The emoluments clause

[HippyHollowAustin]

But it explains why they DO NOT CARE.

And Donald Trump knows this and knew it from the start.

I think that it is amusing to apply the "shoe on the other foot" standard here. Just imagine if this were Hillary Clinton's hotel. I am quite sure that self-educated lawyer Bulldog would react just the same.
"In December, diplomats from Bahrain shifted that country’s National Day festivities to Trump International’s gilded, 13,000-sq.-ft. presidential ballroom. As if on cue, Kuwait moved its own annual gala in February from the Four Seasons across town to Trump International—even though the former location had already been reserved." I wonder why they moved from the Four Seasons as already booked? What could possibly have changed? http://time.com/donald-trumps-suite-of-power/

 

[BULLDOG00]

I think that it is amusing to apply the "shoe on the other foot" standard here. Just imagine if this were Hillary Clinton's hotel. I am quite sure that self-educated lawyer Bulldog would react just the same.

Not a problem, just as long as the foreign customers weren't charged more than the general public for the same product/service.

 

[HippyHollowAustin]

Not a problem, just as long as the foreign customers weren't charged more than the general public for the same product/service.

So, if the hotel goes from 30% occupancy and running at a loss, to 100% occupancy, increased room banquet rates, and is now hugely profitable, due to the influx of lobbyist business and foreign usage -- not a problem. Bahrain is now willing to pay half a million dollars to rent a ballroom that they formerly would not, and the rent has gone up exponentially, but, hell, I could rent the same ballroom for half a million dollars too, so obviously no corruption here.

 

[HippyHollowAustin]

I would ask Bulldog this question, but I wouldn't trust him to be forthcoming, but my guess is that Bulldog was outraged, OUTRAGED I say, that the charitable Clinton Foundation received contributions, which went to fight aids and poverty (you know, them librul causes), from .... whoever. The outrage was the important thing. Trump people are the absolute biggest hypocrites in my lifetime of observing politics.

 

[BULLDOG00]

So, if the hotel goes from 30% occupancy and running at a loss, to 100% occupancy, increased room banquet rates, and is now hugely profitable, due to the influx of lobbyist business and foreign usage -- not a problem. Bahrain is now willing to pay half a million dollars to rent a ballroom that they formerly would not, and the rent has gone up exponentially, but, hell, I could rent the same ballroom for half a million dollars too, so obviously no corruption here.

Isn't the hotel you are referring too rather new, like just opened at the end of last year? It stands to reason that business would increase. As long as foreign governments are not paying a higher rate than other customers, it is not a gift or emolument.

 

[BULLDOG00]

I would ask Bulldog this question, but I wouldn't trust him to be forthcoming, but my guess is that Bulldog was outraged, OUTRAGED I say, that the charitable Clinton Foundation received contributions, which went to fight aids and poverty (you know, them librul causes), from .... whoever. The outrage was the important thing. Trump people are the absolute biggest hypocrites in my lifetime of observing politics.

When Trump sets up a sham foundation and a private server to accept bribes and sell influence, get back to me.

 

[phonehome]

But the question is and will continue to be WHY DID THEY DO IT ???

Why do all these people all now want to use a facility that all last summer had some of the lowest occupancy rates in the DC area?

Why are the Chinese all the sudden handing out trademarks like they are going out of style when they had been saying no for years ?

Do they think that doing all this and of course making sure that Donald Trump KNOWS they are doing is going to get them in his good graces ?

Donald Trump is making MONEY that he would not have otherwise made if not for the fact that he is now President.

WHY DON"T YOU CARE ????

This is far beyond all the variations of "Trump foundations" which it seems are nothing but personal slush funds. It is had to find anything "charitable" that any of them actually do.

All we heard all summer long from Donald Trump himself was all this 'pay for play" crapola and with every right winger was always how if Hillary got elected that the Clinton Foundation "needed to be shuttered"

Has any of the various Trump foundations "been shuttered" ??? Not only no but hell no in fact news ones now exist that have dubiuos and to say the least hard to verify in achieved goals are getting 100's of millions of dollars "from foreign governments"

But again it's all good "they are just being smart"

 

[phonehome]

At least the Clinton foundation can point to all kinds of projects funded by 100's of millions of dollars from the Clinton Foundation.

At least the Clintons never pretended that that was all "their money' that the foundation was giving out the way Donald Trump always has.

At least the Clinton Foundation never gave money to the Pam Bondi's of the world had to pay fines to the IRS because of it.

 

[Industrialsize]

Clinton Foundation
1271 Avenue of the Americas
42nd Floor
New York, NY 10020
www.clintonfoundation.org
Tax Status: 501(c)3
Other Names
Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation
Clinton Global Initiative
Clinton Health Access Initiative
William J. Clinton Foundation Charities often solicit donors under multiple names. CharityWatch is aware of this charity soliciting donors using the above names.
RATING: A




https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/clinton-foundation/478

 

[b.c.]

I think here is the underlying thing that explains all this

Republicans are somewhat between "do not mind" and "prefer to be" scammed

They are more than Ok with people "running for president" as just a money making scam or it being a "full time job for them.

Herman Cain, it was really just a book tour, no one cared.

Ben Carson same thing just 4 years later.

Mike Huckabe turned it into a long running gig on Fox news.

Sarah Palin and the rest of the Palins got more than one reality TV show out of the deal, all those books that she really never wrote which lead to all those "book tours" that looked to all the world like the campaign rallies she loved so much in 08

The response is always something along the lines of "Oh they are so smart, I would do it too if I could"

Now with Donald Trump who is the ultimate at it it's "that is fine with us" no matter what he does.

On the CONTRARY. When it comes to WHO'S getting over "like a fat rat" Republican objection tends to be HIGHLY "selective."

At least the Clinton foundation can point to all kinds of projects funded by 100's of millions of dollars from the Clinton Foundation.

At least the Clintons never pretended that that was all "their money' that the foundation was giving out the way Donald Trump always has.

At least the Clinton Foundation never gave money to the Pam Bondi's of the world had to pay fines to the IRS because of it.

Exactly. Yet they give Trump & Co. a free pass.

 

[deleted37010]

On the CONTRARY. When it comes to WHO'S getting over "like a fat rat" Republican objection tends to be HIGHLY "selective."

Republicans Love the Same Attack on Syria They Hated When Obama Considered It
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...e-attack-on-syria-they-hated-under-obama.html

37 percent of Democrats back Trump’s missile strikes. In 2013, 38 percent of Democrats supported Obama’s plan.

How about Republicans? Well, that’s a wildly different picture:

In 2013, when Barack Obama was president, a Washington Post–ABC News poll found that only 22 percent of Republicans supported the U.S. launching missile strikes against Syria in response to Bashar al-Assad using chemical weapons against civilians.
A new Post-ABC poll finds that 86 percent of Republicans support Donald Trump’s decision to launch strikes on Syria for the same reason. Only 11 percent are opposed.

 

[b.c.]

Republicans Love the Same Attack on Syria They Hated When Obama Considered It
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...e-attack-on-syria-they-hated-under-obama.html

37 percent of Democrats back Trump’s missile strikes. In 2013, 38 percent of Democrats supported Obama’s plan.

How about Republicans? Well, that’s a wildly different picture:

In 2013, when Barack Obama was president, a Washington Post–ABC News poll found that only 22 percent of Republicans supported the U.S. launching missile strikes against Syria in response to Bashar al-Assad using chemical weapons against civilians.
A new Post-ABC poll finds that 86 percent of Republicans support Donald Trump’s decision to launch strikes on Syria for the same reason. Only 11 percent are opposed.

Of course they opposed it. Not only did conservatives, Republicans, the Congressional GOP oppose Obama's Syrian strike, they turned around AFTERWARD and CRITICIZED him for not going forward with it.

But then again UNDERMINING AND OBSTRUCTING government then blaming OBAMA was what the ALWAYS DID.

 

[deleted15807]

Republicans Love the Same Attack on Syria They Hated When Obama Considered It
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...e-attack-on-syria-they-hated-under-obama.html

37 percent of Democrats back Trump’s missile strikes. In 2013, 38 percent of Democrats supported Obama’s plan.

Can we drop the PC culture here conservatives hate so much? OK. They're fucking racists.

 

[phonehome]

Among other things !!!!

One of which is you have to be born with the "fuck you I got mine" gene

 

[Industrialsize]

Trump's other investigation comes to a head:
Judges sets Oct. 18 arguments in Trump foreign emoluments suit

By JOSH GERSTEIN

08/09/2017 11:00 AM EDT

A lawsuit contending that President Donald Trump's business dealings with and in foreign countries violate the Constitution is set to get a public airing in October in a New York federal courtroom.

U.S. District Court Judge George Daniels issued an order Wednesday setting oral arguments for Oct. 18 on a suit the liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed in January. The suit argues that Trump's business ties run afoul of the Constitution's foreign emoluments clause, which bars federal officials from receiving benefits from foreign governments.

The Justice Department's final response brief in the case is due Sept. 22.

Daniels took over the case last month after Judge Ronnie Abrams recused herself, apparently because her husband accepted a job as a prosecutor on the staff of Robert Mueller, the special counsel probing alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Abrams is an Obama appointee. Daniels is a Clinton appointee.

The suit is one of about half a dozen lawsuits targeting income Trump derives from foreign sources. One of those additional cases is pending before Daniels. The other are before federal courts in Washington, D.C., Greenbelt, Maryland, and West Palm Beach, Florida

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2017/08/09/trump-emoluments-lawsuit-schedule-241443

 

[Industrialsize]

GAO, GSA Inspector General Open Probes Into Trump Hotel Lease
Two federal watchdog agencies are taking an active look at the controversial General Services Administration lease for the Trump International Hotel in Washington, Bloomberg BNA has learned.

Both the Government Accountability Office and GSA’s Office of Inspector General have opened probes into the lease, officials with both groups confirmed.

The GAO since June has been looking into GSA’s “outleasing” program — the path through which the Trump Organization leased the hotel — in response to a request from two Democratic congressmen who have persistently raised questions about the Trump hotel lease, a GAO spokeswoman confirmed.
We will be looking at the GSA outleasing program writ large,” GAO spokeswoman Jennifer Ashley told Bloomberg BNA in an email when asked whether the GAO is reviewing the March 23 decision by GSA officials, including contracting officer Kevin Terry, who concluded that the Trump hotel lease is in “full compliance.”
A spokesman for the GSA Inspector General likewise confirmed that his office was conducting a probe into the GSA’s handling of the Trump hotel lease, though he declined to add specifics. Subsequently, a spokeswoman for that office, led by GSA Inspector General Carol Ochoa, told Bloomberg BNA that officials from an IG unit called the Office of Inspections were responsible for that probe.

“We are just getting started, so the detailed scope has yet to be determined,” Ashley said.

https://www.bna.com/gao-gsa-inspector-n73014463855/

 

[Industrialsize]

I started this thread in January of 2017, and now HERE We GO:
D.C., Maryland may proceed with lawsuit alleging Trump violated emoluments clauses

A federal judge ruled that the District of Columbia and Maryland may proceed with an unprecedented lawsuit against President Trump alleging that Trump’s business dealings have violated the Constitution’s ban on receiving improper “emoluments,” or payments, from individual states and foreign governments.


The ruling, by U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte in Maryland, marks the first time that a lawsuit of this kind has cleared the initial legal hurdle — a finding that the plaintiffs have legal standing to sue the president in the first place.


In this case, Messitte found that D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine (D) and Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh (D) have legal standing to sue Trump over the business of the Trump International Hotel in downtown Washington.


As part of that ruling, Messitte said he rejected an argument previously made by critics of the lawsuit — that, under the Constitution, only Congress may decide whether the president has violated the emoluments clauses.

“In absence of Congressional approval, this Court holds that it may review the actions of the President to determine if they comply with the law,” Messitte wrote.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...db33a5eef83_story.html?utm_term=.218830b69c2f

 

[b.c.]

I started this thread in January of 2017, and now HERE We GO:
D.C., Maryland may proceed with lawsuit alleging Trump violated emoluments clauses

A federal judge ruled that the District of Columbia and Maryland may proceed with an unprecedented lawsuit against President Trump alleging that Trump’s business dealings have violated the Constitution’s ban on receiving improper “emoluments,” or payments, from individual states and foreign governments.


The ruling, by U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte in Maryland, marks the first time that a lawsuit of this kind has cleared the initial legal hurdle — a finding that the plaintiffs have legal standing to sue the president in the first place.


In this case, Messitte found that D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine (D) and Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh (D) have legal standing to sue Trump over the business of the Trump International Hotel in downtown Washington.


As part of that ruling, Messitte said he rejected an argument previously made by critics of the lawsuit — that, under the Constitution, only Congress may decide whether the president has violated the emoluments clauses.

“In absence of Congressional approval, this Court holds that it may review the actions of the President to determine if they comply with the law,” Messitte wrote.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...db33a5eef83_story.html?utm_term=.218830b69c2f

Can you imagine how many house investigations, efforts at impeachment and the like there'd have been by now if Obama had tried to pull anything even CLOSE to what Trump has done?

 

[deleted15807]

I would say hold your nose but you'd never breath while Trump is president.

When President Trump upon taking office refused to completely sever his ties to his international business interests, he set in motion events that would inevitably lead to violation(s) of the foreign emoluments clause of the Constitution and gross conflicts of interest. Two examples, which might not have gotten sufficient notice given the gobsmacking raid on Trump’s lawyer’s office and the chemical attack in Syria, recently surfaced that underscore the extent of the problem.

The other Trump money scandals we’re too distracted to notice

No wonder Trump tried to draw a red line to prevent the special counsel from nosing around in his business operation. He could be justified in fearing that Mueller would discover unprecedented conduct inconsistent with the Constitution and with the essence of democratic government.​

 

[b.c.]

"Trump’s reelection campaign has spent $670,000 at Trump properties since he was elected president, and $125,000 during the first three months of this year alone, recent disclosures show. ​

But Trump’s campaign is not the only group paying Trump’s companies for events, catering and sometimes even rent: The Republican National Committee has also paid $1.1 million to Trump properties since the election. Outside PACs supporting Trump and Vice President Mike Pence have also been two of the biggest political spenders at Trump properties during that time."​

Trump 'reelection' campaign—and the RNC itself—continue to funnel cash to Donald Trump's businesses

. . . .
​

"... it doesn't help when when Republicans stage fundraisers where they actually spend more money then they take in. But that's what happened in Morris Country, New Jersey in February. And the reasons for the shortfall were emblematic of the con game mentality that dominates the tenor of Donald Trump's Washington. ​

The New Jersey Globe reports that: "Morris County Republicans lost money on their winter fundraiser at Trump National Golf Club and have a paltry $13,956 in their warchest ... The county GOP organization raised $58,335 at an event that cost them more than $64,000. They spent $24,487 at Trump National and paid Fox News personality Greg Gutfeld $30,000 to speak."
​

LOL: GOP Fundraiser Lost Money Due to Big Payouts to Trump Golf Club and FOX News Speaker


SUCKERS!