The DOJ exempts Trump's Hotels from ban on Foreign payments

May 2012
65,263
12,479
By the wall
#21
Precisely WHEN did CONGRESS consent to this? Link to a reliable source for this … not some RWNJ site or blog.
Dude it's a law they passed where they exempted the president, the VP and other high ranking members of the government from conflict of interest laws.

I've posted it until I'm blue in the face so go look it up on your own this time.
 
May 2016
2,095
2,553
Florida
#22
Do you guys have any better sources than the dailykos?


It's the brietbart of the left.
Lol, daily mos links to a story the. Propagandizes the content dishonest
Y, if you use dailykos you are no better than one who uses brietbart.
Then the op should use he guardian next time and then theres no problem....
Nope. Thats not the discussion.
Four posts and not one of them addresses the topic, yet you have the audacity to chastise members in other threads for not being on topic. In case you were confused, the topic is about Trump and the DOJ giving Trump the protection he needed to keep profiting from his time in office. Well, since it is about Trump, I totally understand now why you are trying soooo hard to deflect from the topic....
 
Feb 2010
33,618
23,330
between Moon and NYC
#24
tRump's new 'fixer', Barr, still hard at work … ends Mueller investigation, exempts tRump from the emoluments clause … what next? Step by step, inch by inch … little by little, day by day ...

The DOJ exempts Trump's Hotels from ban on Foreign payments

View attachment 23029

Who does Bill Barr Work For, anyways?

The sensational headline "Accepting Foreign Payments" seems to translate to basically staying in a room at a hotel Trump is associated to.

As long as these nefarious international rascals are just paying the standard rates for their accommodations......am not real excited about this particular scandal.






..
 
Jul 2011
54,518
10,511
NYC
#25
Four posts and not one of them addresses the topic, yet you have the audacity to chastise members in other threads for not being on topic. In case you were confused, the topic is about Trump and the DOJ giving Trump the protection he needed to keep profiting from his time in office. Well, since it is about Trump, I totally understand now why you are trying soooo hard to deflect from the topic....

Yo, what was your on topic post?
 
Jun 2013
17,383
14,888
Here
#26
Have you ever read the emoluments clause?

I love doing this to liberals by the way.

Have YOU, ever read it?

"The Title of Nobility Clause is a provision in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution,[1] that prohibits the federal government from granting titles of nobility, and restricts members of the government from receiving gifts, emoluments, offices or titles from foreign states and monarchies without the consent of the United States Congress. Also known as the Emoluments Clause, it was designed to shield the republican character of the United States against so-called "corrupting foreign influences." It is interpretable.[2] This shield is reinforced by the corresponding prohibition on state titles of nobility in Article I, Section 10, and more generally by the Republican Guarantee Clause in Article IV, Section 4.[3]
Title of Nobility Clause - Wikipedia

Does the DOJ = CONGRESS?

For those in doubt about the possible examples of a stay in a hotel room could be used to influence, don't think of a single person staying in a hotel a member of government (including the President) owns, think of a foreign government sending all their government employees to stay at a hotel owned by a member of the U.S. government or the children of said member, who act as advisers to said member, those children running the business that benefits from this. Want to build a new hotel in a foreign nation? How about the expedition of necessary permits in exchange for favors from those seeking the permit, whose father is the POTUS? Trump brags about who purchases his real estate. It's NOT working class people, but people like sheiks and people with A LOT of money.

What has happened to the base intelligence and capacity of Americans to think? Has money, greed, partisanship caused people to leave their capacity to think and their human and moral values in the gutter?
 
Last edited:
May 2012
65,263
12,479
By the wall
#27
Have YOU, ever read it?

"The Title of Nobility Clause is a provision in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution,[1] that prohibits the federal government from granting titles of nobility, and restricts members of the government from receiving gifts, emoluments, offices or titles from foreign states and monarchies without the consent of the United States Congress. Also known as the Emoluments Clause, it was designed to shield the republican character of the United States against so-called "corrupting foreign influences." It is interpretable.[2] This shield is reinforced by the corresponding prohibition on state titles of nobility in Article I, Section 10, and more generally by the Republican Guarantee Clause in Article IV, Section 4.[3]
Title of Nobility Clause - Wikipedia

Does the DOJ = CONGRESS?

For those in doubt about the possible examples of a stay in a hotel room could be used to influence, don't think of a single person staying in a hotel a member of government (including the President) owns, think of a foreign government sending all their government employees to stay at a hotel owned by a member of the U.S. government or the children of said member, who act as advisers to said member, those children running the business that benefits from this. Want to build a new hotel in a foreign nation? How about the expedition of necessary permits in exchange for favors from those seeking the permit, whose father is the POTUS?

What has happened to the base intelligence and capacity of Americans to think? Has money, greed, partisanship caused people to leave their capacity to think and their human and moral values in the gutter?
Repeat this part for us.

without the consent of the United States Congress.
 
Jun 2013
17,383
14,888
Here
#28
Repeat this part for us.

without the consent of the United States Congress.

