“No one would have thought when the Constitution was written that paying your hotel bill was an emolument,” Sheri A. Dillon, a partner at Morgan Lewis, said at a news conference this month...Quite apart from the substantive merits of the claim, it's hard to see how there are plaintiffs with standing to sue. How does the money paid in rent and hotel bills to the Trump organization cause concrete and particularized injury to anyone? You could say we are all injured by the possibility that commercial activities could influence the President's decisions, but that's the sort of generalized grievance that isn't enough.
“If you think other countries are not going to try to leverage relationships with Trump’s companies to influence trade or military policy, that is naïve,” [said Zephyr Teachout, a Fordham University law professor and former congressional candidate who has been studying and writing about the Emoluments Clause for nearly a decade].
But the filing of the lawsuit brings attention to the legal argument, which bolsters the political argument that the risk of influence is bad and should be eliminated. And in the end, almost certainly, the matter will be resolved in the political sphere and not the courts.
पोस्ट्स
२५४ टिप्पण्या:
«सर्वात जुने ‹थोडे जुने 254 पैकी 201 – 254"DEMAND TRANSPARENCY Indeed, some have even argued that upon taking the oath of office, the new president is already violating the Constitution — in particular, the now-famous Emoluments Clause. As a bipartisan quartet of ethics experts and lawyers wrote this week:
"The emoluments clause forbids any 'Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States]' from accepting any 'any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State' (unless Congress explicitly consents).
By 'emolument,' this provision means any benefit derived from dealing with a foreign government. It is well-settled that receipt of such emoluments is strictly prohibited for persons holding positions of trust with the U.S. government. A U.S. official need not also have an 'office' with a foreign government in order to receive an emolument from it.
The Framers included this provision in the Constitution to guarantee that private entanglements with foreign states would not blur the loyalties of federal officials, above all the president. Yet that lesson seems lost on Trump, whose continued significant ownership stake in the Trump Organization forges an unbreakable bond between Trump and a global empire that will benefit or suffer in innumerable ways from its dealings with foreign governments. Trump’s actions in office will thus be haunted by the specter (and perhaps reality) of divided interests."
That’s why we’re stepping in now, using FOIA — one of America’s most critical guarantors of government transparency and the central mechanism by which ordinary Americans can provide ongoing public checks and balances on elected officials in the political branches. We want to know how the Trump transition team and the government offices tasked with supervising ethics-related issues for the incoming administration have been thinking about and confronting these potential conflicts. In pursuit of that information, we’ve asked for a gamut of documents — legal opinions, policy advisories, communications, and more — that address them. And we aim to publish the responses so that the American public can do its job conducting broad-based democratic oversight of the new administration.
The many conflict-of-interest issues presented by Donald Trump’s assumption of the presidency threaten to undermine the public’s confidence in government, the global community’s trust in our nation’s chief executive, and even potentially our national security. With this FOIA — surely the first of many to come during the next four years — we hope to facilitate the public’s indispensable role in checking the power of our public officials."
Todd,
I understand this may be too technical for dumb and dumber to understand, but perhaps you can glean something from it.
"It's important to the left that when any of their views are challenged to quickly cut and paste more links and comments from additional lefties that mirror all the other lefties comments"
Oh come now. You really don't expect this howling banshee to form arguments on her own now, do you?
QueenWili said...
https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/first-many-aclu-foia-request-seeks-information-about-new-presidents-conflicts
"Well, we just couldn’t wait: on Thursday, we filed our first Freedom of Information Act request of the Trump Era, seeking documents relating President Trump’s actual or potential conflicts of interest relating to his business and family connections.
It is pretty much guaranteed that Trump will do better than Obama as far as responding to FOIA's. There are half a dozen departments in his administration that stonewalled FOIA's or were held in contempt by congress.
Obama telling Russia he will be flexible after the election is evergreen right now.
And lets not leave out Kennedy asking for Soviet help to defeat Reagan in 1984.
You people are a complete joke and absolutely unserious.
Blogger QueenWili -
Gosh - I guess you're referring to me with "dumb and dumber" comment?
Just asking questions, that's all. Thought I was civil in my questions and comments.
Sorry to have offended you.
I didn't find your obviously cut and pasted first person opinion piece to be technical at all. I found it to be about 500 words long and say nothing with no facts contained therein. Sort of a long-winded and pompous nothing burger.
Drago: There is some debate as to how many real, distinct individuals are involved from the left.
R&B/CC is not "copy-cat-able" but the others are kind of dime a dozen.
Yeah, Ritmo is just Ritmo and doesn't have anything to do with this recent (recent as in starting last year) wave of DNC-bots, whose comings and goings, and laughably transparent sock-puppeting, can be tracked. The ones here now are the same lot that showed up (under different names) last year, around convention time.
If somebody's paying them, he's paying them more than they're worth.
QueenWili apparently believes Anglelyne's avatar is an actual picture of Anglelyne. And she calls us stupid.
I'm sure Anglelyne was devastated when you insulted her lovely green skin.
That's some Oscar Wilde level repartee right there.
Hehehe
Insty linked and queenie thinks Donald has been a monumental fool during the past 72 hours?
Clueless.
No Todd, I was referring to Birkel and Drago, lol. Not you.
eixiledonmainstreet:
I'm sure Anglelyne was devastated when you insulted her lovely green skin.
Behead those who insult Pepe.
I just think the criticism of Hillary was legitimate and I don't want to assume that Trump should be able to do things that we wouldn't have tolerated from her.
I'm willing to give him a chance. I just want it to be on the same level.
Commander Crankshaft: "I just think the criticism of Hillary was legitimate and I don't want to assume that Trump should be able to do things that we wouldn't have tolerated from her.
I'm willing to give him a chance. I just want it to be on the same level."
That's understood and your position is understandable and consistent even when we disagree.
Anglelyne, this proliferation of sock puppets seemed to happen after I pegged Stupid Unknown* as Inga in a thread a few days ago on the strength of some personal information she had revealed. After that Unknown/Inga seemed to vanish and lo, like the nine-headed Hydra, suddenly socks galore started popping up. I don't think all of them are Inga, but one or two of them might be. She's certainly crazy and dishonest enough to do it and think she's found a way to fool people. She's also certainly dumb enough to think that insulting someone's avatar is a cutting jibe.
The Inauguration of the Orange Devil is enough to have attracted a few other nitwits to this blog.
*As compared to Vance, the Sensible Unknown and Snobby Unknown who goes on about how blue collar people in Trumpland should all just die already.
One of the interesting things that Queeni(I think) posited was that Trump picked his cabinet by paying off political favors. The thing is, that you can almost inevitably figure out what they are concerned about by what they accuse conservatives and/or Republicans of. It is termed "projection". So, for example, after eight years of filling Obama's cabinet with political hacks and payoffs, most with little relevant experience, except for having pushed themselves to the front of the line at the public trough, they accuse Trump of doing what Obama did so disastrously. And, after unsuccessfully trying to drag Crooked Hillary, probably the most corrupt Presidential candidate of the past century, across the finish line, they accuse Trump of precisely the same sort of graft and corruption that ultimately netted the Clintons over a billion dollars either personally of via one of the organizations that they control, from selling present and future official acts to the highest bidder, regardless of nationality or relationship to the US. Does anyone here truly believe that these law profs would be suing her if she had won, even if her family (i.e. Chelsea and her family) didn't continue to run the family foundation/slipush fund?
To answer the original question - in regards to Trump's cabinet - he seems to be nominating "heavy hitters", very serious, competent (mostly) men, with a surplus of both gravitas and experience, to run the major departments, and ideologues to demolish, or at least castrate the ones that have waged war on the American public, or became overly politicized by leftist activists. As when GW Bush took office, the adults are now again in charge of the asylum. Or will be soon. Which is part of what he was elected to do.
