This seems to be more winning, and expecting the MSM to have another melt-down, tonight, over this......
Looks like this EO should be nicknamed “AntiSoros”.
OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL
Specially Designated Nationals List Update
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/Pages/20171221.aspx
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!
Need to confiscate Hillary’s hundred million plus in bribe money.
Could this be a “control” paper that is routinely published every year?
Can this be used on the UN? Tell ‘em to take a hike (outta the country)?
Magnitsky. That’s a name that’s been cropping up a bit of late.
Where is the Annex?
L
The name "Marc Rich" jumped out at me from the article. Same Marc Rich that got pardoned by Bill Clinton?
I approve of this message. And I love this President.
(i) the persons listed in the Annex to this order;
Anyone seen the list of persons?
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.
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..
bump
Heres the bipartisan letter, requesting President Trump take this action.
Wow.
Is this part of the results of Muellers investigation?
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.