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: 21
26
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
To automatically assume a rich businessman, a BILLIONAIRE, takes money from foreign governments, is prejudice, and not a good one at that.


Yes it is actually a great premise. In Donald Trump's own words, per his book, there is never enough. He grew up in the era of 'greed is good' and the narcissitic 70's. It's a great premise.



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.


There is overwhelming evidence, as they DO stay at Trump properties...en masse. Seeing as he can withdraw monies from the trusts set up that he has decided not to fully divest, it is not inconceivable to forward that he himself is taking money from foreign governments.




posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Devino

Obama profited from selling his book while he was president. I'm sure many foreign citizens bought his book and therefore transferred emolument to him. The key is the emolument must come from foreign governmments, not from foreign private citizens.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

Can you name a foreign officer who stayed at his hotel? I'm aware prime minster Abe stayed at Mar a Lago, however he did not pay to stay there for a weekend.

globalnews.ca...
edit on 14-6-2017 by allsee4eye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
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.
I appreciate both of your replies, I even learned something new.

I thought there was a cash prize yet I remember Obama claiming he was going to donate all of it. I had assumed that was okayed by congress.

I looked it up, here is an article from the New York Times.

President Obama has made good on a promise to give his $1.4 million in Nobel Peace Prize money to charity, releasing on Thursday the names of the organizations that will benefit.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 11:41 AM
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.
I believe you have to show damages of some kind. I don't think you could sue for the murder of someone you never met nor had any connection with yet if the person murdered was financially supporting you that would be quite different.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
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.
Haven't some heads of foreign governments stayed at his hotels? It is listed in the OP.

After hiring staff and holding events to cater to foreign diplomats, the Embassy of Kuwait held an event at the hotel, switching its initial booking from the Four Seasons. Saudi Arabia, the destination of Trump’s first trip abroad, also booked rooms at the hotel through an intermediary on more than one occasion since Trump’s inauguration. Turkey held a state-sponsored event there last month. And in April, the ambassador of Georgia stayed at the hotel and tweeted his compliments. Trump himself has appeared at the hotel and greeted guests repeatedly since becoming president.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Devino

They stayed in off duty hours, not as representatives of their governments to Trump. If a policeman stays at a motel at night, that does not represent police endorsing that motel.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye
That seems like splitting hairs to me. I don't really know, perhaps a judge should look at it and decide.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye
I believe the lawsuit is about competing businesses losing money because people are choosing to stay in a Trump hotel or restaurant simply because he is president. This is how capitalism works except for the fact that Trump is now president. This is presumably where the Emoluments Clause comes in. This is not about impeachment it is about monetary damages and is a civil case.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.

That, and don't forget the new trendy Trump-supporter feature post... an invitation for those who disagree to grovel for absolution.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Devino

There is no proof of Trump DC hotel taking up more business than if Trump lost the election in 2016.

And, even if true, there's nothing unethical about it. Any businessman is free to run for president. Trump did in 2016, but not his hotel competitors in DC.
edit on 14-6-2017 by allsee4eye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: Devino

There is no proof of Trump DC hotel taking up more business than if Trump lost the election in 2016.
...and you know this, how? If there is no proof then why the lawsuits?


And, even if true, there's nothing unethical about it. Any businessman is free to run for president. Trump did in 2016, but not his hotel competitors in DC.
Does this mean you did not read the article in the opening post or that you do not understand the emoluments clause? Again see emoluments clause for the n'th time in this thread and please read the article.
D.C. and Maryland sue President Trump, alleging breach of constitutional oath
edit on 6/14/2017 by Devino because: added link



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Devino

Obama profited from selling his book while he was president. Are you telling me no foreign officer bought his book while he was president? The emoluments clause does not forbid foreign officers to send money to the president in an unofficial capacity, only if they are doing so representing the foreign government.

