“This slimy little spawn of Hucksterbee should be asked at every opportunity how that IRS audit is coming and will Trump release his tax returns soon.”
"Look, the White House has addressed this many times."
“This slimy little spawn of Hucksterbee should be asked at every opportunity how that IRS audit is coming and will Trump release his tax returns soon.”
"Look, the White House has addressed this many times."
Sorry Jimmie but ah gots to kill ya. Its nuttin personal u no. Jus business.
Foreign officials have patronized Trump.
FTFY.
So, in response, Donald gets on his high horse, and attacks Amazon for ruining opportunities for the small business person?
PuPPet’s got a thing up his ass about Bezos because he runs WaPo and has not interfered with their daily operation but also because Bezos is actually worth the billions and billions PP claims he’s worth. Bezos also now sells vegetables which for PP are dirty words.
Interesting factoid about amazon. Out of every dollar spent on the Internet, 43 cents is spent at amazon.
Share the gloating!
No, it’s not OK, that’s exactly the point. Look at the emoluments clause, Art. I, sect. 9, last graph, and focus on the words “of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State”. I’d say “any kind whatever” is pretty all-encompassing.
Yes, that was a different case in a different court.
But see yesterday’s decision:
On this issue, Plaintiffs prevail. The political question doctrine does not impede court action in this case.
First, of course, the Domestic Emoluments Clause clearly does not assign any oversight role to Congress or any other entity. Insofar as a State has a right to pursue a violation of the Clause, it may do so directly and Congress has nary a say about it.
As for the Foreign Emoluments Clause granting Congress the power to consent to receipt of certain “emoluments,” the language of the Clause is not “a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department.” […] If that were so, the Supreme Court would not have decided other cases involving constitutional provisions containing similar consent-of Congress provisions. […] The President cites no authority to the contrary.