Trump poised to violate Constitution his first day in office, George W. Bush’s ethics lawyer says

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Now, this is interesting.

In an exclusive exchange with ThinkProgress, Richard Painter, a University of Minnesota law professor who previously served as chief ethics counsel to President George W. Bush, says that Trump’s efforts to do business with these diplomats is at odds with a provision of the Constitution intended to prevent foreign states from effectively buying influence with federal officials.

The Constitution’s “Emoluments Clause,” provides that “no person holding any office of profit or trust under” the United States “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 diplomats’ efforts in seek Trump’s favor by staying in his hotel “looks like a gift,” Painter told ThinkProgress in an email, and thus is the very kind of favor the Constitution seeks to prevent.

To explain, the ordinary rule under the Emoluments Clause is that federal officials may do business with foreign governments so long as they do not receive special treatment. If the president owns a $200,000 Rolls Royce, Painter told ThinkProgress, they can sell that car to the Queen of England, so long as they only receive its fair market value. If Her Majesty The Queen pays $250,000 for the Rolls Royce, however, that would violate the Emoluments Clause.

Rest of article here:
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-poi...hs-ethics-lawyer-says-73e14789a935#.91zyk7w2i

Trump is in SERIOUS legal trouble.

"thinkprogress" Seriously?

It's decidedly pathetic when one has to attack the source and does not even try to deal with or refute the content.

 

[oreo]

More:

Moreover, while it is conceivable that a rival hotel may have standing to sue Trump for taking away its business with foreign diplomats in violation of the Constitution, it’s far from clear that any hotel business will want to risk a feud with the notoriously vindictive president-elect.

There is, however, at least one remedy under the Constitution for such a violation of the public trust by the president: impeachment.

Trump has an enormous conflict of interest anyway. He is heavily invested in assets in China and numerous other countries around the world. That's why he wouldn't release any income tax returns. While Republicans won't make a big deal out of it, be assured that Democrats will.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Now, this is interesting.

In an exclusive exchange with ThinkProgress, Richard Painter, a University of Minnesota law professor who previously served as chief ethics counsel to President George W. Bush, says that Trump’s efforts to do business with these diplomats is at odds with a provision of the Constitution intended to prevent foreign states from effectively buying influence with federal officials.

The Constitution’s “Emoluments Clause,” provides that “no person holding any office of profit or trust under” the United States “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 diplomats’ efforts in seek Trump’s favor by staying in his hotel “looks like a gift,” Painter told ThinkProgress in an email, and thus is the very kind of favor the Constitution seeks to prevent.

To explain, the ordinary rule under the Emoluments Clause is that federal officials may do business with foreign governments so long as they do not receive special treatment. If the president owns a $200,000 Rolls Royce, Painter told ThinkProgress, they can sell that car to the Queen of England, so long as they only receive its fair market value. If Her Majesty The Queen pays $250,000 for the Rolls Royce, however, that would violate the Emoluments Clause.

Rest of article here:
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-poi...hs-ethics-lawyer-says-73e14789a935#.91zyk7w2i

Trump is in SERIOUS legal trouble.

"thinkprogress" Seriously?

It's decidedly pathetic when one has to attack the source and does not even try to deal with or refute the content.

You did that with me.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution requires the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

And how has he not done that? I showed you that he has in fact enforced immigration laws. Common! Get it together!

He is absolu ctely not enforcing the law.

Another law he is violating is giving Federal money to sanctuary cities who refuse to comply with Federal law.

Refer to North Carolina bathrooms for how it should be handled when a state breaks the law....the lose Federal funding...as Obama threatened. He is not threatening so much those states not enforcing immigration laws.

Shit! I becoming bored and tired of you. NC violated people's civil rights under the Constitution and the Feds properly stepped in to address it. You can't compare that to the issue of sanctuary cities to that. It is a false equivalency- logical fallacy which is all you really have

Nope.

The Obama admin issued the order in May. NC passed its own law to go against the Obama admin order.

Is Reuters a source you consider reliable?

U.S. judge blocks Obama transgender school bathroom policy

The topic of this thread is willful and blatant violations of the constitution that are impeachable offenses . Having a SCOTUS decision go against you does not rise to that level. What president did not lose a case in court, ever.

I didn't say other Presidents did not also violate the Constitution. I am saying Obama did. You said he didn't.