The emoluments clause forbids the president accepting emoluments from foreign governments. How can a president accept something if he does not know he got that thing? Obama didn't know when a foreign officer bought his book when he was president. Trump doesn't know when a foreign officer stays at his hotel when he is president. When the president doesn't know he got it, he does not accept it, and cannot be influenced with a favor. The keyword in the emoluments clause is accepting, not getting, emoluments from foreign governments. You cannot accept something if you don't know you got something. Obama didn't break the emoluments clause selling his book to foreign officers when he was president. Trump isn't breaking the emoluments clause selling his hotel rooms to foreign officers when he is president. Like I said, they didn't accept any emoluments from foreign governments because they don't know they got emoluments from foreign governments.
edit on 14-6-2017 by allsee4eye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Laughable. More liberal tripe that will fall flat on it's face, just as every other accusation they have invented.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

Your missing the point... Democrats dont care if foreign officials spend money at Trump properties. They only care so they can have something to try and impeach / prevent him from governing. Democrats already said they will drag the Russia bs out through the 2018 midterms.

Its not the fact they lost in 2016... That was bad enough but the fact Queen Clinton lost to the deplorable Donald Trump was the ultimate slap in the face. They cant accept that so they will do everything they can to impeach or prevent him from governing.

The butt-hurt is strong with the Dems... They seem to have forgotten that their hate will be their undoing.



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 08:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Devino

I believe it would have been an issue if he had intended to keep the amount, but since he never intended such, and did indeed donate it, it cannot be considered to be an issue, although you would have to look that up in specificity as well.



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: Devino

Obama profited from selling his book while he was president. I'm sure many foreign citizens bought his book and therefore transferred emolument to him. The key is the emolument must come from foreign governmments, not from foreign private citizens.
Obama also
Profited from the BP Oil spill as he had stick in BP Oil abs the fund management dumped it just prior to the spill. He was said to gain millions over a few years.



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

Obama profited from selling his book while he was president. Are you telling me no foreign officer bought his book while he was president? The emoluments clause does not forbid foreign officers to send money to the president in an unofficial capacity, only if they are doing so representing the foreign government.
This thread is not about Obama and even though it seems you have a very opinionated interpretation of the emoluments clause you do bring up a good point. I spent a little time reading about it today.

According to forbes.com Obama made around 20.8 million during his time as a senator and president, 2005-2016, 2/3rds of that from book royalties. He did get approval from the senate’s ethics committee for book royalties back in 2005 when he was a senator. I was unable to find proof of consent from congress for the book royalties during his presidency. I also failed to find any claims of conflict of interests or calls for impeachment over his book royalties during that time. Perhaps Obama was in violation of the emoluments clause for his book royalties and if so, why no criticism? Was it an oversight by congress?

I did find other criticisms you might like to read about.

Obama Barred Constitutionally From Accepting Nobel

Should Congress Impeach Obama for His Emoluments Clause Violations?

Here is the counter to the first article;
Does Obama need Congress' permission to get Nobel?


As far as your attempt to interpret “accept” and “get”, I don’t buy it. Trump could have put his company into a blind trust but he did not. Don’t expect sympathy over conflict of interests or emoluments clause violation criticisms now.

edit on 6/15/2017 by Devino because: added link



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

I believe it would have been an issue if he had intended to keep the amount, but since he never intended such, and did indeed donate it, it cannot be considered to be an issue, although you would have to look that up in specificity as well.
I also spent a little time reading about this.
Three presidents have received money from a Nobel Prize; Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Barak Obama. Roosevelt put the money in a trust waiting for congressional consent. It is unclear what Wilson did with his money or if he got consent and I do not think Obama got consent to accept the prize money but I don't think it was necessary.
Is the Nobel Foundation considered a foreign state?

the Nobel Prize is not awarded by a foreign government. Spokeswoman Kate Bedingfield gave us this statement: "The President is donating the money to charity. The statute cited does not apply because the gift is from the Nobel Foundation — a private foundation — not a foreign government. The President is free to do what he likes with the money, and he has chosen to donate it to charity.".
Politifact.com
It appears he did not need consent and he could have kept the money that he donated.


edit on 6/15/2017 by Devino because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

They are not even at a 50% for rooms. It is not like he is putting up lobbysits...



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join