Miscellaneous Trump (16 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?

 

[Sendai]

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?

I have no idea if the framers intended that. They clearly did intend that appointed officers not be allowed.

And there is this

“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.”

 

[Optimus Prime]

The Trump administration is preparing to welcome the first group of white South Africanrefugees to the United States as early as next week, according to three sources familiar with the matter.

This move comes despite the administration's restrictions on refugee admissions from other parts of the world, highlighting a divisive approach to immigration policy.

The assertion that minority white South Africans face discrimination from the Black majority has spread in far-right circles for years and been echoed by Trump's white South African-born ally Elon Musk.

The average white household in South Africa owns 20 times the wealth of the average Black household, according to the Review of Political Economy, an international academic journal.

Approximately 50 Afrikaners are expected to arrive at Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia, where they will reportedly participate in a press conference before traveling to their final destinations in the US.

However, the sources cautioned that the arrival, already delayed by a week, could be subject to further changes. As of Thursday afternoon, a charter flight intended for the group had not yet received a landing permit.…..

First white South Africans to arrive in America despite Trump’s refugee freeze

The assertion that minority white South Africans face discrimination from the Black majority has been echoed by Trump's white South African-born ally Elon Musk

www.independent.co.uk

Since taking office, Donald Trump’s administration has virtually shut down refugee admissions and blocked funding for resettlement groups, stranding thousands of people who were granted entry to the United States for humanitarian protections only to have those offers rescinded.

But the president has singled out one specific group of people who will be allowed entry into the United States and appear to be on a fast track to citizenship: white South Africans.

A group of 59 white South Africans admitted to the United States as “refugees” have been “essentially extended citizenship,” Trump said on Monday.

They were greeted by State Department officials on Monday after landing at Washington Dulles International Airport on a taxpayer-funded flight following their fast-tracked refugee vetting process under the administration’s radically reshaped admissions program.

The president claims white South Africans are victims of “genocide,” echoing a white supremacist conspiracy theory alleging immigration and forced assimilation threaten the existence of white people — a claim that has fueled racist hate and violence against minority groups as well as parallel conspiracy theories like the so-called “great replacement” theory.

Trump and his Republican allies have routinely amplified a bogus “great replacement” theory that claims Democratic officials are allowing immigrants into the country to manipulate elections.

The idea is behind Trump’s anti-immigration agenda as well his executive orders and legislation in Congress taking aim at voter registration and election administration.

“When it comes to race and immigration issues, the Trump administration is about as subtle as an air raid,” America's Voice executive director Vanessa Cárdenas said in a statement to The Independent.……..

Trump welcomes white South Africans while rejecting all other refugees

President claims Afrikaners are victims of ‘genocide’ while denying entry to refugees fleeing famine and war

www.independent.co.uk

 

[efil4]

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

No "probably".

It is. You are mistaken in your opinion.

POTUS has a fiduciary duty. That's not opinion, it's fact.

fiduciary duty is a duty of trust.

Hence the office of the President is an office of trust.

If you cannot see or understand that, I dont know what to tell you.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I have no idea if the framers intended that. They clearly did intend that appointed officers not be allowed.

And there is this

“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.”

So that's a yes, you believe that the Framers did indeed intend 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. That is the only logical conclusion to draw from your continued argument for it as well as your distinct lack of acknowledgement of information to the contrary.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Since taking office, Donald Trump’s administration has virtually shut down refugee admissions and blocked funding for resettlement groups, stranding thousands of people who were granted entry to the United States for humanitarian protections only to have those offers rescinded.

But the president has singled out one specific group of people who will be allowed entry into the United States and appear to be on a fast track to citizenship: white South Africans.

A group of 59 white South Africans admitted to the United States as “refugees” have been “essentially extended citizenship,” Trump said on Monday.

They were greeted by State Department officials on Monday after landing at Washington Dulles International Airport on a taxpayer-funded flight following their fast-tracked refugee vetting process under the administration’s radically reshaped admissions program.

The president claims white South Africans are victims of “genocide,” echoing a white supremacist conspiracy theory alleging immigration and forced assimilation threaten the existence of white people — a claim that has fueled racist hate and violence against minority groups as well as parallel conspiracy theories like the so-called “great replacement” theory.

Trump and his Republican allies have routinely amplified a bogus “great replacement” theory that claims Democratic officials are allowing immigrants into the country to manipulate elections.

The idea is behind Trump’s anti-immigration agenda as well his executive orders and legislation in Congress taking aim at voter registration and election administration.

“When it comes to race and immigration issues, the Trump administration is about as subtle as an air raid,” America's Voice executive director Vanessa Cárdenas said in a statement to The Independent.……..

Trump welcomes white South Africans while rejecting all other refugees

President claims Afrikaners are victims of ‘genocide’ while denying entry to refugees fleeing famine and war

www.independent.co.uk

Episcopal Church won’t aid white South African ‘refugees’ embraced by Trump

It has been ‘painful to watch one group of refugees, selected in a highly unusual manner, receive preferential treatment over others who have been in refugee camps or dangerous conditions for years,’ said the bishop

www.independent.co.uk

 

[TampaJoe]

So that's a yes, you believe that the Framers did indeed intend 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. That is the only logical conclusion to draw from your continued argument for it as well as your distinct lack of acknowledgement of information to the contrary.

I personally do not believe it should be either legal or acceptable. Public servants are there to serve the public. It is important that they actively avoid anything that creates a conflict of interest but also the perception of a potential conflict. IMO it’s unethical.

 

[MT15]

People may have seen this executive order, here’s a good explainer why it’s just BS and not worth the paper it’s written on except as a propaganda tool, which Fox was eager to play up.

 

[MT15]

I have no idea if the framers intended that. They clearly did intend that appointed officers not be allowed.

And there is this

“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.”

No comment on the law passed by Congress which clearly does apply to the President? No comment on the clear convention that has been established in modern times where Presidents do act in accordance with the Emoluments Clause? (Since Andrew Jackson)

This isn’t honest engagement is it?

 

[efil4]

No comment on the law passed by Congress which clearly does apply to the President? No comment on the clear convention that has been established in modern times where Presidents do act in accordance with the Emoluments Clause? (Since Andrew Jackson)

This isn’t honest engagement is it?

he is fixated on playing the contrarian role here.

 

[superchuck500]

Sleepy Don

 

[Optimus Prime]

 

[Optimus Prime]

Episcopal Church won’t aid white South African ‘refugees’ embraced by Trump

It has been ‘painful to watch one group of refugees, selected in a highly unusual manner, receive preferential treatment over others who have been in refugee camps or dangerous conditions for years,’ said the bishop

www.independent.co.uk

.........What People Are Saying​

Charlie Kirk said on X: "I guess you aren't a refugee if you are white. According to the Episcopal Church Jesus doesn't love white people."

Alex Jones said on X: "All Federal Funds MUST Be Pulled From The Episcopal Church. It's Time To Enforce The Separation Of Church And State."

Parker Thayer said on X: "The Episcopal Church's refugee program was getting over $50 Million per year under Biden, and they claim to have resettled 6,533 people from 48 different countries in the U.S. during 2024 alone. Being asked to resettle <50 white people from South Africa is too much though..."

Will Chamberlain said on X: "How could one, in good conscience, remain in the Episcopal Church after a stunt like this."

JD Vance said on X: "Crazy."

Author Megan Basham said on X: "Welcome the stranger. Unless they're white."

Rick Santos, head of Church World Service, said in a statement last week: "We are concerned that the U.S. Government has chosen to fast-track the admission of Afrikaners, while actively fighting court orders to provide life-saving resettlement to other refugee populations who are in desperate need of resettlement.

"By resettling this population, the Government is demonstrating that it still has the capacity to quickly screen, process, and depart refugees to the United States. It's time for the Administration to honor our nation's commitment to the thousands of refugee families it abandoned with its cruel and illegal executive order.".........

MAGA Attacks Church Over Donald Trump Rebuke: 'Funds MUST Be Pulled'

 

[efil4]

Kids say the darndest things, amirite? LOL

 

[efil4]

Sleepy Don

about 5 seconds after his eyes close, watch the "shudder" - if you have ever kinda dozed off, you know the slight but evident "shudder" that most of time wakes you back up

LOL

 

[Optimus Prime]

Kids say the darndest things, amirite? LOL

OLD: "The Emperor has no clothes!”
"Yes he does!"

NEW: "The President is orange!”
"No he isn't!"

 

[superchuck500]

It’s a gift to the United States.

As to the emoluments clause , it applies to “offices of profit or trust”. Elected officials aren’t “offices of profit or trust”. Offices of Profit or Trust are appointed. Thats why the House and Senate have specific House and Senate rules prohibiting House and Senate members from accepting emoluments.

How is it a gift to the United States when the aircraft is going with Trump when he departs office? The Bondi memo conditions the acceptance on the plane going to the Trump Library after his presidency. Libraries don't operate airplanes.

We know that it's going to require major reconfiguration and equipping to make it suitable to fly the president (or any major US official around) and that's going to cost likely in the hundreds of millions and that the US government is going pay for that - it has to. This will certainly take time and probably won't be available until close to or after halfway through this term. So why is the airplane going to the Trump Library in January 2029? Do we really think that it's going to become an exhibit at the library? That is completely non-sensical - Trump is going to use it.

You have raised this question of whether the Emoluments Clause applies to the president in past discussion - but I think there's more to it than you present. First, in the one substantive federal court ruling we have on this question, from Senior District Judge in federal court in DC, the clause does apply to the president. But it's also based in part on a history of practice between the OLC opinions and GAO rulings that presumes it applies to the president and, in fact, there's no history of court rulings on it because Trump is the first president to try to get around it.


The case was reversed on standing alone.

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7335329/blumenthal-v-trump/

 

[Optimus Prime]

A new report says that the “free, very expensive” jet that Donald Trump is expected to accept as a gift from Qatar’s royal family will require billions of dollars of investment and retrofitting to make it into a makeshift Air Force One.

The renovations are such that they would be impossible to complete before 2028.

The administration set off legal and ethical alarms over its plan to accept the $400 million Boeing 747-8 for use as the presidential aircraft. At the same time, a pair of Boeing VC-25 B planes are being completed to stringent military standards in the US. Neither is expected to be completed until 2027.

The president hailed Qatar's “great gesture” and said that only a “stupid person” would not have accepted the gift.

However, the so-called free plane will carry hefty costs from a raft of upgrades, which range from ensuring secure communications to electromagnetic shielding.

The plane is currently being held in San Antonio, Texas. It is unclear if any retrofitting has already taken place.……

Retrofitting Trump’s Qatari jet to Air Force One specs ‘impossible until after 2028’

The so-called ‘free’ luxury jet is expected to come with a raft of upgrade and maintenance costs

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Sendai]

How is it a gift to the United States when the aircraft is going with Trump when he departs office? The Bondi memo conditions the acceptance on the plane going to the Trump Library after his presidency. Libraries don't operate airplanes.

We know that it's going to require major reconfiguration and equipping to make it suitable to fly the president (or any major US official around) and that's going to cost likely in the hundreds of millions and that the US government is going pay for that - it has to. This will certainly take time and probably won't be available until close to or after halfway through this term. So why is the airplane going to the Trump Library in January 2029? Do we really think that it's going to become an exhibit at the library? That is completely non-sensical - Trump is going to use it.

You have raised this question of whether the Emoluments Clause applies to the president in past discussion - but I think there's more to it than you present. First, in the one substantive federal court ruling we have on this question, from Senior District Judge in federal court in DC, the clause does apply to the president. But it's also based in part on a history of practice between the OLC opinions and GAO rulings that presumes it applies to the president and, in fact, there's no history of court rulings on it because Trump is the first president to try to get around it.


The case was reversed on standing alone.

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7335329/blumenthal-v-trump/

If it happens the plane is to be given to the Defense Department.

As to after his term.

“Presidential libraries and their holdings belong to the American people and are overseen by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). While Presidents initially create and build the libraries, they donate them to the federal government, which then operates and maintains them. The Presidential Records Act of 1978 establishes that records created on or after January 20, 1981, are the property of the United States”

It will be just like Reagan’s plane.

Actually I doubt this will even happen.