Miscellaneous Trump (1 Viewer)

[Huntn]

Anxiety surges as Donald Trump may be indicted soon: Why 2024 is 'the final battle' and 'the big one'​

Anxiety surges as Donald Trump may be indicted soon: Why 2024 is 'the final battle' and 'the big one'

Donald Trump's many legal problems – and calls for protests – have generated new fears of political violence and anxiety about the 2024 election.

www.yahoo.com

WASHINGTON – It looks like American politics is entering a new age of anxiety, triggered by an unprecedented legal development: The potential indictment of a former president and current presidential candidate.

Donald Trump's many legal problems – and calls for protests by his followers – have generated new fears of political violence and anxiety about the unknowable impact all this will have on the already-tense 2024 presidential election

I’ll reframe this is a more accurate way, Are Presidents above the law? This new age was spurred into existence when home grown dummies elected a corrupt, mentally ill, anti-democratic, would be dictator as President and don’t bother to hold him responsible for his crimes, don’t want to because in the ensuing mayhem and destruction, they think they will be better off. The man is actually advocating violence (not the first time). And btw, screw democracy too. If this feeling spreads, we are In deep shirt.

This goes beyond one treasonous Peice of work and out to all his minions. This is on you or should we be sympathetic to the idea of they can’t help being selfish suckers to the Nation’s detriment? Donald Trump is the single largest individual threat to our democracy and it‘s all going to boil down to will the majority of the GOP return to his embrace and start slinging his excrement to support him?

 

[coldseat]

So, the Qatar royal family is giving the U.S. government a 13 year old 747-8 ,very nicely outfitted, that will replace two 35 year old 747’s as Air Force One and that’s a problem? Especially given Boeing’s abject failure to meet the contract to replace the 35 year old Air Force Ones. And on the off chance Boeing ever delivers the Qatar gift will become a part of the a presidential library.

“But first, the 13-year-old plane will be given to the U.S. Air Force, which will cover the costs of updating the plane to meet U.S. military specifications necessary to transport the president, ABC News sources familiar with the anticipated arrangement.”

Trump Administration Preparing to Accept Luxury Jet from Qatar’s Royal Family: Report

The plane, reportedly worth $400 million, has been described as "a flying palace"

www.yahoo.com

I don’t see the problem.

Lol. You'll justify anything.

 

[t_rav_82]

Lol. You'll justify anything.

And badly.

 

[efil4]

I’m saying the framers specifically stated a group of appointed officers known at that time as “offices of profit or trust” were not permitted to accept emoluments. As I said earlier, historically these people were ambassadors, consuls, legates, etc. pretty much any and all officials appointed by the king/executive. Actually it was common in Europe for kings and queens and high placed officials and representatives to give gifts. Also, as I said previously, restrictions in Europe on emoluments, were intended to keep such officers of profit and trust from being bribed by kings, queens, princes , Dukes, etc. who were likely to be aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. of the officers of profit and trust. European royalty were generally in some way related. And the officers of profit and trust were generally royalty.

The founders and elected officials were landed men that did business regularly. Selling crops and goods abroad as well as at home. Washington was a businessman while president. Same with Jefferson, although he wasn’t particularly good at business. But they didn’t want their ambassadors, consuls, and overseas representatives be granted emoluments from foreign governments.

The office of President is an office of trust

This talks about Incompatiblity clause. But page 7 last paragraph into page 8 specifically discusses Emoluments clause.

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=djclpp_sidebar

 

[MT15]

So the interpretation that Sendai is pushing, as far as I can find, isn’t the prevailing belief. It relies on an interpretation of the founders’ intentions, rather than the clear text of the Clause, IMO. Pushing that it clearly doesn’t apply to the President is a bit disingenuous.

There are writings from the period where the founders’ clearly reference the office of president as being subject to the Clause.

The Clause states anyone holding an office of trust is subject to the restrictions. Rather than attempting an interpretation based on centuries of European historical convention, we should probably just read the Clause as written. That’s what US Presidents and VPs have been doing my entire life.

So, as far as I can tell, it has been the convention and practice in modern times - up until Trump, who violated the Clause on day 1 of his first term and never stopped - for the President and VP to abide by the Clause.

This snippet from Cornell also talks about the discussion, but it also points out that Congress essentially codified the Clause to apply to the President, VP and their spouses decades ago. All bolding was in the article.

