• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Constitution's "emolument clause": Democrats take Trump to court

Deuce said:
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.
Click to expand...

Did left wingers care about the Clinton foundation? Or does the fact that she was "only" Secretary of State lessen the concern?
 
Gaius46 said:
Did left wingers care about the Clinton foundation? Or does the fact that she was "only" Secretary of State lessen the concern?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Deuce said:
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.
Click to expand...

Where did I say any of that? Where did I say Clinton doing so excuses Trump? Where did I say I was okay with Trump doing it? Answer. I didn't. Ever.

I'm simply curious as to whether left wingers apply the same double standard they criticize right wingers of. I'm far more interested in seeing the Constitution scrupulously followed than I am with defending the current President, whomever he or she may be.

So I'll ask the question again. Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State when the Clinton Foundation received donations from foreign governments. Were left wingers critical of her for that?



And by the by not only did I not vote for Trump I'm probably more critical of him than most left wingers.
 
"I wouldn't bet the ranch on this. The emolument's clause has never been litigated with respect it's applicability to the President and some very smart Con Law types have argued that it doesn't apply to the President -" G4 #25
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.
Click to expand...
We'll see how the court rules.
I assume the court it will be heard in is not SCOTUS, so it won't be the last word, but it will be the latest word.

And though I realize I may be setting myself up for disappointment, I hope the Dems would not do this if they didn't think they could win.

The next obvious question is, if the Republican majority in congress then provides the "consent" the Constitution requires, is that sufficient? Even if the consent arrives AFTER the emolument?

And then:
Republicans think it's appropriate for them to undo work the Democrats did, like ACA.

Well if the Republican lead congress accords Trump consent, but the leadership changes to Democrat in 2018, and the Democrats then reverse the "consent", does that make President Trump a criminal again?
 
Napoleon said:
Yes, because we are taking about a man who is leveraging the office to generate personal profit some of which from foreign governments.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
disneydude said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
disneydude said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
sear said:
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?
Click to expand...

They have a mighty big hurtle to cross, 'standing'.
 
Conservative said:
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
Click to expand...

LOL.....of course you still cling to your gotta "jack up the price". Once again...showing that you cannot comprehend the conflict of interest involved....or at least selectively cannot comprehend it when there is an (R) involved. Typical.
 
Conservative said:
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
Click to expand...

If being President was important enough to him than he should divest. Now everything he does is tainted with potential conflicts of interest. I can only imagine the gaskets that you would be blowing if this was Hilary and she owned hotels where foreign dignitaries were staying. The first time one of those countries signed a deal with the US, you would be crying foul (and rightfully so....because it certainly reeks of pay to play)....but of course...that would only matter to you if a Democrat was involved.
 
Like his many forays into bankruptcy court, Trump is playing the system and using the presidency to enrich his business empire.
 
disneydude said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 ??
 
Conservative said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Nilly said:
Because it's the job of the court to judge if someone has broken the law or not...
Click to expand...

Naaaah, it's the job of the court to determine the quilt or innocents of parties that ALREADY broke the law.
 
Deuce said:
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.
Click to expand...

Again with the strawmen arguments. What has Trump done to personally profit via the power of the Presidency ??
 
hanger4 said:
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 ??
Click to expand...

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?
 
disneydude said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
hanger4 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
disneydude said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
hanger4 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh puh-lease. You are either completely naive or completely dishonest.
 
Deuce said:
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.
Click to expand...

We are a nation of laws not feel good hippie dippy bull****. If no laws being broken then why are these attorney generals bring a suit? This is the type of time wasting garbage that Trump opposes and that's why so many people put Trump in office.
 
disneydude said:
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.
Click to expand...
Do you think Trump is asking these foreign dignitaries if they stayed in his hotel before they can conduct business?
 
disneydude said:
Oh puh-lease. You are either completely naive or completely dishonest.
Click to expand...

Just attempting to get you to back up your accersions. So far it's all assumptions, appearances and innuendo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom