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

[Correll]

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.

So, now the left is citing George Waterboard Bush's team on what's Constitutional.

 

[thereisnospoon]

When Obama decided to NOT enforce federal immigration laws, was he violating the Constiution?

POP QUIZ! How many illegal immigrants has Obama deported?

POP quiz...its all fake. Obama is 100% pot committed to open borders and amnesty.
Obama hasn't deported anyone. ICE does that.
So if Obama is respectful of US Immigration law, why then did his DOJ SUE the state of Arizona for simply following US Law and enforcing said law. And why is the Obama DOJ not investigating mayors of these so called sanctuary cities which by the way are in clear violation of federal law. Supremacy clause and all that good stuff.
You can spit out these ad hominem quips all you wish. Doesn't change the facts.
Libs want open borders so they can dilute the GOP voting base.
I knew this was going to happen. Once your side was no longer in control, the whining would begin.
Now you jerks will start the cycle of carping about bipartisanship. When in your control, you believe Congress should be flipping the bird to the GOP....As they did when they rammed that abject failure known as Obamacare down our throats

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.?

Highly qualified? Do you really think the party which controls the Congress is going to allow the POTUS to get a left wing ideologue confirmed to the SCOTUS?
BTW, genius, Congress has not confirmed a lame duck year SCOTUS nominee in eight decades.

 

[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.

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.?

I merely pointed out that this is pure BS.

"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."

The Court will get along just fine with less than 9 sitting Justices.

 

[Dragonlady]

Anyway, it doesn't matter.

Snowflakes and their triggers and safe places are all going buh bye.

Oh you poor piece of shit. How disappointed you'll be when your inferiors refuse to stop spitting in your food and continue to treat you as the low life racist you are

 

[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.?

Highly qualified? Do you really think the party which controls the Congress is going to allow the POTUS to get a left wing ideologue confirmed to the SCOTUS?
BTW, genius, Congress has not confirmed a lame duck year SCOTUS nominee in eight decades.

Wrong Sparky, so wrong: Rubio exaggerates in saying it's been 80 years since a 'lame duck' made a Supreme Court nomination

and yes, highly qualified:

MERRICK B. GARLAND
(202) 216-7460

Chief Judge Garland was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals in April 1997 and became Chief Judge on February 12, 2013. He graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College in 1974 and magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1977. Following graduation, he served as law clerk to Judge Henry J. Friendly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and to U.S. Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. From 1979 to 1981, he was Special Assistant to the Attorney General of the United States. He then joined the law firm of Arnold & Porter, where he was a partner from 1985 to 1989 and from 1992 to 1993. He served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia from 1989 to 1992, and as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice from 1993 to 1994. From 1994 until his appointment as U.S. Circuit Judge, he served as Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, where his responsibilities included supervising the Oklahoma City bombing and UNABOM prosecutions.

Chief Judge Garland has published in the Harvard Law Review and Yale Law Journal, taught at Harvard Law School, and served as President of the Board of Overseers of Harvard University. He is currently a member of the Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Not to mention that OBAMACARE and its implementation has been UNCONSTIUTIONAL in many many many ways.

Not the LEAST of which was DELAYING the implementation until AFTER the 2012 elections, because the DEMS KNEW THE LAW WAS A FUCKING SHIT SHOW.

EOs to change a LAW.....Obama violated the CONSTITUTION many many many times.

Correct. The Roberts Court made an inexplicable ruling that Obamacare was not commerce, but a tax.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Anyway, it doesn't matter.

Snowflakes and their triggers and safe places are all going buh bye.

Oh you poor piece of shit. How disappointed you'll be when your inferiors refuse to stop spitting in your food and continue to treat you as the low life racist you are

The fucking race card? ABJECT FAILURE on your part.
Loser.

 

[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.

The Constitution isn't welcome in the Trumpisphere.
Remember that anyone that brought that dangerous item into his rallies was thrown out.

Remember that bloke from Republicans Against Trump that was wrestled to the ground by the Secret Service at one of his last rallies when someone shouted..."He's got a copy of The Constitution!"
In fact, all he had was a sign but there was genuine terror for a while.

Oh please. You're making up bullshit just make yourself feel better.

 

[easyt65]

Trump is 'poised to violate'...

Barry HAS ... REPEATEDLY ... violated BOTH the Constitution and Rule of Law.

Hillary HAS broken numerous laws...

Poor Snowflakes...

 

[thereisnospoon]

More dumbfuck news from the dumbfuck losers on the left.

Thank you President Trump for taking the oars out of the hands of these dumbfucks. Thank you Lord for not forsaking America with the Satan Spawn HRC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh hell. These left wing extremist non cooperators will keep squealing about the popular vote. And once that has made it below the fold, then it will be the alleged conflicts of interest.
They will never stop. And then they will get left out of our growing and prosperous economy.

 

[thereisnospoon]

When Obama decided to NOT enforce federal immigration laws, was he violating the Constiution?

POP QUIZ! How many illegal immigrants has Obama deported?

pop quiz no.2.....how many have come right back in?.....

BIBGO!!! We have a WINNER.
Over in Charlotte an illegal immigrant from somewhere south of Texas was at fault in a fatal crash which took the lives of a mother and her child.
Turns out this slime bucket was deported more than once.
He had no driver's licence, was uninsured. The vehicle registered to someone in Texas. The VIN number search confirmed that. The license plate was stolen from a North Carolina registered vehicle.
Some God Damned piece of shit immigration attorney went to court for the bastard's arraignment and had the GALL to plead poverty and ask for low bond.
The claim made by the lawyer....Race based arrest. Jesus Christ. Needless to say, this murderer was not going anywhere but straight to the gray bar hilton.

 

[thereisnospoon]

N

When Obama decided to NOT enforce federal immigration laws, was he violating the Constiution?

POP QUIZ! How many illegal immigrants has Obama deported?

pop quiz no.2.....how many have come right back in?.....

More then enough to cause havoc.

Nearly every MS 13 gang member that has been deported has come right back.

 

[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

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

You are forgiven. If that's the best you can be then that's the best you can be.

 

[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.

But but but, it was OK when Clinton did it?

***CLICK WHIR****

"But BuT bUT BUT cLiNToNNN!!!!!!!!"

You do realize your argument has run out of gas....and time.

 

[thereisnospoon]

When Obama decided to NOT enforce federal immigration laws, was he violating the Constiution?

Nope. Because enforcing the law is the perogative of the executive branch.

You see, here's the thing. Obama sent more undocumented immigrants home than Bush did.

Bullshit. Stopping people at border crossings doesn't count. They just jump the fence or cross the border in the desert.

 

[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.

That rich that you should give a shit about that considering what the Clinton foundation was up to. Next to the Clinton foundation, Trump properties are a lemonade stand.

Ya know, there's just nothing quite so stupid as you RWNJ traitors. Instead of sitting on your fat butts lying about the Clintons, why don't you get a degree from Trump University? Or invest in any of his other crooked, failed schemes? How about investing in a casino or two. Or three. Or the Plaza Hotel? Hmmm ?

You wanted Pooting in the Lincoln bedroom. You wanted a fascist who says he'll take your rights away and that's what you got. You idiots sold out your country, your own children's futures and you will never ever be able to say you didn't know it.

Ha ha. You're reaching now....FAIL

 

[koshergrl]

Anyway, it doesn't matter.

Snowflakes and their triggers and safe places are all going buh bye.

Oh you poor piece of shit. How disappointed you'll be when your inferiors refuse to stop spitting in your food and continue to treat you as the low life racist you are

Nobody who has a job is my inferior.

You are, and you will never be in a position to spit in my food. So I'm good.

 

[paulitician]

Oh boy, now Communists suddenly care about the Constitution. Gee, how convenient. They get their butts kicked, and now they're all Constitutionalists. Buncha disingenuous wankers. Nuff said. Movin on...

 

[miketx]

Anyway, it doesn't matter.

Snowflakes and their triggers and safe places are all going buh bye.

Oh you poor piece of shit. How disappointed you'll be when your inferiors refuse to stop spitting in your food and continue to treat you as the low life racist you are

Nobody who has a job is my inferior.

You are, and you will never be in a position to spit in my food. So I'm good.

She's probably a prison kitchen worker with plenty of "spitting" experience.