• 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!

Has Trump violated the Emoluments Clause, and do you care?a

Has Trump violated the Emoluments Clause, and do you care?
Click to expand...
IMO, yes, and regardless of whether he indeed has, yes, I care.
 
haymarket said:
Present the lie and the evidence that it is a lie and that it renders his professional opinion irrelevant or wrong.
Click to expand...

I did. Did you not watch the video?
 
independentusa said:
The Emoluments Clause of the Constitution seems to be being violated by President Trump and his family business. The latest issue is when Trump backed down on bringing actions against the Chinese Company ZTE and then receiving a 500 million dollar loan for his project in Indonesia from the Chinese government. This is only one of the items being discussed where legal experts say Trump has violated this clause of our constitution. So do you believe he has violated the Emoluments Clause and do you care if he profits from his position as president?
Click to expand...

Trump has been an international businessman for decades and decades. It would be all but impossible for him to be president without some business venture somewhere making money during the Trump presidency. Also, Republicans have had a policy of reducing taxes on not only people but on businesses for a very long time and yet when Trump signs the tax act into law, all of a sudden the left claim that the only reason Trump did it was to benefit himself. People elected Trump knowing that he was an international businessmen (and yes, even making deals with Russia) so the country is just going to have to realize that it is virtually impossible for Trump to remove himself from all of his business tentacles 100%. Doesn't stop those infected with stage 4 TDS from wanting to use this to take Trump down. It's actually quite funny how many different tactics the left have used to try driving Trump out of the White House. They go from one thing to another thing to another thing. They have given up on Mueller and now it looks like the have given up on Stormy Daniels so now it is on to the Emoluments Clause. What's up for June?
 
Moderate Right said:
Trump has been an international businessman for decades and decades. It would be all but impossible for him to be president without some business venture somewhere making money during the Trump presidency. Also, Republicans have had a policy of reducing taxes on not only people but on businesses for a very long time and yet when Trump signs the tax act into law, all of a sudden the left claim that the only reason Trump did it was to benefit himself. People elected Trump knowing that he was an international businessmen (and yes, even making deals with Russia) so the country is just going to have to realize that it is virtually impossible for Trump to remove himself from all of his business tentacles 100%. Doesn't stop those infected with stage 4 TDS from wanting to use this to take Trump down. It's actually quite funny how many different tactics the left have used to try driving Trump out of the White House. They go from one thing to another thing to another thing. They have given up on Mueller and now it looks like the have given up on Stormy Daniels so now it is on to the Emoluments Clause. What's up for June?
Click to expand...

The second round of the IG report.
 
Moderate Right said:
Trump has been an international businessman for decades and decades. It would be all but impossible for him to be president without some business venture somewhere making money during the Trump presidency. Also, Republicans have had a policy of reducing taxes on not only people but on businesses for a very long time and yet when Trump signs the tax act into law, all of a sudden the left claim that the only reason Trump did it was to benefit himself. People elected Trump knowing that he was an international businessmen (and yes, even making deals with Russia) so the country is just going to have to realize that it is virtually impossible for Trump to remove himself from all of his business tentacles 100%. Doesn't stop those infected with stage 4 TDS from wanting to use this to take Trump down. It's actually quite funny how many different tactics the left have used to try driving Trump out of the White House. They go from one thing to another thing to another thing. They have given up on Mueller and now it looks like the have given up on Stormy Daniels so now it is on to the Emoluments Clause. What's up for June?
Click to expand...

Do you wonder why other presidents have divested themselves of their businesses or put them in a blind trust, because to do otherwise will create situations that will violate the emoluments clause of our constitution. Trump knew this when he ran for president, but he feels he is above the law and the constitution. The problem is, the GOP has too much invested in him to bring anything he does up and thus allow him to do what he wants. So, just because he was a international businessman, doesn't mean once he became the president he could continue to so. To do so violates our constitution, but you don't seem to understand the document. I bet the only thing you understand is the 2nd Amendment. There is much more to the document than that single amendment.
 
FreeWits said:
I did. Did you not watch the video?
Click to expand...

I cannot debate a video.

What lie did Painter tell? A difference of opinion is not a lie. Coming to a different conclusion that you is not a lie.

Again, what specific LIE do you accuse Painter of telling and what evidence do you have?
 
Technically probably not because the Chinese loan went to an Indonesian company, and the Trump Organization will only benefit from it indirectly.
So, it won't be possible to actually find Trump in violation, exclusively based on this Chinese loan.

Morally, and broadly speaking? Absolutely yes! Of course he isn't stupid and this transaction will not be pegged to his organization. There will be no direct deposit from a Chinese bank or governmental fund to the Trump Organization. But we all know what happened. Most likely behind closed doors in Mar-a-Lago, Xi said that even though this deal had originated from before the time Trump ran for president, it wasn't finalized yet and the Chinese would just not confirm it... unless, in a quid-pro-quo, Trump helped ZTE. And then, he did. For me it's pretty clear.

But there won't be a smoking gun, legally speaking.

If I care? You bet. I consider this, to be one of the worst things Trump did, so far.
 
Moderate Right said:
Trump has been an international businessman for decades and decades. It would be all but impossible for him to be president without some business venture somewhere making money during the Trump presidency. Also, Republicans have had a policy of reducing taxes on not only people but on businesses for a very long time and yet when Trump signs the tax act into law, all of a sudden the left claim that the only reason Trump did it was to benefit himself. People elected Trump knowing that he was an international businessmen (and yes, even making deals with Russia) so the country is just going to have to realize that it is virtually impossible for Trump to remove himself from all of his business tentacles 100%. Doesn't stop those infected with stage 4 TDS from wanting to use this to take Trump down. It's actually quite funny how many different tactics the left have used to try driving Trump out of the White House. They go from one thing to another thing to another thing. They have given up on Mueller and now it looks like the have given up on Stormy Daniels so now it is on to the Emoluments Clause. What's up for June?
Click to expand...
I understand that, and yes, it would be practically impossible for him to divest completely. But what about the ZTE issue? Why do you think he directed the Department of Commerce to lift the sanctions on ZTE? Because if he starts to use the Government of the United States for quid-pro-quo to prop up his private business, then there is no justification for it whatsoever.

When people suspected the Cliinton Foundation of receiving donations because Hillary was SoS, people said "lock her up."

If Trump is also selling the influence of the United States for personal gain, shouldn't we also say "lock him up"?

Why would a conservative support such a thing?

I mean, he is now worried about... jobs in China?? Do you really think that his explanation for why he is propping up ZTE is believable??
 
haymarket said:
I cannot debate a video.

What lie did Painter tell? A difference of opinion is not a lie. Coming to a different conclusion that you is not a lie.

Again, what specific LIE do you accuse Painter of telling and what evidence do you have?
Click to expand...

You are being ridiculous. I give you the information, but you refuse to look at it, and then you just keep asking me for the information. Richard Painter has lied a lot. For one, when Alan Dershowitz talked about a famous Boston case where Mueller put four innocent people in prison, two of them died in prison and two spent much of their lives in prison where they were later found innocent, and this was all to protect a mass-murdering FBI informant, Richard Painter just kept yelling, "That's not true." Well, Richard Painter was lying because this is a famous case and the people were later found innocent. When Dershowitz said that Painter was trying to turn his anti-Trump zealotry into a Senate run, Painter said, "No." Well, guess who is running for Senate? Painter is. Dershowitz than talks about how Painter has repeatedly lied about him and other Trump supporters, and he continued by talking about how Painter said Dershowitz knows nothing about Israel. Dershowitz than goes on to talk about how Painter lied repeatedly about his expertise and his background, and what does Painter say? "I didn't say anything about your background," says Painter. Just about everything that comes out of the guy's mouth is a lie. I mean, the ethics guy for George Bush is your savior now? Give me a break. You have no credibility at this point.
 
independentusa said:
Do you wonder why other presidents have divested themselves of their businesses or put them in a blind trust, because to do otherwise will create situations that will violate the emoluments clause of our constitution. Trump knew this when he ran for president, but he feels he is above the law and the constitution. The problem is, the GOP has too much invested in him to bring anything he does up and thus allow him to do what he wants. So, just because he was a international businessman, doesn't mean once he became the president he could continue to so. To do so violates our constitution, but you don't seem to understand the document. I bet the only thing you understand is the 2nd Amendment. There is much more to the document than that single amendment.
Click to expand...

Other presidents have not been international businessmen to the degree that Trump was. The others had been politicians for so long they had plenty of time to divest themselves. Trump was voted president because he was not a politician and therefore had not been able to divest himself as the others had.
 
GreatNews2night said:
I understand that, and yes, it would be practically impossible for him to divest completely. But what about the ZTE issue? Why do you think he directed the Department of Commerce to lift the sanctions on ZTE? Because if he starts to use the Government of the United States for quid-pro-quo to prop up his private business, then there is no justification for it whatsoever.

When people suspected the Cliinton Foundation of receiving donations because Hillary was SoS, people said "lock her up."

If Trump is also selling the influence of the United States for personal gain, shouldn't we also say "lock him up"?

Why would a conservative support such a thing?

I mean, he is now worried about... jobs in China?? Do you really think that his explanation for why he is propping up ZTE is believable??
Click to expand...

Thanks for not being a rabid partisan on the issue. I agree that the ZTE thing is a possible concern. But, at this point, there is no proof, only accusations and opinions and it will probably never reach a level more than that. The Clintons were experts at having so much smoke in the room that it was impossible to find a smoking gun. I do like the comparison because I find it highly questionable that the Clinton Foundation was benign and then all of a sudden, when Hillary loses the election, the Foundation basically goes belly up. But, there was supposedly no quib for quo there in buying influence. And, like I said, the ZTE thing is highly suspicious, but it could just be an amazing coincidence that looks very suspicious. In regards to the other things, we apparently agree on that as well.
 
Moderate Right said:
And, like I said, the ZTE thing is highly suspicious, but it could just be an amazing coincidence that looks very suspicious. In regards to the other things, we apparently agree on that as well.
Click to expand...
Yes, we do agree that some of the criticism is harsh. I think he didn't even expect to win; to divest from a multi-billion dollar business represented in hundreds of countries would be as complicated as Brexit and couldn't be accomplished from election day to inauguration day. I then if it can't be done, so, what the heck, just keep going; lost by one, lost by one thousand. So I don't really fault him for that. How exactly would his critics expect that he'd be able to suddenly do that? It would probably take four years to do it completely; the duration of his entire first term.

But I can't wrap my head around this ZTE stuff. He campaigned forever on China stealing jobs from us, on how it is bad that our companies are moving off-shore, how the Chinese unfairly compete with our manufacturers, how he'd be tough on China, etc., etc. The intelligence agencies say that ZTE was planning to enter our market with proprietary software installed on their phones that would spy on Americans. This seems pretty well-proven, then they are slapped with sanctions. The intelligence agencies direct all operatives to never have a ZTE phone. Then out of the blue Trump gets worried that jobs are being lost... in CHINA!!! And exactly by this company that clearly harbored evil intentions regarding America!! And unilaterally, out of the blue, he decides to lift the sanctions on the company against the advice of the Department of Commerce... and simultaneously (like, same week, next day) we learn that this pending deal between the Chinese and the Indonesians suddenly goes through with the China government directly lending half a billion to the enterprise and Chinese commercial banks lending half a billion more, to a development that will greatly benefit the Trump Organization with hotels and golf course?? The same freaking weak??

I mean, there is no red flag redder than this one, because there is no freaking justification whatsoever for Trump to suddenly grow worried about the Chinese losing jobs in their own country, with nothing to do with any American jobs or any commercial advantage for the United States (much the opposite, it props up a big competitor to American companies like Apple). WTF??

For me, it's not even the timeline coincidence that is most troubling, but rather, the absurd justification (that he is worried about Chinese jobs). The justification being so blatantly false and out of character, it makes me almost certain that the reason is a different one that is not being told (or else he wouldn't need to go there; something that should not be very palatable to his own base), and when you look at the timeline, there is no way to not acknowledge that the reason seems to be crystal clear.

I mean, I can imagine Xi behind closed doors saying to Trump in his visit to Mar-a-Lago, "Mr. Trump, you know that deal we've been considering for the Indonesian investments for a couple of years? It's not written in stone yet; we can perfectly pull out of it... but hey, say you lift the sanctions on ZTE; what about we then lend to that development, say, a billion dollars? That will be a neat windfall for your Trump Organization and you can't be prosecuted for it because technically we're lending the money to the Indonesian company, not to the Trump Organization. What say you?" Trump: "Mr. Xi, that's a neat idea! Great! You do that, and you can count on me to rescue ZTE." Xi: "Great. But you know, we need to really see it happening before we close the deal." Trump: "No worries; we'll do it the same week. Let a couple of months go by, then I'll order the Department of Commerce to lift the sanction, then you close the deal; what about that?" Xi: "Let's do it!"

If a Democratic president did that, conservatives would be yelling "traitor! How dare him use the Department of Commerce for his personal gain, betraying the interests of American companies and American jobs in favor of China and of his private business?? And if it doesn't violate the letter of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution due to the use of an intermediary - the Indonesian company - it clearly violates the spirit of it! Lock him up! Boot the corrupt traitor out of the office!"

A billion dollars! Think of it! If that's what happened, this qualifies as the biggest case of corruption by a governmental official in the freaking history of the United States since its independence! It makes any deals by the Clinton Foundation pale in comparison. Where is the conservative outrage?

That conservatives - the very people who supposedly praise the Constitution of the United States of America - even think of looking the other way just because it's Trump, disgusts me and makes me wonder what the hell happened to Conservatism in America.
 
FreeWits said:
You have no clue what you are talking about. No, it's not an offense only the President can make. And even when dissolving business interests, there are always going to be connections that can be made. You are defining this exceptionally broadly, not just in the type of payment (which is what the broad part is supposed to mean), but you are including a brand of a company not controlled by the President which is included in an amusement park built by a construction company that was given a loan by the Chinese government. You're like 5 arms out of the actual loan, and you're trying to consider this some sort of gift or payment to the President. That seems pretty unreasonable, and from what I read and cited previously, that's not what the founding fathers were intending at all. And if you're going to go this far out, I'm pretty sure you could find things with every President (and many non-Presidents, despite you thinking this only applies to Presidents). Why are you pretending to be so knowledgable when clearly you know nothing about the law on this?
Click to expand...


You are making an argument Trump's lawyers would make in an impeachment trial, but it doesn't mean he won't be impeached, nevertheless ( if dems were in control, I'll grant you that repubs won't impeach ).

It sure doesn't sound like 5 arms removed to me. China loans a half billiion bucks to a theme park in which Trump's properties are featured, then Trump tries to help a company NSA has determined to be committing cyberespionage. That sounds a lot like quid pro quo treason to me. Maybe not be a legal standard, but by an article of impeachment standard. IF Hillary did that, the right would be marching on Washington with pitchforks and torches, my how hypocritical the right is. Defend Trump at every level, hear no evil, see no evil, except when Hillary does it. Right.

Impeachment is a political process, right? Nothing to do with "laws", per se, right? I would include things like dereliction of duty, failure to uphold the constitution, acts unbecoming, using the office for financial gain, and some real crimes, no doubt, but overall, it's a political process, not a legal one. I should think the whole purpose of impeachment is to allow congress to impeach a president by what he is really doing, not some legal trickery that would get him off in a court of law, because what he is really doing has far more consequences that some yahoo criminal getting off on a technicality.

it's whatever congress decides. The wiki article disagrees with you, and I'm only going by that, and not at all pretending to be "knowledgeable".
 
Last edited:
OscarLevant said:
Impeachment is a political process, right? Nothing to do with "laws", per se, right? I would include things like dereliction of duty, failure to uphold the constitution, acts unbecoming, using the office for financial gain, and some real crimes, no doubt, but overall, it's a political process, not a legal one.

it's whatever congress decides. The wiki article disagrees with you, and I'm only going by that, and not at all pretending to be "knowledgeable".
Click to expand...

There are actually guidelines of why Congress has to abide by. They can't just impeach a President because they don't like a certain President. If they tried, the Supreme Court could step in and nullify the impeachment, as it would be an unconstitutional impeachment.
 
Mycroft said:
What makes you think a hotel and a golf course are "a prominent feature of a theme park"?

Is it more prominent that the main attractions? Or less?
Click to expand...

You sound like a Trump lawyer at an impeachment trial. Nice try. But...
Shortly after the loan of a half billion bucks was made, Trump directs the Chamber Of Commerce to help ZTE on "jobs lost by ZTE due to sanctions", a company whom the NSA as determined to be committing potential espionage against the US. Apparently, Trump thinks the loan helps him, otherwise, why the sudden flip on China? See, that is what is driving this argument.

Anyway, what you say about impeachment is correct. But keep in mind, Congress will be very careful about deciding if and for what to impeaching Trump. There could be serious political blow back on them if they impeached Trump over something as nebulous as your reasoning as you've presented it. Personally, I don't think even the most rabid Democrats would pull that trigger. (Well, except for Mad Maxine, that is.)
Click to expand...


Not by what is known today, it will depend largely on what Mueller comes up with.
 
Last edited:
Mycroft said:
I'm going to nit pick here just a bit...if you don't mind.

I've seen people (can't remember who...maybe you) assert that Trump has directed the Chamber of Commerce to do something. Believe me...that has never happened. In fact, the Chamber of Commerce is a private organization...not a part of the Executive Branch...and Trump doesn't have the power to "direct" them to do anything (other than comply with laws). Furthermore, with their opinion and open opposition to Trump, it's unlikely they would comply with anything Trump would direct them to do.

I think what you mean to say is "Trump has directed the Commerce Department to do something".

/nit pick
Click to expand...



Thank you, that is what I meant.
 
OscarLevant said:
Shortly after the loan of a half billion bucks was made, Trump directs the Chamber Of Commerce to help ZTE on "jobs lost by ZTE due to sanctions", a company whom the NSA as determined to be committing potential espionage against the US. Apparently, Trump thinks the loan helps him, otherwise, why the sudden flip on China? See, that is what is driving this argument.
Click to expand...

Didn't I already tell you? Maybe it was someone else. No matter. The thing is, Trump didn't tell the Chamber of Commerce to do anything (as if the CoC WOULD do anything Trump wanted LOL!!) You need to get your facts straight, don't you think?

Anyway, you make your judgment on something that is "apparently" instead of on something that is fact. That means your argument is driven by speculation. Nothing more.

shrug... If that's what you want to hang your hat on, be my guest. I'll take facts.

Not by what is known today, it will depend largely on what Mueller comes up with.
Click to expand...

And that is where you fail again.

As you imply, you don't know anything. All you have is speculation.

Give me facts and we'll talk.
 
FreeWits said:
You are being ridiculous. I give you the information, but you refuse to look at it, and then you just keep asking me for the information. Richard Painter has lied a lot. For one, when Alan Dershowitz talked about a famous Boston case where Mueller put four innocent people in prison, two of them died in prison and two spent much of their lives in prison where they were later found innocent, and this was all to protect a mass-murdering FBI informant, Richard Painter just kept yelling, "That's not true." Well, Richard Painter was lying because this is a famous case and the people were later found innocent. When Dershowitz said that Painter was trying to turn his anti-Trump zealotry into a Senate run, Painter said, "No." Well, guess who is running for Senate? Painter is. Dershowitz than talks about how Painter has repeatedly lied about him and other Trump supporters, and he continued by talking about how Painter said Dershowitz knows nothing about Israel. Dershowitz than goes on to talk about how Painter lied repeatedly about his expertise and his background, and what does Painter say? "I didn't say anything about your background," says Painter. Just about everything that comes out of the guy's mouth is a lie. I mean, the ethics guy for George Bush is your savior now? Give me a break. You have no credibility at this point.
Click to expand...


In the interest if fairness, allow Mueller to give his side of the story.
 
Mycroft said:
Didn't I already tell you? Maybe it was someone else. No matter. The thing is, Trump didn't tell the Chamber of Commerce to do anything (as if the CoC WOULD do anything Trump wanted LOL!!) You need to get your facts straight, don't you think?

Anyway, you make your judgment on something that is "apparently" instead of on something that is fact. That means your argument is driven by speculation. Nothing more.

shrug... If that's what you want to hang your hat on, be my guest. I'll take facts.



And that is where you fail again.

As you imply, you don't know anything. All you have is speculation.

Give me facts and we'll talk.
Click to expand...


I meant the Commerce Dept.
 
Mycroft said:
Yes. I saw your post.

So...do you have any facts?
Click to expand...

If you google "Trump directed commerce dept to help ZTE", a number of websites, from WaPo, to Forbes, report on this. Take your pick.
 
Mycroft said:
Didn't I already tell you? Maybe it was someone else. No matter. The thing is, Trump didn't tell the Chamber of Commerce to do anything (as if the CoC WOULD do anything Trump wanted LOL!!) You need to get your facts straight, don't you think?

Anyway, you make your judgment on something that is "apparently" instead of on something that is fact. That means your argument is driven by speculation. Nothing more.

shrug... If that's what you want to hang your hat on, be my guest. I'll take facts.
Click to expand...

Amazing, didnt we hear all during Trump's bloviating campaign that China is screwing the US?

You want facts, here are the facts:

China makes loan of a half billion bucks to a project featuring Trump properties. Shortly following this, Trump reverses his "China is screwing US" sentiment where Trump directs commerce dept to help ZTE recover lost jobs due to sanctions, and this is the company that NSA determined was potentially committing espionage by compromising it's cell phones sold to US.

Draw your own frickin' conclusion, and I will draw mine..
 
OscarLevant said:
If you google "Trump directed commerce dept to help ZTE", a number of websites, from WaPo, to Forbes, report on this. Take your pick.
Click to expand...

Oh, I know what Trump told the Commerce Department to do. The question is why.

You have your speculations. I'm sure all of the media, their talking potato heads and everyone else have their speculations. I'm not interested in speculations.

I like facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom