PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   US Politics Hamsterwheel v2.0 (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/559612-us-politics-hamsterwheel-v2-0-a.html)

jack11111 11th Dec 2017 23:36

"Now, I might be wrong here, but I'm not sure they (Congress) legally can directly investigate a sitting president."

Of course Congress can investigate a sitting president as part of the impeachment process.

Turbine D 11th Dec 2017 23:43


So long as the Ambassador is patronizing an existing public business and receives pricing and service equal to the public in general...there is no issue.

Your TDS is on display here!
From the NY Post (not the NY times)

Trump’s DC hotel is raking in cash
President Trump’s hotel in Washington, DC, jacked up its rates after he took office more than it had planned to charge — and the posh facility outperformed his company’s expectations as a result, a new report said Friday.

The Trump International Hotel, in the opulently renovated Old Post Office near the National Mall, brought in about $18 million in revenue in the first four months of 2017, in part by charging room rates that were 60 percent higher than what had been planned, according to documents viewed by the Wall Street Journal, which first reported the story.

From January to April, the average daily room rate was $660 compared with $495 for similar hotels, according to the documents. The hotel had projected its average daily rate would be $416, the Journal reported.

The hotel made a handsome profit of about $2 million during that period after paying rent and other expenses, despite budgeting for an expected $2.1 million loss.

The Trump Organization declined to comment about the financial reports — saying only that it was proud of the hotel’s success.

The hotel files its financial records every month to the General Services Administration, which oversees the Trump Organization’s lease.
The building is owned by the US Government (old post office building) and was leased to Trump in 2013. When discussions were held regarding conflicts of business interests, the hotel was never mentioned by Trump's attorneys.

Trump is all about increasing his own personal finances and as POTUS, he is using that position to do so...

galaxy flyer 12th Dec 2017 00:17

I’d be very happy to see Trump, resign, go back to NYC and his tweet account closed. Pence as President and nominate maybe Tom Cotton or Jeff Flake as V-P.


Turbine D 12th Dec 2017 01:49

The "Merry Christmas" Trump Cup

chuks 12th Dec 2017 04:27

Someone needs to get out more ....
SASless, I guess it depends on background.

Some folks probably grew up hearing "Sheriff, I paid cash money for them chickens!" regularly spoken by Paw, stood there shifting from foot to bare foot. (In other words, Paw claims to have paid in cash for the chickens.)

Other folks may have grown up being told, "You may expect a pecuniary emolument for washing the Cadillac," regularly spoken by Father, stood there in his Bally loafers. (In other words, Father promises to pay in cash for this onerous task, getting pleb fingerprints off the gleaming black surface of just one of the family cars.)

Some of us thus understand, without even needing to look it up, what the common meaning of this now-obscure word, "emolument," is.

Here you go, buddy. No need to look it up, just read it here, hot off the intertube:


noun: emolument; plural noun: emoluments
a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office.
"the directors' emoluments"
synonyms: payment, fee, charge, consideration https://www.google.de/search?q=defin...hrome&ie=UTF-8

If you go by this dictionary meaning of "emolument," current at the time the Emoluments Clause was made part of our body of laws, then you can see that Trump is, arguably, barred from accepting payment for the use of his hotel from such as a foreign ambassador. Who knows, though?

Nixon's notion that the President is not bound by any laws may be correct, so that Trump also is correct in his notion that shooting someone right there on 5th Avenue is allowed, and correct in his notion that lining his pockets with money from foreign sources while serving as 1st President of the United Staysh is allowed. (If it's the right thing to do, running this chain of high-class doss houses in possible violation of that clause, why did Trump promise to divest himself of them if elected? Is this Trump showing his shallow greed, along with his deep, very deep, mendacity? Oops, another big word! Okay, try "persistently telling porkie pies" instead. Sorry, I get carried away.)

Um... lifting... 12th Dec 2017 04:36

Of course Congress can investigate a sitting president as part of the impeachment process.
Yes... and no. The trick is getting there. There is no impeachment process until there's a vote. There won't be a vote until there's sufficient evidence. There won't be sufficient evidence unless / until Mueller uncovers and releases it to Congress.

Congress isn't part of the Mueller investigation (which curiously has no defined criminal scope). I read that as Mueller having a great deal of latitude to go where the investigation takes him (or where he chooses to take the investigation).

Congress gave up direct control of any investigation into the President's behavior once Rosenstein (DoJ) appointed the special counsel. Congress has no direct authority to appoint a special counsel to investigate the President absent a law (which they don't have, the last one having expired nearly 20 years ago). Without a 2/3 majority to override, they won't be able to pass such a law, as Trump would simply veto the thing. Congress is a bit hamstrung on this particular route, but I suspect they have other shots in their locker.

I'm sure the various Intelligence Committees are digging around still and skulking in the shadows, but I imagine they'd need a very smoking gun to have any hopes of getting a favorable vote on articles of impeachment barring some major revelation.

They need that vote to proceed / prepare for the trial in the Senate. Articles of impeachment were drafted in June and got nowhere, except for passing the investigation to the DoJ, the consequences of which kind of remain to be seen. How will this play out? I have no idea, but I suspect it will take quite a while to do so.

So, while you're probably correct in the abstract, I'm not so sure you are in the concrete of here and now. Maybe later you will be.

pattern_is_full 12th Dec 2017 04:51

Originally Posted by galaxy flyer (Post 9987003)
I’d be very happy to see Trump, resign, go back to NYC and his tweet account closed. Pence as President and nominate maybe Tom Cotton or Jeff Flake as V-P.


What!?! A-a-a President the pe-pe-people didn't vote for?? A victory for the GOPe?! Why-why-why - you CREATURE of the SWAMP!!


(actually - I could live with a little simple decency in the WH, even if I mostly disagree with Pence on policy grounds. "Wrong" I can handle - but "bat-sh*t crazy" is damaging the country.)

obgraham 12th Dec 2017 05:39

And here all this time, Chuks, I thought an "emolument" was something you rubbed in to an itchy spot on your backside!

meadowrun 12th Dec 2017 07:15

.....16 women pressing for Trump to be investigated for his behavior towards them....
Remember how they got Capone?
If not one way, then the other.

Krystal n chips 12th Dec 2017 07:54

I do hope the date is announced soon.

You see, as I've said before, here in the UK, the earlier you can book a train ticket, the cheaper it is and with the ensuing adulation and rapture that awaits his arrival, the trains and indeed all modes of transport to and within our glorious capital are likely to be somewhat congested....

Trump UK visit expected in new year, US ambassador says - BBC News

vapilot2004 12th Dec 2017 10:51

How broad is the scope of Mueller's current investigation in progress?
Mueller is empowered to follow wherever the facts of his investigation leads, including one crabby, tweeting, orange numb nuts at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

No member of any branch of the Federal government is immune to investigation and prosecution, including the chief executive, although he must be first impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate before a criminal trial can proceed.

Of course Congress can investigate a sitting president as part of the impeachment process.
True, however, with Republicans in charge of both houses of Congress, politics trump integrity and there will be no impeachment proceedings against their standard bearer. I believe so even if Mueller's team produces proof of Trump or members of his team colluding with the Russians, with his knowledge, in regards to the 2016 election.

For sexual assault, psssh, maybe if he was a Democrat getting a blow job, go get him boys, but Trump can rape and grab yo mamma's and yo sister's hoo hoos with impunity as long as the GOP is in the majority and too few of their members have the backbone to do the right thing.

Unforgivable behavior, you say? If the party of "family values" in its current state is willing to stand behind an accused child molester for US Senate, they can apparently get behind anything.

SASless 12th Dec 2017 13:07


As you posted....profit from office is the key.

He was in business before he was elected.

The Clintons were not.

Think about their Foundation and how much they personally profit from it....while Hillary was SecState.

Huge difference there.

Turbine D 12th Dec 2017 16:16

Think about their Foundation and how much they personally profit from it....while Hillary was SecState.

Huge difference there.
There is always two sides to a story, ignored by some...

Fact-checking the Clinton Foundation controversy | PolitiFact

chuks 12th Dec 2017 16:31

SASless, the Clinton Foundation must file reports, and according to those reports none of the Clintons, not Bill, not Hllary, and not Chelsea, are paid by the Foundation. It's true that they've all made a lot of money giving speeches, but that is a different matter. You guys have lively imaginations, so that you are easily led by your noses to believe that this multi-million-dollar Foundation must be lining Clinton pockets. Actually, as I was happy to cite from two reports saying so, it gives over 80% of its income to charitable causes. (Fake news from the alt-right to the contrary, the Clinton Foundation is still in operation.)

SASless, be a sport and tell us all about how much Donald Trump charges Eric Trump for the use of his venues in support of Eric's child cancer foundation, okay? I want to see you try to polish that turd for a change. You do a very good job of ignoring embarrassing stuff about Donald Trump, and do not plead ignorance, even though you could make a very good case for that.

"[Trump] was in business before he was elected." Errr, yes, and he promised to get out of business once he was elected, didn't he? Didn't do that, did he? Was going to donate all the money earned by his Washington hotel from foreign guests, wasn't he? Didn't do that either ... book-keeping too complicated.

SASless, it reads, black on white, that no federal official shall do business with the federal government, yet Trump leases that Washington hotel from the federal government's GSA. Ho-hum ... another lawsuit. Grabbing the gubmint by the hoo-hoo this time, our Donald. What a scamp!

Turbine D 12th Dec 2017 17:58

Trump's Personal Slush Fund

It was a four-foot-tall portrait of Trump himself, painted by Miami Beach-based artist Havi Schanz. In 2014, the painting had been auctioned off during a charity gala at Trump's Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Fla. Trump himself was the winning bidder, buying the painting for $10,000. Then, later, Trump actually paid for the painting with a check from his charity, the Donald J. Trump Foundation.

Tax law experts had said that this could violate a law against "self-dealing," which prohibits nonprofit leaders from spending charity money to buy things for themselves. Those experts had said that, if the Trump Foundation paid for the painting, then the painting had to be put to charitable use.

It couldn't just be hung, say, on the wall of one of Trump's golf clubs.
But it was, at Doral, framed and on the wall for all to see...

One of President Trump’s golf courses paid back more than $158,000 to Trump’s charitable foundation this year, reimbursing the charity for money that had been used to settle a lawsuit against the club, according to a new tax filing.
The case began in 2010, when a man named Martin Greenberg was playing in a charity tournament at the course. There was a $1 million prize for a hole-in-one on the 13th hole. Greenberg aced the hole. Then, after a celebration, he was told he couldn’t claim the prize. The rules said the hole had to be a certain length. Trump’s club had allegedly made it too short.

Greenberg sued the golf club. The parties settled. On the day that the parties informed the court they had settled their case, a $158,000 donation was sent to the Martin Greenberg Foundation.

That money came from the Trump Foundation, according to the tax filings of both Trump’s and Greenberg’s foundations. Tax experts said the incident raised questions about “self-dealing” — a practice prohibited in charities, where a charity’s leaders use nonprofit money to help themselves or their businesses.
The filing “definitely reflects an effort to get the house in order, so to speak, before shutting down,” said Marcus S. Owens, a former IRS official who once headed the agency’s nonprofits division.

The filing, which covers the 2016 calendar year, listed Trump as the charity’s president, noting that he worked 0.5 hours per week on charity business. His children Ivanka, Donald Jr. and Eric were listed as directors. The reimbursement from the golf course relates to payment the Trump Foundation made to settle a lawsuit against the Westchester club.

The March 2017 payment came after New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, a Democrat, launched an investigation into how the Donald J. Trump Foundation collects and disburses funds. The inquiry is ongoing.

Of the additional reimbursements, it appears that $25,000 relates to a payment that the Trump Foundation made in 2013 to a Florida political committee called “And Justice For All.” The committee supported state Attorney General Pam Bondi (R).

Charities are not allowed to give to political committees.
Of course when the Trumpster got his hand caught in the cookie jar, he decided to shut the family Slush Fund down. The Trumpster says it was all a mistake and he didn't have anything to do with it, Slush Fund Presidents never do....

Hempy 12th Dec 2017 18:19

And Jimmy Carter had to give up his peanut farm....

SASless 12th Dec 2017 19:25


Did you skip over the fact that Trump placed his holdings in a Trust and that the Trust PAYS the Federal GSA under a 109 page Lease Agtreement.

The Feds get lease payments plus a cut of the Revenue from the Hotel operation at the derelict post office building.

That Lease was written years before Trump ran for office.

chuks 12th Dec 2017 19:41

SASless, that trust has Trump as its sole beneficiary; it can be revoked by Donald Trump at any time; and it's run by his three children, with his two idiot sons supposedly guiding the affairs of the Trump Organization free of input from the Donald. I think one could make a reasonable case that President Donald Trump holds a lease from the GSA, given that he owns and most probably still runs the Trump Organization.

You need to buy a calendar and practice using it, SASless, to learn that November comes before December, for instance. With this, "That Lease was written years before Trump ran for office," you do not seem to understand that the problem is that the lease has continued past Trump's being inaugurated as the 1st President of the United Staysh, this January.

When he was a private citizen Trump was free to lease property from the US government. That freedom ceased after he became President, hence this thin scrim of respectability. Look (as Sarah the Hutt likes to say), SASless, Trump promised to divest, didn't he? (Another promise he did not keep, but he did make it.) Why would he make that promise, if it were okay to keep on as a businessman, bankruptcies, unpaid bills, and lawsuits a specialty?

I can't wait to find out if Roy Moore wins or not. We will have so very much fun if he wins, SASless, you 'splainin' to me that it's okay to have this perv in the Senate because, because ... well, you have a few hours left to come up with some good reasons. "He's not a Democrat, just a child molester!"

Turbine D 12th Dec 2017 20:54

A couple of Trump's morning tweets:

“Lightweight Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a total flunky for Chuck Schumer and someone who would come to my office ‘begging’ for campaign contributions not so long ago (and would do anything for them), is now in the ring fighting against Trump,” Mr. Trump said on Twitter. He added: “Very disloyal to Bill & Crooked-USED!”—an apparent reference to former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, Mr. Trump’s Democrat opponent in 2016.

The White House didn’t respond to a question about what the president meant by saying Ms. Gillibrand “would do anything for” campaign contributions. Ms. Gillibrand is one of four Democratic senators who have so far called for Mr. Trump to resign or consider doing so; she is the only woman in that group.
When Trump got off the bus in LA with Billy Bush and said "If you are a star (he was on his own NBC show) you can do anything you want, :mad::mad:." He said that not because he "heard it through the grapevine", but IMHO, by his personal experiences. I bet the "and would do anything for" campaign contributions comment made his handlers cringe... :eek:

vapilot2004 12th Dec 2017 21:02

Originally Posted by Hempy (Post 9987893)
And Jimmy Carter had to give up his peanut farm....

Republicans were screaming Mimis over what was known as Peanutgate. GOP members of Congress insisted on a six month special counsel investigation into the president's peanut farm and made sure to appoint a blood thirsty Republican prosecutor to do the job. The results:

Inquiry Clears Carter Family's Peanut Business
17 OCT 1979. New York Times.

Special counsel appointed to investigate questionable financial dealings involving President Carter's family peanut warehouse has concluded that there is no basis for criminal prosecution.

Making public a 180-page report on the multimillion-dollar loan package that the National Bank of Georgia provided to the warehouse, Special Counsel Paul J. Curran said yesterday that "no indictment can or should be brought against anyone"...

...The special counsel said, "No evidence whatsoever was discovered that any monies were diverted from the warehouse into the campaign."

As for whether any criminal charges were warranted, Curran said "the answer is also a clear no."

During the course of the inquiry, which began last March, Curran and his team of investigators questioned President Carter under oath for four hours. Curran said he believed it was the first time in history that a president in office had given a deposition in a criminal case.
Carter, a decorated, former Naval officer and Annapolis alum, later sold the family peanut farm to avoid a conflict of interest. Fast forward to the present day, where the GOP has managed to elect to the orifice of president, the biggest lying, flimflam man (and bone spur of a draft dodger) in American history. How times have changed.

All times are GMT. The time now is 20:08.

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.