It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Wardaddy454
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Wardaddy454
You said the phrase not me. If you weren't talking about them, then why even mention it in the first place? To obfuscate the topic? Because that would be trolling.
Nice try, but we both know AG's aren't judges. Now I'm wondering if you're trolling me.
originally posted by: Teikiatsu
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Newsflash for MD and DC: Trump is not getting any perks from foreign nations for being President.
How do you know? Because you think it is true?
How do you know Obama didn't? Or Clinton? Or Carter?
Look up "Emoluments".
originally posted by: dragonridr
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.
Both presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush were knighted after their terms, not as sitting presidents.
originally posted by: BlueAjah
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...
originally posted by: jjkenobi
Darn, Trump is busted! If only he had setup a charity and funneled foreign donations through it while in govt office then he'd be untouchable.
I am not outraged just reading the story as it happens. The difference here is that from the beginning, before Trump was sworn in, people were talking about possible conflicts of interests and how this could hinder his presidency. What did Trump do?
originally posted by: MotherMayEye
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.
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.
“No Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them [the United States], 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.”
the US’s founding fathers had a different position on emoluments for government officials: they were firmly against them. One of their concerns was the threat of foreign monarchs using financial means to exert influence over American officials. That kind of corruption was seen as a weakness of the republican form of government. Leaders elected by their fellow citizens, wrote Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, could be tempted with compensations that “to any but minds animated and guided by superior virtue, may appear to exceed the proportion of interest they have in the common stock, and to overbalance the obligations of duty.”
Source: Quartz Media
In republics, persons elevated from the mass of the community, by the suffrages of their fellow-citizens, to stations of great pre-eminence and power, may find compensations for betraying their trust, which, to any but minds animated and guided by superior virtue, may appear to exceed the proportion of interest they have in the common stock, and to overbalance the obligations of duty. Hence it is that history furnishes us with so many mortifying examples of the prevalency of foreign corruption in republican governments. How much this contributed to the ruin of the ancient commonwealths has been already delineated. It is well known that the deputies of the United Provinces have, in various instances, been purchased by the emissaries of the neighboring kingdoms. The Earl of Chesterfield (if my memory serves me right), in a letter to his court, intimates that his success in an important negotiation must depend on his obtaining a major's commission for one of those deputies. And in Sweden the parties were alternately bought by France and England in so barefaced and notorious a manner that it excited universal disgust in the nation, and was a principal cause that the most limited monarch in Europe, in a single day, without tumult, violence, or opposition, became one of the most absolute and uncontrolled.
Source: Federalist 22
originally posted by: allsee4eye
No proof. No evidence. What are they suing with? Nada.
originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: alphabetaone
There's nothing in the constitution against attempts. Every nation attempts to influence every president. That's not grounds for impeachment.
originally posted by: alphabetaone
originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: alphabetaone
There's nothing in the constitution against attempts. Every nation attempts to influence every president. That's not grounds for impeachment.
Who said anything at all about impeachment? That's on you. I replied to your assertion that there was no evidence to bring suit
Are you sure youre even replying to the correct post? It seems you may be confused.