Meaning what? Again, the DOJ, equates to the United States Congress in what way? Where and when did Congress consent to this DOJ "STANCE" ON the emoluments clause of the Constitution? This is an attempt to push this stance to the SCOTUS where Trump and his cabal perhaps seem to think the SCOTUS majority will act politically, NOT Constitutionally.

Unless the stance applies to all members of government, it is going to run into problems based on that alone. If it leads to the removal of the emolument's clause (that takes what sort of majority of Congress?) would you suggest open all members of government to foreign influence is a good thing?

Are you really an American?
 
Last edited:
May 2012
65,263
12,479
By the wall
#29
Meaning what? Again, the DOJ, equates to the United States Congress in what way? Where did Congress consent to this "STANCE"?
You aren't aware of the law that exempts the president from conflict of interest?

And you spend your time on a political forum?

However I will give you plenty of time to deny they have ever done it before I post it and shame you in front of everyone so go ahead and treat us to your ignorance.
 
Jun 2013
17,383
14,888
Here
#30
You aren't aware of the law that exempts the president from conflict of interest?

And you spend your time on a political forum?

However I will give you plenty of time to deny they have ever done it before I post it and shame you in front of everyone so go ahead and treat us to your ignorance.
"What law is that?"

"The law doesn’t say the president can’t have a conflict of interest. But Congress, under Title 18 Section 208 of the U.S. code, did exempt the president and vice president from conflict-of-interest laws on the theory that the presidency has so much power that any possible executive action might pose a potential conflict."

"The fear of potential influence from foreign governments through economic benefits to federal officials led to the Foreign Emoluments Clause in the U.S. Constitution. Trump’s business holdings around the world could test the boundaries of the letter or spirit of the clause. Case Western Reserve University law professor Erik Jensen outlined key questions that may arise regarding whether the Emoluments Clause would apply to Trump and his business holdings."

“If nothing else, however, the Clause emphasizes the founders’ fears about economic benefits coming to American officials from foreign governments. It adds a constitutional dimension to some good, old-fashioned appearance-of-impropriety concerns,” Jensen said in response to a question about Trump and the Emoluments Clause posed by Jonathan Adler of the Volokh Conspiracy blog."

"For what it’s worth, Trump’s pick for chief of staff, Reince Priebus, has vowed that the White House counsel will review all potential areas that could pose a conflict: “I can assure the American people that there wouldn’t be any wrongdoing or any sort of undue influence over any decision-making.”

The Pinocchio Test
"While spoken in classic “Trumpese” that fails to capture the nuances of the law, the president-elect did rightly point to an exemption for the president and vice president in conflicts of interest laws. And while such an exemption exists, the theory was that the presidency has so much power that any policy decision could pose a potential conflict. The law assumed that the president could be trusted to do the right thing and take actions to avoid appearance or presence of impropriety not that the law is “totally” on the president’s “side” or that it would allow the president to use the exemption to his favor."

"Trump’s statement does not quite rise to the level of a Geppetto Checkmark, nor does it qualify for a Pinocchio. So we will not rate this claim. Trump, nevertheless, should be more careful about his wording on this point. It’s quite possible he will face a number of conflicts of interest during his presidency. The law may offer an exemption for the president, but political reality — and perception— often does not."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-conflict-of-interest/?utm_term=.95f2b08831f8


Where is there any, much less a plethora of evidence that this President is interested in doing the right thing, for anyone, but himself? If there is any plethora of evidence, it would point to the exact OPPOSITE of this President doing the right thing for anyone, but himself.








"The Department of Justice has adopted a narrow interpretation of a law meant to bar foreign interests from corrupting federal officials, giving Saudi Arabia, China and other countries leeway to curry favor with Donald Trump via deals with his hotels, condos, trademarks and golf courses, legal and national security experts say."

"The so-called foreign emoluments clause was intended to curb presidents and other government officials from accepting gifts and benefits from foreign governments unless Congress consents."

"But in a forthcoming article in the Indiana Law Journal, the Washington University Law professor Kathleen Clark reveals justice department filings have recently changed tack. The new interpretation, Clark says, is contained in justice filings responding to recent lawsuits lodged by attorneys generals and members of Congress."

"Clark’s article notes that in more than 50 legal opinions over some 150 years justice department lawyers have interpreted the clause in a way that barred any foreign payments or gifts except for ones Congress approved. But filings by the department since June 2017 reveal a new interpretation that “… would permit the president – and all federal officials – to accept unlimited amounts of money from foreign governments, as long as the money comes through commercial transactions with an entity owned by the federal official,” the professor writes."

"The justice department stance now closely parallels arguments made in a January 2017 position paper by Trump Organization lawyer Sheri Dillon and several of her law partners. On 11 January 2017, just days before he was sworn in, Dillon said Trump isn’t accepting any payments in his “official capacity” as president, as the income is only related to his private business. “Paying for a hotel room is not a gift or a present, and it has nothing to do with an office,” Dillon said."
Trump hotels exempted from ban on foreign payments under new stance
 
Last edited: