Are Brexit and Trump the biggest ever embarrasments!

[onearmedbandit]

You're quite stupid aren't you ..

They've forced him to change the venue of the G7 for just that reason - what he was doing is illegal for a President .

I've just read a few articles from different sources regarding this and not one made mention of him being forced by law to change the venue. It was considered 'unethical' by people on both sides (even though the White House stated there would be no financial profit gained) mostly due to the free promotional opportunities from using the venue. Happy for you to provide a source that clearly states it was illegal, but like I said the first three I looked at none of them support your claim.

[husaberg]

I've just read a few articles from different sources regarding this and not one made mention of him being forced by law to change the venue. It was considered 'unethical' by people on both sides (even though the White House stated there would be no financial profit gained) mostly due to the free promotional opportunities from using the venue. Happy for you to provide a source that clearly states it was illegal, but like I said the first three I looked at none of them support your claim.

As determined in an analysis by the Centre for Responsive Politics, they’ve spent just under $28 million on use of Trump properties, most of which came after Trump already became president

Public Citizen, estimates that political candidates and party organisations alone have spent at least $8 million on Trump properties since January 2017, as compared to just $173,440 in the four years before his run for presidency.

The U.S. Constitution, known as the Emoluments Clause, a sitting U.S. president cannot accept any “present” from any foreign party, like, say, payment in the form of leaders booking out several hotel rooms or hosting a convention at Trump properties.
Also, the Emoluments Clause does not allow the American president to accept more or less than his salary, including from federal or state governments, which brings up serious issues like Pence’s stay in Ireland (paid for by U.S. tax-dollars, which were then funnelled directly into the pockets of the Trump Organisation).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_of_Nobility_Clause

The word "emolument" has a broad meaning. At the time of the Founding, it meant "profit," "benefit," or "advantage" of any kind. Because of the "sweeping and unqualified" nature of the constitutional prohibition, and in light of the more sophisticated understanding of conflicts of interest that developed after the Richard Nixon presidency, most modern presidents have chosen to eliminate any risk of conflict of interest that may arise by choosing to vest their assets into a blind trust. As the Office of Legal Counsel has advised, the Constitution is violated when the holder of an "Office of Profit or Trust", like the President,receives money from a partnership or similar entity in which he has a stake, and the amount he receives is "a function of the amount paid to the [entity] by the foreign government." This is because such a setup would allow the entity to "in effect be a conduit for that government," and so the government official would be exposed to possible "undue influence and corruption by [the] foreign government." The Department of Defense has expressly held that "this same rationale applies to distributions from limited liability corporations

you also have https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/2635.702

§ 2635.702 Use of public office for private gain.
An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity, including nonprofit organizations of which the employee is an officer or member, and persons with whom the employee has or seeks employment or business relations. The specific prohibitions set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section apply this general standard, but are not intended to be exclusive or to limit the application of this section.

(a) Inducement or coercion of benefits. An employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office in a manner that is intended to coerce or induce another person, including a subordinate, to provide any benefit, financial or otherwise, to himself or to friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity.

Example 1:
Offering to pursue a relative's consumer complaint over a household appliance, an employee of the Securities and Exchange Commission called the general counsel of the manufacturer and, in the course of discussing the problem, stated that he worked at the SEC and was responsible for reviewing the company's filings. The employee violated the prohibition against use of public office for private gain by invoking his official authority in an attempt to influence action to benefit his relative.
Example 2:
An employee of the Department of Commerce was asked by a friend to determine why his firm's export license had not yet been granted by another office within the Department of Commerce. At a department-level staff meeting, the employee raised as a matter for official inquiry the delay in approval of the particular license and asked that the particular license be expedited. The official used her public office in an attempt to benefit her friend and, in acting as her friend's agent for the purpose of pursuing the export license with the Department of Commerce, may also have violated 18 U.S.C. 205.

[Banditbandit]

The U.S. Constitution, known as the Emoluments Clause, a sitting U.S. president cannot accept any “present” from any foreign party, like, say, payment in the form of leaders booking out several hotel rooms or hosting a convention at Trump properties.
Also, the Emoluments Clause does not allow the American president to accept more or less than his salary, including from federal or state governments, which brings up serious issues like Pence’s stay in Ireland (paid for by U.S. tax-dollars, which were then funnelled directly into the pockets of the Trump Organisation).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_of_Nobility_Clause

Yeah - the emoluments clause in the US constitution ..

The one that Trump calls 'phoney'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-objected.html

[austingtir]

^^

[onearmedbandit]

The U.S. Constitution, known as the Emoluments Clause, a sitting U.S. president cannot accept any “present” from any foreign party, like, say, payment in the form of leaders booking out several hotel rooms or hosting a convention at Trump properties.
Also, the Emoluments Clause does not allow the American president to accept more or less than his salary, including from federal or state governments, which brings up serious issues like Pence’s stay in Ireland (paid for by U.S. tax-dollars, which were then funnelled directly into the pockets of the Trump Organisation).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_of_Nobility_Clause

From a legal position he no longer has an interest in the family business. Correct? If so then it would appear that his actions were at worst 'improper'.

Lawyers who have served in both Republican and Democratic administrations objected to the selection of the Doral, including several who emphasized that even though Mr. Trump, as president, is exempt from a federal conflict-of-interest statute, his role in the matter was improper.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/19/u...-doral-g7.html

[Banditbandit]

From a legal position he no longer has an interest in the family business. Correct? If so then it would appear that his actions were at worst 'improper'.

That's extremely debatable ..

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/ne...ts/3030377002/

[husaberg]

From a legal position he no longer has an interest in the family business. Correct? If so then it would appear that his actions were at worst 'improper'.



https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/19/u...-doral-g7.html

Yes he does, he also has nothing in a blind trust
Hes personally benefiting from it. They go beyond improper
hes boosted his daughters business
been granted patents dud to his position
his tweets about companies his decimating of Boeing all go beyond improper

[Laava]

http://nzh.tw/12279948
This just seems like the usual stories we get loads of everyday, nothing to get excited about etc but the headline of Trump moaning about how the democrats are doing everything they can to make him look bad made me chuckle. He's doing that all by himself, to give him some credit!

[Viking01]

All the recent US political bickering has overshadowed a few other little
matters bubbling away in the background.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news...e-one-12036552

While FT and CNBC make some mention, I can't find any corresponding
comment on any of the Chinese news websites I normally browse. Nor
on any of the main UK or European news websites either.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Mar...de-uncertainty

Don, think I'll just wait until a document is published (and a formal signing
has been scheduled) before I start celebrating. If it's all the same with you.

[Laava]

Yep, first link, that is the usual bunch of,
"is hoping to"
"is moving closer to"
"is asking for"
"is expecting"
mixed up with a whole bunch of backdated news stories.
Nothing new in there at all.
Second link, meh, stock markets, this moved .2% that went.7%, who can we blame it on...bla bla

[Viking01]

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/22...krugman-china/

[austingtir]

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/22...krugman-china/

Further proof of how the world in changing and how NZ is going to be left behind.... AGAIN.


Globilization is and always has been bullshit it simply does not work how they thought it would work and when it didnt they looked to take even more advantage of that fact (the hardcore leftists) which is where we are at now which is basically a world wide clusterfuck of corporations influencing everyone and telling them what to do and how to do it mainly big tech.

[Laava]

[Banditbandit]

[austingtir]

Shit, I dont even have to post ridiculous CNN meme's anymore Laava is doing it for me. I knew you would come around one day boyo!!



And its pretty easy to debunk the bullshit meme by banditbandit above all you have to do is actually read all the articles and dates posted and its pretty clear hardly any of them or none claim 100% killed him its all either he was maimed or wounded. Zero verified actual kills.

+ There is a audio/video of baghdadi in 2018 rallying his troops.