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

a reply to: MotherMayEye
If you think Obama was in violation of the emoluments clause then why was it not brought up? Do you think it was because everybody loved Obama? The same question about Bill Clinton applies BlueAjah. If you believe they were in violation then where is the proof? Why no lawsuits? Why no impeachment? Well...except for Bill.

originally posted by: Devino
a reply to: MotherMayEye
If you think Obama was in violation of the emoluments clause then why was it not brought up? Do you think it was because everybody loved Obama? The same question about Bill Clinton applies BlueAjah. If you believe they were in violation then where is the proof? Why no lawsuits? Why no impeachment? Well...except for Bill.

It's not that we think he was so much as we think people are digging deep and desperate for any excuse to use against Trump. This is abuse of emoluments clause, frankly.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: CynConcepts

2018? Why not now? Sounds like a carrot on a stick to me, but what do I know? I'm a Trump hater right? I guess you like running straight first at that carrot with blinders on. "BUT BUT Trump SAID he's doing this in 2018! It's fine guys. Nothing to worry about."

Guilty until proven innocent... got to love the new America we live in.

a reply to: Devino

This is talking about excepting a position or a title. For example a president can't be knighted unless congress approved. Has nothing to do with money or gifts.

originally posted by: Devino
a reply to: MotherMayEye
If you think Obama was in violation of the emoluments clause then why was it not brought up? Do you think it was because everybody loved Obama?

Perhaps.

It's not a wild idea.

"SNL-- "To Sir With Love" tribute to Barack Obama (1-22-2017)"


Vom. Nope, it's not a wild idea.

I am for the equal application of the law...not a selective application. Want me to be impressed with the outrage at Trump and any possible violation of the Emoluments Clause? Then I want to see the outrage applied equally.

I know for a fact that Obama defrauded the People and the media failed to report the story. I need to see the People concerned with remedying that fraud before I take any of the outrage against Trump, thus far, seriously. So far, it just doesn't compare.

a reply to: dragonridr

I wonder what this means for presidents who were knighted?

The former US president Ronald Reagan became an honorary knight for the close relationship he developed with Britain in his time at America's helm, as did his defence secretary, Casper Weinberger.

The former president George Bush Sr is also an honorary knight, his title bestowed upon him following his involvement in the 1993 conflict in the Gulf.

General Norman Schwartzkopf and the former head of the joint chiefs of staff (now US secretary of state) Colin Powell also both received honorary knighthoods following their combined efforts in the Gulf war.

www.theguardian.com...

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Anyone that uses statements like "I want to see outrage applied equally"

You are part
You are the problem.

originally posted by: Mordekaiser
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Anyone that uses idioms like "I want to see outrage applied equally"

You are part
You are the problem.

Take it up with the Courts that are also concerned with the equal application of the law.

YOU are the problem for thinking it's ok to selectively apply it. That's why those that can afford a good defense get away with murder.

Equal Protection Clause -- 14th Amendment

I scoff at your commitment to the U.S. Constitution.

originally posted by: Mordekaiser
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Anyone that uses statements like "I want to see outrage applied equally"

You are part
You are the problem.

???? Huh?
So.... are you saying that outrage is only valid if it is against Trump?

originally posted by: Mordekaiser
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Anyone that uses statements like "I want to see outrage applied equally"

You are part
You are the problem.

Either the law is the same for all and applied equally or it becomes a tool to be used as a weapon against those whom you do not like.

When that day comes, we no longer live in a nation with personal rights guaranteed to individuals, but a tyranny where you only have what you have one the sufferance of those with more power than yourself.

And those who think it's OK to use the law as a weapon selectively are part of that problem.

a reply to: BlueAjah
No, my issue is the conforming model standard. So your specially saying no other act of hypocrisy within Government has ever occurred, nor will again? That's an important detail in the context. The truth is they very easily fooled you, Democrats and Republicans just break separate laws so all the cronies get confused in which horse to back and the tops double their profits from it.


a reply to: MotherMayEye

??????
No, you want EQUAL outrage, the irony here is you're the last person that wants to see them BOTH CAUGHT, and I'm THE FIRST.

You see, your argument is only valid DURING outrage. Truth is a million of you would Jump the Trump bullet.

This is only DOUBLED by your LACK OF OUTRAGE, unless a similar crime is committed in your eyes. That part is too cringe for me to even address, have a good day miss Red.

a reply to: ketsuko

Equal Justice? Sounds good.

Now who gets to be the official whore that cries over 'what is equal'? No problems yet right?

She acts like scene for scene it's the exact same crime, each stole an identical stick of gum from an identical store.

That reality is insanely flawed. it will dawn one day that each case is independent no matter the crime, and we are all individuals, instead of the demeaning Law over People thought you seem to hold.

originally posted by: Mordekaiser
No, you want EQUAL outrage, the irony here is you're the last person that wants to see them BOTH CAUGHT, and I'm THE FIRST.

You see, your argument is only valid DURING outrage. Truth is a million of you would Jump the Trump bullet.

This is only DOUBLED by your LACK OF OUTRAGE, unless a similar crime is committed in your eyes. That part is too cringe for me to even address, have a good day miss Red.

Oh, buIIsh*t.

I have a clear record of being critical of BOTH, here. You appeared at ATS, less than two months ago, and act like you know me?

Please.

Move along N00B.

I've been critical of every president since Bush Sr...when I was old enough to start understanding corruption.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Link me one piece of evidence you complaining about Obama during his administration, and quote yourself using the word "emoluments" once, and I'll star every post of yours in this thread.

You've been here since 2012 and have already stated you previously knew this, so it should be no problem finding ANY evidence of this. You probably have multiple threads at this point.

originally posted by: Mordekaiser
She acts like scene for scene it's the exact same crime, each stole an identical stick of gum from an identical store.

Don't be stupid(er).

The Emoluments Clause does not distinguish between lesser/greater violations. That's just your biased, ridiculous stupidity.

originally posted by: Mordekaiser
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Link me one piece of evidence you complaining about Obama during his administration, and quote yourself using the word "emoluments" once, and I'll star every post of yours in this thread.

You've been here since 2012 and have already stated you previously knew this, so it should be no problem finding ANY evidence of this. You probably have multiple threads at this point.

Oh, I am sorry, I am pretty sure I likened his DEFRAUDING of the American public to this Emoluments outrage.

Maybe you missed it because you were sitting on your brain.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Refer to my incredibly sarcastic post above yours, and I'll take you seriously.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

What? in this thread?

If you want ANY stones, you better be linking yourself complaining before TRUMP was involved. It will make the comparison that this issue is being 'deflected' far more clear.

In otherwords, #ing prove you complained about his emoluments during his time.

originally posted by: Mordekaiser
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Refer to my incredibly sarcastic post above yours, and I'll take you seriously.

I don't care what you take seriously. You can't be taken seriously.

originally posted by: Mordekaiser
a reply to: MotherMayEye

What? in this thread?

If you want ANY stones, you better be linking yourself complaining before TRUMP was involved.

Link

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I'm not taking this garbage, I want to see you clearly complaining about emoluments before you knew the name Trump.