If only there was a Supreme Court precedent that said that the court could decide cases that were technically moot but because they took so long to get through the system, longer than they were otherwise justiciable, they could be decided nonetheless. Oh, wait, that was Roe v. Wade. And if ever there were a reason to say "you know, in the case of a President who committed a fucking insurrection and yet is somehow likely to win his party's nomination for president for the third time, so let's also take judicial notice that we give him the fastest track possible when we're going to rule in his favor [see approving review of his fucking Colorado case in a couple of days--don't try this at home, kiddos--but when he's going to lose, the road is longer than a David Foster Wallace novel, so maybe we'll decide the question before the next election, huh?", it's this.
Wait. GOP investigation committee is grasping at straws trying to connect China payments to then not President Joe Biden. Meanwhile, actual evidence connects China payments to then President Donald Trump? I'm confused. Shouldn't this be getting as much media attention as the Hunter Biden allegations? I will be staring blankly into space for the rest of the evening. Thank you.
Plus anyone who thinks Trump did not know who was paying for use of his facilities within 24 hours is dreaming. And that other than absolutely routine business activity like paying utility bills, Trump handled all significant business deals and plans while in office through his regular three to four hour "executive time" calendar blocks in the White House schedule and during frequent meet ups with sons Frick and Frack at Mar-a-Lago. I said shortly after he took office it's likely the two most frequently spoken words at any Trump organization meeting during that time was " Dad says."
Why didn't they sue him to get the money back? I think it would have been an action in trover or possibly replevin or detinue. However, it would have been a live controversy and therefore not moot.
More like if Confederate Republicans in Congress or judges who were appointed by Confederate Republicans who are unwilling to set their partisan inclinations aside and properly fulfill their role as judges (like Kacsmaryk down in Texas) don't care.
I think going forward in this election year we're going to have to start getting REALLY specific about who is actually doing (and/or neglecting to do) what and who is responsible for doing what.
Unless there is an accompanying section in Title 18, the Unites States Constitution is really just a statement of aspiration , i.e. Wouldn't it be nice if...
Ta, Dok. I remember (and no, I didn't just read about it, because I'm legitimately Old) when Jimmy Carter, PBUH, sold his peanut farm to avoid running afoul of the Emoluments clause. And JC loved that peanut farm.
You want to talk old? I can remember when a presidential family member scandal involved trying to sell faux Budweiser under his own name. Now, it involves trying to sell American nuclear secrets to the Saudis.
"For starters, we need to emphasize again that Trump’s getting money from foreign sources is not simply a paperwork detail, it’s a flat out violation of the US Constitution, which Republicans used to say was a pretty big deal."
`
Yeah, but what if some guy did that? Joe Biden, probably. That would be bad.
https://substack.com/@margerytraylortrashe/note/c-46820110
If only there was a Supreme Court precedent that said that the court could decide cases that were technically moot but because they took so long to get through the system, longer than they were otherwise justiciable, they could be decided nonetheless. Oh, wait, that was Roe v. Wade. And if ever there were a reason to say "you know, in the case of a President who committed a fucking insurrection and yet is somehow likely to win his party's nomination for president for the third time, so let's also take judicial notice that we give him the fastest track possible when we're going to rule in his favor [see approving review of his fucking Colorado case in a couple of days--don't try this at home, kiddos--but when he's going to lose, the road is longer than a David Foster Wallace novel, so maybe we'll decide the question before the next election, huh?", it's this.
Wait. GOP investigation committee is grasping at straws trying to connect China payments to then not President Joe Biden. Meanwhile, actual evidence connects China payments to then President Donald Trump? I'm confused. Shouldn't this be getting as much media attention as the Hunter Biden allegations? I will be staring blankly into space for the rest of the evening. Thank you.
“… we bring you a closer look at some of that filthy foreign lucre and why it friggin’ matters in an alleged constitutional republic like ours”
I can’t imagine anyone here thinks it doesn’t matter - the question is how to make it matter to someone that can do something about it.
This is what I come here for, "The report did not mention whether Lincoln was impressed by the King’s children’s rendition of “Getting to Know You".
"The report did not mention whether Lincoln was impressed by the King’s children’s rendition of “Getting to Know You.”" Etc., etc. etc.
Let's not forget darling Ivanka. How many millions in Chinese patents would she not have gotten if her Daddy's first name wasn't President?
"What If China Paid Trump While In Office But The Supreme Court Said The Question Was Moot?
It did, and they did? Well how about that."
Well, damn.
I thought he still owed the China state bank a whole bunch of money.
I don't really want to know how they came to that stupid-sounding "conclusion", do I?
Plus anyone who thinks Trump did not know who was paying for use of his facilities within 24 hours is dreaming. And that other than absolutely routine business activity like paying utility bills, Trump handled all significant business deals and plans while in office through his regular three to four hour "executive time" calendar blocks in the White House schedule and during frequent meet ups with sons Frick and Frack at Mar-a-Lago. I said shortly after he took office it's likely the two most frequently spoken words at any Trump organization meeting during that time was " Dad says."
Why didn't they sue him to get the money back? I think it would have been an action in trover or possibly replevin or detinue. However, it would have been a live controversy and therefore not moot.
It's not illegal if Congress doesn't care, right?
More like if the courts don't care.
More like if Confederate Republicans in Congress or judges who were appointed by Confederate Republicans who are unwilling to set their partisan inclinations aside and properly fulfill their role as judges (like Kacsmaryk down in Texas) don't care.
I think going forward in this election year we're going to have to start getting REALLY specific about who is actually doing (and/or neglecting to do) what and who is responsible for doing what.
What we have here is a suit about Trump’s loot. But there’s no suit, because the loot is moot, to boot.
Oh shoot!
I am Groot
Unless there is an accompanying section in Title 18, the Unites States Constitution is really just a statement of aspiration , i.e. Wouldn't it be nice if...
Ta, Dok. I remember (and no, I didn't just read about it, because I'm legitimately Old) when Jimmy Carter, PBUH, sold his peanut farm to avoid running afoul of the Emoluments clause. And JC loved that peanut farm.
I think it was put in a true blind trust. And that trust ran it in the ground financially so Carter had to sell it when he left office
Yeah, but that doesn’t apply, because Jimmy was an ethical, moral man. Or what Trump would call a sucker.
Even at 99 years old, he still IS an ethical, moral man.
As Michelle Obama said, the presidency doesn't create character, it reveals character.
YOU OLD
You want to talk old? I can remember when a presidential family member scandal involved trying to sell faux Budweiser under his own name. Now, it involves trying to sell American nuclear secrets to the Saudis.
You win!!
"For starters, we need to emphasize again that Trump’s getting money from foreign sources is not simply a paperwork detail, it’s a flat out violation of the US Constitution, which Republicans used to say was a pretty big deal."
`
Yeah, but what if some guy did that? Joe Biden, probably. That would be bad.
/sarec
“fulfills our pledge to donate profits from foreign government patronage at our hotels and similar business during President Trump’s term in office.”
Hahaha, PABs businesses never make a profit. He's REALLY bad at Bidness.