D.C. MD

[RiverguyVT]

Surprised I haven't seen the attorneys general lawsuit discussed here yet

[BigDave]

What is the story?

[USN_Hokie]

What is the story?

They're trying sue Trump for not divesting his entire hotel chain while President. In a sane world, these AGs would be too embarrassed to even propose such a thing.

[133743Hokie]

Partisan lunacy; the "Resistance" movement doing all they can to keep Trump tied up and ineffective

[CFB Apologist]

What is the story?

They're trying sue Trump for not divesting his entire hotel chain while President. In a sane world, these AGs would be too embarrassed to even propose such a thing.

Yep. They are worse - much worse- than the "birthers" that they despised. such hypocrites.

[cwtcr hokie]

Surprised I haven't seen the attorneys general lawsuit discussed here yet

I posted it yesterday, no one was interested

[Vienna_Hokie]

This is the text of the so called "Emolument Clause".

"The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them."

Someone please explain how a person's business interests (whether foreign governments use his services or not) can possibly fall under this clause. All this says is the US Government and any of the state governments can't pay him anything other than his salary. Honestly, it makes no reference at all to bribery or anything other than the US Gov and State Gov's paying him.

[awesome guy]

This is the text of the so called "Emolument Clause".

"The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them."

Someone please explain how a person's business interests (whether foreign governments use his services or not) can possibly fall under this clause. All this says is the US Government and any of the state governments can't pay him anything other than his salary. Honestly, it makes no reference at all to bribery or anything other than the US Gov and State Gov's paying him.

It's the left conflating their desires for impeachment with law, again. Anything to get that Trump.

[HokieFanDC]

This is the text of the so called "Emolument Clause".

"The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them."

Someone please explain how a person's business interests (whether foreign governments use his services or not) can possibly fall under this clause. All this says is the US Government and any of the state governments can't pay him anything other than his salary. Honestly, it makes no reference at all to bribery or anything other than the US Gov and State Gov's paying him.

Wrong one.

"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, 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.

[awesome guy]

This is the text of the so called "Emolument Clause".

"The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them."

Someone please explain how a person's business interests (whether foreign governments use his services or not) can possibly fall under this clause. All this says is the US Government and any of the state governments can't pay him anything other than his salary. Honestly, it makes no reference at all to bribery or anything other than the US Gov and State Gov's paying him.

Wrong one.

"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, 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.

It's limiting payments from foreign governments, still a stretch.

[Vienna_Hokie]

This is the text of the so called "Emolument Clause".

"The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them."

Someone please explain how a person's business interests (whether foreign governments use his services or not) can possibly fall under this clause. All this says is the US Government and any of the state governments can't pay him anything other than his salary. Honestly, it makes no reference at all to bribery or anything other than the US Gov and State Gov's paying him.

Wrong one.

"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, 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.

Hmmm...quite a stretch and like the nuclear option something the left may want to consider the long term implications of stretching.

In order to get to a situation where a government officials pre-existing business holdings fall into that, you have to get to include pretty much any elected official or staff member receiving any funds or profits from an investment in a company that does business with foreign governments (you know like IBM, Ford, GM, etc).

But they won't TDS makes them ignore reality because they just can't stand to have their little party crashed.

Need to start calling DC "Bushwood"

[HokieFanDC]

This is the text of the so called "Emolument Clause".

"The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them."

Someone please explain how a person's business interests (whether foreign governments use his services or not) can possibly fall under this clause. All this says is the US Government and any of the state governments can't pay him anything other than his salary. Honestly, it makes no reference at all to bribery or anything other than the US Gov and State Gov's paying him.

Wrong one.

"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, 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.

Hmmm...quite a stretch and like the nuclear option something the left may want to consider the long term implications of stretching.

In order to get to a situation where a government officials pre-existing business holdings fall into that, you have to get to include pretty much any elected official or staff member receiving any funds or profits from an investment in a company that does business with foreign governments (you know like IBM, Ford, GM, etc).

But they won't TDS makes them ignore reality because they just can't stand to have their little party crashed.

Need to start calling DC "Bushwood"

This is why you guys are called the TDB. You posted the wrong f'ing clause. I gave you the correct one, nothing more.

I agree, it's a stretch. But, it's not out of the question. But, you are so deranged with your desire to defend Trump, you make up things that I don't believe, and have never said.

[Vienna_Hokie]

This is the text of the so called "Emolument Clause".

"The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them."

Someone please explain how a person's business interests (whether foreign governments use his services or not) can possibly fall under this clause. All this says is the US Government and any of the state governments can't pay him anything other than his salary. Honestly, it makes no reference at all to bribery or anything other than the US Gov and State Gov's paying him.

Wrong one.

"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, 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.

Hmmm...quite a stretch and like the nuclear option something the left may want to consider the long term implications of stretching.

In order to get to a situation where a government officials pre-existing business holdings fall into that, you have to get to include pretty much any elected official or staff member receiving any funds or profits from an investment in a company that does business with foreign governments (you know like IBM, Ford, GM, etc).

But they won't TDS makes them ignore reality because they just can't stand to have their little party crashed.

Need to start calling DC "Bushwood"

This is why you guys are called the TDB. You posted the wrong f'ing clause. I gave you the correct one, nothing more.

I agree, it's a stretch. But, it's not out of the question. But, you are so deranged with your desire to defend Trump, you make up things that I don't believe, and have never said.

Please show me where I said you agreed with the lawsuit and you show me where I am defending Trump. I am calling BS on the whole idea that a government official can't profit from outside business interests that do business with foreign governments. My only point was that the left can't see the obvious stupidity of this because they are so worried about their little party being crashed by Trump. I find Trump a boorish ass, but he is exactly what our gov needs because he is the enema needed blow out the colon that is DC.

[HokieFanDC]

This is the text of the so called "Emolument Clause".

"The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them."

Someone please explain how a person's business interests (whether foreign governments use his services or not) can possibly fall under this clause. All this says is the US Government and any of the state governments can't pay him anything other than his salary. Honestly, it makes no reference at all to bribery or anything other than the US Gov and State Gov's paying him.

Wrong one.

"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, 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.

Hmmm...quite a stretch and like the nuclear option something the left may want to consider the long term implications of stretching.

In order to get to a situation where a government officials pre-existing business holdings fall into that, you have to get to include pretty much any elected official or staff member receiving any funds or profits from an investment in a company that does business with foreign governments (you know like IBM, Ford, GM, etc).

But they won't TDS makes them ignore reality because they just can't stand to have their little party crashed.

Need to start calling DC "Bushwood"

This is why you guys are called the TDB. You posted the wrong f'ing clause. I gave you the correct one, nothing more.

I agree, it's a stretch. But, it's not out of the question. But, you are so deranged with your desire to defend Trump, you make up things that I don't believe, and have never said.

Please show me where I said you agreed with the lawsuit and you show me where I am defending Trump. I am calling BS on the whole idea that a government official can't profit from outside business interests that do business with foreign governments. My only point was that the left can't see the obvious stupidity of this because they are so worried about their little party being crashed by Trump. I find Trump a boorish ass, but he is exactly what our gov needs because he is the enema needed blow out the colon that is DC.

Hmm...seemed like you were directing that at me, not at the lib kooks...mea culpa!