Perhaps it will be free like this. The article shows how he received taxpayer money for hosting staffers at his club.
2 Likes
Wait a second, they kicked the bartender out and then charged a 20% service charge?
WTH, a service charge for not having a server?
That makes no sense.
.
.
.
.^^^^
Perhaps we would have noticed if he’d EVER done that before?
1 Like
Nobody knows more about the constitution than your favorite president Trump. So if he says it’s phony then it is. His great and infinite wisdom is unmatched
1 Like
How about you address Trumps complete lack of understanding of the Constitution.
He is the mother ■■■■■■■ President. How does he talk about part of the constitution being phony without criticism from so called conservatives?
Well, instead of the Democrats blasting it from the beginning they could have informed Trump of their concern and then could (or couldn’t) have considered the possibility of doing it for free or at no profit. Maybe a reasonable approach might have worked out better than going straight after the headline.
Nobody wants to be in Florida in June.
The clause says nothing about free or at no profit. It says that the President shall not “accept”.
1 Like
I don’t believe that anyone has ever been prosecuted for violating the emoluments clause of the constitution. Nobody. Not even Barack Corruption Hussein Obama. If that clause of the constitution is so ineffectual that nobody has ever been prosecuted for it, then it might as well not even exist. Nobody even knows what emoluments means.
If Obama was not prosecuted under the Emoluments Clause, tell us which of Barack Obama’s businesses violated the Emoluments Clause?
It is worth noting that Donald Trump is the first President in our history who refused to put his assets in a blind trust or divest himself of those asserts. Those actions insulate the President from violating the Emoluments Clause.
By maintaining all his businesses, Donald Trump created a unique moral hazard and he is at risk of suffering the consequences.
4 Likes
This has been an issue for almost three ■■■■■■■ years.
2 Likes
Because if the Democrats had made a suggestion, Donald Trump would have been entirely open to it.
Even if the event ran at cost, given that it was being held in a month when the venue typically runs at a loss, the Trump Organization would have come out ahead, as well as gaining a great deal of free publicity, and gaining the benefit of any modifications or upgrades the government would have required for security, communications and so forth.
2 Likes
“At cost” for a Florida resort in June is making wya more money than they normally would be anyway.
1 Like
Ummm…if he does it for free or makes no profit, it can’t be an emolument.
He was never going to do it for free.
1 Like
Honestly. When are you going to hold Trump to any sort of standards?
2 Likes
He was never going to do it for free or make no profit.
2 Likes
that would be illegal.
also, hes a liar.
1 Like
Yes it would. At cost even if it werent the off season is still something of value. It is illegal to do it for free
1 Like
Teh constitution has a concern with this. Not the Dems.
1 Like
