Subpoenas For Payments to Trump Properties; Emoluments Clause

[OKTexas]

Prosecutor? Whose the prosecutor?

Mueller. He's known as the special prosecutor. Look it up. Moron.

Special prosecutor - Wikipedia

In the United States, a special prosecutor (or special counsel, independent counsel, and independent prosecutor) is a lawyer appointed to investigate, and potentially prosecute, a particular case of suspected wrongdoing for which a conflict of interest exists for the usual prosecuting authority.

He is the independent counsel and will not be prosecuting any case himself.

Hence not a prosecutor. Nice try though. Not really but it was a try none the less

Semantics, the last bastion of a loser, Mueller is directing prosecutors. He is essentially the lead prosecutor.

.

 

[edward37]

Prosecutor? Whose the prosecutor?

Mueller. He's known as the special prosecutor. Look it up. Moron.

Special prosecutor - Wikipedia

In the United States, a special prosecutor (or special counsel, independent counsel, and independent prosecutor) is a lawyer appointed to investigate, and potentially prosecute, a particular case of suspected wrongdoing for which a conflict of interest exists for the usual prosecuting authority.

He is the independent counsel and will not be prosecuting any case himself.

Hence not a prosecutor. Nice try though. Not really but it was a try none the less

Semantics, the last bastion of a loser, Mueller is directing prosecutors. He is essentially the lead prosecutor.

.

Tomorrow Manafort goes before a judge Tex ,watch the beginning of the end for trump and manafort

 

[candycorn]

Prosecutor? Whose the prosecutor?

Mueller. He's known as the special prosecutor. Look it up. Moron.

Special prosecutor - Wikipedia

In the United States, a special prosecutor (or special counsel, independent counsel, and independent prosecutor) is a lawyer appointed to investigate, and potentially prosecute, a particular case of suspected wrongdoing for which a conflict of interest exists for the usual prosecuting authority.

He is the independent counsel and will not be prosecuting any case himself.

Hence not a prosecutor. Nice try though. Not really but it was a try none the less

Semantics, the last bastion of a loser, Mueller is directing prosecutors. He is essentially the lead prosecutor.

.

No he submits evidence and the attorneys who decide to prosecute.

But thanks for confirming the truth.

 

[OKTexas]

Prosecutor? Whose the prosecutor?

Mueller. He's known as the special prosecutor. Look it up. Moron.

Special prosecutor - Wikipedia

In the United States, a special prosecutor (or special counsel, independent counsel, and independent prosecutor) is a lawyer appointed to investigate, and potentially prosecute, a particular case of suspected wrongdoing for which a conflict of interest exists for the usual prosecuting authority.

He is the independent counsel and will not be prosecuting any case himself.

Hence not a prosecutor. Nice try though. Not really but it was a try none the less

Semantics, the last bastion of a loser, Mueller is directing prosecutors. He is essentially the lead prosecutor.

.

Tomorrow Manafort goes before a judge Tex ,watch the beginning of the end for trump and manafort

Really? Do tell, no seriously, tell us how sentencing recommendations for crimes not associated with the campaign will effect anyone other than those being considered for sentencing.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Prosecutor? Whose the prosecutor?

Mueller. He's known as the special prosecutor. Look it up. Moron.

Special prosecutor - Wikipedia

In the United States, a special prosecutor (or special counsel, independent counsel, and independent prosecutor) is a lawyer appointed to investigate, and potentially prosecute, a particular case of suspected wrongdoing for which a conflict of interest exists for the usual prosecuting authority.

He is the independent counsel and will not be prosecuting any case himself.

Hence not a prosecutor. Nice try though. Not really but it was a try none the less

Semantics, the last bastion of a loser, Mueller is directing prosecutors. He is essentially the lead prosecutor.

.

No he submits evidence and the attorneys who decide to prosecute.

But thanks for confirming the truth.

That my dear is a flat out lie. Nothing is filed without Mueller's approval. The special counsels office is nothing but the equivalent of a mini DAs office, except he isn't elected.

I also realized something today. A special counsel is only supposed to be appointed if the DOJ has a conflict and it can be demonstrated they can't do their job. Could you please point to the area of the authorization letter where Rosenstein spelled out that conflict. After all, it was just a counterintelligence investigation, the FBI can do those with their eyes closed.

.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Saw this on Twitter; Trump is named as the defendant.

View attachment 232826

http://oag.dc.gov/sites/default/files/2018-12/Emoluments-Federal-Government-Subpoenas.pdf

Just by looking at it, they seem to be probing possible violations of the Emoluments clause

Oh? And what of Dianne Feinstein's massive stake in Chinese government owned companies? Bernie Sanders stake in Venezuelan oil?

Do you Nazis really want to play this game?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

So you're claiming that Trump & Co. are above the law and will defy District Court Judge Peter Messitte's ruling last July 25th as if Trump was a fucking Emperor? Foolish little boi! Where is his immunity from the law we common folk are required to follow? Pathetic thinking, Tex!
I've told you over and over little one, read and commit to memory what is contained within the four corners of the Great Contract with the People, but your pitiful dumb ass hasn't taken heed. Now pay attention this fucking time, little one, and check out:

Art. III, § 2;
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed." [Emphasis Added]
&
Art.VI, Cls. 2;
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." [Emphasis Added]
Exactly, you dim witted pile of cow flop! See ya around, little guy, and try to work up your own material rather throwing my thoughts back to cover and disguise your limitations, Tex. Now don't go to your room and take your frustrations out on another pillow, little fella'. Stop trolling my posts and you'll be rewarded with much less frustration, Lil' Tex!

So tell the class what is the federal statute which deals with emoluments? Exactly how does that statute define an emolument? Come on all knowing one, this should be a piece of cake. LMAO.

So tell the class what is the federal statute which deals with emoluments? Exactly how does that statute define an emolument? Come on all knowing one, this should be a piece of cake. LMAO.

In the Master Statute which also declares and defines your Individual Constitutional Rights you stupid fucking infantile twit. Get a 3rd grader to read and explain to you what's in those Articles, Sections and Clauses in the US Constitution I cited and how the Judicial Branch deals with those LAWS, jackass!

Troll away little Tex! Perhaps I've mistaken your pretense of ignorance for actual downright terminal stupidity, you fucking childish prick! Grow the fuck up!

The Constitution doesn't define the term "emoluments," dumbfuck. It never fails that whenever Trump-hating snowflakes are calling someone else stupid, they only demonstrate how stupid they are.

Just for your information, moron, and emolument is a gift. Payment for the use of a hotel room is not a gift.

The Constitution doesn't define the term "emoluments," dumbfuck.

You're just as fucking dumb as the Texas Fraud. As I stated the subject of emoluments are LAWS defined as the Judicial Branch deals with them. To many fucking moving parts for the minuscule blob of protoplasm passing for a brain in that over sized, vacuous cranium of yours, mouth?

There ya go again, allowing your alligator mouth to over load you hummingbird ass. The Constitution says only congress can define if an officer of the government is receiving an unlawful emolument. Alexandra Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, was asked to list all such officers that were subject to the emoluments clause. He included NO elected officials on that list, there's your precedent, since the Supreme Court has remained silent on the issue. But hey, feel free to keep flapping your ignorant gums, you're great entertainment.

What an asswipe. I pin you in a corner with my last post to you, #62, and rather than respond to it you cite my reply to bripat's #65 on a different topic so your response seems to make sense, ya fucking coward! But even then you screw the pouch, IDIOT!

The Constitution says only congress can define if an officer of the government is receiving an unlawful emolument.

The Constitution says nothing of the sort, asswipe! Art.1, § 9, Cls. 8 states;

"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: 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." [Emphasis Added]

Perhaps to an imbecile like yourself, to define and to consent are equivalent but to the rest of breathing and aware humanity they are NOT, shit for brains! And what are the Supremes to do if you've got Congress doing their job of interpreting the LAW!!!! You Damn Ignorant Fool!

Now stick that where the sun don't shine you insignificant trolling twerp. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about lil' dummy, so for Christ's sake, run along and get some help with your issues, Lil' Tex!

 

[airplanemechanic]

Well thanks, you just clarified it for me.

I didn't realize it only applied to kings, princes or foreign states.

Having a muslim rent rooms in your hotel doesn't even remotely qualify. And rent isn't a present LOL

 

[OKTexas]

So tell the class what is the federal statute which deals with emoluments? Exactly how does that statute define an emolument? Come on all knowing one, this should be a piece of cake. LMAO.

So tell the class what is the federal statute which deals with emoluments? Exactly how does that statute define an emolument? Come on all knowing one, this should be a piece of cake. LMAO.