He clearly did many many times.

When the Supreme Court votes 9-0 that you violated the Constiution, I have no idea how you can justify in your mind that Obama never violated the Constiutution.

He made appointments while Congress was in recess. He violated the Constitution and his appointments were overturned.

You claim that's not "really" violating the Constitution?

What are YOUR rules for violating the Constitution if a Supreme Court ruling of 9-0 isn't sufficient for you?

Specifically, what is your personal standard for violating the Constitution?

 

[ColonelAngus]

You gotta hand it to ProgPat...most liberals like the Supreme Court. This guy doesn't honor and respect their rulings.

They said 9-0 that Obama violated the Constitution, but that's not good enough for him.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

And how has he not done that? I showed you that he has in fact enforced immigration laws. Common! Get it together!

He is absolu ctely not enforcing the law.

Another law he is violating is giving Federal money to sanctuary cities who refuse to comply with Federal law.

Refer to North Carolina bathrooms for how it should be handled when a state breaks the law....the lose Federal funding...as Obama threatened. He is not threatening so much those states not enforcing immigration laws.

Shit! I becoming bored and tired of you. NC violated people's civil rights under the Constitution and the Feds properly stepped in to address it. You can't compare that to the issue of sanctuary cities to that. It is a false equivalency- logical fallacy which is all you really have

Nope.

The Obama admin issued the order in May. NC passed its own law to go against the Obama admin order.

Is Reuters a source you consider reliable?

U.S. judge blocks Obama transgender school bathroom policy

The topic of this thread is willful and blatant violations of the constitution that are impeachable offenses . Having a SCOTUS decision go against you does not rise to that level. What president did not lose a case in court, ever.

I didn't say other Presidents did not also violate the Constitution. I am saying Obama did. You said he didn't.

He clearly did many many times.

When the Supreme Court votes 9-0 that you violated the Constiution, I have no idea how you can justify in your mind that Obama never violated the Constiutution.

He made appointments while Congress was in recess. He violated the Constitution and his appointments were overturned.

You claim that's not "really" violating the Constitution?

What are YOUR rules for violating the Constitution if a Supreme Court ruling of 9-0 isn't sufficient for you?

Specifically, what is your personal standard for violating the Constitution?

Go ahead and keep harping on the same old tired shit in order to avoid the enormously egregious facts that have been stated about Trump.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ColonelAngus]

195 Per Day — Feds Release 6,051 Illegal Immigrant Kids Into US In Single Month

Releasing illegal immigrants into the US population is a violation of Federal law.

 

[Richard-H]

We have a weird political situation...

Besides a constitutional basis for impeachment, there has to be a political will to impeach in Congress.

I have no doubt that it will not be long before Trump does something that creates a constitutional reason for impeachment.

But will congress have the will?

On one hand Trump is a Republican, on the other hand the Republican establishment hates him and would rather have Pence in the oval office.

Meanwhile, the Democrats may well find Trump to be an ally on many political issues. They may dread a Pence presidency more than they hate a Trump Presidency.

It's anybody's guess....

 

[Slade3200]

Keep telling yourself that tough guy while the rest of us evolve for the better.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.lati...s-alien-20160403-story,amp.html?client=safari

Awww.....you delicate snow flake. I hope you can recover from the trauma I've caused you.

You're just on a roll today aren't ya? Does it make you feel tough and strong when you try and put people down? Make you feel like your little ding dong is bigger than 2 inches? Keep it up, you're making yourself look real cool. you aren't fooling anybody

Does it make you feel tough and strong when you try and put people down?

Oh...no...did I micro-aggress you again?
Did my use of the term snow flake remind you of white men emitting CO2 and destroying Mother Gaia?

Alien - Any person not a citizen or national of the United States.

Definition of Terms | Homeland Security

And you wonder why your side gets labeled as bigots. Is it really that hard to change a word to be less offensive? The fact that the library of congress decided to stop using the offensive terms and the GOP revolted in the way it did, simply shows their stubborn bias... and there is absolutely NO reason for it.

House orders Library of Congress to maintain ‘illegal alien’

The House can order the Library of Congress to eat shit and die, but that doesn't mean the citizens have to do it as well.

I never said you had to do anything. I'm just telling you how you are making yourself look. Be a dipshit if you want to be a dipshit. I assume you don't really give a shit about how others perceive you, so carry on...

 

[Slade3200]

Is it really necessary to use the word aliens, or are you trying to make a point of being demeaning and offensive?

Is it really necessary to use the word aliens,

Yes, I believe using the proper term is necessary.

are you trying to make a point of being demeaning and offensive?

Why would using the proper term be either?

Alien is an old out dated term that dehumanizes real people so many substitute with immigrant. I find most people that still use it are either old school and unaware or intentionally trying to make a point of being offensive. Given your use of bold and underline for the statement I think it's fair to assume you are the later

Your PC nonsense is so passe' and out dated. LOL

Sorry, I forgot we've evolved to an era where class, respect, integrity, and character, are no longer valued attributes. Forgive me if I don't follow suit

Do those who supposedly support the PC movement actually exercise those things?

When Hillary Clinton called roughly 25% of the American electorate a "basket of deplorables" and "irredeemable", was she showing "class, integrity, and character"?

I'm not a big supporter of the "PC movement" -as you call it. I think our world is way too PC and that many people need to chill out. But I also don't accept when dipshit bully's aim to offend. Or when people argue to make offensive belittling terms, words, and phrases the norm. We can all strive to be better

Clintons deplorables comment was a poor attempt at a joke and she was speaking to people who were legit racists and bigots. Regardless, she was being a dipshit and that was not a classy comment. It sounded to me like she was trying to play Trumps game. She should not have done that.

Also if you bitch about Clintons comment then you are supporting the same BS PC movement that you seem to object to... and you should have done the same about the plethora of Trump comments. If you didn't then you are a hypocrite.

 

[TooTall]

How many illegal ALIENS has Obama deported?

Using the old definition, or using Obama's new definition?

Is it really necessary to use the word aliens, or are you trying to make a point of being demeaning and offensive?

Is it really necessary to use the word aliens,

Yes, I believe using the proper term is necessary.

are you trying to make a point of being demeaning and offensive?

Why would using the proper term be either?

Alien is an old out dated term that dehumanizes real people so many substitute with immigrant. I find most people that still use it are either old school and unaware or intentionally trying to make a point of being offensive. Given your use of bold and underline for the statement I think it's fair to assume you are the later

Your PC nonsense is so passe' and out dated. LOL

Sorry, I forgot we've evolved to an era where class, respect, integrity, and character, are no longer valued attributes. Forgive me if I don't follow suit

You expect me to respect a criminal that has broken the law. Forgive me if I don't care to do that.

 

[TooTall]

Awww.....you delicate snow flake. I hope you can recover from the trauma I've caused you.

You're just on a roll today aren't ya? Does it make you feel tough and strong when you try and put people down? Make you feel like your little ding dong is bigger than 2 inches? Keep it up, you're making yourself look real cool. you aren't fooling anybody

Does it make you feel tough and strong when you try and put people down?

Oh...no...did I micro-aggress you again?
Did my use of the term snow flake remind you of white men emitting CO2 and destroying Mother Gaia?

Alien - Any person not a citizen or national of the United States.

Definition of Terms | Homeland Security

And you wonder why your side gets labeled as bigots. Is it really that hard to change a word to be less offensive? The fact that the library of congress decided to stop using the offensive terms and the GOP revolted in the way it did, simply shows their stubborn bias... and there is absolutely NO reason for it.

House orders Library of Congress to maintain ‘illegal alien’

The House can order the Library of Congress to eat shit and die, but that doesn't mean the citizens have to do it as well.

I never said you had to do anything. I'm just telling you how you are making yourself look. Be a dipshit if you want to be a dipshit. I assume you don't really give a shit about how others perceive you, so carry on...

I really don't care how you perceive the use of the proper term to describe someone who is in this country illegally.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

And how has he not done that? I showed you that he has in fact enforced immigration laws. Common! Get it together!

He is absolu ctely not enforcing the law.

Another law he is violating is giving Federal money to sanctuary cities who refuse to comply with Federal law.

Refer to North Carolina bathrooms for how it should be handled when a state breaks the law....the lose Federal funding...as Obama threatened. He is not threatening so much those states not enforcing immigration laws.

Shit! I becoming bored and tired of you. NC violated people's civil rights under the Constitution and the Feds properly stepped in to address it. You can't compare that to the issue of sanctuary cities to that. It is a false equivalency- logical fallacy which is all you really have

Nope.

The Obama admin issued the order in May. NC passed its own law to go against the Obama admin order.

Is Reuters a source you consider reliable?

U.S. judge blocks Obama transgender school bathroom policy

The topic of this thread is willful and blatant violations of the constitution that are impeachable offenses . Having a SCOTUS decision go against you does not rise to that level. What president did not lose a case in court, ever.

I didn't say other Presidents did not also violate the Constitution. I am saying Obama did. You said he didn't.

He clearly did many many times.

When the Supreme Court votes 9-0 that you violated the Constiution, I have no idea how you can justify in your mind that Obama never violated the Constiutution.

He made appointments while Congress was in recess. He violated the Constitution and his appointments were overturned.

You claim that's not "really" violating the Constitution?

What are YOUR rules for violating the Constitution if a Supreme Court ruling of 9-0 isn't sufficient for you?

Specifically, what is your personal standard for violating the Constitution?

Your problem is that you are given to a ridged, simplistic and concrete thought process that makes it impossible to deal with certain nuances of difference. On one hand, we have situations where someone makes decisions and takes actions in good faith believing that they will pass constitutional muster, only to have those actions shot down by a court that can be fickle and unpredictable. On the other hand, you have someone who has a blatant and arrogant disregard for the rule of law, and who doesn't care about, or even understand the constitution.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Now, this is interesting.

In an exclusive exchange with ThinkProgress, Richard Painter, a University of Minnesota law professor who previously served as chief ethics counsel to President George W. Bush, says that Trump’s efforts to do business with these diplomats is at odds with a provision of the Constitution intended to prevent foreign states from effectively buying influence with federal officials.

The Constitution’s “Emoluments Clause,” provides that “no person holding any office of profit or trust under” the United States “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 diplomats’ efforts in seek Trump’s favor by staying in his hotel “looks like a gift,” Painter told ThinkProgress in an email, and thus is the very kind of favor the Constitution seeks to prevent.

To explain, the ordinary rule under the Emoluments Clause is that federal officials may do business with foreign governments so long as they do not receive special treatment. If the president owns a $200,000 Rolls Royce, Painter told ThinkProgress, they can sell that car to the Queen of England, so long as they only receive its fair market value. If Her Majesty The Queen pays $250,000 for the Rolls Royce, however, that would violate the Emoluments Clause.

Rest of article here:
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-poi...hs-ethics-lawyer-says-73e14789a935#.91zyk7w2i

Trump is in SERIOUS legal trouble.

Think progress? Seriously?
What's good for the goose...
BTW, the Clintons and Obama's are so far in bed with foreign interests, they get their morning coffee from these people.
So please, thinkprogress can go fuck itself

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You gotta hand it to ProgPat...most liberals like the Supreme Court. This guy doesn't honor and respect their rulings.

They said 9-0 that Obama violated the Constitution, but that's not good enough for him.

Most liberals like the Supreme Court? What does that mean? What is like. "Liberals" understand that the court is a vital and essential branch of government and should be balanced and preserved. The court makes good decisions and the court makes bad decision, and whether a decision is deemed good or bad is largely subjective . You can't get around that. The difference is that conservatives would prefer to let the court wither and die by refusing to consider presidential nominations unless the nominations are made by a conservative Republican. You just don't seem to understand much.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Now, this is interesting.

In an exclusive exchange with ThinkProgress, Richard Painter, a University of Minnesota law professor who previously served as chief ethics counsel to President George W. Bush, says that Trump’s efforts to do business with these diplomats is at odds with a provision of the Constitution intended to prevent foreign states from effectively buying influence with federal officials.

The Constitution’s “Emoluments Clause,” provides that “no person holding any office of profit or trust under” the United States “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 diplomats’ efforts in seek Trump’s favor by staying in his hotel “looks like a gift,” Painter told ThinkProgress in an email, and thus is the very kind of favor the Constitution seeks to prevent.

To explain, the ordinary rule under the Emoluments Clause is that federal officials may do business with foreign governments so long as they do not receive special treatment. If the president owns a $200,000 Rolls Royce, Painter told ThinkProgress, they can sell that car to the Queen of England, so long as they only receive its fair market value. If Her Majesty The Queen pays $250,000 for the Rolls Royce, however, that would violate the Emoluments Clause.

