advertisement
Forums

 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
Emoluments clause? Not for businesses
Posted by: Pam
Date: April 10, 2019 09:35AM
So now US officials can receive bribes legally through their businesses. What hot mess is this??

[www.theguardian.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Emoluments clause? Not for businesses
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: April 10, 2019 09:57AM
Yeah we were talking about that a little bit yesterday. The DOJ is just reinventing things to suit the president.

That's not entirely unusual but the stakes are so much higher with this situation because as we see with the Chinese at Mar-a-Lago and the Saudis at Trump hotels, the power of the White House is on the market and the bidders are busy.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Emoluments clause? Not for businesses
Posted by: mattkime
Date: April 10, 2019 10:38AM
Sorry, I don't think so. See you in court.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Emoluments clause? Not for businesses
Posted by: rjmacs
Date: April 10, 2019 01:15PM
Quote
mattkime
Sorry, I don't think so. See you in court.

Seeing new faces in federal court? That's because the current president has already appointed 30 regional appeals court judges in two years; these courts are where 8/9 of the current SCotUS judges served before their current appointments.

For comparison, Obama appointed 49 in eight years, GW Bush and Clinton appointed 61 and 62 respectively over eight years apiece.

The courts will not save us forever.



rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Emoluments clause? Not for businesses
Posted by: JoeH
Date: April 10, 2019 01:45PM
Obama could have had more appointments, but over a hundred judicial positions were open a the end of his term. everyone remembers Garland's appointment being blocked by Mitch, but many more to lower courts were also blocked during his last two years in office.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Emoluments clause? Not for businesses
Posted by: rjmacs
Date: April 10, 2019 02:07PM
Quote
JoeH
Obama could have had more appointments, but over a hundred judicial positions were open a the end of his term. everyone remembers Garland's appointment being blocked by Mitch, but many more to lower courts were also blocked during his last two years in office.

We can re-litigate the past, but it won't change the courts today. The crisis is occurring now.

McConnell just changed the Senate rules to allow only two hours of debate per nominee (down from 30). We can expect scores of more appointments before this is over.



rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Emoluments clause? Not for businesses
Posted by: Sarcany
Date: April 10, 2019 07:05PM
Shell companies are gonna take off again like it's the 1980s.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Emoluments clause? Not for businesses
Posted by: max
Date: April 10, 2019 07:38PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
Yeah we were talking about that a little bit yesterday. The DOJ is just reinventing things to suit the president.
That's not entirely unusual but the stakes are so much higher with this situation because as we see with the Chinese at Mar-a-Lago and the Saudis at Trump hotels, the power of the White House is on the market and the bidders are busy.

You are right, Lemon, those monies need to be laundered through some sort of foundationa instead....
Quote

The kingdom of Saudi Arabia donated more than $10 million. Through a foundation, so did the son-in-law of a former Ukrainian president whose government was widely criticized for corruption and the murder of journalists. A Lebanese-Nigerian developer with vast business interests contributed as much as $5 million....donors seeking and in some cases obtaining meetings with State Department officials.
[www.nytimes.com]

Quote

Hillary Rodham Clinton used her clout as secretary of state to do favors for foreign donors who gave millions to her family foundation — and who paid millions more to her husband, Bill, in speaking fees, a new book charges.
Records show that of the $105 million the former president raked in from speeches over 12 years, about half came during his wife’s four-year tenure at the State Department.
The claims in “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich” come just a week after she launched her presidential campaign.
They raise questions about shady foreign money flowing into the Clinton Foundation — and what actions Hillary took in her official capacity in exchange for the cash.
“During Hillary’s years of public service, the Clintons have conducted or facilitated hundreds of large transactions,” writes author Peter Schweizer, according to The New York Times, which first reported the story.
“Some of these transactions have put millions in their own pockets.”
[nypost.com]

Hypocrisy, you do have a name....




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end.
One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution;
one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship."
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Emoluments clause? Not for businesses
Posted by: deckeda
Date: April 10, 2019 09:58PM
^^ Thank God we can (once again) fault the past (lamely) so that today’s @#$%& are seen more favorably. Because it’s always more RELEVANT to do your best to condemn the past rather than be awake in the present.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Emoluments clause? Not for businesses
Posted by: pdq
Date: April 10, 2019 10:40PM
“Clinton Cash”? Really? Still beating this dead horse?

“They raise questions about shady foreign money flowing into the Clinton Foundation”...not a penny of which ended up in the pockets of the Clintons, but rather an award-winning and widely admired humanitarian foundation.

“...and what actions Hillary took in her official capacity in exchange for the cash.”

‘Kay, I’ll give. Name one besides Uranium One (because that one is the lamest of the lame, and has been so thoroughly debunked, just to save us all time.) How bout that one where someone was trying to get a visa or passport, and Clinton’s people said “well, we’ll see” and then “sorry, can’t be done”. Scandal!

[And as politicians, they made lots of money making speeches]. No kidding. People willingly pay for this. The free market is god for conservatives, unless Dems make money in it, when it must be some kind of scandal. Conservatives were so outraged, they passed new laws in Congress preventing past politicians from cashing in with speeches, as lobbyists, Fox News contributors, glad-handers for industry, “advisors”, board members, etc, etc.

Oh, that’s right. They didn’t, because that’s exactly how retired conservative politicians make their retirement millions. That’s obviously a club which only ex-GOP hacks are allowed to join - no Dems allowed, and certainly no Clintons.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 310
Record Number of Users: 52 on November 20, 2014
Record Number of Guests: 2330 on October 25, 2018