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.

 

Now That Trump Is President...

page: 4
113
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 02:32 PM
link   
EVERYONE loves a .45....

edit on 20-1-2017 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Still not a fan of your new president, yes? You will be... it may never be publicly admitted by you, but you'll be a closet Trumper by year's end.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

well posted
I agree



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

From your link...




Trump’s lawyer said earlier this month that’s not a violation of the emoluments clause because that applies to gifts, not business transactions like renting a hotel room.

Some ethics experts are unconvinced by that argument



Note the ' some ethics experts' portion of the passage. The truth is, is that it isn't up to some experts, It's up to the House and Senate. And it could ultimately come down to the SCOTUS. Let's say Trump angers GOP bigwigs, and they decide to impeach him on that clause. Trump's lawyers immediately file an appeal with the SCOTUS. They then must issue a ruling before the Senate can begin a trial. It's doubtful that ruling would be against Trump, since no gifts changed hands, and he has legitamate business interests. So keep dreaming, that's all your side has left



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Once again, you seem to have a problem distinguishing the difference between Opinion Editorial pieces from reports of newsworthy events.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t



Just fyi. Impeachment qualifications are vague at best. We are going to need Republican support to move forward with any impeachment proceedings.


Like I said, Trump made a LOT of enemies along the campaign trail, many of them powerful and respectable Republicans. Once they get their ducks in row, there will be a pay back. Mark my words. And, like I said, impeachment doesn't have to end in removal from office. Embarrassment, censure and a little preverbal erectile dysfunction.

It will be an uphill battle, because no one has ever so blatantly defied or challenged the Emolument Clause, but his business ties do need to be challenged. Since Trump has so many businesses around the globe, most likely he will be challenged in a piecemeal, but continuous stream of accusations, in my opinion.

As far as proving he violated the Logan Act, that's some drawn out "Watergate" #e we're looking at!



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Once again, you seem to have a problem distinguishing the difference between Opinion Editorial pieces from reports of newsworthy events.


And it seems you prove your accusations with propaganda.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Arizonaguy

The "Emolument Clause" isn't only about gifts. It's about receiving payments for goods and services too.


Emolument

The profit arising from office, employment, or labor; that which is received as a compensation for services, or which is annexed to the possession of office as salary, fees, and perquisites. Any perquisite, advantage, profit, or gain arising from the possession of an office
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

It's pretty clear wording in the Constitution. There is little soubt in my mind that you're grasping at straws



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

I would wager the justice dept will be too busy with the clinton foundation to focus on the potus



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

About the RESPECTED RINOSs..WE have their number...they play ball or we remove THEM from the equasion as we have JUST done.
OLD money is faltering and the great American wall of these oligarchs is crumbling as we speak




posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


Again, you have confused published editorial opinion with government propaganda. These two things are not the same.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Yeah, but many of those Republicans have also turned around and fallen in lock step with the rest of their party. I still think there is more merit in trying to wait and build a case rather than just rushing in now that he's President.

This article from Huffpo explains the process that happened under Nixon and why slow and steady lets you give room for the President to hang himself.
Impeaching Trump

What’s needed is a citizens’ impeachment inquiry, to begin on Trump’s first day in office.

The inquiry should keep a running dossier, and forward updates at least weekly to the House Judiciary Committee. There will be no lack of evidence.

The materials should be made public via a website. The inquiry should be conducted by a distinguished panel whose high-mindedness and credentials are, well, unimpeachable.

There needs to be a parallel public campaign, pressing for an official investigation. For those appalled by Trump, who wonder where to focus their efforts, here is something concrete―and more realistic than it may seem.



There will be a lot more once Trump takes office. Trump will make grievous mistakes. If we are lucky, they will be political and policy mistakes, not the sort of nuclear miscalculation that leaves the planet a cinder. If the blunders and assaults against the Constitution are serious enough, even Republicans in the House, which needs to originate an impeachment inquiry, will begin having second thoughts.



It’s worth recalling the Nixon chronology. In two years, the idea of impeaching Nixon went from loony-left fantasy, to mainstream, to inevitable.

On May 9, 1972—before the Watergate break-in―my former boss, Congressman William Fitts Ryan of Manhattan, submitted the first resolution to impeach Nixon, H.Res. 975, mainly for the illegal bombing of Cambodia, other war crimes, and spying against American citizens.

The break-in occurred in June 1972. Woodward and Bernstein got busy that summer and fall. The Senate Watergate Committee did not start hearings until May 1973, and the official House impeachment inquiry only began in May 1974. It took time for evidence, public pressure, and political courage to build. Nixon finally resigned in August 1974, more than two years after the break-in.

In October 1973, when removing Nixon from office still seemed a fantasy, the ACLU’s Chuck Morgan published a book-length bill of particulars urging Nixon’s impeachment. It bore a remarkable resemblance to the eventual Articles of Impeachment nearly a year later.

Nixon was a vile president with a creepy personality, but he was also a student of history and a serious person. In the end, even Nixon acceded to court orders to turn over evidence.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: windword




Again, you have confused published editorial opinion with government propaganda. These two things are not the same.


I never mentioned government propaganda. The man requested proof for your claims, you offered up editorial opinion, or according to fake news checker, propaganda as proof.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Yes, the admonition of presidential emoluments is clearly in the US Constitution.

I would expect Trump's lawyers to defend his actions. That doesn't make him innocent.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I provided proof of my claims, which were Trump is under federal investigation, he may have violated the Logan Act, and he's is in violation of the Emolument Clause.

The fact that his DC Hotel is currently housing foreign emissaries is a violation of the Emolument Clause. Trump's promise to donate profits gained from foreign dignitary guests doesn't fix his problem, as his hotel revenue in "fungible". In other words, the money from fees paid by foreign dignitaries may cover payroll, benefiting Trump's business' bottom line, therefore benefiting Donald Trump.

ETA: Opinion and propaganda are two different things. The article I linked was an OPED piece.





edit on 20-1-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's funny, because Nixon wrote Trump a letter, after he saw him interviewed on TV, and told him if he ran for president he would win. Trump is putting that letter up in the Oval Office, as soon as he moves in!

He certainly emulates Nixon's' "If the president does it, it's not against the law" attitude!



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

you are correct

just do not see it happening the way you describe
i do not think the establishment gop diehards have either the spine or the stomach to oppose trump, they have to get re- elected after all



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

He broke laws?



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Maverick1
Well his acceptance speech was his first act as President....and he knocked it out of the park. That one will go down as one of the greatest speeches ever.


You mean the part about making America great again? Didn't see that coming.

Or the part where he trolled us with the subtle, semi-rick roll? 1:10:12





top topics



 
113
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join