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.
This absolutely had to happen in order to investigate Trump's international business ties, which he has basically been hiding with shell companies and a refusal to release his tax returns.
The potential for corruption with this president is massive. He has lied about cutting ties with his business organizations. He has refused to create a blind trust. He lied that he would let his kids run the business, and he would not discuss business matters with them. Eric the Mouth said he updates Trump weekly.
There are reasons these laws exist and Trump has blatantly ignored them, feeling he is totally above the law. For his entire adult life, Trump has looked for ways around laws. He has not cared if it is unethical as long as it 'might' be legal. The nepotism rule a case in point. Conjob admitted as much saying Trump found a way around it.
He has been a corrupt businessman, basically pushed people off their land and properties, devalued real estate properties (i.e., lied) on his tax returns, stuck investors and banks with financial losses caused by his own bad judgment numerous times, US banks will not lend him money, so it is questionable as to where he is getting it, bribed people, stiffed workers on payment, and partnered with shady characters in shady countries all over the globe.
Simply because his loyalists and the spineless GOP want to look the other way is not a reason he should not be brought to task. This man and his self-entitled family appear to believe that they are above the law and rules do not apply to them. Hopefully the lawsuits (Trump's favorite mode of communication, besides twitter) will force the truth to be known, along with Mueller's investigation.
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution.
“...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.”
His ridiculous "trust" as well as his former plans to donate any profit his hotels make from any foreign state guests to the U.S. treasury is nothing but nonsense.
Though paying taxes would certainly be a step in the right direction, the Constitution is clear that accepting the money in the first place is not allowed.
Furthermore, emolument means payment, not profit from those payments.
Emolument: Payment made for work that has been done. Refers to payments made to millers for grinding corn as "emolere" means "grind out."
Whether Republicans like it or not, accepting any payment from a foreign state is in violation of the Constitution.
Since Congress won't hold him accountable, 200 lawmakers might.
Which "Emoluments Clause" in the United States Constitution are they basing their lawsuit on?
You all are aware, I hope, that there are TWO of them: One in Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8; and one in Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 7.
It is interesting to note that Article I describes the duties and responsibilities of the Legislature, and Article II describes the duties and responsibilities of the Executive.
Does the Clause in Article I apply to the Executive? I don't know, but I wonder...
The Clause in Article II forbids the Executive from receiving any emoluments from "the United States or any of them".
I hope the filers of this suit have investigated their own financial dealings to be sure that they are not in violation of the Clause in Article I!
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution.
“...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.â€
His ridiculous "trust" as well as his former plans to donate any profit his hotels make from any foreign state guests to the U.S. treasury is nothing but nonsense.
Though paying taxes would certainly be a step in the right direction, the Constitution is clear that accepting the money in the first place is not allowed.
Furthermore, emolument means payment, not profit from those payments.
Emolument: Payment made for work that has been done. Refers to payments made to millers for grinding corn as "emolere" means "grind out."
Whether Republicans like it or not, accepting any payment from a foreign state is in violation of the Constitution.
Since Congress won't hold him accountable, 200 lawmakers might.
lmao..You need to work on your propaganda, I mean reading comprehension. If you think legal business transactions are a violation of the clause then Obama violated it when foreign dignitaries bought his book.
Yes, let's see how hard they laugh. BTW, this thread is complete Disinformation. A 6 year old could understand the clause doesn't include legal business transactions.
Wrong again.
Emolument means payment.
Emolument: Payment made for work that has been done. Refers to payments made to millers for grinding corn as "emolere" means "grind out."
No mention of only illegal business transactions being off limits in the Constitution.
Emolument: Payment made for work that has been done. Refers to payments made to millers for grinding corn as "emolere" means "grind out."
No mention of only illegal business transactions being off limits in the Constitution.
So, Trump's businesses have to give services for free? LMAO....I guess Obama is in violation of this too along with every other politician who wrote a book and sold it to foreign dignitaries.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbones
The clause doesn't cover legitimate business transactions. It covers gifts, money, etc. from foreign leaders and dignitaries in exchange for favors. Clintons????
Trademark approvals and not being named a 'currency manipulator'?
lmao..You need to work on your propaganda, I mean reading comprehension. If you think legal business transactions are a violation of the clause then Obama violated it when foreign dignitaries bought his book.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbones
Yes, let's see how hard they laugh. BTW, this thread is complete Disinformation. A 6 year old could understand the clause doesn't include legal business transactions.
And who is it that should be determining that legality?
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.
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.
