You don't have to be able to stomach the thought but just to be clear; nothing will happen to Trump. He will finish out this presidency and unless the GOP puts up another candidate he will most likely win 2020. The 2016 election should have taught us all a lesson. Discord has already been set on the dems side, which will only grow stronger and create more of a divide as the news cycles. Next summer will be a complete shit show - the likes we've never wanted to imagine.
Today's Republicans are only interested in the Constitution as a tool to advance their policy goals. Otherwise they have little use for, and limited understanding of the document.
If he wins in 2020 I will go to Nevada & place a $100 bet that after that 2nd term he continues to be POTUS. I think that either congress will change the 2 term rule or he will hold on to office in some other way. I believe he wants to be President For Life.
While I do not like him:
He lies to the people, I didn't pay them hoes no money. I am the smartest guy around. Obama was born in Africa. etc.
He is a little sniveling bitch. He tries to come across like a bad ass mafia chief yet he constantly deflects criticism by shifting the blame to others, Obama did it. What about Hillary? The weak rather than do their own time ratted me out & i got sent to prison.
He is a coward & a bully. His pitiful wife has a campaign to stop bullying. You remember the statement grab them by the pussy? I think he is the biggest pussy of all.I think many people make $ off politics. Why not me? If I could get 1000 to 1 odds on my C-Note then maybe I would enjoy the whole thing more.
But maybe I would be no better than those who overlook his behavior in the name of their stock portfolio.
Emoluments Clause - A totally fake, phony, made up clause just added to the constitution by the do nothing Democrats in order to further harass a perfectly honest businessman - me
If he says it, amerika's asshole 40% will believe it
"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"
Hard to see how all this brouhaha relates to the actual clause itself.
Clinton touted her involvement building the case for impeachment against former President Richard Nixon and lectured about the founding fathers including constitutional protections against a president “who would try to curry favor with foreign powers.”
>> Hard to see how all this brouhaha relates to the actual clause itself. <<
C'mon Thom. The case against tRump (re:Doral) is very clear. You claim you don't really care, yet you roll out the Obama/Clinton examples as if you actually DO care. Which is it?
Today's Republicans are only interested in the Constitution as a tool to advance their policy goals. Otherwise they have little use for, and limited understanding of the document.
"Phony Emoluments Clause" is a pretty stupid statement (no shocker there), but in all fairness, no court has decided whether the type of conduct at issue (running a hotel frequented by foreign dignitaries) falls under the prohibition against accepting an "Emolument" as that term is used in the Constitution. A number of lawsuits were filed, but almost all of them ran into a brick wall on standing. In other words, the plaintiffs could not demonstrate how they were personally harmed by the conduct and how the court could redress the problem (assuming the conduct was in fact barred by the emolument clause) and the cases were thrown out before reaching the central question of whether the hotel operations violated the Constitution's prohibition on accepting emoluments .
However, one case brought by a rival hotel operator got a new lease on life in September when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's decision to throw out the lawsuit because of a lack of standing, opening the door for the case to be move forward and be resolved on the merits. The Second Circuit didn't make any decision on whether the conduct at issue fell within the scope of the emolument clause, but one of the judges on the three judge panel issued a dissent saying it didn't.
It will be interesting to see how it turns out, but something tells me the matter will not be finally resolved until after the election next year.
ps, I don't see the Constitution saying that emoluments are bad only if someone can demonstrate personal harm:
"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"*
* copying and pasting from Thom, so this could be utter Bullshit, but assuming that is what the Constitution says:
where is the personal harm clause, Ken?
I know, I'm not a lawyer, or nearly as smart as bryen.
so help me out, OK?
What if I, a layman - or a patriotic American citizen - interpret that as meaning the President should not take money - or things of value - from foreign countries?
p.s.s.: They made Jimmy Carter sell his peanut farm!
but something tells me the matter will not be finally resolved until after the election next year<<<
Unfortunately, I agree. If Trump starts to feel more cornered in the upcoming days and weeks and starts to play some cards that result in some unthinkable outcomes to others; yet we somehow get past it and he's reigned in; in effort to enact relevant reform measures at the highest levels, I can't help but feel it would be incumbent upon our nation to look to codify a process for the SCOTUS to expedite issues of grave national concern/urgency in a similar vein as the 25th, but for the Judicial branch.
It's interesting to consider how Grant and Trump both have had the most corrupt administrations in our nation's history; yet derived from origins that were diametric opposites. Grant might be considered the final book end of Presidents who were grounded in the ethos of the founding generation; let alone having to fully immerse himself in the "mud" of fixing THE central issue the founders were never able to contend with directly, namely slavery ... it's mind-blowing to contemplate what happens to a person psyche after issued so many orders that have resulted in so much death and destruction. Arguably even more impressive were his resolute efforts from the very moment AFTER Appomattox as the first leader in a position of power to enforce basic civil rights. There has not been President who's even come close since. However, while in office he always saw the best in people, yet failed to see the ill-intent lurking behind the scenes .... allowing for corruption to flourish again and again.
On the other hand, Trump avoided placing his life on the line for the nation and has likely made a career out of plowing through his father's money while scamming others. The nature of his corruption is probably far more associated with his distrust of everyone.
While it was certainly Grant's "fault" for allowing corruption to permeate his administration which ultimately placed him in financial ruin, his decision to write his memoirs while faced with a grueling battle with throat cancer preceding his death was to ensure his wife would not suffer the hardships he had inadvertently created is in stark contrast to what is likely dark and hollow motivations that have spurred Trump to leverage his position in the Oval Office for his own personal gain. Not emoluments re: Grant, but related and worth noting in light of Trump's related comments in recent days.
What might be the more stark comparison is how Trump is doing everything in his power to subtly re-ignite the embers that still linger in our nation's history with racism, while Grant was arguably even a far more boding figure than Lincoln in terms of the heavy lifting he was relentlessly engaged on this front.
Hahaaaaaaa yes bry confuses Ken's smarts with his tolerance. Tolerance when dealing with brys lack of intelligence.
<< so as the zone's smartest lawyer what do YOU think? >>
Ken's pretty up on shit, but you think if he was a lawyer you'd get a straight answer to any question posed ? Hahaahaaaa fuck no, you'd get some long winded 5 page legal brief bullshit that would leave you with more questions than you started out with. Still love reading Ken make these dope's head explode day after day.
Never been a crook like stump holding that office. Any other prez or administration pales in comparison.
<< placed him in financial ruin, his decision to write his memoirs while faced with a grueling battle with throat cancer preceding his death was to ensure his wife would not suffer the hardships he had inadvertently created >>
^^ God Bless Mark Twain for such favorable publishing rights, guaranteeing such fortunes ^^
Your Grant comments and all the back n forth bullshit with the right wingnuts here reminds me of a philosophy we need to hold dear -->>
“We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies.
Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.
The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”
- Abraham Lincoln
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: good at drinking water
https://twitter.com/TheDFShow
https://twitter.com/TheDFShow/status/1186011912934322176
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: jonaspond
You don't have to be able to
You don't have to be able to stomach the thought but just to be clear; nothing will happen to Trump. He will finish out this presidency and unless the GOP puts up another candidate he will most likely win 2020. The 2016 election should have taught us all a lesson. Discord has already been set on the dems side, which will only grow stronger and create more of a divide as the news cycles. Next summer will be a complete shit show - the likes we've never wanted to imagine.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: nebulous nelly
>How is this not seditious?<
Today's Republicans are only interested in the Constitution as a tool to advance their policy goals. Otherwise they have little use for, and limited understanding of the document.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Scott Schaffer
President Bone Spurs Orange
President Bone Spurs Orange Anus Tool Coward Liar M%#%fucker
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: long live the dead
Phony constitution
Phony constitution
Not Applicable to our beloved dictator
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: jeff
Anyone seen Marco Rubio
Anyone seen Marco Rubio around lately? Hahaha.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: he who was Crabneesh
If he wins in 2020 I will go
If he wins in 2020 I will go to Nevada & place a $100 bet that after that 2nd term he continues to be POTUS. I think that either congress will change the 2 term rule or he will hold on to office in some other way. I believe he wants to be President For Life.
While I do not like him:
He lies to the people, I didn't pay them hoes no money. I am the smartest guy around. Obama was born in Africa. etc.
He is a little sniveling bitch. He tries to come across like a bad ass mafia chief yet he constantly deflects criticism by shifting the blame to others, Obama did it. What about Hillary? The weak rather than do their own time ratted me out & i got sent to prison.
He is a coward & a bully. His pitiful wife has a campaign to stop bullying. You remember the statement grab them by the pussy? I think he is the biggest pussy of all.I think many people make $ off politics. Why not me? If I could get 1000 to 1 odds on my C-Note then maybe I would enjoy the whole thing more.
But maybe I would be no better than those who overlook his behavior in the name of their stock portfolio.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Rasputin O'Leary
Emoluments Clause - A totally
Emoluments Clause - A totally fake, phony, made up clause just added to the constitution by the do nothing Democrats in order to further harass a perfectly honest businessman - me
If he says it, amerika's asshole 40% will believe it
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: (~)};)StealYourFace
Crabneesh
Crabneesh
In that case you'll need a exit visa from California and entry visa into the United States of Trump...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: long live the dead
Lynch him
Lynch him
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Ausonius
"No Title of Nobility shall
"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"
Hard to see how all this brouhaha relates to the actual clause itself.
But then, that really isn't the point, is it?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: (~)};)StealYourFace
I smell troll...
I smell troll...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Ausonius
Clinton touted her
Clinton touted her involvement building the case for impeachment against former President Richard Nixon and lectured about the founding fathers including constitutional protections against a president “who would try to curry favor with foreign powers.”
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/lets-see-who-emerges-hillary-leaves-doo...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: New & Improved
>> Hard to see how all this
>> Hard to see how all this brouhaha relates to the actual clause itself. <<
C'mon Thom. The case against tRump (re:Doral) is very clear. You claim you don't really care, yet you roll out the Obama/Clinton examples as if you actually DO care. Which is it?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: nebulous nelly
>Hard to see how all this brouhaha relates to the actual clause itself. <
It is only difficult if you are illiterate.
e·mol·u·ment
/əˈmälyəmənt/
noun
plural noun: emoluments
a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: nebulous nelly
Thom, thanks for illustrating
Thom, thanks for illustrating my point for me...
Today's Republicans are only interested in the Constitution as a tool to advance their policy goals. Otherwise they have little use for, and limited understanding of the document.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees
But then, that really isn't
But then, that really isn't the point, is it?<<<
You KNOW what the point is, you cited it.
If you must distract and go "sideways" ....
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: That’s Nancy with the laughin’ face
Trump is so guilty- of course
Trump is so guilty- of course the GOP will not vote to convict...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/diplomat-who-raised-alarm-about...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: long live the dead
THO lol M
THO lol M
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Rasputin O'Leary
US Grant Niiiiiiiice
US Grant
Niiiiiiiice
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Thumbkinetic
Poor Thom
Poor Thom
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Johnny D
"All Republicans must
"All Republicans must remember what they are witnessing here - a lynching."
(The way things are going, they're gonna crucify me)
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Ken D.
"Phony Emoluments Clause" is
"Phony Emoluments Clause" is a pretty stupid statement (no shocker there), but in all fairness, no court has decided whether the type of conduct at issue (running a hotel frequented by foreign dignitaries) falls under the prohibition against accepting an "Emolument" as that term is used in the Constitution. A number of lawsuits were filed, but almost all of them ran into a brick wall on standing. In other words, the plaintiffs could not demonstrate how they were personally harmed by the conduct and how the court could redress the problem (assuming the conduct was in fact barred by the emolument clause) and the cases were thrown out before reaching the central question of whether the hotel operations violated the Constitution's prohibition on accepting emoluments .
However, one case brought by a rival hotel operator got a new lease on life in September when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's decision to throw out the lawsuit because of a lack of standing, opening the door for the case to be move forward and be resolved on the merits. The Second Circuit didn't make any decision on whether the conduct at issue fell within the scope of the emolument clause, but one of the judges on the three judge panel issued a dissent saying it didn't.
It will be interesting to see how it turns out, but something tells me the matter will not be finally resolved until after the election next year.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: good at drinking water
is it possible that GOP
is it possible that GOP-appointed judges might be a little "biased"?
You aren't writing a law review article, Ken.
Do you have an opinion or not?
I mean, Bryen considers you the smartest zoner (after Bryen), so as the zone's smartest lawyer:
what do YOU think?
Really. Most of us are good at elementary school math.
I know what a 5-4 decision of the supreme court means.
I am good at 2nd grade math.
5 beats 4.
Yay, GOP wins.
That said,
What do YOU think, Ken?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: good at drinking water
ps, I don't see the
ps, I don't see the Constitution saying that emoluments are bad only if someone can demonstrate personal harm:
"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"*
* copying and pasting from Thom, so this could be utter Bullshit, but assuming that is what the Constitution says:
where is the personal harm clause, Ken?
I know, I'm not a lawyer, or nearly as smart as bryen.
so help me out, OK?
What if I, a layman - or a patriotic American citizen - interpret that as meaning the President should not take money - or things of value - from foreign countries?
p.s.s.: They made Jimmy Carter sell his peanut farm!
