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.

 

Um, nope, Donald Trump has not broken the Emoluments clause

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 07:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: masterofuniverse
So this most common argument is that the ICBC bank is renting a space in the Trump Tower. While it is true that ICBC is majority owned by the Chinese state, it is not a state owned enterprise since it is not 100% owned by the Chinese state


Are you implying that if a state owned entity sells 1% to a private holder it is immune to suffering emoluments upon Trump for favorable benefits therein? Is the emoluments clause there just as a flimsy paper rule that is easy to circumvent?

For those Trump supports in the thread, could you please describe to me the type of precipitating action you believe would trigger the Emoluments clause?

I'm having trouble understanding if there is any condition that would seem so unpalatable that ardent supporters would even balk.




posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

The Emoluments clause says a federal employee cannot receive emoluments from a foreign state. Is the ICBC bank part of the Chinese state? It is not a state owned enterprise. It is a public company.



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: FelisOrion
Forget that nonsense. I would like to know the sycophants thoughts on Donald Trump hosting a dinner for the prime minister of Japan. You know, that hotel... where private citizens are free to run about and take pictures of him, and the guy that holds the nuclear codes? Oh no this happened. A private citizen snapped a picture with the man holding the nuke codes and put it on facebook.

How do you feel about that? Do believe that is compromising to National security? LIke Hilary's private email server? I was just curious, since you guys were like, .... patriots and all that. Or do the rules change for your supreme leader?


THen start a thread on it, and quit hijacking this one.



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: FelisOrion

Navy Signal Corps.

Flying true colors I see.




posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: rickymouse

Out of the proverbial frying pan and into the fire, eh? That's exactly what the dumbo Congressional Democrats are pushing for with their lame Impeach Trump initiative.

Pence would make Democrats long for the good-ole days of Trump.



Yup. Pence seems to be very conservative.



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 10:56 AM
link   
why do people speculate and try to guess what the founding fathers intent was for the emoluments clause,why don`t you just look back in history starting with the first president to see what their intent was.The founding fathers were still alive when the first few presidents served,george Washington was a plantation owner and a businessman before,during and after he was president, so he would be a great example to look at to determine what the founding fathers intent for the emoluments clause was.
edit on 14-2-2017 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: FelisOrion

Wow. No stars...even on here....i will send you some good energy dude. Have you considered maybe meditating once in a while? Love and peace.k
edit on 14-2-2017 by Enderdog because: typo




top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join