Reply With Quote
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.
Will enough journalists make up for their media allowing Trash to prevail?
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/12/23/d...us-531140.html
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.
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.
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?
goddam,you're ing stupid
The cold comfort in all of this is that the next 4 years of -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.
Former WH ethics lawyer: If Trump refuses to divest, he'll be in direct violation of Cons ution
Norman Eisen is a fellow that the Brookings Ins ute, 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.
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 Cons ution on the first day he takes office.
WATCH Norm Eisen break it down:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1...f-Cons ution
The following is the text of the emoluments clause...
What does that sound like to you?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.
additional "settled" law has extended that bare text, and esp includes payments from foreign en ies.
Why Trump Would Almost Certainly Be Violating the Cons ution If He Continues to Own His Businesses
https://www.propublica.org/article/t...his-businesses
============
Emoluments Clause: Could Overturning 185 Years of Precedent Let Trump Off the Hook?
Another view of the clause in the Cons ution 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/e...p-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 cir stances."
http://www.heritage.org/cons ution...luments-clause
[QUOTE=boutons_deux;8827436]
additional "settled" law has extended that bare text, and esp includes payments from foreign en ies.
Why Trump Would Almost Certainly Be Violating the Cons ution 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.
[QUOTE=tlongII;8827442]Emoluments has been extended by law, and new laws. Your boy Trash will be in violation of the Cons ution and other laws on 20 Jan.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/11/2...luments-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 Cons ution'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.
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/lega...is-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. Cons ution 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 le, 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 Cons ution 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 cons utionalizing an issue that should not be cons utionalized.” 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 cons utional one.
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 ins utions (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 do ents.
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/...ald-trump-debt
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 cons ution? (edit) or , bribery statutes?
Last edited by RandomGuy; 12-14-2016 at 06:17 PM.
I guess we will have to figure this out, won't we?
So which do you think applies then? Bribery statutes or cons utional violations? Do tell.
As stated in areas I have previously quoted there is no violation of the cons ution. How do you not recognize this fact?
The question isn't going away, no matter how hard you want to tap dance.“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 cons utionalizing an issue that should not be cons utionalized.” 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 cons utional one.
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.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 12-14-2016 at 06:22 PM. Reason: really trying for civility, despite being shocked at partisanship
If I'm not mistaken Trump isn't the President yet. What wrong or illegal activities do you believe have occurred?
so was it ethics or country that caused you to start spamming melania pictures?
Eh it. I tried being reasonable, and respectful.
You are a dishonest piece of . 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.
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.
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.
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 wad like you.
You would be much more credible about calling someone dishonest, if you could answer straight questions without dissembling.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