“Also known as the Title of Nobility Clause, Article I, Section 9 , Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitutionprohibits any person holding a government office from accepting any present, emolument , office, or title from any "King, Prince, or foreign State ," without congressional consent. This clause is meant to prevent external influence and corruption of American officers by foreign States . A similar provision was included in the Articles of Confederation , applicable to both federal and state officers. The language of the modern clause, however, suggests that only federal government officials are prohibited from accepting any emoluments .

That the phrase "Offices of Profit or Trust under the United States" applies to all appointedofficials is undisputed, however there is much debate as to whether it extends to elected officials.

History does not provide a clear answer: When he served as Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton produced a list of persons holding such offices at the request of the Senate; the list did not include any elected positions. Further, during their presidencies, while George Washington did not seek or obtain congressional consent for foreign gifts, Andrew Jackson did.

The Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act of 1966, on the other hand, enumerates several elected positions in its definition of "employees" who may not accept any gift of more than minimal value without congressional approval. Such "employees" include the President and the Vice President, a Member of Congress , and the spouses and dependents of the same.

A constitutional amendment was introduced in 1810 to modify the Emoluments Clause. The effect would have been to strip the citizenship of any U.S. citizen who accepted, claimed, received, or retained any title of nobility from a foreign government. However, this amendment was never ratified, though it is technically still pending before the states.”

 

[zztop]

Lol. You'll justify anything.

An of course theres the spin about: "So the fact that the Defense Department is getting a GIFT, FREE OF CHARGE, of a 747 aircraft to replace the 40 year old Air Force One, temporarily, in a very public and transparent transaction, so bothers the Crooked Democrats that they insist we pay, TOP DOLLAR, for the plane. Anybody can do that!" Trump said. "The Dems are World Class Losers!!!"

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

An of course theres the spin about: "So the fact that the Defense Department is getting a GIFT, FREE OF CHARGE, of a 747 aircraft to replace the 40 year old Air Force One, temporarily, in a very public and transparent transaction, so bothers the Crooked Democrats that they insist we pay, TOP DOLLAR, for the plane. Anybody can do that!" Trump said. "The Dems are World Class Losers!!!"

So, if it's a gift to the U.S., how is it temporary? It will belong to the People and its fate will be up to the People, meaning we can sell it for parts if We, The People decide to do so. If Congress allows this corrupt act to stand, there will be nothing to stop any nation from gifting the "U.S." 100 Billion "temporarily".

Trump is a fool because he believes the current VC-25B that is being constructed cost too much compared to other 747's. What this clown, and his voters cannot comprehend is that the VC class of 747's is essentially a mobile military installation, complete with its own Command and Control capabilities. That Qatari 747 golden palace cannot be modified to serve as a VC.

 

[RobF]

There are writings from the period where the founders’ clearly reference the office of president as being subject to the Clause.

Yeah, he ignored that before as well.

But let's check back in with founding father Edmund Randolph anyway, just to underline how really ludicrous this "the founders were fine with the President being bribed by foreign powers" thing is again:

"There is another provision against the danger of the President receiving emoluments... By the ninth section of the first article "No person holding an office of profit or trust, shall accept of any present or emolument whatsoever, from any foreign power, without the consent of the representatives of the people.""

At the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788.

 

[MT15]

An of course theres the spin about: "So the fact that the Defense Department is getting a GIFT, FREE OF CHARGE, of a 747 aircraft to replace the 40 year old Air Force One, temporarily, in a very public and transparent transaction, so bothers the Crooked Democrats that they insist we pay, TOP DOLLAR, for the plane. Anybody can do that!" Trump said. "The Dems are World Class Losers!!!"

Which also ignores the multiple millions the taxpayers will be forced to spend to bring that plane up to the specs for AF1. Which will then be wasted when the plane goes with him after office.

 

[efil4]

AG Pam Bondi apparently was a paid lobbyist for Qatar in 2018 for the fee if $115,000/month.

She approved the gift (basically giving Trump green light to accept)

 

[bird]

AG Pam Bondi apparently was a paid lobbyist for Qatar in 2018 for the fee if $115,000/month.

She approved the gift (basically giving Trump green light to accept)

Criming is a feature of Trump and his administration.

 

[fooferdoggie]

So, if it's a gift to the U.S., how is it temporary? It will belong to the People and its fate will be up to the People, meaning we can sell it for parts if We, The People decide to do so. If Congress allows this corrupt act to stand, there will be nothing to stop any nation from gifting the "U.S." 100 Billion "temporarily".

