- Joined
- Dec 15, 2012
- Messages
- 19,764
- Reaction score
- 12,302
- Location
- Lawn Guyland
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Right-wingers literally don't care about the possibility of a US President using his power to further his own business interests... when it's a Republican doing it, anyway.
Did left wingers care about the Clinton foundation? Or does the fact that she was "only" Secretary of State lessen the concern?
Hillary Clinton doesn't hold any public office. Any impropriety on her part absolutely does not excuse Donald Trump's blatant and open conflicts of interest. His children are sitting in on diplomatic meetings and also running his businesses. He owns hotels that tax dollars are being used to pay him for. Foreign governments are paying the President of the United States money. President Obama had to give away his nobel peace prize money to charity. (and I think the medal itself to a museum?)
Deflecting to Hillary Clinton just proves my point. You're ok when Trump does it.
We'll see how the court rules.ARTICLE 1. SECTION 9.
8 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.
Yes, because we are taking about a man who is leveraging the office to generate personal profit some of which from foreign governments.
Really? so all those hotels have jacked up their prices to benefit Trump? Were all those hotels in place before Trump took office? I posted an article from the Boston Globe and you can Google it telling you that you don't have a snow balls chance in hell of winning this one so on to the next charge against Trump.
That certainly is your opinion but unless he changes the prices to Jack them up you have no case as usual.Leave it to you to completely miss the point. The point isn't about "jacking up prices" or whether those hotels were there before Trump took office. The point is that foreign dignatories are being sent a message that if they want to curry favor with the administration they should take their business to his hotels. They don't have to jack up the prices....Trump is making a healthy profit by using the office to benefit himself finanacially. Trump should have divested himself from all of his business interests to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
By the way there is no law requiring him to divest his interest in any of his private businesses that he held prior to taking office. The office of presidency is for a maximum of eight years. His business will be there when he gets out but not so if he divests his interest in themLeave it to you to completely miss the point. The point isn't about "jacking up prices" or whether those hotels were there before Trump took office. The point is that foreign dignatories are being sent a message that if they want to curry favor with the administration they should take their business to his hotels. They don't have to jack up the prices....Trump is making a healthy profit by using the office to benefit himself finanacially. Trump should have divested himself from all of his business interests to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
Divestiture or blind trust are acceptable standards and former common practice for wealthy high ranking members of our executive branch.
VP Richard Cheney did so, and avoided snagging such problems.
President Trump has refused to place his holdings in blind trust, and now there is a law suit.
Do you think this one has more substance than the impeachment of President Clinton?
Why?
That certainly is your opinion but unless he changes the prices to Jack them up you have no case as usual.
Leave it to you and left to come up with another trumped-up charge. Go to the Boston Globe website Google the case and see what they say about it. You don't have a snowball's chance in hell but that is no different than any of the other charges you have a de gainst this president.
You need to get over your Trump derangement syndrome. You have another chance in four years
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
By the way there is no law requiring him to divest his interest in any of his private businesses that he held prior to taking office. The office of presidency is for a maximum of eight years. His business will be there when he gets out but not so if he divests his interest in them
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Leave it to you to completely miss the point. The point isn't about "jacking up prices" or whether those hotels were there before Trump took office. The point is that foreign dignatories are being sent a message that if they want to curry favor with the administration they should take their business to his hotels. They don't have to jack up the prices....Trump is making a healthy profit by using the office to benefit himself finanacially. Trump should have divested himself from all of his business interests to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
By the way there is no law requiring him to divest his interest in any of his private businesses that he held prior to taking office. The office of presidency is for a maximum of eight years. His business will be there when he gets out but not so if he divests his interest in them
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Because it's the job of the court to judge if someone has broken the law or not...
So, to be clear, you are 100% ok with giving a president the ability to use the power of his office for personal profit, because there's no law against it.
And the emoluments clause may not technically apply so its principle becomes something you can ignore.
Your point is based on a strawman argument.
"foreign dignatories are being sent a message"
How so ?? Back channel communications, secret notes from Comey, what ??
Oh puh-lease....you don't think that dignitaries are going to book in a Trump hotel in hopes of currying favor with the President? How utter naive can you be?
I guess you can show where they wouldn't book in the same if Trump wasn't President. The Trump International Hotel Washington DC is a 5 star hotel.
If Trump weren't President, it wouldn't have the appearance of impropriety. There are also several 5 star hotels in the DC area. Do you honestly believe that when deciding where to stay foreign governments are not going to look at their options and think, hey...if we stay in Trump's hotel, we might curry a little favor. It will look bad if we stay somewhere else and he might get pissed off, so lets give him our business. If you cannot see the obvious conflict of interest....then you are gullible.
OK, so now it's just an appearance and not some "message being sent".
The only "conflict of interest" is if the WH requires staying at Trump International Hotel Washington DC.
So, to be clear, you are 100% ok with giving a president the ability to use the power of his office for personal profit, because there's no law against it.
And the emoluments clause may not technically apply so its principle becomes something you can ignore.
Do you think Trump is asking these foreign dignitaries if they stayed in his hotel before they can conduct business?If Trump weren't President, it wouldn't have the appearance of impropriety. There are also several 5 star hotels in the DC area. Do you honestly believe that when deciding where to stay foreign governments are not going to look at their options and think, hey...if we stay in Trump's hotel, we might curry a little favor. It will look bad if we stay somewhere else and he might get pissed off, so lets give him our business. If you cannot see the obvious conflict of interest....then you are gullible.
Oh puh-lease. You are either completely naive or completely dishonest.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?