The Other Emoluents Clause

[lyman]

No Lyman, you're wrong by a plain reading of the text. If your position is that the Constitution should be argued with hand-waving, then I guess you can feel that way. But don't come back with a "plain text" rebuttal when some liberal invents a right that you disagree with. At that point it's your waving against hers.

the crux is you have to prove he was paid, (by your post, he can draw funds if needed per quarter)


if he has been, or was paid,, then yes, wrong, if he was not, then no reason to worry, correct?

[togor]

If Trump is an owner of Trump Inc., and Trump Inc. received revenues from the government, then he is paid. The hair splitting exonerating argument could be that the government receives services at below Trump Inc.'s cost, but let us assume that Trump Inc. did not enter such money-losing contracts in the years before Trump became President. Easily enough there for the House to find probable cause for impeachment. As I've said, I think an election is the better political remedy.

And read the amendment--Trump receives a fixed schedule of payments as set by Congress. Other Federal government revenues are a no-no. If Trump Inc. signed a $500M contract with the GSA, that would be an obvious problem, right? Well the amendment doesn't qualify by amount or timing.

[lyman]

thought we had already established his kids now had the company

[togor]

thought we had already established his kids now had the company

No, we established that they (supposedly) run it. They didn't cash the old man out. So he still owns his share of it. How much is that? He won't say.

[lyman]

held in a trust,,, managed by the kids,

nothing will happen, nothing will be done, just more squawking,

[togor]

held in a trust,,, managed by the kids,

nothing will happen, nothing will be done, just more squawking,

He still owns it and everyone knows it. How is this a hard concept for you?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jennife...-their-assets/

To be a blind trust, Trump would have to cash out. Someone would have to come up with the cash for that to happen. That means find a buyer or load Trump Inc. up on debt. Neither was likely. And besides, what's Trump Inc. without Trump? So, the right move would be to erect a wall (pun intended) between his businesses and government contracts. Win-win for Trump because as Vernon would put it he can proudly declare he's not sucking at the taxpayer's teat. But he didn't bother to do this. Hence his Article II problem.

[lyman]

not sure why you think this is a hard concept,

or that I do,


he was apparently cleared when put in office, (part of the process correct?)

now 3 yrs later some are digging at every crumb trying to find a way to get him gone,,,

what does that tell you,, and stop and think about it before you pounce on the keyboard,,

[togor]

not sure why you think this is a hard concept,

or that I do,


he was apparently cleared when put in office, (part of the process correct?)

now 3 yrs later some are digging at every crumb trying to find a way to get him gone,,,

what does that tell you,, and stop and think about it before you pounce on the keyboard,,

Who clears him? Some guy in the DOJ decides if he can be President or not? LOL. Only Congress can deal with this. Your arguments keep shifting. Fine, shift away. Just don't claim to be a fan of a plain reading of the original intent of the Constitution when clearly you are not.

[lyman]

once again you are assuming about me things you should not,

not shifting at all,

was he and his finances vetted when he was elected and took office like every other president?

if so, why was this not an issue then and addressed? since the folks vetting him and making sure the processes were followed were likely leftovers from the past admin, or just gov't workers,, would they let him slide?


has the trust , adminstered by his kids, not him, (agreed supposedly) every paid him a dime?

and if they did,, would the same outcome Jimmeh Cahter got be applied? (the peanut payout,, remember)

[togor]

Sure you are shifting. First it's "hey he did divest". When shown not, then "hey he's not running the thing". Shown to be irrelevant, it's "hey it's been 3 years now, someone should have said something". What you so far have not been willing to admit is that the language is clear, and that Trump is on the wrong side of it when as a business owner he profits from side business with the departments of government that as President he is in charge of running. Instead it's the usual spate of denials from "no it isn't happening" to "no it doesn't matter".

Every other presidentent divests, goes to blind trusts. Trump being Trump he says "screw that", noting that there is no law requiring it, just some dumb language from Article II, Section 1. If every other President is a sucker, not Trump! If Congress doesn't like it....impeach me! Again, all he had to do is sign a exec. order saying his the Fed Gov't won't do business with Trump Inc. Or, Don Jr. could have put out a press release saying that they're getting out of their gov't contracts. Do you think anyone is going to have a problem with their reasoning? But Trumps being Trumps, and figuring the base doesn't give a sh*t (clearly true), they thumb their nose at the article.

So AGAIN, no more of this originalist talk on this forum. togor has this issue pre-sighted.

[lyman]

paraphrasing a bit there togor,


and shows us how you perceive things,

So AGAIN, no more of this originalist talk on this forum. togor has this issue pre-sighted.

when you become moderator, I'll let you ban or infract me tillI am gone,

otherwise,, no dictating how any of us can post,,


(and there you go again,, attempting to restrict others rights,,,,,
)

[togor]

Dictating? You mean like how some folks chide others for tone?

No, no dictating. But the next someone goes on about how we need good Conservatives who will interpret the Constitution in a plain meaning without all of the legal mumbo-jumbo, or skeevy arguments, they may discover that they're brought right back to Article II, Section 1.

"Whadabout Trump?" is something we're all going to hear for the rest of our lives, whether we like it or not. Folks might as well start getting used to it.

[lyman]

Dictating? You mean like how some folks chide others for tone?

No, no dictating. But the next someone goes on about how we need good Conservatives who will interpret the Constitution in a plain meaning without all of the legal mumbo-jumbo, or skeevy arguments, they may discover that they're brought right back to Article II, Section 1.

"Whadabout Trump?" is something we're all going to hear for the rest of our lives, whether we like it or not. Folks might as well start getting used to it.

only those of us that don't have you on ignore,,,,,

[togor]

only those of us that don't have you on ignore,,,,,

Very true. But I'm here for the lurkers too!

[lyman]

Very true. But I'm here for the lurkers too!

LOL