General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsREMEMBER: The SECOND Benedict Donald is sworn in he is in violation of the emoluments clause !!!!!!!
My understanding about the clause is NO federal officer can accept ANY money AT ALL for ANYTHING ... from a foreign government officer at any time and any way.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/12/18/trump-is-on-target-to-violate-the-constitution-the-moment-he-takes-the-oath-of-office/?utm_term=.a229a00a040d
As things stand now, President-elect Donald Trump has suggested he will not divest himself of a myriad of businesses around the globe that pose serious conflicts of interest, nor will he liquidate even foreign holdings, the proceeds of which would put him in violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution.
This is one of the reasons I pray dem MoC will have some real ... real onions when it comes to Benedict Donald and get his ass out of office yesterday.
If HRC was in this place the Rep MoC would be writing the impeachment statements RIGHT NOW !!!
Dems should stop taking shotguns to tank fights, play hard often !!
IMPEACH HIS ASS !!!
raging moderate
(4,308 posts)We used to tell each other: GROW SOME GUTS.
That is what I want to tell some of our Democratic leaders.
Also: STAND TOGETHER.
We must stand together, or we will hang separately. As they said in 1776.
oasis
(49,400 posts)triron
(22,011 posts)kimbutgar
(21,177 posts)The rethugs are complicit in stealing this election, this is their moment in time to do what they have been dreaming of since the FDR days. The last thing they will do is go after a rethug president.
sarah FAILIN
(2,857 posts)No rules apply according to him.
uponit7771
(90,359 posts)NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)uponit7771
(90,359 posts)NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)uponit7771
(90,359 posts)TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)jmg257
(11,996 posts)18 U.S. Code § 202 - Definitions
Of course - that is not really re: "accepting money from foreign officers", but re: business dealings, holdings, etc., which seems to be what you quoted.