Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Donald Trump - 'Phony Emoluments Clause'

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Donald Trump - 'Phony Emoluments Clause'

    Yes - Donald Trump actually said that.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...-clause-053289

    This is the man who claims 'great and unmatched wisdom' as regards the Syria decision.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...et/3898498002/

    So now I wait and watch the Trump Minions here justify this one. I'm sure it will be 'creative' at the very least.


    Jim
    He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

    "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

  • #2
    This is where TDS gets the better of you, because any reasonable person can see that Trump is simply defending himself against (another) false accusation. In other words, he's saying that the accusation is phony and not that the clause itself is.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • #3
      I would pay money to hear Donald Trump explain what the Emoluments Clause is, what it forbids, and what action he might propose to do that would trigger it.
      "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        This is where TDS gets the better of you, because any reasonable person can see that Trump is simply defending himself against (another) false accusation. In other words, he's saying that the accusation is phony and not that the clause itself is.


        MM says as Trump on nearly a daily basis violates the Emoluments clause!
        He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

        "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

        Comment


        • #5
          You think "constitution-loving" Republicans who say they think the constitution is second only to the Bible, and who carry around a copy in their pocket, will bat an eyelid at Trump saying nasty things about the constitution?

          Hahahaha, you're funny. You're confusing Republican voters with people who have any principles whatsoever.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
            Trump on nearly a daily basis violates the Emoluments clause!
            Fake news, kiddo.
            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
            Than a fool in the eyes of God


            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              You think "constitution-loving" Republicans who say they think the constitution is second only to the Bible, and who carry around a copy in their pocket, will bat an eyelid at Trump saying nasty things about the constitution?

              Hahahaha, you're funny. You're confusing Republican voters with people who have any principles whatsoever.
              You point out what is truly one of the saddest parts of the entire Trump episode. The exposure to the world of what is both the hypocrisy and the immorality of the republican party and its base constituency. I actually expected that Trump would be held in check by republican senators and congressmen. I actually expected the teachings of the christian faith to form the basis of the public voice aimed at trump if he wandered too far. Instead we have people so angered against the inroads of more liberal policies into our public life they are willing to tolerate any and all forms of debasement as long as he is in some way hitting back at those elements.
              He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

              "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                Yes - Donald Trump actually said that.

                https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...-clause-053289

                This is the man who claims 'great and unmatched wisdom' as regards the Syria decision.

                https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...et/3898498002/

                So now I wait and watch the Trump Minions here justify this one. I'm sure it will be 'creative' at the very least.


                Jim
                It’s quite entertaining how much you hate Trump that you lose your mind. Do tell, how much money do you suppose John Kerry would have made, from the government and foreign governments, if he won in 2004?
                "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                  It’s quite entertaining how much you hate Trump that you lose your mind. Do tell, how much money do you suppose John Kerry would have made, from the government and foreign governments, if he won in 2004?
                  Thanks for making my point once again. And starlight's.
                  He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                  "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                    Thanks for making my point once again. And starlight's.
                    That what? It’s only an issue because you hate Trump, but it wasn’t an issue in 2004? Politicians have been making millions, for years, off the government dime and from foreign sources. Why do you suddenly care now? Have you cared about those who become millionaires while in office or shortly after leaving?
                    Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 10-22-2019, 07:58 AM.
                    "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                    GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                      That what? It’s only an issue because you hate Trump, but it wasn’t an issue in 2004? Politicians have been making millions, for years, off the government dime and from foreign sources. Why do you suddenly care now? Have you cared about those who become millionaires while in office or shortly after leaving?
                      It's not about making money pix. It's about where the money comes from and what sort of obligation may be incurred by the President to the source. And before you start talking about whether or not X or Y would 'really' incur an obligation, that is not how laws work. The issue is how that idea is codified into law and whether or not the President violates said conditions. Those being:

                      Source: Britannica

                      The emoluments clause, also called the foreign emoluments clause, is a provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8) that generally prohibits federal officeholders from receiving any gift, payment, or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives. The clause provides that: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.

                      The Constitution also contains a “domestic emoluments clause” (Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 7), which prohibits the president from receiving any “Emolument” from the federal government or the states beyond “a Compensation” for his “Services” as chief executive.

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      The problem then is that Trumps Hotels, especially those in DC and NYC, are a problem, because dignitaries stay there, and every time one of them stays there instead of somewhere else, it can easily be an intentional 'gift' or 'emolument' to the president.

                      As can an investigation into the potential 'corruption' of a political running mate - of course the problem there is the arm twisting.

                      The point is, there is nothing 'phony' about his issues as they relate to the emoluments clause. He simply flaunts his abuse of it and dares anyone to hold him to it.

                      Most US companies have similar requirements of their employees. At one point I worked for a company doing buisiness in Japan, and they like to give gifts. And it was awkward. To refuse the gift would have caused the giver to lose face. But you didn't DARE keep that gift for oneself if it had any real value (e.g. >$20). It usually went on display at corporate headquarters.

                      An emolument is a potential bribe. And EVERYONE knows what a bribe is. And only corrupt businesses, governments, or people accept or require them.


                      Jim
                      Last edited by oxmixmudd; 10-22-2019, 08:55 AM.
                      He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                      "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                        It's not about making money pix. It's about where the money comes from and what sort of obligation may be incurred by the President to the source. And before you start talking about whether or not X or Y would 'really' incur an obligation, that is not how laws work. The issue is how that idea is codified into law and whether or not the President violates said conditions. Those being:

                        Source: Britannica

                        The emoluments clause, also called the foreign emoluments clause, is a provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8) that generally prohibits federal officeholders from receiving any gift, payment, or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives. The clause provides that: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.

                        The Constitution also contains a “domestic emoluments clause” (Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 7), which prohibits the president from receiving any “Emolument” from the federal government or the states beyond “a Compensation” for his “Services” as chief executive.

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        The problem then is that Trumps Hotels, especially those in DC and NYC, are a problem, because dignitaries stay there, and every time one of them stays there instead of somewhere else, it can easily be an intentional 'gift' or 'emolument' to the president.

                        As can an investigation into the potential 'corruption' of a political running mate - of course the problem there is the arm twisting.

                        The point is, there is nothing 'phony' about his issues as they relate to the emoluments clause. He simply flaunts his abuse of it and dares anyone to hold him to it.

                        Most US companies have similar requirements of their employees. At one point I worked for a company doing buisiness in Japan, and they like to give gifts. And it was awkward. To refuse the gift would have caused the giver to lose face. But you didn't DARE keep that gift for oneself if it had any real value (e.g. >$20). It usually went on display at corporate headquarters.

                        An emolument is a potential bribe. And EVERYONE knows what a bribe is. And only corrupt businesses, governments, or people accept or require them.


                        Jim
                        I see a lot of ranting, but people have been buying presidents for centuries. Curious that you only care now and go forth with scant evidence this is even going on. The more likely reason Trump is so careful about his tax returns is they would reveal he isn’t nearly as rich as he claims to be.
                        Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 10-22-2019, 09:31 AM.
                        "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                        GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                          I see a lot of ranting, but people have been buying presidents for centuries. Curious that you only care now and go forth with scat evidence this is even going on. The more likely reason Trump is so careful about his tax returns is they would reveal he isn’t nearly as rich as he claims to be.
                          00000000000000ars3.gif

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            [ATTACH=CONFIG]40377[/ATTACH]
                            Fixed, but as usual, Jim takes a perfectly valid point and blows it up and does his job no service. Politicians being beholden to money and those with gobs of it is nothing new. However, I bet Trumps real reason he doesn’t want his tax returns out there is it drives liberals nuts and it would reveal he isn’t as rich as he likes to claim he is. By far, Trump’s ego is the bigger issue that seems to be ignored. Likely because many rich and powerful people are just as egotistical.
                            "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                            GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                              Yes - Donald Trump actually said that.

                              https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...-clause-053289

                              This is the man who claims 'great and unmatched wisdom' as regards the Syria decision.

                              https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...et/3898498002/

                              So now I wait and watch the Trump Minions here justify this one. I'm sure it will be 'creative' at the very least.


                              Jim
                              What's the definition of 'rage'?

                              You hand-waved away that piece of anti-Trump media spin, and now you're drooling over another piece of media hype with no actual substance.



                              1) The clips of Trump speaking lack the complete context - we don't hear the questions he was (apparently) answering. We don't know what was said in that lead to the start of the clip, and there's another section - right before the money quote - also missing.

                              2) The headline is "Trump claims he's the victim of 'phony emoluments clause". Trump doesn't appear to say that he is a victim at all. So that's media spin at best and an outright lie at worst.

                              3) What he does say is:

                              (a) describe the benefits of using the facility (amenities, close to airport, benefits to local economy etc). Whether these points are true or not is irrelevant to the 'phony emoluments' question.

                              (b) Say that "the Democrats went crazy. Even though I would have done it free, saved the country a lot of money." Hence he is not seeking to profit from the resort hosting the summit (actually he would be out of pocket, he would be giving free the use of his commercial property for a government activity).

                              (c) argue that the (Democrats?) claim that he'll get promotion (i.e. publicity) is irrelevant since he already gets a lot of promotion (the most in the world)

                              (d) the video cuts out a part (about 0:54) and resumes with Trump saying:

                              "I don't think you people {gesturing to his interviewers} with this phony emoluments clause - {change of topic} and by the way I would say that it's cost me from 2 to 5 billion dollars to be President, and that's OK, between what I lose and what I could have made. I could have made a fortune if I just ran my business, I was doing it really well {partially unclear}, I have a great business..."


                              Conclusion

                              (1) Trump clearly says that he would have given the use of the resort for free (see (b) above) BEFORE any mention of the emoluments clause.


                              (2) The emolument clause was introduced into the interview by someone else (the journalists presumably). That (crucial) part is not on the clip, oddly.
                              It's clear from the clip that Trump is responding to something someone else said - someone else brought up the emoluments clause as an issue, and he's saying that it's a non-issue.
                              The money cite of Trump is a quote-mine. We don't know the preceding context, and he immediately changes to another topic.


                              (3) Trump dismisses their raising it as a concern (since he has already said that he would not receive any benefit from the summit)


                              (4) Nowhere does he 'claim to be a victim'. That is a lie, AFAICT. It's an attempt to make it look like Trump rides roughshod over the law, when in fact, he doesn't at all.


                              (5) Nowhere does he say, or imply that he doesn't care about the emoluments clause. His argument seems to be that it doesn't apply (since he would not have been receiving anything). Note that he has decided that the summit will not be at his resort, so he cannot be breaking the clause (in this instance at least).






                              Jim, this is another example of you getting sucked in by a clickbait headline when the actual content doesn't support the anti-Trump narrative in the story. Notably, the headline is untrue (no claim of being a victim); and the crucial quote is lacking context both before and after, thus a quotemine.
                              ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Gondwanaland, Today, 01:42 PM
                              3 responses
                              11 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Ronson
                              by Ronson
                               
                              Started by Ronson, Today, 11:16 AM
                              0 responses
                              19 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Ronson
                              by Ronson
                               
                              Started by Juvenal, Today, 04:13 AM
                              3 responses
                              20 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post LiconaFan97  
                              Started by shunyadragon, Yesterday, 06:20 PM
                              19 responses
                              101 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Juvenal
                              by Juvenal
                               
                              Started by shunyadragon, Yesterday, 06:10 PM
                              5 responses
                              41 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Ronson
                              by Ronson
                               
                              Working...
                              X