Miscellaneous Trump (8 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 1 more.
    • Total: 9 (members: 5, guests: 4)
    Huntn

    Huntn

    Misty Mountains Envoy
    Joined
    Mar 8, 2023
    Messages
    835
    Reaction score
    880
    Location
    Rivendell
    Offline

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

    www.yahoo.com

    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 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?
     
    TampaJoe said:
    Let me rephrase, I don’t care about the why. That is not the point. It just should not happen. I don’t really care to hear about justification for something that should never be acceptable.

    I am a CPA. If I certify financial statements, that is supposed to be an unbiased, independent opinion. I am to avoid actual conflicts of interest or the APPEARANCE of a conflict of interest. IMO, that is the standard that should be applied to elected officials, judges and executive level appointees and secretaries. It should be not be tolerated from anyone. Period. Full stop.
    Click to expand...

    im an insurance agent.

    you, myself and elected officials all have a fiduciary duty ( trust that we are doing the RIGHT/PROPER thing ) to our clients/constituents.

    its that simple.

    I can understand if one of your clients, due to all your hard work and diligence, decided to reward your efforts with a gift card or nice dinner.

    If they gave you a $50,000 car, it would certainly give the impression to others ( incl clients ) that you are doing something "for them" outside of your fiduciary duty.


    i get it. And it should be across the board.
     
    Joe, you made a nice post, but bear with me here. What if the “crooked Hillary” and “Biden crime family” is just propaganda fed to the GOP to distract them from the wholesale corruption of Trump?

    I mean, just spitballing here, but you need to at least consider the possibility, right?
     
    1747166516913.png
     
    MT15 said:
    Joe, you made a nice post, but bear with me here. What if the “crooked Hillary” and “Biden crime family” is just propaganda fed to the GOP to distract them from the wholesale corruption of Trump?

    I mean, just spitballing here, but you need to at least consider the possibility, right?
    Click to expand...

    Biden's net worth increase during his presidency was the least amount of any president since before Kennedy. The whole 'Biden crime family' thing is just Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh wannabes. (Also notice now Trump isn't on here because it's impossible to know what he's worth, lol).


    1747166687040.png
     
    Last edited:
    superchuck500 said:
    Presidents don't challenge laws, they just do what they think they can or can't do and that's how it gets challenged - that's what creates the justiciable case.

    But what is the basis for your confidence that 6 justices will find that the foreign emoluments clause doesn't apply to the president? Trump didn't even raise that challenge in the first administration case. 373 F. Supp. 3d 191, 196 n.3 (D.D.C. 2019) ("the parties do not dispute that the [Foreign Emoluments] Clause applies to the President").

    In the DOJ OLC opinions on the question, it concludes that "The President surely “holds an Office of Profit or Trust,” and the Peace Prize, including its monetary award, is a “present” or “Emolument . . . of any kind whatever.” U.S.
    Const. art I, § 9, cl. 8.


    See also:

    Click to expand...
    “There is a recent Supreme Court opinion discussing the scope of the Constitution's "Officers of the United States"-language. In Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd. (2010), Chief Justice Roberts observed that "[t]he people do not vote for the 'Officers of the United States.'"Rather, "officers of the United States" are appointed exclusively pursuant to Article II, Section 2 procedures. It follows that the President, who is an elected official, is not an "officer of the United States."
     
    MT15 said:
    Joe, you made a nice post, but bear with me here. What if the “crooked Hillary” and “Biden crime family” is just propaganda fed to the GOP to distract them from the wholesale corruption of Trump?

    I mean, just spitballing here, but you need to at least consider the possibility, right?
    Click to expand...
    Since we are just spitballing, what if it isn’t just propaganda? Isn’t that also a possibility? How is anyone to know without a thorough and independent investigation? Right?

    I advocate for a single standard applied equally without fear or favor.
     
    TampaJoe said:
    Since we are just spitballing, what if it isn’t just propaganda? Isn’t that also a possibility? How is anyone to know without a thorough and independent investigation? Right?

    I advocate for a single standard applied equally without fear or favor.
    Click to expand...
    I know I personally posted several links to where Biden got his money from, That was above board and public knowledge that the maga republicans who spread those lies ignored. Some of the money came from speaking engagements AFTER he was viceprecident and the other major amount came from his books. Every cent is registered and taxed and duely certified by his accountant

    Republican maga's lies were repeated by some posters here on this board repeatedly before the 2020 election and by the republican magas again and again
     
    TampaJoe said:
    Since we are just spitballing, what if it isn’t just propaganda? Isn’t that also a possibility? How is anyone to know without a thorough and independent investigation? Right?

    I advocate for a single standard applied equally without fear or favor.
    Click to expand...
    Biden and Clinton’s tax returns have been made public for decades. As Dragon has noted - everything is out there. Good Lord, Joe, Republicans (so predisposed to find something, not independent) have investigated both of them to hell and back for years. Don’t you think if they found anything (anything at all!) Trump’s DOJ would be all over it?

    So, no, you’re really not advocating for a single standard - because you aren’t advocating for Trump to be thoroughly investigated and prosecuted. In fact, before this time you have defended his illegal business actions and excused them. It’s a double standard that you seem to seek.
     
    Dragon said:
    I know I personally posted several links to where Biden got his money from, That was above board and public knowledge that the maga republicans who spread those lies ignored. Some of the money came from speaking engagements AFTER he was viceprecident and the other major amount came from his books. Every cent is registered and taxed and duely certified by his accountant

    Republican maga's lies were repeated by some posters here on this board repeatedly before the 2020 election and by the republican magas again and again
    Click to expand...
    When you have family members getting pmts from foreign powers laundered thru 20 shell companies, that is suspicious and deserves to be investigated thoroughly and independently. Because that appears to be a conflict or interest and Biden, an attorney, should and does know better. Now you can turn a blind eye to this if you chose but you lose the right to complain when Republicans do the same thing.

    One standard. Enforced equally without fear or favor. You are either for it or you are not. If we want corruption out of politics, it begins with enforcing, vigorously, a standard of ethics. Otherwise the merry go round keeps on spinning.
     
    TampaJoe said:
    When you have family members getting pmts from foreign powers laundered thru 20 shell companies, that is suspicious and deserves to be investigated thoroughly and independently. Because that appears to be a conflict or interest and Biden, an attorney, should and does know better. Now you can turn a blind eye to this if you chose but you lose the right to complain when Republicans do the same thing.

    One standard. Enforced equally without fear or favor. You are either for it or you are not. If we want corruption out of politics, it begins with enforcing, vigorously, a standard of ethics. Otherwise the merry go round keeps on spinning.
    Click to expand...

    It was. Nothing was found. Now do Jared and Ivanka.
     
    Sendai said:
    “There is a recent Supreme Court opinion discussing the scope of the Constitution's "Officers of the United States"-language. In Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd. (2010), Chief Justice Roberts observed that "[t]he people do not vote for the 'Officers of the United States.'"Rather, "officers of the United States" are appointed exclusively pursuant to Article II, Section 2 procedures. It follows that the President, who is an elected official, is not an "officer of the United States."
    Click to expand...

    Man, I'm certain we had this exact same discussion a few months ago.

    Free Enterprise Fund is an Article II, Appointments Clause case - and the constitutional language is different in both text and context. That case isn't even persuasive authority as to whom the foreign emoluments clause applies. The foreign emoluments clause is in Article I, describing the Legislature's power and it refers any "Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust".

    One key difference is that the foreign emoluments clause refers to "office" and not "officer" (used in the appointments clause). Certainly within the meaning of executive branch posts (how they are selected/appointed and how they can be removed), the word "officer" can be narrowly construed in that context. But beyond that context, the Constitution uses the word "office" more broadly - including in the very institution of the president at Article II Section 1: "He shall hold his Office during a Term of four Years . . ." See also Art. II Sec. 4 (the president may be removed from "office"), 22nd Amendment (no person shall be elected to the Office of the president more than twice), 25th Amendment ("in case of the removal of the president from office"). Clearly the president holds an Office.

    There may be other elements of constitutional interpretation that have some merit on this point, but the rationale in Free Enterprise Fund about "officer" as used in Article II is something entirely different - it's just not particularly relevant to what "office" means in the Article I clause, and saying its the basis for the conservative wing to be unanimous is wholly unpersuasive.

    I think most compelling is the sheer volume of evidence that the framers were intensely focused on anti-corruption principles - avoiding the abuses of the European court and patronage system. Do we really think that the Constitution meant to prohibit foreign ministers from accepting titles from foreign governments but not the president or the vice president?

    Certainly that's how it was understood by 19th Century presidents - Martin Van Buren and John Tyler both have documented comments about presenting gifts from foreign leaders to Congress on the basis that the "fundamental law of the Republic which forbids its servants from accepting presents from foreign States or Princes." (M. Van Buren, 1840). And that's how it was understood by the OLC and the GAO in a handful of opinions in the 20th Century.

    In fact, there are no federal court decisions about it until Trump because Trump was the first president to show such disregard for this principle - or such enthusiasm for such spoils of the office.
     
    Last edited:

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom