Discussion:
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
(too old to reply)
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-30 03:49:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Trump was such a bad businessman he could buy and sell the Clintons 30
times over if he wanted. Explain how the Clintons became megamillionaires
if their foundation was a legitimate charity.
Simple. They used the same method that many presidents have used.
When they were out of office, they went around the world making speeches
at anywhere from $400,000 and up for a single speech. And they both did
it. The millions mount up quickly.
Chris
So that's why Hillary avoided the press because they wouldn't pay for
interviews? Trump gave his for free.
Think that through. Trump was willing to not charge for the speeches
he made because he got the free advertising. Hillary was using them to
make her point about issues for the country.
Chris
What a patriotic citizen she is to tell the world how she feels about US
politics for the measly sum of 300 million dollars. Why couldn't she say
the same things to the US media for free? That's what most US politicians
do and what her Republican opponent did while she was acting squirrelly
with the press.
As every president has done for years now, they make a fortune being
paid for speaking engagements after their term. Hillary had the
opportunity to make lots of money, and she took it. I don't doubt you
would too, if you were worth that kind of money.
The obvious difference is they were paid AFTER they had been POTUS, not
before. She was raking in 6 figure speaking fees when she clearly had
ambitions of becoming POTUS. The people who were shelling out those big
fees were expecting her to become POTUS and were expecting more for their
money than a good speech which she isn't capable of delivering. Why do you
suppose Bernie Sanders was pressing her to release the transcripts of her
speeches to the Wall Street Bankers and why do you suppose she kept
refusing?
WRONG! You went off into being ridiculous again! Hillary was wife of
the president,
And co-president, or thought she was. Dem political advisors had to calm
her down so Bill could be reelected.
but she was also a popular figure and as such was in demand as a speaker.
She was in demand as a speaker in the last election but ignored every
opportunity to meet the press.
She took advantage of her having been in the W.H. and also Sec. of State.
Chris
Without question and managed to bungle every advantage.
It doesn't work to try to dent Hillary. Look at Trump and the damage
he has done to our great country!
Chris
Well, at least he lived up to his campaign slogan:
Make America Stupid Again
bigdog
2017-06-30 13:54:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Trump was such a bad businessman he could buy and sell the Clintons 30
times over if he wanted. Explain how the Clintons became megamillionaires
if their foundation was a legitimate charity.
Simple. They used the same method that many presidents have used.
When they were out of office, they went around the world making speeches
at anywhere from $400,000 and up for a single speech. And they both did
it. The millions mount up quickly.
Chris
So that's why Hillary avoided the press because they wouldn't pay for
interviews? Trump gave his for free.
Think that through. Trump was willing to not charge for the speeches
he made because he got the free advertising. Hillary was using them to
make her point about issues for the country.
Chris
What a patriotic citizen she is to tell the world how she feels about US
politics for the measly sum of 300 million dollars. Why couldn't she say
the same things to the US media for free? That's what most US politicians
do and what her Republican opponent did while she was acting squirrelly
with the press.
As every president has done for years now, they make a fortune being
paid for speaking engagements after their term. Hillary had the
opportunity to make lots of money, and she took it. I don't doubt you
would too, if you were worth that kind of money.
The obvious difference is they were paid AFTER they had been POTUS, not
before. She was raking in 6 figure speaking fees when she clearly had
ambitions of becoming POTUS. The people who were shelling out those big
fees were expecting her to become POTUS and were expecting more for their
money than a good speech which she isn't capable of delivering. Why do you
suppose Bernie Sanders was pressing her to release the transcripts of her
speeches to the Wall Street Bankers and why do you suppose she kept
refusing?
WRONG! You went off into being ridiculous again! Hillary was wife of
the president,
And co-president, or thought she was. Dem political advisors had to calm
her down so Bill could be reelected.
but she was also a popular figure and as such was in demand as a speaker.
She was in demand as a speaker in the last election but ignored every
opportunity to meet the press.
She took advantage of her having been in the W.H. and also Sec. of State.
Chris
Without question and managed to bungle every advantage.
It doesn't work to try to dent Hillary. Look at Trump and the damage
he has done to our great country!
He kept Hillary from becoming POTUS. For that reason alone we owe him a
debt of gratitude.
bigdog
2017-06-30 13:55:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Trump was such a bad businessman he could buy and sell the Clintons 30
times over if he wanted. Explain how the Clintons became megamillionaires
if their foundation was a legitimate charity.
Simple. They used the same method that many presidents have used.
When they were out of office, they went around the world making speeches
at anywhere from $400,000 and up for a single speech. And they both did
it. The millions mount up quickly.
Chris
So that's why Hillary avoided the press because they wouldn't pay for
interviews? Trump gave his for free.