Blogger exiledonmainstreet said...
. . . and lo, like the nine-headed Hydra, suddenly socks . . .
I like to call them "gazelles" instead of "sock puppets", because then it is like you are on an African Safari instead just surfing the web. "Look at that! A whole herd of gazelles! Some of them are even 'doing it'!"
Bruce Hayden: "To answer the original question - in regards to Trump's cabinet - he seems to be nominating "heavy hitters", very serious, competent (mostly) men, with a surplus of both gravitas and experience, to run the major departments, and ideologues to demolish, or at least castrate the ones that have waged war on the American public, or became overly politicized by leftist activists."
Most importantly, these guys and gals have no issue saying what they believe to be right, even if it doesn't conform precisely to Trump's campaign rhetoric. This is exactly what one would expect of a superior executive who wants to assemble a team of all stars and will let them drive the specific tactical execution plans for the strategy.
It also shows Trump is willing to have a true team of rivals challenge each other, something truly successful folks have no problem doing.
Will it all work? We are going to find out, silly nuisance lawsuits aside.
As a law prof, couldn't you file a friend of the court brief saying as regards the President, this is a political question, not a legal one. The American people knew of Trump's business interests, and elected him. If the Congress feels his actions are being influenced, they can impeach him. There are no judicial remedies. Tell the elite lawyers to shove it and petition their congressperson for impeachment. You know how the American people will react to that. It will make lawyers even less popular.
"As when GW Bush took office, the adults are now again in charge of the asylum. Or will be soon."
Well, that's great news.
You folks are funny.
Carry on.
Surprising that so far nobody has considered judicial vacancies. With all those lawsuits against Trump floating about, how long is it going to be before the left starts saying Trump's picks for the judiciary are just court packing so he doesn't lose the lawsuits against him?
Wasn't Perry handicapped in his run by that action claiming he was corrupt for vetoing legislation? Look for suits to be filed in every circuit, making every Trump judicial pick an exercise in claimed corruption.
Tactically, it's stupid to file now as far as public opinion goes. All Trump supporters are going to see out of this is one more effort to derail Trump before his presidency ever gets started and lump it in with the riots and all the other lawsuits regardless of the merits.
I'm not sure exactly what Trump can do to avoid conflicts of interest entirely. Sure he can reduce them, but simply by the fact that he is as rich as he is, he is always going to have an interest in something. If he or anyone in his family retains an interest in his company, there's that. If he liquidated everything to cash, he still has to keep it in banks, which then gives an incentive to see that those banks don't fail. If he invests in treasury bonds, he has an interest in seeing them do well. Even with a blind trust he'd have an interest in having securities in general do well.
That said, I doubt this will go anywhere in court. The government does not cut a check to Donald J. Trump for any sort of personal services rendered, it pays a different legal person distinct from Trump according to an agreement that preceded Trump's election. My guess is this dies on standing, and it's probably better for the Democrats that it does.
Who is paying for these suits?
Follow the money..
The Inauguration of the Orange Devil is enough to have attracted a few other nitwits to this blog.
Actually, every right of center blog I visit now has at least one resident Lefty troll that throws out insults and tries to distract from the main issues...disappointing really.
"distract from the main issues"
Let me take a stab at what the main issues are:
--stop gals from murdering their kids
--make sure rich folks (job creators) pay less tax
--make sure rich folks (job creators) aren't restrained by regulation
--make sure rubes--oops, I meant: hard working, real Americans--think rich folks (job creators) can't hire foreign labor, i.e. build a wall
--make sure rich folks (defense job creators) get more dough
--make sure the legal system doesn't mess w/ rich folks (job creators)
--make sure the legal system supports rich folks (job creators) investing in pols
--make sure moochers (such as well fare folks, ACA folks, soc sec folks, medicare folks, poor kids, etc) get the full advantages of our market economy (e.g. benefit cuts and/or investment funds instead of defined benefits)
Ya know what, maybe y'all should just keep the public jabbering about crowd size at rallies, or whatever. It's not obvious that more light being cast on the "main issues" to-do list is gonna help ya.
Just sayin'
As pointed out above, the Constitution says: No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time.
Hilary Clinton was in the Senate during a time when the emoluments of the Secretary of State were increased, yet she was allowed to assume the office by promising not to take the pay increase that was approved while she was a Senator. Nobody was said to have standing to sue to prevent her taking office - it was a political matter. If Trump doesn't have control or information on his investments, that ought to be enough - it's similar to what Mrs. Clinton did. (Did she reimburse the government for any increase in the cost of health insurance during her term? What about other benefits?)
Ya know what? Maybe you're arranging left wing talking points into a bullet list.
Except for the 'stop gals murdering their kids' item, which I believe nearly everyone, other than psychopaths and academic experts in ethics, would agree with.
LW,
So, if Rs and DJT plan to pass all the other items, you'd oppose them?
I didn't think so.
Carry on.
Uh . . . no.
How in the world would you pass something like "--make sure rubes--oops, I meant: hard working, real Americans--think rich folks (job creators) can't hire foreign labor, i.e. build a wall"
It's not a serious proposal, meaning the language is not suited to be a policy proposal. For example, it has the exclamation "oops" in it.
How much economics do you understand, PB&J? Do you understand that a cut in taxes is a keyenesian stimulus as deficit spending is a keyenesian stimulus? Do you know why?
Why would anyone want to hire foreign labor over American labor? Are you using "foreign labor" as a synonym for cheap labor.
I graduated from the FIFTH grade. So watch your step.
PB&J, you havent a freaking clue. Every bloody thing I do is about some regulation. Walk in my shoes - no, you dont want to do you?
Lets put it this way, all that regulation stuff? Dont do it for the rich guy, do it for me, not-exactly-rich me. So I can retire while still living.
Here is the economics behind the 'foreign labor' bullet point.
It really doesn't matter economically whether the 'foreign labor' comes from immigration or free trade. In theory it makes money (increases American GDP) because the same work can be accomplished cheaper (otherwise, why use foreign labor?). In the abstract this means that the displaced American labor that had been used to provide the labor, or could be used to provide the labor, is now freed to produce the higher value goods and services that American labor produces more efficiently than foreign labor.
You see the problem.
What if there is no higher value work for the displaced American labor to provide?
So free trade / immigration depends on two things to be economically efficient, not one.
It is not enough that the foreign labor is cheaper. The displaced workers must also have higher value labor that they can perform, and that foreign labor cannot.
Buw,
I tried to put a con-favorable spin on my list. Didn't you see that I used the "job creators" line? Of course my list didn't claim that tax cuts for rich folks trickle down such that average folks have increasing incomes (accounting for inflation) like LW would have liked. I was hoping y'all would be ok w/ a list that didn't depend on lies to make your leaders' plans seem acceptable.
Anywho, I'm extremely familiar w/ regs being a real hindrance for businesses.
Of course many of those aren't Fed.
And, I take a con's view of humanity. So, I know that moochers are plentiful and eager to suck the gov tit (not to mention doing the same to their employers). And, I know that there are a ton of biz rules because the honor system isn't enough to keep folks in check. In our system, skating the limit of what's legal is a competitive advantage. Removing/lowering the limits re what's legal means everybody needs to push to the revised situation, or their competitors will beat them. Limiting legal recourse for injured folks while also lowering/eliminating regs helps speed up the competitive race to the bottom.
Anywho, which Federal regs do you want to get rid of or limit the most?
And, you seem to like data, how do our regs and worker rights (since this is a lot of what Rs really mean when they're talking about cutting regulations) compare to other successful developed countries (such as Germany as opposed to China (unless you want us to have a China equiv reg structure)). BTW, this is not a rhetorical question.
LW,
Employment in the States is good for folks who bother to learn in-demand skills.
The other work will get ever more automated. Beyond that the cheap labor spigot will keep flowing because the Rs will never stop the flow of cheap imported labor for the Chamber of Commerce constituents. Like DJT at Mar a Lago.
BTW Buw,
Are you up late on Sunday, working on stuff for your biz?
These threads can be a little distraction during such times, or so I can imagine.
Blogger Lyin'PB_Ombudsman said...
LW,
Employment in the States is good for folks who bother to learn in-demand skills.
Quite the open borders, free trade capitalist, aren't you, PB&J?
"Employment in the States is good for folks who bother to learn in-demand skills." is not an answer to the question of what to with American labor that is displaced by foreign labor (or automation). It's more of a cliche than an economic policy.
You use the word "bother," but a clearer and more precise way of expressing the same idea would be:
"Employment in the States is good for displaced American workers who are willing and able to learn higher value skills."
And then the problem is obvious. The "unwilling" are being economically irrational. There might be a psychological solution to their problem, but there is not an economic solution.
The "unable" are not being economically irrational. They have no choice but to remain idle labor, or labor that is now producing less wealth than it did before it was displaced.
PB&J is a very rich social Darwinist, in other words, in the Democratic mainstream.
Where were these people when they could have brought a lawsuit against Hillary and given us a choice on this issue with a better Democratic candidate?
Questions that answer themselves.
Beyond that the cheap labor spigot will keep flowing because the Rs will never stop the flow of cheap imported labor for the Chamber of Commerce constituents.
R's like the new Attorney General, PB&J?
The open borders republicans are numerically small but quite rich. They are represented by the US Chamber of Commerce, which gives a lot of money to R primary candidates who toe their open borders line.
Ryan is in the pocket of the USCC, which is the main reason he is so unpopular with Trump supporters, and the main reason Trump is so unpopular with Ryan. But of course you knew that.
The always thoughtful Richard Fernandez has some interesting comments about the protesters and the resistance to Trump:
" the sound and fury of the anti-Trump riots hide the fact that the street theater is fundamentally a defensive tactic, designed to keep a demoralized base together rather than attract new adherents. The riots are not intended to appeal to the undecideds, rather they are aimed at holding together what progressives still have...
The more fundamental unsolved problem is why the progressive project collapsed in the first place. How could something at the seeming height of its power; in control of the EU, the US Federal government, the UN, the press, the academe and industry collapse in one fatal year? The globalist conference in Davos still doesn't know. In that ignorance lurks a peril far greater than DJT.
The situation is volatile because the old balances have imploded. There is a political vacuum in the heart of the West that cannot easily be filled by the debris, riots, or noooo! What Donald Trump has come into possession of is probably a mystery to him as well. His instinct is to circle the wagons around America. Perhaps that is not as silly as progressives think. You consolidate on general principles precisely when no one knows what is next and only huge shadows are seen moving beyond the campfire."
So there you have it. It probably won't be long until they repeal all laws, even reverting to lynch mobs as a replacement for murder trials. Law and legislation is just not dramatic enough a recourse for the right-wing, you see.
Thanks for that.
One post from you and I can safely ignore anything you write forever. Most people don't save others time like that.
It's nice to see that you have the inside track on EVERYTHINH happening within the administration based on 3 admin spokespersons activities on a Sunday.
Note to self: Lefties believe there are about 5 people in the Trump Administration.
Also seem to think the media mentioning it repeatedly before anybody involved with Trump said a word is "Trump being obsessed".
Also funny that trying to impeach Clinton over obstruction of justice and lying under oath was a "coup d'état" according to Dems --- but THIS is totally legit.
In what deranged, alternative universe, inhabited only by liberal law professors, does getting $250,000 for a mediocre speech not be a payoff but paying $200 for a hotel room does?
In what deranged, alternative universe, inhabited only by liberal law professors, does getting $250,000 for a mediocre speech not be a payoff but paying $200 for a hotel room does?
ESPECIALLY when those speaking fees and donations dry up TREMENDOUSLY once somebody loses an election for President.
I'd buy these concerns more seriously if they didn't seem so oddly timed and directed...
How much do you want to bet that Trump comes out of his four or eight years in office poorer than when he went in?
Considering we don't have a baseline, and there is no reason to believe that Trump is going to any more forthcoming with his finances after he leaves office, this would be a silly bet.
In what deranged, alternative universe, inhabited only by liberal law professors, does getting $250,000 for a mediocre speech not be a payoff but paying $200 for a hotel room does?
In the "deranged, alternative" universe where the mediocre speech is given by a private citizen and the $200 (actually the cheapest rooms are closer to $500) is being paid to the President of the United States.
You don't seem to understand the distinction between running for office and actually being in office.
The lefty commenters here have yet to explain how does a guy like Obama who never had a paying job higher than what he had as president can afford to rent a five million dollar house in DC?
Even if they can come up with an excuse such as deferred compensation Obama wouldn't have had the income but for government service. Then there are the Clinton's and the Kennedy's and Kerry the Gigolo among other Democrats. In short, no one running for president this year or in any year since Ike is immune from the argument the Left is making against Trump now. By the way, how is Bernie's six hundred grand supposed to be classified?
As noted by Birkel and others this suit will be dismissed on lack of standing. The question is will the defendant pursue rule 11 sanctions and possibly counter sue for baseless and malicious prosecution? That discovery would really be interesting. And so would the possible list of counter-defendants. Louis Wetzel made an interesting observation on what if the suit survives standing and the possible unintended consequences it could lead to for the progressives. While I believe that is a bridge too far it may have some legs.
C.C when it comes to disclosing tax returns as noted b others Trumpy became a public servant for the first time in his life at noon 20 January. His income from that date going forward is fair game for disclosure. The earliest tax return you would have a reasonable expectation to see would be his 2017 return which at the earliest possible date for him to disclose would be April 2018. Considering the complexities of his return with K1's etc that is rather doubtful. Probably not before September of 2018. I suspect his prior returns would show a lot of losses carried forward to offset income so presumably he is guilty of hiring top tax lawyers and accountants to minimize his income for taxes and his total tax bill.
QueenWili said...
One fool whistles will the other one is wracked with nervous laughter. Pull yourselves together! Face it like men. Stop engaging in denial. It's going to happen, the man is going to be sued into oblivion. Lots and lots and lots of stuff to sue him over and you dummies voted for him.
1/22/17, 11:16 PM
QueenWili said... [hush][hide comment]
Oh shut up you ugly green hag. Can't you address the subject matter of the blog post either? Feeling defeated by your loser President who made a monumental fool of himself the last three days and all the fools who voted for him? Weirdo.
1/22/17, 11:19 PM
This stuff really is from the "twilight zone" in so far as we have two groups of peoples living in the same place and able to interact but exist in two different realities.
I (and half the country) am just giddy from all of the #winning and the other half is talking like it is the 1930s and Hilter is rounding them all up for camps EXCEPT no one is being rounded up, there are no camps and if they really were as "a scared" as they claim why is it that they feel so un"a scared" to say all of the things they are saying?
There were HUGE riots in DC that were publicized for days in advance. Streets are blocked, swat was out in force. People can't get into DC or choose to avoid it. Press reports the "small" inauguration crowds as PROOF Trump isn't all that.
Funny I don't recall all of the press coverage being so glib when those "racists" rioted after Obama got elected, twice. Oh, that's right, there were NO riots. Those most affected and disappointed by his election(s) either had jobs to be at or were too civilized to act like animals when the political process didn't go their way.
