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


1 posted on 07/26/2018 8:04:39 AM PDT by gattaca
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-27 last
To: gattaca

What the Left wants to do, is take all of Trump’s assets away.

This judge is allowing himself to be played as a stooge.


34 posted on 07/26/2018 9:09:18 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (01/26/18 DJIA 30 stocks $26,616.71 48.794% > open 11/07/16 215.71 from 50% increase 1.2183 yrs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: gattaca

Lately they have had to dig pretty deep into their bag of tricks. None of them are working against this President.

MAGA!


35 posted on 07/26/2018 9:12:29 AM PDT by READINABLUESTATE (But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.- George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: gattaca

The “judge” is a corrupt Clinton hack.


36 posted on 07/26/2018 9:21:41 AM PDT by july4thfreedomfoundation (Washington is NOT a swamp.....It's a cesspool!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: gattaca
The decision Wednesday clears the way for the plaintiffs to seek financial records from the president's company.

Give them redacted records ...

37 posted on 07/26/2018 9:26:32 AM PDT by dartuser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: gattaca

This would pretty much ban any businessman who does business overseas from running for President. The only people who would be left with the wherewithal to run would be lawyers, career politicians or career government administrators, i.e. the Deep State.


39 posted on 07/26/2018 9:52:04 AM PDT by jmcenanly ("The more corrupt the state, the more laws." Tacitus, Publius Cornelius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: gattaca

” … 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.”

The controversy is “emolument.” Under a definition by Lawrence Tribe, any President who is owner or part owner of a business (shareholder), or who receives royalty payments from the sale of books, or in any other way receives money from a foreign power, even in a non-discriminatory, fair, competitive and open transaction has violated the emolument clause. Professor Tribe only invented this AFTER Trump was elected president, probably because he suffers Trump derangement syndrome.

To investigate the meaning of the emoluments clause from opinions expressed PRIOR to Trump, see the following:

https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R40124.html

In particular:

“Much of the above discussion may ultimately prove to be ‘academic,’ as it is unlikely that, should an appointment and/or confirmation in violation of the Emoluments Clause occur, anyone would have the requisite constitutional standing to bring a lawsuit challenging the action as unconstitutional.”

The frame of the Constitution envisions the Congress to act, not any Tom, Dick or Harry that imagines it has been offended. The Congress has plenty of power with which to restrain the Executive, including impeachment. There is precedent from the Supreme Court on this as discussed in the source, notwithstanding the ruling of the District Court judge.


40 posted on 07/26/2018 9:58:18 AM PDT by Redmen4ever (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: gattaca

Discovery should be very interesting.


41 posted on 07/26/2018 3:35:42 PM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-27 last

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