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Localcountyline
I believe Carter sold the
I believe Carter sold the peanut farm because he knew it was the right and normal thing to do as President.
Trump owns a hotel in DC.
Foreign governments want to curry favor with President Trump, so they make it known to him that they are spending
a shitload of money to stay at said hotel.
President Trump then makes a shitload of money off of those foreign governments staying at the hotel.
Oh, right, Trump has no interest in the hotel anymore, all the money goes to the kids that are running it.
I'm glad you buy into this Thom. You should be in charge of Trump's presidential library.
Don't forget the book....
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees
I suspect the founding
I suspect the founding generation didn't look upon the emoluments clause through the lens of standing as an initial "ante".
https://lawandhistoryreview.org/article/thomas-jefferson-and-the-arabian-stallion-a-research-note-on-the-third-president-and-the-foreign-emoluments-clause/?fbclid=IwAR16iR7SeQOF10n9tHe1PBNtfr4LO1_gz-4_GtcyuvPQCP9sAn1iFyszMRM
but something tells me the matter will not be finally resolved until after the election next year<<<
Unfortunately, I agree. If Trump starts to feel more cornered in the upcoming days and weeks and starts to play some cards that result in some unthinkable outcomes to others; yet we somehow get past it and he's reigned in; in effort to enact relevant reform measures at the highest levels, I can't help but feel it would be incumbent upon our nation to look to codify a process for the SCOTUS to expedite issues of grave national concern/urgency in a similar vein as the 25th, but for the Judicial branch.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees
US Grant
US Grant
Niiiiiiiice<<<<
It's interesting to consider how Grant and Trump both have had the most corrupt administrations in our nation's history; yet derived from origins that were diametric opposites. Grant might be considered the final book end of Presidents who were grounded in the ethos of the founding generation; let alone having to fully immerse himself in the "mud" of fixing THE central issue the founders were never able to contend with directly, namely slavery ... it's mind-blowing to contemplate what happens to a person psyche after issued so many orders that have resulted in so much death and destruction. Arguably even more impressive were his resolute efforts from the very moment AFTER Appomattox as the first leader in a position of power to enforce basic civil rights. There has not been President who's even come close since. However, while in office he always saw the best in people, yet failed to see the ill-intent lurking behind the scenes .... allowing for corruption to flourish again and again.
On the other hand, Trump avoided placing his life on the line for the nation and has likely made a career out of plowing through his father's money while scamming others. The nature of his corruption is probably far more associated with his distrust of everyone.
While it was certainly Grant's "fault" for allowing corruption to permeate his administration which ultimately placed him in financial ruin, his decision to write his memoirs while faced with a grueling battle with throat cancer preceding his death was to ensure his wife would not suffer the hardships he had inadvertently created is in stark contrast to what is likely dark and hollow motivations that have spurred Trump to leverage his position in the Oval Office for his own personal gain. Not emoluments re: Grant, but related and worth noting in light of Trump's related comments in recent days.
What might be the more stark comparison is how Trump is doing everything in his power to subtly re-ignite the embers that still linger in our nation's history with racism, while Grant was arguably even a far more boding figure than Lincoln in terms of the heavy lifting he was relentlessly engaged on this front.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Rasputin O'Leary
<< bry considers you the
<< bry considers you the smartest zoner >>
Hahaaaaaaa yes bry confuses Ken's smarts with his tolerance. Tolerance when dealing with brys lack of intelligence.
<< so as the zone's smartest lawyer what do YOU think? >>
Ken's pretty up on shit, but you think if he was a lawyer you'd get a straight answer to any question posed ? Hahaahaaaa fuck no, you'd get some long winded 5 page legal brief bullshit that would leave you with more questions than you started out with. Still love reading Ken make these dope's head explode day after day.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Rasputin O'Leary
<< placed him in financial
Never been a crook like stump holding that office. Any other prez or administration pales in comparison.
<< placed him in financial ruin, his decision to write his memoirs while faced with a grueling battle with throat cancer preceding his death was to ensure his wife would not suffer the hardships he had inadvertently created >>
^^ God Bless Mark Twain for such favorable publishing rights, guaranteeing such fortunes ^^
Your Grant comments and all the back n forth bullshit with the right wingnuts here reminds me of a philosophy we need to hold dear -->>
“We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies.
Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.
The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”
- Abraham Lincoln
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 2 Room Shack
> You should be in charge of
> You should be in charge of Trump's presidential library.<
lol, snap
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: long live the dead
Snap
Snap
trump will shut down the government next
ass or class
any means necessary
continue to rape
deflect, defend, distroy