Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 73

Thread: Donald Trump - 'Phony Emoluments Clause'

  1. #11
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,111
    Amen (Given)
    353
    Amen (Received)
    1663
    Quote Originally Posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
    That what? It’s only an issue because you hate Trump, but it wasn’t an issue in 2004? Politicians have been making millions, for years, off the government dime and from foreign sources. Why do you suddenly care now? Have you cared about those who become millionaires while in office or shortly after leaving?
    It's not about making money pix. It's about where the money comes from and what sort of obligation may be incurred by the President to the source. And before you start talking about whether or not X or Y would 'really' incur an obligation, that is not how laws work. The issue is how that idea is codified into law and whether or not the President violates said conditions. Those being:

    Source: Britannica

    The emoluments clause, also called the foreign emoluments clause, is a provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8) that generally prohibits federal officeholders from receiving any gift, payment, or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives. The clause provides that:No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

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

    © Copyright Original Source



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

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

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

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

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


    Jim
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 10-22-2019 at 06:55 AM.
    He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

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

  2. #12
    What's that? lilpixieofterror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    9,633
    Amen (Given)
    1514
    Amen (Received)
    3237
    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    It's not about making money pix. It's about where the money comes from and what sort of obligation may be incurred by the President to the source. And before you start talking about whether or not X or Y would 'really' incur an obligation, that is not how laws work. The issue is how that idea is codified into law and whether or not the President violates said conditions. Those being:

    Source: Britannica

    The emoluments clause, also called the foreign emoluments clause, is a provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8) that generally prohibits federal officeholders from receiving any gift, payment, or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives. The clause provides that:No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

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

    © Copyright Original Source



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

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

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

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

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


    Jim
    I see a lot of ranting, but people have been buying presidents for centuries. Curious that you only care now and go forth with scant evidence this is even going on. The more likely reason Trump is so careful about his tax returns is they would reveal he isn’t nearly as rich as he claims to be.
    Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 10-22-2019 at 07:31 AM.
    "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
    GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

  3. #13
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    53,261
    Amen (Given)
    1130
    Amen (Received)
    19547
    Quote Originally Posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
    I see a lot of ranting, but people have been buying presidents for centuries. Curious that you only care now and go forth with scat evidence this is even going on. The more likely reason Trump is so careful about his tax returns is they would reveal he isn’t nearly as rich as he claims to be.
    00000000000000ars3.gif

    I'm always still in trouble again

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

  4. Amen Cerebrum123, NorrinRadd amen'd this post.
  5. #14
    What's that? lilpixieofterror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    9,633
    Amen (Given)
    1514
    Amen (Received)
    3237
    Quote Originally Posted by rogue06 View Post
    Fixed, but as usual, Jim takes a perfectly valid point and blows it up and does his job no service. Politicians being beholden to money and those with gobs of it is nothing new. However, I bet Trumps real reason he doesn’t want his tax returns out there is it drives liberals nuts and it would reveal he isn’t as rich as he likes to claim he is. By far, Trump’s ego is the bigger issue that seems to be ignored. Likely because many rich and powerful people are just as egotistical.
    "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
    GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

  6. #15
    tWebber MaxVel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    It's hot!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,458
    Amen (Given)
    1076
    Amen (Received)
    1627
    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    Yes - Donald Trump actually said that.

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

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

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

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


    Jim
    What's the definition of 'rage'?

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



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

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

    3) What he does say is:

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

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

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

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

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


    Conclusion

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


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


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


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


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






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

  7. #16
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    17,982
    Amen (Given)
    5844
    Amen (Received)
    6477
    Quote Originally Posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
    That what? It’s only an issue because you hate Trump, but it wasn’t an issue in 2004? Politicians have been making millions, for years, off the government dime and from foreign sources. Why do you suddenly care now? Have you cared about those who become millionaires while in office or shortly after leaving?
    As I've said before, it's not the billionaire who became a politician that worries me, it's the politicians who became millionaire's while in office.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  8. #17
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,111
    Amen (Given)
    353
    Amen (Received)
    1663
    Quote Originally Posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
    I see a lot of ranting, but people have been buying presidents for centuries. Curious that you only care now and go forth with scant evidence this is even going on. The more likely reason Trump is so careful about his tax returns is they would reveal he isn’t nearly as rich as he claims to be.
    pix - you are wrong about why I care. It's not 'the man' it is 'the abuse of the office' that comes along with the man. It's not him making money. Everybody gains wealth from having been president - if nothing else from the fees they can charge for speaking engagements after it's over. The issue of emoluments is the issue of bribery or the abuse of power. There are legitimate reasons for these laws, and your excusing them goes more to your lack of moral compass than anything else. Especially since you justification boils down to 'but everybody else did it'. (That is not an admission 'everybody else did it', it is just the excuse you are using).

    I have never before these three years of the Trump debasement of american values seen so many adult people that ostensibly stand for upright moral value excuse immoral behavior with the excuse 'somebody else did it first'. It's like once Trump came along conservatives turned into school children in so far as their capacity to express or act on moral values.


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

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

  9. #18
    What's that? lilpixieofterror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    9,633
    Amen (Given)
    1514
    Amen (Received)
    3237
    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    pix - you are wrong about why I care. It's not 'the man' it is 'the abuse of the office' that comes along with the man. It's not him making money. Everybody gains wealth from having been president - if nothing else from the fees they can charge for speaking engagements after it's over. The issue of emoluments is the issue of bribery or the abuse of power. There are legitimate reasons for these laws, and your excusing them goes more to your lack of moral compass than anything else. Especially since you justification boils down to 'but everybody else did it'. (That is not an admission 'everybody else did it', it is just the excuse you are using).

    I have never before these three years of the Trump debasement of american values seen so many adult people that ostensibly stand for upright moral value excuse immoral behavior with the excuse 'somebody else did it first'. It's like once Trump came along conservatives turned into school children in so far as their capacity to express or act on moral values.


    Jim
    The evidence of this bribery going on is...

    Max already did a good job of showing your source as quote mined, click bait. Yet again, you could make good points if you were not so emotionally invested in the idea that Trump is the Antichrist. Attack me all you want Jim, you’re just helping Trump win in 2020 because to you it’s either:

    1. You’re too dumb to understand.
    2. You’re too evil to care.

    You’re way or the highway. Just like Jorge and his YECism. There is no, “ Let’s just disagree on this issue” on all things Trump, you’re either stupid or a psychopath, no other possibility.

    Second, my argument is that Democrats only care when Republicans are doing it or they think they are. They don’t care when they rake in the cash. Look at the high speed rail, in California, for a perfect example of lots of politicians getting rich from that failed, bumbled, project.
    Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 10-22-2019 at 08:38 AM.
    "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
    GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

  10. #19
    What's that? lilpixieofterror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    9,633
    Amen (Given)
    1514
    Amen (Received)
    3237
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    As I've said before, it's not the billionaire who became a politician that worries me, it's the politicians who became millionaire's while in office.
    Just read about the high speed rail project, in California.
    "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
    GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

  11. #20
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,111
    Amen (Given)
    353
    Amen (Received)
    1663
    Quote Originally Posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
    The evidence of this bribery going on is...

    Max already did a good job of showing your source as quote mined, click bait. Yet again, you could make good points if you were not so emotionally invested in the idea that Trump is the Antichrist.
    Never once referred to Trump as an 'anti-Christ'. You made that up all on your own.

    Attack me all you want Jim, you’re just helping Trump win in 2020 because to you it’s either:
    Your lack of moral compass when it comes to all things Trump is an observation based on your words. It is not meant to be an attack pix. I would hope it would cause you to reconsider many of your positions on this matter.

    1. You’re too dumb to understand.
    2. You’re too evil to care.
    Wrong, but it takes a very black/white borderlinish mindset to get that out of my comments.

    You’re way or the highway. Just like Jorge and his YECism. There is no, “ Let’s just disagree on this issue” on all things Trump, you’re either stupid or a psychopath, no other possibility.
    Actually pix, I've invited you many times to steer clear of the 'paragraphs of negative adjectives' that make up most of your posts to me. Once you actually did it and we has a somewhat civil conversation. But for some reason you reverted almost immediately. But no, it is not 'my way or the highway'. However, when something involves clearly immoral behavior, it is hard to argue against the side that says 'hey, that is immoral behavior' unless you can show either the behavior didn't actually happen, or that the perception of what happened is somehow skewed. That is harder that just writing a paragraph if negative adjectives, yes, and perhaps less satisfying emotionally, but it is the only legitimate sort of response to make, and the only kind that has any chance of actually accomplishing something in the arena of ideas and opinions.

    Second, my argument is that Democrats only care when Republicans are doing it or they think they are. They don’t care when they rake in the cash. Look at the high speed rail, in California, for a perfect example of lots of politicians getting rich from that failed, bumbled, project.
    There you could potentially have a point. What you need to do first though is separate out the legitimate sources of income from the illegitimate ones. When we are talking about emoluments, we are talking about income that carries with it the potential of a bribe and/or obligation. If Donald Trump owned an auto factory, then there would be no issue with him getting a percentage of the profits as a president. But if he started involving that auto factory in contracts with middle eastern countries for armored cars, then he'd be crossing the line.

    So you argument can't be that 'they got rich after being president', or even 'while being president' (though that is more problematic). You would need to show that former presidents violated the emoluments clause in some analogous fashion to how Trump has. And there I think you are going to have a problem - but I could be wrong, and feel free to try to make that case. You'll find my responses will take on a very different character if you move away from the 'paragraphs of negative adjectives' to more substantive fare, just like they did the last time you attempted to take that route.

    Jim
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 10-22-2019 at 09:01 AM.
    He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •