Back to Flynn

[_EAllusion]

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?

If you buy 500 rooms, don't stay in them, and the Trump admin helps you cover up a murder you say? Yeah, that's probably an emoluments violation.

[_subgenius]

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?

I would settle for it being just plain ole obvious...because what you got now ain't that...its speculative...but I understand - you are truly convinced that it is obvious. And if evidence comes forth that affirms your belief then you will feel vindicated, and if such evidence does not blossom then you will feel cheated....and in both scenarios, your opinion will still remain as it is right now.

[_subgenius]

If you buy 500 rooms, don't stay in them, and the Trump admin helps you cover up a murder you say? Yeah, that's probably an emoluments violation.

So what is the cutoff for rooms being a gift? 500? 200? 37? 2?....and what if the hotel offered a group discount, like pay for 100 rooms get 100 rooms free?

Regardless of whatever arbitrary quantity you are trying to involve, as if 500 rooms makes it more believable than 1 room (a.k.a. stupid reasoning), the fact remains that either quantity is reasonable to cause suspicion if that is your goal...and neither quantity actually proves anything, especially an emoluments violation.

[_EAllusion]

"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,'

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.

You might want to look up Subs sources and the actual data, because what he's saying is...not correct.

The Clinton Foundation, whatever you think about the conflicts of interest associated with donors getting to hobknob with the political elite, is an extremely well-rated charity by every notable rater that consistently spends a very large % of its funds on program expenses.

Here's a source I use for thinking about my own charitable donations with the Clinton Foundation's numbers listed:

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index. ... rgid=16680

Here's a factcheck article for the kind of lies Subs likes to tell:

https://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where ... -money-go/

Meanwhile, the Trump Foundation was essentially half branding tool - half illegal tax shelter:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac ... b93b1f2558

[_EAllusion]

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?

I would settle for it being just plain ole obvious...because what you got now ain't that...its speculative...but I understand - you are truly convinced that it is obvious. And if evidence comes forth that affirms your belief then you will feel vindicated, and if such evidence does not blossom then you will feel cheated....and in both scenarios, your opinion will still remain as it is right now.

Speculative in the same way that you think all science that doesn't merely record observations is "speculative" and statistical evidence is "speculative." Got it. Your opinion is taken with all the respect it deserves.

[_Black Moclips]

Flynn's issue is that he didn't have a "charity" or "foundation" to hide behind. That is like International Organized Crime 101.

[_Kevin Graham]

Flynn's issue is that he didn't have a "charity" or "foundation" to hide behind. That is like International Organized Crime 101.

Ah, moron #2 right on cue.

Haven't you been paying attention? There is no evidence the Clinton Foundation was used to "hide" anything. Its a damned Charity for God's sake.

The Clinton Foundation, as part of an ethics agreement with the Obama administration, promised to publish the names of all of its donors, roll back Bill Clinton’s involvement in fundraising, and stop accepting donations to the Clinton Global Initiative from foreign governments, among other pledges.

The foundation only began to do that in 2008, as a condition of Clinton’s confirmation as secretary of state in order to preempt conflicts of interest (and it hasn’t always lived up to that ethics agreement). Craig Minassian, a spokesman for the foundation, pointed out that the Clinton Foundation continued disclosing donors after Clinton left office even though it was "under no obligation to do so."

None of what the foundation agreed to do — disclosing donor identities, limiting an official’s role, or not taking foreign donations — is required by tax law.

Falling back on the "but the Clinton Foundation" conspiracy theory is par for the course for idiots who want to divert attention away from the obvious fact that your elected tyrant oversees the most corrupt administration in American history.

[_Black Moclips]

Who said anything about the Clintons?

As I posted this drive-by I thought to myself "it will take a certain special someone less than 10 min to comment on this." 8 minutes! So prophetic...

[_ajax18]

If you buy 500 rooms, don't stay in them, and the Trump admin helps you cover up a murder you say? Yeah, that's probably an emoluments violation.

How is that Trump's fault that they didn't stay in the rooms? Even so it's not nominal consideration under the law. Is this really the worst you can come up with DJT doing?

[_MeDotOrg]

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?

If you buy 500 rooms, don't stay in them, and the Trump admin helps you cover up a murder you say? Yeah, that's probably an emoluments violation.

Again and again and again, Trump made a decision to put his business interests ahead of running for the Presidency. He refused to divest himself. Trump did not think he was going to win. It's important to remember that when looking at actions before the election. He thought he would go back to his businesses with his image and connections burnished by his Presidential run.

MIchael Flynn is an interesting case. Before he was fired from the D.I.A. post under Obama, he was known as an incredibly hard-working go-getter, a great field general. But he was not equipped for the bureaucratic infighting of Washington. After he was let go, people who knew him said he changed. This is speculation on my part, but I think that after a lifetime of public service, being shuffled out of a dream job was a painful experience. I think he looked around at all of the other people getting rich, and said why not me? And I think this is possibly part of the rationale behind Mueller recommending no jail time. I think Mike Flynn basically 'flipped' from being an honest public servant to an embittered one, and according to Mueller 'flipped' back to be an honest one. Again, this is speculation. It will be really interesting to see what is behind all of the redactions.