The Trump Presidency

[Vociferous]

It's illegal for Trump - he's the elected President.

A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit Thursday alleging that President Trump violated the Constitution’s emoluments clause because his hotels and restaurants do business with foreign governments while he is in office.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...011510-e697-11e7-ab50-621fe0588340_story.html​

That was for lack of legal standing, but the emoluments clause has never been tested in court.
Without precedence, I guess your crystal ball tells you how that would turn out?

Visible collusion, grounds for impeachment.

What visible collusion? Having the authority over foreign policy and wanting some diplomatic options?
Would you rather go to war or have Russian more motivated to hack and interfere in US politics?

His Russian campaign connections were. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/us/politics/fbi-investigation-trump-russia-comey.html

"members of President Trump’s campaign" are not the president himself.

 

[iceaura]

That was for lack of legal standing, but the emoluments clause has never been tested in court.

It's never been as flagrantly violated.

Without precedence, I guess your crystal ball tells you how that would turn out?

Observation, not prediction, is involved.

Would you rather go to war or have Russian more motivated to hack and interfere in US politics?

We can't impeach a President without going to war? Seems odd.

"members of President Trump’s campaign" are not the president himself

Hence the clever diplomacy of Comey's response. Technically true, it gave Trump no room for a self defense argument. But Trump fired him anyway, because that's how he rolls - he's been working the wrong side of the law for decades. He'll fire Mueller too, if he can get away with it.

 

[Vociferous]

It's never been as flagrantly violated.

But you think you can predict how the courts would rule?

Observation, not prediction, is involved.

Without precedent, what are you observing?

We can't impeach a President without going to war? Seems odd.

Straw man. Nothing like that was said.

Hence the clever diplomacy of Comey's response. Technically true, it gave Trump no room for a self defense argument. But Trump fired him anyway, because that's how he rolls - he's been working the wrong side of the law for decades. He'll fire Mueller too, if he can get away with it.

Technically true is true.

 

[iceaura]

But you think you can predict how the courts would rule?

Nope. Depends on the case, if any is ever filed.

Without precedent, what are you observing?

The physical realities - read the law, read the record of deals, compare.

Straw man. Nothing like that was said.

Nothing other was said. Some meaning seems to have been implied - best guess.

Technically true is true.

And clever. But Comey got fired anyway - Trump knows when the cops are closing in. He's been working in the shade his entire life.

 

[Vociferous]

Nope. Depends on the case, if any is ever filed.

He's taking in business profits from foreign people and foreign governments, while President - that's not legal.

If you're saying it's illegal, you are predicting the outcome of unprecedented court rulings.

The physical realities - read the law, read the record of deals, compare.

Is there case law about the business expected under regular operation?

Nothing other was said. Some meaning seems to have been implied - best guess.

Bad guess.
That can happen when you fail to address the preceding context:

"What visible collusion? Having the authority over foreign policy and wanting some diplomatic options?"​

And clever. But Comey got fired anyway - Trump knows when the cops are closing in. He's been working in the shade his entire life.

Comey purportedly got fired for not admitting what he latter did to Congress. That there was no investigation of the president.

 

[Quantum Quack]

"members of President Trump’s campaign" are not the president himself.

Was Trump in charge/responsible for his campaign or not?
Answer: Him boasting about Yes...he was.

I close my case ... your honor!

 

[Vociferous]

Was Trump in charge/responsible for his campaign or not?
Answer: Him boasting about Yes...he was.

I close my case ... your honor!

Does any leader know everything he delegates others to do?
Or is not knowing the whole point of delegating tasks?

 

[Quantum Quack]

define delegates?
Are you suggesting he delegated Flyn and his son to do as they did? (hee hee)
He did try to obstruct by coaching his son didn't he?

Is he responsible for his campaign or not?

 

[Vociferous]

define delegates?
Are you suggesting he delegated Flyn and his son to do as they did? (hee hee)
He did try to obstruct by coaching his son didn't he?

Is he responsible for his campaign or not?

del·e·gate
entrust (a task or responsibility) to another person, typically one who is less senior than oneself.

Are you saying he micromanaged his campaign, by assigning every single task undertaken?
Are you saying no one in his campaign was capable of independent action?
Are you saying any leader is responsible for the unknown illegal actions of his employees?

 

[Quantum Quack]

del·e·gate
entrust (a task or responsibility) to another person, typically one who is less senior than oneself.

Are you saying he micromanaged his campaign, by assigning every single task undertaken?
Are you saying no one in his campaign was capable of independent action?
Are you saying any leader is responsible for the unknown illegal actions of his employees?

seriously...
no... unless...
He states on more than one occasion that he takes full responsibility for his election win. (and all that entails)

Can we not take the POTUS on his word?

 

[iceaura]

If you're saying it's illegal, you are predicting the outcome of unprecedented court rulings.

No, I'm not.

Is there case law about the business expected under regular operation?

The law applies to elected official operation.

Bad guess.

Seems spot on.

Comey purportedly got fired for not admitting what he latter did to Congress. That there was no investigation of the president.

So who "purported" that nonsense, and why would anyone believe them?

 

[Vociferous]

seriously...
no... unless...
He states on more than one occasion that he takes full responsibility for his election win. (and all that entails)

Can we not take the POTUS on his word?

Really? Is an election win every single action every campaign member took? None of their actions could be superfluous?
Of course the president lies. Happens all the time.

No, I'm not.

Okay. Just noise. Oo, oo.

The law applies to elected official operation.

Never tested or enforced.

Seems spot on.

Straw man.

So who "purported" that nonsense, and why would anyone believe them?

Because it happened to be true, by Comey's own admission.
But you can imagine any number of boogeymen.

 

[iceaura]

Never tested or enforced.

But written in plain English, so we can read what it says.

Because it happened to be true, by Comey's own admission.

No. Comey made no statement about why he was fired, and would not have known any such thing anyway.

Meanwhile: The scene where the FBI was already investigating two of Trump's top five campaign officials for their Russian deals before he even hired them, at least two of his three oldest children also involved in his campaign for their Russian connections, a half dozen Russians and Ukrainians with ties to Trump's business dealings in Russia and/or the same banks Trump and his associates are tied to along with odd connections to his campaign, several people with Russian connections who rent physical space in the same buildings Trump is using for campaign planning and operations, and meetings held with selections of all these people in buildings Trump owns and is present in at the time,

but not including Trump himself in any of these investigations,

is an amazing scene of slapstick incompetence on the part of the FBI.

Total fuckup and incompetent halfwit is not Comey's reputation.

You might also notice that Trump's firing of Comey obstructed that non-Trump investigation, and Comey's unwillingness to announce its boundaries or limit it in advance lwould not be legal justification for firing him - the opposite, in fact.

 

[Vociferous]

But written in plain English, so we can read what it says.

Yes we can.

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatsoever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

e·mol·u·ment
a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office.​

Do his businesses profit from his "employment or office"?
Seems he's actually lost some business due to that.

Trump's personal wealth fell $600 million on Forbes 2017 ranking of the 400 richest people in the world, dropping 92 spots to #248. The magazine cited a tough New York real estate market, a costly presidential campaign, and declining visitors at several of his golf properties.
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/trump-s-presidency-bad-business-his-own-n809886​

Uh, sure.
You have to also admit, though, that the scene where the FBI was already investigating two of Trump's top five campaign officials for their Russian deals before he even hired them, at least two of his three oldest children also involved in his campaign for their Russian connections, a half dozen Russians and Ukrainians with ties to Trump's business dealings in Russia and/or the same banks Trump and his associates are tied to along with odd connections to his campaign, several people with Russian connections who rent physical space in the same buildings Trump is using for campaign planning and operations, and meetings held with selections of all these people in buildings Trump owns and is present in at the time,

but not including Trump himself in any of these investigations,

is an amazing scene of slapstick incompetence on the part of the FBI.

Total fuckup and incompetent halfwit is not Comey's reputation.

You can imagine whatever you like.

So Comey was right to reopen the investigation on Hillary only, what, two or three weeks before the election?
No incompetence there?

 

[iceaura]

So Comey was right to reopen the investigation on Hillary only, what, two or three weeks before the election?

Reopening, as he did under pressure, wasn't the problem.
Neither was incompetent investigation, at any level let alone that necessary to have investigated Trump's entire family and campaign staff but ignored Trump himself.

Do his businesses profit from his "employment or office"?

Yes.

Seems he's actually lost some business due to that.

Or a tough New York real estate market, or hurricane weather.

Anyway, net is irrelevant. He has done some business with specifically foreign State sources, and profited thereby - particularly at Mar A Lago and the New York tower - and that is illegal.
We also note that 70% of the real estate purchases from his holdings since his candidacy have been anonymous - shell company purchases, etc. That usually indicates money laundering, tax evasion, etc, and one common source would be officials of corrupt governments, such as Putin's.

Trump's personal wealth fell $600 million on Forbes 2017 ranking of the 400 richest people in the world, dropping 92 spots to #248

We won't know Trump's true net worth, or the changes in it from foreign contributions, until we see his tax returns. At least one person associated with Trump has recently been found to have deceived Forbes magazine about his wealth, and Trump of course has lied about everything else of material import concerning his person and circumstances.

 

[Vociferous]

Reopening, as he did under pressure, wasn't the problem.
Neither was incompetent investigation, at any level let alone that necessary to have investigated Trump's entire family and campaign staff but ignored Trump himself.

Says you.

Yes.

Says you.

Or a tough New York real estate market, or hurricane weather.

Anyway, net is irrelevant. He has done some business with specifically foreign State sources, and profited thereby - particularly at Mar A Lago and the New York tower - and that is illegal.
We also note that 70% of the real estate purchases from his holdings since his candidacy have been anonymous - shell company purchases, etc. That usually indicates money laundering, tax evasion, etc, and one common source would be officials of corrupt governments, such as Putin's.

Have you got around to demonstrating illegality yet?
Just your say so? Okay.

 

[Capracus]

Comey purportedly got fired for not admitting what he latter did to Congress. That there was no investigation of the president.

March 30, 2017: “I explained that we had briefed the leadership of Congress on exactly which individuals we were investigating and that we had told those Congressional leaders that we were not personally investigating President Trump. I reminded him I had previously told him that. He repeatedly told me, ‘We need to get that fact out.’ (I did not tell the President that the FBI and the Department of Justice had been reluctant to make public statements that we did not have an open case on President Trump for a number of reasons, most importantly because it would create a duty to correct, should that change.)”

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/7/15758728/trump-comey-under-investigation-russia

What Comey essentially told Congress is that while Trump isn’t presently under investigation, the scope and nature of the ongoing investigation could alter that status, and it apparently has.

 

[Tiassa]

Have you got around to demonstrating illegality yet?
Just your say so? Okay.

You should probably offer something more than a pretense of stupidity.

Do you have an actual argument, or do you just ask questions as if you have no idea what is going on?

Trust me, this routine isn't original. To wit:

Do his businesses profit from his "employment or office"?
Seems he's actually lost some business due to that.

You do have a burden of making sense. That manner of fallacy does not make sense.

The business can lose money; did he take a paycheck? Therein lies one of the simple faults of your ill-considered pretense. Because, you know, it's not like executives don't take paychecks when the business itself is struggling.

You should probably do something more than make up questions reflecting particular ignorance.

Actually having an argument shouldn't be so difficult.

 

[iceaura]

Have you got around to demonstrating illegality yet?

By your standards, sure. And that wasn't even the issue.

Just your say so? Okay.

Replying to you, that's overkill.

 

[Vociferous]

March 30, 2017: “I explained that we had briefed the leadership of Congress on exactly which individuals we were investigating and that we had told those Congressional leaders that we were not personally investigating President Trump. I reminded him I had previously told him that. He repeatedly told me, ‘We need to get that fact out.’ (I did not tell the President that the FBI and the Department of Justice had been reluctant to make public statements that we did not have an open case on President Trump for a number of reasons, most importantly because it would create a duty to correct, should that change.)”

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/7/15758728/trump-comey-under-investigation-russia

What Comey essentially told Congress is that while Trump isn’t presently under investigation, the scope and nature of the ongoing investigation could alter that status, and it apparently has.

Has it? Has the FBI or DOJ told the public they are investigating the president?

You should probably offer something more than a pretense of stupidity.

Do you have an actual argument, or do you just ask questions as if you have no idea what is going on?

Trust me, this routine isn't original. To wit:

I learn most by asking questions. There is no pretense when learning the opinions of others.
Should I just assume their opinions and straw man their arguments instead? That doesn't seem right.

You do have a burden of making sense. That manner of fallacy does not make sense.

The business can lose money; did he take a paycheck? Therein lies one of the simple faults of your ill-considered pretense. Because, you know, it's not like executives don't take paychecks when the business itself is struggling.

You should probably do something more than make up questions reflecting particular ignorance.

Actually having an argument shouldn't be so difficult.

I've made my argument. That the emoluments clause has never been enforced or tested in the courts. So far, everyone seems to agree with that. So I would be lying if I claimed that I knew how any such charges would turn out. Illegal only being defined by a final outcome in court.
And I'm questioning how others somehow seem to know the outcome without any legal precedent. They seem to know the president broke the law, even though we have no precedent to tell us how the emoluments clause would be interpreted by the courts.

By your standards, sure. And that wasn't even the issue.
Where? I must have missed it.