By the way, remember when some people kept talking about it was immoral to abandon a mortgage if you were underwater on it? You’ll soon have a president who sees that kind of abandonment as a smart business tactic.
Very valid – I did just that!
So… which politicians were you thinking of?
Yes, the Clause applies to the President, but no, there is no general consensus that it would reach any of his (known) business deals, nor is there any consensus on who might even have Article III standing to raise the issue. In my view, the courts would likely find this to be non-justiciable and Congress would need to act,
As noted above, Congress could certainly decided that Trump’s dealings violate the Emoluments Clause, and that decision would be unreviewable, just as any rationale Congress offers for impeachment is.
But if we’re asking about realistic scenarios, then I believe the likelihood of this one is very slight, so much so that it does not qualify as realistic.
No one in particular; I’m just pretty sure that a ton of them (and I do mean that literally) have perjured themselves in depositions.
Do you seriously doubt this?
George W Bush’s ethics lawyer disagrees. As do several other prominent constitutional law scholars.
Well, there were two parts to your claim:
(emphasis added)
Who are a few of the many that have done this without punishment?
So it would be seem.
But, as I correctly observed, there is no general consensus.
I think Trump could argue he’s not violating the Emoluments Clause.
The Chinese government rents property belonging to Trump. The rent payments are not a present or an emolument (which is wages for working for somebody).
How about higher rents in exchange for a trade deal more favorable to China?
He profits while not making the best deal for the country.
I’m a true independent - I’ve voted 40% Democrat and 60 Republican for President over my voting career. Clinton’s policies and actions I was generally supportive of.
The one issue I can never forgive (in my mind, YMMV obviously) is that he’s forever lowered the bar on what we can expect or demand from our elected officials and the President.
For now committing perjury before a grand jury as President of the United States is now “remarkably trivial.” :smack:
Regret the hijack. I’ll return you to your regularly scheduled debate.
I don’t have specific cites. So, in petulance, I will note that you also altered what I said by specifying “lied to a grand jury” which also wasn’t what I said.
Do you seriously believe that there have never been 2,000 pounds of politicians who have lied in legal depositions and not been punished for it? Like, rilly, dude? Fantasyland.
It really was, though. It was about sexual conduct, not about anything meaningfully pertaining to the office. He lied about a blowjob. That really is remarkably trivial.
This was the origin of the Move On organization: “Censure, and Move On.” That would have been entirely appropriate: Congress should have passed a bill of censure (or merely House and Senate resolutions of censure.)
Impeachment was not warranted. But…those were good times. We didn’t have anything more important to worry about. Employment was high, we had a budget surplus, our wars were merely simmering, not boiling over. So we could afford a sex scandal.
No, no – I concede I wrongly ascribed “Presidents” to you when you merely said “politicians,” but here, I disagree. You said:
And Clinton was impeached for perjury to a grand jury.
I have no idea. I know that Clinton’s case differs from those unnamed portly pols, though, because the prosecutor could prove he was lying. So your comparison is inapt: Clinton was impeached because he lied and the prosecutors could prove it.
I don’t think there are 2,000 pounds worth of politicians who lied to a grand jury, had a prosecutor who could prove the lie, and yet were not prosecuted or punished in some way. Maybe there are, but it would be rare, not a common occurrence as your line invited the reader to conclude.
Not really.
The question was not posed out of prurient interest.
It was posed because a former subordinate of Clinton’s was suing him for what she alleged was his offer to her to provide him oral sex and her belief that her declining to do so led to unfavorable job consequences. He denied that such an offer was ever made, and as she was entitled to, she sought to question him under oath about whether he had ever made such an offer to other subordinates, and whether he had ever had sex with other subordinates.
In a civil suit, questions like that are quite permissible and are an important part of developing the case. The right to sue when Mr. Big asks for sex and you say no is, presumably, something we all agree is not trivial.
Whether or not Clinton was factually guilty is not the whole story. It’s also the Senate’s job to determine if the crime is severe enough to warrant removal from office. In Clinton’s case, 55 out of 100 Senators, including 10 Republicans, voted to acquit. (A 2/3rd majority would’ve been required for removal.)
Okay, fair enough. I didn’t actually say “perjury to a grand jury.” What I said could include “perjury in a legal deposition,” because Clinton was impeached for that, too. What I said could include what you said I said – although I didn’t actually say it.
As for the rest of the matter…
Jack: “I’d say there were probably more than twenty people, right at this moment, driving drunk on our roads and highways.”
John: “Name them.”
Why are we discussing Clinton? This thread is about Trump.
I’m declaring hijack. Take the Clinton discussion to another thread.
Lying about having an adulterous affair is trivial. He would never have been asked about it by a grand jury if the conservatives had not pushed it. The whole matter was as trivial as it gets.
One thing I have not seen adequately answered*, if something comes to light that happened before he was sworn in as president can he be impeached for that?
*I’m sure it has been answered but but research skills have been lacking.
He can be impeached for pretty much anything the House wants to.
If they think whatever it is amounts to a high crime or misdemeanor, they can impeach. If 2/3s of the Senate agrees, he is removed and barred from office and President Pence is sworn in. On some level that would be a best-case scenario.
Of course, the House and Senate would have to answer for it in the next elections.
Regards,
Shodan