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: allsee4eye
To automatically assume a rich businessman, a BILLIONAIRE, takes money from foreign governments, is prejudice, and not a good one at that.
There is no evidence Trump has taken money from foreign governments. Independent investigators investigate Trump every single day and they couldn't find a shred of evidence.
I appreciate both of your replies, I even learned something new.
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: burgerbuddy
Indeed, allsee4eye is correct.
Because the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by an international body, which swears fealty to no one nation or government, and because it is not a cash prize, but an acknowledgement of achievement, it is not possible to consider it an Emolument under the clause as it is written. You will note that it is not awarded by any king, prince, or a foreign state. It also does not bestow any office, title or other similar thing, simply recognises a persons efforts to achieve peace in a given region or globally.
President Obama has made good on a promise to give his $1.4 million in Nobel Peace Prize money to charity, releasing on Thursday the names of the organizations that will benefit.
I believe you have to show damages of some kind. I don't think you could sue for the murder of someone you never met nor had any connection with yet if the person murdered was financially supporting you that would be quite different.
originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: alphabetaone
Sure you can. I can sue you for murdering someone with no evidence. Doesn't mean the courts will take up the suit.
Haven't some heads of foreign governments stayed at his hotels? It is listed in the OP.
originally posted by: allsee4eye
There is no evidence Trump has taken money from foreign governments. Independent investigators investigate Trump every single day and they couldn't find a shred of evidence.
After hiring staff and holding events to cater to foreign diplomats, the Embassy of Kuwait held an event at the hotel, switching its initial booking from the Four Seasons. Saudi Arabia, the destination of Trump’s first trip abroad, also booked rooms at the hotel through an intermediary on more than one occasion since Trump’s inauguration. Turkey held a state-sponsored event there last month. And in April, the ambassador of Georgia stayed at the hotel and tweeted his compliments. Trump himself has appeared at the hotel and greeted guests repeatedly since becoming president.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: Krazysh0t
hahaha followed-up with a tweet "Total vindication at today's nothingsuit. Enjoy!"
Yep then a whole slew of threads of conservatives high fiving and back patting each other over their strawman.
...and you know this, how? If there is no proof then why the lawsuits?
originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: Devino
There is no proof of Trump DC hotel taking up more business than if Trump lost the election in 2016.
Does this mean you did not read the article in the opening post or that you do not understand the emoluments clause? Again see emoluments clause for the n'th time in this thread and please read the article.
And, even if true, there's nothing unethical about it. Any businessman is free to run for president. Trump did in 2016, but not his hotel competitors in DC.
Obama also
originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: Devino
Obama profited from selling his book while he was president. I'm sure many foreign citizens bought his book and therefore transferred emolument to him. The key is the emolument must come from foreign governmments, not from foreign private citizens.
This thread is not about Obama and even though it seems you have a very opinionated interpretation of the emoluments clause you do bring up a good point. I spent a little time reading about it today.
Obama profited from selling his book while he was president. Are you telling me no foreign officer bought his book while he was president? The emoluments clause does not forbid foreign officers to send money to the president in an unofficial capacity, only if they are doing so representing the foreign government.
I also spent a little time reading about this.
I believe it would have been an issue if he had intended to keep the amount, but since he never intended such, and did indeed donate it, it cannot be considered to be an issue, although you would have to look that up in specificity as well.
Politifact.com
the Nobel Prize is not awarded by a foreign government. Spokeswoman Kate Bedingfield gave us this statement: "The President is donating the money to charity. The statute cited does not apply because the gift is from the Nobel Foundation — a private foundation — not a foreign government. The President is free to do what he likes with the money, and he has chosen to donate it to charity.".