Gunnar wrote:If I recall correctly, President of the US is the one political office not constrained by conflicts of interest, though most, if not all other Presidents made it a point to avoid conflicts of interest, or, at least, the appearance thereof. So we can't legally go after him for mere conflicts of interest. Going after him violation of the emolument clause would seem to be valid, however.
So, if a foreign government official bought a copy of "The Audacity of Hope" after Obama was sworn in, then he was guilty of the same violation? (yes, Obama receives royalties from book sales)
http://www.newsweek.com/whats-going-oba ... ies-211436Glad you held such a Constitutional high ground for the last 8 years, otherwise you straw-grasping would just look foolish
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Jersey Girl wrote:Tell me what evidence there is that the folders were empty or the papers were blank. I've seen the assertion, I haven't seen the evidence that supports it.
I literally posted an upclose of the folders showing they were blank. We also had a corporate lawyer discuss the particulars and why those folders were just a prop.
C'mon.
- Doc
well, that is just a flat out lie. You posted no such picture nor does any such picture exist...what you actually posted was some moron's tweet (from his car) that showed a folder, a closed folder, with no reasonable view of whether the paper was blank, and this moron captioned "its blank"...
you considering this as being "evidence" is either intentionally deceptive or ignorant...you chose