The Emoluments Clause ~ The Brookings Institution
 

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content...ts-clause1.pdf

The Emoluments Clause, until recently not much discussed because its
constraints have been taken for granted, constitutes a clear barrier to
the intermingling of business and governmental interests that Donald
J. Trump proposes to build into his conduct of the
Presidency. That is a conclusion without partisan or ideological
inflection; it would apply with equal force to any person or party
occupying this position of public trust. It is plain that a
President Trump would be subject to removal from office for
the intentional abuse of power that this manifestly unconstitutional
intermingling of private and public concerns would entail"

It also says he will be a "walking violation of the emolument clause"
after he takes the oath of office.

--
https://nodaplsolidarity.org/about/

The Emoluments Clause ~ The Brookings Institution
 

On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 21:00:20 -0600, #NoDAPL wrote:

The Emoluments Clause, until recently not much discussed because
....

Nobody has ever been prosecuted for it.
Were you ****ed that John Kerry's wife was selling ketchup all over
the world while he was running for president? How about half of
congress in business in their district? LBJ owned the biggest TV
station in Texas and he was still in Washington.

The Emoluments Clause ~ The Brookings Institution
 

On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 9:56:30 PM UTC-6, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 21:00:20 -0600, #NoDAPL wrote:

The Emoluments Clause, until recently not much discussed because
...

Nobody has ever been prosecuted for it.
Were you ****ed that John Kerry's wife was selling ketchup all over
the world while he was running for president? How about half of
congress in business in their district? LBJ owned the biggest TV
station in Texas and he was still in Washington.

Didn't Lady Bird Johnson make a lot of money off The Vietnam War? I remember something about her owning some company that was producing war material or operating facilities for the military. I suppose I could do some research..ヽ(ヅ)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Memorable Monster

The Emoluments Clause ~ The Brookings Institution
 

On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 21:32:49 -0800 (PST), Uncle Monster
wrote:

On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 9:56:30 PM UTC-6, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 21:00:20 -0600, #NoDAPL wrote:

The Emoluments Clause, until recently not much discussed because
...

Nobody has ever been prosecuted for it.
Were you ****ed that John Kerry's wife was selling ketchup all over
the world while he was running for president? How about half of
congress in business in their district? LBJ owned the biggest TV
station in Texas and he was still in Washington.

Didn't Lady Bird Johnson make a lot of money off The Vietnam War? I remember something about her owning some company that was producing war material or operating facilities for the military. I suppose I could do some research.?(?)?

[8~{} Uncle Memorable Monster

It wasn't illegal then. Every president is presented with new rules.
Nixon couldn't do dirty tricks like Johnson. Clinton couldn't ****
young girls like Kennedy and Trump will not be able to have his family
in business while he is president like a lot of the other government
officials. OK by me.

The Emoluments Clause ~ The Brookings Institution
 

On 12/30/2016 9:56 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 21:00:20 -0600, #NoDAPL wrote:

The Emoluments Clause, until recently not much discussed because
...

Nobody has ever been prosecuted for it.
Were you ****ed that John Kerry's wife was selling ketchup all over
the world while he was running for president? How about half of
congress in business in their district? LBJ owned the biggest TV
station in Texas and he was still in Washington.


How I feel has nothing to do with it and had you been following my
thread re EC you'd know it depends on Congress. I try to give you guys
the benefit of the doubt but it really gets difficult with some of you.
Try reading the article.

--
https://nodaplsolidarity.org/about/

The Emoluments Clause ~ The Brookings Institution
 

On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 05:49:06 -0600, #NoDAPL wrote:

On 12/30/2016 9:56 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 21:00:20 -0600, #NoDAPL wrote:

The Emoluments Clause, until recently not much discussed because
...

Nobody has ever been prosecuted for it.
Were you ****ed that John Kerry's wife was selling ketchup all over
the world while he was running for president? How about half of
congress in business in their district? LBJ owned the biggest TV
station in Texas and he was still in Washington.


How I feel has nothing to do with it and had you been following my
thread re EC you'd know it depends on Congress. I try to give you guys
the benefit of the doubt but it really gets difficult with some of you.
Try reading the article.

I understand you Clintonistas are grabbing at straws at this point but
hanging your hat on a 200 year old law that has never been enforced is
pretty weak.

The Emoluments Clause ~ The Brookings Institution
 

#NoDAPL cited:

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gs_121616_emoluments-clause1.pdf

This article is a good example of why Brookings, once the big dog of
think tanks, is largely ignored these days. The same goes for Lawrence
Tribe.

The Emoluments Clause ~ The Brookings Institution
 

On 12/31/16 8:16 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 05:49:06 -0600, #NoDAPL wrote:

On 12/30/2016 9:56 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 21:00:20 -0600, #NoDAPL wrote:

The Emoluments Clause, until recently not much discussed because
...

Nobody has ever been prosecuted for it.
Were you ****ed that John Kerry's wife was selling ketchup all over
the world while he was running for president? How about half of
congress in business in their district? LBJ owned the biggest TV
station in Texas and he was still in Washington.


How I feel has nothing to do with it and had you been following my
thread re EC you'd know it depends on Congress. I try to give you guys
the benefit of the doubt but it really gets difficult with some of you.
Try reading the article.

I understand you Clintonistas are grabbing at straws at this point but
hanging your hat on a 200 year old law that has never been enforced is
pretty weak.

what an interesting defense: "sure it's a law, a 200 year old law, but
no one has ever used it"