(01-18-2017 07:30 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(01-18-2017 12:25 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Good night Trumpkins.

Good morning drunk.

Don't you know that it's going to be one hell of a hangover this morning. LOL

Looks like someone's calling for a substitute teacher today

Their sanity is dropping off like Niagara Falls.

This is just bad appearances, not criminal.

As Owl said, value for value, and as long as that remains equal, no problem. If you find foreign governments paying millions for a Trump tie, then you may have a case and can get back to us.

(01-17-2017 10:14 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I don't know how he doesn't violate this on his very first day in office? He's leveraged. He has a global empire. He is in direct violation on Day 1. Has this been brought up before? I haven't seen it. When will the congressional hearings take place?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...ce/509810/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/polit.../96446252/

Why his contempt for it matters

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trum...81d0eaf212

I would love to see the Liberals try to impeach trump starting on day one for violating this clause... It would just so confirm how far they're willing to go to ignore the rule of the land for their own benefitrs.

(01-18-2017 09:02 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(01-17-2017 10:14 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I don't know how he doesn't violate this on his very first day in office? He's leveraged. He has a global empire. He is in direct violation on Day 1. Has this been brought up before? I haven't seen it. When will the congressional hearings take place?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...ce/509810/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/polit.../96446252/

Why his contempt for it matters

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trum...81d0eaf212

I would love to see the Liberals try to impeach trump starting on day one for violating this clause... It would just so confirm how far they're willing to go to ignore the rule of the land for their own benefitrs.

Maxine Waters wants to impeach Trump for calling Hillary "Crooked Hillary" during the campaign. No joke....

(01-18-2017 08:18 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Their sanity is dropping off like Niagara Falls.

This is what happens when you get all hot and bothered about a clause a guy like him had never heard of until someone at HuffPo wrote an op ed piece about it to get the fake news troops mobilized.

When this one peters out, there will be three more novel (read: clueless) legal interpretations of other provisions.

The left has made up so much shite that when he really does something crooked no one will believe it

As an attorney, it is clear that this clause does not require someone to divest preexisting property or businesses. Rather, the clause prohibits pay for play or receiving gifts in connection with public service. Unless Trump accepts an improper gift, he's in the clear. The Clinton foundation is an example of the type of thing the clause was meant to protect against.

(01-18-2017 09:46 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  As an attorney, it is clear that this clause does not require someone to divest preexisting property or businesses. Rather, the clause prohibits pay for play or receiving gifts in connection with public service. Unless Trump accepts an improper gift, he's in the clear. The Clinton foundation is an example of the type of thing the clause was meant to protect against.

Crystal clear, counselor. And I concur.

I'm also an attorney but I just got way more enjoyment out of laughing at Mach rather than pointing out the errors of his relying upon HuffPo for his legal brief. LOL

(01-18-2017 09:46 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  As an attorney, it is clear that this clause does not require someone to divest preexisting property or businesses. Rather, the clause prohibits pay for play or receiving gifts in connection with public service. Unless Trump accepts an improper gift, he's in the clear. The Clinton foundation is an example of the type of thing the clause was meant to protect against.

Be prepared to be called a Trumpkin now.

Man, this could have been an issue Hillary pounded on during the campaign. To bad she ran such a horrible race.

(01-18-2017 10:18 AM)banker Wrote:  Man, this could have been an issue Hillary pounded on during the campaign. To bad she ran such a horrible race.

Wouldn't have mattered... The media wouldn't have given Trump's conflicts of interests the time of day before because:

a) They were so confident in a Hillary win that they felt they didn't need to cover the possibility of a Trump victory; and

b) They were too busy talking about the latest outrageous Trump tweet or Hillary's emails

(01-18-2017 10:18 AM)banker Wrote:  Man, this could have been an issue Hillary pounded on during the campaign. To bad she ran such a horrible race.

No, because it would quickly have been exposed as total BS.

Even the MSM would have had to admit very quickly that this is a non-event.

(01-17-2017 10:14 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I don't know how he doesn't violate this on his very first day in office? He's leveraged. He has a global empire. He is in direct violation on Day 1. Has this been brought up before? I haven't seen it. When will the congressional hearings take place?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...ce/509810/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/polit.../96446252/

Why his contempt for it matters

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trum...81d0eaf212

I mentioned this in another thread. There are at least two Republican Constitutional Attorneys who have publicly stated that they will proceed with impeachment for violation of the constitution on day one if Trump does not make changes.

The thread is almost complete now.

All we need is Tom to stop by.

(01-18-2017 09:51 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  I'm also an attorney but I just got way more enjoyment out of laughing at Mach rather than pointing out the errors of his relying upon HuffPo for his legal brief. LOL

Of course you are an attorney. Everyone in here is independently wealthy.

What is so sad is that reason escapes so many of you. BTW if any of you yahoots would have taken me up on the 500 dollar bet when I made it I would have hedged it immediately at 13/5. That was the rate the day I made that proclamation. I was born at night just not last night. I can't believe how easy you guys fall in line though. This guy will be in contempt of the constitution if he doesn't divest. No ifs, ands or buts about it. I can show you article after article backing up my claims. I can't find one backing up a counterpoint to my op. If you can produce one please do.

I do have to say I am impressed with the stringent obtuse declarations in the face of insurmountable opinions against your wrongly held beliefs. Nothing will come of it because we don't have a House or Senate that wants to buck him at this time. I just think it's a useful tool to use when people trot out the strict interpretation of the constitution rhetoric. It is as shallow as your beliefs and this is just another example of it.

Gin hangovers suck.