D.C. MD
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
- RiverguyVT
- Posts: 30317
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:30 pm
D.C. MD
Surprised I haven't seen the attorneys general lawsuit discussed here yet
So I put (the dead dog) on her doorstep!
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
Re: D.C. MD
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.BigDave wrote:What is the story?
-
- Posts: 11220
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am
Re: D.C. MD
Partisan lunacy; the "Resistance" movement doing all they can to keep Trump tied up and ineffective
-
- Posts: 3192
- Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:27 pm
Re: D.C. MD
Yep. They are worse - much worse- than the "birthers" that they despised. such hypocrites.USN_Hokie wrote: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.BigDave wrote:What is the story?
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: D.C. MD
I posted it yesterday, no one was interestedRiverguyVT wrote:Surprised I haven't seen the attorneys general lawsuit discussed here yet
-
- Posts: 2052
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 7:12 pm
- Alma Mater: VT
- Party: libertarian
Re: D.C. MD
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.
"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.
Looks like the only thing 1984 got wrong was the date.
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: D.C. MD
Vienna_Hokie wrote: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.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
-
- Posts: 18547
- Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm
Re: D.C. MD
Vienna_Hokie wrote: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
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: D.C. MD
It's limiting payments from foreign governments, still a stretch.HokieFanDC wrote:Vienna_Hokie wrote: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.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
-
- Posts: 2052
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 7:12 pm
- Alma Mater: VT
- Party: libertarian
Re: D.C. MD
Hmmm...quite a stretch and like the nuclear option something the left may want to consider the long term implications of stretching.HokieFanDC wrote:Vienna_Hokie wrote: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.
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"
Looks like the only thing 1984 got wrong was the date.
-
- Posts: 18547
- Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm
Re: D.C. MD
This is why you guys are called the TDB. You posted the wrong f'ing clause. I gave you the correct one, nothing more.Vienna_Hokie wrote:Hmmm...quite a stretch and like the nuclear option something the left may want to consider the long term implications of stretching.HokieFanDC wrote:Vienna_Hokie wrote: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.
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"
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.
-
- Posts: 2052
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 7:12 pm
- Alma Mater: VT
- Party: libertarian
Re: D.C. MD
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 wrote:This is why you guys are called the TDB. You posted the wrong f'ing clause. I gave you the correct one, nothing more.Vienna_Hokie wrote:Hmmm...quite a stretch and like the nuclear option something the left may want to consider the long term implications of stretching.HokieFanDC wrote:Vienna_Hokie wrote: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.
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"
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.
Looks like the only thing 1984 got wrong was the date.
-
- Posts: 18547
- Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm
Re: D.C. MD
Hmm...seemed like you were directing that at me, not at the lib kooks...mea culpa!Vienna_Hokie wrote: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 wrote:This is why you guys are called the TDB. You posted the wrong f'ing clause. I gave you the correct one, nothing more.Vienna_Hokie wrote:Hmmm...quite a stretch and like the nuclear option something the left may want to consider the long term implications of stretching.HokieFanDC wrote:Vienna_Hokie wrote: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.
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"
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.