Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 12/21/2017 11:47:36 AM PST by gubamyster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: gubamyster

This seems to be more winning, and expecting the MSM to have another melt-down, tonight, over this......


2 posted on 12/21/2017 11:54:22 AM PST by NEMDF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: gubamyster

Looks like this EO should be nicknamed “AntiSoros”.


3 posted on 12/21/2017 11:55:16 AM PST by Mrs.Z (Donald Trump... the guy who makes all the right people angry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: gubamyster

OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL

Specially Designated Nationals List Update

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/Pages/20171221.aspx


4 posted on 12/21/2017 11:58:47 AM PST by gubamyster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: gubamyster

That’s one very powerful and heavy document. One can only speculate on it’s many possible uses, and one can only wonder, based on latest headlines, what’s getting ready to go BOOM!


5 posted on 12/21/2017 12:00:39 PM PST by PrairieLady2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: gubamyster

Need to confiscate Hillary’s hundred million plus in bribe money.


10 posted on 12/21/2017 12:06:27 PM PST by DesertRhino (Dog is man's best friend, and moslems hate dogs. Add that up. ... we.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: gubamyster

Could this be a “control” paper that is routinely published every year?


11 posted on 12/21/2017 12:09:27 PM PST by deweyfrank (Nobody's Perfect)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: gubamyster

Can this be used on the UN? Tell ‘em to take a hike (outta the country)?


12 posted on 12/21/2017 12:14:22 PM PST by jeffc (The U.S. media are our enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: gubamyster
Sec. 7. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in this order, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to this order.

Another front in the battle with the deep state has been opened.
15 posted on 12/21/2017 1:11:32 PM PST by PA Engineer (Liberate America from the Occupation Media and Shariah Socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: gubamyster

Magnitsky. That’s a name that’s been cropping up a bit of late.


16 posted on 12/21/2017 1:14:36 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: gubamyster

Where is the Annex?

L


18 posted on 12/21/2017 1:17:05 PM PST by Lurker (President Trump isn't our last chance. President Trump is THEIR last chance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: gubamyster
Dan Gertler

The name "Marc Rich" jumped out at me from the article. Same Marc Rich that got pardoned by Bill Clinton?

19 posted on 12/21/2017 1:23:58 PM PST by Tench_Coxe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: gubamyster
I'm not great at Legalese, but I think the TL;DR of this is: If President Trump thinks you did something to hurt this country, President Trump will freeze any asset of yours falling within his purview, and then start looking for other ways to F*** YOU UP.

I approve of this message. And I love this President.

22 posted on 12/21/2017 2:40:43 PM PST by A_perfect_lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: gubamyster

(i) the persons listed in the Annex to this order;

Anyone seen the list of persons?


23 posted on 12/21/2017 4:40:39 PM PST by exit82 (The opposition has already been Trumped!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: gubamyster
Well, now we know what Sessions has been doing.

Human trafficking rings?

Who an ague *for* them (except the kiddie-diddlers in the upper tiers of Europe)?

And, it give The GE TrumpTM either an in, or leverage, over all kinds of groups and individuals who were opposed to him and to the US on other grounds.

25 posted on 12/21/2017 5:46:20 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: gubamyster
Sec. 3. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the types of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in this order, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.

Sec. 4. The prohibitions in section 1 include:

(a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; and

(b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Sec. 5. (a) Any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

The swamp can't advance each other multimillion dollar loans or play shell games to hide the money.

I wouldn't want to be a wine bottle anywhere NEAR Hillary and a large-screen TV right now..

28 posted on 12/21/2017 6:03:10 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: gubamyster

bump


30 posted on 12/21/2017 6:56:18 PM PST by ransomnote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: gubamyster

Here’s the bipartisan letter, requesting President Trump take this action.

https://ros-lehtinen.house.gov/sites/ros-lehtinen.house.gov/files/12.01.17%20Congressional%20Global%20Magnitsky%20Letter%20on%20Nicaragua.pdf


34 posted on 12/21/2017 10:14:26 PM PST by BykrBayb (Lung cancer free since 11/9/07. Colon cancer free since 7/7/15. Obama free since 1/20/17. PTL ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: gubamyster

Wow.


37 posted on 12/22/2017 4:14:53 AM PST by I_be_tc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: gubamyster

Is this part of the results of Muellers investigation?


39 posted on 12/22/2017 8:36:13 AM PST by stockpirate (I've been blocked on FB for posting true stories about Mueller & sex claims aginst Trump)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: gubamyster
There appear to be so many things wrong with this it's hard to know where to start.

EO

First of all, the only legal/constitutional justification for an EO is pursuant to and in enforcement of congressional legislation or a direct constitutional mandate being ignored by Congress (ex. Trump's EO against invasion of illegals and enemies was valid because federal protection against invasion is mandated in Art.IV, Sec 4 of the Constitution).

"National Emergency"

In 1976, in US v Bishop, the United States Court of Appeals, 19th Circuit, noted that on four occasions a national emergency had been invoked by the American President: 1933, 1950, 1970 and 1971. None had ever been revoked.

In 1976, a new National Emergencies Act ended all previous proclamations although not before the Court wrote:

"A national emergency must be based on conditions beyond the ordinary. Otherwise, it has no meaning. The power of the Soviet Union in world affairs does not justify placing the United States in a constant state of national emergency."

The United States Code (Title 42, Chapter 68, Subchapter I, §5122), now defines emergency and major disaster as follows:

"Emergency means any occasion or instance for which, in the determination of the President, Federal assistance is needed to supplement State and local efforts and capabilities to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of the United States.

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/N/NationalEmergency.aspx

Declaring "national emergencies" is how tyrants gain power. It should be used sparingly and carefully. What "conditions beyond the ordinary" do we have here? What "threat of a catastrophe" do we have here? Why is there nothing said about how this "national emergency" will be declared revoked?

These EO's are an unfortunate extension of Obama's EO's which he used extensively to consolidate legislative power unconstitutionally into the executive branch in an attempt to obtain and exercise quasi-dictatorial power. Just because it is Trump doesn't make it right.

So this appears to be doing the wrong thing if it is an unconstitutional act of a federal official - the President. If it is the wrong thing, then we need not go further. If it is somehow constitutionally justified, what about its contents?

Content of the EO

serious human rights abuse

Definition? Where does the Constitution give the feds authority over this undefined area and why is it a condition beyond the ordinary that threatens a catastrophe?

corruption

Definition? Constitutional impeachable offenses are listed here: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" (U.S. Const, art. II, sec. 4.) "The House of Representatives [NOT the President]...shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" (id., art. I, sec. 2, cl 5.). Why is undefined "corruption" a condition beyond the ordinary that threatens a catastrophe?

misappropriation of state assets

The feds have no delegated constitutional authority over the handling of a state's assets. Misappropriation of state assets is not a condition beyond the ordinary that threatens a catastrophe. So how should we deal with the various "Foundations" that fund anti-american activities? The Clinton Foundation? George Soro's various foundations?

Well, when it comes to federal acts whose validity and power is derived ONLY from the Constitution, the first question is ALWAYS: "What does the Constitution say"? The only actionable "anti-american activity" delegated to the feds is treason, defined here in the Constitution.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
U.S. Const, art. III, sec. 3, cl. 1.

Domestic "anti-american activities" (treason) are to be dealt with in our court system, not through the dictates of the EO's of presidential overreach.

42 posted on 12/22/2017 11:39:16 AM PST by Jim W N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson