T1B

I meant how he directed (or how someone magically directed) government stays at his hotels which were more than at other hotels or the trip was directed near a hotel.

You aren’t really going to defend this TOO are you?

So now you have inside knowledge of what the sales proposals from Trump’s properties were in comparison to other hotels nearby and their sales proposals?

By all means please link us up to these proposed contracts. I would love to see them for my own business and for the hockey side as well.

I don't think you understand what happened. Somehow government workers are ending up at Dump properties when their mission was nowhere near the properties and that not only made him money but cost us. Have you heard nothing about this or do you not believe it or what?

Kierland wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 4:31 pm I don't think you understand what happened. Somehow government workers are ending up at Dump properties when their mission was nowhere near the properties and that not only made him money but cost us. Have you heard nothing about this or do you not believe it or what?

You are wasting your time. He finds nothing wrong nor unethical with the president continuing to own, operate and profit from his properties while he's in office. On top of that, he doesn't see how it's wrong or unethical for the president to funnel TAXPAYER MONEY to his properties (see: G-7 at Doral) and how this punishes opposing businesses.

Just....stop.

Kierland wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 4:31 pm I don't think you understand what happened. Somehow government workers are ending up at Dump properties when their mission was nowhere near the properties and that not only made him money but cost us.

I am asking you for the contracts, to prove your claim it cost us as taxpayers money. Do you know what the alternatives cost? I have heard others say this and yet no one has shown that ABC property offered a contract at $xyz less than the Trump property.

People like Screwy will just parrot this around without any hard facts. Just like his claim that Trump is making money off of a French drug and the 'Rona. He keeps repeating that despite other team D members saying that is false.

Left Seater wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 6:18 pm People like Screwy will just parrot this around without any hard facts. Just like his claim that Trump is making money off of a French drug and the 'Rona. He keeps repeating that despite other team D members saying that is false.

I have never said that. Is it possible? Of course because Trump is the most nakedly corrupt man to ever occupy the White House? Is it likely, no.

Wait, you never said he was making money off a potential 'Rona drug?

Left Seater wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 6:18 pm

Kierland wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 4:31 pm I don't think you understand what happened. Somehow government workers are ending up at Dump properties when their mission was nowhere near the properties and that not only made him money but cost us.

I am asking you for the contracts, to prove your claim it cost us as taxpayers money. Do you know what the alternatives cost? I have heard others say this and yet no one has shown that ABC property offered a contract at $xyz less than the Trump property.

People like Screwy will just parrot this around without any hard facts. Just like his claim that Trump is making money off of a French drug and the 'Rona. He keeps repeating that despite other team D members saying that is false.

Again, do you know nothing about this? There were trips when they flew to Dump properties like out of the way to get there when there were other fine places.
Look what he tried with Doral and the G7, I know I know it didn’t end up there but do you even take how people act into consideration when you are deciding if they did something? You seem to do it with the Ds.
As for him making money on the ‘rona, I think the Ds are saying it’s de minimus not that it’s zero.

Why can't we deal in facts? We don't know the contracted rates. Without those all we can do is speculate.

This isn't that hard to comprehend.

I’m not just talking about the rates, I’m talking about flying big planes to Dump properties just to stay there when it’s miles out of the way.
Again, Bueller? Anyone? This isn’t ringing a bell?

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/air-for ... d=65594325

Trump might be charging less than other resorts in the area, but he's still profiting from the aircrews staying at his resort. And that's a violation of the Emoluments Clause.

And since you're probably too young to remember, Junior, Jimmy Carter had to sell his peanut farm in order to assume the presidency.

Hey Diego...your parole officer called...you have to go back to prison!

Diego in Seattle wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 7:46 pm https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/air-for ... d=65594325

Trump might be charging less than other resorts in the area, but he's still profiting from the aircrews staying at his resort. And that's a violation of the Emoluments Clause.

And since you're probably too young to remember, Junior, Jimmy Carter had to sell his peanut farm in order to assume the presidency.

Hey stupid? I've been following this longer than you've been alive.
The high court just reviewed the emoluments clause, and found that the president is NOT in violation.
So, this begs the question.
Do we follow some diego punk ass internet troll?
Or the high court?
What do you think you dirtbag?

Do you honestly think anyone on this board outside of screw, is gonna take your word over the high court's recent decision on this matter?
Ask Kierland.
He's somewhat of a lawyer.
Ask 88.
He's our top expert on matters of jurisprudence.
BUT no matter what happens, the high court found in the president's favor.
So shut your dirty taco Bell eating pie hole.

Hey EAP,

The scoop on Diego from Seattle is that he likes to have sex with children.
word on the street is that he is one of those non violent prisoners released
from prison because of covid 19.

