WWTBAM Bored

Need a favorable regulatory decision from the Administration? Stay at Donny's hotel in Washington. That's what T-Mobile is doing to gain regulatory approval of its proposed merger.

The Washington Post wrote:Last April, telecom giant T-Mobile announced a megadeal: a $26 billion merger with rival Sprint, which would more than double T-Mobile’s value and give it a huge new chunk of the cellphone market.

But for T-Mobile, one hurdle remained: Its deal needed approval from the Trump administration.

The next day, in Washington, staffers at the Trump International Hotel were handed a list of incoming “VIP Arrivals.” That day’s list included nine of T-Mobile’s top executives — including its chief operating officer, chief technology officer, chief strategy officer, chief financial officer and its outspoken celebrity chief executive, John Legere.

When foreign governments do this, it's unconstitutional because it violates the Emoluments Clause. But even when it's done by a private company, it's still bribery. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:Need a favorable regulatory decision from the Administration? Stay at Donny's hotel in Washington. That's what T-Mobile is doing to gain regulatory approval of its proposed merger.

The Washington Post wrote:Last April, telecom giant T-Mobile announced a megadeal: a $26 billion merger with rival Sprint, which would more than double T-Mobile’s value and give it a huge new chunk of the cellphone market.

But for T-Mobile, one hurdle remained: Its deal needed approval from the Trump administration.

The next day, in Washington, staffers at the Trump International Hotel were handed a list of incoming “VIP Arrivals.” That day’s list included nine of T-Mobile’s top executives — including its chief operating officer, chief technology officer, chief strategy officer, chief financial officer and its outspoken celebrity chief executive, John Legere.

When foreign governments do this, it's unconstitutional because it violates the Emoluments Clause. But even when it's done by a private company, it's still bribery. --Bob

Are those the guys who never showed up but still paid for their rooms?

Bob78164 wrote:Need a favorable regulatory decision from the Administration? Stay at Donny's hotel in Washington. That's what T-Mobile is doing to gain regulatory approval of its proposed merger.

The Washington Post wrote:Last April, telecom giant T-Mobile announced a megadeal: a $26 billion merger with rival Sprint, which would more than double T-Mobile’s value and give it a huge new chunk of the cellphone market.

But for T-Mobile, one hurdle remained: Its deal needed approval from the Trump administration.

The next day, in Washington, staffers at the Trump International Hotel were handed a list of incoming “VIP Arrivals.” That day’s list included nine of T-Mobile’s top executives — including its chief operating officer, chief technology officer, chief strategy officer, chief financial officer and its outspoken celebrity chief executive, John Legere.

When foreign governments do this, it's unconstitutional because it violates the Emoluments Clause. But even when it's done by a private company, it's still bribery. --Bob

Why do you think trump needs to be bribed? He doesn't even take his salary. Do you really think he cares where they stay? You have been spouting off about emoluments since before he took office, bob-tel. The guy built a business and then he decided to run for president. Is he supposed to give up everything he built? Or should he enrich himself like all the other career politicians do? What amazes me is how all these 'public servants' get elected and somehow become multi-millionaires. At least trump was one before he took office.

I'm not defending trump, I'm expressing my amazement about how low, shallow and petulant the collective you are. For all the crap you spout about trump, you are worse. You people are just insane.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Why do you think trump needs to be bribed? He doesn't even take his salary.

Flock:

Are you really that naïve? You don't think rich people steal just because they already have a bunch of money?

Trump has ties to the Russian mob and Russian money that go way, way back. And he's always operated his businesses in an underhanded manner. As to how well off Trump is, that's a matter of question since he's so guarded about his finances (now that the Democrats have subpoena power that should change). There's plenty of evidence, bankruptcies, and lawsuits to that effect over the years. But you're taken in by his image and, to tell you the truth, a lot of people didn't really look that carefully at his finances (especially those who had no direct dealings with him) and relied on the public image he cultivated. But now that he is president, it's all coming out, as it should. That's not Trump hatred. It's the due diligence that should go into any serious candidate for President.

The Presidential salary is $400,000, a lot by most people's standards, but not much compared to how much his various enterprises can get he in goodies from foreigners eager to curry favor and other emoluments.

And by the way, many of the Founding Fathers were very well off according to the standards of the day. It's hard to imagine someone bribing George Washington or Thomas Jefferson. But they still put the Emoluments Clause in the Constitution for good reason.

I assume Bob and SSS have read this book and can explain in detail why and how what the Clintons did was OK.

"Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich."

Remember when the book was written everybody thought she would be president including foreign governments and businesses.

https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-For ... inton+cash

Spock wrote:I assume Bob and SSS have read this book and can explain in detail why and how what the Clintons did was OK.

"Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich"

https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-For ... inton+cash

I believe the proper term her is Whataboutism? of which there is an entire subcategory devoted to the Clintons.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Spock wrote:I assume Bob and SSS have read this book and can explain in detail why and how what the Clintons did was OK.

"Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich"

https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-For ... inton+cash

I believe the proper term her is Whataboutism? of which there is an entire subcategory devoted to the Clintons.

Yeah, F--- O-- with your Whataboutism. You just don't want to talk about it.

Spock wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

Spock wrote:I assume Bob and SSS have read this book and can explain in detail why and how what the Clintons did was OK.

"Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich"

https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-For ... inton+cash

I believe the proper term her is Whataboutism? of which there is an entire subcategory devoted to the Clintons.

Yeah, F--- O-- with your Whataboutism. You just don't want to talk about it.

So, you're saying it's okay for Trump to violate the Constitution and take bribes because according to this book the Clintons did it as well? You just don't want to talk about the original subject, which deals with the conduct of the current president of the United States.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Spock wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:
I believe the proper term her is Whataboutism? of which there is an entire subcategory devoted to the Clintons.

Yeah, F--- O-- with your Whataboutism. You just don't want to talk about it.

So, you're saying it's okay for Trump to violate the Constitution and take bribes because according to this book the Clintons did it as well? You just don't want to talk about the original subject, which deals with the conduct of the current president of the United States.

"Whataboutism" as an argument is just the demagogues' way of pretending history started yesterday.

Spock wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

Spock wrote:
Yeah, F--- O-- with your Whataboutism. You just don't want to talk about it.

So, you're saying it's okay for Trump to violate the Constitution and take bribes because according to this book the Clintons did it as well? You just don't want to talk about the original subject, which deals with the conduct of the current president of the United States.

"Whataboutism" as an argument is just the demagogues' way of pretending history started yesterday.

And bringing up the conduct of the Clintons or Obama is just Trump supporters' ways of trying to deflect the argument from what Trump is doing down rabbit holes of defending or distinguishing what happened earlier.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Spock wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:
So, you're saying it's okay for Trump to violate the Constitution and take bribes because according to this book the Clintons did it as well? You just don't want to talk about the original subject, which deals with the conduct of the current president of the United States.

"Whataboutism" as an argument is just the demagogues' way of pretending history started yesterday.

And bringing up the conduct of the Clintons or Obama is just Trump supporters' ways of trying to deflect the argument from what Trump is doing down rabbit holes of defending or distinguishing what happened earlier.

I realize this will never penetrate your brain pan, but it's not about deflecting - it's about calling out your (and others) utterly laughable pearl-clutching outrage over Trump's actions, alleged or otherwise, when you were perfectly fine (and either completely silent or cheering it on) with Democrats doing the same, or worse.

tlynn78 wrote:
I realize this will never penetrate your brain pan, but it's not about deflecting - it's about calling out your (and others) utterly laughable pearl-clutching outrage over Trump's actions, alleged or otherwise, when you were perfectly fine (and either completely silent or cheering it on) with Democrats doing the same, or worse.

It's exactly about deflecting. The whole way your response was phrased was an attempt to steer this into comparing what the Clintons did to what Trump has done.

The only response I'll make to that is to note, as I have numerous times and it hasn't registered, that the Clintons have been investigated for nearly 30 years by every imaginable level of state and federal law enforcement and have never been charged once. One would think that, given the number of police and prosecutors over the years who have ill will towards the Clintons, that someone, somewhere would have found something that stuck.

You're about to see how much is going to stick to Trump and his buddies.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Need a favorable regulatory decision from the Administration? Stay at Donny's hotel in Washington. That's what T-Mobile is doing to gain regulatory approval of its proposed merger.

The Washington Post wrote:Last April, telecom giant T-Mobile announced a megadeal: a $26 billion merger with rival Sprint, which would more than double T-Mobile’s value and give it a huge new chunk of the cellphone market.

But for T-Mobile, one hurdle remained: Its deal needed approval from the Trump administration.

The next day, in Washington, staffers at the Trump International Hotel were handed a list of incoming “VIP Arrivals.” That day’s list included nine of T-Mobile’s top executives — including its chief operating officer, chief technology officer, chief strategy officer, chief financial officer and its outspoken celebrity chief executive, John Legere.

When foreign governments do this, it's unconstitutional because it violates the Emoluments Clause. But even when it's done by a private company, it's still bribery. --Bob

Why do you think trump needs to be bribed? He doesn't even take his salary. Do you really think he cares where they stay? You have been spouting off about emoluments since before he took office, bob-tel. The guy built a business and then he decided to run for president. Is he supposed to give up everything he built? Or should he enrich himself like all the other career politicians do? What amazes me is how all these 'public servants' get elected and somehow become multi-millionaires. At least trump was one before he took office.

I'm not defending trump, I'm expressing my amazement about how low, shallow and petulant the collective you are. For all the crap you spout about trump, you are worse. You people are just insane.

Tom Nichols put it pretty well:

Tom Nichols wrote:Finally, it is exhausting but nonetheless necessary to point out again the titanic hypocrisy of the Republican Party and of Trump’s apologists in the conservative media. If President Barack Obama had shredded his notes of a meeting with the Iranian president, or if Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager were sitting in jail for lying about meeting a Chinese business associate — and alleged intelligence officer — to share polling data, that alone would have been enough for the GOP to impeach everyone from the president to the White House chef.

You may claim you're not defending Donny. But that's exactly what your words are doing. --Bob

silverscreenselect wrote:The only response I'll make to that is to note, as I have numerous times and it hasn't registered, that the Clintons have been investigated for nearly 30 years by every imaginable level of state and federal law enforcement and have never been charged once. One would think that, given the number of police and prosecutors over the years who have ill will towards the Clintons, that someone, somewhere would have found something that stuck.

It's hard to prosecute someone when the main witnesses keep dying, just by coincidence, of course. Either that, or they decline to participate because they're sitting at home counting their newfound wealth.

They're changing the sign to read "Мудак Oтель".