U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-02-2019, 07:37 AM
 
4,991 posts, read 1,994,722 times
Reputation: 2250

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
Citing a website listing "Ten Facts About the Gristmill” at Mount Vernon, providing tidbits for tourists, & elementary school students preparing reports on American history in a motion to dismiss is not legitimate sourcing. Case law yes, tourist websites?

U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan addressed this in his memorandum Opinion.
The judge punted... he knows the case hinges on the definition of 'emoluments' and original intent.

He also knows that the Supreme Court will not let anyone but themselves make that call.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-02-2019, 07:39 AM
 
Location: *
8,069 posts, read 2,395,929 times
Reputation: 2206
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
I don't see a Constitutional basis for the opinion he expressed in his memorandum.
I'll find it for you, it's about halfway through.

Meanwhile you can find the sourcing for "George Washington & the following four Presidents".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2019, 07:40 AM
 
5,214 posts, read 1,552,582 times
Reputation: 3041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultor View Post
The judge punted... he knows the case hinges on the definition of 'emoluments' and original intent.

He also knows that the Supreme Court will not let anyone but themselves make that call.
The Judge didn't punt. He denied the motion to dismiss and sided with the Plaintiffs on the issue that is the subject of this thread. Procedurally, it would be wildly inappropriate for the judge to even comment on the ultimate merits of the action. Go read FRCP 12(b)(6) and the case law setting forth the standards on a motion to dismiss and you will understand the judge didn't "punt" on anything at this juncture.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2019, 07:56 AM
 
66,324 posts, read 30,202,952 times
Reputation: 8622
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
I'll find it for you, it's about halfway through.

Meanwhile you can find the sourcing for "George Washington & the following four Presidents".
There is no Constitutional requirement for any POTUS to relinquish all holdings and/or commercial enterprises on assumption of elected office. George Washington and the following 4 presidents should have made that clear. They ALL profited from selling their farms' crops to foreign governments, etc., while holding the office of POTUS.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2019, 08:15 AM
 
4,825 posts, read 1,803,150 times
Reputation: 4567
Anything that Barr is now associated with lacks any credibility. He is forever tainted and should immediately RESIGN.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2019, 08:16 AM
 
Location: *
8,069 posts, read 2,395,929 times
Reputation: 2206
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
There is no Constitutional requirement for any POTUS to relinquish all holdings and/or commercial enterprises on assumption of elected office. George Washington and the following 4 presidents should have made that clear. They ALL profited from selling their farms' crops to foreign governments, etc., while holding the office of POTUS.
Source?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 05:20 PM
 
Location: Home, Home on the Front Range
22,795 posts, read 16,211,986 times
Reputation: 12748
New ruling today (6/25/19):

“A federal judge on Tuesday rejected a request from President Donald Trump to delay a lawsuit filed by Sen. Richard Blumenthal and nearly 200 other congressional Democrats who allege the president’s business dealings violate an anti-corruption statute of the U.S. Constitution.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan declined to put the case on hold and said the Democratic plaintiffs could begin to seek financial information, interviews and other records from the Trump Organization this week.”

https://ctmirror.org/2019/06/25/judg...against-trump/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 05:26 PM
 
8,754 posts, read 2,718,374 times
Reputation: 5353
Quote:
Originally Posted by stburr91 View Post
You do know all profits made by foreign governments staying at Trump hotels are donated to the Treasury Department?

You do know that right?

Trump isn't making any money from foreign governments staying at Trump hotels, so this whole idea of this being an emoluments clause violation was always complete nonsense.
How do you know this?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 05:28 PM
 
8,754 posts, read 2,718,374 times
Reputation: 5353
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey View Post
Another poster who is a staunch textualist, except when its expedient to be an originalist. How droll.
Somehow the constitution as it relates to the second amendment can evolve over time. However, others are doomed to their original intent, lol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 05:29 PM
 
Location: Home, Home on the Front Range
22,795 posts, read 16,211,986 times
Reputation: 12748
Quote:
Originally Posted by stburr91 View Post
You do know all profits made by foreign governments staying at Trump hotels are donated to the Treasury Department?

You do know that right?

Trump isn't making any money from foreign governments staying at Trump hotels, so this whole idea of this being an emoluments clause violation was always complete nonsense.
If this is true, we’ll all know soon enough since the judge has ruled that discovery can start this week.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top