Page 1 of 1

The Price is wrong; he's out

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:55 pm
by Bob Juch
Don't let the private jet hit you on your way out!

Re: The Price is wrong; he's out

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:29 pm
by Bob Juch
David Shulkin is next!
Less 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.
More: http://www.politicususa.com/2017/09/29/ ... laces.html

Re: The Price is wrong; he's out

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 10:11 pm
by flockofseagulls104
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.

Re: The Price is wrong; he's out

Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 2:14 am
by K.P.
Game show writer Adam Nedeff made a humorous observation on his Facebook. Tom Price is tentatively being replaced by Don Wright as acting secretary. This means that... wait for it...

The New Price is Wright.

Re: The Price is wrong; he's out

Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 11:39 am
by Bob Juch
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.
Ha, ha! Every member of Trump's administration has engaged in unethical behavior; Price is just the first to face consequences.

Re: The Price is wrong; he's out

Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 12:01 pm
by BackInTex
Bob Juch wrote:
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.
Ha, ha! Every member of Trump's administration has engaged in unethical behavior; Price is just the first to face consequences.
Just like the previous administration.

Re: The Price is wrong; he's out

Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 12:20 pm
by Bob78164
BackInTex wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:
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.
Ha, ha! Every member of Trump's administration has engaged in unethical behavior; Price is just the first to face consequences.
Just like the previous administration.
False. Just false. Starting at the very top, where President Obama, unlike Donny, complied with the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. --Bob

Re: The Price is wrong; he's out

Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 2:16 pm
by BackInTex
Bob78164 wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
Bob Juch wrote: Ha, ha! Every member of Trump's administration has engaged in unethical behavior; Price is just the first to face consequences.
Just like the previous administration.
False. Just false. Starting at the very top, where President Obama, unlike Donny, complied with the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. --Bob
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".

Re: The Price is wrong; he's out

Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 2:30 pm
by Bob78164
BackInTex wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
Just like the previous administration.
False. Just false. Starting at the very top, where President Obama, unlike Donny, complied with the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. --Bob
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".
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.

If you're referring to Secretary Clinton's handling of e-mail, Donny's utter disregard for state secrets and national security completely dwarfs anything Secretary Clinton was even accused of doing. It was legal because it's basically impossible, legally, for the incumbent President to improperly disclose classified information, but it was damaging to national security, yet no one in Congress (or the party that elected him) seems particularly interested in exacting so much as a political price for what would be espionage if conducted by anyone else. --Bob

Re: The Price is wrong; he's out

Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 2:34 pm
by BackInTex
Bob78164 wrote: President Obama's Administration was one of the cleanest in history. A joke
For once we agree.

And re: the Clintons, I was referring to the Clinton Foundation For Governmental Access.

Re: The Price is wrong; he's out

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 12:18 am
by flockofseagulls104
When Obama and the Clintons come to mind, so does Big Jule's quote from Guys and Dolls: "... as has been proved by my record: Thirty-three arrests and no convictions!".
Trump is right about at least one thing: The swamp protects it's own.

Re: The Price is wrong; he's out

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 5:17 am
by silverscreenselect
BackInTex wrote:
And re: the Clintons, I was referring to the Clinton Foundation For Governmental Access.
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?

Re: The Price is wrong; he's out

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 11:16 am
by Bob78164
silverscreenselect wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
And re: the Clintons, I was referring to the Clinton Foundation For Governmental Access.
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?
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.

Perhaps, sss, you can shed some light on this curious phenomenon. Any idea what Hannity and Rush are saying about these things? --Bob

Re: The Price is wrong; he's out

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 8:08 pm
by BackInTex
silverscreenselect wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
And re: the Clintons, I was referring to the Clinton Foundation For Governmental Access.
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?
No, I'm not in Fantasyland.

Re: The Price is wrong; he's out

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 8:11 pm
by BackInTex
Bob78164 wrote: That's outright bribery
Typical. You equate commerce to bribery. They are different. What law school did you say you went to?

Re: The Price is wrong; he's out

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 10:37 pm
by flockofseagulls104
Bob78164 wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
And re: the Clintons, I was referring to the Clinton Foundation For Governmental Access.
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?
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.

Perhaps, sss, you can shed some light on this curious phenomenon. Any idea what Hannity and Rush are saying about these things? --Bob
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:
"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

Re: The Price is wrong; he's out

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 11:43 pm
by Bob78164
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
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?
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.

Perhaps, sss, you can shed some light on this curious phenomenon. Any idea what Hannity and Rush are saying about these things? --Bob
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:
"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
What do you think an emolument is? It's payment of any form from a foreign government.

As for Secretary Clinton, she didn't hold an office of trust or profit under the United States after stepping down as Secretary of State. And she never personally profited from the family's charitable foundation.

Businesspersons can become President, but they can't accept any revenues from foreign governments. That's why they have put their assets into a blind trust. --Bob

Re: The Price is wrong; he's out

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 11:44 pm
by Bob78164
BackInTex wrote:
Bob78164 wrote: That's outright bribery
Typical. You equate commerce to bribery. They are different. What law school did you say you went to?
No. I equate "emolument" to payment. Federal officials don't get to accept payment of any form from foreign governments without Congressional permission.

I went to a law school where we read the Constitution. Where did you get your legal training? --Bob

Re: The Price is wrong; he's out

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 8:27 am
by BackInTex
Bob78164 wrote: I went to a law school where we read the Constitution. Where did you get your legal training? --Bob
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.

Re: The Price is wrong; he's out

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 8:33 am
by BackInTex
Bob78164 wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
Bob78164 wrote: That's outright bribery
No. I equate "emolument" to payment.
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.

Re: The Price is wrong; he's out

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:46 am
by Bob78164
BackInTex wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
No. I equate "emolument" to payment.
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.
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.

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

Re: The Price is wrong; he's out

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 10:05 am
by BackInTex
Bob78164 wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
No. I equate "emolument" to payment.
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.
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.

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
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.