Rest of article here:
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-poi...hs-ethics-lawyer-says-73e14789a935#.91zyk7w2i

Trump is in SERIOUS legal trouble.

Sure he is snowflake, sure he is.......

Don't take my word for it, take the lawyers word.

Some left wing loon in a lefty moonbat bubble?
Just accept the fact that nobody cares about your feelings.
Your ideology took it in the shorts. You will accept that and come on in for the big win. Or you can remain as divisive as your "Dear Leader" has set you up to be.
Your choice.
Out new POTUS is going to go populist big tent. Liberals will be invited to come along and unify the country. Heal the wounds of divisiveness.
Its up to you to come along for the ride. If you pass, your problem.

 

[TooTall]

You gotta hand it to ProgPat...most liberals like the Supreme Court. This guy doesn't honor and respect their rulings.

They said 9-0 that Obama violated the Constitution, but that's not good enough for him.

Most liberals like the Supreme Court? What does that mean? What is like. "Liberals" understand that the court is a vital and essential branch of government and should be balanced and preserved. The court makes good decisions and the court makes bad decision, and whether a decision is deemed good or bad is largely subjective . You can't get around that. The difference is that conservatives would prefer to let the court wither and die by refusing to consider presidential nominations unless the nominations are made by a conservative Republican. You just don't seem to understand much.

Obama nominated Justice's Sotomayer and Kagan, both flaming liberals and they were confirmed by the Senate.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Meh....so did Obama.....1st day and every day of his Presidency. The left will get over it.

No, he didn't.

yer kidding, right.
Obama views the US Constitution as a road block.
In fact, liberals on this board right here have insisted the Constitution is NOT a limiting document.
They believe that the Constitution can be bent twisted and reshaped to fit their agenda.
Your left wing moon bat lawyer is all wet. And he can continue to cry his eyes out.
Tough shit.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Now, this is interesting.

In an exclusive exchange with ThinkProgress, Richard Painter, a University of Minnesota law professor who previously served as chief ethics counsel to President George W. Bush, says that Trump’s efforts to do business with these diplomats is at odds with a provision of the Constitution intended to prevent foreign states from effectively buying influence with federal officials.

The Constitution’s “Emoluments Clause,” provides that “no person holding any office of profit or trust under” the United States “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 diplomats’ efforts in seek Trump’s favor by staying in his hotel “looks like a gift,” Painter told ThinkProgress in an email, and thus is the very kind of favor the Constitution seeks to prevent.

To explain, the ordinary rule under the Emoluments Clause is that federal officials may do business with foreign governments so long as they do not receive special treatment. If the president owns a $200,000 Rolls Royce, Painter told ThinkProgress, they can sell that car to the Queen of England, so long as they only receive its fair market value. If Her Majesty The Queen pays $250,000 for the Rolls Royce, however, that would violate the Emoluments Clause.

Rest of article here:
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-poi...hs-ethics-lawyer-says-73e14789a935#.91zyk7w2i

Trump is in SERIOUS legal trouble.

Leave it to a far left drone to use known far left drone rag site for their "facts"

Might as well have quoted the onion.

Or "mother jones"....

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You gotta hand it to ProgPat...most liberals like the Supreme Court. This guy doesn't honor and respect their rulings.

They said 9-0 that Obama violated the Constitution, but that's not good enough for him.

Most liberals like the Supreme Court? What does that mean? What is like. "Liberals" understand that the court is a vital and essential branch of government and should be balanced and preserved. The court makes good decisions and the court makes bad decision, and whether a decision is deemed good or bad is largely subjective . You can't get around that. The difference is that conservatives would prefer to let the court wither and die by refusing to consider presidential nominations unless the nominations are made by a conservative Republican. You just don't seem to understand much.

Obama nominated Justice's Sotomayer and Kagan, both flaming liberals and they were confirmed by the Senate.

But you fail to mention that the Senate refused to consider the highly qualified Obama nominee to fill the latest vacancy, saying that the next president and the people should decide. Then, when it looked like the next president would be Clinton, they forgot what they said and threatened to block her nomination. Now tell us again who is it that has respect for, and who has contempt for the Constitution.?