It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Again, this is just something a member of Congress(probably the Black Caucus) will grab once again and try to use as an impeachable offense.
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.
a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
these STATE/DISTRICT ag's have nothing better to spend their state/district money on?
purely political lawsuit at the expense of md and dc taxpayers
good luck with your next elections state ag's
Never in the history of this country have we had a president with these kinds of extensive business entanglements, or a president who refused to adequately distance themselves from their holdings," said D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine in a news conference on Monday. "President Trump's business and his dealings violate the constitution's anti-corruption provisions."
In particular, the attorneys general declared that Mr. Trump's international hotel chain, among other international business interests, is a violation of the emoluments clause. "Foreign governments are spending money there (at the hotel in Washington) in order to curry favor with the president," Racine said.
The lawsuit was filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, the report said. "The president, above all other elected officials must have only the interest of Americans at the heart of every decision," said Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh.
originally posted by: ManFromEurope
Annddd this thread will be shot down by trmpbots, like so many where the topic isn't trump-friendly.
It will be gone in 2hrs, 4hrs tops, drained in "SOME (unknown beyond US-borders) DEMOCRAT DID SOMETHING!" threads, as usual.
Trmpbots, we know your spiel.
I think you should know that.
originally posted by: angeldoll
originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Ambulance-chasers looking for the big one.
Nope not ambulance chasers. Truth-seekers.
Let's see those tax returns, Big Shot!
Why Aren’t Donald Trump’s Epic Conflicts of Interest Illegal?
To find out answers to that and related inquiries, I did some research and also spoke to Richard Painter and Norman Eisen, the former top White House ethics counsels for George W. Bush (2005-2007) and Barack Obama (2009-2011). Here are the answers...
...Is there anything the public can do to protect itself right now?
Painter recommends that Congress pass a law right now that would require that when a President or his businesses have specific matters pending before a federal agency—like, say, an Internal Revenue Service audit, or a case before the National Labor Relations Board or the Securities and Exchange Commission, or a licensing issue before the Federal Communications Commission—that the matter must be decided by a career civil servant, rather than by a political appointee. (Trump has said that his taxes are currently under audit, and his hotels are also known to have active disputes with unions pending before the NLRB.) In the event that a White House official tried to intervene in any such matter, Painter continues, the bill he envisions would require the agency to notify the House and Senate oversight committees.Eisen would go further still. He believes that the Congress has the constitutional power to extend the existing conflicts of interest law to cover the President, and he thinks Congress should try to do so. "If the drafters of the conflicts law had foreseen something on this scale," he says, "they never would have exempted the President and Vice President."
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: allsee4eye
How about where you point out where Congress has approved these deals?
So you pretty much admit to using hyperbole and yet call me naive if I disagree.
Do you see the problem yet?
It was right there in the post you responded to. Look again.
You didn't bring a message. You brought a deflection.
originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Maybe you should understand that the only way anything can happen regarding these issues is with impeachment. This is grandstanding at its best.