Miscellaneous Trump (4 Viewers)

[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?

 

[Huntn]

As to #4 the constitution prohibits bribery. Washington accepted gifts. And my discussion relates to emoluments and that those who claim the president doing business violates the emoluments clause. Yet, presidents have engaged in business throughout our history.

Yes it’s an office. But the president is not an officer. The president is an elected official. Officers are appointed and Congress and the president and vice president are elected officials.

Quite simply the emoluments clause parallels and follows the early European model to prohibit appointed ambassadors, legates, consul, royal advisors, etc. from accepting money, land, royalties, and title from other Kings, to whom they were probably related.

The framers knew well the history of offices of profit and they knew they were not elected. The reference in the constitution targets specifically the ambassadors, the legates, counsels, military, official advisors.

So what’cha think of Trump? Great guy, great leader?

 

[Huntn]

A very noble Peice of work.

 

[Huntn]

Alanis Morrissette wrote a song about this very nomination.

Which song?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

“
Finally, Blackman and Tillman tentatively conclude: “[W]e do not think linguistic drift occurred with respect to the phrase ‘officer of the United States’ ” between the founding in 1788 and the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.39 They cabin this conclusion carefully, noting repeatedly that this conclusion was based on the lack of “direct, clear, or compelling evidence.”40 They cite two cases—United States v. Mouat(1888) and United States v. Hartwell (1867)—as evidence.41They also cite to statements from two individuals who viewed the President as not an officer of the United States:

In 1876, the House of Representatives impeached Secretary of War William Belknap. During the trial, Senator Newton Booth from California observed, “the President is not an officer of the United States.” Instead, Booth stated, the President is “part of the Government.”

Two years later, David McKnight wrote an influential treatise on the American electoral system. He reached a similar conclusion. McKnight wrote that “t is obvious that . . . the President is not regarded as ‘an officer of, or under, the United States,’ but as one branch of ‘the Government.’ ”42”

Evidence that the President Is an “Officer of the United States” for Purposes of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment – Southern California Law Review

AUTHORS’ NOTE This Article was written during the weeks before certiorari was sought in Trump v. Anderson in the aftermath of the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to remove former President Donald Trump from the 2024 Republican primary ballot. An initial draft was uploaded to SSRN on Jan. 1...

southerncalifornialawreview.com

As previously stated, this is a subject of long, long standing debate.

These are some noisy crickets you've found. Why no response to comments from the Founding Fathers that RobF provided? You've ignored that post repeatedly.

 

[RobF]

So you have to go 150 years back and find comments from an unrelated trial to try to justify Trumps flagrant corruption? Why are you even trying to justify Trumps corruption in the first place astounds me most of all? Especially given all your comments on Hunter Biden - who never held a public office!

If you do some research on this, you find two things:

This Tillman guy all over the place trying to push this argument.

A whole bunch of other people robustly pointing out that Tillman's arguments are just unsound. @Sendai even just linked to one himself, which, while he only quoted from the 'Summary of the Blackman-Tillman Interpretation' section, actually concludes:

There is no doubt that the person who holds the office of President of the United States becomes an officer of the United States when the person takes the presidential oath. Donald Trump was an officer of the United States.​

​

Even assuming that was not the end of the matter, we also know this from a wide range of sources: At the time of the Fourteenth Amendment, the term “officer of the United States” included elected officials. Many references in that era refer to the President himself, as well as the Vice President, as an “officer of the United States.” The historical record in 1868 confirms what has been true since 1789: the President of the United States is an officer of the United States.​

The whole counter-argument thing is just a mess of cherry picking, and just plain ignoring evidence to the contrary - like not even mentioning Hamilton, let alone addressing the fact Hamilton literally put in writing "The President of the United States would be an officer elected by the people for FOUR years". But that doesn't count, because, "but this other guy tried to make this same idiotic argument before!"

And then he throws out, "It's a long-standing debate," as if that carries significance. Pretty much everything can be described as such. Another really long-standing debate is, "Is the Earth flat?" But people can make idiotic arguments and point to other people having historically made idiotic arguments all they like, the Earth will keep on being roundish regardless. And the President will continue being an officer of the United States.

This whole thing is very obviously a conclusion in search of an argument. The only kind of people who would find remotely convincing an argument that, boiled down to its essence is, "A person holding an office isn't an officer, an office with financial benefits and duties and responsibilities isn't an office of profit or trust, and the founders wanted the President to be able to take bribes from Kings, Princes, and foreign states," are contrarian cranks and people who desperately want to excuse a President for doing just that.

 

[Optimus Prime]

The IRS under Donald Trump’s administration will now allow churches and houses of worship to endorse political candidates from the pulpit without losing their tax-exempt status, upending decades of federal law intended to prevent campaigns from using them as a political tool.

The statements were included in a court filing Monday night as part of a settlement with two Texas churches and Christian broadcasters, which sought an even wider exemption that would open the door for any nonprofit groups to endorse politicians.

Those groups initially filed their lawsuit last year during Joe Biden’s administration. At the time, the Department of Justice emphatically rejected claims that tax laws violate churches’ First Amendment rights.

But under the Trump administration, government lawyers compared campaigning from inside a church to “a family discussion concerning candidates.”……..

The president has long promised his evangelical base that his administration would repeal the Johnson Amendment, which would require an act of Congress or aggressive executive actions that would almost certainly face another wave of legal challenges.

Repealing the amendment would allow churches to not only openly endorse candidates but turn them into potential fundraising powerhouses.

Churches, unlike other nonprofit groups, are not required to file 990 forms that disclose key financial information to the IRS, allowing them to operate with a lower degree of financial oversight — opening the door for houses of worship to function more like political action committees.…….

Churches can now endorse political candidates, Trump’s IRS says

Critics fear the Trump administration is opening the floodgates for houses of worship to turn into political fundraising tools

www.independent.co.uk

 

[fooferdoggie]

The IRS under Donald Trump’s administration will now allow churches and houses of worship to endorse political candidates from the pulpit without losing their tax-exempt status, upending decades of federal law intended to prevent campaigns from using them as a political tool.

its been hapening since trump started to run now it is all ok.

 

[SamAndreas]

The IRS under Donald Trump’s administration will now allow churches and houses of worship to endorse political candidates from the pulpit without losing their tax-exempt status, upending decades of federal law intended to prevent campaigns from using them as a political tool.

The statements were included in a court filing Monday night as part of a settlement with two Texas churches and Christian broadcasters, which sought an even wider exemption that would open the door for any nonprofit groups to endorse politicians.

Those groups initially filed their lawsuit last year during Joe Biden’s administration. At the time, the Department of Justice emphatically rejected claims that tax laws violate churches’ First Amendment rights.

But under the Trump administration, government lawyers compared campaigning from inside a church to “a family discussion concerning candidates.”……..

The president has long promised his evangelical base that his administration would repeal the Johnson Amendment, which would require an act of Congress or aggressive executive actions that would almost certainly face another wave of legal challenges.

Repealing the amendment would allow churches to not only openly endorse candidates but turn them into potential fundraising powerhouses.

Churches, unlike other nonprofit groups, are not required to file 990 forms that disclose key financial information to the IRS, allowing them to operate with a lower degree of financial oversight — opening the door for houses of worship to function more like political action committees.…….

Churches can now endorse political candidates, Trump’s IRS says

Critics fear the Trump administration is opening the floodgates for houses of worship to turn into political fundraising tools

www.independent.co.uk

The end effect of this change will be nothing changes.

Unless that change turns out to be as a serendipitous plus for liberals for a change. They, on the right have not been withholding their endorsements of Republicans all along, but some Liberal congregations probably have held back on endorsing Democrats from the pulpit because they know that they shouldn't do that. But if the opposition is doing that, they should do it too.

(-: This is clearly a reverse acting relationship. The outcome is opposite of what a direct acting relationship would be.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

If you do some research on this, you find two things:

This Tillman guy all over the place trying to push this argument.

A whole bunch of other people robustly pointing out that Tillman's arguments are just unsound. @Sendai even just linked to one himself, which, while he only quoted from the 'Summary of the Blackman-Tillman Interpretation' section, actually concludes:

There is no doubt that the person who holds the office of President of the United States becomes an officer of the United States when the person takes the presidential oath. Donald Trump was an officer of the United States.​

​

Even assuming that was not the end of the matter, we also know this from a wide range of sources: At the time of the Fourteenth Amendment, the term “officer of the United States” included elected officials. Many references in that era refer to the President himself, as well as the Vice President, as an “officer of the United States.” The historical record in 1868 confirms what has been true since 1789: the President of the United States is an officer of the United States.​

The whole counter-argument thing is just a mess of cherry picking, and just plain ignoring evidence to the contrary - like not even mentioning Hamilton, let alone addressing the fact Hamilton literally put in writing "The President of the United States would be an officer elected by the people for FOUR years". But that doesn't count, because, "but this other guy tried to make this same idiotic argument before!"

And then he throws out, "It's a long-standing debate," as if that carries significance. Pretty much everything can be described as such. Another really long-standing debate is, "Is the Earth flat?" But people can make idiotic arguments and point to other people having historically made idiotic arguments all they like, the Earth will keep on being roundish regardless. And the President will continue being an officer of the United States.

This whole thing is very obviously a conclusion in search of an argument. The only kind of people who would find remotely convincing an argument that, boiled down to its essence is, "A person holding an office isn't an officer, an office with financial benefits and duties and responsibilities isn't an office of profit or trust, and the founders wanted the President to be able to take bribes from Kings, Princes, and foreign states," are contrarian cranks and people who desperately want to excuse a President for doing just that.

Everything Sendai says and how he quotes is dishonest. Everything he selectively quotes from reaches the opposite conclusion of what he says it concludes. Everything, every time.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

The end effect of this change will be nothing changes.

That's not true. Now that it has the legal green light, it's going to happen a lot more, it's going to get much more organized and sophisticated, and it's going to have much more impact on elections. Who benefits and by how much remains to be seen.

Take legal marijuana for example. Sure, people were using it before it was legal, but making it legal was a game changer. A lot more people use marijuana and are using more of it now that it's legal. The products themselves have also evolved a lot.

 

[J-DONK]

A very noble Peice of work.

Get rid of the JCPOA and can't get a new deal - then get sucked into a ME conflict.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gqv0HrNWwAAX-n-?format=jpg&name=medium

 

[Sendai]

So you have to go 150 years back and find comments from an unrelated trial to try to justify Trumps flagrant corruption? Why are you even trying to justify Trumps corruption in the first place astounds me most of all? Especially given all your comments on Hunter Biden - who never held a public office!

I’m not justifying trump’s corrupt behavior. Just pointing there’s nothing to be done about it.

 

[Sendai]

So what’cha think of Trump? Great guy, great leader?

Not so much

 

[SamAndreas]

I’m not justifying trump’s corrupt behavior. Just pointing there’s nothing to be done about it.

Sure there's something to do about it,,, think about it.

Just don't post what you think online. Imagine what I might think, but cannot say on line as a guide for your own thoughts, which you will not post online.

 

[MT15]

 

[MT15]

Trump is such a disgusting pig on so many levels. This display is particularly cynical and slimy.

 

[MT15]

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

I’m not justifying trump’s corrupt behavior. Just pointing there’s nothing to be done about it.

Another falsehood in a long line of falsehoods. What he's doing is constitutionally impeachable while in office and the constitution doesn't protect him from criminal charges and being tried. What he's doing is both unconstitutional and illegal.

There's plenty we can do about. The only thing that remains to be seen is what will be done.