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: 20
26
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Any lawsuit requires evidence. You can't just sue Trump for breaking the emoluments clause by saying he must have taken emoluments because that's what I think businessmen must do when they are president. It doesn't work like that. Personal opinion is not evidence. If you want to sue, you have to provide how much, where, when, from who.




posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Have you ever heard of the concept "innocent until proven guilty"?

Do you understand that the burden of proof lies with the accuser?
edit on 13-6-2017 by Excallibacca because: Missed the "s" in "understand"



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
Any lawsuit requires evidence. You can't just sue Trump for breaking the emoluments clause by saying he must have taken emoluments because that's what I think businessmen must do when they are president. It doesn't work like that. Personal opinion is not evidence. If you want to sue, you have to provide how much, where, when, from who.


In this country, our country, you can sue anyone for anything you like at any time. Whether or not a judge will find sufficient evidence to litigate it is another question, but you CAN sue anyone you like with absolutely no evidence.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: Krazysh0t

hahaha followed-up with a tweet "Total vindication at today's nothingsuit. Enjoy!"


Yep then a whole slew of threads of conservatives high fiving and back patting each other over their strawman.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Excallibacca
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Have you ever heard of the concept "innocent until proven guilty"?

Do you understand that the burden of proof lies with the accuser?

Sure have. Now would you care to explain what "innocent" or "guilty" has to do with this lawsuit that isn't criminal in nature?



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Are you people ever gonna give this bull# up? Every single time you try this garbage it just blows up in your face, yet you continue banging away at it thinking you're some sort of virtuous crusaders.

Y'all need to move on. Trump won, our country is finally recovering from the rut Obama got us into and for some reason you just can't accept that because you don't like the way he conducts himself.

Acting like this is what got him elected in Nov. and it's what's going to get him elected again.

Keep it up, you're further solidifying your place in American history as blind, stammering, whiney morons



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 02:55 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: GlassToTheArson
Are you people ever gonna give this bull# up?
What do you mean "you people"? You mean Americans? What are we supposed to give up, America? How dare Americans expect the president to follow the constitution of the United States!


Y'all need to move on. Trump won, our country is finally recovering from the rut Obama got us into and for some reason you just can't accept that because you don't like the way he conducts himself.
What "rut"? My stocks have never looked better, thanks Obama. Trump does act like an idiot but that's okay as he is not the first. It sure does make for interesting news.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Attention!!!


This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!


All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.
No whining.
No bickering.
No name-calling.

Go After the Ball, Not the Player!

and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!
edit on Tue Jun 13 2017 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

Sure you can. I can sue you for murdering someone with no evidence. Doesn't mean the courts will take up the suit.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm calling BS because on the first page you respond to a poster saying that how does he know it isn't true jusf because he believes so.

Which the statement is proof in and of itself that you haven't yourself seen any proof whatsoever otherwise you would have told him why it isn't true instead of asking him how do he know it isn't true, so with that said

How do you know that it is true, because you believe so?
edit on 13-6-2017 by omniEther because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: alphabetaone

Sure you can. I can sue you for murdering someone with no evidence. Doesn't mean the courts will take up the suit.


Right. I agree with you, but you said specifically "You can't just sue Trump for..." which is specifically what I was addressing. Why you're repeating though what I have already asserted confuses me a bit.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

You have a point. Anyone can sue anything, but without evidence it will likely not be taken up by a judge. That's what I meant.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 05:26 PM
link   
So the DC Attorney General was a huge Clinton donor... not surprising.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Devino

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Devino

This is talking about excepting a position or a title. For example a president can't be knighted unless congress approved. Has nothing to do with money or gifts.
Look up "Emoluments".



This is what I found.

What is the ‘Emoluments Clause’? Does it apply to President Trump?




It is 49 words in Article I of the Constitution.

“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.”


www.washingtonpost.com... _story.html?utm_term=.0c67245cd27e

Did congress give the OK for obama to accept the Nobel PP?



edit on 6 13 2017 by burgerbuddy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Nobel PP is not awarded by a foreign government. There was an article about Obama asking Congress if he can take it and Congress determined it's fine because it's not from a foreign government.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 03:56 AM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Indeed, allsee4eye is correct.

Because the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by an international body, which swears fealty to no one nation or government, and because it is not a cash prize, but an acknowledgement of achievement, it is not possible to consider it an Emolument under the clause as it is written. You will note that it is not awarded by any king, prince, or a foreign state. It also does not bestow any office, title or other similar thing, simply recognises a persons efforts to achieve peace in a given region or globally.

Obviously, there were far greater problems with Obama being awarded that particular prize, than whether congress would agree to it. Frankly speaking, he did not earn it. But that is another discussion entirely.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 06:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: omniEther
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm calling BS because on the first page you respond to a poster saying that how does he know it isn't true jusf because he believes so.

Which the statement is proof in and of itself that you haven't yourself seen any proof whatsoever otherwise you would have told him why it isn't true instead of asking him how do he know it isn't true, so with that said

How do you know that it is true, because you believe so?

What the heck...? The reason I said he doesn't know if it is true is because he didn't. That doesn't mean I know it is false either.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 06:44 AM
link   
To automatically assume a rich businessman, a BILLIONAIRE, takes money from foreign governments, is prejudice, and not a good one at that. There is no evidence Trump has taken money from foreign governments. Independent investigators investigate Trump every single day and they couldn't find a shred of evidence.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Devino

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Devino

This is talking about excepting a position or a title. For example a president can't be knighted unless congress approved. Has nothing to do with money or gifts.
Look up "Emoluments".



This is what I found.

What is the ‘Emoluments Clause’? Does it apply to President Trump?




It is 49 words in Article I of the Constitution.

“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.”


www.washingtonpost.com... _story.html?utm_term=.0c67245cd27e

Did congress give the OK for obama to accept the Nobel PP?


I was replying to Dragonridr's post.

This is talking about excepting a position or a title. For example a president can't be knighted unless congress approved. Has nothing to do with money or gifts.
I asked him to look up the word "Emoluments" not the clause. I assume we all have read the clause yet the word emoluments is an old word many don't know which means "a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office."




top topics



 
26
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join