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

Nope. Sorry. Read more incorrect articles to get your opinions and come back.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(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

Bad interpretation or understanding of the law.

The progs and moon bats are turning into the wing nuts during the Clinton administration. It's kind of fun to watch.

(01-17-2017 10:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 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

Bad interpretation or understanding of the law.

Nailed it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(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

Trump won. Clinton lost. Live with it.

LOL, it's 2 and a half months later -- LET IT GO!

Ha! So much for reading comprehension Mach. Try harder next time.

However Hillary would have been in great violation with her foundation. Not to mention her title of queen biatch!

Nailed it! cousin it had a two word response.........

It is quite comical listening to this room railing on interpreting the constitution as the founding fathers intended and then when something is clearly written and it can't be interpreted any other way you have nary a peep.


Nailed it!! Too freaking funny.


This was meant to gaurd against oligarchy. Trump has to divest his companies or he is not legally bound to serve. No ifs ands or buts. Bad interpretation. I scoff at your bad interpretation and will go even further and say if the D's controlled either branch we would have congressional hearings or impeachment hearings. Simply no other way of interpretation. He is in clear and direct violation of the constitution if he doesn't divest his holdings he is in out right contempt of the constitution. It's clear and it's cut and dry.

The Emoluments Clause applies to everybody in the government, including the president. And this isn't just involving the hotel. We have foreign state-owned banks that lease space in Trump buildings, loans from the Bank of China, the various Trump businesses. All of that needs to be unwound by January 20, or he needs to sell those businesses. Or he is in direct contempt of the constitution.

Bwahahahah!

(01-17-2017 11:15 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The Emoluments Clause applies to everybody in the government, including the president. And this isn't just involving the hotel. We have foreign state-owned banks that lease space in Trump buildings, loans from the Bank of China, the various Trump businesses. All of that needs to be unwound by January 20, or he needs to sell those businesses. Or he is in direct contempt of the constitution.

No more than Hillary would have been for the CGI

Can we count on the hypocrits to real Trump in? Can the R's force him to divest? We all know the answer which I find particularly interesting considering how often I hear about judges who will have a strict interpretation of the constitution exactly as the forefathers intended. Trump is exactly the type of politician our forefathers were guarding against. Then when you factor in the Russian shenanigans and him not divesting his taxes. We have zero clue who he is leveraged to. The striking hypocrisy, although predictable, is still very dismal.

Hillary lost. Now he still can divest until Jan. 20th. Once he is sworn in then he is in violation. He can still divest. Will the hypocrits make him?

Please tell me more about the constitution... Mr. Constitutional Historian.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It makes me happy that Mach is losing sleep over DJT as POTUS.

(01-17-2017 11:28 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  Please tell me more about the constitution... Mr. Constitutional Historian.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Like most leftists he probably had to look up how to spell Constitution.

(01-17-2017 11:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-17-2017 11:28 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  Please tell me more about the constitution... Mr. Constitutional Historian.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Like most leftists he probably had to look up how to spell Constitution.

Or find out what exactly the constitution is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(01-17-2017 11:26 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Hillary lost. Now he still can divest until Jan. 20th. Once he is sworn in then he is in violation. He can still divest. Will the hypocrits make him?

He did. Eric and Donald, Jr. are going to run the business.

Proof: