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

[PK1]

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

You seem to be preoccupied with babies & young kids.
Is that your preferred level of communication?
I hope that does not reflect on your politics ... about adult issues.

It is who we're dealing with so getting to their level to understand what libturds think is nerve racking. So, the photos are the libturds crying about losing like babies do. So where is it he's wrong?

You think profiling individuals into a group, rather than focusing on their specific comments, and then using infantile expressions like "libturds" to reference a group ... a mature contribution to a discussion?
Do you call yourself a "conturd"?

I believe the term would be "conservaturd"

Oh, i thought the opposing group are "con" folks, as in doing con jobs.

Actually, i was just using fewer letters to be more efficient.
Also, I would not want to conserve a turd!

 

[Londoner]

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.

So you would be outraged if it was true?

 

[Slade3200]

If you don't see it then open your eyes. We aren't talking about Republicans or Democrats, we are talking about people like David Duke who support Trump. How do you deny it?...

I don't deny that. Do you deny that Hugo Chavez happily shook President Obama's hand and said "I want to be your friend"? Does that make President Obama a Socialist and/or a Marxist bent on nationalizing our nation's resources and industries? If not, why the double standard?

No doubt, as Hillary did, Trump employed rhetoric and hyperbole to excite potential voters, but, unless you believe Hillary believes everything she said, I fail to see why you believe everything Trump said. Notice how his tone has changed since the election. Not perfect, still odd, but a definite change.

It does not, and I'm not implying that Trump shares the same views of David Duke. But the conversation is about people like Duke being attracted to Trump and his policies, and it is these elements that are causing concern amoungst minority groups. Aside from Trumps past comments and actions around women, I think the issue is his tolerance or appearance of turning a blind eye to the support from these groups and their expectations derived from his campaign propaganda. It doesn't directly implicate Trump as a supporter of these viewpoints but there is an element of responsibility as a public figure for what herds you feed and how you handle the reactions to your statements

 

[Divine Wind]

It does not, and I'm not implying that Trump shares the same views of David Duke. But the conversation is about people like Duke being attracted to Trump and his policies, and it is these elements that are causing concern amoungst minority groups. Aside from Trumps past comments and actions around women, I think the issue is his tolerance or appearance of turning a blind eye to the support from these groups and their expectations derived from his campaign propaganda. It doesn't directly implicate Trump as a supporter of these viewpoints but there is an element of responsibility as a public figure for what herds you feed and how you handle the reactions to your statements

Yeah, and people like Chavez being attracted to Obama. Again, I disagree that who likes you doesn't make you one of them.

The fact remains that despite all the wailing and crying from the Left, Trump has to confront the issues facing being POTUS. IMO, one of Obama's major mistakes was being too "black". The Philly voter intimidation case, the Zimmerman case, the Ferguson case and other situations where President Obama, as well meaning as he probably intended, clearly took racial sides is not the way to be an effective President. Same goes for Trump. If he embraces "alt-right" views, White Supremacism or other assholish policies, his will be an ineffective Presidency and most Americans will turn against all those who support that point of view.

 

[Divine Wind]

I believe the term would be "conservaturd"

Funny but self-defeating. It feeds the hate.

 

[Slade3200]

It does not, and I'm not implying that Trump shares the same views of David Duke. But the conversation is about people like Duke being attracted to Trump and his policies, and it is these elements that are causing concern amoungst minority groups. Aside from Trumps past comments and actions around women, I think the issue is his tolerance or appearance of turning a blind eye to the support from these groups and their expectations derived from his campaign propaganda. It doesn't directly implicate Trump as a supporter of these viewpoints but there is an element of responsibility as a public figure for what herds you feed and how you handle the reactions to your statements

Yeah, and people like Chavez being attracted to Obama. Again, I disagree that who likes you doesn't make you one of them.

