Back to Flynn

[_EAllusion]

Trump Hotels and Mar a Lago is exactly what naïve conspiracy theorists and their media backers imagined the Clinton Foundation to be. The skeevyiness of the Clinton Foundation, essentially an AIDS charity, was several degrees removed from that kind of direct bribery for political power.

[_ajax18]

I don't see how a foreign dignitary staying at Trump's hotel and paying the fee to stay there is laundering money from foreign regimes. That's essentially what a Clinton appointed judge says is breaking the emoluments clause of the constitution. It's lunacy and the lawyers who brought such a case should be punished.

[_Kevin Graham]

I don't see how a foreign dignitary staying at Trump's hotel and paying the fee to stay there is laundering money from foreign regimes. That's essentially what a Clinton appointed judge says is breking the emoluments clause of the constitution. It's lunacy and the lawyers who brought such a case should be punished.

It isn't just one dignitary you damned moron.

Trump more than doubled his room rates after the election. And in the latest revelation, Saudi's paid upfront for 500 rooms, many they didn't even use. That's textbook money laundering and a clear violation of the emoluments clause. Don't give me this "Clinton appointed judge" BS.

[_EAllusion]

I don't see how a foreign dignitary staying at Trump's hotel and paying the fee to stay there is laundering money from foreign regimes. That's essentially what a Clinton appointed judge says is breking the emoluments clause of the constitution. It's lunacy and the lawyers who brought such a case should be punished.

Again, Ajax is a fascist you guys. Not in the generic pejorative sense. He's a real-deal fascist.

[_EAllusion]

I don't see how a foreign dignitary staying at Trump's hotel and paying the fee to stay there is laundering money from foreign regimes. That's essentially what a Clinton appointed judge says is breking the emoluments clause of the constitution. It's lunacy and the lawyers who brought such a case should be punished.

Foreign actors are funneling millions into Trump properties and are then receiving favorable treatment from the Trump admin. Again, your interests are not Saudi Arabia's interests. This hurts you. You, the person who has been convinced to go to bat for Trump, are the person being conned here.

[_ajax18]

So basically you can't be president if you own a hotel chain. Funny how JFK and LBJ never had to give up their investments to be president. This is a perversion of the intent of the Constitution. And exactly what does any of this violation of the emoluments clause have to do with the Mueller investigation into collusion with Russia to win the 2016 election?

[_EAllusion]

So basically you can't be president if you own a hotel chain. Funny how JFK and LBJ never had to give up their investments to be president. This is a perversion of the intent of the Constitution. And exactly what does any of this violation of the emoluments clause have to do with the Mueller investigation into collusion with Russia to win the 2016 election?

The foreign emoluments clause was meant to prevent foreign bribery and undue influence through gift-giving and aristocratic title sharing.

Since Republicans in Congress have made it difficult to figure out who is bribing the Trump administration, which is a pretty serious problem when the Trump admin keeps taking dubious foreign policy positions that are favorable to foreign actors who appear to be funneling money to him, it's possible that Russia is bribing the Trump administration. Investigative reporting on his condo sales certainly suggest that's a distinct possibility. But rather than trying to connect up the two, you should look at it as two separate threads of corruption associated with the Trump admin. It doesn't matter if they are related.

Do you care at all that the Trump admin is selling millions in real estate at above market rates to shell companies that obscure buyer identities? How obvious does bribery need to be for you? Do you need to see photos of someone handing him sacks of money with dollar signs on it?

[_Kevin Graham]

How obvious does bribery need to be for you? Do you need to see photos of someone handing him sacks of money with dollar signs on it?

Even that wouldn't be enough. He'd dismiss it. "Pfft, so you can't own bags and be President at the same time?"

[_ajax18]

The foreign emoluments clause was meant to prevent foreign bribery and undue influence through gift-giving and aristocratic title sharing.

So if I stay in Trump plaza and pay my hotel fee for the night, is that a gift under your definition of a gift?

[_subgenius]

But you have no proof....you sound like Kevin where if the Saud's give money to Trump he insists it is laundering and nefarious, but if the Saud's give money to Clintons, then its for charity and is honorable.

You're like the dumbest damned person on the web when it comes to this stuff. When you give money to a charity, it doesn't go "to the Clintons." ....

yes, dumb is as dumb does....and you do dumb the best///to the point of stupidity really, so congrats:

"Doug Band, formerly a top aide to President Bill Clinton, griped about the former first daughter’s spending in a Jan. 4, 2012, email released by WikiLeaks.

“The investigation into her getting paid for campaigning, using foundation resources for her wedding and life for a decade, taxes on money from her parents…,” Band wrote to John Podesta, now Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman."

For an organization that is supposedly a charity, the Clinton Foundation spent very little money on "direct aid." IRS documents showed that the Foundation raised over $500 million from 2009-2012, and yet the Clinton Foundation only spent $75 million on "programmatic grants."
The other $425 million was allocated as follows: more than $25 million went for travel expenses; almost $110 million for employee salaries and benefits; and $290 million for 'other expenses,'

[img]Bill%20and%20Hillary%20Clinton%20claimed%20$10.2%20million%20in%20charitable%20tax%20breaks%20from%202001-2008%20due%20to%20the%20Clinton%20Foundation.[/img]

While Sweden was lobbying Hillary’s State Department to forgo sanctions against its doing business with Iran, Bill Clinton’s foundation set up a fundraising arm in Sweden that collected $26 million in donations. Ericsson AB, Sweden’s second largest employer, was pitching telecommunications to Iran at the time, and decided to pay Bill $750,000 for one speech

and so on....

But hey, I agree that there is nothing illegal here, and no, i don't have proof that anything was quid-pro-quo....which is the point....the only difference is party affiliation and that is your biggest burden whereas you truly believe truth=party.