The Price is wrong; he's out
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:55 pm
Don't let the private jet hit you on your way out!
More: http://www.politicususa.com/2017/09/29/ ... laces.htmlLess than two weeks after Trump’s Veterans’ Affairs Chief signed a memo instructing VA staff to cut down on nonessential travel, he took a 10 day taxpayer funded trip with his entourage to Europe that included a River Cruise and visiting palaces, the Washington Post reports.
Ha, ha! Every member of Trump's administration has engaged in unethical behavior; Price is just the first to face consequences.flockofseagulls104 wrote:A breath of fresh air. When democrats are found to have engaged in unethical behavior, they seem to face no consequences, and are many times rewarded.
Just like the previous administration.Bob Juch wrote:Ha, ha! Every member of Trump's administration has engaged in unethical behavior; Price is just the first to face consequences.flockofseagulls104 wrote:A breath of fresh air. When democrats are found to have engaged in unethical behavior, they seem to face no consequences, and are many times rewarded.
False. Just false. Starting at the very top, where President Obama, unlike Donny, complied with the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. --BobBackInTex wrote:Just like the previous administration.Bob Juch wrote:Ha, ha! Every member of Trump's administration has engaged in unethical behavior; Price is just the first to face consequences.flockofseagulls104 wrote:A breath of fresh air. When democrats are found to have engaged in unethical behavior, they seem to face no consequences, and are many times rewarded.
Bobbie, notwithstanding your blindness to the Clintons regarding the clause you seem to think so important, you are confusing ethical with legal. Lots of overlap there. I was responding to the word "ethical".Bob78164 wrote:False. Just false. Starting at the very top, where President Obama, unlike Donny, complied with the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. --BobBackInTex wrote:Just like the previous administration.Bob Juch wrote: Ha, ha! Every member of Trump's administration has engaged in unethical behavior; Price is just the first to face consequences.
Perhaps you've forgotten but there have been two intervening Administrations since the Clinton Administration. President Obama's Administration was one of the cleanest in history. A joke ending in the phrase "backwards and in high heels" comes to mind.BackInTex wrote:Bobbie, notwithstanding your blindness to the Clintons regarding the clause you seem to think so important, you are confusing ethical with legal. Lots of overlap there. I was responding to the word "ethical".Bob78164 wrote:False. Just false. Starting at the very top, where President Obama, unlike Donny, complied with the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. --BobBackInTex wrote:
Just like the previous administration.
For once we agree.Bob78164 wrote: President Obama's Administration was one of the cleanest in history. A joke
You mean the same Clinton Foundation that has done millions of dollars of charitable work in Africa and other third world areas while Donald Trump was golfing and hawking Trump steaks?BackInTex wrote:
And re: the Clintons, I was referring to the Clinton Foundation For Governmental Access.
I'm still wondering why we haven't heard a word from BiT and Flock about Donny's actual acceptance of profits stemming from foreign governments, in clear violation of the Constitution's Emoluments Clause. That's outright bribery and clearly unconstitutional, yet they seem curiously focused on the imagined misdeeds of a private foundation run by people who, at that time, were private citizens.silverscreenselect wrote:You mean the same Clinton Foundation that has done millions of dollars of charitable work in Africa and other third world areas while Donald Trump was golfing and hawking Trump steaks?BackInTex wrote:
And re: the Clintons, I was referring to the Clinton Foundation For Governmental Access.
No, I'm not in Fantasyland.silverscreenselect wrote:You mean the same Clinton Foundation that has done millions of dollars of charitable work in Africa and other third world areas while Donald Trump was golfing and hawking Trump steaks?BackInTex wrote:
And re: the Clintons, I was referring to the Clinton Foundation For Governmental Access.
Typical. You equate commerce to bribery. They are different. What law school did you say you went to?Bob78164 wrote: That's outright bribery
So the Constitution prohibits any business person from becoming President? I never saw that one. What is it? Article VII.7.2? It certainly is not this:Bob78164 wrote:I'm still wondering why we haven't heard a word from BiT and Flock about Donny's actual acceptance of profits stemming from foreign governments, in clear violation of the Constitution's Emoluments Clause. That's outright bribery and clearly unconstitutional, yet they seem curiously focused on the imagined misdeeds of a private foundation run by people who, at that time, were private citizens.silverscreenselect wrote:You mean the same Clinton Foundation that has done millions of dollars of charitable work in Africa and other third world areas while Donald Trump was golfing and hawking Trump steaks?BackInTex wrote:
And re: the Clintons, I was referring to the Clinton Foundation For Governmental Access.
Perhaps, sss, you can shed some light on this curious phenomenon. Any idea what Hannity and Rush are saying about these things? --Bob
What do you think an emolument is? It's payment of any form from a foreign government.flockofseagulls104 wrote:So the Constitution prohibits any business person from becoming President? I never saw that one. What is it? Article VII.7.2? It certainly is not this:Bob78164 wrote:I'm still wondering why we haven't heard a word from BiT and Flock about Donny's actual acceptance of profits stemming from foreign governments, in clear violation of the Constitution's Emoluments Clause. That's outright bribery and clearly unconstitutional, yet they seem curiously focused on the imagined misdeeds of a private foundation run by people who, at that time, were private citizens.silverscreenselect wrote:
You mean the same Clinton Foundation that has done millions of dollars of charitable work in Africa and other third world areas while Donald Trump was golfing and hawking Trump steaks?
Perhaps, sss, you can shed some light on this curious phenomenon. Any idea what Hannity and Rush are saying about these things? --Bob
"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 whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."
That seems to me to apply more to Ms. Clinton and her Foundation than it does to Trump, who did business not gift acceptance for favors, as Ms Clinton seems to have done from several kings, princes and foreign states, if anyone would care to investigate.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... eae631b814
No. I equate "emolument" to payment. Federal officials don't get to accept payment of any form from foreign governments without Congressional permission.BackInTex wrote:Typical. You equate commerce to bribery. They are different. What law school did you say you went to?Bob78164 wrote: That's outright bribery
With respect to bribery, I've been in the trenches with the DOJ and SEC, having worked for a company that was almost given a death penalty due to bribery (which occurred years before I joined). Believe me, I'm very knowledgeable of what is, and what is not, bribery. Not only from a moral, but also from a legal, and specifically an FCPA perspective.Bob78164 wrote: I went to a law school where we read the Constitution. Where did you get your legal training? --Bob
Sorry Bobbie. You don't get to change the story. You not only called it bribery, you doubled down calling it "outright bribery". That is pretty clear. And absolutely incorrect.Bob78164 wrote:No. I equate "emolument" to payment.BackInTex wrote:Bob78164 wrote: That's outright bribery
Oh, I absolutely believe that Donny's personal financial interests are affecting his official decisionmaking, and that these payments are being made for that purpose. But whether that's true or not, it's a constitutional violation that you seem curiously uninterested in. The whole point of the Framers drafting the Emoluments Clause so broadly was to draw a bright line rule that would avoid potentially difficult questions of proof regarding intent.BackInTex wrote:Sorry Bobbie. You don't get to change the story. You not only called it bribery, you doubled down calling it "outright bribery". That is pretty clear. And absolutely incorrect.Bob78164 wrote:No. I equate "emolument" to payment.BackInTex wrote:
What will be interesting is to see the trend in donations to the Clinton Foundation for 2018 and 2019 compared to when she was SOS and considered to be the next POTUS.Bob78164 wrote:Oh, I absolutely believe that Donny's personal financial interests are affecting his official decisionmaking, and that these payments are being made for that purpose. But whether that's true or not, it's a constitutional violation that you seem curiously uninterested in. The whole point of the Framers drafting the Emoluments Clause so broadly was to draw a bright line rule that would avoid potentially difficult questions of proof regarding intent.BackInTex wrote:Sorry Bobbie. You don't get to change the story. You not only called it bribery, you doubled down calling it "outright bribery". That is pretty clear. And absolutely incorrect.Bob78164 wrote:
No. I equate "emolument" to payment.
It disappoints me, but doesn't surprise me, that a Republican Congress has been completely unwilling to investigate this clear constitutional violation. Perhaps after 2018 we'll have at least one House of Congress that's willing to take its oversight responsibilities seriously. --Bob