acknowledgeurma

Your complaints about Obama's vacations are irrelevant to the Constitution's Emolument Clause, since it is about emoluments from foreign government sources.

Loki Loc: Georgia

One part of your link jumped right out at me.
"This ruling appeared to mark the first time a federal judge had interpreted those constitutional provisions and applied their restrictions to a sitting president."

Another witch hunt. Had Clinton or Obama or any other Democrat done this, there would have been no lawsuit and no bulls**t ruling by a Democrat judge at the behest of a Democrat DA.

The judge was nominated by Jimmuh Cahtah and confirmed by a Democrat controlled Senate. Of course he would not be interested in ruling that way against Clinton, and Obama had no business interests to speak of.

I might add this from NBC news, hardly a friend of President Trump.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/why-emoluments-clause-will-not-end-trump-s-presidency-ncna835331
Even one of the most anti-Trump networks thinks this is a nothing burger.
Judge Merrite, good little Liberal lickspittle that he is, really had to do a tapdance to allow this one to proceed.

woodguru

These are countries that want something from the US, and the Trump administration makes it clear that this is the way to consideration. Memberships to Mar A Lago are a perfect example. Foreign dignitaries should not have to pay $200,000 per person in their entourage to get face time with the president. Donors should not have to pay for face time.

There was a delegation that had booked the Four Seasons in advance, as they had done for years, and they were solicited by Trump's team to change their venue to Trump's hotel. Trump is no stranger to floating rate adjustments either, as well as an awareness of whether the most expensive wine is ordered.

acknowledgeurma

I think you misread the name of the judge, it's Messitte, not Merrite, and he was appointed by Clinton not Carter.

You contend that this was a political ruling and not based in law. You contend that a judge appointed by a Democrat cannot rule against Democrats. Would you contend that this holds for Republican appointed judges as well? If so, then surely some Republican judge would have made a similar ruling against Clinton or Obama .

Did you read all of the NBC news article? It's main point (as I read it) was the difficulty any plaintiff would have in establishing standing (the right to participate in a case). I suspect, if it goes to SCOTUS, only Congress as a whole will be allowed standing. But if say the AG of some state gets standing, then what might be gained? Through deposition, access to Trump's business and income tax records, things that might do discredit to Trump (and Republicans) in subsequent e******ns. You might say that this is just the Democrats being political (and I would agree). But what is wrong with that? Originally the word politics described citizens' concern for the well being of their society. Only i***ts (in the original meaning) were concerned only with their self interests.

Loki Loc: Georgia

Messite, not Merrite. Still nominated by a Liberal Democrat president and confirmed by a Democrat majority Senate. Six of one, half dozen of the other. I did not say a Democrat would not rule against a Democrat, it's just not very likely. As the article said this is the first time in history that such a charge has been brought against a sitting president.

acknowledgeurma

And how likely is it for a Republican to rule against a Republican?

I think most judges, regardless of party affiliation, try to apply the law equally. How they interpret the law seems to differ based on the judge's affiliation, but judges don't seem to consciously apply different interpretations based on the affiliation of those coming before them. There does seem to be some racial bias, but I think it is usually unconscious.

JW

The Republicans told Nixon he needed to resign.

The Democrats said Clinton was an honorable man and offered to provide him with blow jobs.

That might be a clue.

acknowledgeurma

As I recall, the Democrats were in the majority and were going to impeach Nixon if he didn't resign, and Nixon probably figured he would be convicted, after all the tapes were pretty conclusive evidence that Nixon conspired to obstruct justice. Clinton lied under oath about having sexual relations with that woman (I think Clinton figured that if one is still a virgin after a blow job, then one didn't have sexual relations ).

JW

Your recollections are substantially flawed. You might want to correct them.

acknowledgeurma

I suggest you google:
When Nixon was president who controlled Congress?

You will find:

Democrats kept control of Congress in 1972 despite Republican President Richard Nixon's landslide re-e******n. The 93rd Congress (1973–1975) responded to unilateral p**********l actions with the War Powers Resolution, a new federal budget process, campaign reforms, and the Freedom of Information Act.

As for Clinton:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton#Independent_counsel_investigation
Wherein is found:
The charges arose from an investigation by Ken Starr, an Independent Counsel. Originally dealing with Whitewater, Starr, with the approval of United States Attorney General Janet Reno, conducted a wide-ranging investigation of alleged abuses, including the Whitewater affair, the firing of White House travel agents, and the alleged misuse of FBI files. On January 12, 1998 Linda Tripp, who had been working with the Jones lawyers, informed Starr that Lewinsky was preparing to commit perjury in the Jones case and had asked Tripp to do the same. She also said Clinton's friend Vernon Jordan was assisting Lewinsky. Based on the connection to Jordan, who was under scrutiny in the Whitewater probe, Starr obtained approval from Reno to expand his investigation into whether Lewinsky and others were breaking the law.

A much-quoted statement from Clinton's grand jury testimony showed him questioning the precise use of the word "is". Contending that his statement that "there's nothing going on between us" had been t***hful because he had no ongoing relationship with Lewinsky at the time he was questioned, Clinton said, "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the—if he—if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement".[7] Starr obtained further evidence of inappropriate behavior by seizing the computer hard drive and email records of Monica Lewinsky. Based on the president's conflicting testimony, Starr concluded that Clinton had committed perjury. Starr submitted his findings to Congress in a lengthy document (the so-called Starr Report), and simultaneously posted the report, which included descriptions of encounters between Clinton and Lewinsky, on the Internet.[8] Starr was criticized by Democrats for spending $70 million on an investigation that substantiated only perjury and obstruction of justice.[9] Critics of Starr also contend that his investigation was highly politicized because it regularly leaked tidbits of information to the press in violation of legal ethics, and because his report included lengthy descriptions which were humiliating yet irrelevant to the legal case.[10][11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice
Wherein is found:
Bill Clinton was impeached by the United States House of Representatives in 1998 for obstruction of justice charges based on allegations Clinton lied about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky in a sworn deposition in the Paula Jones lawsuit. This made Clinton only the second U.S. president to be impeached after Andrew Johnson. He was later acquitted by the Senate.

So just how are my recollections flawed?

JW

I said your recollections were flawed, not completely wrong.

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2014/0807/Richard-Nixon-s-resignation-the-day-before-a-moment-of-t***h

That will demonstrate why Nixon resigned. -

As for Clinton, the reason he was charged with perjury isn't relevant to the fact that he committed perjury. He lied to a jury while swearing he spoke t***hfully. Secondly, he was guilty of obstructing justice and witness tampering. -

https://www.reference.com/history/were-charges-behind-bill-clinton-s-impeachment-700df210dc3618e5

And the Democrats reaction to it all -

http://archive.mrc.org/press/1998/press19980706.asp
https://www.mrc.org/biasalerts/cyberalert-07071998-reporter-offers-clinton-blewinsky
http://www2.edc.org/WomensEquity/edequity98/0561.html



Other circumstances aside, Republicans advised Nixon to resign and he took their advice and did so. Democrats scurried from their holes to chatter their support Bill Clinton's behavior. Al Gore went so far as to call him our most moral President, in the Rose Garden, or words to that effect.

If you really want to understand the difference between the Right and the Left, at the most fundamental, the differences in their behaviors before disgraceful Presidents is the spotlight.

acknowledgeurma

You wrote, "he committed perjury. He lied to a jury while swearing he spoke t***hfully. Secondly, he was guilty of obstructing justice and witness tampering".

And yet, the jury (US Senate) that tried him did not convict. So for you to say he is guilty is neither here nor there.
As I understand it, guilt in our system is determined by a process (of law). Until that process is followed guilt must not be presumed (unless you are a prosecutor ). After the process is followed and the defendant is found not guilty, then anyone who still insists upon guilt is just blowing smoke. O.J. Simpson is not guilty of murder, even though we all know he stabbed his wife (ex?) and her friend to death.
When people say that President Trump is guilty of crimes that have not been brought to trial, they engage in pure speculation and should probably not be on any jury that tries him.

JW

He was found guilty by the court.

"On April 12, 1999, Wright found Clinton in contempt of court for “intentionally false” testimony in Jones v. Clinton, fined him $90,000, and referred the case to the Arkansas Supreme Court’s Committee on Professional Conduct, as Clinton still possessed a law license in Arkansas.
The Arkansas Supreme Court suspended Clinton’s Arkansas law license in April 2000. On January 19, 2001, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension and a $25,000 fine in order to avoid disbarment and to end the investigation of Independent Counsel Robert Ray (Starr’s successor). On October 1, 2001, Clinton’s U.S. Supreme Court law license was suspended, with 40 days to contest his disbarment. On November 9, 2001, the last day for Clinton to contest the disbarment, he opted to resign from the Supreme Court Bar, surrendering his license, rather than facing penalties related to disbarment."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones

His impeachment is a different issue. His court issues were the basis for the impeachment charges. BTW - “intentionally false” testimony is perjury. Had he not been President he would have found himself in prison.

acknowledgeurma

He was found "in contempt of court", not the same process as guilty of a crime.

JW

Wrong! The court acted summarily rather than try to put a President on trial. His law license was revoked as his conduct before the court, not with Lewinsky, was unbecoming of a member of the Bar/ Officer of the court.