Reply With Quotechristiefan915 (01-23-2017), signalmankenneth (01-23-2017)
Shaken, not stirred!
Trump already in violation of the Constitution
Bottom line: instead of just putting all of his business holdings in a blind trust, Trump wants to still be in control of all that carries his name, and thinks shuffling partial ownership to his family is sufficient....THAT is a violation of the Constitution regarding his serving as President.
http://www.heraldnet.com/news/suit-w...-constitution/
This reminds me of Nixon's delusional statement during the Frost interview, "...it's not illegal if the President does it!"
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
George Orwell
christiefan915 (01-23-2017), signalmankenneth (01-23-2017)
rebel
now, if the democrats can get control of the house and senate back, i'd support impeachment.Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
Oh, hi
The language in the clause is disputed by legal experts, and some think the suit will fail
That is from the OP article.
Last edited by Cancel 2018.2; 01-23-2017 at 06:42 PM.
Banned
So now you're a Democrat supporter.
rebel
are you a strictly two dimensional idiot, capable of only left or right thinking?
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
Enjoying the view
False but we will enjoy watching the left cry about it
Hypocrisy =
Shaken, not stirred!
Hope springs eternal.
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
George Orwell
Shaken, not stirred!
Prove your claim, junior. WHAT EXACTLY/PRECISELY IS FALSE IN THE INFORMATION PROVIDED?
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
George Orwell
Shaken, not stirred!
Actually, it's Trump's interpretation of the clause that is in dispute. The clause is quite clear.
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
George Orwell
Let's go Brandon!
CRY HARDER
Loves Me Some Souls
No, it's not. Try again snowflake.
MAGA MAN (01-31-2017)
Verified User
[QUOTE=Taichiliberal;1818999]Bottom line: instead of just putting all of his business holdings in a blind trust, Trump wants to still be in control of all that carries his name, and thinks shuffling partial ownership to his family is sufficient....THAT is a violation of the Constitution regarding his serving as President.
http://www.heraldnet.com/news/suit-w...-constitution/
This reminds me of Nixon's delusional statement during the Frost interview, "...it's not illegal if the President does it!"[/QUOTE
Really? The article, section, and clause that President Trump is in violation? The article did not present the Article, section, and clause that was being violated....nor will you...why? Because there is no such Article, Section, or clause in the United States Constitution.There can be no conflict of interest when....the emoluments clause...does not include the President or Vice President of the United States. Read 18 U.S.C. Section 202 as it addresses sections, 203,205, 207 through 209 and 218.
Quote from the rule of law: Exempt or otherwise provided in such sections, the terms officer and employee in sections, 203, 205, 207 through 209 and 218......of this title SHALL NOT INCLUDE THE PRESIDENT, THE VICE PRESIDENT.......
1. Both the President and Vice President are except from such...BY US RULE OF LAW.
2. The president legally owns no business. 3. In order for there to be a conflict....there must be evidence of collusion with a premeditated plan to be compensated Beyond what is expected and customary in that particular business. In other words....just an accusation of conflict means nothing....the lunatic left would have to prove that President Trump received more than is customary. Its not illegal nor a conflict to collect monies from anyone in exchange for a service rendered that is customary to that particular business. Like the company being paid for renting a room out in a Trump hotel.
4. Finally it would be most difficult to claim that Mr. Trump is being compensated by his foreign interests when in REALITY: As stated in a binding legal contract....all profits from any of the foreign businesses that carry the name TRUMP...will not go back into the company but will be directed to be deposited in the United States Treasury. ZERO POSSIBILITY OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/01/1...ed-us-treasury
Last edited by Ralph; 01-31-2017 at 08:19 PM.
Shaken, not stirred!
A retort worthy of a 6 year old by Guille. Unless you can come up with a rational, fact based disagreement for a real debate, I'll just ignore your silliness.
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
George Orwell
Senior Member
Why cant you just admit defeat and that your party is too far left. It needs to get more moderate and closer to the political mainstream of the country.'
Senior Member
You can't do anything to stop us .. nothing. You're a 0 .. a non factor.
Posting Rules
Bookmarks