I love flow charts, because they help identify fallacious logic so quickly.
The three flow charts - Trump International Hotels, Deutsche Bank, and the Internal Revenue Service, all define the flow of influence, not transactions. The emoluments clause explicitly speaks to direct compensation. If influence to indirectly produce profit for one's self or family was illegal in government, I can't imagine you'd have many people in the White House today.
To reiterate: to impeach a person from office, you must present a Constitutional law and present certain (in the eyes of the court) evidence of violation of said law. The only Constitutional law you've presented is the Emoluments Clause, and your evidence has been inadequate based on what Trump has said he intends to do prior to taking office. Should he not go through with what he said he would, it will be a different story.
Post edited by benjs on
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I love flow charts, because they help identify fallacious logic so quickly.
The three flow charts - Trump International Hotels, Deutsche Bank, and the Internal Revenue Service, all define the flow of influence, not transactions. The emoluments clause explicitly speaks to direct compensation. If influence to indirectly produce profit for one's self or family was illegal in government, I can't imagine you'd have many people in the White House today.
And over time, in the next year or two, we'll see trump use his position to profit directly.
I love flow charts, because they help identify fallacious logic so quickly.
The three flow charts - Trump International Hotels, Deutsche Bank, and the Internal Revenue Service, all define the flow of influence, not transactions. The emoluments clause explicitly speaks to direct compensation. If influence to indirectly produce profit for one's self or family was illegal in government, I can't imagine you'd have many people in the White House today.
And over time, in the next year or two, we'll see trump use his position to profit directly.
Do you think Trump's legal team will honestly be obtuse enough not to cover their bases and protect his interests as a businessman and as the President? Trump will use the legal loopholes which exist to his advantage, to funnel profits to himself and his family and retain legally-adequate distance between President Trump and Trump the businessman. He did this as a businessman, and he will continue to do this as President.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I don't think he'll have the distance, both real and perceived. He's too much of a narcissist to hide it. He'll be proud of it. He'll also have pissed off a lot of republicans along the way, so they'll be eager to have Pence in there to do as he's told.
I don't think he'll have the distance, both real and perceived. He's too much of a narcissist to hide it. He'll be proud of it. He'll also have pissed off a lot of republicans along the way, so they'll be eager to have Pence in there to do as he's told.
Right - but just as he does with his tax dollars, why wouldn't he just say that he's proud to be using perfectly legal loopholes to separate Trump the President from Trump the Businessperson?
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I love flow charts, because they help identify fallacious logic so quickly.
The three flow charts - Trump International Hotels, Deutsche Bank, and the Internal Revenue Service, all define the flow of influence, not transactions. The emoluments clause explicitly speaks to direct compensation. If influence to indirectly produce profit for one's self or family was illegal in government, I can't imagine you'd have many people in the White House today.
And over time, in the next year or two, we'll see trump use his position to profit directly.
Do you think Trump's legal team will honestly be obtuse enough not to cover their bases and protect his interests as a businessman and as the President? Trump will use the legal loopholes which exist to his advantage, to funnel profits to himself and his family and retain legally-adequate distance between President Trump and Trump the businessman. He did this as a businessman, and he will continue to do this as President.
he's a moron, but his lawyers most likely are not. I agree with you on this benjs.
I love flow charts, because they help identify fallacious logic so quickly.
The three flow charts - Trump International Hotels, Deutsche Bank, and the Internal Revenue Service, all define the flow of influence, not transactions. The emoluments clause explicitly speaks to direct compensation. If influence to indirectly produce profit for one's self or family was illegal in government, I can't imagine you'd have many people in the White House today.
And over time, in the next year or two, we'll see trump use his position to profit directly.
Do you think Trump's legal team will honestly be obtuse enough not to cover their bases and protect his interests as a businessman and as the President? Trump will use the legal loopholes which exist to his advantage, to funnel profits to himself and his family and retain legally-adequate distance between President Trump and Trump the businessman. He did this as a businessman, and he will continue to do this as President.
he's a moron, but his lawyers most likely are not. I agree with you on this benjs.
I've always been told that in business, you should make a point of surrounding yourself with people smarter than yourself. I have little doubt that Trump subscribes to that, and takes credit on behalf of his teams.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I love flow charts, because they help identify fallacious logic so quickly.
The three flow charts - Trump International Hotels, Deutsche Bank, and the Internal Revenue Service, all define the flow of influence, not transactions. The emoluments clause explicitly speaks to direct compensation. If influence to indirectly produce profit for one's self or family was illegal in government, I can't imagine you'd have many people in the White House today.
And over time, in the next year or two, we'll see trump use his position to profit directly.
Do you think Trump's legal team will honestly be obtuse enough not to cover their bases and protect his interests as a businessman and as the President? Trump will use the legal loopholes which exist to his advantage, to funnel profits to himself and his family and retain legally-adequate distance between President Trump and Trump the businessman. He did this as a businessman, and he will continue to do this as President.
he's a moron, but his lawyers most likely are not. I agree with you on this benjs.
I've always been told that in business, you should make a point of surrounding yourself with people smarter than yourself. I have little doubt that Trump subscribes to that, and takes credit on behalf of his teams.
that's probably true. one should always remind themselves that there are smarter people out there then yourself. However, smarter does not translate to an understanding of the greater good.
I love flow charts, because they help identify fallacious logic so quickly.
The three flow charts - Trump International Hotels, Deutsche Bank, and the Internal Revenue Service, all define the flow of influence, not transactions. The emoluments clause explicitly speaks to direct compensation. If influence to indirectly produce profit for one's self or family was illegal in government, I can't imagine you'd have many people in the White House today.
And over time, in the next year or two, we'll see trump use his position to profit directly.
Do you think Trump's legal team will honestly be obtuse enough not to cover their bases and protect his interests as a businessman and as the President? Trump will use the legal loopholes which exist to his advantage, to funnel profits to himself and his family and retain legally-adequate distance between President Trump and Trump the businessman. He did this as a businessman, and he will continue to do this as President.
he's a moron, but his lawyers most likely are not. I agree with you on this benjs.
I've always been told that in business, you should make a point of surrounding yourself with people smarter than yourself. I have little doubt that Trump subscribes to that, and takes credit on behalf of his teams.
that's probably true. one should always remind themselves that there are smarter people out there then yourself. However, smarter does not translate to an understanding of the greater good.
Where in the Constitution does it mandate morality and/or a humanitarian bent at a politician's core? It has been anecdotally shown that his honesty is questionable (at best), but I thought your question was directly about whether the Constitution could lead to Trump's removal. I figured any other topic you had (like the immorality of Trump) would be covered by one of the seven other Trump-related threads you opened in rapid succession.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
^^it doesn't, but it does seem to vaguely require that politicians be mostly free of conflicts of interest. i will admit that I have few facts to substantiate the numerous conflicts of interest ESP might have. I can only point you towards the allegations. I believe Elizabeth Warren et al. is looking into some of this from a more legal perspective.
if you believe that rich business men are smart and know how to make money, you are probably right. If you believe those same people give a shit about you, then let's talk.
if you believe that rich business men are smart and know how to make money, you are probably right. If you believe those same people give a shit about you, then let's talk.
I believe you're completely misunderstanding me. I believe that your Constitution does not adequately mandate that a politician truly "give a shit about you". As I've said again and again, I believe that if you want Constitutional grounds for dismissal, then you'll need to find a Constitutional mandate which is violated by Trump. I also believe I will keep asking you for logic and you will keep avoiding the fact that you have presented none, and I believe you will continue on emotionally-fuelled and logic-void rants.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
^^it doesn't, but it does seem to vaguely require that politicians be mostly free of conflicts of interest. i will admit that I have few facts to substantiate the numerous conflicts of interest ESP might have. I can only point you towards the allegations. I believe Elizabeth Warren et al. is looking into some of this from a more legal perspective.
if you believe that rich business men are smart and know how to make money, you are probably right. If you believe those same people give a shit about you, then let's talk.
I believe you're completely misunderstanding me. I believe that your Constitution does not adequately mandate that a politician truly "give a shit about you". As I've said again and again, I believe that if you want Constitutional grounds for dismissal, then you'll need to find a Constitutional mandate which is violated by Trump. I also believe I will keep asking you for logic and you will keep avoiding the fact that you have presented none, and I believe you will continue on emotionally-fuelled and logic-void rants.
to be fair benjs, vagar conceded he has no actual evidence, as I have underlined above.
^^it doesn't, but it does seem to vaguely require that politicians be mostly free of conflicts of interest. i will admit that I have few facts to substantiate the numerous conflicts of interest ESP might have. I can only point you towards the allegations. I believe Elizabeth Warren et al. is looking into some of this from a more legal perspective.
if you believe that rich business men are smart and know how to make money, you are probably right. If you believe those same people give a shit about you, then let's talk.
I believe you're completely misunderstanding me. I believe that your Constitution does not adequately mandate that a politician truly "give a shit about you". As I've said again and again, I believe that if you want Constitutional grounds for dismissal, then you'll need to find a Constitutional mandate which is violated by Trump. I also believe I will keep asking you for logic and you will keep avoiding the fact that you have presented none, and I believe you will continue on emotionally-fuelled and logic-void rants.
to be fair benjs, vagar conceded he has no actual evidence, as I have underlined above.
Fair enough... I have a bad habit of beating a dead horse. Sorry vaggar! My intention is only to see if you could produce meaningful legal evidence. I like Trump about as little as vaggar, I just think we all need to be pragmatic about how to get rid of him.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
^^it doesn't, but it does seem to vaguely require that politicians be mostly free of conflicts of interest. i will admit that I have few facts to substantiate the numerous conflicts of interest ESP might have. I can only point you towards the allegations. I believe Elizabeth Warren et al. is looking into some of this from a more legal perspective.
if you believe that rich business men are smart and know how to make money, you are probably right. If you believe those same people give a shit about you, then let's talk.
I believe you're completely misunderstanding me. I believe that your Constitution does not adequately mandate that a politician truly "give a shit about you". As I've said again and again, I believe that if you want Constitutional grounds for dismissal, then you'll need to find a Constitutional mandate which is violated by Trump. I also believe I will keep asking you for logic and you will keep avoiding the fact that you have presented none, and I believe you will continue on emotionally-fuelled and logic-void rants.
to be fair benjs, vagar conceded he has no actual evidence, as I have underlined above.
Fair enough... I have a bad habit of beating a dead horse. Sorry vaggar! My intention is only to see if you could produce meaningful legal evidence. I like Trump about as little as vaggar, I just think we all need to be pragmatic about how to get rid of him.
its cool...you are definitely pushing me to keep looking for the 'evidence'.
Comments
Should vaggar99 be banned from creating polls?
1. Yes
2. Yes
we will find a way, we will find our place
addictinginfo.org/2016/12/02/trump-just-caused-a-diplomatic-crisis-with-china-because-he-wants-to-build-a-resort-in-taiwan/
https://youtu.be/EO1kcRYemic
insider.foxnews.com/2016/11/29/would-trumps-business-dealings-violate-constitutions-emoluments-clause
nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/01/us/politics/trump-conflict-of-interests.html?_r=0
The three flow charts - Trump International Hotels, Deutsche Bank, and the Internal Revenue Service, all define the flow of influence, not transactions. The emoluments clause explicitly speaks to direct compensation. If influence to indirectly produce profit for one's self or family was illegal in government, I can't imagine you'd have many people in the White House today.
To reiterate: to impeach a person from office, you must present a Constitutional law and present certain (in the eyes of the court) evidence of violation of said law. The only Constitutional law you've presented is the Emoluments Clause, and your evidence has been inadequate based on what Trump has said he intends to do prior to taking office. Should he not go through with what he said he would, it will be a different story.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
www.headstonesband.com
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
www.headstonesband.com
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
politicususa.com/2016/11/23/elizabeth-warren-calls-federal-investigation-taxpayer-funds-trump-transition.html
https://facebook.com/NowThisElection/videos/1368002506564569/
It's a good deal if you can get it right?
The constitution of the Americans protects them.
rawstory.com/2016/12/its-happening-maddow-previews-explosive-newsweek-story-that-hints-at-turkeys-blackmail-of-trump/#.WE-KUnis9Ns.facebook