Lawsuit Over Trump’s Ties to His Businesses Is Allowed to Advance

a reply to: 3daysgone

Translation: "Trump actually isn't any different than any president that came before him."

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I thought him losing $400mil in personal value last year proved he was a terrible businessman. Now hes enriching himself with emoluments.

The narrative changes when the wind blows

Now if they can prove he owns any of the businesses he previously owned, they would easily win the suit.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: xuenchen
Sounds like a typical weak red herring 😁

A weak but smart Red Herring. Have Democrats sat down to plan how to WIN yet? Too busy for that I suppose.

Democrats dont seem to care. Apparently Democrats are going to do everything they can to remove Trump while at the same time filing law suits left and right to tie stuff up in court to distract Trump from leading.

When Scotus makes a ruling and certain jurisdictions out west is telling. The travel ban is a perfect example. Even after SCOTUS ruling we still had courts granting challenges even though the subject had already been settled.

Case in point -
Feb 2018 - 1 Emoluments Clause Lawsuit Is Dismissed, Trump Faces Others In 2018

The good news is Democrats once again are displaying their hypocrisy considering, and using the lefts own argument, Clinton also violated the clause with the Clinton foundation.

The case is good, but they can't sue Trump because back in January 19, 2017 he no longer owns any of his previous businesses. They were passed to his sons.

money.cnn.com...

a reply to: MteWamp

Yes. Seriously.
Anyone who doesn't know this is just ignoring reality.
The only one needing to catch up is that person.

a reply to: Mandroid7

His weekend trips to trump properties is paid for with your taxes. That money paid to trump properties goes right in trumps pocket.
While he labels maralago the southern whitehouse.
Open your eyes. Or just care enough about the country instead of your cult of personality.
Or don't. He is in self destruct mode now anyway and Mueller is getting ready to bring the hammer down on his little orange head.

a reply to: Irishhaf

That didn't stop anyone from being criticle though did it.
Fortunately it didn't stop Obama from being an effective leader either.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I thought him losing $400mil in personal value last year proved he was a terrible businessman. Now hes enriching himself with emoluments.

The narrative changes when the wind blows

Why is it difficult to grasp that both those scenarios can be true? I think its especially easy to understand: Trump's lost millions would be the perfect reason why he would want to make up the money through emoluments.

a reply to: 3daysgone

What are you offering as your argument to the contrary? Other than your indignation that is? And hyperbole...

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Mandroid7

His weekend trips to trump properties is paid for with your taxes. That money paid to trump properties goes right in trumps pocket.
While he labels maralago the southern whitehouse.
Open your eyes. Or just care enough about the country instead of your cult of personality.
Or don't. He is in self destruct mode now anyway and Mueller is getting ready to bring the hammer down on his little orange head.

Cheaper than a Ritz which is not owned by an american.

Mueller better watch his own head.

Get your duct tape ready!

a reply to: Wayfarer

So at the same time he loses half a billion, people flock to his properties in record numbers to stuff cash in his pockets?

As an accountant i can tell you that doesnt add up.

Long story short....something is being embellished. Somewhere. It aint making sense.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I thought him losing $400mil in personal value last year proved he was a terrible businessman. Now hes enriching himself with emoluments.

The narrative changes when the wind blows

Why is it difficult to grasp that both those scenarios can be true? I think its especially easy to understand: Trump's lost millions would be the perfect reason why he would want to make up the money through emoluments.

No doubt about that. The Saudi crown prince just visited Trump and paid him like a billion dollars to bomb Iran.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Wayfarer

So at the same time he loses half a billion, people flock to his properties in record numbers to stuff cash in his pockets?

As an accountant i can tell you that doesnt add up.

Long story short....something is being embellished. Somewhere. It aint making sense.

I didn't realize you were an accountant (good info to know). As I am to understand it, assets (be the companies like Trump Hotels) can appreciate in value without directly contributing to an individual entities wealth. Although this is not a real specific example, I can visualize how Trump could licence his name to be put on the hotel (something that's pretty common knowledge I think), and be paid for it, but then squander those earnings in other various avenues (Trump Casino, Trump University, etc). Meanwhile the Trump hotel might be doing swimmingly and he personally would have no more stake in it.

Granted I'm not privy to the exact machinations of whatever business arrangements Trump makes, but it is public knowledge that Trump leveraged his debts to avoid taxes for a long time (entirely legal), so its not that much of a logical leap to assume that he would want to utilize whatever methods are at his disposal to build wealth (both his and his corporate entities) after that deprecating effect has run its course.

Was there something in the ruling that limited to one specific hotel or hotels?

a reply to: Sillyolme

His weekend trips to trump properties is paid for with your taxes. That money paid to trump properties goes right in trumps pocket.

Even if that were true, that isn't illegal nor is it unconstitutional. That isn't an emolument. If wasting tax payer money is one's concern, then this taxpayer funded lawsuit is a complete waste of money used for political attacks. That is essentially what this amounts to.

a reply to: Wayfarer

More than likely what you describe is what i'd expect: that he cashes checks for franchising or something. Or maybe the funds are run through another entity which distributes to individuals.

My thing is, while i don't want to see Trump enriching himself on US tax dollars, i equally do not want to see our congressmen game the exchange system for personal gain using exemptions on their insider knowledge. Obama and Clinton both entered the white house as not really all that wealthy. They seem to have come out fairly good in the end, though.

Bush was already a rich brat, so im not really looking at him...but im sure he made out well, too.

Point being: i don't like any of it. But i think I like this selective enforcement a little less.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Wayfarer

More than likely what you describe is what i'd expect: that he cashes checks for franchising or something. Or maybe the funds are run through another entity which distributes to individuals.

My thing is, while i don't want to see Trump enriching himself on US tax dollars, i equally do not want to see our congressmen game the exchange system for personal gain using exemptions on their insider knowledge. Obama and Clinton both entered the white house as not really all that wealthy. They seem to have come out fairly good in the end, though.

Bush was already a rich brat, so im not really looking at him...but im sure he made out well, too.

Point being: i don't like any of it. But i think I like this selective enforcement a little less.

That's totally a fair assessment. I think most reasonable people would agree with you that emoluments of any kind from holding a position in the government is anathema to what we expect of our leaders.

Was there any emolument issues related to Clinton's or Obama's tenure in office?

Trump gets a pass as long as he's busy bombing the Middle East and making tons of cash for the Military Industrial Complex. Bribes. Corruption. I've seen it all. Democrats were talking about impeaching Trump. Now they are all clapping Trump for bombing the Middle East and making tons of cash for the Military Industrial Complex.

a reply to: Wayfarer

I don't recall any brought up. But their personal wealth did grow considerably. Its hard for me to reconcile someone working 60 hour workweeks leading our nation and still finding time to amass a large fortune, short of using various policies to steer funding accordingly and insider knowledge to garner advantage in securities trades.

I doubt its a new thing...but you can see throughout history that many presidents were obviously not enriching themselves while in office. Its a fairly new occurance, at least to the degree we are talking here.