"The president can’t have a conflict of interest" Trump said....

[occupied]

Republicans are not going to do shit except to argue that the president can do whatever he wants to do. They always expand the power of the president when they have one in office and then ***** about those powers when don't have the white house.

Apparently you didn't follow the election, Trump ran against the Republican establishment and beat them. You might try thinking once in a while before posting.

LOL What makes you think he actually meant anything he said? Far too many former critics and adversaries have jumped on the Trump crazy train, a deal has been made, He is going to be a rubber stamping stooge for congress. The veto pen is locked away until congress gets voted out in the mid-terms.

You clearly have a rich fantasy life, but when I suggested you think before posting I meant rational thought, not sharing your fantasies with us.

Been watching these people abandon their publicly stated ideologies all my life. This time is no different. It's like how you Trump people will put away all your anti-government, tree of liberty Bullshit and be pro-government nationalists until the next democrat is elected president. You will then pull out all your Gadsden flags and apocalyptic rhetoric about armed revolt against the same bloated corrupt government and not even feel remotely like flaming hypocrites.

In other words, you didn't follow the election and so have nothing to post except anti Republican slanders.

It's called history, you know, that thing republicans repeat again and again and again and again and again and again, I said it like that for the five republican presidents in my lifetime. You will be trying to explain how trickle down really will trickle down this time before you even know it.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Apparently you didn't follow the election, Trump ran against the Republican establishment and beat them. You might try thinking once in a while before posting.

LOL What makes you think he actually meant anything he said? Far too many former critics and adversaries have jumped on the Trump crazy train, a deal has been made, He is going to be a rubber stamping stooge for congress. The veto pen is locked away until congress gets voted out in the mid-terms.

You clearly have a rich fantasy life, but when I suggested you think before posting I meant rational thought, not sharing your fantasies with us.

Been watching these people abandon their publicly stated ideologies all my life. This time is no different. It's like how you Trump people will put away all your anti-government, tree of liberty Bullshit and be pro-government nationalists until the next democrat is elected president. You will then pull out all your Gadsden flags and apocalyptic rhetoric about armed revolt against the same bloated corrupt government and not even feel remotely like flaming hypocrites.

In other words, you didn't follow the election and so have nothing to post except anti Republican slanders.

It's called history, you know, that thing republicans repeat again and again and again and again and again and again, I said it like that for the five republican presidents in my lifetime. You will be trying to explain how trickle down really will trickle down this time before you even know it.

lol Trickle down is what ignorant people on the left call encouraging investment in the private sector. It means nothing.

 

[occupied]

LOL What makes you think he actually meant anything he said? Far too many former critics and adversaries have jumped on the Trump crazy train, a deal has been made, He is going to be a rubber stamping stooge for congress. The veto pen is locked away until congress gets voted out in the mid-terms.

You clearly have a rich fantasy life, but when I suggested you think before posting I meant rational thought, not sharing your fantasies with us.

Been watching these people abandon their publicly stated ideologies all my life. This time is no different. It's like how you Trump people will put away all your anti-government, tree of liberty Bullshit and be pro-government nationalists until the next democrat is elected president. You will then pull out all your Gadsden flags and apocalyptic rhetoric about armed revolt against the same bloated corrupt government and not even feel remotely like flaming hypocrites.

In other words, you didn't follow the election and so have nothing to post except anti Republican slanders.

It's called history, you know, that thing republicans repeat again and again and again and again and again and again, I said it like that for the five republican presidents in my lifetime. You will be trying to explain how trickle down really will trickle down this time before you even know it.

lol Trickle down is what ignorant people on the left call encouraging investment in the private sector. It means nothing.

It means nothing when it is in the form of massive untargeted tax cuts, the preferred republican method of ̶k̶i̶s̶s̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶u̶p̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶i̶r̶ ̶r̶i̶c̶h̶ ̶d̶o̶n̶o̶r̶s̶ stimulating the economy.

 

[Slade3200]

Really???.....A president can’t have a conflict of interest??

Nixon once stated that anything that a president does CANNOT be interpreted as "illegal", and that attitude eventually got him to resign or face impeachment.

Are we headed toward a situation where whatever a president does is tantamount to absolution before the law; simply stated, is a president ABOVE the law?

There is no law relevant to this situation. If Trump tries to pull a Clinton and use his office for personal gain, then he should be prosecuted, just as Clinton should be prosecuted for ignoring the law.

It's an interesting question... should a cop get a ticket if they speed or change lanes without using their blinker etc?

It's an irrelevant question since there is no law relevant to Trump not divesting from his business, however if he used his office to enrich himself through that business, it would be an impeachable offense.

You know good and well that with as many business dealing that Trump has there is going to be a constant stream of grey area deals that Trump critics will be able to spin or justify investigations for... you saw what the Hillary critics did when looking into her Foundation. She is defined to many as a crooked criminal because of these accusations. I fear that it will be a never ending battle against Trump and a complete distraction from doing productive things for our country. It's gonna be a mess

The Democrats are going to wage a never ending battle against Trump no matter what he does just as they have been doing. Hillary is "is defined to many as a crooked criminal" because all three Clintons are crooks.

'Chelsea Clinton used her family foundation’s cash to pay for her wedding, living expenses and taxes on gifts of cash from her parents, according to a bombshell email made public Sunday.

Doug Band, formerly a top aide to President Bill Clinton, griped about the former first daughter’s spending in a Jan. 4, 2012, email released by WikiLeaks.

“The investigation into her getting paid for campaigning, using foundation resources for her wedding and life for a decade, taxes on money from her parents…,” Band wrote to John Podesta, now Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman.

“I hope that you will speak to her and end this. Once we go down this road…”'

Chelsea Clinton used foundation to help pay for wedding: email | New York Post

If Trump or his children turn out to be as crooked as the Clintons are, they should be prosecuted, as the Clintons should be, but so far there is no evidence they are low lifes like the Clintons.

It is somewhat amusing to me... I'm not a Clinton fan, but if I was I would be so pissed about all the assumptive rhetoric that spins around. While I do think it is possible that there was illegal activity going on, there is NO proof of anything. What do we know? They have released all of their tax records and financials and nothing was flagged. You are basing assumptions off of hacked emails and off record conversations that really don't point to any evidence, I've read the article and it sounds like a bunch of "he said she said" rumor mill talk.

It doesn't make sense why the Clintons would illegally used foundation funds for the wedding and Chelsea's bills. They have millions and didn't need it. They have the public eye on them, and knew Hillary was aiming for the white house, so it just doesn't make sense. Yes, they still could have done it, but I just don't think they would be that stupid. Plus they've had numerous FBI investigations on going for weeks/months and nothing has stuck.

Clinton is defined as a crook because Trump and the GOP defined her as that during this campaign. They beat the message to death spinning whatever they could to back up the premise and it worked on a lot of people. I look at the type of guy that Trump his add his past history of business dealings, plus everything i've seen from him during this campaign and I have no doubt that he will be far more secretive, manipulating, dishonest, and crooked as Hillary could of ever dreamed. She wasn't the cleanest and I wasn't excited about the prospect of her being president, but Trump is in a league of his own.

The part that is going to bother me the most is going to be the hypocrisy that will come to surface from his administration and his supporters that made such a big deal about the "Honest/Trustworthy" factor with clinton. They are going to turn around and do the exact same stuff, perhaps worse, and his supporters won't care, congress won't care, and he will do his thing of deflecting blame onto others... This is not America's finest hour

 

[toomuchtime_]

There is no law relevant to this situation. If Trump tries to pull a Clinton and use his office for personal gain, then he should be prosecuted, just as Clinton should be prosecuted for ignoring the law.

It's an interesting question... should a cop get a ticket if they speed or change lanes without using their blinker etc?

It's an irrelevant question since there is no law relevant to Trump not divesting from his business, however if he used his office to enrich himself through that business, it would be an impeachable offense.

You know good and well that with as many business dealing that Trump has there is going to be a constant stream of grey area deals that Trump critics will be able to spin or justify investigations for... you saw what the Hillary critics did when looking into her Foundation. She is defined to many as a crooked criminal because of these accusations. I fear that it will be a never ending battle against Trump and a complete distraction from doing productive things for our country. It's gonna be a mess

The Democrats are going to wage a never ending battle against Trump no matter what he does just as they have been doing. Hillary is "is defined to many as a crooked criminal" because all three Clintons are crooks.

'Chelsea Clinton used her family foundation’s cash to pay for her wedding, living expenses and taxes on gifts of cash from her parents, according to a bombshell email made public Sunday.

Doug Band, formerly a top aide to President Bill Clinton, griped about the former first daughter’s spending in a Jan. 4, 2012, email released by WikiLeaks.

“The investigation into her getting paid for campaigning, using foundation resources for her wedding and life for a decade, taxes on money from her parents…,” Band wrote to John Podesta, now Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman.

“I hope that you will speak to her and end this. Once we go down this road…”'

Chelsea Clinton used foundation to help pay for wedding: email | New York Post

If Trump or his children turn out to be as crooked as the Clintons are, they should be prosecuted, as the Clintons should be, but so far there is no evidence they are low lifes like the Clintons.

It is somewhat amusing to me... I'm not a Clinton fan, but if I was I would be so pissed about all the assumptive rhetoric that spins around. While I do think it is possible that there was illegal activity going on, there is NO proof of anything. What do we know? They have released all of their tax records and financials and nothing was flagged. You are basing assumptions off of hacked emails and off record conversations that really don't point to any evidence, I've read the article and it sounds like a bunch of "he said she said" rumor mill talk.

It doesn't make sense why the Clintons would illegally used foundation funds for the wedding and Chelsea's bills. They have millions and didn't need it. They have the public eye on them, and knew Hillary was aiming for the white house, so it just doesn't make sense. Yes, they still could have done it, but I just don't think they would be that stupid. Plus they've had numerous FBI investigations on going for weeks/months and nothing has stuck.

Clinton is defined as a crook because Trump and the GOP defined her as that during this campaign. They beat the message to death spinning whatever they could to back up the premise and it worked on a lot of people. I look at the type of guy that Trump his add his past history of business dealings, plus everything i've seen from him during this campaign and I have no doubt that he will be far more secretive, manipulating, dishonest, and crooked as Hillary could of ever dreamed. She wasn't the cleanest and I wasn't excited about the prospect of her being president, but Trump is in a league of his own.

The part that is going to bother me the most is going to be the hypocrisy that will come to surface from his administration and his supporters that made such a big deal about the "Honest/Trustworthy" factor with clinton. They are going to turn around and do the exact same stuff, perhaps worse, and his supporters won't care, congress won't care, and he will do his thing of deflecting blame onto others... This is not America's finest hour

You have obviously decided not to believe anything bad about the Clintons, but there is significant evidence of corruption, some of it indictable. None of the people involved has disputed the authenticity of the hacked emails, which were between Clinton supporters concerned about what would happen if Chelsea got caught. Five of Clintons top aides, including Huma and Cheryl Mills, her chief of staff, refused to talk to the FBI unless they got immunity from prosecution. No one demands immunity from prosecution unless they know they have committed crimes, so we are left with only two possible conclusions, either Hillary was complicit in their crimes, which all the evidence suggests, or she had no idea what was going on in her office in the State Department or since.

 

[Slade3200]

It's an interesting question... should a cop get a ticket if they speed or change lanes without using their blinker etc?

It's an irrelevant question since there is no law relevant to Trump not divesting from his business, however if he used his office to enrich himself through that business, it would be an impeachable offense.

You know good and well that with as many business dealing that Trump has there is going to be a constant stream of grey area deals that Trump critics will be able to spin or justify investigations for... you saw what the Hillary critics did when looking into her Foundation. She is defined to many as a crooked criminal because of these accusations. I fear that it will be a never ending battle against Trump and a complete distraction from doing productive things for our country. It's gonna be a mess

The Democrats are going to wage a never ending battle against Trump no matter what he does just as they have been doing. Hillary is "is defined to many as a crooked criminal" because all three Clintons are crooks.

'Chelsea Clinton used her family foundation’s cash to pay for her wedding, living expenses and taxes on gifts of cash from her parents, according to a bombshell email made public Sunday.

Doug Band, formerly a top aide to President Bill Clinton, griped about the former first daughter’s spending in a Jan. 4, 2012, email released by WikiLeaks.

“The investigation into her getting paid for campaigning, using foundation resources for her wedding and life for a decade, taxes on money from her parents…,” Band wrote to John Podesta, now Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman.

“I hope that you will speak to her and end this. Once we go down this road…”'

Chelsea Clinton used foundation to help pay for wedding: email | New York Post

If Trump or his children turn out to be as crooked as the Clintons are, they should be prosecuted, as the Clintons should be, but so far there is no evidence they are low lifes like the Clintons.

It is somewhat amusing to me... I'm not a Clinton fan, but if I was I would be so pissed about all the assumptive rhetoric that spins around. While I do think it is possible that there was illegal activity going on, there is NO proof of anything. What do we know? They have released all of their tax records and financials and nothing was flagged. You are basing assumptions off of hacked emails and off record conversations that really don't point to any evidence, I've read the article and it sounds like a bunch of "he said she said" rumor mill talk.

It doesn't make sense why the Clintons would illegally used foundation funds for the wedding and Chelsea's bills. They have millions and didn't need it. They have the public eye on them, and knew Hillary was aiming for the white house, so it just doesn't make sense. Yes, they still could have done it, but I just don't think they would be that stupid. Plus they've had numerous FBI investigations on going for weeks/months and nothing has stuck.

Clinton is defined as a crook because Trump and the GOP defined her as that during this campaign. They beat the message to death spinning whatever they could to back up the premise and it worked on a lot of people. I look at the type of guy that Trump his add his past history of business dealings, plus everything i've seen from him during this campaign and I have no doubt that he will be far more secretive, manipulating, dishonest, and crooked as Hillary could of ever dreamed. She wasn't the cleanest and I wasn't excited about the prospect of her being president, but Trump is in a league of his own.

The part that is going to bother me the most is going to be the hypocrisy that will come to surface from his administration and his supporters that made such a big deal about the "Honest/Trustworthy" factor with clinton. They are going to turn around and do the exact same stuff, perhaps worse, and his supporters won't care, congress won't care, and he will do his thing of deflecting blame onto others... This is not America's finest hour

You have obviously decided not to believe anything bad about the Clintons, but there is significant evidence of corruption, some of it indictable. None of the people involved has disputed the authenticity of the hacked emails, which were between Clinton supporters concerned about what would happen if Chelsea got caught. Five of Clintons top aides, including Huma and Cheryl Mills, her chief of staff, refused to talk to the FBI unless they got immunity from prosecution. No one demands immunity from prosecution unless they know they have committed crimes, so we are left with only two possible conclusions, either Hillary was complicit in their crimes, which all the evidence suggests, or she had no idea what was going on in her office in the State Department or since.

I'm not doubting the authenticity of the emails but I am saying it is irresponsible to use them as damning evidence. You have no context. They very well could have been discussing political backlash and effects of public opinion. People like you who think they have it all figured out based on when they hear from the media are simply reenforving a narrative that they want to believe. Do you really think that you know more than the FBI who have spent hundreds/thousands of hours investigating with no charges? Or do you think they are part of a vast government cover up?

 

[toomuchtime_]

It's an irrelevant question since there is no law relevant to Trump not divesting from his business, however if he used his office to enrich himself through that business, it would be an impeachable offense.

You know good and well that with as many business dealing that Trump has there is going to be a constant stream of grey area deals that Trump critics will be able to spin or justify investigations for... you saw what the Hillary critics did when looking into her Foundation. She is defined to many as a crooked criminal because of these accusations. I fear that it will be a never ending battle against Trump and a complete distraction from doing productive things for our country. It's gonna be a mess

The Democrats are going to wage a never ending battle against Trump no matter what he does just as they have been doing. Hillary is "is defined to many as a crooked criminal" because all three Clintons are crooks.

'Chelsea Clinton used her family foundation’s cash to pay for her wedding, living expenses and taxes on gifts of cash from her parents, according to a bombshell email made public Sunday.

Doug Band, formerly a top aide to President Bill Clinton, griped about the former first daughter’s spending in a Jan. 4, 2012, email released by WikiLeaks.

“The investigation into her getting paid for campaigning, using foundation resources for her wedding and life for a decade, taxes on money from her parents…,” Band wrote to John Podesta, now Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman.

“I hope that you will speak to her and end this. Once we go down this road…”'

Chelsea Clinton used foundation to help pay for wedding: email | New York Post

If Trump or his children turn out to be as crooked as the Clintons are, they should be prosecuted, as the Clintons should be, but so far there is no evidence they are low lifes like the Clintons.

It is somewhat amusing to me... I'm not a Clinton fan, but if I was I would be so pissed about all the assumptive rhetoric that spins around. While I do think it is possible that there was illegal activity going on, there is NO proof of anything. What do we know? They have released all of their tax records and financials and nothing was flagged. You are basing assumptions off of hacked emails and off record conversations that really don't point to any evidence, I've read the article and it sounds like a bunch of "he said she said" rumor mill talk.

It doesn't make sense why the Clintons would illegally used foundation funds for the wedding and Chelsea's bills. They have millions and didn't need it. They have the public eye on them, and knew Hillary was aiming for the white house, so it just doesn't make sense. Yes, they still could have done it, but I just don't think they would be that stupid. Plus they've had numerous FBI investigations on going for weeks/months and nothing has stuck.

Clinton is defined as a crook because Trump and the GOP defined her as that during this campaign. They beat the message to death spinning whatever they could to back up the premise and it worked on a lot of people. I look at the type of guy that Trump his add his past history of business dealings, plus everything i've seen from him during this campaign and I have no doubt that he will be far more secretive, manipulating, dishonest, and crooked as Hillary could of ever dreamed. She wasn't the cleanest and I wasn't excited about the prospect of her being president, but Trump is in a league of his own.

The part that is going to bother me the most is going to be the hypocrisy that will come to surface from his administration and his supporters that made such a big deal about the "Honest/Trustworthy" factor with clinton. They are going to turn around and do the exact same stuff, perhaps worse, and his supporters won't care, congress won't care, and he will do his thing of deflecting blame onto others... This is not America's finest hour

You have obviously decided not to believe anything bad about the Clintons, but there is significant evidence of corruption, some of it indictable. None of the people involved has disputed the authenticity of the hacked emails, which were between Clinton supporters concerned about what would happen if Chelsea got caught. Five of Clintons top aides, including Huma and Cheryl Mills, her chief of staff, refused to talk to the FBI unless they got immunity from prosecution. No one demands immunity from prosecution unless they know they have committed crimes, so we are left with only two possible conclusions, either Hillary was complicit in their crimes, which all the evidence suggests, or she had no idea what was going on in her office in the State Department or since.

I'm not doubting the authenticity of the emails but I am saying it is irresponsible to use them as damning evidence. You have no context. They very well could have been discussing political backlash and effects of public opinion. People like you who think they have it all figured out based on when they hear from the media are simply reenforving a narrative that they want to believe. Do you really think that you know more than the FBI who have spent hundreds/thousands of hours investigating with no charges? Or do you think they are part of a vast government cover up?

Of course there was a cover up. Do you really think a Democratic president would allow his party's candidate to be indicted in the middle of the election campaign? If he had, Clinton would have had no chance of winning and the down ticket would have be destroyed. Pressure from the WH and the party establishment forced Lynch and Comey to not only squash the investigation but hand out immunity to all the top people on Clinton's staff. If no crimes had been committed, there would have been no reason to hand out immunity to Clinton's staff.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

There is no law relevant to this situation.

Oh yes there is! It's called the US Constitution!

Article I, § 9, Clause 8
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.

 

[Slade3200]

You know good and well that with as many business dealing that Trump has there is going to be a constant stream of grey area deals that Trump critics will be able to spin or justify investigations for... you saw what the Hillary critics did when looking into her Foundation. She is defined to many as a crooked criminal because of these accusations. I fear that it will be a never ending battle against Trump and a complete distraction from doing productive things for our country. It's gonna be a mess

The Democrats are going to wage a never ending battle against Trump no matter what he does just as they have been doing. Hillary is "is defined to many as a crooked criminal" because all three Clintons are crooks.

'Chelsea Clinton used her family foundation’s cash to pay for her wedding, living expenses and taxes on gifts of cash from her parents, according to a bombshell email made public Sunday.

Doug Band, formerly a top aide to President Bill Clinton, griped about the former first daughter’s spending in a Jan. 4, 2012, email released by WikiLeaks.

“The investigation into her getting paid for campaigning, using foundation resources for her wedding and life for a decade, taxes on money from her parents…,” Band wrote to John Podesta, now Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman.

“I hope that you will speak to her and end this. Once we go down this road…”'

Chelsea Clinton used foundation to help pay for wedding: email | New York Post

If Trump or his children turn out to be as crooked as the Clintons are, they should be prosecuted, as the Clintons should be, but so far there is no evidence they are low lifes like the Clintons.

It is somewhat amusing to me... I'm not a Clinton fan, but if I was I would be so pissed about all the assumptive rhetoric that spins around. While I do think it is possible that there was illegal activity going on, there is NO proof of anything. What do we know? They have released all of their tax records and financials and nothing was flagged. You are basing assumptions off of hacked emails and off record conversations that really don't point to any evidence, I've read the article and it sounds like a bunch of "he said she said" rumor mill talk.

It doesn't make sense why the Clintons would illegally used foundation funds for the wedding and Chelsea's bills. They have millions and didn't need it. They have the public eye on them, and knew Hillary was aiming for the white house, so it just doesn't make sense. Yes, they still could have done it, but I just don't think they would be that stupid. Plus they've had numerous FBI investigations on going for weeks/months and nothing has stuck.

Clinton is defined as a crook because Trump and the GOP defined her as that during this campaign. They beat the message to death spinning whatever they could to back up the premise and it worked on a lot of people. I look at the type of guy that Trump his add his past history of business dealings, plus everything i've seen from him during this campaign and I have no doubt that he will be far more secretive, manipulating, dishonest, and crooked as Hillary could of ever dreamed. She wasn't the cleanest and I wasn't excited about the prospect of her being president, but Trump is in a league of his own.

The part that is going to bother me the most is going to be the hypocrisy that will come to surface from his administration and his supporters that made such a big deal about the "Honest/Trustworthy" factor with clinton. They are going to turn around and do the exact same stuff, perhaps worse, and his supporters won't care, congress won't care, and he will do his thing of deflecting blame onto others... This is not America's finest hour

You have obviously decided not to believe anything bad about the Clintons, but there is significant evidence of corruption, some of it indictable. None of the people involved has disputed the authenticity of the hacked emails, which were between Clinton supporters concerned about what would happen if Chelsea got caught. Five of Clintons top aides, including Huma and Cheryl Mills, her chief of staff, refused to talk to the FBI unless they got immunity from prosecution. No one demands immunity from prosecution unless they know they have committed crimes, so we are left with only two possible conclusions, either Hillary was complicit in their crimes, which all the evidence suggests, or she had no idea what was going on in her office in the State Department or since.

I'm not doubting the authenticity of the emails but I am saying it is irresponsible to use them as damning evidence. You have no context. They very well could have been discussing political backlash and effects of public opinion. People like you who think they have it all figured out based on when they hear from the media are simply reenforving a narrative that they want to believe. Do you really think that you know more than the FBI who have spent hundreds/thousands of hours investigating with no charges? Or do you think they are part of a vast government cover up?

Of course there was a cover up. Do you really think a Democratic president would allow his party's candidate to be indicted in the middle of the election campaign? If he had, Clinton would have had no chance of winning and the down ticket would have be destroyed. Pressure from the WH and the party establishment forced Lynch and Comey to not only squash the investigation but hand out immunity to all the top people on Clinton's staff. If no crimes had been committed, there would have been no reason to hand out immunity to Clinton's staff.

Right, and Comeys letter a week before the election was all part of their devious plan. Interesting now that Trump won and the Clintons are out of power, there is not a peep about it. You'd think now that the stronghold that was oppressing the FBI from speaking the truth is gone, you'd see the truth coming out.

And here I thought you were just a passionate conservative but I gave you too much credit... I got no use talking to conspiracy theory wingnuts.

 

[nat4900]

Of course there was a cover up. Do you really think a Democratic president would allow his party's candidate to be indicted in the middle of the election campaign?

Inane.......IF there really was a "cover up" from the Obama administration, NO comments from Comey would ever have surfaced......AND

would the IRS not finish up that "mysterious" audit of Trump's taxes?

 

[toomuchtime_]

There is no law relevant to this situation.

Oh yes there is! It's called the US Constitution!

Article I, § 9, Clause 8
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.

Of course this has nothing to do with Trump's relationship with his business.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The Democrats are going to wage a never ending battle against Trump no matter what he does just as they have been doing. Hillary is "is defined to many as a crooked criminal" because all three Clintons are crooks.

'Chelsea Clinton used her family foundation’s cash to pay for her wedding, living expenses and taxes on gifts of cash from her parents, according to a bombshell email made public Sunday.

Doug Band, formerly a top aide to President Bill Clinton, griped about the former first daughter’s spending in a Jan. 4, 2012, email released by WikiLeaks.

“The investigation into her getting paid for campaigning, using foundation resources for her wedding and life for a decade, taxes on money from her parents…,” Band wrote to John Podesta, now Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman.

“I hope that you will speak to her and end this. Once we go down this road…”'

Chelsea Clinton used foundation to help pay for wedding: email | New York Post

If Trump or his children turn out to be as crooked as the Clintons are, they should be prosecuted, as the Clintons should be, but so far there is no evidence they are low lifes like the Clintons.

It is somewhat amusing to me... I'm not a Clinton fan, but if I was I would be so pissed about all the assumptive rhetoric that spins around. While I do think it is possible that there was illegal activity going on, there is NO proof of anything. What do we know? They have released all of their tax records and financials and nothing was flagged. You are basing assumptions off of hacked emails and off record conversations that really don't point to any evidence, I've read the article and it sounds like a bunch of "he said she said" rumor mill talk.

It doesn't make sense why the Clintons would illegally used foundation funds for the wedding and Chelsea's bills. They have millions and didn't need it. They have the public eye on them, and knew Hillary was aiming for the white house, so it just doesn't make sense. Yes, they still could have done it, but I just don't think they would be that stupid. Plus they've had numerous FBI investigations on going for weeks/months and nothing has stuck.

Clinton is defined as a crook because Trump and the GOP defined her as that during this campaign. They beat the message to death spinning whatever they could to back up the premise and it worked on a lot of people. I look at the type of guy that Trump his add his past history of business dealings, plus everything i've seen from him during this campaign and I have no doubt that he will be far more secretive, manipulating, dishonest, and crooked as Hillary could of ever dreamed. She wasn't the cleanest and I wasn't excited about the prospect of her being president, but Trump is in a league of his own.

The part that is going to bother me the most is going to be the hypocrisy that will come to surface from his administration and his supporters that made such a big deal about the "Honest/Trustworthy" factor with clinton. They are going to turn around and do the exact same stuff, perhaps worse, and his supporters won't care, congress won't care, and he will do his thing of deflecting blame onto others... This is not America's finest hour

You have obviously decided not to believe anything bad about the Clintons, but there is significant evidence of corruption, some of it indictable. None of the people involved has disputed the authenticity of the hacked emails, which were between Clinton supporters concerned about what would happen if Chelsea got caught. Five of Clintons top aides, including Huma and Cheryl Mills, her chief of staff, refused to talk to the FBI unless they got immunity from prosecution. No one demands immunity from prosecution unless they know they have committed crimes, so we are left with only two possible conclusions, either Hillary was complicit in their crimes, which all the evidence suggests, or she had no idea what was going on in her office in the State Department or since.

I'm not doubting the authenticity of the emails but I am saying it is irresponsible to use them as damning evidence. You have no context. They very well could have been discussing political backlash and effects of public opinion. People like you who think they have it all figured out based on when they hear from the media are simply reenforving a narrative that they want to believe. Do you really think that you know more than the FBI who have spent hundreds/thousands of hours investigating with no charges? Or do you think they are part of a vast government cover up?

Of course there was a cover up. Do you really think a Democratic president would allow his party's candidate to be indicted in the middle of the election campaign? If he had, Clinton would have had no chance of winning and the down ticket would have be destroyed. Pressure from the WH and the party establishment forced Lynch and Comey to not only squash the investigation but hand out immunity to all the top people on Clinton's staff. If no crimes had been committed, there would have been no reason to hand out immunity to Clinton's staff.

Right, and Comeys letter a week before the election was all part of their devious plan. Interesting now that Trump won and the Clintons are out of power, there is not a peep about it. You'd think now that the stronghold that was oppressing the FBI from speaking the truth is gone, you'd see the truth coming out.

And here I thought you were just a passionate conservative but I gave you too much credit... I got no use talking to conspiracy theory wingnuts.

You mean you have no use for any evidence that points to Clinton wrongdoings.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

There is no law relevant to this situation.

Oh yes there is! It's called the US Constitution!

Article I, § 9, Clause 8
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.

Of course this has nothing to do with Trump's relationship with his business.

And you lack any imagination!

 

[toomuchtime_]

There is no law relevant to this situation.

Oh yes there is! It's called the US Constitution!

Article I, § 9, Clause 8
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.

Of course this has nothing to do with Trump's relationship with his business.

A you lack any imagination!

lol If you mean I didn't invent a new Constitution, it's true.

 

[rdean]

Really???.....A president can’t have a conflict of interest??

Nixon once stated that anything that a president does CANNOT be interpreted as "illegal", and that attitude eventually got him to resign or face impeachment.

Are we headed toward a situation where whatever a president does is tantamount to absolution before the law; simply stated, is a president ABOVE the law?

There is no law relevant to this situation. If Trump tries to pull a Clinton and use his office for personal gain, then he should be prosecuted, just as Clinton should be prosecuted for ignoring the law.

Pull a Clinton? What are you talking about? Republicans investigated the Clintons over 30 years with the full power of the FBI, the CIA and using unlimited tax payer money on dozens of congressional investigation. If, after all the, all you could find was a blowjob between a married man and a 24 year old woman, then a blowjob is all you could find. And you wouldn't even have found that if she had kept her mouth shut.

 

[miketx]

Really???.....A president can’t have a conflict of interest??

Nixon once stated that anything that a president does CANNOT be interpreted as "illegal", and that attitude eventually got him to resign or face impeachment.

Are we headed toward a situation where whatever a president does is tantamount to absolution before the law; simply stated, is a president ABOVE the law?

Quasar stupid. Here's the translation for you:
"I can't do that doesn't mean it's not possible to do".

 

[toomuchtime_]

Really???.....A president can’t have a conflict of interest??

Nixon once stated that anything that a president does CANNOT be interpreted as "illegal", and that attitude eventually got him to resign or face impeachment.

Are we headed toward a situation where whatever a president does is tantamount to absolution before the law; simply stated, is a president ABOVE the law?

There is no law relevant to this situation. If Trump tries to pull a Clinton and use his office for personal gain, then he should be prosecuted, just as Clinton should be prosecuted for ignoring the law.

Pull a Clinton? What are you talking about? Republicans investigated the Clintons over 30 years with the full power of the FBI, the CIA and using unlimited tax payer money on dozens of congressional investigation. If, after all the, all you could find was a blowjob between a married man and a 24 year old woman, then a blowjob is all you could find. And you wouldn't even have found that if she had kept her mouth shut.

It took law enforcement years to get John Gotti, too.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

There is no law relevant to this situation.

Oh yes there is! It's called the US Constitution!

Article I, § 9, Clause 8
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.

Of course this has nothing to do with Trump's relationship with his business.

A you lack any imagination!

lol If you mean I didn't invent a new Constitution, it's true.

Obviously, that is not what I meant. Playing dumb is just a means to avoid addressing what was noted in Article I, § 9, Clause 8 and highlighted in blue regarding the acceptance of presents and emoluments in my post #48 to you.

Forget it! You're unwilling to respond with any integrity!

 

[toomuchtime_]

There is no law relevant to this situation.

Oh yes there is! It's called the US Constitution!

Article I, § 9, Clause 8
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.

Of course this has nothing to do with Trump's relationship with his business.

A you lack any imagination!

lol If you mean I didn't invent a new Constitution, it's true.

Obviously, that is not what I meant. Playing dumb is just a means to avoid addressing what was noted in Article I, § 9, Clause 8 and highlighted in blue regarding the acceptance of presents and emoluments in my post #48 to you.

Forget it! You're unwilling to respond with any integrity!

Your post is irrelevant to the issue, so how can I possibly take it seriously. By your way of thinking, if George Washington had exported cotton from his plantation to foreign countries he should have been impeached.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Oh yes there is! It's called the US Constitution!

Article I, § 9, Clause 8
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.

Of course this has nothing to do with Trump's relationship with his business.

A you lack any imagination!

lol If you mean I didn't invent a new Constitution, it's true.

Obviously, that is not what I meant. Playing dumb is just a means to avoid addressing what was noted in Article I, § 9, Clause 8 and highlighted in blue regarding the acceptance of presents and emoluments in my post #48 to you.

Forget it! You're unwilling to respond with any integrity!

Your post is irrelevant to the issue, so how can I possibly take it seriously. By your way of thinking, if George Washington had exported cotton from his plantation to foreign countries he should have been impeached.

As I've already stated, pretending to be profoundly unimaginative AND with holes in every mental pocket displays a distinct lack of integrity, fool! When Trump OR his agents accept any present or payment of any sort that would enrich Trump in any wise in any form of quid pro quo without the DIRECT CONSENT OF CONGRESS, that would be a violation of Article I, § 9, Clause 8 and grounds for impeachment and expulsion from office.

If you want to believe otherwise, remain in the rubber room with the other deniers of fact!