Is Trump Eligible to Run Again?

[Seran]

A second Constitutional question has been investigated and found which puts Trump in direct violation of his oath of office while President. This time violation of the Article 1 emoulments clause prohibiting a federal office holder from benefitting from foreign gift or earnings from a foreign government without express approval from Congress. Ruh roh.

Trump received millions of dollars from foreign governments while president, House Democrats allege


WASHINGTON – Former President Donald Trump unconstitutionally profited from the presidency during his tenure in the White House, reaping millions of dollars for his business empire from foreign governments, House Democrats allege in an extensive report.


Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released a 156-page report Thursday morning accusing Trump of exploiting the presidency to financially benefit himself and members of his family. Trump’s businesses, according to the report, received at least $7.8 million from corrupt and authoritarian governments including China, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.


The report is the culmination of a nearly seven-year investigation. It says records and documents obtained by House Oversight Democrats reveal "a stunning web of millions of dollars in payments made by foreign governments and their agents directly to Trump-owned businesses, while President Trump was in the White House.”

Among the report’s findings and records available to the committee, China made the most payments to Trump’s businesses during his tenure, spending more than $5.5 million at Trump Tower in New York and two of Trump’s hotels in Washington and Las Vegas.


House Oversight Democrats specifically accuse Trump of violating the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause, which prohibits the president from profiting from foreign governments without the approval of Congress.


The report notes that its findings are incomplete after House Republicans took control of the committee last year and halted the investigation, which the late Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., started in 2016 when he was the top Democrat on the committee.


"It is true that $7.8 million is almost certainly only a fraction of Trump’s harvest of unlawful foreign state money, but this figure in itself is a scandal and a decisive spur to action," Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, wrote in the report's foreword.

House Democrats issued a subpoena to Mazars USA, Trump’s former accounting firm, in 2019. Trump attempted to block the request but the Supreme Court upheld the subpoena in 2020. Trump, Mazars and the committee then controlled by Democrats agreed on a set of terms for Mazars to release its records on Trump.

After Republicans took control of the committee, Mazars was eventually released from its legal obligation to provide relevant documentation to the Democrats’ investigation.


As a result, the report “is a significant glimpse into former President Trump’s foreign financial dealings –but far from a comprehensive account of his unprecedented efforts to use the presidency to enrich himself and his family in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution.”


The new details into the former president’s finances come as House Republicans continue their impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden and his family’s finances. GOP investigators have long alleged the president financially benefited from his family’s foreign business dealings.


While the GOP-led probe has turned up evidence revealing the president’s family made millions from their overseas interests, investigators have yet to implicate Biden in those dealings directly.

"It's beyond parody that Democrats continue their obsession with former President Donald Trump," House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer, R-Ky., said in a statement reacting to the report. "Former President Trump has legitimate businesses but the Bidens do not."


The limited documents obtained by House Oversight Democrats show that Trump received at least $7.8 million in foreign payments to his businesses during his presidency, according to the report.


From China, Trump’s businesses received money from the Chinese embassy, Hainan Airlines Holding Co., a Chinese state-owned airline and the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, a Chinese state-owned bank.


Underscoring the uncertainty surrounding the exact number of payments made to Trump’s businesses, the committee only confirmed a payment of $19,391 from the Chinese embassy to a Trump hotel in Washington. The records only document the payment for an arrival date in August 2017 and do not specify an end date, suggesting that the amount “likely comprise only a fraction of the funds ultimately expended for a stay or event.”

The article continues detailing foreign bribes Trump accepted.

https://news.yahoo.com/donald-trump-...150016728.html

[Suppressed Poet]

A second Constitutional question has been investigated and found which puts Trump in direct violation of his oath of office while President. This time violation of the Article 1 emoulments clause prohibiting a federal office holder from benefitting from foreign gift or earnings from a foreign government without express approval from Congress. Ruh roh.

Fake news.

[Methais]

A second Constitutional question has been investigated and found which puts Trump in direct violation of his oath of office while President. This time violation of the Article 1 emoulments clause prohibiting a federal office holder from benefitting from foreign gift or earnings from a foreign government without express approval from Congress. Ruh roh.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

LOL, democrats going full tilt. Was this on your bingo card of false accusations and reasons to discredit Trump?

Democrats are SCARED.

[Seran]

Scared of revealing Trump Organization invoices from state sponsored companies who had one and two YEAR long stays at Trump hotels? Naw dude, Democrats are afraid of the law and exposing it's violations. Republicans are though, which explains why they tried to stop Mazar from revealing those invoices.

[Parkbandit]

Scared of revealing Trump Organization invoices from state sponsored companies who had one and two YEAR long stays at Trump hotels? Naw dude, Democrats are afraid of the law and exposing it's violations. Republicans are though, which explains why they tried to stop Mazar from revealing those invoices.

Brooooooooooooooo........

Please stop falling for every.single.media.driven.attempt.to.finally.get.T rump.every.fucking.time.you.fucking.retarded.moron .

[Methais]

Scared of revealing Trump Organization invoices from state sponsored companies who had one and two YEAR long stays at Trump hotels? Naw dude, Democrats are afraid of the law and exposing it's violations. Republicans are though, which explains why they tried to stop Mazar from revealing those invoices.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA @ "pEoPlE sTaYeD aT tRuMp'S hOtEl!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


You fucking dork.

[Alfster]

Ah yes...



Sounds super solid.

Almost as solid as this:



Since I'm sure Alfster won't be doing it, if you could show me where Trump was convicted of, or even charged with "insurrection," that'd be great. If not, feel free to explain how some random voter's opinion means jack shit other than being some random voter's opinion and how that disqualifies Trump without any due process.

As stupid as that ^ is though, this doozy is 9947289470x more hilarious:







You don't strike me as a stupid person, so why are you acting stupid 24/7?

Shit I meant to quote pb.

It's where it should be. Taking my statements as cheering is very odd. There's legitimate legal questions that really do need an answer and the ruling is stayed, meaning he's on the ballots that will be mailed out prior to the election.

It's an intriguing case that involves whether the 14th amendment in section 3 applies to the president or not. Debates from 1866 claim it does, trumps lawyers claim it doesn't. Then there's the legal argument if it requires a conviction or whatever. It's literally history unfolding in front of us.

Just because you interpret it one way or someone else interprets it another way doesn't matter. I think it's a slippery slope and clearly was not intended for this, and I hope that's the final ruling. The intent was literally to keep the Confederates from holding office. I'm of the belief that intent matters and that the intent was never for it to be used this way.

I'm also intrigued by the whole question of total immunity for presidents, as trumps lawyers are arguing in another case. The ramifications of that being a ruling are absurd, as Biden could simply and legally cancel all elections, jail the maga crowd - and it would be legal.

These are cases that will shape our country.

Sent from my motorola one 5G ace using Tapatalk

[Parkbandit]

Shit I meant to quote pb.

That's not difficult to do. You find the post you want to quote, and you hit the "Reply with Quote" button on the bottom of THAT post.

It's where it should be. Taking my statements as cheering is very odd. There's legitimate legal questions that really do need an answer and the ruling is stayed, meaning he's on the ballots that will be mailed out prior to the election.

It's an intriguing case that involves whether the 14th amendment in section 3 applies to the president or not. Debates from 1866 claim it does, trumps lawyers claim it doesn't. Then there's the legal argument if it requires a conviction or whatever. It's literally history unfolding in front of us.

It's literally not.. it's literally the Democrats doing anything and every thing they possibly can to stop Trump from running again... Constitution be damned.

Just because you interpret it one way or someone else interprets it another way doesn't matter. I think it's a slippery slope and clearly was not intended for this, and I hope that's the final ruling. The intent was literally to keep the Confederates from holding office. I'm of the belief that intent matters and that the intent was never for it to be used this way.

This is a far cry from your earlier posts on the subject. I hope whatever you took to manage your TDS is something you start taking more often.

I'm also intrigued by the whole question of total immunity for presidents, as trumps lawyers are arguing in another case.

No one is arguing that a previous President has "total immunity" from everything.

The ramifications of that being a ruling are absurd, as Biden could simply and legally cancel all elections, jail the maga crowd - and it would be legal.

If Trump wins, and the political ruling class doesn't like the VP or the Speaker... I wouldn't put this past them.

[Methais]

Then there's the legal argument if it requires a conviction or whatever. It's literally history unfolding in front of us.

That's kind of the whole point of due process and convictions/acquittals. Otherwise any slob with an opinion and/or suffering from extreme butthurt can be like "Trump committed insurrection!" and it'll have legal repercussions, which is literally what's happening right now.