Trump is a fool because he believes the current VC-25B that is being constructed cost too much compared to other 747's. What this clown, and his voters cannot comprehend is that the VC class of 747's is essentially a mobile military installation, complete with its own Command and Control capabilities. That Qatari 747 golden palace cannot be modified to serve as a VC.

Well, it's been canceled. I guess it was another red hearing.

 

[fooferdoggie]

So while she was AG for Florida, she was doing this too? Man, the scams are great with this one.

 

[longtime lurker]

 

[MT15]

Well, it's been canceled. I guess it was another red hearing.

Not a red herring, it was a trial balloon to see if they could get away with it. If everyone had said “I don’t see the problem” as was said here by someone, he would have definitely gone ahead with it.

 

[RobF]

Not a red herring, it was a trial balloon to see if they could get away with it. If everyone had said “I don’t see the problem” as was said here by someone, he would have definitely gone ahead with it.

Has it been cancelled? I was just reading that Trumps been saying. "They’re giving us a free jet", that "it's a great gesture", that turning it down would be "stupid", and that he's not planning to use it after he leaves office, honest, guv'nor in the press conference he's just been doing?

 

[MT15]

Has it been cancelled? I was just reading that Trumps been saying. "They’re giving us a free jet", that "it's a great gesture", that turning it down would be "stupid", and that he's not planning to use it after he leaves office, honest, guv'nor in the press conference he's just been doing?

Yeah, after I posted that I looked briefly before we left and couldn’t find anything about it being cancelled.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I’m saying the framers specifically stated a group of appointed officers known at that time as “offices of profit or trust” were not permitted to accept emoluments. As I said earlier, historically these people were ambassadors, consuls, legates, etc. pretty much any and all officials appointed by the king/executive. Actually it was common in Europe for kings and queens and high placed officials and representatives to give gifts. Also, as I said previously, restrictions in Europe on emoluments, were intended to keep such officers of profit and trust from being bribed by kings, queens, princes , Dukes, etc. who were likely to be aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. of the officers of profit and trust. European royalty were generally in some way related. And the officers of profit and trust were generally royalty.

The founders and elected officials were landed men that did business regularly. Selling crops and goods abroad as well as at home. Washington was a businessman while president. Same with Jefferson, although he wasn’t particularly good at business. But they didn’t want their ambassadors, consuls, and overseas representatives be granted emoluments from foreign governments.

I'm sorry, I thought it was clear that I was asking a yes or no question. Yes or no, is it your position that the Framers intended for it to be both legal and acceptable for the President of the United States to openly accept gifts from foreign nations//heads of state?

 

[Sendai]

The office of President is an office of trust

This talks about Incompatiblity clause. But page 7 last paragraph into page 8 specifically discusses Emoluments clause.

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=djclpp_sidebar

Probably not

“The Foreign Gifts Clause provides that “no person holding any office of profit or trust under them (i.e., 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.”

Does the Foreign Gifts Clause and its office under the United States language apply to the presidency? There are three good reasons to believe that it does not.

First, the Constitution does not rely on generalized “office” language to refer to the president and vice president. Where a provision is meant to apply to such apex or elected officials, the provision expressly names those officials. For example, the Impeachment Clause applies to the “president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States...”

Second, the Foreign Gifts Clause was given an early construction by George Washington. While he was president, Washington received two gifts from officials of the French government — including a diplomatic gift from the French ambassador. Washington accepted the gifts, he kept the gifts, and he never asked for or received congressional consent. There is no record of any anti-administration congressman or senator criticizing the president’s conduct. As Professor Akhil Amar has reminded us, the precedents set by President Washington and his administration deserve special deference in regard to both foreign affairs and presidential etiquette.

Finally, in 1792, again during the Washington administration, the Senate ordered Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton to supply a list of persons holding office under the United States and their salaries. Hamilton’s 90-page responsive list included appointed officers in each of the three branches, but did not include any elected officials in any branch. In other words, officers under the United States are appointed; by contrast, the president is elected, so he is not an officer under the United States. Thus, the Foreign Gifts Clause, and its operative office under the United States language, does not apply to the presidency.”

Constitutional Restrictions on Foreign Gifts Don't Apply to Presidents - NYTimes.com

www.nytimes.com