The fact remains that despite all the wailing and crying from the Left, Trump has to confront the issues facing being POTUS. IMO, one of Obama's major mistakes was being too "black". The Philly voter intimidation case, the Zimmerman case, the Ferguson case and other situations where President Obama, as well meaning as he probably intended, clearly took racial sides is not the way to be an effective President. Same goes for Trump. If he embraces "alt-right" views, White Supremacism or other assholish policies, his will be an ineffective Presidency and most Americans will turn against all those who support that point of view.

I think You present a true statement... while attitudes about racial inequality and discriminatory viewpoints are IMO far more inflammatory than the aregument over the degree of socialistic policies we allow in our capitalistic system, you do make a fair comparison... I just think Trump is standing on thinner ice with the Dukes of this world than Obama with the Chavez's

I do think Obama made a concerted effort to align with the BLM movement when I think it would have been appropriate to check them and present more objective facts. In his defense he did reach out to the law enforecement community but it didn't make big headlines. I do understand why Obamas stood with BLM, standing up for those that feel oppressed, a race that he is the champion of, but you're right a president must not go too deep into one side, as he represents ALL of us. Trump, as I said before, is on thinner ice being associated with the alt right. People have less empathy for those causes and there is a distinct difference between the problems of the privileged vs the problems of the oppressed.

The Dems played the race card and the privileged card too much and I think it hit a breaking point where the poor and middle class whites stopped listening... this I believe was a large factor in Trumps success. It is still very unstable territory so he needs to watch his step

 

[Slade3200]

I believe the term would be "conservaturd"

Funny but self-defeating. It feeds the hate.

I know... it was just too good of a set up... I actually respect many conservative principles... no hate intended

 

[jc456]

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.

So you would be outraged if it was true?

it isn't, so no use going through what you all are going through.

 

[jc456]

It does not, and I'm not implying that Trump shares the same views of David Duke. But the conversation is about people like Duke being attracted to Trump and his policies, and it is these elements that are causing concern amoungst minority groups. Aside from Trumps past comments and actions around women, I think the issue is his tolerance or appearance of turning a blind eye to the support from these groups and their expectations derived from his campaign propaganda. It doesn't directly implicate Trump as a supporter of these viewpoints but there is an element of responsibility as a public figure for what herds you feed and how you handle the reactions to your statements

Yeah, and people like Chavez being attracted to Obama. Again, I disagree that who likes you doesn't make you one of them.

The fact remains that despite all the wailing and crying from the Left, Trump has to confront the issues facing being POTUS. IMO, one of Obama's major mistakes was being too "black". The Philly voter intimidation case, the Zimmerman case, the Ferguson case and other situations where President Obama, as well meaning as he probably intended, clearly took racial sides is not the way to be an effective President. Same goes for Trump. If he embraces "alt-right" views, White Supremacism or other assholish policies, his will be an ineffective Presidency and most Americans will turn against all those who support that point of view.

he's going for policy that affects those who voted for him first and in it help those in the inner city. Those on the left can fk off. bummer did me no favors.

 

[SYTFE]

 

[charwin95]

If you buy poultry, meat and agricultural products, clean your house, wash you in convalescence home. You support illegals. Maybe you can boycott these products see happen to your political beliefs.
If you deport these people................... you wake up in the morning in the convalescence home or home care ...................... you are full of shit. Who do you call? Kozhergirl? ColonelAngus?

By your analogy I also support drug addicts because, no doubt, drug addicts are working at minimum wage jobs and I pay taxes for Obamacare.

Sorry, dude, but I disagreed with your analysis. I fully support arresting anyone who employs, harbors or otherwise support illegal aliens. It's a lot easier than rounding 11 million illegals and tossing them out a revolving door. Secondly, I do support immigration reform including a path to legal residence for qualified illegals. Thirdly, the fact you support illegal immigration means you support indentured servitude, a milder form of slavery. Illegals don't have access to legal help that legals do due to their immigration status. Lastly, I support changing the birth citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. If it was up to me, a people born here could become permanent legal residents if at least one of their parents was a legal resident of the US, but could not vote or run for office unless they passed a citizenship test.

FWIW, your insults cheapen your own argument. Your choice to express yourself all you like, but to take a valid point and figuratively wipe shit all over it just negates your own argument.

Hate to hurt your feelings but what I posted are the reality in life as we speak. You can disagree how ever you want but that's a fact. If you buy meat, poultry, agricultural products just like me........ You support illegals.

 

[Slade3200]

So Hillary was calling racists and bigots deplorable... who are you calling deplorable and why?

Partially correct and, according to 64% of American voters, unfair in categorizing half of Trump supporters as being prejudicial against women or minorities. Factor in that 60% of voters believe Hillary is untrustworthy and it seems her comments are not truthful.

Labeling someone "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. " doesn't make them that way. I'm against bring 60,000+ Syrian refugees (immigrants, in reality) to the US, but I fully support fixing why they are refugees and helping them until they can go home. Does that make me "racist"? "Islamophobic"?

I'm against Affirmative Action since, IMO, it is institutionalized racism. Does that make me "racist"?

Although I understand the plight of transgenders and bathrooms, I'm not comfortable with a transgender "woman" like Caitlyn Jenner using the little girls room at the school play or PTA meeting. Does that make me "homophobic"?

Clinton and Trump in virtual dead heat before first debate - The Washington Post
Q: Do you think it's fair or unfair to describe a large portion of Trump's supporters as prejudiced against women and minorities?
Fair 30%
Unfair 64%

Q: Do you think Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy, or not?
Yes 36%
No 60%

I was disappointed with both candidates but I was extremely disappointed by the classless and dishonest campaigns that both sides ran. To address your questions....

I believe Clinton was speaking to people that truly hate or feel superior to minorities, women, LGBT, and immigrants. There is no denying that people like this still exist in America, many were attracted to Trumps campaign, and these people truly are deplorable. Saying it was half his supporters was a mistake which she apologized for the next day.

Per your examples, I don't think any of them makes you a bigot.... you have every right to those views and though I do not agree with you I respect your right to hold those views and would hope that we could have an intelligent debate about why we feel the way we do. I see the root to your arguments being a focus on safety and protecting yourself and your community, this is a fair argument.. you did not reflect hate or targeted discrimination towards these groups... some people do have hate and want to excluded these groups because of this hate, these people are the deplorables.

dude really? You believe that shit. wow. Why are you ok with grown men in a bathroom with little girls. See I don't get that. I respect the rights of the child more than I respect the right of someone who wishes to dress up in the other genders clothes.

Illegal is illegal. What is it you believe is meant by illegal?

vetting, the FBI stated vetting was necessary to Obummer. What's wrong with taking direction from those we put in position to tell us that? I don't see at all where there is hate except from the left. Please post up anything you feel is accurate and factual other than hearsay and bullshit.

It's not heresay at all, this board is a great example, I've had many conversations with proud blatant racists, sexists, and bigots. That's not me calling them names, they own it with pride. They express all the old school supremists views and truly want a white male dominated society again... its very sad. And trust me, none of them were Hillary supporters. Then you see the KKK, the alt-right, and other extreme nationalist groups, all promoting and rallying for Trump, so I don't see how you can deny that this exists. You either don't think these view points are deplorable or you are ignoring/excusing their existance... either way it doesn't make you look good.

The trans situation is a longer discussion and is not as simple as allowing men into the bathroom with little girls. Of course i don't support that. But there is a situation going on where it's the transgenders that are struggling so I'm open to hearing the arguments with an open mind and finding the best solution. As of now I don't see bathroom regulation being a necessary thing for our government to get involved with.

I don't know what you are talking about with the "illegal" question

dude, I have no knowledge of anything you say exists. It exists in your mind, I'll agree with that.

kkk is democrates, you know this right? Alt right your terminology, I have no idea what that is,what other extreme nationalists groups?

Illegal, as immigration. What is it you don't understand about illegal?

What's the population of transgender people as far as a percentage of the country?

Here, from tonight's news, incase you're interested in opening your eyes

Alt-right leader: 'Hail Trump!' - CNN Video

 

[Divine Wind]

Did that law professor also say we could be invaded by Mars? The word "could" being the qualifying word.