In the Master Statute which also declares and defines your Individual Constitutional Rights you stupid fucking infantile twit. Get a 3rd grader to read and explain to you what's in those Articles, Sections and Clauses in the US Constitution I cited and how the Judicial Branch deals with those LAWS, jackass!

Troll away little Tex! Perhaps I've mistaken your pretense of ignorance for actual downright terminal stupidity, you fucking childish prick! Grow the fuck up!

The Constitution doesn't define the term "emoluments," dumbfuck. It never fails that whenever Trump-hating snowflakes are calling someone else stupid, they only demonstrate how stupid they are.

Just for your information, moron, and emolument is a gift. Payment for the use of a hotel room is not a gift.

The Constitution doesn't define the term "emoluments," dumbfuck.

You're just as fucking dumb as the Texas Fraud. As I stated the subject of emoluments are LAWS defined as the Judicial Branch deals with them. To many fucking moving parts for the minuscule blob of protoplasm passing for a brain in that over sized, vacuous cranium of yours, mouth?

There ya go again, allowing your alligator mouth to over load you hummingbird ass. The Constitution says only congress can define if an officer of the government is receiving an unlawful emolument. Alexandra Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, was asked to list all such officers that were subject to the emoluments clause. He included NO elected officials on that list, there's your precedent, since the Supreme Court has remained silent on the issue. But hey, feel free to keep flapping your ignorant gums, you're great entertainment.

What an asswipe. I pin you in a corner with my last post to you, #62, and rather than respond to it you cite my reply to bripat's #65 on a different topic so your response seems to make sense, ya fucking coward! But even then you screw the pouch, IDIOT!

The Constitution says only congress can define if an officer of the government is receiving an unlawful emolument.

The Constitution says nothing of the sort, asswipe! Art.1, § 9, Cls. 8 states;

"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: 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." [Emphasis Added]

Perhaps to an imbecile like yourself, to define and to consent are equivalent but to the rest of breathing and aware humanity they are NOT, shit for brains! And what are the Supremes to do if you've got Congress doing their job of interpreting the LAW!!!! You Damn Ignorant Fool!

Now stick that where the sun don't shine you insignificant trolling twerp. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about lil' dummy, so for Christ's sake, run along and get some help with your issues, Lil' Tex!

Poor thing, why do you chose to ignore previous court decisions?

A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a pair of lawsuits claiming that President Donald Trump’s failure to divest himself of his real estate empire and other business holdings violated the Constitution’s provision banning receipt of foreign “emoluments” while in public office.

U.S. District Court Judge George Daniels ruled that the two suits were fatally flawed because the plaintiffs failed to show injury directly related to the use of Trump’s properties by foreign officials and governments.

Daniels, who sits in Manhattan and is an appointee of President Bill Clinton, also said the issue was one that Congress should police, not the courts.

Judge dismisses suits claiming Trump violated emoluments clause

I know you ignorant regressive love to judge shop, but tell the class what happens when courts can't agree. Just because your ilk have found one judge who ignores the rules of the court doesn't mean a damn thing. His BS will be eventually reversed and you ignorant fucks will be left stuttering, butt, butt, the emoluments clause. Trump was elected as an international business man, there is nothing in the Constitution that says he must divest himself of his assets. This will eventually find its way to the supremes where they will promptly tell you loser regressives to piss up a fucking rope.

You lost the election, stop you seditious activities in trying to undermine a duly elected President. You're nothing but a fucking traitor to our founding.

.

 

[candycorn]

Prosecutor? Whose the prosecutor?

Mueller. He's known as the special prosecutor. Look it up. Moron.

Special prosecutor - Wikipedia

In the United States, a special prosecutor (or special counsel, independent counsel, and independent prosecutor) is a lawyer appointed to investigate, and potentially prosecute, a particular case of suspected wrongdoing for which a conflict of interest exists for the usual prosecuting authority.

He is the independent counsel and will not be prosecuting any case himself.

Hence not a prosecutor. Nice try though. Not really but it was a try none the less

Semantics, the last bastion of a loser, Mueller is directing prosecutors. He is essentially the lead prosecutor.

.

No he submits evidence and the attorneys who decide to prosecute.

But thanks for confirming the truth.

That my dear is a flat out lie. Nothing is filed without Mueller's approval. The special counsels office is nothing but the equivalent of a mini DAs office, except he isn't elected.

I also realized something today. A special counsel is only supposed to be appointed if the DOJ has a conflict and it can be demonstrated they can't do their job. Could you please point to the area of the authorization letter where Rosenstein spelled out that conflict. After all, it was just a counterintelligence investigation, the FBI can do those with their eyes closed.

.

Thanks once more for confirming Mueller is not a prosecutor.

 

[OKTexas]

Mueller. He's known as the special prosecutor. Look it up. Moron.

Special prosecutor - Wikipedia

He is the independent counsel and will not be prosecuting any case himself.

Hence not a prosecutor. Nice try though. Not really but it was a try none the less

Semantics, the last bastion of a loser, Mueller is directing prosecutors. He is essentially the lead prosecutor.

.

No he submits evidence and the attorneys who decide to prosecute.

But thanks for confirming the truth.

That my dear is a flat out lie. Nothing is filed without Mueller's approval. The special counsels office is nothing but the equivalent of a mini DAs office, except he isn't elected.

I also realized something today. A special counsel is only supposed to be appointed if the DOJ has a conflict and it can be demonstrated they can't do their job. Could you please point to the area of the authorization letter where Rosenstein spelled out that conflict. After all, it was just a counterintelligence investigation, the FBI can do those with their eyes closed.

.

Thanks once more for confirming Mueller is not a prosecutor.

Well child, I'm providing a link that has the Manafort Gates indictment. Scroll to the bottom of the PDF and tell me who's signature is at the bottom of it. Then you can offer an apology.

Here are all of the court documents Mueller's office has filed in the Russia probe that have been unsealed so far

.

 

[The Purge]

You ABNORMALS really do have no concept what you are talking about!

 

[bripat9643]

In the Master Statute which also declares and defines your Individual Constitutional Rights you stupid fucking infantile twit. Get a 3rd grader to read and explain to you what's in those Articles, Sections and Clauses in the US Constitution I cited and how the Judicial Branch deals with those LAWS, jackass!

Troll away little Tex! Perhaps I've mistaken your pretense of ignorance for actual downright terminal stupidity, you fucking childish prick! Grow the fuck up!

The Constitution doesn't define the term "emoluments," dumbfuck. It never fails that whenever Trump-hating snowflakes are calling someone else stupid, they only demonstrate how stupid they are.

Just for your information, moron, and emolument is a gift. Payment for the use of a hotel room is not a gift.

They ain't too bright.

Here dull blub

The Washington Post recently reported considerable interest in booking Trump’s Washington hotel as a deliberate way for foreign visitors to show their support for the incoming Trump White House. Two legal experts—Richard Painter, who was former President George W. Bush’s chief ethics counsel, and noted constitutional legal expert Lawrence Tribe—both say that this appears to be an “emolument” (a gift) that a president isn’t allowed to accept.
—Jeff Nesbit, Time.com, 21 Nov. 2016

The emoluments clause could also come into play when Trump’s business sells condos at its properties or partners with foreign investors in the United States or other countries. A condo sale to a foreign dignitary could be seen as an emolument, especially if it were above the market rate.
—Paul Blumenthal, huffingtonpost.com, 19 Nov. 2016

Emolument has been in use in English since the late 15th century, and is defined as “the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites.” There is an additional sense of the word, now obsolete, which is “advantage, benefit.”

The word comes from the Latin word emolumentum, which means “profit” or “gain”; the literal meaning of the word is “sum paid to have grain ground up,” as it comes from the word emolere (“to grind up”).

The emoluments clause of the United States Constitution (Article 1, section 9) reads as follows: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: 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.”

So you are trying to claim making a profit on a business is an "emolument?"

What a dumbfuck.

No question, it is an emolument, the real question is it improper for a president, Hamilton said no.

.

It's not an emolument.

 

[bripat9643]

So tell the class what is the federal statute which deals with emoluments? Exactly how does that statute define an emolument? Come on all knowing one, this should be a piece of cake. LMAO.

So tell the class what is the federal statute which deals with emoluments? Exactly how does that statute define an emolument? Come on all knowing one, this should be a piece of cake. LMAO.

In the Master Statute which also declares and defines your Individual Constitutional Rights you stupid fucking infantile twit. Get a 3rd grader to read and explain to you what's in those Articles, Sections and Clauses in the US Constitution I cited and how the Judicial Branch deals with those LAWS, jackass!

Troll away little Tex! Perhaps I've mistaken your pretense of ignorance for actual downright terminal stupidity, you fucking childish prick! Grow the fuck up!

The Constitution doesn't define the term "emoluments," dumbfuck. It never fails that whenever Trump-hating snowflakes are calling someone else stupid, they only demonstrate how stupid they are.

Just for your information, moron, and emolument is a gift. Payment for the use of a hotel room is not a gift.

The Constitution doesn't define the term "emoluments," dumbfuck.

You're just as fucking dumb as the Texas Fraud. As I stated the subject of emoluments are LAWS defined as the Judicial Branch deals with them. To many fucking moving parts for the minuscule blob of protoplasm passing for a brain in that over sized, vacuous cranium of yours, mouth?

There ya go again, allowing your alligator mouth to over load you hummingbird ass. The Constitution says only congress can define if an officer of the government is receiving an unlawful emolument. Alexandra Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, was asked to list all such officers that were subject to the emoluments clause. He included NO elected officials on that list, there's your precedent, since the Supreme Court has remained silent on the issue. But hey, feel free to keep flapping your ignorant gums, you're great entertainment.

What an asswipe. I pin you in a corner with my last post to you, #62, and rather than respond to it you cite my reply to bripat's #65 on a different topic so your response seems to make sense, ya fucking coward! But even then you screw the pouch, IDIOT!

The Constitution says only congress can define if an officer of the government is receiving an unlawful emolument.

The Constitution says nothing of the sort, asswipe! Art.1, § 9, Cls. 8 states;

"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: 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." [Emphasis Added]

Perhaps to an imbecile like yourself, to define and to consent are equivalent but to the rest of breathing and aware humanity they are NOT, shit for brains! And what are the Supremes to do if you've got Congress doing their job of interpreting the LAW!!!! You Damn Ignorant Fool!

Now stick that where the sun don't shine you insignificant trolling twerp. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about lil' dummy, so for Christ's sake, run along and get some help with your issues, Lil' Tex!

The believing mind reaches its perihelion in the so-called Liberals. They believe in each and every quack who sets up his booth inthe fairgrounds, including the Communists. The Communists have some talents too, but they always fall short of believing in the Liberals.

— H. L. Mencken —

 

[Dragonlady]

So Crooked Hillary's Insurance Policy using Mueller's Witch Hunt has officially dropped the Russia Hoax and is now trying to see if President Trumps Washington DC Hotel made a couple of bucks through his influence? Very sad. Pathetic actually. That said, Mueller's crooks could easily obtain all customer credit card charges that were processed through the hotel.

You stupid clown! You’re obsessed with Hillary Clinton.

Trump, the greedy asshole, did this to himself. First off, he didn’t divest himself from his businesses or put them in a blind trust, like every other rich man who’s run for President.

Trump has been selling influence and access. Massively. From the Saudi princes renting 500 rooms in Trump properties, to doubling the initiation fees at Trump’s east coast golf clubs.

 

[edward37]

Prosecutor? Whose the prosecutor?

Mueller. He's known as the special prosecutor. Look it up. Moron.

Special prosecutor - Wikipedia

In the United States, a special prosecutor (or special counsel, independent counsel, and independent prosecutor) is a lawyer appointed to investigate, and potentially prosecute, a particular case of suspected wrongdoing for which a conflict of interest exists for the usual prosecuting authority.

He is the independent counsel and will not be prosecuting any case himself.

Hence not a prosecutor. Nice try though. Not really but it was a try none the less

Semantics, the last bastion of a loser, Mueller is directing prosecutors. He is essentially the lead prosecutor.

.

No he submits evidence and the attorneys who decide to prosecute.

But thanks for confirming the truth.

That my dear is a flat out lie. Nothing is filed without Mueller's approval. The special counsels office is nothing but the equivalent of a mini DAs office, except he isn't elected.

I also realized something today. A special counsel is only supposed to be appointed if the DOJ has a conflict and it can be demonstrated they can't do their job. Could you please point to the area of the authorization letter where Rosenstein spelled out that conflict. After all, it was just a counterintelligence investigation, the FBI can do those with their eyes closed.

.

you seem to be soft soaping everything Mueller is doing Shame trump isn't also

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

In the Master Statute which also declares and defines your Individual Constitutional Rights you stupid fucking infantile twit. Get a 3rd grader to read and explain to you what's in those Articles, Sections and Clauses in the US Constitution I cited and how the Judicial Branch deals with those LAWS, jackass!

Troll away little Tex! Perhaps I've mistaken your pretense of ignorance for actual downright terminal stupidity, you fucking childish prick! Grow the fuck up!

The Constitution doesn't define the term "emoluments," dumbfuck. It never fails that whenever Trump-hating snowflakes are calling someone else stupid, they only demonstrate how stupid they are.

Just for your information, moron, and emolument is a gift. Payment for the use of a hotel room is not a gift.

The Constitution doesn't define the term "emoluments," dumbfuck.

You're just as fucking dumb as the Texas Fraud. As I stated the subject of emoluments are LAWS defined as the Judicial Branch deals with them. To many fucking moving parts for the minuscule blob of protoplasm passing for a brain in that over sized, vacuous cranium of yours, mouth?

There ya go again, allowing your alligator mouth to over load you hummingbird ass. The Constitution says only congress can define if an officer of the government is receiving an unlawful emolument. Alexandra Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, was asked to list all such officers that were subject to the emoluments clause. He included NO elected officials on that list, there's your precedent, since the Supreme Court has remained silent on the issue. But hey, feel free to keep flapping your ignorant gums, you're great entertainment.

What an asswipe. I pin you in a corner with my last post to you, #62, and rather than respond to it you cite my reply to bripat's #65 on a different topic so your response seems to make sense, ya fucking coward! But even then you screw the pouch, IDIOT!

The Constitution says only congress can define if an officer of the government is receiving an unlawful emolument.

The Constitution says nothing of the sort, asswipe! Art.1, § 9, Cls. 8 states;

"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: 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." [Emphasis Added]

Perhaps to an imbecile like yourself, to define and to consent are equivalent but to the rest of breathing and aware humanity they are NOT, shit for brains! And what are the Supremes to do if you've got Congress doing their job of interpreting the LAW!!!! You Damn Ignorant Fool!

Now stick that where the sun don't shine you insignificant trolling twerp. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about lil' dummy, so for Christ's sake, run along and get some help with your issues, Lil' Tex!

Poor thing, why do you chose to ignore previous court decisions?

A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a pair of lawsuits claiming that President Donald Trump’s failure to divest himself of his real estate empire and other business holdings violated the Constitution’s provision banning receipt of foreign “emoluments” while in public office.

U.S. District Court Judge George Daniels ruled that the two suits were fatally flawed because the plaintiffs failed to show injury directly related to the use of Trump’s properties by foreign officials and governments.

Daniels, who sits in Manhattan and is an appointee of President Bill Clinton, also said the issue was one that Congress should police, not the courts.

Judge dismisses suits claiming Trump violated emoluments clause

I know you ignorant regressive love to judge shop, but tell the class what happens when courts can't agree. Just because your ilk have found one judge who ignores the rules of the court doesn't mean a damn thing. His BS will be eventually reversed and you ignorant fucks will be left stuttering, butt, butt, the emoluments clause. Trump was elected as an international business man, there is nothing in the Constitution that says he must divest himself of his assets. This will eventually find its way to the supremes where they will promptly tell you loser regressives to piss up a fucking rope.

You lost the election, stop you seditious activities in trying to undermine a duly elected President. You're nothing but a fucking traitor to our founding.

Poor thing, why do you chose to ignore previous court decisions?

I'm doing no such thing! But you are avoiding addressing the subjects of the post to which you responded because those topics confounded your lies and distortions of truth and made you appear a supercilious, know nothing, ignorant ass! Your response...change tracks & deflect again...fucking coward! I'll repeat the post and give you another chance.

BTW the cases you cited with your duck & cover dodge HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CASE IN THE OP AND THE TOPICS WE'VE DISCUSSED, Lil' Tex, ya damn looser!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Constitution says only congress can define if an officer of the government is receiving an unlawful emolument.

The Constitution says nothing of the sort, asswipe! Art.1, § 9, Cls. 8 states;

"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: 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." [Emphasis Added]

Perhaps to an imbecile like yourself, to define and to consent are equivalent but to the rest of breathing and aware humanity they are NOT, shit for brains! And what are the Supremes to do if you've got Congress doing their job of interpreting the LAW!!!! You Damn Ignorant Fool!

Now stick that where the sun don't shine you insignificant trolling twerp. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about lil' dummy, so for Christ's sake, run along and get some help with your issues, Lil' Tex!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Care to respond to your errors pointed to above or ya gonna dip, dance and dodge those points yet again? What a disgusting little lying fraud you are, Lil' Tex!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Thanks once more for confirming Mueller is not a prosecutor.

He is the Grand Inquisitor.

 

[candycorn]

Grand Inquisitor?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Grand Inquisitor?

DERP