Diego in Seattle wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 7:46 pm https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/air-for ... d=65594325

Trump might be charging less than other resorts in the area, but he's still profiting from the aircrews staying at his resort. And that's a violation of the Emoluments Clause.

And since you're probably too young to remember, Junior, Jimmy Carter had to sell his peanut farm in order to assume the presidency.

So if true, why didn't Team D add this to the Impeachment farce?

Left Seater wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 9:58 pm

Diego in Seattle wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 7:46 pm https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/air-for ... d=65594325

Trump might be charging less than other resorts in the area, but he's still profiting from the aircrews staying at his resort. And that's a violation of the Emoluments Clause.

And since you're probably too young to remember, Junior, Jimmy Carter had to sell his peanut farm in order to assume the presidency.

So if true, why didn't Team D add this to the Impeachment farce?

Probably because they wanted to run the quid-pro-quo up the flagpole & see if the Republican would salute facts & logic, and if they didn't it would be better to wait until next year to hold hearings. And since the GOP wasn't even willing to stay in their seats to hear the evidence (rendering the impeachment hearings useless), it appears to have been a wise stratergy (tm Bush43).

Left Seater wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 9:58 pm
So if true, why didn't Team D add this to the Impeachment farce?

So it’s all just a farce. Perfectly acceptable behavior. Is that what you are saying? Or it’s not true or it’s ok? What are you saying?

The evidence that Team D wouldn’t even wait to compel testimony via the courts from uncooperative witnesses?

We went over this in-depth here but Pelosi screwed Impeachment up royally.

Kierland wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 11:33 pm

Left Seater wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 9:58 pm
So if true, why didn't Team D add this to the Impeachment farce?

So it’s all just a farce. Perfectly acceptable behavior. Is that what you are saying? Or it’s not true or it’s ok? What are you saying?

Nice straw man. I don’t know if it is a violation or not. Again, show us proof and then we can review it.

Left Seater wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 11:37 pm

Kierland wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 11:33 pm

Left Seater wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 9:58 pm
So if true, why didn't Team D add this to the Impeachment farce?

So it’s all just a farce. Perfectly acceptable behavior. Is that what you are saying? Or it’s not true or it’s ok? What are you saying?

Nice straw man. I don’t know if it is a violation or not. Again, show us proof and then we can review it.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/emoluments_clause

It’s not a straw man. I’m asking you a question. Well several questions. What part do you not believe or not care about or not understand?

And Doral. Was that ok to try and do? Or do you not understand that either?

Diego in Seattle wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 11:50 pm

Left Seater wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 11:37 pm

Kierland wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 11:33 pm

So it’s all just a farce. Perfectly acceptable behavior. Is that what you are saying? Or it’s not true or it’s ok? What are you saying?

Nice straw man. I don’t know if it is a violation or not. Again, show us proof and then we can review it.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/emoluments_clause

Thanks tits.

Where is the proof it was violated?

Kierland wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 11:51 pm It’s not a straw man. I’m asking you a question. Well several questions. What part do you not believe or not care about or not understand?

And Doral. Was that ok to try and do? Or do you not understand that either?

Again, where is the proof of the violation? And if there was proof, why wasn’t it included in Impeachment?

Doral didn’t happen, no need to play the what if game.

Diego in Seattle wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 10:48 pm

Left Seater wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 9:58 pm

Diego in Seattle wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 7:46 pm https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/air-for ... d=65594325

Trump might be charging less than other resorts in the area, but he's still profiting from the aircrews staying at his resort. And that's a violation of the Emoluments Clause.

And since you're probably too young to remember, Junior, Jimmy Carter had to sell his peanut farm in order to assume the presidency.

So if true, why didn't Team D add this to the Impeachment farce?

Probably because they wanted to run the quid-pro-quo up the flagpole & see if the Republican would salute facts & logic, and if they didn't it would be better to wait until next year to hold hearings. And since the GOP wasn't even willing to stay in their seats to hear the evidence (rendering the impeachment hearings useless), it appears to have been a wise stratergy (tm Bush43).

Diego said,
"Facts & Logic"

BUWAHAHAHA

Kierland wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 11:51 pm It’s not a straw man. I’m asking you a question. Well several questions. What part do you not believe or not care about or not understand?

And Doral. Was that ok to try and do? Or do you not understand that either?

Doral?

BUWAHAHAHA

You are one messed up fuck.

I guess when I mention that John Brennan may be in Durham's cross hairs, and be indicted soon, you probably think I'm messed up too.

The problem you have is that Doral is a pipe dream.
But indictments are indeed forthcoming.

Left Seater wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 12:22 am

Kierland wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 11:51 pm It’s not a straw man. I’m asking you a question. Well several questions. What part do you not believe or not care about or not understand?

And Doral. Was that ok to try and do? Or do you not understand that either?

Again, where is the proof of the violation? And if there was proof, why wasn’t it included in Impeachment?

Doral didn’t happen, no need to play the what if game.

It’s in the press releases from your Orange leader. Again do you not agree that Pence flew to Scotland when he didn’t need to?

Doral was an attempted violation but there was an uproar. Are you saying attempted acts are ok as long as you get “caught” first?

It wasn’t in the impeachment because Nancy didn’t bring it. Duh.

EAP wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 1:27 am

Kierland wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 11:51 pm It’s not a straw man. I’m asking you a question. Well several questions. What part do you not believe or not care about or not understand?

And Doral. Was that ok to try and do? Or do you not understand that either?

Doral?

BUWAHAHAHA

You are one messed up fuck.

I guess when I mention that John Brennan may be in Durham's cross hairs, and be indicted soon, you probably think I'm messed up too.

The problem you have is that Doral is a pipe dream.
But indictments are indeed forthcoming.

You suck at trolling 88.

Kierland wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 2:05 am

EAP wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 1:27 am

Kierland wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 11:51 pm It’s not a straw man. I’m asking you a question. Well several questions. What part do you not believe or not care about or not understand?

And Doral. Was that ok to try and do? Or do you not understand that either?

Doral?

BUWAHAHAHA

You are one messed up fuck.

I guess when I mention that John Brennan may be in Durham's cross hairs, and be indicted soon, you probably think I'm messed up too.

The problem you have is that Doral is a pipe dream.
But indictments are indeed forthcoming.

You suck at trolling 88.

you suck at life.

So your saying Nancy brought weaker charges for Impeachment? If this is so cut and dry why didn't she bring it up?

So you don’t want to follow up on Dump? Ok. Not surprised.
Again, I don’t know why, probably because she profits from government too.

Kierland wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 2:04 am
Doral was an attempted violation but there was an uproar. Are you saying attempted acts are ok as long as you get “caught” first?

Put your defense attorney hat on for a second. If a prosecutor brought a case where your client attempted but didn’t do X, I am guessing g you would have the suit tossed in minutes.

Yet for Don the Cheeto this doesn’t apply?

Misery.




Today I filed suit against the Chinese government to seek recovery for the devastating loss of life & economic suffering Missourians face as a result of the #COVID19 pandemic. The bottom line: they lied to the world & should be held accountable.

- Eric Schmitt (Missouri AG)

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/missou ... rus-deceit




Well, good luck with that.

Left Seater wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 4:08 am

Kierland wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 2:04 am
Doral was an attempted violation but there was an uproar. Are you saying attempted acts are ok as long as you get “caught” first?

Put your defense attorney hat on for a second. If a prosecutor brought a case where your client attempted but didn’t do X, I am guessing g you would have the suit tossed in minutes.

Yet for Don the Cheeto this doesn’t apply?

People get charged with attempted crimes all the time. And many times they get convicted. Are you really that dumb?

Softball Bat wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 4:17 am
Well, good luck with that.

I have already outlined that I think this is a great idea to look into. I'm not sure if pulling the trigger now is smart.

I think I missed that.

What are you proposing?

That the right leader could use this as a means to wipe out our debt with China, or at least a big chunk.

Softball Bat wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 4:17 am Misery.




Today I filed suit against the Chinese government to seek recovery for the devastating loss of life & economic suffering Missourians face as a result of the #COVID19 pandemic. The bottom line: they lied to the world & should be held accountable.

- Eric Schmitt (Missouri AG)

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/missou ... rus-deceit




Well, good luck with that.

Pause. This was brought up elsewhere: what type of future precedent and unintended consequences does this lead to?

Kierland wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 4:23 am

Left Seater wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 4:08 am

Kierland wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 2:04 am
Doral was an attempted violation but there was an uproar. Are you saying attempted acts are ok as long as you get “caught” first?

Put your defense attorney hat on for a second. If a prosecutor brought a case where your client attempted but didn’t do X, I am guessing g you would have the suit tossed in minutes.

Yet for Don the Cheeto this doesn’t apply?

People get charged with attempted crimes all the time. And many times they get convicted. Are you really that dumb?

I am not talking crimes where someone tried and failed.

I am talking about say speeding. He was going to speed, but he didn’t. He was going to rob the bank but never got past the planning stage.

Left Seater wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 1:10 pm He was going to rob the bank but never got past the planning stage.

If the person committed an overt act, i.e. buying a ski mask & a gun, then they could at least be charged w/ conspiracy.

Left Seater wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 1:10 pm
I am talking about say speeding. He was going to speed, but he didn’t. He was going to rob the bank but never got past the planning stage.

Yes I know what an overt act is. His was making a plan and announcing it.