided in those other sections to give the congressmen a legal reason to pursue the lawsuit.

I also think it might also  be a way to bring out his tàx filings on court records by the lawsuit, even if they might be ruled against in court. 

The one thing about Trump presidency is he wants to do everything by executive orders. In the past other presidents worked with Congress bipartisan on issues and things were not such a rush. New law proposals of Congress should be out there for everyone to read and discuss prior to the vote, not just relying on one party to create the bills up for vote. 

[Farmer77]

China approves nine Trump trademarks it had previously rejected 

The Chinese government has granted preliminary approval for nine Donald Trump trademarks it had previously rejected, in whole or in part, the Associated Press found, a turn that is likely to fuel further allegations that Beijing may be giving the president’s family business special treatment.

HAHA perfect timing, Thank You China 

[aztek]

[+Hammerclaw]

This is the political equivalent of flinging spitballs from the rafters. Lawyers will still be arguing legal definitions long after Trump leaves office. It has no effect on the present, literally sound and fury, signifying nothing. As for obstruction of justice, you first have to produce evidence not of intent, which is subject to interpretation, but of actual justice obstructed, impeded, denied. There hasn't been and so there is no evidence, just more clowns on unicycles in the,temptuous teapot of the Democrat circus.

[Farmer77]

Just now, Hammerclaw said:

This is the political equivalent of flinging spitballs from the rafters. Lawyers will still be arguing legal definitions long after Trump leaves office. It has no effect on the present, literally sound and fury, signifying nothing. As for obstruction of justice, you first have to produce evidence not of intent, which is subject to interpretation, but of actual justice obstructed, impeded, denied. There hasn't been and so there is no evidence, just more clowns on unicycles in the,temptuous teapot of the Democrat circus.

Im sure that makes you feel better but the reality is an obstruction of justice CHARGE isnt and never was in the offering. Impeachment as a result of an attempt at obstructing justice however is a real possibility. 

Edited June 15, 2017 by Farmer77

[+Hammerclaw]

1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

Im sure that makes you feel better but the reality is an obstruction of justice CHARGE isnt and never was in the offering. Impeachment as a result of an attempt at obstructing justice however is a real possibility. 

Yeah, and pigs could fly with big,enough wings. You can't charge anyone based on your subjective opinion of their intentions. Either you obstruct justice or you don't. You don't get impeached because of a third party opinion you might have been thinking about it. Oh, but keep it up, and let the left turn Trump into a Martyr as the Right did Bill Clinton and do you know what the result was? Four more years.

[Farmer77]

9 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Yeah, and pigs could fly with big,enough wings. You can't charge anyone based on your subjective opinion of their intentions. Either you obstruct justice or you don't. You don't get impeached because of a third party opinion you might have been thinking about it. Oh, but keep it up, and let the left turn Trump into a Martyr as the Right did Bill Clinton and do you know what the result was? Four more years.

LOL this nation will be lucky to survive the next 3 years and 200 days let alone another 4 after that. 

As for impeachment , if it comes down to Trump vs Comey the credibility meter is going to point towards Comey . Perhaps that wont be enough for removal  but probably will be enough for impeachment and the increasing isolation of Trump will accelerate at a massive scale as the remainder of the GOP follow his staff's lead and just give up on the dude. 

[Myles]

20 hours ago, White Unicorn said:

The one thing about Trump presidency is he wants to do everything by executive orders. In the past other presidents worked with Congress bipartisan on issues and things were not such a rush. New law proposals of Congress should be out there for everyone to read and discuss prior to the vote, not just relying on one party to create the bills up for vote. 

There is some truth there, but Trump is not alone in using executive orders.

Obama - 276

Bush - 291

Clinton - 364

Bush - 166

Reagan - 381

Carter - 320

 

[Farmer77]

Just now, Myles said:

There is some truth there, but Trump is not alone in using executive orders.

Obama - 276

Bush - 291

Clinton - 364

Bush - 166

Reagan - 381

Carter - 320

 

The entire concept of executive orders , outside of a time of true crisis (true crisis not this panic over terrorists) , makes my skin crawl. It just seems like something which should be unamerican. 

[Myles]

Just now, Farmer77 said:

The entire concept of executive orders , outside of a time of true crisis (true crisis not this panic over terrorists) , makes my skin crawl. It just seems like something which should be unamerican. 

I agree.   If I was more dedicated, I'd search why Carter had so many in only 4 years.

[White Unicorn]

1 hour ago, Myles said:

I agree.   If I was more dedicated, I'd search why Carter had so many in only 4 years.

I'm going by my memory observations about executive orders not searches.

Carter wasn't liked very much by either  party, he was the outsider peanut farmer, who's big scandal to the press was his beer drinking brother. Wow, he confessed to adultry, because being a religious man, he believed he sinned by lust of the mind when weak. LOL. I really think he was elected because he was an honest and ethical man who is wanted to do so much for America and the voters have him that chance. He didn't like to play old politics of pork in bills to get them passed. He was weak in political influences and used executive orders. His big downfall to the average American was the gas crisis and waiting in long lines for fuel. 

 

Reagan was like Carter in a way being considered a Washington outsider, only he was a Republican. He was an actor but had dealt with politics of the actors guild and being a Governor. He surrounded himself by people who knew their jobs and was a great negotiator, because he listened to both sides and had big dreams for America and the world. He wasn't a micro manager of his staff. 

As I look at prior winners of elections, I noticed the trend that we go from those considered outsiders to Washington  politicians from each party then back to an outsider! 

It seems to me that executive orders are something to use if it's an emergency situation, something that needs to happen fast,  or the president is politically weak. You get more of them at end of term such as in Obama's last term. They were out of desperation to protect parks, and American Indian concerns  etc. 

It still seems weird to me for a new president to do so many executive orders. 

Most presidents also do the majority of pardons and immunity at the end of term. I think that's because they are going out office and do the more politically controversial actions at the end of term.

 

Just my observations of the administrations of the past.

 

 

 

[Farmer77]

Changes in Cuba policy could adversely impact Trump's hotel competitors 

The proposed changes in US-Cuba relations that President Donald Trump will unveil Friday in Miami could adversely impact hotel brands that directly compete with Trump's business empire, making it more difficult for them expand their foothold in Cuba.

Kind of a weak argument but I could see how those affected by it could feel that way. 

[The Silver Thong]

The law suit is pointless and a waste of time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_of_Nobility_Clause

[Farmer77]

Just now, The Silver Thong said:

The law suit is pointless and a waste of time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_of_Nobility_Clause

What in that link made you say it was pointless and a waste of time? 

[The Silver Thong]

5 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

What in that link made you say it was pointless and a waste of time? 

Who has tried to claim Nobilty

[aztek]

idk what wiki link says, but post 7 pretty much showed why it is a waste of time.

[Farmer77]

Just now, The Silver Thong said:

Who has tried to claim Nobilty

From the link:    Also known as the Emoluments Clause, it was designed to shield the republican character of the United States against so-called "corrupting foreign influences".

Its not JUST about a title. 

 

[Farmer77]

Just now, aztek said:

idk what wiki link says, but post 7 pretty much showed why it is a waste of time.

Are you sure? I asked for clarification at the time but noone seemed to know the answer. What was posted was the definition of the term as it applied to certain sections of the US code. What I dont know and noone was able to confirm or deny concretely is whether the emoluments clause falls within those particular sections of the US code. 

I took a class on how to read that crap years ago but most of it has escaped me. 

Edited June 16, 2017 by Farmer77

[The Silver Thong]

32 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

From the link:    Also known as the Emoluments Clause, it was designed to shield the republican character of the United States against so-called "corrupting foreign influences".

Its not JUST about a title. 

 

 

.

Where did the Statue of Liberty come from, where did the Eiffel tower come from.

Edited June 16, 2017 by The Silver Thong

[Farmer77]

Just now, The Silver Thong said:

I bolded the interesting part. You do know that countries give gifts to each other and make business deals right. Can a gift be seen as bribery, maybe birthday parties should be banned because who ever gave a better gift is a better friend. Maybe we should stop all trade because of deals made. The law suit is pointless.  It`s a deflection by the left to draw away from what they don`t like and to Trump up charges, pun intended.

Making a profit off of your title as POTUS by doubling your membership fees and raising rental rates after receiving such title, while drawing the business of foreign leaders whom otherswise would have spent their money elsewhere is quite a bit different than receiving a gift from a head of state in the open and on the record.