i think there needs to be an emoluments count. he is the poster boy for why

[mopinko]

impeachment is in the constitution. dusting off this funny word makes a point, i think, at just how sadly predictable this criminal is.
same w hiding his unfitness by corrupting a navy dr.
short. simple. telling. all right there, a neon sign that allowing this is the end of democracy.

[MyOwnPeace]

1. Just look at golfing!!!!!

First, of course, he said he wouldn't have time.
Well, look at how many times he HAS gone golfing - WAY more than PRESIDENT OBAMA did in 8 years - and this is after he said that he wouldn't have time. HA!

And where does he go? Well, it seems that he goes to places he owns (or rather, some Russian bank may own). So, it's a "business place" - right? So we get to "pay" to have him stay there and play there. And, of course, we need to be sure that he's "safe" there, right? So we MUST send Secret Service and give them a place to stay and a way to keep him protected, right? Well, no problem, we'll just get rooms for them too.
Going golfing - rent a cart - or rather, a fleet of them for LARDO and the Secret Service that has to "keep him safe."

OK, it's time to "go back to work." Let's check out, fly off back to DC and "get busy."

"Hey, you suckers out there that voted for me. Go over to the front desk and pay for this weekend here at "the Club" - and make the check out to TRUMP!"

Yeah - there MUST be a charge of violation to the "Emoluments Clause" in the Impeachment proceedings. If this one example is not enough - nothing ever will be.

[mopinko]

7. yup. i'm pretty sure at this point it would have been cheaper for the ss to buy their own

fleet of golf carts. that chaps my ass so hard. who the fuck else would charge the secret service to borrow a golf cart?

[babylonsister]

2. "The second week of December could be called "Emoluments Week."

Consequential month ahead for court battles between House and Trump
Decisions expected in several cases that could determine limits of congressional power to investigate the president

snip//

...The second week of December could be called “Emoluments Week.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hear arguments Dec. 9 on a lawsuit — filed by more than 200 members of Congress and led by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y. — that alleges Trump violated the emoluments clause.

A three-judge panel will grapple with whether the lawmakers have the legal right to file the lawsuit against the president.

The lawmakers contend that the Constitution requires Trump to obtain congressional consent before accepting benefits from foreign governments, such as those that spend money on events at his hotels or pay rents or fees at Trump’s commercial and residential towers.

And they say Trump “is completely denying members of Congress one of their institutional prerogatives: their right to vote on which, if any, benefits he may accept from foreign states.”

more...

http://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/consequential-month-ahead-for-court-battles-between-house-and-trump

[mopinko]

8. time for popcorn.

i hope he gets his ass handed to him. and if they lose, the answer is- fine, we add it to impeachment.

[smirkymonkey]

3. K&R

[Doormouse]

4. It'll be interesting to see if anyone ever discovers

the history of emoluments and the “office of profit or trust” that the emoluments clause applies to. At the time of writing the constitution in 1787 emoluments and offices of profit or trust had a 400+ year history in English law. And in English law neither the King(executive) nor the Parliament(legislature) were considered offices of profit or trust. In fact members of Parliament were and still are prohibited by law from holding offices of profit or trust. And offices of profit or trust were appointed by the King. An office of profit or trust is an ambassador, legate, consul, envoy, etc. The framers likely didn’t intend for the emoluments clause to apply to Congress nor the President. As further evidence, in article 2 section 1, the elector exclusion clause specifically identifies that members of the legislature and senate and offices of profit or trust may not be members of the electoral college.

[mopinko]

6. i was really hoping this would come up in the hearing on wed.

another slam dunk, imho.
i think you are wrong. any gift given to the pres goes to the smithsonian, not the man. if he wants to keep a gift, he has to give the fair market value to the treasury. this is quite clearly based on the emoluments clause.

[Maraya1969]

5. I AGREE!

Put that in a separate article. They was he had abused this country is criminal