Berzerker
Deity
Congress has that within their power. Thats apparently how the Bush family acquired a treasure from the Kuwaiti's for returning their country to them, Congress hailed the conquering hero with permission to profit from his war.
Emoluments Entanglements
- Thread starter Zkribbler
- Start date
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
You could have found the ruling in the time it took you to type out this post. Either you're interested in educating yourself, or you aren't. The ruling is too long to quote here. Read it and learn something.
EDIT: I took the 5 seconds you wouldn't and found a link to it. You're welcome.
Lexicus
Deity
I'm skeptical of anything going through the courts right now. Trump is filling the federal bench with goose-steppers who'll rule with him no matter what, and anything that goes to the Supreme Court is going to be decided in whatever way benefits the Republican Party the most without any regard to actual law or fact or what have you.
Is that you Stormy? What are you doing to the Supreme Leader?! That's not what magazines are for!!
As far as the ruling on the Emoluments case... I'm betting Trump just labels the judge "Very Unfair", "Foolish", "Biased liberal activist Judge" or calls him a "Mexican" and keeps right on keepin' on and that will be the end of it besides some whining and indignation on MSNBC.
Only Congress can stop him and they won't. So its up to us, the voters.
Lexicus
Deity
To either elect a new President in 2020, or elect a Congress that will impeach and convict.
Correct. Why put all the eggs in one basket?
Berzerker
Deity
The lawsuit can go forward... Is that about it? Thanks
I think it'll lose. What is the difference between Trump taking money from hotel customers and campaign donors? Which of those two actions looks more like bribery? The one thats legal now...
Last edited:
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
So you're not going to bother educating yourself about what "emoluments" means even though you spent 2+ pages of this thread arguing about it?
At least we now know that intentional ignorance is where you're coming from. Probably on every topic.
At least we now know that intentional ignorance is where you're coming from. Probably on every topic.
Berzerker
Deity
What is your problem? I thanked you for the link and you act obnoxious anyway. You expect me to read 52 pages? You didn't even read it, thats why you didn't quote anything and told me to find it myself. I read the opening of the opinion where the judge says plaintiffs have standing to continue with the lawsuit. I already understand the reason for the lawsuit, I disagree with it.
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
I expect you to ignore everything everyone posts and continue writing screeds based solely on your priors without internalizing or even considering what anyone else has to say, because that's what you always do. So you've met my expectations.
The judge lays out in detail his reason for allowing the case to go forward. That you think the opening paragraph is sufficient to understand his reasoning is hilarious, but it meets my expectations so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The judge lays out in detail his reason for allowing the case to go forward. That you think the opening paragraph is sufficient to understand his reasoning is hilarious, but it meets my expectations so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Zkribbler
Deity
Oh oh oh, I know:
the hotel customers in question are foreigners and the amount they are giving is not in the public record. Campaign donors are Americans, and the amount they donate is reported to the FEC. 
Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,357
When it was released, I heard some commentator say pages 31-5 had the nut of it and were comprehensible to a layman. Haven't checked myself, though I mean to.
Last edited:
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
Its a legal loophole, I also dont think this lawsuite will succeed.
ZTE on the other hand though, and Trumps tweet on how ZTE was losing to many jobs, Cohen taking large sums of money for access to Trump, and Ivanka Chinese licensing deals those look like the low hanging fruits
Berzerker
Deity
I didn't say the opening paragraph explained the judge's reasoning so thats a straw man, I said it claims plaintiffs have standing and I explained why the lawsuit will fail. You rudely complained how easy it was for you to find a link and then you complain because I didn't read 52 pages to find the Judge's rationale. You didn't read it or you could quote the judge and spare me having to read thru 52 pages to find your evidence for you. If this is how you debate, just leave me alone.
Oh oh oh, I know:
I understand the clause deals with foreign governments, that doesn't change the reality campaign donations are emoluments usually offered as a bribe.
What is the difference between Trump taking money from hotel customers and campaign donors? Which of those two actions looks more like bribery? The one thats legal now...
The reason the suit will fail is because renting a room is just business. Its no different than George Washington or Thomas Jefferson selling barrels and bottles of booze to the King of England.
Zkribbler
Deity
They aren't. E.g. not one of my campaign contributions was offered as a bribe.
They didn't.
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
I don't understand why you need me to quote it, when it is sitting there waiting for you to read. As I said, it's too long to quote here, and it's a PDF, so I'm not going to quote it. If reading the ruling is too much work for you, that's fine, but don't act like it's my fault that you're a lazy citizen.
This ruling wasn't about standing, this ruling specifically addressed the very issue you are talking about - whether the revenue from Trump's hotel is an "emolument" within the constitutional meaning of the word. You and a federal judge have different opinions about that. It would be interesting to me to hear your opinion on what the judge got wrong. But you can't be arsed to actually challenge your opinion and read the other side, so I guess we'll never know.
I mean, you have to realize that your whole "why won't you quote it here??" line of argument is totally transparent. Why can't you read the opinion, exactly?
The campaign laws put restrictions on contributions and how the money can be spent, as well as, trying to maintain transparency on who is giving. In addition, there are limits on how much can be given. When foreign governments send their entourages to Trump's hotels, none of the campaign laws are followed and there is no transparency. The money goes straight into Trump's pocket.
Not technically. The profit goes to the investors that the dumpster happens to be one of.
Not that this doesn't make it any less sleazy or possibly illegal. That what judges are for.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Since Berzerker's intent was to create a false equivalence this fact hardly matters, really. There is no point making a rational argument against someone steeped to their core in intellectual dishonesty.
