It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

According to GWB's Ethics Attorney - Trump will be violating the constitution from day one

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 12:16 AM
link   
I don't think Trump has ever publicly stated that he plans to put his assets/business interests in a blind trust. He's got until inauguration to do so because he's already engaged in unconstitutional activities due to his businesses.

www.democracynow.org...



+5 more 
posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: SeekingAlpha

So you want us to take ethics lessons from the guy who was or is the Ethics Attorney for Bush!

Are you serious!

Bush .... Ethics ... those two don't go together.

P



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 12:34 AM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358

I agree! I voted for bush jr and now say Bush is turd. That whole family is bad news. Fake republicans. These are Self serving Globalists



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358


If we believe Mk ultra was a documented truth, and that David Ike when he lays off shape changing lizards starts to make sense. Then anything to do with the Bushes is suspect. www.youtube.com...


edit on 29-12-2016 by anonentity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: SeekingAlpha

From your link


Could Donald Trump be in violation of the Constitution on his first day in office? That’s the conclusion of some leading constitutional law experts. The Constitution prohibits officeholders from accepting " any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state. " Law experts say many of Trump’s businesses are already benefiting from his presidency. 


So he himself just needs to not accept any gifts, titles or payments from foreign governments. A hotel is not our president, last time I checked.



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 12:39 AM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358

YES Bush-Bin Laden Saudi ties -
hahaha - ethics? I think not



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 12:40 AM
link   
What does this expert say about Hillary's ethics?

Fair question.



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Most really rich people have holdings in many companies, both here and abroad. There has to be some middle ground.

Check the stock portfolios of our Senators and past presidents, especially the ones in their kids and spouses or siblings names. Or their parents name. There has always been and will always be family financial conflicts that violate these rules, just because the businesses are not directly in the president's name does not mean that there is no conflict of interest. Bush's father had strong ties to Saudi Arabia. Now campaign contributions Hillary recieved in her fund from the Saudis also constitutes a conflict of interest.

They cheat all the time, It is just the way the president cheats that is the issue. Seems you got to make sure lawyers handle it correctly, lawyer interests write the laws.



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: SeekingAlpha

Actually I think he did state publicly that he'd put his businesses in to a blind trust before becoming president.

Although there is some debating on whether he'll actually do it and whether it will really be considered a true blind trust. But I'm pretty sure that he has said he would do it.

It was the topic of discussion more than once in the media and elsewhere.



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 12:52 AM
link   
a reply to: SeekingAlpha

From Democracy Now... LMAO

Read your link again... once again it's crap.


President-elect Donald Trump is perfectly entitled to retain his business holdings, and to permit his adult children to run those businesses, as a means of avoiding conflicts-of-interest during his presidency. The Constitution does not require him to divest his holdings, nor do other federal laws.

Although many previous presidents have chosen to put their personal holdings in a “blind trust,” this was not required and in Trump’s case such a requirement would be particularly iniquitous. Trump could not simply liquidate his holdings in the public securities markets at market prices. He would have to find buyers for a vast array of real estate holdings and ongoing businesses. Each of those potential buyers would be well aware of his need to sell, and to sell quickly, and the value of his holdings would be discounted.

In addition, of course, the Trump Organization is a family business, as it has been since the time of Trump’s father. Most of his children are employed in that business. Neither law nor logic require Trump to pull the rug out from under them. A newly elected president is simply not required to make such personal sacrifices as the price of assuming an office to which he was constitutionally elected.


All he needs to do is put his children in charge of his holdings.


Permitting his children to take over day-to-day management of the Trump businesses is a reasonable means of addressing potential and actual conflicts of interest that may arise. It may be necessary or advisable for them to avoid a particular deal, or even to sell a particular property, if it appears that a genuine conflict is involved, but that can be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

This is, in fact, how previous administrations have dealt with the one, actual limit the Constitution imposes on a president’s personal financial activities: the prohibition on taking any “emoluments” from foreign countries. There is no reason the Trump administration cannot follow this rule.


Linky

So once again a poop article from a source that doesn't understand the Constitution but instead tried to redefine it.

This is from the people who brought us such classic hits as "Hillary by a landslide", "We won the popular vote". "Let's do a recount!!!" to "Liberal HollyTards beg you to change the Electoral Vote!!" to now "Let's impeach him for breathing!!!"

You're funny, I have to give you that.



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 01:27 AM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358

Sheeeeeet..... Dubya is a bonafide expert on unethics, corruption and unconstitutional activities. Since (I think) this is the first time 'he' is finally commenting on the election (that I've noticed anyways) we might ought to listen!



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 01:37 AM
link   
You know what, I'll tell ya, I hope Trump does live up to boosting Murkia in so many of the ways that he says he intends to, and manages to get past the NWO cartel frontmen (Congress) while also eases this Social Group Warfare (SGW) agenda the NWO has Murika running hot with of late, to the shame of the NWO and their frontmen.

Well I hope that in any case... Trump laid out numerous anti-corruption measures in his 1st 100 pact, which he should be able to handle mostly be executive order... so assuming he sets those in motion AND does at least a decent job in getting Murika on a better track WHILE embarrassing the shi'ite out of Congress thus pissing them off to no end...

Then I hope he does do some moves that he banks off of, say $1.67B, or whatever. And then I want to see the Congress go and as payback enact their own anti-corruption bill(s) that forces him to pay the stuff back. I want to see them do it after he leaves office, which then means other retroactive fines / justice will be on the table, along with new measures to block metrics of corruption from incoming politicians. And then we'll see a new multi-front anti-corruption in DC reality take hold, and all the little people (at least) might live happier ever after...



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 01:50 AM
link   
a reply to: PlasticWizard That is the 13th Admendment



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 05:30 AM
link   
According to Bush, " The constitution is just a piece of paper." But now it should be used against Trump? LOL!



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 05:41 AM
link   
a reply to: SeekingAlpha

Welcome to the new Pence theocracy. Which IMO was the plan all along. They couldn't get the votes without Donald but he will back out of it or be impeached and Pence will usher in the new United States of Christ.

That's my prediction at least.



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 06:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: PlasticWizard
a reply to: SeekingAlpha

From your link


Could Donald Trump be in violation of the Constitution on his first day in office? That’s the conclusion of some leading constitutional law experts. The Constitution prohibits officeholders from accepting " any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state. " Law experts say many of Trump’s businesses are already benefiting from his presidency. 


So he himself just needs to not accept any gifts, titles or payments from foreign governments. A hotel is not our president, last time I checked.


Trump violated that law when he suggested to foreign dignitaries that they stay at his hotel while in NY.



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyingFox

He wouldn't have to say anything. Republicans would already have a tribunal with illegal charges and crucified a woman. Trump can kill and get by with it. The anti Christ told us so



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 07:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: SeekingAlpha

So you want us to take ethics lessons from the guy who was or is the Ethics Attorney for Bush!

Are you serious!

Bush .... Ethics ... those two don't go together.

P


Not only that, but an ethics attorney working for one of the bluest blooded of Republican families who was very prominently open about NOT ever supporting Trump, not matter what, not even Jeb! who stood on the stage and pledged to support the Republican nominee?

You know ... because that's the word of a Republican family *I* would totally trust. Oh, and not only that, but they have close personal ties with the Cintons too.



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyingFox

It would be a fair question if Hillary had been elected president. But since she's not you're just deflecting off topic.



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: PlasticWizard
a reply to: SeekingAlpha

From your link


Could Donald Trump be in violation of the Constitution on his first day in office? That’s the conclusion of some leading constitutional law experts. The Constitution prohibits officeholders from accepting " any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state. " Law experts say many of Trump’s businesses are already benefiting from his presidency. 


So he himself just needs to not accept any gifts, titles or payments from foreign governments. A hotel is not our president, last time I checked.



Did Hillary accept any gifts or payments from foreign governments while she was SoS? Was the money laundered through the Clinton Foundation?



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join