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.

 

Trump claims he is victim of "phony emoluments"clause

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2019 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: thedigirati

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: xuenchen
How does anything Trump gives away become a gift to Trump ? πŸ˜ƒ



Well although an entirely different scheme; something akin to Trump raising charity money through a charitable organization, then commanding that organization to donate the funds to himself, essentially.

Or similarly accepting donations for charity which are then filed under his personal charitable givings, so he can essentially get the charitable tax write-off benefits from other peoples charity money.

Would be two examples therein.


You got those from the Clinton foundation didn't you??

it's ok to admit it

"accuse others of what you are doing"

yep we read it too...


Uh, I'm not familiar with the Clinton foundation except in passing description on the news. Those just came from the creative furrows of my mind.

Are you saying you've read the Clinton Foundation's website and literature that thoroughly, and have found evidence that the scenario's I've posited were first described by them? If so at the very least I'm warmed by the though you would devote so much time to Clinton writings.




posted on Oct, 21 2019 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen




How does anything Trump gives away become a gift to Trump ?

Because he wasn't giving it away he was doing it at cost , not a bad idea for a resort that's not doing so well.



posted on Oct, 21 2019 @ 03:42 PM
link   
A reply to: tinner07

Unless I'm mistaken, The Doral and Mar a Lago are two separate resorts, yes, both owned by the Trump organization, but not the same at all.



Kind of hard to take you seriously when you can't even get the details of what you're outraged about correct.
edit on 21-10-2019 by jadedANDcynical because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2019 @ 03:53 PM
link   
It's saving taxpayers money but it is an ethics situation. If he was not President the place would not make the list of vendors. The vendors actually do make money off it and that money (some of it) goes back into the economy. I would rather a vendor get the job and earn the coin in full. It's better long term for the economy. Otherwise, the savings is not savings at all. It goes back in the Federal budget and goes up in flames.



posted on Oct, 21 2019 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Don't claim to be a constitutionalist if you don't support the document in its entirety. Including the parts that may seem inconvenient to you because of your political bias.

It's not the bible, you can't just pick and choose the parts you want. Either you support the constitution, or you don't.
edit on 21-10-2019 by underwerks because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2019 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
Don't claim to be a constitutionalist if you don't support the document in its entirety. Including the parts that may seem inconvenient to you because of your political bias.

It's not the bible, you can't just pick and choose the parts you want. Either you support the constitution, or you don't.



When you are the "chosen one" the constitution doesn't apply to you. It's in the bible!!



posted on Oct, 21 2019 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
There's no question he's lost a ton of money being president. He donates his salary, and he cannot perform any real estate deals while president. He says he would have given the summit the use of Mar-a-Lago for free. The emolument claim is mainly that people staying at one of Trump's hotels could be considered a gift, but that's a rather tenuous argument, and we'd need the Supreme Court to rule on it.



Listen.....the fact is ...the clause requires the administration of common sense, people staying in hotels the president owns doesn't trigger the clause. That'
s not the purpose of the clause The people have lost their ability to judge. they only know how to be triggered now. we are doomed
edit on 21-10-2019 by daboxfan because: grammar mistake



posted on Oct, 21 2019 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: underwerks
Don't claim to be a constitutionalist if you don't support the document in its entirety. Including the parts that may seem inconvenient to you because of your political bias.

It's not the bible, you can't just pick and choose the parts you want. Either you support the constitution, or you don't.



When you are the "chosen one" the constitution doesn't apply to you. It's in the bible!!


Maybe we should come up with some kind of oath or something the President would be required to take where he would swear to uphold the constitution..

That may be too much like communism though.



posted on Oct, 21 2019 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Davey Crockett would have been removed from office had the emoluments clause been written, as its being interpreted by the Left today.

Hell, I'd wager that the majority of the left would be removed from office based on their own interpretation. This will be interesting.



posted on Oct, 21 2019 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

your just upset my wife laughed at you


second



posted on Oct, 21 2019 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
Don't claim to be a constitutionalist if you don't support the document in its entirety. Including the parts that may seem inconvenient to you because of your political bias.

It's not the bible, you can't just pick and choose the parts you want. Either you support the constitution, or you don't.


does that include things like the boarder, cannibis, and illegal immigints??

or are you saying the states have no power Just the Feds??

what ARE you saying??
edit on 21-10-2019 by thedigirati because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2019 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
Hell, I'd wager that the majority of the left would be removed from office based on their own interpretation. This will be interesting.


I would hope so. Wouldn't it be crazy if politicians actually had to abide by the constitution?



posted on Oct, 21 2019 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
Hell, I'd wager that the majority of the left would be removed from office based on their own interpretation. This will be interesting.


I would hope so. Wouldn't it be crazy if politicians actually had to abide by the constitution?


"Wouldn't it be crazy if politicians actually had to abide by the constitution equally?"

fixed it for you.



posted on Oct, 21 2019 @ 07:54 PM
link   
The Federal government requires that businesses jump through a ridiculous number of hoops to stay compliant with ethical and legal practices when doing Federal contract work. Every tiny receipt must be saved. Audits. Training.. a lot of that, so you understand what is acceptable and what is not. The government requires this, and they are VERY critical of anything that could construed as a conflict of interest.

