And as to the emoluments clause, you missed it again. This is what it actually says.

Quote:

---

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."

---

Quote:

---

Explanation: Congress can't make you a Duke, Earl, or even a Marquis. If you are a civil servant or elected official, you can't accept anything from a foreign government or official, including an honorary title or an office. This clause prevents any government official from receiving foreign gifts without the permission of Congress.

---

Now the important question would be this. If indeed foreign officials stayed at Trump hotels, did the Congress fund this? If they did, then what is your complaint? If foreign officials purchased copies of Obama's books, then would he have been guilty of violating the emoluments clause? Lastly, how does any of that amount to receiving a gift or title from a foreign government?

Quote:

---

N.B. tongue-in-cheek quote marks are around the word INVITED. Bwahahahaha!!!

---

Evasive. Deceitful.

Quote:

---

Urging??? It was more like ... never mind. You'll say I'm angry.

---

Like I said. Still waiting patiently. It would be much better if you'd just admit that your article made no claims of illegal activity.

Quote:

---

Nooooo! I wanna call you! And pretend I'm ANGRY!

---

You would need something to say first. You have nothing. That's my big argument with you and the other two members of the three amigos. You make big claims on small evidence. It lacks honor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Now the important question would be this. If indeed foreign officials stayed at Trump hotels, did the Congress fund this? If they did, then what is your complaint? If foreign officials purchased copies of Obama's books, then would he have been guilty of violating the emoluments clause? Lastly, how does any of that amount to receiving a gift or title from a foreign government?

---

Nobody invited rich foreign people to stay at the dufus hotels/resorts, nor does congress fund it but hello, get in good with a powerful figure of government then you cater to his business. DUH, that's the way the rich world works, no invite needed (Yes he did raise his rates and fees and that's another DUH!). Profits is a form of emolument and for the record, Obamas book deals and income derived was before and after his time in office. Look it up. Violations of federal law is for a court to decide and there are civil suits on the state level by what amounts to unfair competition.

There is also a raging debate if a president can LEASE government owned buildings since he is a landlord as a public official concerning the DC hotel. Possible conflict of interest? I don't know, but court proceedings can take years before they are prosecuted or settled. There is still a criminal proceeding also as you know he is an unindicted co conspirator in the same case that sent Cohen to jail. I'm sure you overlooked that illegal fact.

Here's how we know your story is a bunch of rumor mill material. If what you say is true, Pelosi, in between hair salon appointments and lessons on how to wear masks, would have started impeachment proceedings in about three seconds. After all, they tried the "impeachment with no evidence" approach, so to have some evidence would have been glorious for them. So the only real "DUH" in this whole deal has just been explained to everyone.

As to Obama, if you are trying to say that he didn't sell any of his two books (which were published before his election) during his eight years, and you can also be sure that he sold none of those books to foreign government officials while he was in the Senate or White House, then I'd love to see the evidence for that. I can tell you I don't believe a word of it. So if Trump can't make profits off of foreign governments, then neither could Obama.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

There is still a criminal proceeding also as you know he is an unindicted co conspirator in the same case that sent Cohen to jail. I'm sure you overlooked that illegal fact.

---

Orange-head hasn't overlooked that fact. You can be sure of that. It keeps him up at night - rage tweeting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

Orange-head hasn't overlooked that fact. You can be sure of that. It keeps him up at night - rage tweeting.

---

you can be sure the demonrats will overlook no fact, or any non-fact for that matter

Quote:

---

Orange-head hasn't overlooked that fact. You can be sure of that. It keeps him up at night - rage tweeting.

---

Thank goodness there's no hateful prejudice on this board. Only the objective facts allowed here!!

Meanwhile, in the real world, a man breaks into a house, sexually assaults a woman in a violent manner, steals her car, and violently resists arrest, and then is told by Kamala Harris that she is "proud" of him. Hmm. No politics there for certain. I'm sure she will be criticized by all of the outraged crowd on this site. Kavanaugh was found guilty by several of you for sexual assault even when there was no credible evidence. Let's see how this plays out.

Look whose throwing allegations out without evidence or LINKS. Yeah I believe Dr. Ford's testimony. You didn't like Obama, HC, or Joe and we don't like the dufus so why are dufus dislikers the only ones you apply the prejudiced bias label to when you are just as qualified to wear it as anyone on this board?

Quote:

---

Look whose throwing allegations out without evidence or LINKS.

---

You should know better by now, but at any rate, here it is. https://nypost.com/2020/08/28/this-i...or-his-arrest/

Quote:

---

Yeah I believe Dr. Ford's testimony.

---

Most people who believed Ford's testimony did so, not because it was compelling or had ANY supporting evidence, but because they hate Trump. Now it will be interesting to see if you believe this woman's MUCH more detailed complaint against Blake. I'll bet you won't since you seem to be directed more by political ideology than by evidence.

This idiot in Atlantic Magazine says Repubs should hope for a Quid victory . Why ???

Well in this guys warped mind ; if Quid wins the Repubs will accept it . BUT if Trump wins ,it will be similar to 2016 with Trump getting an Electoral College win but not a popular vote win . The Dems would never accept that twice .

Get this

Quote:

---

A loss by Joe Biden under these circumstances is the worst case not because Trump will destroy America (he can’t), but because it is the outcome most likely to undermine faith in democracy, resulting in more of the social unrest and street battles that cities including Portland, Oregon, and Seattle have seen in recent months. For this reason, strictly law-and-order Republicans who have responded in dismay to scenes of rioting and looting have an interest in Biden winning—even if they could never bring themselves to vote for him.

---

So the Dems support these rioters ......ooops I mean 'nearly peaceful protesters ' ;and if Trump wins there will be more of them . Therefore law and order Repubs should appease them and vote for Quid so the rioting will end.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...oncede/616321/

Well, it's bound to be true since, after all, it's in the Atlantic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You should know better by now, but at any rate, here it is. https://nypost.com/2020/08/28/this-i...or-his-arrest/

---

Well there goes presumed innocent, but does that justify 7 shots in the back? What he is charged with is irrelevant to the treatment he got.

Quote:

---

You believe Ford's testimony, not because it was compelling or had ANY supporting evidence, but because you hate Trump. Now it will be interesting to see if you believe this woman's MUCH more detailed complaint against Blake. I'll bet you won't since you seem to be directed more by political ideology than by evidence.

---

You're not qualified to speak for me. You also are not a credible judge of evidence because either you wear blinders, or have a narrow closed mind. I have ample evidence for both, and Blakes victim filed charges and they should be properly adjudicated in court, not by a cop who lost it on the street. Two separate issues that you seem to roll into one.

Quote:

---

Well there goes presumed innocent, but does that justify 7 shots in the back? What he is charged with is irrelevant to the treatment he got.

---

Strange that you apply the presumed innocent standard to Blake, but not to the police. Hmm. Didn't apply it to Kavanaugh either.

I knew you would dodge the question about believing Blake's victim. I said you would, and it turned out just that way. You are terrified of saying anything that might make it appear, even for a few seconds, that you are on the side of conservatives. Truth has nothing to do with it. It's all about hating Trump. I'm convinced that you've lost the ability to be objective.

But I can ask it again. If you believed Kavanaugh's accuser, then do you believe the much more detailed account of Blake's accuser? And if not, then why not?

This would be the Blake that was carrying a Karambit knife ?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EgOhBZrWkAAxRBl.png

No wonder she's so proud of him. In a Harris administration, he can hold some sort of military position.

@Tom

No way can you identify what he has from that photo.

@JL

I may be traumatized by the videos this year of cops killing unarmed folks. It's horrific. Maybe for you not so much.

must be a spork except Blake admitted to investigators that he had a knife in his possession.

Quote:

---

I may be traumatized by the videos this year of cops killing unarmed folks. It's horrific.

---

If that bothers you, then what must the killing of 900,000 unborn children every year do to you? Certainly none of them are armed. They do not resist arrest. They just die silently while you liberal dems continue to insist that it happen. So no, don't try that "traumatized" garbage with me. Just not playing that game.

Abortions bother me too, and always have.

And yet you support those who advocate for it without question. If at some point I say that the violent deaths of unarmed black men bothers me, but then vote for those who want to make it legal to do so, then in what way can I say it really bothers me?

I don't mean to be ugly to you. I have admired you for being honest in expressing what you believe. I give you great credit for that.