**Official Trump Conflict of Interest Thread**

[RandomGuy]

I will guess that no blind trust will materialize.

So now we will have the spectacle of foreign governments directly doing business with the president of the united states in a pay for play model that will make the Clinton Foundation look like amateur hour.

---------------------
Conflicts of interest
Dynasty

The incoming administration has an inbuilt problem

DURING the presidential campaign there was much discussion about how the norms that govern American democracy were being ignored or rewritten. Those discussions have not stopped since Donald Trump became president-elect. His decision to put three of his children and one of their spouses on his presidential transition team, and the story, later denied, that he sought top-secret security clearances for them, has provoked concerns about what the roles of the president’s children and their spouses will be once Mr Trump takes office.

His mixing of public and private endeavours looks like a reversion to the way conflicts of interest worked at the presidential level before civil-service reform in the 20th century. Before then presidents frequently dabbled in business on the side. There are few laws governing what a president must do to manage such conflicts, but from the mid-century presidency of Dwight Eisenhower onwards most presidents have placed their assets in blind trusts. So far Mr Trump has declined to do any such thing.

The worry is not so much that Mr Trump’s children will be running his businesses while he is in the White House, or that Trump companies will find ways to profit from their association with the president—though both of those things could well happen. Ivanka Trump gave a small demonstration of what this will look like when her jewellery company used her appearance in the first televised interview with her father after the election to sell copies of the bracelet she wore.

Mr Trump’s companies do not have the market share or political importance that, say, Silvio Berlusconi’s television empire had when he came to power in Italy. Nor is America about to go the way of Ukraine, where oligarchs-turned-politicians manipulate laws to favour their companies.

Instead, one concern should be that people will conclude that doing business with Trump companies is a good way to buy influence, or at least the appearance of it—exactly the problem that dogged the Clinton Foundation and which Mr Trump denounced as crooked. A second concern is that Mr Trump depends heavily on his children for advice. When it comes to running the country, as opposed to a presidential campaign, they are not well-qualified to give it. Americans should be more worried about competence than nepotism.

From the print edition: United States

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21710266-incoming-administration-has-inbuilt-problem-dynasty

[RandomGuy]

I'll go ahead and subscribe this, so it can be updated as the hits roll in.

[Clipper Nation]

RandomCry with another baby bitchfit.

[SnakeBoy]

So the biggest Clinton supporter on the board starts a watch thread to see if Trump becomes as corrupt as the Clintons

The next four years are going to be fun on here.

[RandomGuy]

RandomCry with another baby bitchfit.

George W. Bush lawyer: Trump could violate Constitution on first day in office




The Constitution’s “Emoluments Clause” provides that “no person holding any office of profit or trust under” the United States “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.”

The diplomats’ efforts in seek[ing] Trump’s favor by staying in his hotel “looks like a gift,” ... thus is the very kind of favor the Constitution seeks to prevent.

Basically, that part of the Constitution exists so other countries can’t buy influence with the U.S. government. Since the diplomats would be staying in the hotel to win favor with Trump, it’s not legal. About 100 diplomats gathered at the hotel this week “to sip Trump-branded champagne, dine on sliders and hear a sales pitch about the U.S. president-elect’s newest hotel” according to The Washington Post.

In interviews with a dozen diplomats, many of whom declined to be named because they were not authorized to speak about anything related to the next U.S. president, some said spending money at Trump’s hotel is an easy, friendly gesture to the new president.

“Why wouldn’t I stay at his hotel blocks from the White House, so I can tell the new president, ‘I love your new hotel!’ Isn’t it rude to come to his city and say, ‘I am staying at your competitor?’ ” said one Asian diplomat.

http://fusion.net/story/371332/george-w-bush-lawyer-trump-ethics-violate-constitution/

[RandomGuy]

So the biggest Clinton supporter on the board starts a watch thread to see if Trump becomes as corrupt as the Clintons

The next four years are going to be fun on here.

Wheee.

Corrupt and the darling of neo-nazis. What a shit-show, indeed.

Trump is everything you hated about Clinton and more.

[RandomGuy]

So the biggest Clinton supporter on the board starts a watch thread to see if Trump becomes as corrupt as the Clintons

The next four years are going to be fun on here.


Conflict of interest? Donald Trump meeting with Indian businessmen raises questions
Sagar Chordia, Atul Chordia, and Kalpesh Mehta are building a Trump-branded luxury apartment in south Mumbai

http://images.indianexpress.com/2016/11/sagar-chordia.jpg

President-elect Donald Trump last week met three Indian real-estate investors who are constructing a luxury apartment complex in South Mumbai under the Trump brand. The meeting took place at Trump Towers in Manhattan, New York. He took time out from planning his transition to the Oval office to meet with the businessmen. A spokeswoman for Trump said it was a routine courtesy call and the three flew from India to congratulate Trump on his victory. “It was not a formal meeting of any kind,” Breanna Butler, a spokeswoman for the Trump Organization, told Washington Post.

The Economic Times, however, quoted the businessmen as saying they had discussed about expanding operations under the Trump brand. The report also stated that Washington ethics lawyer said Trump’s meeting with Indian businessmen raised conflict of interest.



http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/three-indian-businessmen-reach-us-to-congratulate-donald-trump-on-election-victory-4385427/

[Clipper Nation]

George W. Bush lawyer: Trump could violate Constitution on first day in office




http://fusion.net/story/371332/george-w-bush-lawyer-trump-ethics-violate-constitution/
Did this lawyer also have a problem with the Patriot Act and Dubya's oil wars abroad, or does his ire only extend to presidents who oppose the neocon agenda?

[RandomGuy]

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.


http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/68/emoluments-clause


e·mol·u·ment
iˈmälyəmənt/Submit
nounformal
a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office.

[RandomGuy]

Did this lawyer also have a problem with the Patriot Act and Dubya's oil wars abroad, or does his ire only extend to presidents who oppose the neocon agenda?


Red Herring

Ignoratio elenchi

(also known as: beside the point, misdirection [form of], changing the subject, false emphasis, the Chewbacca defense, irrelevant conclusion, irrelevant thesis, smokescreen, clouding the issue, ignorance of refutation, judgmental language [form of])

Description: Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue that to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/150/Red-Herring

[Clipper Nation]

Congrats, you can blurt out the names of logical fallacies like an autist. That doesn't answer my question, though.

[RandomGuy]

Congrats, you can blurt out the names of logical fallacies like an autist. That doesn't answer my question, though.

I don't know the answer to your question. How do you feel it is relevant to Trumps conflict of interest problems?

[Clipper Nation]

I don't know the answer to your question. How do you feel it is relevant to Trumps conflict of interest problems?
Because waving around hypotheticals from DUBYA'S constititutional lawyer like it's iron-clad evidence of corruption is retarded. Especially if this lawyer didn't say shit about his former boss' far worse actual violations of the Constitution.

[SnakeBoy]

Wheee.

Corrupt and the darling of neo-nazis. What a shit-show, indeed.

Trump is everything you hated about Clinton and more.

The big difference between Trump and Clinton is that Trump is causing you to lose your shit...that alone make's it worth the any trade off.

This is just the early stages of RG's meltdown...shit's gonna get good :lol

[RandomGuy]

Because waving around hypotheticals from DUBYA'S constititutional lawyer like it's iron-clad evidence of corruption is retarded. Especially if this lawyer didn't say shit about his former boss' far worse actual violations of the Constitution.

So you don't know how it is relevant to Trump's conflict of interest problem. Got it.

[RandomGuy]

The big difference between Trump and Clinton is that Trump is causing you to lose your shit...that alone make's it worth the any trade off.

This is just the early stages of RG's meltdown...shit's gonna get good :lol

Nah. I will leave the meltdowns to the conservatives trying to bend themselves in knots defending this. It will be fun to watch.

Do you think the sitting president should be working personal deals to develop real estate in India?

[Clipper Nation]

Nah. I will leave the meltdowns to the conservatives trying to bend themselves in knots defending this. It will be fun to watch.

Do you think the sitting president should be working personal deals to develop real estate in India?
There's nothing for us to defend. Nothing's happened yet. He's also not the sitting president yet. You are the one losing your mind based on the empty words of some neocon lawyer who hates Trump.

[SnakeBoy]

Do you think the sitting president should be working personal deals to develop real estate in India?

:lol he's not the sitting President

[AFBlue]

I'm glad you're exposing the greed and corruption from someone who can misuse and abuse their power for financial gain. I'm sure you started a similar one for Hillary. Can you link me to it? I'd expect it to be up over a hundred pages by now.

[Mitch]

Looking forward to see a president do his job without a cabinet picked by citi bank, tbh

[boutons_deux]

Looking forward to see a president do his job without a cabinet picked by citi bank, tbh

Trash is, will be 100% aligned with Wall St and the Repug political establishment. no conflict at all.

eg, Trash has already caved on "won't touch Medicare" to go along with RyanCare.

Trash plans to deregiulate BigFinance, kill CFPB, defund/neuter SEC, stuff FCC with BigNetwork shills, etc, etc.

You low-edu, low-info, low-wage, conned white boys ain't gonna get shit from Trash

[Mitch]

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff254/cswamp/Talking-Retard-Cartman.gif

[CosmicCowboy]

Trash is, will be 100% aligned with Wall St and the Repug political establishment. no conflict at all.

eg, Trash has already caved on "won't touch Medicare" to go along with RyanCare.

Trash plans to deregiulate BigFinance, kill CFPB, defund/neuter SEC, stuff FCC with BigNetwork shills, etc, etc.

You low-edu, low-info, low-wage, conned white boys ain't gonna get shit from Trash


Maybe. Maybe not. I'm thinking of deferring income to next year just in case.

[Pelicans78]

tl;dr

[boutons_deux]

Maybe. Maybe not. I'm thinking of deferring income to next year just in case.

absolutely no maybe about it. Don The Con is 100% Repug/BigFinance establishment in policies, MISgovernance, anti-99% / pro-1%.

His tax plan enriches his family by about $4B

[z0sa]

absolutely no maybe about it. Don The Con is 100% Repug/BigFinance establishment in policies, MISgovernance, anti-99% / pro-1%.

His tax plan enriches his family by about $4B

Don the Con is a lot better than Trash. You should keep it up.

[RandomGuy]

:lol he's not the sitting President

I didn't say he was. I can say "a" if it would help you get to where you could give a straight answer.

2nd time:
I merely asked if you thought that it was ok of a sitting president should be working personal deals to develop real estate in India?

[RandomGuy]

There's nothing for us to defend. Nothing's happened yet. He's also not the sitting president yet. You are the one losing your mind based on the empty words of some neocon lawyer who hates Trump.


Ad hominem
Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).


I'm sure all this flawed reasoning passes for valid in your head, but to anybody with even weak critical thinking skills, it is way less than convincing.

[RandomGuy]

Looking forward to see a president do his job without a cabinet picked by citi bank, tbh


They include, among many others, a former Goldman Sachs executive who is rumored to be a Treasury Secretary pick; a paid consultant for Verizon who is making key decisions on your administration's Federal Communication Commission; a 'top lobbyist' whose firm lobbied on behalf of issues related to the Trans-Pacific Partnership who is shaping your Labor Department; and a climate-change-denying, oil industry-paid think tank fellow who is leading your environmental team's transition."
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/elizabeth-warren-rips-trumps-picks-of-wall-street-insiders-2016-11-15


Malpass, a former Bear Stearns chief economist, is working on shaping Trump’s Treasury Department, which Mnuchin is a leading candidate to lead. Atkins, a former Securities and Exchange Commission commissioner during the George W. Bush administration, is working to fill the ranks of financial regulatory agencies in the Trump administration.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/elizabeth-warren-rips-trumps-picks-of-wall-street-insiders-2016-11-15

I am guessing you are more of a Bear Stearns kinda guy...?

or

I am guessing you are more a Shell Oil kinda guy?

:toast

[RandomGuy]

I'm glad you're exposing the greed and corruption from someone who can misuse and abuse their power for financial gain. I'm sure you started a similar one for Hillary. Can you link me to it? I'd expect it to be up over a hundred pages by now.

Does Trumps potential conflicts of interest bother you? Clinton's bothered me.

The thing we are both faced with is what to do about it.

[boutons_deux]

Does Trumps potential conflicts of interest bother you? Clinton's bothered me.

The thing we are both faced with is what to do about it.

Clinton's "conflicts" were mostly fabricated, investigated way past death (just like Benghazi) (Chaffetz has vowed to continue "investigating" Clinton), and relentlessly hyped and lied about by Repug/rigthwing-hate-media for years.

Don The Con's history of fraud, theft, financial failures, nepotism are in court records.

False equivalence.

[boutons_deux]

This isn’t just a photo of Ivanka Trump. It’s a middle finger to democracy.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxgvfEuWEAAgIg6.jpg

Donald Trump is leveraging his new position as president-elect to empower his business empire — and he’s doing it publicly.

https://thinkprogress.org/this-isnt-just-a-photo-of-ivanka-trump-it-s-a-middle-finger-to-democracy-750e91a3c0c#.3or0b8vqm

================

The merger of the Trump administration and the Trump Organization took 6 days

https://thinkprogress.org/the-merger-of-the-trump-administration-and-the-trump-organization-took-6-days-dda1d628a0#.uwv5jewyu

[Winehole23]

The Trumps hold a 60-year lease from the GSA for the Old Post Office. President-elect Trump will appoint a new GSA head.

Similarly, he will make appointments to the NLRB, which has had a contentious relationship with Trump's Nevada hotels.

[Winehole23]

The conflicts are fairly obvious, Trump would do well to take them more seriously.

[boutons_deux]

The conflicts are fairly obvious, Trump would do well to take them more seriously.

Will Dems investigate Don The Con as relentlessly as the Repugs have gone after the Clintons for 25 years?

There's no law that forces a Pres to divest or solve conflicts of interest.

There is a law against nepotism, but Trash has already figured out how get around it while "employing" his SIL

It's simply a show of good-faith, of which Don The Con possesses none.

[Clipper Nation]

This isn’t just a photo of Ivanka Trump. It’s a middle finger to democracy.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxgvfEuWEAAgIg6.jpg

Donald Trump is leveraging his new position as president-elect to empower his business empire — and he’s doing it publicly.

https://thinkprogress.org/this-isnt-just-a-photo-of-ivanka-trump-it-s-a-middle-finger-to-democracy-750e91a3c0c#.3or0b8vqm

================

The merger of the Trump administration and the Trump Organization took 6 days

https://thinkprogress.org/the-merger-of-the-trump-administration-and-the-trump-organization-took-6-days-dda1d628a0#.uwv5jewyu



Great photo. I love how it triggers liberals.

[CosmicCowboy]

Ivanka perfectly positioned to pull a Sharon Stone to throw them off their game.

[101A]

This isn’t just a photo of Ivanka Trump. It’s a middle finger to democracy.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxgvfEuWEAAgIg6.jpg

Donald Trump is leveraging his new position as president-elect to empower his business empire — and he’s doing it publicly.

https://thinkprogress.org/this-isnt-just-a-photo-of-ivanka-trump-it-s-a-middle-finger-to-democracy-750e91a3c0c#.3or0b8vqm

================

The merger of the Trump administration and the Trump Organization took 6 days

https://thinkprogress.org/the-merger-of-the-trump-administration-and-the-trump-organization-took-6-days-dda1d628a0#.uwv5jewyu




My first thought is, "Damn, White House going to be slumming."

The conflicts of interest possibilities are obvious, and they were before the election. At least I can sleep knowing the press will actually, gleefully, hold this president accountable for those, rather than look the other way.

[Winehole23]

and apparently, board conservatives will gleefully look the other way, just like HRC's true believers did during the campaign.

[Sportcamper]

The election is over, the talking is done

Your party lost, my party won

So let us be friends, let arguments pass

I’ll hug my elephant, you kiss your ass! :lol

[Mitch]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/elizabeth-warren-rips-trumps-picks-of-wall-street-insiders-2016-11-15

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/elizabeth-warren-rips-trumps-picks-of-wall-street-insiders-2016-11-15

I am guessing you are more of a Bear Stearns kinda guy...?

or

I am guessing you are more a Shell Oil kinda guy?

:toast

Until I see something like this linked to Trump, you've no room :toast

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user230519/imageroot/2016/10/13/2016.10.13%20-%20Forman%202_0.JPG

[RandomGuy]

and apparently, board conservatives will gleefully look the other way, just like HRC's true believers did during the campaign.

That is the suck thing. Hillary would have had similar baggage, that would have been unwound by simply shutting down the foundation. Trumps businesses won't be quite so easy to wind down.

[RandomGuy]

Until I see something like this linked to Trump, you've no room :toast

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user230519/imageroot/2016/10/13/2016.10.13%20-%20Forman%202_0.JPG

... and that is....?

[RandomGuy]

Clinton's "conflicts" were mostly fabricated, investigated way past death (just like Benghazi) (Chaffetz has vowed to continue "investigating" Clinton), and relentlessly hyped and lied about by Repug/rigthwing-hate-media for years.

Don The Con's history of fraud, theft, financial failures, nepotism are in court records.

False equivalence.

I agree. If you had to work so hard to show the conflicts of interest, your case isn't nearly as strong as you think it is.

This stuff... is easy to outline.

emolument... fun word, going to make a comeback this coming year.

[RandomGuy]

Clinton's "conflicts" were mostly fabricated, investigated way past death (just like Benghazi) (Chaffetz has vowed to continue "investigating" Clinton), and relentlessly hyped and lied about by Repug/rigthwing-hate-media for years.

Don The Con's history of fraud, theft, financial failures, nepotism are in court records.

False equivalence.

You are using words involved in critical thinking, something quite alien to many here. "False equivalence" is how it works. "Trump is bad, but Clinton is just as bad". Not quite.


The Mumbai Shuffle

The Trump Organization is not like the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, the charitable enterprise that has been the subject of intense scrutiny about possible conflicts for the Democratic presidential nominee. There are allegations that Hillary Clinton bestowed benefits on contributors to the foundation in some sort of “pay to play” scandal when she was secretary of state, but that makes no sense because there was no “pay.” Money contributed to the foundation was publicly disclosed and went to charitable efforts, such as fighting neglected tropical diseases that infect as many as a billion people. The financials audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers, the global independent accounting company, and the foundation’s tax filings show that about 90 percent of the money it raised went to its charitable programs. (Trump surrogates have falsely claimed that it was only 10 percent and that the rest was used as a Clinton “slush fund.”)
No member of the Clinton family received any cash from the foundation, nor did it finance any political campaigns. In fact, like the Clintons, almost the entire board of directors works for free.
On the other hand, the Trump family rakes in untold millions of dollars from the Trump Organization every year.
Much of that comes from deals with international financiers and developers, many of whom have been tied to controversial and even illegal activities. None of Trump’s overseas contractual business relationships examined by Newsweek were revealed in his campaign’s financial filings with the Federal Election Commission, nor was the amount paid to him by his foreign partners. (The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for the names of all foreign entities in partnership or contractually tied to the Trump Organization.) Trump’s financial filings also indicate he is a shareholder or beneficiary of several overseas entities, including Excel Venture LLC in the French West Indies and Caribusiness Investments SRL, based in the Dominican Republic, one of the world’s tax havens.

There is a big reason that we never saw the tax returns. It keeps the plebs from knowing how much the emperor would be skimming.

[Winehole23]

The election is over, the talking is done

Your party lost, my party won

So let us be friends, let arguments pass

I’ll hug my elephant, you kiss your ass! :lolIntegrity and principles still matter regardless of who won.

I'm cool with all the touchdown dances, but some point the conversation starts again -- there's way more to politics than spiking the football after election day.

[Winehole23]

That is the suck thing. Hillary would have had similar baggage, that would have been unwound by simply shutting down the foundation. Trumps businesses won't be quite so easy to wind down.seems the win caught Trump by surprise. Even if it didn't, he seems unprepared -- didn't think things through all the way.

[Winehole23]

Dp

[Winehole23]

Dp

[Mitch]

... and that is....?

:rolleyes

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-14/most-important-wikileak-how-wall-street-built-obama-cabinet


or just google it if you don't like the source

[Winehole23]

No doubt about it, Obama was Mr. Continuity for the powers that be at the time and continues to. Obama is was and always has been a Tory.

[Winehole23]

Handing over executive powers of greater amplitude than his predecessor, to Trump.

Obama did not only preserve power intact, he hands it over enhanced.

[DMX7]

I want him to pick R. Reich for Secretary of Public Enlightenment. The last name is oh so fitting.

[Winehole23]

you can't use the office to enrich yourself directly, right?

[Winehole23]

I've heard it's legally a gray area as to whether conflict of interest laws can be enforced wrt the President and Vice-President. Previous occupants of the office adhered to more or less legally strict, political norms.

Now, it's apparently ok to enrich yourself directly.

[SnakeBoy]

I didn't say he was. I can say "a" if it would help you get to where you could give a straight answer.

2nd time:
I merely asked if you thought that it was ok of a sitting president should be working personal deals to develop real estate in India?

I'll give you an answer you should understand.


Meh.

[RandomGuy]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/a-scramble-to-assess-the-dangers-of-president-elects-global-business-empire/2016/11/20/1bbdc2a2-ad18-11e6-a31b-4b6397e625d0_story.html


“There are so many diplomatic, political, even national security risks in having the president own a whole bunch of properties all over the world,” said Richard Painter, chief White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush.

“If we’ve got to talk to a foreign government about their behavior, or negotiate a treaty, or some country asks us to send our troops in to defend someone else, we’ve got to make a decision. And the question becomes: Are we going in out of our national interest or because there’s a Trump casino around?” Painter added.

The above article outlines the scale.

Also tangential to the thread, but not quite on topic, what happens when the first terrorist attack kills people on one of his properties?

[RandomGuy]

I'll give you an answer you should understand.

So, using the office to enrich himself, directly violating the constitution is a "meh" for you?

Just wanted to see if that was right. It is OK for the president to violate the constitution.

[boutons_deux]

US has fined Deutsche Bank $14B

Trash is indebted to DB

Will Trash's DoJ modify the DB fine?

[RandomGuy]

:rolleyes

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-14/most-important-wikileak-how-wall-street-built-obama-cabinet


or just google it if you don't like the source

Don't care too much about the source, I just wanted some context/explanation.

[RandomGuy]

seems the win caught Trump by surprise. Even if it didn't, he seems unprepared -- didn't think things through all the way.

Understatement of the Decade

[Winehole23]

if Trump can brazen out using high office to openly enrich himself and his family members, we will have made a significant step toward caudillismo.

[RandomGuy]

Integrity and principles still matter regardless of who won.

I'm cool with all the touchdown dances, but some point the conversation starts again -- there's way more to politics than spiking the football after election day.

+1

We are, as I have already stated, forced to deal with the realities.

[RandomGuy]

Until I see something like this linked to Trump, you've no room :toast

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user230519/imageroot/2016/10/13/2016.10.13%20-%20Forman%202_0.JPG

Okaaay.

Without really getting a firm explanation, I can take a guess, that it was some metric for ethnic diversity.

Which is the source of my puzzlement, because the point you were responding to was that Trump is considering his share of Wall Street types for all sorts of things, after railing against them in the campaign. Not sure how that is relevant to either that or the conflict of interest that comprises the thread topic.

In that he is doing exactly what Obama did.

[RandomGuy]

Trump registered 8 companies in Saudi Arabia during presidential campaign


The Washington Post has found that Trump registered eight new companies during this year’s presidential campaign that “appear tied to a potential hotel project in Saudi Arabia.”

Elsewhere, the Post has found that Trump has started companies that “range from sprawling, ultraluxury real estate complexes to one-man holding companies and branding deals in Azerbaijan, Indonesia, Panama and other countries, including some where the United States maintains sensitive diplomatic ties.”
https://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/drain-the-swamp-trump-registered-8-companies-in-saudi-arabia-during-presidential-campaign/

WP original source article here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/a-scramble-to-assess-the-dangers-of-president-elects-global-business-empire/2016/11/20/1bbdc2a2-ad18-11e6-a31b-4b6397e625d0_story.html

[Mitch]

Don't care too much about the source, I just wanted some context/explanation.

Translation: I'm going to ignore that this is from citi bank.

[boutons_deux]

standard rightwingnutjob defense (eg, of Don The Con): Our person no worse than, just as bad as somebody else.

... which is not even a tiny attempt to say Don The Con is "good".

In Trash case's, such defense is a total LIE.

Don the Con is ABNORMALLY conflicted, corrupt, with a long, public, legal history as a disastrous business manager, stiffing suppliers, screwing investors, self-dealing, etc, etc, etc.

[SnakeBoy]

So, using the office to enrich himself, directly violating the constitution is a "meh" for you?

Just wanted to see if that was right. It is OK for the president to violate the constitution.

Meh

[boutons_deux]

Meh

Benghazi! meh :lol

emails! meh :lol

whitewater! meh :lol

[RandomGuy]

Translation: I'm going to ignore that this is from citi bank.

Again, context? Applicability?

I'm not ignoring anything, you are just making your point really badly. I really have no idea what the hell you are talking about yet.

[RandomGuy]

Meh

Ok then. Party over country, got it. Message received.

[SnakeBoy]

Ok then. Party over country, got it. Message received.

You spent 8 years saying "meh", now your a deeply concerned citizen :lol

[Mitch]

Again, context? Applicability?

I'm not ignoring anything, you are just making your point really badly. I really have no idea what the hell you are talking about yet.

> I point out citi bank picked a handful of Obama's cabinet
> You think that's false
> I provide a link speaking of this topic
> You play dumb

Not sure what else to tell you.

[RandomGuy]

> I point out citi bank picked a handful of Obama's cabinet
> You think that's false
> I provide a link speaking of this topic
> You play dumb

Not sure what else to tell you.

You posted a picture with no explanation as to its relevance, and then expect people to read your mind?

:lmao

Lazy much?

[RandomGuy]

President-elect Donald Trump declared that a sitting U.S. president “can’t have a conflict of interest,” responding to a surge of questions about whether his global business interests will collide with his official duties when he takes office in January.
Asked about potential business conflicts during an interview with the New York Times, Trump said federal law is “totally on my side.” Federal law exempts presidents and vice presidents from rules that ban officials from using their positions to further their personal interests -- an exception crafted out of the belief that presidents shouldn’t have to worry about triggering ethics probes when making hard decisions.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-11-22/trump-says-he-can-t-have-a-conflict-of-interest-as-president

Looks like he thinks he has the green light to profit however he wants, constitution aside.

[RandomGuy]

:rolleyes

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-14/most-important-wikileak-how-wall-street-built-obama-cabinet


or just google it if you don't like the source

Ah, got it now. Hadn't bothered with the article. Zero hedge is a swamp of ads and potential malware in my experience. I avoid sites like that if at all possible.

Be happy to admit Obama got advice from a wall street advisor after railing against wall street in the campaign.

Just like Trump.

It was hypocritical when Obama did it, and is hypocritical for Trump. Easy peasy.

[Mitch]

Ah, got it now. Hadn't bothered with the article. Zero hedge is a swamp of ads and potential malware in my experience. I avoid sites like that if at all possible.

Be happy to admit Obama got advice from a wall street advisor after railing against wall street in the campaign.

Just like Trump.

It was hypocritical when Obama did it, and is hypocritical for Trump. Easy peasy.

> Calls me lazy
> Doesn't like source, won't use google
> Trivializes Obama appointing the cabinet members citi bank wanted
> Refuses to admit Obama of blatant corruption, but readily eats up assumptions like Trump depending on kids for advice
> lolk

Edit: I wonder how many of the people in your avatar were purchased by citi bank :lmao

[Winehole23]

so indirect self-enrichment filtered through a charitable foundation is haram, but when the President uses his office to funnel money directly to his own businesses and family, that's halal.

am I getting this right?

[SnakeBoy]

so indirect self-enrichment filtered through a charitable foundation is haram, but when the President uses his office to funnel money directly to his own businesses and family, that's halal.

am I getting this right?

Who are you asking?

[spurraider21]

Ah, got it now. Hadn't bothered with the article. Zero hedge is a swamp of ads and potential malware in my experience. I avoid sites like that if at all possible.

Be happy to admit Obama got advice from a wall street advisor after railing against wall street in the campaign.

Just like Trump.

It was hypocritical when Obama did it, and is hypocritical for Trump. Easy peasy.were you equally outraged in 2008 when obama did it?

[TeyshaBlue]

were you equally outraged in 2008 when obama did it?
I remember dozen of threads he started......wait.

nm

[CosmicCowboy]

so indirect self-enrichment filtered through a charitable foundation is haram, but when the President uses his office to funnel money directly to his own businesses and family, that's halal.

am I getting this right?

One is a proven fact from the past.

One is a hypothetical you are just assuming for the future.

[TeyshaBlue]

Getting to the nuts and bolts of this..Trump is heavily leveraged in real estate. He can't exactly remove himself from a lien or other credit instrument. Placing proceeds in a blind trust doesn't cut it either as any money received by hook or crook is still his...just defered for another 4 years. Forcing him to take his holdings/companies public is a non starter. Trump dealing with a BOD and activist investors? Not happening.
The 4 year deferral seems to the only likely solution imo.

[Winehole23]

Who are you asking?anybody at all. the state of play is dynamic.

political norms for better and for worse are falling apart right now.

[Winehole23]

please remind me, since when was it proper for the president to enrich himself directly?

I'm not asking about legal propriety, what's the precedent? who did it first?

[Chucho]

You spent 8 years saying "meh", now your a deeply concerned citizen :lol

That sums up his and the entire Left's hypocrisy this entire horror show. Sour grapes, nothing more, nothing less.

Lying about concern for "the country" while non chalantly and subtley comparing their Hillary's and Obama's crimes to their expected Trump behaviors shows they only know the identity politics they've been indoctinated with. They dont care about anyone, they only care about being right. But they lost and they were wrong.

[Big Dog]

Holy fuck that's retarded.

Why cant you cocksuckers who've spent the past 8 years passing off rwnj bullshit like News admit this is shady as fuck?

retard level fake moral bullshit.
Shut up faggot

[Clipper Nation]

Boneriffic is one of the most chronically butthurt posters in ST history. Even Kool's lame shtick makes him melt down on cue :lol

[Big Dog]

Speaking of cocksuckers, here's this truckstop lot lizard meth addicted piece of shit
:lol I have more going for me in life than you and I'm not such a crying ass faggot like yourself. deflecting what a piece of leechy shit you are. Keep tearing up pussy.

[Clipper Nation]

:lol I have more going for me in life than you and I'm not such a crying ass faggot like yourself. deflecting what a piece of leechy shit you are. Keep tearing up pussy.
http://i.imgur.com/0FvLpST.jpg

[Chucho]

Holy fuck that's retarded.

Why cant you cocksuckers who've spent the past 8 years passing off rwnj bullshit like News admit this is shady as fuck?

retard level fake moral bullshit.

Eat your sour grapes in silence. Sorry your disgusting facist heroes lost. Not my fault, there just isnt any space in a good world for disgusting racists like you and Boots and the lot. You hate the blanket being pulled back and everyone knowing your racist ways.

[Clipper Nation]

Lol. What? He's a faggot piece of shit poser. He's a scared little boy afraid of the world around him. Kind of like the people that are brainwashed by the gun lobby. They are incapable of thinking for themselves, and actually doing simple research to understand no one will take their fucking guns. So they shit up forums justifying shooting children.

A piece of shit like that, well you, should do the honorable thing and just stop existing
:lol Melt the fuck down, cuck.

[Clipper Nation]

Great comeback. No thought whatsoever. No defense for your bullshit, because the entity that does your thinking for you hasn't given you an answer to a simple constitutional question. Keep the world flat for yourself you frightened fuck
:cry "Nobody can just disagree with my retarded opinions! It's only ever because they're 'scared' and someone else does the thinking for them!" :cry

:lmao Faggot

[Big Dog]

:lol Melt the fuck down, cuck.
:lol He sounds so mad

[Big Dog]

Your buzz is wearing off. Better go find another cock to suck.
:lol You go on your soft libtard tantrums berating others for not "thinking for themselves" yet every post you've directed at me so far consists of sucking cock. Maybe you should stop thinking about the male penis or erection, you fucking sensitive faggot.

[Clipper Nation]

:lol You go on your soft libtard tantrums berating others for not "thinking for themselves" yet every post you've directed at me so far consists of sucking cock. Maybe you should stop thinking about the male penis or erection, you fucking sensitive faggot.
:wow

[InRareForm]

http://www.economist.com/news/business/21710828-weakness-trump-inc-may-pose-more-problem-its-sprawl-donald-trumps-conflicts

[Splits]

801457065189376000

[boutons_deux]

Trash hotel in Georgia. Country finally gets go ahead

Fucking extorting grifter

[Winehole23]

isn't using political office to enrich oneself and one's family members one of the main definitions of corruption?

[Winehole23]

can anyone explain why it has been customary for US Presidents to put their property in blind trusts, or why it's a good idea that US presidents (starting with Donald Trump) should no longer do so?

[Winehole23]

why is this happening?

is there an emo dimension I ignored? is it somehow cheering or comforting to see a rich man use the country as his personal plaything during your own lifetime?

[Th'Pusher]

why is this happening?

is there an emo dimension I ignored? is it somehow cheering or comforting to see a rich man use the country as his personal plaything during your own lifetime?

As long as it's not Hillary, there's a good portion of the population that don't particularly give a fuck.

[Winehole23]

the intense public interest in political corruption apparently went to sleep on November 9.

[Winehole23]

what it might consist of now is speculative. apparently it doesn't register brazen self-enrichment as a possible conflict of interest.

[DMC]

It's all corruption. Trump just has enough lifelong elitist attitude about him that he'll do it openly. The Clintons did it more covertly but they all do it.

[DMC]

the intense public interest in political corruption apparently went to sleep on November 9.

With half the nation, and obviously woke up with the other half.

[SnakeBoy]

Lol. You are so fucking stupid that you aren't able to formulate a single fucking thought on your own. You are the very embodiment of what is wrong with this country.


So you moved up from loves to pilot. Congrats a whole different level of cocks to suck for meth money. WTG.


and, holy shit, actually learn what fucking words mean before throwing them out in some bullshit insecure rant


Lol. What? He's a faggot piece of shit poser. He's a scared little boy afraid of the world around him. Kind of like the people that are brainwashed by the gun lobby. They are incapable of thinking for themselves, and actually doing simple research to understand no one will take their fucking guns. So they shit up forums justifying shooting children.

A piece of shit like that, well you, should do the honorable thing and just stop existing

:lol

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/profiles/icons/big/000/063/156/indiana_Jones_nazi_face_melt_by_iwanttorentawombat .gif

[Winehole23]

With half the nation, and obviously woke up with the other half.yep

[Winehole23]

It's all corruption. Trump just has enough lifelong elitist attitude about him that he'll do it openly. The Clintons did it more covertly but they all do it.I suppose I'm old-fashioned; I think that preserving the appearance of propriety is an actual check on corruption. A politician should decently hide his/her grafting.

A nod and a wink amounts to encouragement. The erosion of norms isn't consequence free: purely private interest swallowing the presidency is a bad precedent.

[SnakeBoy]

were you equally outraged in 2008 when obama did it?

RG has checked out again. He's probably working on stage 3 or 4.

1. Denial and isolation
2. Anger
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
5. Acceptance

[Winehole23]

Custom is stronger than legality. The destruction of political norms is momentous and not all for the good.

[boutons_deux]

He's LYING

Trump Claims He’s Leaving His Company ‘In Total’ — But Doesn’t Provide Any Details

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-business_us_583ed744e4b04fcaa4d5d3a3?ukhqszkjlb2yv 6lxr=&utm_campaign=The+Morning+Email+113016&utm_content=The+Morning+Email+113016+CID_7db775f5a 0c01079887594a169a7ca09&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Email+marketing+software&utm_term=Reuters

[Clipper Nation]

He's holding a news conference about this on December 15th, and I'm sure we'll hear all the details then. But don't let that stop you and HuffBlow from freaking out because Trump isn't operating on your schedule.

[boutons_deux]

He's holding a news conference about this on December 15th, and I'm sure we'll hear all the details then. But don't let that stop you and HuffBlow from freaking out because Trump isn't operating on your schedule.

Nothing to do about scheduling. Trash fully intends to enrich his bullshit empire by exploiting the Presidency.

[boutons_deux]

Trump’s stock holdings may give him a personal stake in rules on banks and oil firms

President-elect Donald Trump has disclosed owning millions of dollars of stock in companies with business pending before the U.S. government and whose value could rise as a result of his policies.

Trump’s stock holdings, which are separate from the more high-profile real estate and branding empire that he has said he will separate from in some fashion, represent another area rife with potential conflicts of interest that Trump has yet to address as he prepares to take office.

Trump’s stock holdings, as of his most recent disclosure in May, included millions of dollars worth of shares in financial institutions such as Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo, which have seen their stock prices rise with his promises to roll back regulations imposed after the 2008 financial crash.

He has held substantial numbers of shares in Apple and a unit of Ford, companies whose executives he has spoken with since the election as part of his efforts to press corporations not to ship jobs overseas.

Trump’s portfolio also has been dotted with millions of dollars worth of shares in oil and other energy companies that could stand to gain if he follows through on promises to loosen environmental regulations and pursue more drilling — including Halliburton, ExxonMobil, Occidental Petroleum and Phillips 66.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-complex-stock-portfolio-could-create-yet-more-conflicts/2016/12/01/25ec0e88-b663-11e6-959c-172c82123976_story.html?utm_term=.d294effede0c

[RandomGuy]

He's holding a news conference about this on December 15th, and I'm sure we'll hear all the details then. But don't let that stop you and HuffBlow from freaking out because Trump isn't operating on your schedule.

No we won't.

He is going to blather on about how good his hotel is, and he won't do anything but continue to directly profit from being president.

That you think otherwise is shockingly niave.

The fuckwit hasn't provided any details about how he would do anything, never released his tax returns, and now is going to be all serious about providing details on how he is going to solve his conflict of interest problem? :lol

[RandomGuy]

RG has checked out again. He's probably working on stage 3 or 4.

1. Denial and isolation
2. Anger
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
5. Acceptance

Or maybe I was on a business trip, and have been more than a little busy. nah.

Keep going with whatever "feels" truthy to you, it is a post-fact world where such things don't matter.

[RandomGuy]

So let's get back to documenting this, shall we?

Let's start with the Hotel in Washington.


The Trump Organization’s contract with the General Services Administration prohibits any elected official of the United States government from being part of the lease or deriving any benefit from it.

Unless the agency ends its lease before the president-elect takes office, Mr. Trump will, in effect, be both the landlord and tenant of the building, according to two government procurement experts, Steven L. Schooner and Daniel I. Gordon.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/01/us/politics/trump-conflict-of-interests.html?_r=0


The lease with the GSA, states that no federal employee can be enriched. Trump appoints the head of the GSA.

Further Trump can direct that federal employees stay at his hotel, and charge them whatever he wishes.

[RandomGuy]

Deutsche Bank, Germany’s largest bank, is in negotiations with the Justice Department to settle claims over its handling of mortgage-backed securities before the 2008 financial crisis.

Questions remain about the bank’s ability to pay a large penalty. The Justice Department’s opening bid was $14 billion.

If the negotiations are not settled by Jan. 20, Mr. Trump will oversee a department that has the potential to make or break the bottom line of one of his biggest lenders.

Next up, how he will handle federal sanctions on one of his largest lenders, as I have noted before.

[RandomGuy]

The head of the Internal Revenue Service is nominated by the president for a five-year term. Republicans have tried to impeach the current commissioner, John A. Koskinen, whose term ends on Nov. 12, 2017. Mr. Koskinen could resign or be impeached before then, clearing the way for Mr. Trump to nominate a new commissioner.

Next up is that Trump gets to appoint the IRS commissioner while being under audit. Awfully convenient, that.

[RandomGuy]

The National Labor Relations Board is an independent federal agency responsible for enforcing labor laws and safeguarding employees’ right to organize.

The five members Mr. Trump appoints will be in charge of investigating complaints brought by workers, which could include those at his hotels and other properties.

In fact, a week before the election, the board ruled against the Trump International Hotel Las Vegas, which Mr. Trump co-owns, for refusing to negotiate with a new culinary workers union.

Here is a sweet way to make all those labor violations at his various properties go away.

He can steal from his workers without worry about regulatory consequences.

[RandomGuy]

At a minimum, ethics experts warn, Mr. Trump’s holdings around the globe could give the appearance of tainting his decisions on various foreign issues.

In addition, they could also open him up to accusations that he has violated a part of the Constitution known as the emoluments clause, which prohibits government officials from taking payments or gifts from a foreign government or entity.

“Unless he divests ownership, he will have an interest in the foreign government payments and benefits that flow to his business daily,” said Norm Eisen and Richard Painter, former chief White House ethics lawyers for President Obama and former President George W. Bush, respectively, in a statement on Democracy 21, a group that pushes for government transparency.

Business dealings in dozens of countries.

Tell me that they won't be buying influence by smoothing things out. Go on.

Several of them have already pretty much done so. This is what hold the potential to get him impeached.

Have you googled emolument yet?

[RandomGuy]

What nuthin?

Four solid conflicts of interest, and those are just the big ones.

Should I go on about the call with the Argentinian president?

[tlongII]

Trickle down baby! What's good for Trump is good for AMERICA!

[boutons_deux]

Here we go, Don The Con exploiting his office for personal enrichment

Trump Organization eyes Taiwan for newest luxury resort location

Donald Trump may have ulterior motives for his jaw-dropping call to Taiwan Friday, considering his company is looking to build luxury hotels and resorts on the rogue Chinese providence, Shaghaiist (http://shanghaiist.com/2016/11/18/trump_taiwan_expand.php) reports.

Trump shocked political observers (http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/president-elect-trump-in-break-with-practice-speaks-to-taiwans-leader/) Friday, initiating the first US-Taiwanese presidential contact in over three decades.

The move risked a major dispute with China (https://www.ft.com/content/fd19907e-b8d4-11e6-961e-a1acd97f622d), which considers Taiwan to be one of its providences.

In 1979, the U.S. adopted a One China position, freezing diplomatic relations with Taiwan.
Despite the historically frosty relations between the United States and Taiwan, Trump picked up the phone to peak with Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen, incensing Beijing according to geopolitical experts (http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-phone-call-to-taiwan-likely-to-infuriate-china-2016-12).

As it turns out, the head-scratching move by Trump may not be so surprising afterall. The Gothamist LLC publication Shaghaiist (http://shanghaiist.com/2016/11/18/trump_taiwan_expand.php)—which covers news and events in China—

Trump is eyeing Taiwan as his next location for a series of luxury hotels and resorts.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/revealed-trump-organization-eyes-taiwan-for-newest-luxury-resort-location/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

His First Slut:

https://pmchollywoodlife.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/melania-trump-12.jpg?w=543

[boutons_deux]

We May Not Know if Trump's Foreign Business Deals Violate the Constitution


The question of whether President-elect Donald Trump will run afoul of federal conflict-of-interest rules or the Constitution because of his extensive foreign investments has been the subject of intense scrutiny among legal and ethics scholars.

Legally, his foreign licensing deals could violate the Constitution. An example: During his presidential run, Trump's name was used to market a never-finished luxury hotel in Azerbaijan, built by the billionaire son of the country's transportation minister. The deal earned Trump more than $2.8 million between January 2014 and May 2016, according to financial-disclosure filings he filed as a candidate. (See his 2015 (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2173696-donald-trump-financial-disclosure.html) and 2016 (https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2838696/Trump-2016-Financial-Disclosure.pdf) reports here.)

If this type of deal occurs during his presidency and fetches anything above what's considered fair market value, it would almost certainly violate the Emoluments Clause (http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/68/emoluments-clause), a provision of the Constitution ******meant to head off conflicts between the national interest and presidents' self-interest.

The clause, in Article 1, Section 9, of the Constitution, prevents the president from accepting "any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind w***hatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State." A more stringent interpretation of the clause (https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/801763684406149121) -- which has never been tested in the courts -- would bar a president from receiving any payment from a foreign government entity.

A violation of the Constitution could result in impeachment proceedings.

But how will we know if Trump is violating the clause? Because of limited financial-disclosure requirements, we might not.

There are two reasons for this:

One is that the disclosures required from presidents are limited.

The other is that Trump has refused to voluntarily release his tax returns or other business details, a significant break from presidential administrations dating back to Jimmy Carter.

"You can't grasp all the potential conflicts and issues that the Trump empire poses by just looking at a personal financial disclosure," said Matthew T. Sanderson, an attorney at Caplin & Drysdale who has served as legal counsel on three Republican presidential campaigns.

And Trump won't have to file a comprehensive annual report of his assets, income, gifts and stock portfolio until May 2018,

according to US Office of Government Ethics requirements (https://www.oge.gov/Web/278eGuide.nsf/Chapters/Public%20Financial%20Disclosure%20Guide?opendocume nt). (Trump has so far refused to release his federal or state income tax returns; three pages of his 1995 New York state income tax return (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/01/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html) obtained by The New York Times showed he declared $916 million in losses but few other details.)

"only the crooked media makes this a big deal!"

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/38591-we-may-not-know-if-trump-s-foreign-business-deals-violate-the-constitution

My guess is Don The Con will miss the May 2018 filing, saying he's being audited, or equivalent lie.

[Winehole23]

What nuthin?

Four solid conflicts of interest, and those are just the big ones.It's not clear who would have standing to bring charges under the emoluments clause -- it's never been done.

The baked in solution is impeachment. Hard to imagine what could bring the Republicans to do it.

[Winehole23]

the only apparent checks to the president using his office to enlarge his own estate during his term are normative and political. Trump has discarded the first, the second is inexpedient for the party in power.

[unleashbaynes]

:lol at supposed libertarians voting for this corporatist piece of garbage.

[boutons_deux]

Trump Almost Certainly Will Violate the Constitution if He Continues to Own His Businesses

Far from ending with President-elect Trump’s announcement that he will separate himself from the management of his business empire, the constitutional debate about the meaning of the Emoluments Clause — and whether Trump will be violating it — is likely just beginning.

That’s because the Emoluments Clause seems to bar Trump’s ownership of his business. It has little to do with his management of it. Trump’s tweets last Wednesday said

he would be “completely out of business operations.” (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/803931490514075648) :lol

But unless Trump sells or gives his business to his children before taking office the Emoluments Clause would almost certainly be violated.

Even if he does sell or give it away,

any retained residual interest, or any sale payout based on the company’s results, would still give him a stake in its fortunes, again fairly clearly violating the Constitution.

The Emoluments Clause bars U.S. officials, including the president, from receiving payments from foreign governments or foreign government entities unless the payments are specifically approved by Congress.

As ProPublica (https://www.propublica.org/article/we-may-not-know-if-trumps-foreign-business-deals-violate-the-constitution) and others (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/politics/donald-trump-conflict-of-interest.html?_r=0)have detailed (http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/tracking-trumps-web-of-conflicts/#foreign_properties), Trump’s business has ties with foreign government entities ranging from loans and leases with the Bank of China to what appear to be tax-supported hotel deals in India and elsewhere. The full extent of such ties remains unknown, and Trump has refused to disclose them, or to make public his tax returns, through which many such deals, if they exist, would be revealed.

Foreign government investments in Trump entities would also be covered by the clause, as would foreign government officials paying to stay in Trump hotels (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/digger/wp/2016/11/21/the-constitution-may-have-something-to-say-about-how-trump-runs-his-d-c-hotel/?utm_term=.c9b97223e75c), so long as Trump stands to share in the revenues.
One misconception about the Emoluments Clause in early press coverage of it in the wake of Trump’s election is being clarified as scholars look more closely at the provision’s history. That was the suggestion that it would not be a violation for the Trump Organization to conduct business with foreign government entities if “fair market value (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/23/13715150/donald-trump-emoluments-clause-constitution)” was received by the governments.

This view had been attributed to Professor Richard Painter, a former official of the George W. Bush administration, and privately by some others.

But Professor Laurence Tribe, the author of the leading treatise on constitutional law, and others said

the Emoluments Clause was more sweeping, and mandated a ban on such dealings without congressional approval.

Painter now largely agrees, telling ProPublica that no fair market value test would apply to the sale of services (specifically including hotel rooms), and such a test would apply only to the sale of goods. The Trump Organization mostly sells services, such as hotel stays, golf memberships, branding deals and management services.

The Emoluments Clause appears in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution. It bars any “person holding any office of profit or trust under” the United States from accepting any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign state” “without the consent of the Congress.” The word “emolument” comes from the Latin emolumentum, meaning profit or gain. The language of the clause was lifted in its entirety from the Articles of Confederation which established the structure of the government of the United States from 1781 until the ratification of the Constitution in 1788-89. The clause was derived (http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674659988&content=reviews) from a Dutch rule dating to 1751.

The clause was added to the draft Constitution at the Constitutional Convention on Aug. 23, 1787 on a motion by Charles Pinckney of South Carolina. As Gov. Edmund Randolph of Virginia explained to his state’s ratification convention in 1788, Pinckney’s motion was occasioned by Benjamin Franklin, who had been given a snuffbox, adorned with the royal portrait and encrusted with small diamonds, by Louis XVI while serving as the Continental Congress’s ambassador to France. As Randolph said (https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/1986/06/31/op-olc-v010-p0096.pdf),

“An accident which actually happened, operated in producing the restriction. A box was presented to our ambassador by the king of our allies. It was thought proper, in order to exclude corruption and foreign influence, to prohibit any one in office from receiving emoluments from foreign states.”


The Continental Congress in 1786 had consented (https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/1994/03/31/op-olc-v018-p0013.pdf), after a debate, to Franklin keeping the snuffbox, as it had earlier with a similar gift to envoy Arthur Lee. At the same time, consent also was given to diplomat John Jay receiving a horse from the King of Spain.
The clause was part of the basis for Alexander Hamilton’s defense of the Constitution, in Federalist 22 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa22.htm), as addressing “one of the weak sides of republics”: “that they afford too easy an inlet to foreign corruption.”

There is no question that the Emoluments Clause applies to the president.

President Obama’s counsel sought an opinion in 2009 on whether it barred him from accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. The Justice Department concluded that it did not, in part based on historical precedent (the Prize had also been awarded to Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, Vice President Charles Dawes and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger), but primarily because the Norwegian group that awards the prize was not deemed a governmental entity.

The clause does not seem ever to have been interpreted by a court, but it has been the subject of a number of opinions, over the years, of the attorney general and the comptroller general.

Nearly all of these opinions have concluded that the clause is definitive.

In 1902, an attorney general’s opinion said it is “directed against every kind of influence by foreign governments upon officers of the United States.”

In 1970, a comptroller general opinion declared that the clause’s “drafters intended the prohibition to have the broadest possible scope and applicability.”

A 1994 Justice Department opinion said “the language of Emoluments Clause is both sweeping and unqualified.”

Among the ties deemed to violate the clause was a Nuclear Regulatory Commission employee undertaking consultant work for a firm retained by the government of Mexico.

Congress has passed one law giving blanket approval to a set of payments from foreign government entities. Known as the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/7342), it is limited to gifts of “minimal value” (set as of 1981 at $100), educational scholarships and medical treatment, travel entirely outside the country “consistent with the interests of the United States,” or “when it appears that to refuse the gift would likely cause offense or embarrassment or otherwise adversely affect the foreign relations of the United States.” The specificity of these few exceptions reinforces the notion that other dealings with foreign government entities is forbidden without congressional approval.

One attorney-general opinion (https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/1981/06/31/op-olc-v005-p0187.pdf) from the Reagan administration offers the possibility of a more permissive interpretation of the Emoluments Clause, indicating it could be limited to “payments which have a potential of influencing or corrupting the recipient.” But whatever the meaning of this, it was the same Reagan Justice Department that banned the NRC employee from the Mexican-funded consultancy a year later.

Ironically, an “originalist” reading of the clause — usually favored these days by conservatives as exemplified by the late Justice Antonin Scalia and current Justice Clarence Thomas — would seem to bind Trump more stringently,

while a “living constitution” approach — exemplified by liberals such as the late Justices Louis Brandeis and Thurgood Marshall — might offer him greater latitude.

Clearly, deciding what the Emoluments Clause means in a specific case is a complicated legal question. (The opinion (https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2009/12/31/emoluments-nobel-peace.pdf)on Obama’s acceptance of the Nobel Prize runs to 13 printed pages.) But just as clearly, the judges of its meaning with respect to President Trump will be politicians rather than the Supreme Court.

The controversies that swirled around Presidents Richard Nixon (http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674444782)and Bill Clinton (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/520/681/case.html) established a number of key points. Among them are that

the sole remedy for a violation of the Constitution by a president in office is impeachment, and that

the House of Representatives is the sole judge of what constitutes an impeachable offense, while

the Senate is the sole judge of whether such an alleged violation warrants removal from office.

(Impeachments are very rare: articles of impeachment have been voted against only two presidents, Andrew Johnson and Clinton, both of whom were acquitted by the Senate, while Nixon resigned ahead of likely impeachment. Fifteen federal judges have also been impeached, and eight removed, while four resigned.)

The arguments of scholars and lawyers on the meaning of the Emoluments Clause may influence the public, and their elected representatives. But if Trump decides not to dispose of his business, it will be up to Congress to decide whether to do anything about his apparent violation of the Constitution.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/trump_would_almost_certainly_be_violating_the_cons titution_20161204

[johnsmith]

Here we go, Don The Con exploiting his office for personal enrichment

Trump Organization eyes Taiwan for newest luxury resort location

Donald Trump may have ulterior motives for his jaw-dropping call to Taiwan Friday, considering his company is looking to build luxury hotels and resorts on the rogue Chinese providence, Shaghaiist (http://shanghaiist.com/2016/11/18/trump_taiwan_expand.php) reports.

Trump shocked political observers (http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/president-elect-trump-in-break-with-practice-speaks-to-taiwans-leader/) Friday, initiating the first US-Taiwanese presidential contact in over three decades.

The move risked a major dispute with China (https://www.ft.com/content/fd19907e-b8d4-11e6-961e-a1acd97f622d), which considers Taiwan to be one of its providences.

In 1979, the U.S. adopted a One China position, freezing diplomatic relations with Taiwan.
Despite the historically frosty relations between the United States and Taiwan, Trump picked up the phone to peak with Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen, incensing Beijing according to geopolitical experts (http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-phone-call-to-taiwan-likely-to-infuriate-china-2016-12).

As it turns out, the head-scratching move by Trump may not be so surprising afterall. The Gothamist LLC publication Shaghaiist (http://shanghaiist.com/2016/11/18/trump_taiwan_expand.php)—which covers news and events in China—

Trump is eyeing Taiwan as his next location for a series of luxury hotels and resorts.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/revealed-trump-organization-eyes-taiwan-for-newest-luxury-resort-location/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

His First Slut:

https://pmchollywoodlife.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/melania-trump-12.jpg?w=543




The way you've discussed women ever since Trump won, makes you sound just as bad as a guy that says "grab them by the pussy". You're sort of invalidating your whole argument about trumps views on women.

Also makes you sound like a gaping vagina yourself.

[boutons_deux]

you've discussed women

You Lie, you stinky vagina.

The only "women" is First Slut

[johnsmith]

You Lie, you stinky vagina.

The only "women" is First Slut

You sound like a sex in the city character

[boutons_deux]

Ivanka Had Japanese Biz Deal Going When She Joined Dad's Meeting With PM


https://res.cloudinary.com/tpm/image/upload/c_fill,fl_keep_iptc,g_face,w_653,h_361/q8qr7hnbuxn1b4elnwik.jpg

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ivanka-trump-business-deal-during-japan-abe-meeting?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

[boutons_deux]

Just How Badly Can the Trump Administration Corrupt the United States?

Badly, and in unprecedented ways.

One mistake in estimating the cost of corruption is to imagine that it largely consists of the value of bribes paid, lobbying efforts exerted, or ill-gotten profits obtained.

Sadly, as Krueger pointed out, this represents only the smallest fraction of the full harm.

That’s because, once rent-seeking becomes the way to get ahead, it changes the way a society is organized.

Companies that offer quid pro quos to win contracts drive their more honest competitors out of business, allowing the crooked companies to monopolize their markets.

Public officials write rules with the express purpose of wrapping businesses in red tape, forcing them to pay yet more bribes to avoid pointless bureaucracy.

And once it’s known that government jobs can be a source of enrichment, those positions attract candidates whose primary goal is personal profit rather than public service, leading to less scrupulous officials.

While some think (http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/10/26/why_do_trump_and_his_supports_keep_talking_about_d raining_the_swamp.html) this is already the way things work in American politics, there’s a lot more money to be made on Wall Street or in Silicon Valley than on Capitol Hill.

Americans whose primary goal is personal wealth make a beeline for banking or the startup scene, not for public office.

we do think that a shift to the kind of self-enriching society of middle-income (and corrupt) countries like Brazil or South Africa is within the realm of possibility.

Trump, however, threatens to shift the balance between personal gain and public service in a way that we haven’t seen for more than a century.

Politicians and their staffers who make their way through the revolving doors of government to lucrative board appointments and lobbying positions at least depart from public service before exploiting their connections. Indeed, they are required by law to do so.

Trump, on the other hand, boasts that his political ascent will redound to his company’s benefit—“the brand is certainly a hotter brand than it was before. I can’t help that, but I don’t care,” Trump told the New York Times—while at the same time asserting (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/us/politics/donald-trump-visit.html?_r=0), also to the Times, that ethics laws are on his side and that “the president can’t have a conflict of interest.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_dismal_science/2016/11/how_badly_can_the_trump_administration_corrupt_the _united_states.html

I expect Trash + Repugs will drag govt down, corrupt it even more. Corruption is Trash's raison d'etre

How will govt ever be sanitized? It won't.

America is fucked and unfuckable.

[RandomGuy]

Ivanka Had Japanese Biz Deal Going When She Joined Dad's Meeting With PM


https://res.cloudinary.com/tpm/image/upload/c_fill,fl_keep_iptc,g_face,w_653,h_361/q8qr7hnbuxn1b4elnwik.jpg

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ivanka-trump-business-deal-during-japan-abe-meeting?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

Again, this outlines the difficulties of just handing it over to his kids.

[boutons_deux]

Again, this outlines the difficulties of just handing it over to his kids.

Mr and Mrs Ivanka are moving to DC. The despotic, nepotistic corruption will be total.

[Winehole23]

even if Trump is and behaves like a saint, it may not matter:


The discussion, then, can’t be limited to whether Trump is, in fact, acting in the best interests of the United States and whether the public can effectively monitor his dealings. Our concern must extend to the dilution of the United States’ power and distortion of its message on the world stage when it come to all manner of issues implicating U.S. diplomatic credibility and moral leadership.



A prosaic example: In Turkey, not long after the Trump Organization inked a deal with the powerful Dogan Group to fix the Trump brand on a tower complex, the chairman of the Dogan Group, Aydin Dogan, was indicted on criminal smuggling—charges that critics say amounted to retaliation for his media outlet’s criticisms of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Turkey is now in the midst of a brutal media crackdown that has triggered global condemnation (https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/nov/23/swedish-media-chiefs-call-for-action-over-turkeys-press-freedom-clamp). If Trump reaffirms the U.S. position on freedom of the press to Istanbul, to what extent will the moral force of the American message be undercut by Trump’s continuing financial connections to Dogan?


In short, Trump’s global business interests present a problem of distributed risk across many foreign policy and national security vectors. By “distributed risk,” I mean that the presidency is as much a seat of vulnerability as it is a seat of power; the many entities and governments that presently have the ability to affect President-elect Trump and his many business affiliates also, by extension, have the ability to affect the wellbeing and authority of the United States.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/distributed-risk-conflicts-doesnt-matter-if-trump-saint

[boutons_deux]

"moral force of the American message"

:lol WTF? :lol Countries don't have morals, ethics, aren't "persons". They have only interests and profit-seeking.

America has always and will always support any other country, no matter how brutal, undemocratic, murderous, oppressive, as long as America's interests, profits are protected, increased, enabled.

"moral force" G M A F B

[boutons_deux]

Trump delays announcement on his business until January

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-business-idUSKBN1412RY?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Reuters%2FPoliticsNews+%28Reu ters+Politics+News%29

"blind trust" :lol

The corruption will be historic and invisible.

[CosmicCowboy]

Nothing like starting the day with a smile! Thanks Boo.

[Th'Pusher]

Perry for secretary of energy

:lol. Whoops.

Will perry dismantle the department?

[boutons_deux]

Federal agency: Trump would violate DC hotel lease as soon as he takes office

The General Services Administration, which manages property owned by the federal government, including the Old Post Office that houses the Trump International Hotel, has concluded that the lease would violate federal conflict-of-interest rules once the Republican businessman is sworn in on Jan. 20, according to a letter to the agency from lawmakers.

The letter referred to a Dec. 8 briefing to congressional staffers by a GSA official whom the letter did not name.

“The Deputy Commissioner made clear that Mr. Trump must divest himself not only of managerial control, but of all ownership interest as well,” Maryland Representative Elijah Cummings and three other Democrats said in the letter, made public on Wednesday.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/federal-agency-trump-would-violate-dc-hotel-lease-as-soon-as-he-takes-office/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

[RandomGuy]

Trickle down baby! What's good for Trump is good for AMERICA!

What is your position on the emoluments clause?

[RandomGuy]

It's not clear who would have standing to bring charges under the emoluments clause -- it's never been done.

The baked in solution is impeachment. Hard to imagine what could bring the Republicans to do it.

I can pretty much guarantee that Democrats will be pushing for it, when Trump doesn't divest.

[RandomGuy]

Ivanka Had Japanese Biz Deal Going When She Joined Dad's Meeting With PM


https://res.cloudinary.com/tpm/image/upload/c_fill,fl_keep_iptc,g_face,w_653,h_361/q8qr7hnbuxn1b4elnwik.jpg

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ivanka-trump-business-deal-during-japan-abe-meeting?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

Conservatives and Replubicans have put their party over the good of the country here. They should be the ones yelling the loudest, if they really cared about doing the right thing.

The fact that they make excuses, pretty much proves they don't care about ethics so much as winning. Winehole's talk about things that are corrosive to Democracy is pretty much spot on, and I can guarantee that no conservative on the board will get off their lazy asses and try to defend this shit.

This election simply highlights the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Republican party to anybody with any sense.

[RandomGuy]

For Trump's Top Diplomat, Questions Loom About Conflicts Of Interest

Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson, President-elect Trump's nominee for secretary of state, will have his Senate confirmation hearing in January. Before then, experts say, he'll have to think hard about how to divest from a company where he has spent his entire career.

Tillerson reportedly owns 2.6 million shares of Exxon Mobil stock, which would be worth about $240 million, as of the Wall Street close on Tuesday.

When John Kerry became secretary of state nearly four years ago, he and his wife, Teresa Heinz, divested from a long list of companies to avoid any possibility of a conflict of interest.

For the same reason, George Shultz — an executive at Bechtel before serving as Ronald Reagan's top diplomat — set up a blind trust, says Davis Robinson, the State Department's legal adviser at the time.

But, Robinson says, "his was not as complicated as Mr. Tillerson, because Mr. Tillerson owns so much of Exxon Mobil stock."

Blind trusts and divestment are two of the most common options to meet the requirements of federal ethics laws. And tax breaks allow wealthy appointees to defer capital-gains taxes when they sell off assets so they can serve in government.

Paul Light, the Paulette Goddard Professor of Public Service at New York University, says divestment is the most effective cure to conflict of interest concerns.

"If you are to reassure the public that your negotiations with foreign governments have no tie to your financial interests, you divest," he says.

For Tillerson, that may not be enough. Even if he divests from Exxon Mobil stock, he will face tough questions on Capitol Hill about his past dealings, especially in Russia. Tillerson opposed U.S. sanctions on Russia, imposed after Russia annexed Crimea, that slowed a joint project between Exxon Mobil and Russian energy giant Rosneft to drill in the Arctic.

"It troubles me greatly that Mr. Tillerson would have reason to advocate for the rolling back of sanctions because that would be the best interests of his company," says Sen. Chris Coons, a Delaware Democrat who serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "And it is my hope that he's enough of a patriot to separate his decades-long affiliation with this major oil company and the genuine interest of the American people."

Russia isn't the only place of concern, Coons says. "I suspect we will be having discussions about a number of different countries where he negotiated relationships or deals with dictators or authoritarian regimes that worked for Exxon Mobil, but will not work for America's interests," he says.

Edward Verona, a former Exxon Mobil colleague of Tillerson's in Russia, now with McLarty Associates in Washington, D.C., believes the oil executive will be able to make the switch to the State Department. "I don't believe that he would, certainly not consciously, do anything that would contravene the interests of the United States for the potential benefit of his former company. That's just my sense of him," he says.

Republican Sen. Bob Corker, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, says he will chair a confirmation hearing for Tillerson in early January. But before the nominee meets with any senators, he'll need to answer the committee's questionnaire about whether and how he will sever his business relationships with Exxon

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/12/13/505430737/for-trumps-top-diplomat-questions-loom-about-conflicts-of-interest


"but Hillary sold out her position as Secretary of State... Clinton foundation...!" :cry

[boutons_deux]

Conservatives and Replubicans have put their party over the good of the country here.

The Repugs do whatever their BigDonors pay them to do, or not do.

iow, USA has not been For The People, not been a democracy, for a long time.

It's an oligarchy, plutocracy, corporatocracy.

The corruption of the political system is total.

[RandomGuy]

The Repugs do whatever their BigDonors pay them to do, or not do.

iow, USA has not been For The People, not been a democracy, for a long time.

It's an oligarchy, plutocracy, corporatocracy.

The corruption of the political system is total.

You say these things as almost throwaways, but the number of billionaires in the upcoming administration makes it hard to dismiss this out of hand.

It takes dipshits like Trump to make your spiel plausible, and that is about as damning as it gets, no offense.

[boutons_deux]

Will enough journalists make up for their media allowing Trash to prevail?

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/12/23/donald-trump-foreign-business-deals-jeopardize-us-531140.html

[tlongII]

What is your position on the emoluments clause?

My understanding is that it is designed to prevent people from holding two governmental positions simultaneously. Probably to avoid conflicts of interest. I suppose it's a good idea although I would expect there could be exceptions.

[boutons_deux]

You say these things as almost throwaways, but the number of billionaires in the upcoming administration makes it hard to dismiss this out of hand.

It takes dipshits like Trump to make your spiel plausible, and that is about as damning as it gets, no offense.

Trash is secondary to my "spiel". The Repugs have done nothing For The People for since, bizarrely, anomalously, Nixon.

VRWC SCOTUS assholes (C-U, gutting VRA, blocking class actions, etc, etc), the astro-turf tea baggers, etc, etc, all existed long before Trash.

Obama was something of a restraint on Repug extremist sociopathy, but now Trash will simply permit all of it.

And "all of it" is what BigMoney has paid establishment Repugs to do.

[RandomGuy]

My understanding is that it is designed to prevent people from holding two governmental positions simultaneously. Probably to avoid conflicts of interest. I suppose it's a good idea although I would expect there could be exceptions.

Your understanding about holding two government positions is incorrect. The primary goal is not to allow officials to be beholden to foreign powers, who were all vastly more powerful and rich than that of the fledgling republic.

How much money would have to go into a presidents pockets before you would be concerned?

[boutons_deux]

My understanding is that it is designed to prevent people from holding two governmental positions simultaneously.

goddam,you're fucking stupid

[RandomGuy]

Trash is secondary to my "spiel". The Repugs have done nothing For The People for since, bizarrely, anomalously, Nixon.

VRWC SCOTUS assholes (C-U, gutting VRA, blocking class actions, etc, etc), the astro-turf tea baggers, etc, etc, all existed long before Trash.

Obama was something of a restraint on Repug extremist sociopathy, but now Trash will simply permit all of it.

And "all of it" is what BigMoney has paid establishment Repugs to do.

The cold comfort in all of this is that the next 4 years of shit-show will make it a lot harder for even the partisan morons to hide the intellectual/moral bankruptcy of the GOP. It is a bit like pulling off a bandaid. Painful, but good in the long run.

[boutons_deux]

Former WH ethics lawyer: If Trump refuses to divest, he'll be in direct violation of Constitution (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/12/11/1609820/-Former-WH-ethics-lawyer-If-Trump-refuses-to-divest-he-ll-be-in-direct-violation-of-Constitution)

http://images.dailykos.com/images/337851/story_image/norm2_copy.jpg?1481478608

Norman Eisen is a fellow that the Brookings Institute, a nonprofit public policy organization in D.C.

From 2009 to 2011, he was Special Counsel to the President and Special Assistant to the President (https://www.brookings.edu/experts/norman-eisen/).

He is an expert in government ethics. From his bio:


In that capacity, he helped lead the Obama administration’s initiatives on government ethics, lobbying regulation and open government.

He was dubbed “Mr. No” by the media for the tough compliance program he helped implement.

His portfolio also included campaign finance law, whistleblower protection, and other reform issues.

He served as the White House Counsel representative on the interagency group that produced the Obama administration’s blueprint for the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform.


Eisen appeared on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopolous” and made it crystal clear. Because of Donald Trump’s company has contracts worldwide, if he does not divest, he will be in direct violation of the Constitution on the first day he takes office.

WATCH Norm Eisen break it down:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/12/11/1609820/-Former-WH-ethics-lawyer-If-Trump-refuses-to-divest-he-ll-be-in-direct-violation-of-Constitution

[tlongII]

Your understanding about holding two government positions is incorrect. The primary goal is not to allow officials to be beholden to foreign powers, who were all vastly more powerful and rich than that of the fledgling republic.

How much money would have to go into a presidents pockets before you would be concerned?

The following is the text of the emoluments clause...


No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

What does that sound like to you?

[boutons_deux]

The following is the text of the emoluments clause...



additional "settled" law has extended that bare text, and esp includes payments from foreign entities.

Why Trump Would Almost Certainly Be Violating the Constitution If He Continues to Own His Businesses

https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-would-be-violating-constitution-if-he-continues-to-own-his-businesses

============

Emoluments Clause: Could Overturning 185 Years of Precedent Let Trump Off the Hook?

Another view of the clause in the Constitution regarding payments from foreign countries would let Trump off the hook — and overturn more than a century of practice and law.

https://www.propublica.org/article/emoluments-clause-overturning-185-years-of-precedent-let-trump-off-the-hook

============

and here's the VRWC extremist Heritage stink tank:

"The Emoluments Clause has apparently never been litigated, but it has been interpreted and enforced through a long series of opinions of the Attorneys General and by less-frequent opinions of the Comptrollers General.

Congress has also exercised its power of "Consent" under the clause by enacting the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act,

which authorizes federal employees to accept foreign governmental benefits of various kinds in specific circumstances."

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/68/emoluments-clause

[tlongII]

[QUOTE=boutons_deux;8827436]

additional "settled" law has extended that bare text, and esp includes payments from foreign entities.

Why Trump Would Almost Certainly Be Violating the Constitution If He Continues to Own His Businesses
[SIZE=3][FONT=arial]
[URL]https://www.propublica.org/article/trump


The text is what it is. If they want it to read differently they can amend it.

[boutons_deux]

[QUOTE=boutons_deux;8827436]

additional "settled" law has extended that bare text, and esp includes payments from foreign entities.

Why Trump Would Almost Certainly Be Violating the Constitution If He Continues to Own His Businesses
[SIZE=3][FONT=arial]
[URL]https://www.propublica.org/article/trump


The text is what it is. If they want it to read differently they can amend it.

Emoluments has been extended by law, and new laws. Your boy Trash will be in violation of the Constitution and other laws on 20 Jan.

[tlongII]

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/11/29/would-trumps-business-dealings-violate-constitutions-emoluments-clause

Would President-elect Donald Trump's numerous business holdings present a conflict of interest?

Judge Andrew Napolitano explained this morning why Trump would not be in violation of the Constitution's Emoluments Clause.

It states:

"No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."





In plain terms, the judge said it prevents a government official from acting officially in a way that would benefit him or herself financially.

But the judge said the federal laws prohibiting conflicts of interest apply to everyone working in the government - from a four-star general to a senator to a janitor - except the president and vice president.

"None of the laws that govern senators and members of Congress and members of the cabinet pertain to the president," he said.

Napolitano said this is more of a political issue for Trump, not a legal one. He proposed a hypothetical scenario in which Trump's children were trying to build a hotel in Brazil and President Trump asked the country's president for help.

"There is nothing wrong with that legally because the law that would prohibit other members of the government from doing that does not apply to the president," he explained.

Napolitano said that laws governing pay-to-play would have applied in the case of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when she was alleged to have made decisions to benefit the Clinton Foundation.

He said Trump would probably have a "happier presidency" if he placed his assets in a blind trust in order to avoid political accusations and investigations.

[tlongII]

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/legal-scholar-wildly-inaccurate-to-accuse-trump-of-violating-constitution-with-his-businesses/

On Monday, LawNewz posted an article citing legal experts that said President-elect Donald Trump‘s conflict-of-interest with his hotels and other businesses raise serious impeachment concerns. Several prominent experts have now come forward with similar theories stating that Trump could have an “impeachment issue because you have foreign states basically paying money to the Trump Organization by using their hotels.” These experts base this on an obscure provision of the U.S. Constitution called the “Emoluments Clause,” But, Seth Barrett Tillman, a legal scholar, who has spent 8 years actually studying and writing about this clause, told LawNewz all of these so-called experts have it completely wrong and are “wildly inaccurate.”

He said if they had thoroughly investigated this clause, they would have come to the same conclusion that he did: the clause doesn’t apply to the president. In fact, there is some pretty convincing evidence that it doesn’t. Take for example, President George Washington.

“George Washington was not stupid or dishonest. He took diplomatic gifts and he didn’t ask for congressional consent and he didn’t get it. If he didn’t follow the Emoluments Clause, there is no reason to think President Trump has to either,” Tillman, a lecturer at Maynooth University Department of Law told LawNewz.com in an interview.

The Emoluments Clause says that “no person holding any office” of the United States “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.” Some legal experts have interpreted this to mean that President Trump is barred from receiving foreign gifts. But Tillman points out this clause was never intended to be enforced against the president.

“While (George Washington) was president, Washington 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,” Tillman wrote.

What’s more, he says when the Constitution refers to the term “office” like in the Emoluments Clause, the founders were not meaning to include the office of the president and vice president. He contends that when the founders intended to specifically include them, they named them like with the Impeachment Clause, which specifically states “the president and vice president.”

“It is unfortunate that those that are speaking first and loudly haven’t familiarized with the literature regarding the Emoluments Clause,” Tillman said. “The President can accept gifts without trespassing on this clause. They are constitutionalizing an issue that should not be constitutionalized.” Tillman added that Trump could potentially be held liable under laws like the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, and federal bribery statutes. But bottom line, he said, this is a good governance issue not a constitutional one.

[boutons_deux]

A Guide to Donald Trump's Huge Debts—and the Conflicts They Present

Who does Donald Trump owe money to?

The president-elect has a lot of debt.

All of Trump's top properties—including Trump Tower, the Trump National Doral golf course, and his brand new luxury hotel in Washington, DC—are heavily mortgaged.

That means Trump maintains critical financial relationships with his creditors.

These interactions pose a significant set of potential conflicts because his creditors are large financial institutions (domestic and foreign) with their own interests and policy needs.

Each one could be greatly affected by presidential decisions, and Trump certainly has a financial interest in their well-being.

Below is a list of all the financial players that Trump owes money to and how much Trump directly has borrowed from each one.

This roster is based on publicly available loan documents.

According to his own public disclosure, Trump, as of May, was on the hook for 16 loans worth at least $713 million.


Deutsche Bank: $364 million


Ladder Capital: $282 million


Investors Savings Bank: $23 million


Amboy Bank: $16 million


Chevy Chase Trust Holdings: $10 million


Bank of New York Mellon Trust: $9.25 million


Royal Bank of Pennsylvania: $8 million


Merrill Lynch: Less than $750,000

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/12/guide-donald-trump-debt

[RandomGuy]

The following is the text of the emoluments clause...

[quotes section 6]


What does that sound like to you?

Sounds like we are talking past each other. Not overly unusual, and I mean that in as neutral a way as possible, honest.


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.

Seems fairly straightforward.

How much money would a foreign government have to give to Donald Trump to cause you concern that the President was violating this part of the constitution? (edit) or hell, bribery statutes?

[RandomGuy]

“It is unfortunate that those that are speaking first and loudly haven’t familiarized with the literature regarding the Emoluments Clause,” Tillman said. “The President can accept gifts without trespassing on this clause. They are constitutionalizing an issue that should not be constitutionalized.” Tillman added that Trump could potentially be held liable under laws like the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, and federal bribery statutes. But bottom line, he said, this is a good governance issue not a constitutional one.

I guess we will have to figure this shit out, won't we?

So which do you think applies then? Bribery statutes or constitutional violations? Do tell.

[tlongII]

Sounds like we are talking past each other. Not overly unusual, and I mean that in as neutral a way as possible, honest.



Seems fairly straightforward.

How much money would a foreign government have to give to Donald Trump to cause you concern that the President was violating this part of the constitution?

As stated in areas I have previously quoted there is no violation of the constitution. How do you not recognize this fact?

[RandomGuy]

As stated in areas I have previously quoted there is no violation of the constitution. How do you not recognize this fact?



“It is unfortunate that those that are speaking first and loudly haven’t familiarized with the literature regarding the Emoluments Clause,” Tillman said. “The President can accept gifts without trespassing on this clause. They are constitutionalizing an issue that should not be constitutionalized.” Tillman added that Trump could potentially be held liable under laws like the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, and federal bribery statutes. But bottom line, he said, this is a good governance issue not a constitutional one.

The question isn't going away, no matter how hard you want to tap dance.

Once again, how much money would have to be shoved in this guy's hands before you think something wrong, and/or potentially illegal happened?

When you put party over country and ethics, we all lose.

[tlongII]

The question isn't going away, no matter how hard you want to tap dance.

Once again, how much money would have to be shoved in this guy's hands before you think something wrong, and/or potentially illegal happened?

When you put party over country and ethics, we all lose.

If I'm not mistaken Trump isn't the President yet. What wrong or illegal activities do you believe have occurred?

[spurraider21]

When you put party over country and ethics, we all lose.so was it ethics or country that caused you to start spamming melania pictures?

[RandomGuy]

If I'm not mistaken Trump isn't the President yet. What wrong or illegal activities do you believe have occurred?

Eh fuck it. I tried being reasonable, and respectful.

You are a dishonest piece of shit. I don't know why I expected an honest answer out of you to a question with an answer you know makes your preferred candidate look worse.

Carry on in your bubble. It is the only way you get to avoid the cognitive dissonance, I guess.

[RandomGuy]

So let me if I get this correctly.

Conservatives, tlongII included, are perfectly fine with the President of the United states selling his office, and taking actions to benefit himself at the expense of the interests of the United States in general.

Got it.

[RandomGuy]

so was it ethics or country that caused you to start spamming melania pictures?

A desire to demonstrate to evangelicals that their candidate's morals were not aligned with theirs.

A fact that probably escaped a lot of them because evangelicals have been fooled into thinking abortion is an important issue, IMO.

[tlongII]

Eh fuck it. I tried being reasonable, and respectful.

You are a dishonest piece of shit. I don't know why I expected an honest answer out of you to a question with an answer you know makes your preferred candidate look worse.

Carry on in your bubble. It is the only way you get to avoid the cognitive dissonance, I guess.

You are the dishonest one. You have arrived at many conclusions before Trump has even begun his presidency. I guess I shouldn't be surprised as it's coming from a fuckwad like you.

[RandomGuy]

You are the dishonest one. You have arrived at many conclusions before Trump has even begun his presidency. I guess I shouldn't be surprised as it's coming from a fuckwad like you.

You would be much more credible about calling someone dishonest, if you could answer straight questions without dissembling. :lol

But hey, whatever you tell yourself. People make excuses and blame others all the time when confronted with the truth about their delusions.

I do find your intellectual contortions somewhat amusing to chart.

[clambake]

all you guys need to chill.

what are you guys doing?

[RandomGuy]

You have arrived at many conclusions before Trump has even begun his presidency.

The built in conflicts of interest of a far-flung business empire are kind of apparent to an auditor with tens of thousands of hours experience.

You bet I concluded this would be a problem long ago. Yet for you, this is a problem? :lol

[RandomGuy]

You are the dishonest one. You have arrived at many conclusions before Trump has even begun his presidency. I guess I shouldn't be surprised as it's coming from a fuckwad like you.


Confirmation Bias

The Misconception: Your opinions are the result of years of rational, objective analysis.

The Truth: Your opinions are the result of years of paying attention to information which confirmed what you believed while ignoring information which challenged your preconceived notions.

Krebs has researched purchasing trends on Amazon and the clustering habits of people on social networks for years, and his research shows what psychological research into confirmation bias predicts: you want to be right about how you see the world, so you seek out information which confirms your beliefs and avoid contradictory evidence and opinions

https://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/23/confirmation-bias/

Avoiding contradictory opinions = avoiding answering important questions about the weakness of one's beliefs.

Just FYI.

[tlongII]

The built in conflicts of interest of a far-flung business empire are kind of apparent to an auditor with tens of thousands of hours experience.

You bet I concluded this would be a problem long ago. Yet for you, this is a problem? :lol

Do you not think Trump will be consulting with attorneys prior to assuming the presidency regarding this? He is not as stupid as you seem to think he is.

[tlongII]

https://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/23/confirmation-bias/

Avoiding contradictory opinions = avoiding answering important questions about the weakness of one's beliefs.

Just FYI.

Thanks for the FYI. I am sure I don't have any idea what confirmation bias is. :tu

[RandomGuy]

Do you not think Trump will be consulting with attorneys prior to assuming the presidency regarding this? He is not as stupid as you seem to think he is.

He really is. It is the one thing he can't fake.

Az1JyDJ_iKU

You cannot listen to anything the man has said in person that alludes to a sharp intellect. The guy is a crayon.

[RandomGuy]

Thanks for the FYI. I am sure I don't have any idea what confirmation bias is. :tu

Yet you seem to be a slave to it anyway.

[RandomGuy]

He's holding a news conference about this on December 15th , and I'm sure we'll hear all the details then. But don't let that stop you and HuffBlow from freaking out because Trump isn't operating on your schedule.




No we won't.

He is going to blather on about how good his hotel is, and he won't do anything but continue to directly profit from being president.

That you think otherwise is shockingly niave.

The fuckwit hasn't provided any details about how he would do anything, never released his tax returns, and now is going to be all serious about providing details on how he is going to solve his conflict of interest problem? :lol

Donald Trump postpones news conference until January
http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/12/media/donald-trump-news-conference-postponed/index.html

:lmao

[TeyshaBlue]

A desire to demonstrate to evangelicals that their candidate's morals were not aligned with theirs.

A fact that probably escaped a lot of them because evangelicals have been fooled into thinking abortion is an important issue, IMO.

Because this is where evangelicals go to get their news. Got it. Good job

[RandomGuy]

Because this is where evangelicals go to get their news. Got it. Good job

Good point. It was inefficient.

[TeyshaBlue]

Ineffective

[boutons_deux]

Evangelicals used to say the Pres had to be a man (of their evangelical morals, only). The sanctimonious hypocrites dropped that requirement for the Big Orange Turd

[boutons_deux]

Elizabeth Warren leads Democrats’ push to block Donald Trump’s conflicts of interests by invoking Emoluments Clause of Constitution

Trump must "divest his financial interests & place them in a blind trust," Warren said, introducing her bill


http://www.salon.com/2016/12/15/elizabeth-warren-leads-democrats-push-to-block-donald-trumps-conflicts-of-interests-by-invoking-emoluments-clause-of-constitution/

[boutons_deux]

Kellyanne Conway says Donald Trump’s team found “an exception” in anti-nepotism law

The loophole, she said, provides "a realm of possibilities" to plop Trump's daughter, son-in-law in the West Wing


president-elect would find a way to get his daughter Ivanka (http://www.salon.com/2016/12/15/donald-trumps-daughter-ivanka-trump-our-next-first-lady/) and son-in-law Jared Kushner (http://www.salon.com/2016/11/17/how-jared-kushner-like-donald-trump-used-his-rich-privileged-upbringing-to-get-to-the-white-house/) into the White House via a loophole in anti-nepotism law.


“The anti-nepotism law apparently has an exception if you want to work in the West Wing because the president is able to appoint his own staff” as opposed to the Cabinet, Conway said, adding: “The president does have discretion to choose a staff of his liking. And so, if that actually is true and that legal advice holds, then that will open up a realm of possibilities.”

http://www.salon.com/2016/12/15/watch-kellyanne-conway-says-donald-trumps-team-found-an-exception-in-anti-nepotism-law/

Trash is gonna fuck everybody, fuck everything, fuck every rule, fuck every convention, fuck every propreioty, fuck good-faith, to get his self-aggrandizing, self-enriching way.

[boutons_deux]

 Donald Trump Is Daring Us to Stop His Corruption, and Democrats Have A Plan

New legislation would force the president to put his assets into a blind trust.

https://www.thenation.com/article/donald-trump-is-daring-us-to-stop-his-corruption-and-democrats-have-a-plan/

[boutons_deux]

Under political pressure, Kuwait cancels major event at Four Seasons, switches to Trump’s D.C. hotel

The Embassy of Kuwait allegedly cancelled a contract with a Washington, D.C. hotel days after the presidential election, citing political pressure to hold its National Day celebration at the Trump International Hotel instead.

A source tells ThinkProgress that the Kuwaiti embassy, which has regularly held the event at the Four Seasons in Georgetown, abruptly canceled its reservation after members of the Trump Organization pressured the ambassador to hold the event at the hotel owned by the president-elect.

The source, who has direct knowledge of the arrangements between the hotels and the embassy, spoke to ThinkProgress on the condition of anonymity because the individual was not authorized to speak publicly.

ThinkProgress was also able to review documentary evidence confirming the source’s account.

https://thinkprogress.org/under-political-pressure-kuwait-cancels-major-event-at-four-seasons-switches-to-trumps-d-c-1f204315d513#.yhpg4apcu

[boutons_deux]

Donald Trump's sons behind nonprofit selling access to president-elect

New Texas-based group not legally required to disclose its donors


A new Texas nonprofit (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3243182-BUSINESS-ORGANIZATIONS-INQUIRY-VIEW-ENTITY.html) led by Donald Trump’s grown sons is offering access to the freshly-minted president during inauguration weekend — all in exchange for million-dollar donations to unnamed “conservation” charities,

Prospective million-dollar donors to the “Opening Day 2017” event — slated for Jan. 21, the day after inauguration, at Washington, D.C.’s Walter E. Washington Convention Center — receive a “private reception and photo opportunity for 16 guests with President Donald J. Trump,” a “multi-day hunting and/or fishing excursion for 4 guests with Donald Trump, Jr. and/or Eric Trump, and team,” as well as tickets to other events and “autographed guitars by an Opening Day 2017 performer.”

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/12/19/20564/donald-trumps-sons-behind-nonprofit-selling-access-president-elect?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+publici_rss+%28The+Center+for +Public+Integrity+Latest+Stories%29

[CosmicCowboy]

At least he's not selling the Lincoln bedroom like bill and Hillary.

[boutons_deux]

At least he's not selling the Lincoln bedroom like bill and Hillary.

not yet. He and his slut daughter haven't moved in.

[spurraider21]

not yet. He and his slut daughter haven't moved in.
baptist_deux

[boutons_deux]

$70,000 coffee date with Ivanka is off, but how about a $500,000 hunting trip with the Trump
boys? (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/12/19/1612686/--70-000-coffee-date-with-Ivanka-is-off-but-how-about-a-500-000-hunting-trip-with-the-Trump-boys)

http://images.dailykos.com/images/206899/story_image/GettyImages-494723672.jpg?1455028436

The Trump family called off that $70,000 coffee with Ivanka (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/12/16/1611712/-So-sad-Auction-selling-a-coffee-date-with-Ivanka-Trump-may-be-cancelled) after reporters started asking questions, but apparently a $500,000 hunting trip (http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/311029-trump-hunting-trip-for-sale-report) with Don Jr. and Eric is just fine?


Donors who pay at least $500,000 will have the chance to go on a multi-day excursion with Trump’s sons, according to the invitation. Other amenities include autographed memorabilia from performers Alabama and Toby Keith and — if he attends, which TMZ reports is still in flux — a photo with Donald Trump.

The report says proceeds from the event will go to conservation charities.

The dress code is billed as “camouflage and cufflinks,” but “jeans, boots and hats are welcome.”


Nice to see them carrying on the family tradition of using other people’s money to look like philanthropists—and the new family tradition of selling access.

Maybe the rationale is that it’s okay to sell access to Uday and Qusay, since everyone knows they don’t have as much influence on daddy as Ivanka does? This part of The Hill’s coverage is hilarious, though:

Trump’s children are noted outdoorsmen, and have influenced the president-elect’s thinking on conservation issues.



That thinking presumably being “leave just enough animals alive for us to kill personally our own selves.”

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/12/19/1612686/--70-000-coffee-date-with-Ivanka-is-off-but-how-about-a-500-000-hunting-trip-with-the-Trump-boys?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

[CosmicCowboy]

Nuthin wrong with killing some animals. I'm lovin the fresh elk meat. Made some kick ass jerky on the smoker.

https://scontent-dft4-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15267805_10211332254322785_3763393660055229965_n.j pg?oh=a4292ab1db1c7c9f294a5bcadb39d13e&oe=58B014F8

[Sportcamper]

Nice looking jerky. I like it sliced thick but not too spicy.

[RandomGuy]

At least he's not selling the Lincoln bedroom like bill and Hillary.

Trump sons behind nonprofit offering access to president-elect: report

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/311122-trump-brothers-behind-nonprofit-offering-access-to-president-elect-report


The only reason that isn't happening yet is that they aren't there.

They are already selling influence.



This administration is going to be so bad, it will ruin the GOP brand for a generation.

Good riddance, IMO. Failed policy after failed policy.

[boutons_deux]

Trump sons behind nonprofit offering access to president-elect: report

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/311122-trump-brothers-behind-nonprofit-offering-access-to-president-elect-report


The only reason that isn't happening yet is that they aren't there.

They are already selling influence.



This administration is going to be so bad, it will ruin the GOP brand for a generation.

Good riddance, IMO. Failed policy after failed policy.

A lot stupid sheeple take their cues from the WH, so expect corruption to increase all across America.

[boutons_deux]

Donald Trump’s ‘Half-Blind’ Trust Scheme Is Called Absurd

President-elect Donald Trump’s team is reportedly considering setting up a “discretionary trust” that would allow Trump to distance himself from his businesses while still reaping their financial benefits—an arrangement that, as government watchdogs put it, is “inappropriate” at best and “a betrayal” at worst.

Politico on Wednesday reported (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-conflicts-interest-232875) that Trump aides were speaking with the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) this week, indicating that the team is still attempting to sidestep ethical boundaries rather than abide by them. It’s the latest (http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/12/19/trump-sons-auctioning-first-family-hunting-trip-500000-report) in a series of steps (http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/11/22/nepotism-strikes-again-ivanka-trump-joined-call-argentina-president) by the family that indicate they are selling off access (http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/12/16/coffee-ivanka-auction-latest-evidence-ethics-free-trump-family) to the president and attempting to profit off Trump’s rise to power.

“It’s highly inappropriate,” former ethics lawyer Richard Painter told Politico. “To have someone baby-sit your conflict-creating assets while you go around and do whatever you want, in my view that’s a violation of at least the spirit of the rules and that’s an abuse.”

In a typical blind trust, an independent financial manager takes over the official’s assets and handles them without input from the owner. Assets that are considered conflicts of interest—of which Trump has a historic amount (http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/11/17/trump-empire-contains-most-blatant-conflicts-interest-history)—are sold off and replaced.
But, Politico’s Josh Gerstein writes,

with a discretionary trust, the conflicts almost magically disappear because the investments aren’t considered to belong to the incoming official at all—even if they’re producing a steady stream of income for the official.

Instead, the assets are held in a trust that is often overseen by a family member who can, but is not legally required to, send revenues from the assets to the government official.

Another benefit: there’s no explicit prohibition on the official talking with the trustee about the financial holdings.


“You don’t have to disclose it, since you don’t own it, Aunt Millie owns it,” Painter said.

“And it cures your financial conflicts of interest under the criminal statute. ...

If you really have a discretionary trust, you can participate in government decisions that affect those assets—if they let you get away with it.”
Kait Sweeney, press secretary for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), said that “by not disclosing and divesting,

Trump is betraying his own voters by prioritizing his own corporate interests at the expense of working families.

The framers of our Constitution did not intend for presidents to put their own interests and corporations ahead of the American people.”

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/donald_trumps_half-blind_trust_blasted_as_absurd_20161221?utm_source= feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+Truthdig+Truthdig%253A+Dril ling+Beneath+the+Headlines

Dems and courts must force Trash to sell everything, total divestment, OR RESIGN

[Winehole23]

Who would have standing to bring the complaint?

For better and worse, the only cure for a corrupt president is impeachment. Unless Trump crosses the US Congress, it ain't gonna happen.

[boutons_deux]

"impeachment", would delegitimize him even more, but if it got out of the Repug House, it would fail in the Repug Senate.

[boutons_deux]

OK asshole, of course

GOP Congressman says Trump’s conflicts of interest are OK because George Washington kept his house


Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) also incorrectly claimed Trump never really profited from government contracts.


Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) said on Wednesday that he does not think Trump needs to disentangle himself.

“To be fair to him, :lol :lol he’s not a guy who made his money out of doing business with the government, particularly,”

Cole’s troubling suggestion that the only type of favoritism that government could show to businesses is through government contracts ignores the fact that

Trump has apparently made millions (http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/money/how-donald-trump-brings-over-250m-year) of agreements with government entities (http://www.newsday.com/news/new-york/city-hall-new-york-city-can-t-break-its-trump-contracts-1.10757847) including

a Central Park carousel,

a municipal golf course (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/nyregion/golf-course-deal-with-donald-trump-leaves-new-york-city-in-the-rough.html),

two skating rinks he operates for the city of New York, and a

Washington, D.C. hotel (https://thinkprogress.org/a-monument-to-trumps-kleptocracy-sits-in-the-middle-of-downtown-dc-5351ac6550ff#.lbwxp5m6w) he operates (https://thinkprogress.org/under-political-pressure-kuwait-cancels-major-event-at-four-seasons-switches-to-trumps-d-c-1f204315d513#.s7et0b8lb) under an agreement with the federal government.

https://thinkprogress.org/tom-cole-trump-not-blind-trust-okay-55dc206821d4#.qiawmcr0w

[pgardn]

Draining the swamp

This just happened.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/lewandowski-trump-carlos-slim-232905

[boutons_deux]

Here’s The Law That Poses The Greatest Threat To Donald Trump

The Stock Act’s author explains the insider trading law will be extremely difficult for the next president to follow if he keeps his businesses.

Congress passed a law in 2012 called the Stock Act (https://www.gillibrand.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/president-obama-signs-gillibrand-co-authored-stock-act-into-law-making-insider-trading-by-members-of-congress-illegal_-), which explicitly bars the president, members of Congress and senior executive branch officials from using their insider knowledge to make money.

Obeying the law is not especially difficult for most people. But most people do not have access to the immense amount of secret information that presidents deal with every day. And no presidents before have been billionaires with business holdings spread around the world.

The law is clear in saying that the president cannot do anything that resembles helping friends, family members or himself to make a profit off of information he gains from doing his job.

“It’s the same as it applies to the American people,” said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), the lead author of the Stock Act. “You cannot trade on nonpublic information. That is a criminal violation of the law.”

“The president, the vice president, Cabinet secretaries, all of them have to play by the same rules as every other American,” Gillibrand added. “And that’s what the Stock Act ensures.”

Indeed, the director of the federal Office of Government Ethics, Walter Shaub, recently declared (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-stock-act_us_58536830e4b0b3ddfd8c08b8) as much in a letter (https://www.oge.gov/web/oge.nsf/All+Advisories/AA607D245F0173E18525808A0054692C/$FILE/Legal%20Advisory%20LA-16-10.pdf?open) explaining his official guidance to Congress.

“The Stock Act bars the President, the Vice President, and all executive branch employees from: using nonpublic information for private profit; engaging in insider trading; or intentionally influencing an employment decision or practice of a private entity solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation,” the letter says.

For Trump, it all presents a special problem, especially since he has unprecedented conflicts of interest (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-conflict-of-interest_us_582f8e62e4b030997bbf83a2), has so far decided not to completely divest (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/16/trump-reportedly-not-planning-to-divest-from-his-businesses.html) himself of his businesses and is going to leave control of his business in the hands of his children.

It means that anything he says to his children or business confidants, or any tips he gives to friends that get turned into profits can get him in trouble. (The video above explains it in more detail.)

“If you tell people who work for you, or tell people you like or tell your best friend, that’s all insider trading,” Gillibrand said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/stock-act-donald-trump_us_5859c045e4b0d9a594566921

Since Trash, more than the Clintons ever did, think ethics, moral, laws, regulations, in letter or in spirit, don't apply to him, he will certainly violate the Stock repeatedly in the next 4 years, earning $Bs for himself, his family, his friends.

[boutons_deux]

A new solution for Trump and his team of billionaires: Ignore the law

Trump lieutenant Newt Gingrich this week proposed an elegant solution for all the conflicts of interest swirling around the president-elect and his team of billionaires: Ignore the law.

President-elect Donald Trump, Gingrich said, should let those in his administration do as they wish with their personal fortunes and business interests and pardon them if they are found to have violated laws against using public office for personal enrichment.

“He could simply say, ‘Look,

I want them to be my advisers, I pardon them if anybody finds them to have behaved against the rules, period’,”

Gingrich said (http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2016-12-19/ongoing-questions-about-how-donald-trump-will-deal-with-business-conflicts-of-interest-as-president) on NPR’s “The Diane Rehm Show” on Monday.
“Drain the Swamp” is so October.

The General Services Administration has said Trump will be in violation of his lease agreement for the Trump International Hotel in Washington because the contract prohibits any U.S. elected official from participating in or benefiting from the lease.

Trump needs to decide whether to try to oust the head of the IRS, which he says is auditing him. (The Trump Foundation recently admitted to the IRS that it violated federal rules against self-dealing.)

Trump could avoid this constitutional problem and other law-breaking by divesting himself of his business holdings, but he so far has announced no specific action.

The billionaires and business leaders he has named to top posts present more conflicts and are subject to additional ethics laws.

But before the GOP was the Party of Donald Trump, it was the Party of Abraham Lincoln, who as a young lawyer in Illinois in 1838 warned that disregard for laws would leave the United States vulnerable to its own Caesar or Napoleon.

“I know the American people are much attached to their government,” Lincoln said then (http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/lyceum.htm). “Yet, notwithstanding all this, if the laws be continually despised and disregarded . . . the alienation of their affections from the government is the natural consequence.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-new-solution-for-trump-and-his-team-of-billionaires-ignore-the-law/2016/12/23/f9f1689a-c90f-11e6-8bee-54e800ef2a63_story.html?utm_term=.bb312ca6e931&wpisrc=nl_most-draw7&wpmm=1

I'm sure the billionaires he's appointed and their army of $1M lawyers are looking forward to ethics violations, which are probably already in planning stage.

[RandomGuy]

Here’s The Law That Poses The Greatest Threat To Donald Trump

The Stock Act’s author explains the insider trading law will be extremely difficult for the next president to follow if he keeps his businesses.

Congress passed a law in 2012 called the Stock Act (https://www.gillibrand.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/president-obama-signs-gillibrand-co-authored-stock-act-into-law-making-insider-trading-by-members-of-congress-illegal_-), which explicitly bars the president, members of Congress and senior executive branch officials from using their insider knowledge to make money.

Obeying the law is not especially difficult for most people. But most people do not have access to the immense amount of secret information that presidents deal with every day. And no presidents before have been billionaires with business holdings spread around the world.

The law is clear in saying that the president cannot do anything that resembles helping friends, family members or himself to make a profit off of information he gains from doing his job.

“It’s the same as it applies to the American people,” said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), the lead author of the Stock Act. “You cannot trade on nonpublic information. That is a criminal violation of the law.”

“The president, the vice president, Cabinet secretaries, all of them have to play by the same rules as every other American,” Gillibrand added. “And that’s what the Stock Act ensures.”

Indeed, the director of the federal Office of Government Ethics, Walter Shaub, recently declared (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-stock-act_us_58536830e4b0b3ddfd8c08b8) as much in a letter (https://www.oge.gov/web/oge.nsf/All+Advisories/AA607D245F0173E18525808A0054692C/$FILE/Legal%20Advisory%20LA-16-10.pdf?open) explaining his official guidance to Congress.

“The Stock Act bars the President, the Vice President, and all executive branch employees from: using nonpublic information for private profit; engaging in insider trading; or intentionally influencing an employment decision or practice of a private entity solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation,” the letter says.

For Trump, it all presents a special problem, especially since he has unprecedented conflicts of interest (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-conflict-of-interest_us_582f8e62e4b030997bbf83a2), has so far decided not to completely divest (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/16/trump-reportedly-not-planning-to-divest-from-his-businesses.html) himself of his businesses and is going to leave control of his business in the hands of his children.

It means that anything he says to his children or business confidants, or any tips he gives to friends that get turned into profits can get him in trouble. (The video above explains it in more detail.)

“If you tell people who work for you, or tell people you like or tell your best friend, that’s all insider trading,” Gillibrand said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/stock-act-donald-trump_us_5859c045e4b0d9a594566921

Since Trash, more than the Clintons ever did, think ethics, moral, laws, regulations, in letter or in spirit, don't apply to him, he will certainly violate the Stock repeatedly in the next 4 years, earning $Bs for himself, his family, his friends.







Insider trading laws will be the hardest to skirt.

All the president has to do is bad-mouth one publicly traded company for something or other, and have any one of his advisers, children, or businesses sell/buy based on a foreknowledge of those remarks.

Given the overall nature of the people he is surrounding himself with, that one of them might be so stupid/greedy to do this is more than plausible.

[RandomGuy]

You are the dishonest one. You have arrived at many conclusions before Trump has even begun his presidency.


Donald Trump's Conflicts of Interest: A Crib Sheet

So far, the only indication that Trump may actually be distancing himself from his financial holdings is that, on December 6, Trump and his spokesman Jason Miller announced that Trump had sold off his stocks in June. However, neither provided any evidence of the sale, and considering the president-elect’s history of questionable or downright false statements regarding his finances—see, for example, David Fahrenthold’s months-long, exhaustive debunking of Trump’s claims regarding his charitable giving and namesake foundation—the claim remains suspect. Until proof of the transaction has been established, such as by releasing broker records, this article will proceed based on his FEC filings, which remain the most recent documentation of his financial holdings.

Central to the discussion is that, as Trump has repeatedly pointed out, the president and vice president are exempt from the Office of Government Ethics’ rules preventing conflicts of interest within the executive branch. More recently, attention has shifted to the Emoluments Clause, a relatively obscure section of the Constitution barring the chief executive from receiving gifts from foreign governments, which numerous experts say Trump might violate if his properties receive preferential treatment from other world leaders. However, case law on the clause’s possible application is sparse.

At any rate, legality does not imply propriety. Unless Trump acts to put appropriate distance between himself and his business ventures, these questions are likely to continue throughout his time in the Oval Office. Below is an attempt to catalogue the more clear-cut examples of conflicts of interest that have emerged so far; the most recent entries appear at the top.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Vineyard

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Las-Vegas

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Kuwait

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Certificates-of-Divestiture

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Carrier

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Blind-Trust

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Fannie-Freddie

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Taiwan

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Deutsche-Bank

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Secret-Service

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Georgia

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Erdogan

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#DC-Hotel

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Argentina

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Philippines


-------------------------------------------------
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/

This shit is obvious, as long as you aren't blinded by drinking too much cool-aid.

This list will only get longer, and he is not even the president yet.

[RandomGuy]

Until I see something like this linked to Trump, you've no room :toast

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user230519/imageroot/2016/10/13/2016.10.13%20-%20Forman%202_0.JPG


http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Vineyard

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Las-Vegas

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Kuwait

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Certificates-of-Divestiture

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Carrier

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Blind-Trust

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Fannie-Freddie

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Taiwan

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Deutsche-Bank

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Secret-Service

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Georgia

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Erdogan

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#DC-Hotel

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Argentina

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Philippines


-------------------------------------------------
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/

This shit is obvious, as long as you aren't blinded by drinking too much cool-aid.

This list will only get longer, and he is not even the president yet.

[tlongII]

Nice to see you reference a left wing rag again. :rolleyes

[RandomGuy]

Getting to the nuts and bolts of this..Trump is heavily leveraged in real estate. He can't exactly remove himself from a lien or other credit instrument. Placing proceeds in a blind trust doesn't cut it either as any money received by hook or crook is still his...just defered for another 4 years. Forcing him to take his holdings/companies public is a non starter. Trump dealing with a BOD and activist investors? Not happening.
The 4 year deferral seems to the only likely solution imo.


http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Vineyard

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Las-Vegas

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Kuwait

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Certificates-of-Divestiture

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Carrier

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Blind-Trust

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Fannie-Freddie

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Taiwan

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Deutsche-Bank

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Secret-Service

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Georgia

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Erdogan

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#DC-Hotel

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Argentina

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Philippines


-------------------------------------------------
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/

This shit is obvious, as long as you aren't blinded by drinking too much cool-aid.

This list will only get longer, and he is not even the president yet.

[RandomGuy]

Nice to see you reference a left wing rag again. :rolleyes

Translation:

"I can't actually argue the point, all I can do is bash the source"

Intellectual.

Bankruptcy.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Nice to see you reference a left wing rag again. :rolleyes

We get it. You think the AP is unreliable and that your right wing websites with no cross checking are the way to go. Combine that with an obvious lack of critical thinking and you are a real peach, T.

[tlongII]

Intellectual bankruptcy.

Critical thinking.

:lol

[Mitch]

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Vineyard

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Las-Vegas

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Kuwait

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Certificates-of-Divestiture

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Carrier

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Blind-Trust

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Fannie-Freddie

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Taiwan

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Deutsche-Bank

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Secret-Service

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Georgia

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Erdogan

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#DC-Hotel

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Argentina

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Philippines


-------------------------------------------------
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/

This shit is obvious, as long as you aren't blinded by drinking too much cool-aid.

This list will only get longer, and he is not even the president yet.

You still have the avatar of the people citi bank bought to work under Obama, brah? :lol

[boutons_deux]

Whoa, There! Trump Faces Hurdles As He Moves To Dissolve Charity (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/obstacles-dissolution-trump-foundation-attorney-general-irs-approval)

shuttering the Donald J. Trump Foundation will require cooperation from the charity’s chief antagonist, New York’s Democratic Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.

Schneiderman’s office is currently investigating (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/trump-foundation-new-york-attorney-general-palm-beach) allegations of self-dealing and other violations of IRS regulations by the charity, and his spokeswoman Amy Spitalnick told TPM on Tuesday that the foundation “cannot legally dissolve” until that investigation is complete.

The Empire State's attorney general is also responsible for approving the plan of dissolution that any nonprofit registered in New York that hopes to close down must file.

Nonprofit law experts told TPM that in order for that to happen, Schneiderman's office would need to determine that all of the Trump Foundation’s

outstanding taxes were paid,

that all funds were properly used by the foundation and

that all remaining assets are put toward charitable purposes.

Those experts warned that the process is likely to drag on for a year or more—long after Trump is installed in the Oval Office.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/obstacles-dissolution-trump-foundation-attorney-general-irs-approval

[boutons_deux]

Fact Checkers Eat Trump Alive For Claim That ‘All’ Foundation Money Goes To Charity

Not only has the foundation forked over hundreds of thousands of dollars to non-charitable causes, but Trump himself gave little of his own money to the organization.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/12/27/fact-checkers-seize-latest-trump-claim-all-money-foundation-charity.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

... but of course, in the post-truth/anti-fact/anti-rational America, Trash's supporters believe every fucking one of his lies

[rmt]

A desire to demonstrate to evangelicals that their candidate's morals were not aligned with theirs.

A fact that probably escaped a lot of them because evangelicals have been fooled into thinking abortion is an important issue, IMO.

Guess I haven't been in this thread so I missed this one.

Evangelicals believe in the forgiveness of sins. I fail to see why what Melania did before she got married matters - by all accounts, she has been a devoted wife and mother. And using her pictures (obviously Trump's moved on) to demonstrate his lack of morals? I'm sure you can find lots of better examples. Trump never campaigned on a religious platform - he has not hidden who he is and the media has left no stone unturned in exposing everything they can about him. Evangelicals, like myself, are well aware of what he is. I have always thought that only someone like him would survive the barrage from the press, the Dems, the Repubs, the establishment, academia, etc. To this day, I'm still surprised he won.

Abortion is an important issue if you see the baby inside as a life - a life that's viable outside the mother at about 22 weeks (when the mother starts feeling the baby move around and what an awesome feeling that is!). I just cannot understand people like Hillary who are for abortion right up until delivery date - IMO, it's unconscionable. So given the choice between Hillary and Trump - there really isn't much to think about and gladly, the evangelicals turned out for him.

[boutons_deux]

saw this yesterday:

"Would "family values" Repugs (and evangelicals) ignore it if Hillary had 5 children by 3 different husbands?"

[CosmicCowboy]

saw this yesterday:

"Would "family values" Repugs (and evangelicals) ignore it if Hillary had 5 children by 3 different husbands?"

Meh...sitting on Huma's face was more Hillary's style.

[boutons_deux]

Donald Trump wants a cookie for shutting down his foundation — but the real conflicts of interest are elsewhere (http://www.salon.com/2016/12/28/donald-trump-wants-a-cookie-for-shutting-down-his-foundation-but-the-real-conflicts-of-interest-are-elsewhere/)

Trump lavishes self-praise for one irrelevant maneuver — but four years won’t be enough to untangle his conflicts

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/813578484572450816

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/813581917215977473

It’s a distraction that in no way lets Trump off the hook for the myriad other ways in which his business conflicts with his impending duties as president.

Compared to the businesses, the self-dealing with Trump’s charity is the tip of a large iceberg.

Every time Trump does resolve one of these conflicts of interest, assuming he bothers to do so, he will present it as yet one more selfless act on behalf of the American people, for which he deserves credit.

http://www.salon.com/2016/12/28/donald-trump-wants-a-cookie-for-shutting-down-his-foundation-but-the-real-conflicts-of-interest-are-elsewhere/

Trash loves Trash as Trash's own gift to America.

[Thread]

Meh...sitting on Huma's face was more Hillary's style.

I'll be frank:::that red lipstick has me snortin'. And that bossy way she has:::I've nutted to Huma.

[CosmicCowboy]

I'll be frank:::that red lipstick has me snortin'. And that bossy way she has:::I've nutted to Huma.

:lmao

You know she has some kink being married to the Weiner.

[TeyshaBlue]

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Vineyard

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Las-Vegas

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Kuwait

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Certificates-of-Divestiture

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Carrier

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Blind-Trust

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Fannie-Freddie

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Taiwan

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Deutsche-Bank

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Secret-Service

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Georgia

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Erdogan

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#DC-Hotel

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Argentina

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Philippines


-------------------------------------------------
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/

This shit is obvious, as long as you aren't blinded by drinking too much cool-aid.

This list will only get longer, and he is not even the president yet.

Any particular reason you are replying to my post with this wall?

[DMX7]

"To the victor belongs the spoils" - Donald Trump

[boutons_deux]

Corruption Overload As Trump Makes Money Off President-Elect’s New Year’s Eve Party

$500/person

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/12/31/corruption-overload-trumps-club-sold-tickets-president-elect-years-eve-party.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

grifting bag of shit

Was there an open bar? :lol

Crooked Hillary :lol

[boutons_deux]

Presidenting for profit: Trump's policies give a big boost to Trump's bottom line (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/4/1616948/-Presidenting-for-profit-Trump-s-policies-give-a-big-boost-to-Trump-s-bottom-line)

Donald Trump stands to personally profit from the legislative agenda he is expected to push in his first 100 days, raising questions about whether he can separate his financial interest from his public office without totally cutting ties from his business empire.

Trump knows exactly what actions he can take as president to fatten his own wallet.


The top items on the president-elect’s policy checklist — from rewriting the tax code to scrapping Wall Street regulations to repealing Obamacare — have for years been Republican orthodoxy.

But Trump could see a direct benefit to muscling through broad tax cuts and eliminating regulations:

billions of dollars in new savings for him and his family and fresh revenue for his business portfolio,

according to a POLITICO analysis of Trump’s public statements and financial disclosures and interviews with tax experts.


All of which makes the money Trump “spent” on the campaign—money which could have come to Trump from anywhere, since he’s not obligated to show either his taxes or further financial statements—a very cheap investment when compared to the returns.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/01/04/1616948/-Presidenting-for-profit-Trump-s-policies-give-a-big-boost-to-Trump-s-bottom-line?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

[Chucho]

"To the victor belongs the spoils" - Donald Trump

Is it because you hate Trump that you ignore basically every President abusing their powers for their own self-gains and the interests of their friends and benefactors prior to him?

[DMX7]

Is it because you hate Trump that you ignore basically every President abusing their powers for their own self-gains and the interests of their friends and benefactors prior to him?

You're about to see something you've never seen before. We've never seen abuse on this scale (not since the 1800's at least) as we're about to witness.

[boutons_deux]

You're about to see something you've never seen before. We've never seen abuse on this scale (not since the 1800's at least) as we're about to witness.

here's another Repug corrupton scandal, 20th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teapot_Dome_scandal

[RandomGuy]

Any particular reason you are replying to my post with this wall?

Just wanted to keep you up to date, and it seemed to be the best way to do it.

[Chucho]

You're about to see something you've never seen before. We've never seen abuse on this scale (not since the 1800's at least) as we're about to witness.

Anything other than self-believed speculation and a massive blanket statement that totally ignores the corruption and abuses of powers of the last sixteen years to substantiate such an absurd claim? ANYTHING aside from "I believe this and I won't tell you why..." statements, please. Genuinely interested, not being rude or dickish.

[RandomGuy]

Abortion is an important issue if you see the baby inside as a life - a life that's viable outside the mother at about 22 weeks (when the mother starts feeling the baby move around and what an awesome feeling that is!). I just cannot understand people like Hillary who are for abortion right up until delivery date - IMO, it's unconscionable. So given the choice between Hillary and Trump - there really isn't much to think about and gladly, the evangelicals turned out for him.

Now there is an important conversation to have. You seem a decent intelligent person, so, with your permission, I would like to try for something unusual here. A reasonable, respectful conversation.

Up until a certain point in time, a fetus has about as much life expectancy as an appendix or a hand, when removed from a woman's body, no matter how much hideously expensive medical heroics are applied.

This is simple biology, that I am sure you understand, and we both can agree on as fact.

In this way, that physical group of cells is part of the womans body.

What moral basis do we have for telling a woman what they can do with their body? Use whatever reasoning/justification you want. I merely am trying to understand your viewpoint.


Secondly, "people like Hillary who are for abortion right up until delivery date" is a simplification. There is really no such thing as "abortion" after a certain time. There is just birth or death.

Medical procedures that late a pregnancy are for real, life threatening things, and are not done lightly. What moral basis would be applied to limit doctors ability to do what amounts to a C-section? Babies are not "killed" at that point. They either live, or are still born.

Again, I am mostly trying to understand the reasoning here.

[boutons_deux]

" "people like Hillary who are for abortion right up until delivery date" is a simplification"

not a simplification, it's a LIE from the pro-birth mob, which RMT and similar ilk swallow in total faith.

I bet RMT also believes CarFi's "saw alive baby being dismembered".

[RandomGuy]

" "people like Hillary who are for abortion right up until delivery date" is a simplification"

not a simplification, it's a LIE from the pro-birth mob, which RMT and similar ilk swallow in total faith.

I bet RMT also believes CarFi's "saw alive baby being dismembered".

I think it demonstrates a very important thing to be careful of in talking about abortion.

The people who are against it are really really against it, and see it as a monstrous evil. People justify all sorts of things with faith, and what is a little lying in the face of such evil?

I have to step back and be very, very skeptical of any arguments from activists and people writing op-eds online, as I have found no small amount of distortions, and omissions of fact.

[RandomGuy]

Despite President-elect Donald Trump’s assurance that he has stopped pursuing deals since the election, his namesake organization is currently moving forward with a pair of projects in Indonesia. According to The New York Times, the two properties that will bear the Trump name, one overlooking a Hindu temple in Bali and the other abutting a theme park in West Java, presented ethical problems even before the election.
To begin with, through his Indonesian partner on the projects, the billionaire media mogul Hary Tanoesoedibjo (known in Indonesia as Hary Tanoe), Trump has forged relationships with several top Indonesian politicians. One such leader is Setya Novanto, the speaker of the country’s House of Representatives who temporarily lost his post for trying to extort $4 billion from the American mining company Freeport-McMoRan (a company which counts Carl Icahn, who will be serving as a special adviser in Trump’s administration, among its largest shareholders, and which has been frequently criticized by labor advocates and environmentalists). Trump had lunch with Novanto and several other Indonesian politicians during the campaign in September 2015 to discuss the Trump Organization’s planned expansion into Indonesia. At a post-luncheon press conference, Trump pulled Novanto in front of the cameras, calling him “an amazing man” and “one of the most powerful men” and asserting, “we will do great things for the United States.” (It is unclear exactly whom Trump meant when he used the word “we.”) Trump then asked Novanto to confirm that “they like me in Indonesia,” which Novanto did.



http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/

The newest one.

[RandomGuy]

Trump plans presser for Jan. 11, may unveil ethics plan



Donald Trump’s is promising to hold a news conference on Jan. 11, and a top campaign advisor suggested the president-elect will use the presser to unveil an ethics plan to guard against potential conflicts of interest between his business empire and his incoming administration.

......

“I believe it was rescheduled for Jan. 11, originally, and if the lawyers and the compliance officers feel like we’re ready, then we’ll stick to that date. It’s really up to them,” Conway said Monday night on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360.” “But I know that I spoke to the president-elect today about [the] press conference and I know that’s the current plan. So that’s next week.”

I will not be holding my breath.

I give it a good chance it is another bait and switch.

[Chucho]

Now there is an important conversation to have. You seem a decent intelligent person, so, with your permission, I would like to try for something unusual here. A reasonable, respectful conversation.

Up until a certain point in time, a fetus has about as much life expectancy as an appendix or a hand, when removed from a woman's body, no matter how much hideously expensive medical heroics are applied.

This is simple biology, that I am sure you understand, and we both can agree on as fact.

In this way, that physical group of cells is part of the womans body.

What moral basis do we have for telling a woman what they can do with their body? Use whatever reasoning/justification you want. I merely am trying to understand your viewpoint.



Again, I am mostly trying to understand the reasoning here.


Using "body autonomy" as a defense should be fairly used for people who don't want to pay for insurance since they should have the right to do with their physical well-being too, it's their right to get sick or be in poor health (poor health is ok with the Left as supporting fat people and normalizing obesity doesn't seem to be an issue with them, even though they are enabling addiction and disease) because it's their body, right?

That is the jest of what you are saying. You can take the argument into the "well, everyone who doesn't have insurance raises costs for everyone" spectrum, that isn't a fair argument considering a huge contingency of women, specifically Liberals, have gone on record as saying they believe abortions and planned parenthood should be payed for by the taxpayers. That is absurdity at it's finest. They are asking for cooperation and collusion for people whom it obviously is immoral to.

Moreover, it is a lack of responsibility and denial of accountability trying to pawn off their abortions on taxpayers. It's simple cause and effect. If you don't wrap it up, pull out, use a vagina sponge or catch device, or don't tie your tubes or use any of the numerous contraception techniques and devices, you're failure to prevent the known effect of fucking is 100% on you. You should pay for your own actions, don't think it's ok for the rest of society to cover your bad.

And I do understand that same rhetoric can be applied to people who refuse medical attention, but those who don't have insurance end up in massive debt they are personally responsible for and with the absurd costs of actual healthcare and the influx of new insured patients, you'll be hard pressed to find hospitals struggling anywhere in the states compared to asking for tax dollars to offset their irresponsible, personal behaviors. It's cause and effect being completely ignored and that is insulting to hard working, responsible adults. It's not even a moral issue there.



Secondly, "people like Hillary who are for abortion right up until delivery date" is a simplification. There is really no such thing as "abortion" after a certain time. There is just birth or death.

Medical procedures that late a pregnancy are for real, life threatening things, and are not done lightly. What moral basis would be applied to limit doctors ability to do what amounts to a C-section? Babies are not "killed" at that point. They either live, or are still born.

Now, this is weird to me. You tell him he is "simplifying" the definition of killing a baby minutes before birth, which Hillary said was cool with her. Yet, you trivialized the entire issue and denied the meaning of the word abortion and insinuate you either die or live and compare it to live-saving tactics. This makes no sense. Please defend this statement, because if you take a baby out of the womb seconds before delivery with the intention to stop it's existence, you are killing it. It's a fully functioning human being, no way around it. A few seconds more in the womb doesn't change that, but you are saying that women should have the right to kill their babies and no one should be upset because that kid was part of her body for 9 months and she opted out right before she was to assume her parental responsibilities. This is exactly what you are saying.

With that, you should be against illegal aliens receiving any kind of benefits. They aren't American citizens. You should be against forced health insurance. You can't control anyone's bodies, and no one is of a position to tell people what they can or cant do with their bodies, so why are people forced to have insurance? That is full control of another's body and decision making.

So what is it? Is it ok for one and not the other? It's ok to deny words by their very definition to fit your ideas and positions? Or are you just tied to your partisan beliefs that you just don't see the contradictory positions you stated?

Looking for an honest insight on how someone can support "body autonomy" for one thing and then believe it doesn't account for anything on the other front based on partisan policy. Please explain.

[DMX7]

Anything other than self-believed speculation and a massive blanket statement that totally ignores the corruption and abuses of powers of the last sixteen years to substantiate such an absurd claim? ANYTHING aside from "I believe this and I won't tell you why..." statements, please. Genuinely interested, not being rude or dickish.

First of all, what corruption are you referring to with regard to Obama? Massive false equivalency if you're trying to lump whatever corruption you're talking about in with happened during George W. Bush's administration. Obama's administration was pretty clean... almost about as clean as you can get and still be made up of human beings and not robots.

There are red flags everywhere with regard to Mr. Trump. Just look at his "charitable foundation"... he tried to get away with using his charity to make a political contribution to the person (Florida Attorney General) who would decide whether to go ahead with charges against him for the Trump University fraud case... and it worked, like a couple of days after she gets the contribution suddenly she announces they won't even investigate it. And look at what happened with the veteran fundraiser. He basically had to get shamed into actually giving the money from his foundation to Charity when reporters couldn't figure out where the money went and he was forced to give it all at the last moment. It goes on and on and on. The writing is on the wall... How can you not see it.

[Chucho]

First of all, what corruption are you referring to with regard to Obama? Massive false equivalency if you're trying to lump whatever corruption you're talking about in with happened during George W. Bush's administration.

Really?

Fast n Furious
Becoming the largest private dealer of arms in mankind history. Selling said weapons to Saudis who armed ISIS with them and to drug cartels? That isn't a scandal or corrupt? But when Repub Reagan did it, it was?

Chicago Housing Projects and illegal speculating to pocket >$40 million

$96 million personal spending on tax dollars. More than 10x their own net worth.

The IRS being used as his personal goon squad targeting conservative groups

Admitting he knew about Benghazi and spying on private citizens

Starting two new wars and using Iraq as an excuse to do so.

Deposed a leader who was doing better for his people than Barry did because of course he would. He is the exact same person as Bush and basically guilty of everything Bush did, except he is more guilty of divisiveness and driving home partisanship cocksuckery.

It's only a "false equivalency" to you because you are selective in what you define as corruption because you are bound to this ridiculous notion of partisanship and that is exactly what you are doing- ignoring your party's crimes and still holding on to the past and hoping that lessens the disgusting truths of Barry's criminal organization. I won't deny anything Bush did but I also can't indict a man who hasn't done anything that his predecessors didn't, let alone not having committed a crime on the levels of BushnBarry.

Don't hand that kind of ridiculousness this way again.

[Chucho]

There are red flags everywhere with regard to Mr. Trump. Just look at his "charitable foundation"... he tried to get away with using his charity to make a political contribution to the person (Florida Attorney General) who would decide whether to go ahead with charges against him for the Trump University fraud case... and it worked, like a couple of days after she gets the contribution suddenly she announces they won't even investigate it. And look at what happened with the veteran fundraiser. He basically had to get shamed into actually giving the money to Charity when reporters couldn't figure out where the money went and he was forced to give it all at the last moment. It goes on and on and on. The writing is on the wall... How can you not see it.

You are aware of Obama's poverty pimping that turned into a bait and switch to help he and his real estate buds reap millions in illegal speculation profits while thousands of poor who were told they would get housing were left out in the gutters. That is sicker than everything you tagged Trump to. Your ignorance doesn't change what he has done or the fact he's a criminal and disgusting human being. Your piece of shit stinks more than mine, pal. Deal with it. Or just be ignorant so you can think you're still "right".

[DMX7]

Really?

Fast n Furious
Becoming the largest private dealer of arms in mankind history. Selling said weapons to Saudis who armed ISIS with them and to drug cartels? That isn't a scandal or corrupt? But when Repub Reagan did it, it was?

Chicago Housing Projects and illegal speculating to pocket >$40 million

$96 million personal spending on tax dollars. More than 10x their own net worth.

The IRS being used as his personal goon squad targeting conservative groups

Admitting he knew about Benghazi and spying on private citizens

Starting two new wars and using Iraq as an excuse to do so.

Deposed a leader who was doing better for his people than Barry did because of course he would. He is the exact same person as Bush and basically guilty of everything Bush did, except he is more guilty of divisiveness and driving home partisanship cocksuckery.

It's only a "false equivalency" to you because you are selective in what you define as corruption because you are bound to this ridiculous notion of partisanship and that is exactly what you are doing- ignoring your party's crimes and still holding on to the past and hoping that lessens the disgusting truths of Barry's criminal organization. I won't deny anything Bush did but I also can't indict a man who hasn't done anything that his predecessors didn't, let alone not having committed a crime on the levels of BushnBarry.

Don't hand that kind of ridiculousness this way again.

Try $3 TRILLION+ WASTED & 3 THOUSAND+ AMERICAN LIVES LOST for an Iraq War that we were lied into by the Bush Administration.

Your bullshit isn't even in the same league.

LMAO "Benghazi!"

[boutons_deux]

Elizabeth Warren Drops The Hammer On Trump With Bill To Implement the Emoluments Clause

Sen. Elizabeth Warren and a slew of Democrats are taking aim at Donald Trump with new legislation that would force him to release his tax returns and divest himself of potential financial conflicts of interest.

The legislation titled the Presidential Conflicts of Interest Act of 2017 (http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/2017-01-09_Presidential_Conflicts_of_Interest_Act_of_2017. pdf) would require the president and vice president to comply with the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution by requiring them to release their tax returns and divest themselves of any personal financial conflicts of interest.

It would also require cabinet appointees to recuse themselves if any potential presidential conflicts of interest came before their agencies.

Sen. Warren said,

“The American people deserve to know that the President of the United States is working to do what’s best for the country – not using his office to do what’s best for himself and his businesses.

The only way for President-elect Trump to truly eliminate conflicts-of-interest is to divest his financial interests by placing them in a blind trust.

This has been the standard for previous presidents, and our bill makes clear the continuing expectation that President-elect Trump do the same.”

(http://www.politicususa.com/2017/01/09/elizabeth-warren-drops-hammer-trump-bill-implement-emoluments-clause.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29)http://www.politicususa.com/2017/01/09/elizabeth-warren-drops-hammer-trump-bill-implement-emoluments-clause.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

Any ideas on how Trash will tweet insults at Liz?

Progressive bitches kicking Trash in his tiny balls (existence unproven)

[boutons_deux]

Politico Is Mistaken, It Would Be Fun and Easy for Donald Trump to Divest

The key to the process I outline in that piece is that Trump arrange to get independent teams of auditors to provide assessments of the property.

I suggested he go with the middle assessment provided by three teams of auditors.

This would limit the likelihood of a major error in the assessment.

Trump would then buy an insurance policy that would guarantee him the estimate from this middle audit.

The enterprises would then be turned over to an executor who would run and offload the businesses with the goal of maximizing the value.

When the businesses are sold off the proceeds would be placed in a blind trust.

If the cumulative value from the sales exceeds the estimate, then the proceeds go to a charity of Trump's choosing, but not under his control.

If the proceeds from the sales are less than the value of the estimate he collects on the insurance policy.

This is a process that should be fair to Donald Trump and can be done quickly.

It eliminates his conflicts of interest as soon he buys the insurance policy.

Trump should have been going in this direction the day after the election, in which case he surely would have an insurance policy in force by now.

However, if he were to take steps to come clean now, he should still be able to end his conflicts in the first weeks of his presidency.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/01/09/politico-mistaken-it-would-be-fun-and-easy-donald-trump-divest

[CosmicCowboy]

Elizabeth Warren Drops The Hammer On Trump With Bill To Implement the Emoluments Clause

Sen. Elizabeth Warren and a slew of Democrats are taking aim at Donald Trump with new legislation that would force him to release his tax returns and divest himself of potential financial conflicts of interest.

The legislation titled the Presidential Conflicts of Interest Act of 2017 (http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/2017-01-09_Presidential_Conflicts_of_Interest_Act_of_2017. pdf) would require the president and vice president to comply with the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution by requiring them to release their tax returns and divest themselves of any personal financial conflicts of interest.

It would also require cabinet appointees to recuse themselves if any potential presidential conflicts of interest came before their agencies.

Sen. Warren said,

“The American people deserve to know that the President of the United States is working to do what’s best for the country – not using his office to do what’s best for himself and his businesses.

The only way for President-elect Trump to truly eliminate conflicts-of-interest is to divest his financial interests by placing them in a blind trust.

This has been the standard for previous presidents, and our bill makes clear the continuing expectation that President-elect Trump do the same.”

(http://www.politicususa.com/2017/01/09/elizabeth-warren-drops-hammer-trump-bill-implement-emoluments-clause.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29)http://www.politicususa.com/2017/01/09/elizabeth-warren-drops-hammer-trump-bill-implement-emoluments-clause.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

Any ideas on how Trash will tweet insults at Liz?

Progressive bitches kicking Trash in his tiny balls (existence unproven)





She might as well wipe her ass with that bill because that's all it's good for.

Pure grandstanding

[boutons_deux]

She might as well wipe her ass with that bill because that's all it's good for.

Pure grandstanding

Repugs will block it, of course, proving YET AGAIN Repugs are totally corrupt, will do anything to enable their own corruption and that of their BigDonor.

[boutons_deux]

Law Firm Overseeing Trump’s Conflict Of Interest Is Russia’s Law Firm Of The Year

Just when you thought it couldn't get worse: even the people dealing with Trump's conflict of interest have a conflict of interest.

http://www.politicususa.com/2017/01/11/lawyer-handling-trumps-conflict-interest-part-russias-law-firm-year.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29 (http://www.politicususa.com/2017/01/11/lawyer-handling-trumps-conflict-interest-part-russias-law-firm-year.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29)

[spurraider21]

^at least its not that borowitz crap

still unfunny "humor" from booboo

[SnakeBoy]

Up until a certain point in time, a fetus has about as much life expectancy as an appendix or a hand, when removed from a woman's body, no matter how much hideously expensive medical heroics are applied.

This is simple biology, that I am sure you understand, and we both can agree on as fact.

In this way, that physical group of cells is part of the womans body.



This is a false statement. Simple biology proves your analogy wrong.