Think that through. Trump was willing to not charge for the speeches
he made because he got the free advertising. Hillary was using them to
make her point about issues for the country.
Chris
What a patriotic citizen she is to tell the world how she feels about US
politics for the measly sum of 300 million dollars. Why couldn't she say
the same things to the US media for free? That's what most US politicians
do and what her Republican opponent did while she was acting squirrelly
with the press.
As every president has done for years now, they make a fortune being
paid for speaking engagements after their term. Hillary had the
opportunity to make lots of money, and she took it. I don't doubt you
would too, if you were worth that kind of money.
The obvious difference is they were paid AFTER they had been POTUS, not
before. She was raking in 6 figure speaking fees when she clearly had
ambitions of becoming POTUS. The people who were shelling out those big
fees were expecting her to become POTUS and were expecting more for their
money than a good speech which she isn't capable of delivering. Why do you
suppose Bernie Sanders was pressing her to release the transcripts of her
speeches to the Wall Street Bankers and why do you suppose she kept
refusing?
WRONG! You went off into being ridiculous again! Hillary was wife of
the president, but she was also a popular figure and as such was in demand
as a speaker. She took advantage of her having been in the W.H. and also
Sec. of State.
Nobody would be dumb enough to shell out six figure fees just to hear
Hillary speak. If she was any good at giving speeches she would have been
elected. The people who paid her thought they were buying influence
because they expected her to become POTUS. It turned out to be money down
a rat hole.
Could be, but they got punished for their lack of faith...they got
Trump!
Their loss was our gain.
bigdog
2017-06-30 18:54:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Nonsense. Trump promised to lift the sanctions placed on Russia.
He said that from the beginning. His strategy was to seek cooperation
from Putin by doing more business with Russia and helping develop their
You are confusing private busines with public policy. What he calls Pay to
Play. He promised to lift the sanctions while he was just a candidate.
Which it was illegal for him to do, since he wasn't president at that time.
How is that illegal? Have you heard of the First Amendment? His predecessor was
elected for promising to dump Iraq and be a vanishing influence the Middle East.
Evidently millions of voters agreed. This time millions agreed we need a better
relationship with Russia.
Tarnished? You think from reading of Trump's tarnished past, that he
was cleaner than Hillary? Putin will not do a deal without getting the
upper hand in it. He's not a fool to be taken like a bunch of Trump
University customers, who had to sue to get their money back.
Chris
Both want to be multi-millionaires. Hillary used her office as SOS to
achieve that goal. Trump did it the hard way, taking risks while creating
Blue Collar jobs in the construction industry and hiring Hotel employees
all over the world. How many jobs did Hillary create?
Hiring hotel employees and then going bankrupt and having to let them
all go doesn't help anyone. Warren Buffett and Bill Gates never had to go
bankrupt, but Trump is a bad businessman and a conman, and so he will
always have trouble with his businesses.
The Clinton Foundation was the biggest pay-to-play scheme we've ever seen.
Foreign countries poured millions into it in hopes of gaining favor after
Hillary was elected. The Clinton's who were deeply in debt when Bill left
office due to his skyrocketing legal bills became mega-rich through their
foundation. The foreign investors discovered they had bet on the wrong
horse and had to kiss off all that money they gave the Clinton's.
A shame the Republicans were so stupid that they couldn't catch the
Clintons scams and get them in prison. Or maybe the Foundation was
legitimate vs. the Trump foundation, where he got caught using the funds
for his private purposes, like hanging his portrait in one of his golf
clubs.
Trump was such a bad businessman he could buy and sell the Clintons 30
times over if he wanted. Explain how the Clintons became megamillionaires
if their foundation was a legitimate charity.
Simple. They used the same method that many presidents have used.
When they were out of office, they went around the world making speeches
at anywhere from $400,000 and up for a single speech. And they both did
it. The millions mount up quickly.
I suppose you think the people shelling out six figure stipends weren't
expecting something in return. I've heard Hillary speak. Not exactly
spellbinding. I wouldn't pay 10 bucks to listen to her droning.
LOL! She wouldn't invite you. And the 6 figures is a method that is
time honored for presidents, and Even Nixon did it when he went to China
and spoke for a few million. He got China into trade with the US. I'm
sure they expected something in return, but we'll never prove it. It was
important not to pay off a president while he was in office. There are
certain clauses in the constitution that might apply. Look into the Trump
problems and you'll find them there too. And they will hang Trump.
The Left is engaging in a political witch hunt that will lead to one dead
end after another. When the Russia investigation begins to lose steam, and
that is already happening, they will try to drum up another charge to
hamper Trump's administration to prevent him from doing the things he said
he would do during the campaign. Mueller is hiring lawyers who contributed
to both the Obama and Clinton presidential campaigns. One of them was a
lawyer for the Clinton Foundation. Mueller has no Constitutional authority
to bring charges against a sitting President. Only the House of
Representatives can do that and only the Senate can try him. That has been
the policy of every Justice Department going back to the days of
Watergate.
The emoluments clause doesn't allow anyone in government service to
make any profit from their position, but Trump has gone right on doing it,
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/12/emoluments-clause-trump-sued-by-maryland-and-dc-attorneys-general.html
Nonsense. The emoluments clause prohibits a President from being paid a
salary other than what the government pays him. It does not prohibit him
from continuing to earn money from his business ventures. Do you think
George Washington shut down his farm during his Presidency?
Lordee! You got suckered in really badly! The Republicans ate your
lunch!
"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."
From: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/articles/article-i/the-foreign-emoluments-clause-article-i-section-9-clause-8/clause/
It means that no government official or employee can accept ANY present
or gift or thing of value from ANY foreign country. Just renting rooms in
Trump Tower or any other rental business to a foreign government
qualifies.
Let me see if I understand this. If I check into the Holiday Inn, I am
giving them a gift?
An example that has been used on TV from an attorney is that to curry
favor with the POTUS, a foreign country could put up their ambassadors and
other luminaries in a Trump hotel, where they usually used to go to a
Hilton. That is an emolument. Go check it out. Trump has been guilty of
it for as long as he was president.
So if a merchant bought grain from George Washington's farm instead of
from Farmer Brown, George Washington would have been receiving an
emolument?
"noun: emolument; plural noun: emoluments
a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office."
Note: "Profit".
I'm sure George Washington was making a profit from his farm while
President. That doesn't constitute an emolument because he wasn't deriving
the profit from his office any more than Trump is. Trump is profiting from
the same businesses he was profiting from before he became President.
The clause applies to anyone who is in office, so his crime starts when
he took office and still was taking profit from his businesses where
someone from a foreign country was paying him for whatever, lodgings,
golf, whatever. When he is president there is no way to say that foreign
ambassadors or others are using Trump's facilities just to curry favor
with him. So we have the clause where he can't take a "profit" from them.
Still waiting for you to point out where it says doing business with
foreigners constitutes an illegal emolument. There was nothing in the
definition of emolument which you provided which even mentions foreigners
or foreign countries.
WRONG as usual. You apparently didn't read the copy of the emoluments
“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.”
Article I, Section 9, Clause 8
Note that it ends with "accept...emolument..." "from any...foreign
state".
and that's only ONE of his crimes as
POTUS. Look into the nepotism law. His daughter and son-in-law working
directly for him and the law is being argued as we speak as to whether he
can get away with it or not. Also against the law.
So when Bill Clinton employed Hillary to lobby for his health care bill,
was that nepotism? One of his campaign pitches was that if you voted for
him you got her too. Sounds like he was bragging about his nepotism. Of
course none of this is new. John Adams appointed John Quincy Adams to be
Minister to Prussia. Nepotism is nothing new to the Presidency.
It could be understood that way. As I said, it is still being argued.
Only by liberals who are determined to find fault in anything and
everything Trump does. It goes on 24/7 at CNN and MSNBC. They are so
obsessed with Trump that he now owns them and he didn't have to pay a dime
for either company. Now that's a shrewd businessman.
You've got it wrong again. Democrats aren't looking for anything to
complain about in what Trump does.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Oh, wait. You were being serious. Democrats and their media allies haven't
stopped whining since Trump was declared the winner of the election.
80-90% of their live programming is devoted to anti-Trump stories. A CNN
producer was even caught on a hidden camera admitting they are sticking
with the baseless Russia-stole-the-election story because it has boosted
their ratings. When this story runs out of gas, and it surely will, they
will concoct some other phony anti-Trump story to try to keep the liberal
sheeple glued to their TVs.
I have news. Mueller already has put together a number of crimes
committed by Trump. But he sees more and so he is going to find that
stuff too. You are resting on the silence of the special counsel, but he
is acting on the FBI rules of not speaking about an investigation until it
is done.
I'm surprised that you don't recognize sheeple as those that follow
Trump blindly, immune to all his lies and con games. It's a circus
smearing the White House of the USA, lowering out reputation all over the
world.
They know their constituents are still bitter
about Trump's victory and that they salivate over any story that they
think might lead to Trump's impeachment. It's nothing but a fantasy.
Trump constantly does things that are
obviously things that are wrong, one of which is lying to the public.
Which recent President hasn't lied to the public?
Trump, from right after his inauguration when he tried to con everyone
that his inauguration had more people coming to it than Obama's. Which
the whole country knew was a lie. Everyone saw the photos of the 2
parties.
Q was also our only openly atheistic President. He took his oath of office
on a law book rather than a Bible.
Trump ought to come out and admit that he's no religious person. But
that's another of his scams.
As if we haven't had other Presidents use the religious scam as well. Like
when Clinton made a big show of holding his Bible while going to church
right after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke. It probably had a fold out
in it.
As well, any acceptance of any money from a foreign government
for their people to play golf or be housed at Mar-A-Lago also qualifies.
So when I played golf at Pebble Beach a few years ago, I was giving them a
gift?
An emolument is defined as "a salary, fee, or profit from employment or
office." Profit fits in any business of Trump's that he retained
ownership in.
I'm pretty sure when I played golf at Pebble Beach, that was contributing
to their profits. So was I giving an emolument to Clint Eastwood and Peter
Uberoth?
Were you a foreign country, or a representative of one?
That didn't fit the definition of emolument which YOU provided.
Correct, because those 2 people weren't in government office.
Emoluments have nothing to do with whether one is representing a foreign
government. Trump can do business with foreigners just as much as he can
with US citizens. If Trump were receiving a salary from anybody outside
the federal government, whether they be foreign or domestic, that would be
an emolument. Selling goods and services to people is not an emolument
whether that person is a foreigner or not.
You really need to get someone to explain these things to you. It's
pretty simple. Emolument is defined as
"noun: a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office."
As an officer of the USA, Trump received "profit" from foreign
countries if he took profit from renting out rooms to foreign officials,
or them using his golf course, or buying his foreign made ties, or any of
his products or services.
Believe me, Robert Mueller will latch onto those things
immediately. There's no effort involved in finding those crimes.
Mueller is spinning his wheels. It's nothing but a dog and pony show
intended to give political ammunition to the Trump haters. Nothing is
going to come of it.
amazing how you know that, particularly seeing as how the impeachment of
Nixon came from a very quiet investigation.
WTF???
The FBI has rules that they
aren't supposed to say ANYTHING about any ongoing investigation.
I guess Trump was right to fire Comey for violating those rules.
Right
now they could have Trump on a hundred charges solid, and no one would
know until Mueller gives his report. And face it, we know he has broken
some laws, and Mueller has to be aware of it.
You seem to know a lot of things for which you have no evidence.
I've given you the law and the evidence.
You given a definition of emoluments which doesn't fit with the argument
you have tried to make. You haven't given any evidence because no one has
uncovered any evidence that Trump has violated any law.
Well, I led you to the water. From there it's up to you.
And here you are still
complaining. You'll never learn.
Who's complaining? I'm just pointing out your fallacies. It is becoming a
full time job.
As well, the emolument clause is true for Kushner and Ivanka for their businesses, now that Trump assigned them to positions in the Administration.
I think Mueller had this already on his list of Trump crimes to date.
You have a strange idea of what constitutes a gift. When someone gives
someone money in exchange for goods or services, neither party is giving
the other a gift. While he was president, George Washington's farm
continued to operate as a business. He was still selling his grain and his
whiskey and getting money from the people who bought those commodities. He
was not violating the emoluments clause. He was getting their money in
return for the goods his farm was producing.
I used the term 'gift' but the emolument clause uses the term
'emolument'. Which is defined above as "a salary, fee, or profit from
employment or office." Profit fits for most of the Trump crimes.
So you don't think George Washington was making a profit from the grain
and whiskey that he sold? The reason he was not getting an emolument and
Trump is not getting emoluments is because those profits are coming from
businesses that were established before either became President. Neither
has profited from his office. Now if someone were selling nights in the
Lincoln Bedroom as if it was a high priced Motel 6 like one recent
President did, the argument could be made that they were getting
emoluments from their office.
If they were getting gifts or profits from a foreign country while in
office, then they were guilty. As to prosecuting them, we have only
guesses as to why not.
You provided the definition of emolument. It says nothing about foreign
countries in that definition. That is the part you added. You do like to
add things to try to bolster your arguments.
Oh Lordee! What you don't know! Go back and look at the last line of
"...accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind
whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
Can you see the words "FOREIGN STATE"?
That is from the Constitution, not the definition of emolument which you
provided. Whether something constitutes an emolument is completely
separate from whether it comes from a foreign power or not. Trump is not
receiving an emolument from foreign countries. His companies are receiving
payments for goods or services they are providing. That is not an
emolument, office, or title.
Emolument is defined as "profit" among other things. Have you gone
blind and can't see that? And then blind to the copy of the Emoluments
clause I copied here for you stating receipt of "profit" from "foreign
states"?
How simple does it have to be? Or do you just like my attention?
So now you resort to snipping the word "profit" out of context from your
definition of emolument. The full test of that definition, again the one
you provided, reads as follows:

"noun: a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office."

Trump is not receiving profits from his employment or office. He is
receiving profits from his previously established businesses just as
George Washington and many presidents since have done. Some presidents in
recent times have sold their interest in their business ventures for or
placed them in a blind trust for the sake of political correctness. There
is no legal requirement that they do so. One thing I like about Trump is
he doesn't give a damn about political correctness.

Here is a very liberal source, The Huffypost, which explains why the
President is not required by law to divest himself of his business
ventures:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/president-trump-conflict-of-interest_us_55f1eb0be4b002d5c078b44c

[quote on]

There are ethics rules that cover conflicts of interest faced by executive
branch employees — from the Treasury secretary down to a lowly
clerk — and they can require people to recuse from certain
issues or divest stock and other property. But those rules do
not apply to any elected official.

There’s very little you can do with respect to the
president’s financial conflicts of interest,” said Richard
Painter, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School and former
ethics czar in the George W. Bush White House.

Why this Trump-sized loophole? Applying conflict-of-interest restrictions
to elected officials would interfere with their ability to carry out their
diverse responsibilities under the Constitution. Every issue crosses the
desks of presidents and members of Congress.

“Constitutionally it’s going to be very hard to prohibit
anyone from becoming president by making them divest of their
holdings,” Painter said. “And if he wants to continue to
run a business while being president, it would be like Berlusconi in
Italy, which is probably the closest comparison.”

[quote off]

I'm sure if you like you can google for some more.

Loading...