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.

 

D.C. and Maryland to sue President Trump, alleging breach of constitutional oath

page: 16
26
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Trump is Right, Conflict-of-Interest Rules Don’t Apply to Him


Both the Vice President and President are exempt from federal rules that prohibit executive branch employees from participating in matters in which they have financial interests.

In fact, 18 U.S.C. Section 202 specifically states, as relating to Section 208 which deals with financial interests:

“Except as otherwise provided in such sections, the terms ‘officer’ and ’employee’ in sections 203, 205, 207 through 209, and 218 of this title shall not include the President, the Vice President, a Member of Congress, or a Federal judge.”




posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 05:22 PM
link   
The president can take emolument from a foreign government, he or she just cannot keep it. Let's say a foreign government stuffs 1 billion dollars into Trump's pocket. Trump then gives that to Treasury. So the foreign government loses 1 billion dollars for nothing. That's why no foreign government ever stuffs money into a president's pocket in the first place.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

Interesting. Thanks!



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

What about secretaries and directors and the attorney general? The way this is phrased makes it appear federal officers are exempted.
edit on 12-6-2017 by allsee4eye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

When the discussion breaks down to name calling then somebody is feeling insecure. I'd feel that way too if every anti-trump BS issue raised by my peers crashed and burned.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
This is the very reason presidents in the past have attempted to divorce themselves from any conflict of interests from the emoluments clause. Trump chose not to and now there are lawsuits. Did anyone not see this coming? I have a feeling this is just the beginning. Hopefully there will be a fair judgement so we can set precedence as to avoid problems like this in the future.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
The president can take emolument from a foreign government, he or she just cannot keep it.
Not without consent of the congress.

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.
Source
Besides does he have consent of the congress?



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Devino

The lawsuit is a double edged sword. If they succeed, they can boot Trump from the White House. If they fail, Trump would boost his popularity the way Bill Clinton did. They only get 1 chance, so they better think it through before they file the lawsuit.
edit on 12-6-2017 by allsee4eye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Devino
a reply to: Krazysh0t
This is the very reason presidents in the past have attempted to divorce themselves from any conflict of interests from the emoluments clause.


Did they?

I'm not sure that's true. Obama was still taking in a lot of royalty money from his books throughout both terms....millions even. And I am not able to find anything on how he dealt with/monitored the money from sales to ensure he took in nothing from foreign states.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Trump is Right, Conflict-of-Interest Rules Don’t Apply to Him


Both the Vice President and President are exempt from federal rules that prohibit executive branch employees from participating in matters in which they have financial interests.

In fact, 18 U.S.C. Section 202 specifically states, as relating to Section 208 which deals with financial interests:

“Except as otherwise provided in such sections, the terms ‘officer’ and ’employee’ in sections 203, 205, 207 through 209, and 218 of this title shall not include the President, the Vice President, a Member of Congress, or a Federal judge.”
The problem has to do with the emoluments clause not just financial interests. Your source claims no conflict of interest financially but what about accepting payment, or emoluments, from a foreign state? This does not appear to be simply a matter of financial interests.

From your Source.

Despite the ethic rule exemption, legal experts have pointed to a constitutional clause, which they say would cover President Trump when he takes office. The “Emoluments Clause,”



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: Devino

The lawsuit is a double edged sword. If they succeed, they can boot Trump from the White House. If they fail, Trump would boost his popularity the way Bill Clinton did. They only get 1 chance, so they better think it through before they file the lawsuit.
This lawsuit in particular is not about impeachment but otherwise I agree and I think it is much worse than that. This will set precedence for future presidents and VPs. This could have a huge impact on America!



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Devino

It seems that you have selectively quoted the source.


However, not all legal experts believe this clause applies to the President. “George Washington was not stupid or dishonest. He took diplomatic gifts and he didn’t ask for congressional consent and he didn’t get it. If he didn’t follow the Emoluments Clause, there is no reason to think President Trump has to either,” Seth Barrett Tillman, a lecturer at Maynooth University Department of Law told LawNewz.com in a recent interview.


Paying reasonable fees for a service to a business is not a gift.

Our forefathers never intended Presidency to be a lifetime career. Presidents throughout history have had businesses and property.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Devino
a reply to: Krazysh0t
This is the very reason presidents in the past have attempted to divorce themselves from any conflict of interests from the emoluments clause.


Did they?
I'm not sure that's true.
Donald Trump won’t do what Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush did

For the past 40 years, every president and presidential candidate who has had anything other than the most vanilla of investment portfolios — Barack Obama, who had most of his money in Treasury bonds, fell into that category — has put or has promised to put their assets into a blind trust to prevent any kind of conflict of interest between what's good for the country and what's good for their retirement.



Obama was still taking in a lot of royalty money from his books throughout both terms....millions even. And I am not able to find anything on how he dealt with/monitored the money from sales to ensure he took in nothing from foreign states.
Perhaps he got consent from congress or it otherwise did not violate the emoluments clause.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert

That is why many ethics and legal experts were saying he needed to put everything in to a blind trust, in order to create that degree of separation.



You would feel good about a *cough* blind trust situation?

Really? What kind of external oversight is there with a *blind* trust?

Seems like a gaping loophole, to me. But whatever...


You know what...you are right. I vaguely recall the years ago...the Cheney criticisms. As a matter of fact...there was a phrase called the Halliburton loophole because of VP Cheney!



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Devino

It seems that you have selectively quoted the source.


However, not all legal experts believe this clause applies to the President. “George Washington was not stupid or dishonest. He took diplomatic gifts and he didn’t ask for congressional consent and he didn’t get it. If he didn’t follow the Emoluments Clause, there is no reason to think President Trump has to either,” Seth Barrett Tillman, a lecturer at Maynooth University Department of Law told LawNewz.com in a recent interview.


Paying reasonable fees for a service to a business is not a gift.

Our forefathers never intended Presidency to be a lifetime career. Presidents throughout history have had businesses and property.

I left it out because this would be up to a judge to decide. I don't know the specifics but just because George Washington did it does not makes it right. I think a judge will look at the intent of the clause.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: The GUT
Hope springs eternal even for hypocritical and deceitful traitors I reckon. Gluttons for another smackdown. Bon appetit!

The special touch are the kind fellas displaying the handy messages to would be bribers for the Trump admin. Just some Americans doing their civic duty and helping out their President.



So as an American doing my civic duty, if I flashed a sign up on Barack Husane Obama's house of him being a Muslim dose that equate to it being true?
edit on 12-6-2017 by hillbilly4rent because: Forgotto space my words



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Devino

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Devino
a reply to: Krazysh0t
This is the very reason presidents in the past have attempted to divorce themselves from any conflict of interests from the emoluments clause.


Did they?
I'm not sure that's true.
Donald Trump won’t do what Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush did

For the past 40 years, every president and presidential candidate who has had anything other than the most vanilla of investment portfolios — Barack Obama, who had most of his money in Treasury bonds, fell into that category — has put or has promised to put their assets into a blind trust to prevent any kind of conflict of interest between what's good for the country and what's good for their retirement.



Obama was still taking in a lot of royalty money from his books throughout both terms....millions even. And I am not able to find anything on how he dealt with/monitored the money from sales to ensure he took in nothing from foreign states.
Perhaps he got consent from congress or it otherwise did not violate the emoluments clause.


Obviously it would be public record if he sought and got some kind of permission from Congress. I don't see that ever happened. I can find that he asked Congress about the Nobel Prize money....not his book royalty money though.

And how can anyone declare that no foreign state member ever purchased one of his books? I find the notion ridiculous. Was anyone concerned?

Does the Emoluments Clause apply to senators? I mean, Obama was a Senator before he was President.


The Audacity of Hope is Barack Obama's call for a new kind of politics a politics that builds upon those shared understandings that pull us together as Americans.

Link

That sounds very much like Obama used his position in government to earn money. You can guarantee no member of a foreign state government ever purchased one of his books? And what about the Domestic Emoluments Clause? Did any public school ever purchase his books?

What was the oversight regarding Obama's books sales?

Do people only care about the Emoluments Clause now in reaction to Trump's election? I despise the reactionary application of any law as much as the partisan/selective application of them.

I am interested NOT as a partisan, but with regard to the equal application of the law. No one should be suddenly concerned with the Emoluments Clause if they weren't when Obama was selling his book for eight years, as president, and before then as a senator.


edit on 12-6-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Devino

Doing business, business that he has always done, is not the same as accepting gifts. There would also need to be proof that he gave something in exchange.

This is a partisan attack. It is an attempt to take Trump down, but also to discourage other businessmen from running for office. There are some who only want bought and paid for politicians in that office.

One way you can tell this is purely a partisan attack...
The Clintons, whose entire income was rooted in their political connections, came out millions richer when Bill left office, and grew even richer when it was believed Hillary might be President.
They used a "charity" with documented corruption issues to get rich.
This same charity pretty much closed down when Hillary lost.
And.... not a peep about corruption there?


edit on 6/12/17 by BlueAjah because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Basically, this would reinforce and entrench the idea that only professional politicians ever better dare to set themselves up to try to rule the "peasant" class. Citizen legislators need not apply. You will either be a career "servant" of the people (their professional better) or you better not even think about having those aspirations.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert

That is why many ethics and legal experts were saying he needed to put everything in to a blind trust, in order to create that degree of separation.



You would feel good about a *cough* blind trust situation?

Really? What kind of external oversight is there with a *blind* trust?

Seems like a gaping loophole, to me. But whatever...


You know what...you are right. I vaguely recall the years ago...the Cheney criticisms. As a matter of fact...there was a phrase called the Halliburton loophole because of VP Cheney!


It sounds like it's We, the People, who are expected to 'blindly trust.'




top topics



 
26
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join