a Trump vs Clinton United States Presidential Election in 2016
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
He's draining the swamp into the White House.
Hmm, but he had a question in there already for that, so it beats me what it means.
First off, the President is not subject to Conflict of Interest laws, but they ARE subject to the Emoluments Clause - While it was rejected, Article IV of Nixon's articles of impeachment was for violating the Emoluments Clause.
Second, Hillary Clinton didn't personally receive gifts or money from foreign states, ie payment made to Hillary Clinton. She did receive donations to the Clinton Foundation, but there's no proof of favor peddling in exchange. You know, because that was actually looked into, as even you admit. Neither Hillary nor Bill Clinton receive pay from the Foundation.
Third, when foreign diplomats are literally spending money at a business Trump owns and has not put in a blind trust or divested himself of - so that he is receiving pay from a foreign state - that's not at all the same thing. Especially since said diplomats are out and saying they're doing it to curry favor with him.
Necronic
Staff member
When everyone bemoaned Clintons "corruption" I generally responded with "the only thing that has limited Trump's corruption is his power, wait till he ends up in office". Let me take this moment to admit that I was wrong. He didn't even wait until he was in office.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/cashing-in-bigly-in-argentina
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/cashing-in-bigly-in-argentina
Necronic
Staff member
Oh this won't lead to an impeachment. When he said that he could walk down the street and shoot someone and people would still vote for him he was pretty much spot on. His supporters don't care. He could reach out with one hand and steal everything they have and use the other to grope their daughter and they would still think he's their saviour. He is going to get a pass on this, and the Indian stuff that's coming out. He is going to get a pass and that will embolden him to do more.
Also, it's very likely even if this stuff does lean to impeachment, people behind him will just say he isn't technically the president yet, so he can wheel and deal all he wants from now until he is inaugurated, using the fact he will be president as leverage.
As long as he cuts all ties with his businesses using a reasonable blind trust before inauguration day, then it'll be hard for any impeachment to progress. Using his "title" of president elect may not put him in enough jeopardy to attack him until he's actually taken the oath of office. So what he's doing now is certainly unethical, but might not be actionable.
If he doesn't cut ties, then sure - the republicans in control of congress may choose to attempt impeachment. I bet he'd laugh and welcome the challenge. The democrats may have enough power to support investigations into his conduct, but without an impeachment hearing it's going to be largely wasted except as a publicity stunt.
I don't know the relationships enough to say, but I doubt that Trump's accountants had him set up the businesses with him as the sole owner. Chances are he's an investor, on some of the boards, and perhaps has CEO or presidency type duties in some of them.
Very similar to Hillary's connection to the Clinton foundation.
These corporations are designed to shield the people who profit from them from any difficulties they'd face if they were actually held accountable for the corporation's actions.
As such the two situations should be more similar than you suggest. However, I'm not going to spend time looking into the specifics and debunking your assertions. In the same way you say:
"Second, Hillary Clinton didn't personally receive gifts or money from foreign states, ie payment made to Hillary Clinton. She did receive donations to the Clinton Foundation, but there's no proof of favor peddling in exchange."
You might be able to say:
"Second, Trump didn't personally receive gifts or money from foreign states, ie payment made to Donald Trump. His corporations received customers who paid to the "trump brand" properties, but there's no proof of favor peddling in exchange."[DOUBLEPOST=1479754263,1479754168][/DOUBLEPOST]
Meanwhile we're going to pretend that no other president before has ever done this behind closed doors.
Last edited:
Necronic
Staff member
He's not going to cut ties with his businesses. If anything he's already shown that he's more than willing to pervert the office to profit himself. It's only been 2 weeks and he already used his position to pressure a president into clearing up permits for his business.
I'm really looking forward to seeing how long you can spin this like it's just "politics as usual". We'll be here, ready and waiting.
I'm really looking forward to seeing how long you can spin this like it's just "politics as usual". We'll be here, ready and waiting.
GasBandit
Staff member
Hrm, are you thinking of a specific quote? Because I wasn't when I said that. I just meant the phrase in general.
I thought you were referencing John Godfrey Saxe's quote: "Laws, like sausages, cease to inspire respect in proportion as we know how they are made.”[DOUBLEPOST=1479756627,1479756393][/DOUBLEPOST]Also this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...fb82fa-a73d-11e6-9bd6-184ab22d218e_story.html
And this: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...s-charging-protesters-with-economic-terrorism
And this: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...s-charging-protesters-with-economic-terrorism
This is hardly "politics as usual" nor am I interested in defending him specifically, but it does seems like everyone's running around like headless fowl re-publishing poorly researched rumors.
Go ahead and state prior cases or laws that would show that what I'm saying is incorrect. I'm fine being corrected.
If, when I correct you, your only response is, "He's not going to X, he's going to Y." and "You're doing that thing again" then it's not going to help me understand what's wrong with what I've said.
I will be surprised if this is actually the case, but you may be right:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/et...rol-of-his-unprecedented-portfolio-2016-11-10
About the only thing that could stop him is what you've already suggested - the Emoluments Clause. However, as explained above, investigators would have to show a concrete payment made for a concrete action taken. It would be hard to demonstrate.
And this is troubling. It's also just a rumor, and there are lots of journalists with rumors about US politicians that can't be easily verified or investigated.
So are you saying where there's smoke, there's fire? How have you personally verified this report such that you are treating it as a certainty?
GasBandit
Staff member
I was not referencing that. I was, however, saying that this sort of corruption is not all that uncommon - what is unprecedented is how little effort is being made to obscure it.
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/3...building-project-in-congratulatory-phone-call
"Pavlovsky said he was in the room during the call and it did not address any real estate projects."
So the Macri administration has essentially said the call didn't address realestate issues.
"Pavlovsky said he was in the room during the call and it did not address any real estate projects."
So the Macri administration has essentially said the call didn't address realestate issues.
Necronic
Staff member
Well that was your standard wasn't it? So what your saying is that it's wrong to lower myself to that level? You may have a point.
Dave
Staff member
HILLARY GETS MONEY FROM THE TERRORISTS IN SAUDI ARABIA!!!
Oh wait. That's Trump.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...d-to-register-eight-companies-in-saudi-arabia
Oh wait. That's Trump.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...d-to-register-eight-companies-in-saudi-arabia
No, it was not my standard. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else?
The business creations are public record. I don't believe that we need to vet them more than that. I'm quite certain Trump used his "hey, there's a small chance I might become president of the US!" as a way to grease the wheels on his business dealings during his election - whether he wins or loses he wins. Now people are using that to try and figure out what his various strategies are in relation to the world. I think it's a little like reading tea leaves, but if nothing else, he's unlikely to bomb countries that have his holdings. Hurray for world peace, I guess? Perhaps a few more countries should have gotten in on that particular land rush? There are certainly some troubling ethical questions in regards to this practise, and I'm wondering/worrying what future presidential candidates may do based on Trump's activities.
I get that you're being sarcastic, and you are probably frustrated by my posts. I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm not sure what you expect me to do - let rumors, false information, or useless hyperbole stand unopposed? I'm trying to treat you as a reasonable person but it sounds an awful lot like you're not interested in discussion, just partisan bashing.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/21/polit...mp-violations0541PMVODtopLink&linkId=31400210
The Federal Elections Commission is asking the campaign of Donald Trump to correct more than 1,000 errors in their latest financial filing.
The FEC has determined that nearly 1,100 donations, totaling almost $1.3 million, violated one of a handful of campaign finance laws. In some cases, it was reportedly because the group making the donation had not properly registered with the FEC.
The Federal Elections Commission is asking the campaign of Donald Trump to correct more than 1,000 errors in their latest financial filing.
The FEC has determined that nearly 1,100 donations, totaling almost $1.3 million, violated one of a handful of campaign finance laws. In some cases, it was reportedly because the group making the donation had not properly registered with the FEC.
This is the pot calling the kettle black if I ever saw it.
Hmm...I'm tempted to hit the disagree button but only about 65% of the way. Stienman is not usually the sarcastic, talking down-at-you sort.
The steinman formula goes like this:
1) Make a very slanted, partisan comment. Don't actually worry about facts or reality.
2) Sit back while people disagree
3) Come in with a calm, holier-than-thou tone designed to make the people with opposing viewpoints seem somehow immature or foolish. Feign ignorance that you comment would ever offend or cause a reaction in people.
If I were to rate forumites by partisanship, stienman wouldn't be near the top, unless the definition of partisanship is extended to religiosity. His political views look social-conservative because that's what Republicans have decided to pander to, but I wouldn't confuse one and the other. Black Genocide is not a republican talking point. Neither is real religious freedom (i.e. for anyone but milquetoast protestants).
I see I've slided into one of the dimensions where &stienman gets all the grief. Most of the time it's Charlie. Sometimes it's that dimension's me. I hate it when it's me. (The Gruebeards who haven't invented sliding are almost all hollow, resentful pricks)
. . . And out of curiousity. &GasBandit's Birthday Thread - are the redheads male or female? Oh, god Please let it not be dogs! That was horrific. (Oh, that wasn't his fault, the whole damn dimension was into dogs *shudder*)
. . . And out of curiousity. &GasBandit's Birthday Thread - are the redheads male or female? Oh, god Please let it not be dogs! That was horrific. (Oh, that wasn't his fault, the whole damn dimension was into dogs *shudder*)
I can get behind that.