If Congress tells Trump he needs to do "X" or be impeached, I'm sure a lot of people behind the scenes will be urging Trump to comply before it becomes an impeachment.

 

[Divine Wind]

Hate to hurt your feelings but what I posted are the reality in life as we speak. You can disagree how ever you want but that's a fact. If you buy meat, poultry, agricultural products just like me........ You support illegals.

No worries about my feelings since, by buying from discount stores, you are supporting both slave labor and the People's Republic of China.

 

[Divine Wind]

I think You present a true statement... while attitudes about racial inequality and discriminatory viewpoints are IMO far more inflammatory than the aregument over the degree of socialistic policies we allow in our capitalistic system, you do make a fair comparison... I just think Trump is standing on thinner ice with the Dukes of this world than Obama with the Chavez's

I do think Obama made a concerted effort to align with the BLM movement when I think it would have been appropriate to check them and present more objective facts. In his defense he did reach out to the law enforecement community but it didn't make big headlines. I do understand why Obamas stood with BLM, standing up for those that feel oppressed, a race that he is the champion of, but you're right a president must not go too deep into one side, as he represents ALL of us. Trump, as I said before, is on thinner ice being associated with the alt right. People have less empathy for those causes and there is a distinct difference between the problems of the privileged vs the problems of the oppressed.

The Dems played the race card and the privileged card too much and I think it hit a breaking point where the poor and middle class whites stopped listening... this I believe was a large factor in Trumps success. It is still very unstable territory so he needs to watch his step

President Obama and the Democrats actions are, indeed, a major reason why so many voters swung the other way. They bear as much responsibility for their actions, overreactions and the consequences as anyone else. The parties have pulled further and further apart leaving, as you alluded, poor and middle class whites (the majority of Americans) feeling both disillusioned and disenfranchised. Many Democrats stayed home and many Republicans/Republican leaners were motivated to vote for the Republican candidate.

The multiple posts and threads of LWers whining about the "popular vote" is another example of Democrats seeking to further divide our nation into Urban vs. Rural, Left vs Right and Left Coast vs. the United States since those extra Hillary votes are mainly from California. Obviously Hillary lost the election but the fact the LW is seeking to push the idea only servse to further divide our nation. All over a 1.35% difference mainly from one state out of 50. Liberal elitism is as damaging to our nation as fascism or the "alt-right".

Two weeks later, Hillary Clinton's popular vote lead grows as vote count continues
"Clinton's lead of about 1.7 million votes continues to increase, largely due to an influx of absentee and provisional ballots still being counted in California. She has about 63.7 million votes to Trump's 62 million; her margin in California alone is about 3.5 million."

 

[Divine Wind]

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.

So you would be outraged if it was true?

I'm content to let Congress figure it out, but this is more about outrage of the Left Wing for losing what they thought was a sure thing than about people using Trump's hotel.

 

[xyz]

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.

From the article:
"The incoming president, in other words, is actively soliciting business from agents of foreign governments."

He also has cabinet members that are basically acting as agents of foreign governments.

Although it can be more far reaching than that article, as he has hotels and others investments in many foreign countries.

 

[Divine Wind]

It fascinates me how the Left and Right Wing extremists have flip-flopped their positions as to what a President can and cannot do plus their positions on hoping an elected President will fail.

 

[Papageorgio]

Just to be clear - I have not said trump has violated the US Constitution. I have said he repeatedly said he wants to violate the US Constitution. Which is factually true.

Here are two of many examples.

Trump Says Freedom of the Press Must Go Because He's 'Not Like Other People'

Donald Trump vows to ruin protesters’ lives by pressing charges: ‘Their lives are gonna be ruined’

Trump made a lot of comments which his intelligent supporters knew were hyperbole and his less intelligent supporters believed 100%.

And liberals bought into hook, line and sinker. Just cause they aren't that intelligent.

 

[jc456]

dude, too funny. Every president can be impeached. It took you to watch a professor say it to understand that a president can be impeached? Funny stuff Jean.