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

a reply to: xSEEKxNxSTRIKEx

Maryland is obviously politically incorrect.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Ive seen many times when you've done that, much to your credit.


But I think what were witnessing here is not so much an actual ignorance of the Constitution as it is a willful ignorance of it. I of all people appreciate a well-thought-out debate on either side of an argument
, but this is something different and you're trying to make sense and formulate an argument intellectually where it's not received that way or responded to in that way.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
But Maryland argues that it has special standing to sue. As one of the original states that approved the Constitution, Maryland gave up a clause in its own state declaration that had required its governors not to take any gifts from foreign governments or other states.

reading is fundamental. be sure you get the last word it, it shows determination. And as I tell my youngest grandson, being the loudest, doesn't necessarily mean you are more correct. (He's almost 3 and he gets it)

I think the easiest way to get to the bottom of this is fairly simple.

Did Pres. Trump take money outside of his businesses? If these lawyers are looking at the emoluments clause that's where it will be.

If they are looking into his business for violation, I'm not completely sure emoluments applies. Other laws would need to be broken such as racketeering, fraud and possibly bribery/blackmail(IDK the statutes for those).

Looking at the Clinton Foundations framework, it's easy to see how this goes on and that has yet to go thought any courts.

a reply to: network dude

Oh? We were done talking? I thought since you provided that source you wanted to discuss it. Ok. I'll stop responding. No skin off my back.

originally posted by: toysforadults
Another future nothing story.

If this is anything like the previous long line of events from what is current happening in the THEATRE of politics (I am eluding to the fact that politics is mostly smoke and mirrors, a play acted out to keep us docile and distracted) coming from the Democratic side I will have to automatically assume this is more nonsense until proven otherwise.

If politics is mostly smoke and mirrors, according to you, how can Democrats be the only ones employing it?

originally posted by: JinMI
Looking at the Clinton Foundations framework, it's easy to see how this goes on and that has yet to go thought any courts.

You do realize the Clinton Foundation doesn't exist anymore right? So nice attempt at a "what about hillary?" deflection but you should really get with the times.

a reply to: allsee4eye

I asked similar up thread but have yet see anything but generalized assumptions just for the reason he's business owner and is generally in opposition to progressives agenda.

Looks like outright harassment to me and I'd wager to high number of the public also.

a reply to: Phoenix

We don't have to provide the evidence. The lawyers arguing the case do.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: JinMI
Looking at the Clinton Foundations framework, it's easy to see how this goes on and that has yet to go thought any courts.

You do realize the Clinton Foundation doesn't exist anymore right? So nice attempt at a "what about hillary?" deflection but you should really get with the times.

Yea...wasn't a what about Hillary, but your petulant whining only saw that right?

It was about the foundation under the name Clinton was ran to provide such profits.

Truth hurts eh?

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: toysforadults
Another future nothing story.

If this is anything like the previous long line of events from what is current happening in the THEATRE of politics (I am eluding to the fact that politics is mostly smoke and mirrors, a play acted out to keep us docile and distracted) coming from the Democratic side I will have to automatically assume this is more nonsense until proven otherwise.

If politics is mostly smoke and mirrors, according to you, how can Democrats be the only ones employing it?

Where did I say that the Democrats are the only ones employing it? Please link the quote.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: JinMI
Looking at the Clinton Foundations framework, it's easy to see how this goes on and that has yet to go thought any courts.

You do realize the Clinton Foundation doesn't exist anymore right? So nice attempt at a "what about hillary?" deflection but you should really get with the times.

Why doesn't the Clinton Foundation exist anymore??

a reply to: JinMI

I have no idea what you are even rambling about (nor do I care), let alone it hurting me in any way. Just FYI, since I know by you attempting this deflection you didn't read this in the article, this lawsuit in the OP isn't trying to kick Trump out of the Presidency. It is only trying to legally compel him to obey the Constitution. So there would be no point in bringing a similar lawsuit to the Clinton Foundation because A) The Clintons aren't in office to be currently violating the clause to necessitate a legal authority forcing compliance and B) They don't exist.

From the OP article:

The suit seeks an injunction to force Trump to stop violating the Constitution, but leaves it up to the court to decide how that should be accomplished.

originally posted by: toysforadults

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: JinMI
Looking at the Clinton Foundations framework, it's easy to see how this goes on and that has yet to go thought any courts.

You do realize the Clinton Foundation doesn't exist anymore right? So nice attempt at a "what about hillary?" deflection but you should really get with the times.

Why doesn't the Clinton Foundation exist anymore??

Google is your friend and this thread doesn't exist to tell you about the Clintons. Do your own homework.

a reply to: BlueAjah

That's what they said they were going to do but that hasn't happened.

a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

Might as well be everything. Regardless if it was or not, my point still stands and you'd be naive to disagree.

So you pretty much admit to using hyperbole and yet call me naive if I disagree.

Do you see the problem yet?

What point where you trying to make?

It was right there in the post you responded to. Look again.

Hey don't shoot the messenger.

You didn't bring a message. You brought a deflection.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: JinMI
Looking at the Clinton Foundations framework, it's easy to see how this goes on and that has yet to go thought any courts.

You do realize the Clinton Foundation doesn't exist anymore right? So nice attempt at a "what about hillary?" deflection but you should really get with the times.

Weird that you think when she's not in office the foundation ended. It's like your admitting it was for bribes. But the real point is your wrong it still exists.

originally posted by: toysforadults

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: toysforadults
Another future nothing story.

If this is anything like the previous long line of events from what is current happening in the THEATRE of politics (I am eluding to the fact that politics is mostly smoke and mirrors, a play acted out to keep us docile and distracted) coming from the Democratic side I will have to automatically assume this is more nonsense until proven otherwise.

If politics is mostly smoke and mirrors, according to you, how can Democrats be the only ones employing it?

Where did I say that the Democrats are the only ones employing it? Please link the quote.

He literally bolded the phrase in question. Here, I'll do it again:

fact that politics is mostly smoke and mirrors, a play acted out to keep us docile and distracted) coming from the Democratic side

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: toysforadults

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: JinMI
Looking at the Clinton Foundations framework, it's easy to see how this goes on and that has yet to go thought any courts.

You do realize the Clinton Foundation doesn't exist anymore right? So nice attempt at a "what about hillary?" deflection but you should really get with the times.

Why doesn't the Clinton Foundation exist anymore??

Google is your friend and this thread doesn't exist to tell you about the Clintons. Do your own homework.

Google tells me you are misinformed.

a reply to: dragonridr

I'm admitting nothing. I'm just pointing out the facts of the present reality. Don't put words in my mouth.