D.C. and Maryland to sue President Trump alleging breach of constitutional oath

[Hard_Rom]

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/polit...stitutional-oath/ar-BBCx9TJ?OCID=ansmsnnews11

Attorneys general for the District of Columbia and the state of Maryland say they will sue President Trump on Monday, alleging that he has violated anticorruption clauses in the Constitution by accepting millions in payments and benefits from foreign governments since moving into the White House.

“This case is, at its core, about the right of Marylanders, residents of the District of Columbia and all Americans to have honest government,” Frosh said, referring to parts of the Constitution known as the “emoluments” clauses, which prohibit U.S. officials from taking gifts or other benefits from foreign governments. “The emoluments clauses command that . . . the president put the country first and not his own personal interest first.”

“We’re getting in here to be the check and balance that it appears Congress is unwilling to be,” he said. “We’re bringing suit because the president has not taken adequate steps to separate himself from his business interests.”

“Trump is the framers’ worst-case scenario; a president who would seize office and attempt to exploit his position for personal financial gain with every governmental entity imaginable, across the United States or around the world.”

 

[Boxlicker101]

I had never heard of this, at least as it is described here. Here is a description f the clause: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.22314d75e8ce

I have a really hard time believing the clause was ever meant to apply to ordinary business transactions such as renting a suite or ballroom or something similar. I would think it was really meant to eliminate bribes in the form of gifts.

In any event, I don't believe it would ever rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors." However, I don't claim to be an expert on this or anything else except writing smut.

 

[sr71plt]

I have a really hard time believing the clause was ever meant to apply to ordinary business transactions such as renting a suite or ballroom or something similar. I would think it was really meant to eliminate bribes in the form of gifts.

So, Box, what do you think would influence a foreign government or company or a U.S. company for that matter to chose a Trump property over any other to patronize, especially knowing that Trump is visiting his properties and gladhanding people who are using it? And knowing Trump's mentality, as we all should since he doesn't bother to hide it. Think real hard, Box. I just know you can figure it out--well, on the other hand I don't really think you have the capacity of figuring that out.

 

[phrodeau]

I had never heard of this, at least as it is described here. Here is a description f the clause: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.22314d75e8ce

I have a really hard time believing the clause was ever meant to apply to ordinary business transactions such as renting a suite or ballroom or something similar. I would think it was really meant to eliminate bribes in the form of gifts.

In any event, I don't believe it would ever rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors." However, I don't claim to be an expert on this or anything else except writing smut.

Are you aware of this thing called "business as usual" where a few dollars change hands on the surface, but piles of ill-gotten gains get dealt out under the table?

 

[magicalmoments]

So, Box, what do you think would influence a foreign government or company or a U.S. company for that matter to chose a Trump property over any other to patronize, especially knowing that Trump is visiting his properties and gladhanding people who are using it? And knowing Trump's mentality, as we all should since he doesn't bother to hide it. Think real hard, Box. I just know you can figure it out--well, on the other hand I don't really think you have the capacity of figuring that out.

You can be certain of one thing, the trumptards, like Trump himself, will not recognise that there is an issue.

 

[ChloeTzang]

You can be certain of one thing, the trumptards, like Trump himself, will not recognise that there is an issue.

The other thing you can be certain of is that in the remote future when perhaps a Demonrat President is elected, they're going to be hounded from pillar to post mercilessly. Precedents are being set here that everyone will have to live with for the foreseeable future.

 

[phrodeau]

The other thing you can be certain of is that in the remote future when perhaps a Demonrat President is elected, they're going to be hounded from pillar to post mercilessly. Precedents are being set here that everyone will have to live with for the foreseeable future.

I know you admit that you haven't been politically aware very long, but things are no worse now than they were for Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson or Kennedy.

 

[needit700]

This is just more

dem-o-crap shit.

 

[HisArpy]

It's a frivolous lawsuit. There is no standing for DC and Maryland to sue the President nor can they prove damages. Nor is it likely that they will prevail at trial on the merits so no injunction will issue.

This is called showboating and grandstanding. Nothing more.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I know you admit that you haven't been politically aware very long, but things are no worse now than they were for Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson or Kennedy.

Things are a lot worse for Trump than they were for any of those others. No other president, not even Nixon, has been the object of so much vituperation in less than five months as president. Part of this is the online media who have few, if any, principles and no restraints.

JFK and Obama were well-liked by the media and, in the case of Obama, there was the fear of seeming racist. This was also true, to a lesser extent of JFK because he was the only Catholic pres. LBJ was disliked but respect. Nixon was hated. Ford and Carter were considered to be out of their depths, so got something of a pass. Reagan was attacked, but wasn't called "The Teflon President" for nothing. Bush Sr. was mocked but not viciously attacked. Clinton was attacked by the GOP, so the news media came to his defense.

W was heavily attacked, with little justification, partly because he was not always seen as a legit pres. and mostly because the online media had achieved prominence. Even so, those attacks did not begin in earnest in his first five months. Obama basically got a pass, for reasons given above, although there were some, especially the Hillary Clinton campaign, who questioned his eligibility.