Sorry to bust your bubble but Trump's speech was right on. His transition was one of the smoothest ever. His pen works at least as well as Obama's did. Popcorn futures are up. The only down side is America lost its greatest gun salesman ever. I know a lot of disappointed folks that have over-paid for ARs and are stuck with them now that that bubble has burst.
My suggestion to Trump (if anyone is watching) is to nominate at least 2 more justices. I am tired of this 5/4 crap. We need a few good 7/4 wins in there. If he gets to replace a couple of those old liberals, we might even see 9/2 decisions!
Time to break out the good bourbon and cigars! I am so looking forward to the next 4 to 8 years! Remember back to how you felt when Obama won and then won again? times that by two.
I was not a Trump fan, he was my last Republican choice but the hissie fit that the left is throwing makes me more and more a Trump fan every day. He is pissing off all of the right people and causing them to chase their tails while revealing just how hypocritical they are. To top it all off, Trump could actually be a really, really bad President but Obama has set the bar for "worst ever" so high, I don't know if anyone could jump it.
God bless America!
If Prez Trump doesn't bother checking the guest lists, then how could a Trump hotel stay cause any influence?
An emolument is a permanent periodical stipend in exchange for doing nothing. A one-time payment for doing nothing is a gift. And no person holding any office of profit or trust from the United States federal governmen also cannot accept any office or title of any kind whatsoever from any king, prince or foreign sate, without the consent of Congress.
Getting overpaid for delivering a speech is a loophole, but may also be a bribe. Your spouse getting paid for delivering a speech is a loophole very hard to close, and may also be a bribe, but it is harder to prove.
In what deranged, alternative universe, inhabited only by liberal law professors, does getting $250,000 for a mediocre speech not be a payoff but paying $200 for a hotel room does?
The Clintons were always careful to have the spouse NOT currently holding a U.S. government job get the money.
Emoluments Clause: the constitutional requirement that the President frequently use hand lotion, to keep his or her hands nice and soft for all that hand shaking.
I thought I can buy stock?
If I can buy stock, then those room are being paid to me.
And I pay taxes on tjose dividends.
But aren't all foreign profits being donated to the UST?
So Freder, we all know that money was given to the Clinton Foundation by people with business before the Secretary of State, Hillary. I would love to hear your thoughts on how this was not providing a benefit to her.
Bruce Hayden said...
Interesting that the leftist trolls are out in force today. Haven't seen nearly as many since all the ones paid by the Crooked Hillary campaign found better paying jobs. Maybe the frst of Sept or so. Crank seems at least willing to do some work. Queeni is just a nasty piece of work. Wonder if Soros and the DNC are funding more of this stuff again. How else to explain their sudden interest in this blog?
This is the Saturday marchers' new-found enthusiasm to fight back. Give it a week.
Face it, Democrats sold out their morals for the Clintons, and the piper you have to pay, Hillary even called him that, is named Donald Trump.
The Queen and Crank are doing their best to turn Ann's blog into another name calling forum. Maybe ARM and Cookie can talk some sense into these people?
For example:
>>It probably won't be long until they repeal all laws, even reverting to lynch mobs as a replacement for murder trials.
Because we all know that all the guys who actually wrote the Constitution immediately divested themselves of all their assets and put them into blind trusts to eliminate the appearances of of conflict.
George Washington closed down his whiskey distilleries, and stopped trading tobacco after he sold Mount Vernon upon entering the Presidency, and the poor guy had no home to return to in 1797 when he left the office.
And Thomas Jefferson sold Monticello also.
Why shouldn't Trump follow suit, and impoverish himself in order to serve. I mean, the important thing is not whether he's successful in defending the country or bringing back jobs. The IMPORTANT thing is to make sure he doesn't make any money from someone spending a night in a hotel.
>>The Clintons were always careful to have the spouse NOT currently holding a U.S. government job get the money.
Really? So when she gave a speech on Wall Street, they cut a check to Bill?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा