I'm sorry, did I miss in the news where President Trump and his family are no longer profiting from the Trump hotel in Washington DC, which targets visiting foreign dignitaries?
Did they all sell their stake in Mar-A-Lago, where people are encouraged to buy membership so that they might have access to the President? Do the profits from those membership fees no longer go to Trump's family?
Did Trump manage to pay back all the loans he took out with Deutsche Bank?
Is Deutsche Bank's balance sheet no longer propped up with ill gotten gains from Russian kleptocrats?

Isn't there a thread for this already?

All legal business dealings under the global Trump brand. Earnings to include foreign reported per the Ethics in Government Act and dontated to U.S. Treasury Department. You don't have to stop being a business man once elected President unless Congress determines otherwise. However, there are zero court rulings that interpret the scope of Emoluments Clause, only justice department, GAO, and GSA opinions. All state Trump is compliant and commercial transactions as part of a business do not fall under emoluments. Hence, you have heard barely a squeak since he took office except by other businesses that filed suit because they can't compete.

I view your words as a lot of special pleading against the general principle that a person with so much discretionary power over tax dollars should not be able to self-deal.  
I wonder if Hillary had won, you would come on here and defend her doing similar stuff through her family's "charity."

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Isn't there a thread for this already?

All legal business dealings under the global Trump brand. Earnings to include foreign reported per the Ethics in Government Act and dontated to U.S. Treasury Department. You don't have to stop being a business man once elected President unless Congress determines otherwise. However, there are zero court rulings that interpret the scope of Emoluments Clause, only justice department, GAO, and GSA opinions. All state Trump is compliant and commercial transactions as part of a business do not fall under emoluments. Hence, you have heard barely a squeak since he took office except by other businesses that filed suit because they can't compete.

I view your words as a lot of special pleading against the general principle that a person with so much discretionary power over tax dollars should not be able to self-deal.  
I wonder if Hillary had won, you would come on here and defend her doing similar stuff through her family's "charity."

So ignorant.  They did an entire press conference on the status of his financial dealings the blind trust and the definition of emolument and how that doesn't apply to someone renting a hotel room.  Do your homework next time

---

I view your words as a lot of special pleading against the general principle that a person with so much discretionary power over tax dollars should not be able to self-deal.  
I wonder if Hillary had won, you would come on here and defend her doing similar stuff through her family's "charity."

So ignorant.  They did an entire press conference on the status of his financial dealings the blind trust and the definition of emolument and how that doesn't apply to someone renting a hotel room.  Do your homework next time

I read about that press conference. You don't think Hillary's people would have done a similar press conference? "We investigated ourselves and found nothing"?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Isn't there a thread for this already?

All legal business dealings under the global Trump brand. Earnings to include foreign reported per the Ethics in Government Act and dontated to U.S. Treasury Department. You don't have to stop being a business man once elected President unless Congress determines otherwise. However, there are zero court rulings that interpret the scope of Emoluments Clause, only justice department, GAO, and GSA opinions. All state Trump is compliant and commercial transactions as part of a business do not fall under emoluments. Hence, you have heard barely a squeak since he took office except by other businesses that filed suit because they can't compete.

I view your words as a lot of special pleading against the general principle that a person with so much discretionary power over tax dollars should not be able to self-deal.  
I wonder if Hillary had won, you would come on here and defend her doing similar stuff through her family's "charity."

So ignorant.  They did an entire press conference on the status of his financial dealings the blind trust and the definition of emolument and how that doesn't apply to someone renting a hotel room.  Do your homework next time

I read about that press conference. You don't think Hillary's people would have done a similar press conference? "We investigated ourselves and found nothing"?

Your comments are based on the fiction that Hillary is actually a business woman. She is a politician. I am guessing she has never physically signed the front of a paycheck.

---

I view your words as a lot of special pleading against the general principle that a person with so much discretionary power over tax dollars should not be able to self-deal.  
I wonder if Hillary had won, you would come on here and defend her doing similar stuff through her family's "charity."

I read about that press conference. You don't think Hillary's people would have done a similar press conference? "We investigated ourselves and found nothing"?

Your comments are based on the fiction that Hillary is actually a business woman. She is a politician. I am guessing she has never physically signed the front of a paycheck.

Not really. 
Hillary maintained a big charity foundation.
People claimed, credibly, that she encouraged foreign states to donate to it, and that she got some personal benefit from these donations.
The substance of this accusation against Hillary, if true, is not different from how Trump is known to benefit from his business transactions with foreign leaders today.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Your comments are based on the fiction that Hillary is actually a business woman. She is a politician. I am guessing she has never physically signed the front of a paycheck.

Not really. 
Hillary maintained a big charity foundation.
People claimed, credibly, that she encouraged foreign states to donate to it, and that she got some personal benefit from these donations.
The substance of this accusation against Hillary, if true, is not different from how Trump is known to benefit from his business transactions with foreign leaders today.

I think the proven "pay to play" aspect of the Clinton Foundation is not an apples to apples comparison to anything the Trump Organization does.

---

Democrats don’t care who they disinfranchise as long as they have all the power

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

Again just ignorance. In the case of a hotel room or a round of golf that's something that has an intrinsic financial value and thus an exchange or transaction doesn't fit as an emolument specifically for the occupation of the Oval office.

On the other hand, Clinton's foundation and the speaking fees to bill were documented as contributing factors to decisions made at state. (Donors were highlighted with FOB 'friends of Bill's).

As for Deutsche, lol. Yeh, our global depresdion of oil prices through increased domestic production is exactly what Putin wanted for Christmas. Lol.

---

Not really. 
Hillary maintained a big charity foundation.
People claimed, credibly, that she encouraged foreign states to donate to it, and that she got some personal benefit from these donations.
The substance of this accusation against Hillary, if true, is not different from how Trump is known to benefit from his business transactions with foreign leaders today.

I think the proven "pay to play" aspect of the Clinton Foundation is not an apples to apples comparison to anything the Trump Organization does.

I don't think they ever proved that Hillary or Bill were skimming anything off of money in the foundation.
They probably were. And it's definite that foreign dignitaries would have viewed the foundation as a pay-to-play setup. Set up a meeting to discuss your charitable donation and oh by the way bring up your official business during the meeting.

Meanwhile, Trump's kids openly collect the profits from his hotel and club operations. Saudis, qataris Chinese, and Taiwanese all suddenly become more interested in staying at or investing in Trump or Kushner properties. Just like it would have been with the Clinton foundation. Doesn't matter if the intent to have pay-to-play is there. From the foreigner's perspective, it looks like pay-to-play and will be played as such.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I think the proven "pay to play" aspect of the Clinton Foundation is not an apples to apples comparison to anything the Trump Organization does.

I don't think they ever proved that Hillary or Bill were skimming anything off of money in the foundation.
They probably were. And it's definite that foreign dignitaries would have viewed the foundation as a pay-to-play setup. Set up a meeting to discuss your charitable donation and oh by the way bring up your official business during the meeting.

Meanwhile, Trump's kids openly collect the profits from his hotel and club operations. Saudis, qataris Chinese, and Taiwanese my walls suddenly become more interested in staying at or investing in Trump or Kushner properties. Just like it would have been with the Clinton foundation. Doesn't matter if the intent to have pay-to-play is there. From the foreigner's perspective, it looks like pay-to-play and will be played as such.

Trumps kids aren't president. I don't see any issue with them running the business while their father is POTUS. 

And you are right. Foreigners do pay to play Trump golf courses. Wouldn't you?

---

Again just ignorance.  In the case of a hotel room or a round of golf that's something that has an intrinsic financial value and thus an exchange or transaction doesn't fit as an emolument specifically for the occupation of the Oval office.  

On the other hand, Clinton's foundation and the speaking fees to bill were documented as contributing factors to decisions made at state.  (Donors were highlighted with FOB 'friends of Bill's).  

As for Deutsche, lol.  Yeh, our global depresdion of oil prices through increased domestic production is exactly what Putin wanted for Christmas.  Lol.

You don't think a Clinton giving a speech has any intrinsic financial value? Some people like to hear those two talk.  
Also, while Putin probably has a couple of fat accounts at Deutsche Bank, most of the money in question is controlled by his cronies.  Oil prices are more critical to the Russian government than they are to the various wealthy friends of Putin.  Hopefully it doesn't surprise you that the interests of a nation may diverge from the interests of a few extremely wealthy people in that nation, even though from our government's perspective, both are foreign influence that shouldn't be there.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Again just ignorance.  In the case of a hotel room or a round of golf that's something that has an intrinsic financial value and thus an exchange or transaction doesn't fit as an emolument specifically for the occupation of the Oval office.  

On the other hand, Clinton's foundation and the speaking fees to bill were documented as contributing factors to decisions made at state.  (Donors were highlighted with FOB 'friends of Bill's).  

As for Deutsche, lol.  Yeh, our global depresdion of oil prices through increased domestic production is exactly what Putin wanted for Christmas.  Lol.

You don't think a Clinton giving a speech has any intrinsic financial value? Some people like to hear those two talk.  
Also, while Putin probably has a couple of fat accounts at Deutsche Bank, most of the money in question is controlled by his cronies.  Oil prices are more critical to the Russian government than they are to the various wealthy friends of Putin.  Hopefully it doesn't surprise you that the interests of a nation may diverge from the interests of a few extremely wealthy people in that nation, even though from our government's perspective, both are foreign influence that shouldn't be there.

No.  Not to mention, as illustrated, it directly played a role decision making.  

Oh my gosh. He has a loan that he disclosed. Doesn't he know banks have other clients?  Because obviously a multimillionaire needs Russian oligarchs to cosign.  Couldn't u find a pearl clutching emoji?  

He's "indebted to foreign interests".  The most America first president in our lifetime.  Lol.

---

Isn't there a thread for this already?

All legal business dealings under the global Trump brand. Earnings to include foreign reported per the Ethics in Government Act and dontated to U.S. Treasury Department. You don't have to stop being a business man once elected President unless Congress determines otherwise. However, there are zero court rulings that interpret the scope of Emoluments Clause, only justice department, GAO, and GSA opinions. All state Trump is compliant and commercial transactions as part of a business do not fall under emoluments. Hence, you have heard barely a squeak since he took office except by other businesses that filed suit because they can't compete.

I view your words as a lot of special pleading against the general principle that a person with so much discretionary power over tax dollars should not be able to self-deal.  
I wonder if Hillary had won, you would come on here and defend her doing similar stuff through her family's "charity."

You don't have to like my words but they are supported by fact and not incessant whining.

Hillary didn't win and her charity is not a recognized global business entity but feel free to stretch out those core muscles reaching.

---

I think the proven "pay to play" aspect of the Clinton Foundation is not an apples to apples comparison to anything the Trump Organization does.

I don't think they ever proved that Hillary or Bill were skimming anything off of money in the foundation.
They probably were. And it's definite that foreign dignitaries would have viewed the foundation as a pay-to-play setup. Set up a meeting to discuss your charitable donation and oh by the way bring up your official business during the meeting.

The Clintons got real rich real fast after Bill left the White House.

---

I think you guys are missing the point.
The electoral college was supposed to resist demagogues.
It hasn't, for a long time, and the demagoguery is getting worse.
Trump is the most intensely demagogical orator we've had as President in our lifetimes. You don't have to agree with me on that. Nearly every unique aspect of his personality is something that the founders would have singled out as unfit for office. You're getting lost in the weeds disputing that. The founders did not want business men in the White House. Jimmy Carter understood this. but my point still stands even if you disagree with me at all these things.

it might help you understand my point if you consider how little follow-through Trump really has.
This all could have been a lot worse.
What if he started telling TSA to ignore federal judges after his first Muslim ban?
What if he didn't get the size of tax cut he wanted, but directed IRS to enforce the tax code as if he did?
What if he thought global warming was a national emergency?
What if the next President, of either party, pairs Trump's demagoguery and narcissism with courage and follow through?
Don't you agree that that would be terrible?
How can we prevent that?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

https://youtu.be/TecYs5J4jdw

---

NTDS

---

I think you guys are missing the point.
The electoral college was supposed to resist demagogues.  
It hasn't, for a long time, and the demagoguery is getting worse.
Trump is the most intensely demagogical orator we've had as President in our lifetimes.  You don't have to agree with me on that.  Nearly every unique aspect of his personality is something that the founders would have singled out as unfit for office.  You're getting lost in the weeds disputing that. The founders did not want business men in the White House.  Jimmy Carter understood this. but my point still stands even if you disagree with me at all these things.

it might help you understand my point if you consider how little follow-through Trump really has.
This all could have been a lot worse.
What if he started telling TSA to ignore federal judges after his first Muslim ban?
What if he didn't get the size of tax cut he wanted, but directed IRS to enforce the tax code as if he did?
What if he thought global warming was a national emergency?
What if the next President, of either party, pairs Trump's demagoguery and narcissism with courage and follow through?
Don't you agree that that would be terrible?
How can we prevent that?

What the left fails to see is that President Trump is a product of years of a biased media and mooshy RINO’s. Years of being abused by popular culture and an out of control Democrat propaganda machine pretending to be the media. But the main reason is that the traditional Republican was weak and never really stood up to the Democrats. We wanted someone to fight back and win. He does that, and that is why he WILL win again.

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

I think you guys are missing the point.
The electoral college was supposed to resist demagogues.  
It hasn't, for a long time, and the demagoguery is getting worse.
Trump is the most intensely demagogical orator we've had as President in our lifetimes.  You don't have to agree with me on that.  Nearly every unique aspect of his personality is something that the founders would have singled out as unfit for office.  You're getting lost in the weeds disputing that. The founders did not want business men in the White House.  Jimmy Carter understood this. but my point still stands even if you disagree with me at all these things.

it might help you understand my point if you consider how little follow-through Trump really has.
This all could have been a lot worse.
What if he started telling TSA to ignore federal judges after his first Muslim ban?
What if he didn't get the size of tax cut he wanted, but directed IRS to enforce the tax code as if he did?
What if he thought global warming was a national emergency?
What if the next President, of either party, pairs Trump's demagoguery and narcissism with courage and follow through?
Don't you agree that that would be terrible?
How can we prevent that?

What the left fails to see is that President Trump is a product of years of a biased media and mooshy RINO’s. Years of being abused by popular culture and an out of control Democrat propaganda machine pretending to be the media. But the main reason is that the traditional Republican was weak and never really stood up too the Democrats. We wanted someone to fight back and win. He does that, and that is why he WILL win again.

Will you boycott Murica if he loses?

---

I think you guys are missing the point.
The electoral college was supposed to resist demagogues.  
It hasn't, for a long time, and the demagoguery is getting worse.
Trump is the most intensely demagogical orator we've had as President in our lifetimes.  You don't have to agree with me on that.  Nearly every unique aspect of his personality is something that the founders would have singled out as unfit for office.  You're getting lost in the weeds disputing that. The founders did not want business men in the White House.  Jimmy Carter understood this. but my point still stands even if you disagree with me at all these things.

it might help you understand my point if you consider how little follow-through Trump really has.
This all could have been a lot worse.
What if he started telling TSA to ignore federal judges after his first Muslim ban?
What if he didn't get the size of tax cut he wanted, but directed IRS to enforce the tax code as if he did?
What if he thought global warming was a national emergency?
What if the next President, of either party, pairs Trump's demagoguery and narcissism with courage and follow through?
Don't you agree that that would be terrible?
How can we prevent that?

What the left fails to see is that President Trump is a product of years of a biased media and mooshy RINO’s. Years of being abused by popular culture and an out of control Democrat propaganda machine pretending to be the media. But the main reason is that the traditional Republican was weak and never really stood up to the Democrats. We wanted someone to fight back and win. He does that, and that is why he WILL win again.

and what you fail to see is that a group's political opinion has nothing to do with how nice or mean that group is.
those on the left are capable of being mean and hurting feelings and breaking norms as well, and by electing Trump we have given them the invitation.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

What the left fails to see is that President Trump is a product of years of a biased media and mooshy RINO’s. Years of being abused by popular culture and an out of control Democrat propaganda machine pretending to be the media. But the main reason is that the traditional Republican was weak and never really stood up to the Democrats. We wanted someone to fight back and win. He does that, and that is why he WILL win again.

and what you fail to see is that a group's political opinion has nothing to do with how nice or mean that group is.
those on the left are capable of being mean and hurting feelings and breaking norms as well, and by electing Trump we have given them the invitation.

"We"???

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato