President Donald J. Trump

[paladin1991]

Be aware that the evil bastard carries the dreaded combination gun/knife/church key/dog whistle/swizzle stick and curling iron.  Amongst other heinous acts he’s been known to sneak up and open every beer bottle in the immediate vicinity and then get busy with the curling iron while the victim sleeps leaving him to awaken to cases of flat beer and a head of curly locks a la Shirley Temple.  Tread carefully my friend.

Roger. 

"I have songbird.  I say again, I have a songbird."

[Taaroa]

https://twitter.com/DPRK_News/status/927582945916981248

[Gd5150]

BAM!  Okay, leave the keys, take the cannolis.

[PaulAtreides]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJJEvfCu2hs

OK there Arthur.  Truth be told, you probably look more like Abe Vigoda.

[PaulAtreides]

It's "leave the gun" you dumbshit.

[Gd5150]

It's "leave the gun" you dumbshit.

I didn’t type it dune boy. Why don’t you pick a faggier avatar than the worst sci-fi movie in history.

[136 or 142]

1.It's possible George Washington was in violation of the emoluments clause.  There are no records of who he sold to.  Washington also had a number of shady real estate dealings. 
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/11/trumps-defense-of-taking-foreign-money-is-historically-illiterate-215244

2.Foreign diplomats have been staying at Trump's hotels, and some reported they were pressured to do so, though they don't state who pressured them:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/2016/11/18/9da9c572-ad18-11e6-977a-1030f822fc35_story.html?utm_term=.d3670f042b4f

3.Trump himself is aware that profiting from this sort of pressure is illegal, or at least he was, as he lied that he would turn over the profits:
Just before taking office, President Donald Trump promised to donate all profits earned from foreign governments back to the U.S. Treasury.

But MSNBC has learned the Trump Organization is not tracking all possible payments it receives from foreign governments, according to new admissions by Trump representatives. By failing to track foreign payments it receives, the company will be hard-pressed to meet Trump’s pledge to donate foreign profits and could even increase its legal exposure.


Unfortunately I gave too much of the game away when I mentioned 'executive' in my last post.  Because I didn't want to have to go through your idiotic rantings I was hoping you'd make the same mistake I noticed you made earlier..  Fortunately, it only took me a few minutes to find.   Despite what you wrote in your last post, you had previously incorrectly claimed that the Emoluments Clause applies to Congress as well as the Executive. 

So, George Washington may or may not have been in violation of the emoluments clause, but there is no reason to believe that the Framers of the Constitution would not have written a provision that would impact two non professional diplomats or civil servants every four years (The President and the Vice President.)  Unfortunately, I can't find my History text book of the United States up to 1890 right now, but the entire Federal Government initially consisted of something like 60 employees, most of whom, of course, would have been professionals and not farmers or business owners, and, other than diplomats, they would have expected to be career civil servants.  There were only the three federal departments initially: Foreign Affairs, War and Treasury, even the Attorney General was just a (very small) office and not a Department.

Oh, right, the Emoluments Clause.  Because the Framers of the Constitution decided to prevent citizen legislators and a president from continuing to operate their farms and businesses.  Those were to be shut down during their time in office.  What the Framers were really agling for was an elite group to run the government, as permanent politicians.  Thanks for the reminder.

So, again, it's pretty clear you were claiming expertise on the Emoluments Clause previously when in fact, you didn't even know who it applied to.

And yet you think you deserve replies from me when you ask me a question?  Not only are you a hopeless retard and a mindless Trump cultist, you're also a completely unethical sleazebag liar.

[PB the Deplorable]

1.It's possible George Washington was in violation of the emoluments clause...

Hahaha

[136 or 142]

Hahaha

Care to comment on claiming to be an expert on the Emoluments Clause when you incorrectly 'thought' that it applied to Congress, sleazebag liar hopeless retard.

There is no way you could have made a simple mistake on that, because your entire argument rested on the idea that The Framers of the Constitution would not have imposed restrictions on several hundred part time legislators selling their products into foreign markets.  If the only politicians effected by the Emoluments Clause were the President and the Vice President (as is, in fact, the case) there is no reason to believe that the Framers would not have written the clause to prevent two individuals who held the highest offices from having foreign dealings. 

[PB the Deplorable]

...   Despite what you wrote in your last post, you had previously incorrectly claimed that the Emoluments Clause applies to Congress as well as the Executive...

... Unfortunately, I can't find my History text book of the United States up to 1890 right now, but the entire Federal Government initially consisted of something like 60 employees...

So, again, it's pretty clear you were claiming expertise on the Emoluments Clause previously when in fact, you didn't even know who it applied to.

And yet you think you deserve replies from me when you ask me a question?  Not only are you a hopeless retard and a mindless Trump cultist, you're also a completely unethical sleazebag liar.

Well, as posted above here is the Foreign Emolument Clause again:

Article I, Section 9, Clause 8:

''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.''


What I'm reading is ''NO PERSON HOLDING ANY OFFICE'', which I've also bolded for you.  Can you please show me where it says this clause is limited to the President.  Or where it says the Congress is exempt? 

I would have thought that if foreign emoluments were limited to the President, this clause it would have been included under Article II - the article that outlines the president's powers and limits.


As far as the US having 60 employees in 1890, there have always been 435 House members, and in 1890 there were 43 states so there's 86 Senators right there.  I don't think you're doing the math right.

[PB the Deplorable]

... And yet you think you deserve replies from me when you ask me a question?...

All I require is that you read my posts.  Replying is up to you

[Corona Kitty]

All I require is that you read my posts.  Replying is up to you

fawkin savage over here.

[136 or 142]

Well, as posted above here is the Foreign Emolument Clause again:

Article I, Section 9, Clause 8:

''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.''


What I'm reading is ''NO PERSON HOLDING ANY OFFICE'', which I've also bolded for you.  Can you please show me where it says this clause is limited to the President.  Or where it says the Congress is exempt? 

I would have thought that if foreign emoluments were limited to the President, this clause it would have been included under Article II - the article that outlines the president's powers and limits.

As far as the US having 60 employees in 1890, there have always been 435 House members, and in 1890 there were 43 states so there's 86 Senators right there.  I don't think you're doing the math right.

Given that the Emoluments Clause is in Article I, it seems it should only apply to Congress and its employees, but this is not how it has been interpreted, as it has been interpreted to only apply to the Executive, which is clear since Congress makes its own rules to regulate itself.

As I've frequently stated, for all of the veneration of the Constitution a good deal of it is as clear as mud and this is another example.  The Emoluments Clause is written in the section that regulates the Legislature, yet the Constitution itself makes it clear that they were not referring to the legislators themselves but to those holding unelected Civil Office.  Maybe they just meant civil servants who work for Congress but that's not what they state in the Federalist Papers and that's not how it's been interpreted.

In this regard the Emoluments Clause needs to be read with Section six Clause two: 2: No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.



Scope. However, the text of the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause is not limited to American ambassadors or even to American diplomatic personnel. Instead, the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause applies to Offices of Profit or Trust under the United States: a substantially wider category. It is undisputed that this category applies to all officials holding appointed positions in the Judicial and Executive Branches of the national government.

What about the Legislative Branch? In 1792, the Senate asked Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton to compile a list of all persons holding Offices . . . under the United States and their salaries. Hamilton’s 1793 response included nonelected officials in each branch, including the Legislative Branch.

The question whether this category, and therefore the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause, reaches any or all federal elected positionsâ€"i.e., Representative, Senator, Vice President, President, and presidential electorâ€"poses a difficult interpretive challenge. For example, Hamilton’s list did not include members of Congress or any other elected state or federal positions. Likewise, George Washington, while President, accepted and kept two diplomatic gifts, but he never asked for or received congressional consent. However, subsequent presidents, such as Andrew Jackson, in similar circumstances, sought congressional consent. Whose practice should we rely on?

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretations/the-foreign-emoluments-clause-article-i-section-9-clause-8

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never wrote the U.S civil service had 60 employees in 1890, I wrote the text book covered the United States up to 1890 and I wrote that the entire Federal Government (I should have written Federal Civil Service) had something like 60 employees.  In my case that was just poor writing because I wrote right after "they would have expected to be career civil servants" i.e not elected politicians.  I also wrote that "Congress had several hundred members"  so, clearly I could not have been referring to elected Representatives.

[Dr. MD MD]

fawkin savage over here.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
fuckin faggot right here!

[136 or 142]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
fuckin faggot right here!

WTF?  You're insulting someone else now?  I thought you said I was the only person on this continent you would insult.  You don't make a guy feel very special.

[Dr. MD MD]

WTF?  You're insulting someone else now?  I thought you said I was the only person on this continent you would insult.  You don't make a guy feel very special.

Sorry, there are just to many mental patients to keep that promise, especially in Canada. 

[136 or 142]

Sorry, there are just to many mental patients to keep that promise, especially in Canada. 

Couldn't you at least reserve a separate insulting name just for me?

[Dr. MD MD]

Couldn't you at least reserve a separate insulting name just for me?

There's almost no one more irrationally agenda driven than you on this board. How about that?

[Corona Kitty]

WTF?  You're insulting someone else now?  I thought you said I was the only person on this continent you would insult.  You don't make a guy feel very special.

trust me he'll suck your dick soon enough.

[Dr. MD MD]

trust me he'll suck your dick soon enough.

He just can't help trying to change the subject to something he's into.  :

[136 or 142]

There's almost no one more irrationally agenda driven than you on this board. How about that?

Needs some work, but it's a start.

[Corona Kitty]

He just can't help trying to change the subject to something he's into.  :

It's your mothers fault.

[Dr. MD MD]

It's your mothers fault.

Myke, you seem hard up. Aren't the wrinkled old ladies giving you any attention these days?! 

[Corona Kitty]

Myke, you seem hard up. Aren't the wrinkled old ladies giving you any attention these days?! 

Old and young give me the attention but not like your jewish mother, that is my favorite.

[Dr. MD MD]

Old and young give me the attention but not like your jewish mother, that is my favorite.

I'll have to inform her she's Jewish. It'll be news to her.  :

But seriously, you seem all pent up. Did Laura give you the cold shoulder? 

[Corona Kitty]

I'll have to inform her she's Jewish. It'll be news to her.  :

But seriously, you seem all pent up. Did Laura give you the cold shoulder? 

PM your mothers photos please, I just talked to her she said hi.

[Norm]

Couldn't you at least reserve a separate insulting name just for me?

Sure, hop in the water's fine....

[Dr. MD MD]

PM your mothers photos please, I just talked to her she said hi.

Yeah, OK...whatever. I get that you have some emotional need to indulge in these fantasies. It's boring, just like your show.

[Corona Kitty]

Yeah, OK...whatever. I get that you have some emotional need to indulge in these fantasies. It's boring, just like your show.

lol you got nothing.... pm your moms photos please... I like the jews

[Dr. MD MD]

lol you got nothing.... pm your moms photos please... I like the jews

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is the verbal equivalent of a dog licking his ass.

No, myke. I'm just bored with you because you got nuthin. No humor. No talent. No voice. Nuthin.