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.
“The clear weight of the evidence shows that an ‘emolument’ was commonly understood by the founding generation to encompass any ‘profit,’ ‘gain,’ or ‘advantage,’” Messitte wrote.
He also said emoluments include “profits from private transactions, even those involving services given at fair market value.”
originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Kharron
“The clear weight of the evidence shows that an ‘emolument’ was commonly understood by the founding generation to encompass any ‘profit,’ ‘gain,’ or ‘advantage,’” Messitte wrote.
He also said emoluments include “profits from private transactions, even those involving services given at fair market value.”
That's a complete lie and Reuters is making that up.
The founding generation meant for an 'emolument" to be any kind of gift from a foreign government that could be taken as a bribe that would/could effect government decisions.
Where's the proof that Trump's doing any foreign government favors in exchange for money based on his policies? Hillary Clinton's another story, she needs the money, Trump doesn't. Trump's only using the presidency to perform a public service until he can get back to running his businesses. The Clintons are the ones who have turned their government service into a self profiting enterprise.
nless coveUred by an effective protective order, documents resulting from the discovery process and to be used as evidence in court are public documents. They don't need to be it is not a leakeaked, and when they are made public, as the llaw requires, it is not a leak. I understand, though, why 45 would want to lie and call it one.
originally posted by: Bramble Iceshimmer
a reply to: Kharron
I
You can bet that a few minutes after they get their hands on Trumps and his organizations financial documents they will br mysteriously leaked to the media.
originally posted by: Kharron
originally posted by: rollanotherone
a reply to: Kharron
For someone who claims to dislike both sides, you sure do focus ALOT of attention on Trump.
And? Who is in charge of every part of the government and is making the news for corruption pretty much daily?
originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Kharron
Heres the hang up.
1st: its a civil lawsuit. Not a federal one.
2nd: The emoulments clause only applies if its NEW WEALTH not payments that were already going on before he was elected.
3rd: Ownership was given to someone else so HE is not liable for it. SImiliar to papa johns firing papa john. He is no longer responsible for what the company does.
originally posted by: toysforadults
finally, this is going to bring Trump down!!
YEESSSSS!!
then we can get back to open borders, socialism and suiciding America
A federal appeals court on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit that challenged the legality of payments to President Donald Trump’s hotels by foreigners during his tenure in the White House. A three-judge panel in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that Maryland and the District of Columbia do not have legal standing to claim that Trump violated the so-called emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution.
originally posted by: Kharron
originally posted by: rollanotherone
a reply to: Kharron
For someone who claims to dislike both sides, you sure do focus ALOT of attention on Trump.
And? Who is in charge of every part of the government and is making the news for corruption pretty much daily?
originally posted by: F4guy
originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Kharron
Heres the hang up.
1st: its a civil lawsuit. Not a federal one.
2nd: The emoulments clause only applies if its NEW WEALTH not payments that were already going on before he was elected.
3rd: Ownership was given to someone else so HE is not liable for it. SImiliar to papa johns firing papa john. He is no longer responsible for what the company does.
It most certainly is a federal case. It is District of Columbia et al v Trump, U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, No. 17-01596. A U.S. District Court is a federal court established by Article III of the Constitution.
The emoluments clause makes no distinction about payments "that were already going on."
Finally, he most certainly did not transfer the ownership of the company. He gave up management, but not ownership.The money made by the business still goes in his pocket.
originally posted by: Pyle
originally posted by: projectvxn
So the suit is because Trump is rich and did/does rich people things?
Neat.
This ought to go somewhere.
Does rich people things that are possibly counter to the constitution, which is why the case is proceeding.
originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
originally posted by: F4guy
originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Kharron
Heres the hang up.
1st: its a civil lawsuit. Not a federal one.
2nd: The emoulments clause only applies if its NEW WEALTH not payments that were already going on before he was elected.
3rd: Ownership was given to someone else so HE is not liable for it. SImiliar to papa johns firing papa john. He is no longer responsible for what the company does.
It most certainly is a federal case. It is District of Columbia et al v Trump, U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, No. 17-01596. A U.S. District Court is a federal court established by Article III of the Constitution.
The emoluments clause makes no distinction about payments "that were already going on."
Finally, he most certainly did not transfer the ownership of the company. He gave up management, but not ownership.The money made by the business still goes in his pocket.
Can you cite where in the constitution it states a president must divest himself of all properties and businesses ?
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.
originally posted by: network dude
originally posted by: Pyle
originally posted by: projectvxn
So the suit is because Trump is rich and did/does rich people things?
Neat.
This ought to go somewhere.
Does rich people things that are possibly counter to the constitution, which is why the case is proceeding.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!