Which makes the POTUS offering up his resort for a summit laughable in the extreme. You seriously think Trump was offering this to be "nice" to everyone? He wasn't. If there wasn't an immediate profit (and I have no idea how they could have figured exactly what was "at cost" and kept it completely "even" for the event), I'm certain a plaque would go up regarding the summit in his resort. He does things to profit himself, not others. Either monetarily, to boost his ego, or for advertisement.

And he probably has NO clue that this was a part of the Constitution. I HIGHLY doubt he has read much of the Constitution, and knows what it actually entails.



posted on Oct, 21 2019 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Middleoftheroad




Yet, everyone cheers for the Clintons and Obama's that became filthy rich off their office.

I really doubt "everyone" does! probably not even many if any!



posted on Oct, 22 2019 @ 06:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Middleoftheroad



The whole point of the Emoluments clause is to prevent officeholders from getting rich off their office.


NO IT IS NOT.

The point of the emoluments clause is to prevent the possibility of influence peddling, bribery, and other corruptions of Presidential power.

Presidents get a salary. They can save it and invest it anyway they like, just like you and me. He has written 2 best selling books published long before he moved into the White House. All profits from a third best seller, a children's book, published after he was in the White House, were donated to scholarship funds.

FYI: How Barack Obama Has Made $20 Million Since Arriving In Washington

Furthermore, just because he EARNED $20mil doesn't mean he still has that $20mil. Presidents are expected to spend quite a bit of their Presidential salary on various functions (not State functions, obviously), salaries for personal staff, and some maintenance on the Mansion.

Finally, I don't believe that Trump has lost money - not 1 red cent. He's raking it in from Washington hotels for a start, and he's getting the tax payer to pay for all his golfing trips. He blew the entire Secret Service budget on his golfing trips in the first 6 months. He was going to score big time on his G7 scam - getting the Government to shovel buckets-full of money directly into his back pocket.

His sons and wife are running proxy for his 'business' deals all over the world leveraging off his Presidency.

He isn't losing any money, it isn't his modus operandi. He operates by getting his money out first, then letting the 'investment' go to hell in a hand basket. He is treating the country and the Presidency exactly like he treated his Casinos.



posted on Oct, 22 2019 @ 06:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
Davey Crockett would have been removed from office had the emoluments clause been written, as its being interpreted by the Left today.

Hell, I'd wager that the majority of the left would be removed from office based on their own interpretation. This will be interesting.


What is your justification for that silly assertion?

When was Davy Crockett President? Did he take bribes? Did the government rent his farm in Kentucky in order to buy his vote?

What the heck are you talking about?



posted on Oct, 22 2019 @ 06:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Middleoftheroad

From your source:



Forbes attributed the decline of Trump's fortune to three main factors: e-commerce eating into the value of Trump's real estate holdings, the intrusion of heightened security at Trump's resorts, and Trump's own over-reporting of the size of his penthouse. "Much as he's trying β€” and he's definitely trying β€” Donald Trump is not getting richer off the presidency," according to Forbes. Revenue from Trump-branded ties, whiskies, MAGA hats and other merchandise has plummeted to just $3 million from $23 million in 2015. β€œHe has significantly tarnished the brand,” licensing expert Jeff Lotman told Forbes.



posted on Oct, 22 2019 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Can't be bothered to care anymore, we have had multiple president's in my time that entered office as middle class and left with the ability to spend 10s of millions of dollars, on a less than 300k (or whatever the president makes now) a year job and nobody cared, want to burn down all of them great I'm on board... Just orange man bad you might be a hypocrite.



posted on Oct, 22 2019 @ 07:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: thedigirati

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: xuenchen
How does anything Trump gives away become a gift to Trump ? πŸ˜ƒ



Well although an entirely different scheme; something akin to Trump raising charity money through a charitable organization, then commanding that organization to donate the funds to himself, essentially.

Or similarly accepting donations for charity which are then filed under his personal charitable givings, so he can essentially get the charitable tax write-off benefits from other peoples charity money.

Would be two examples therein.


You got those from the Clinton foundation didn't you??

it's ok to admit it

"accuse others of what you are doing"

yep we read it too...


It is well documented and has nothing to do with the Clinton Foundation. It comes directly from his personal lawyer who testified to Congress about it, and all the documentation paperwork has been in the public arena for quite some time. It may be that some of the New York State case revolves around this episode.

Trump got a straw bidder to bid up the price of a painting (of Trump) at an auction to maximize his own ego. The straw bidder bought the painting as instructed, turned it over to Trump who kept it, and then instructed his 'charity' foundation to repay the straw bidder. THAT IS ILLEGAL AS ALL GET OUT. Period. Contrary to running a 'Charitable Foundation', Trump was using the Foundation as a prepaid credit card, and shouting "See I have a charitable foundation, aren't I nice guy?'



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join