Do they have a valid argument? Can you explain why not?
I don't think they'll get their way either way, but I'd like to know specifics. My layman's interpretation of the Constitution makes it seem like he's technically breaking one of our oh-so-sacred commandments, but at the same time it's pretty clear it was written for other things rather than a businessman turning President who just happened to have some foreign companies still running. He's not gonna shut them all down. This is definitely a special case.
Either way it'll make history. Let's talk about it. Talk about potential tactics the left will use.
How dare he accept payment from foreign nationals staying in his hotel for staying in his hotel. Such corruption.
Bentley Clark
They didn't seem so concerned when it was Hillary and her Foundation.
The idea that breaking from your business company magically makes you unbiased is a joke. Trump would still look after his businesses best interests because in 4-8 years he'll be back to it. Just like how Hillary refused to shut down her foundation and instead would only pass leadership over while in office.
Those connections don't just disappear. These people are just in denial and mad that he beat the queen who was apparently perfect for office.
Chase Collins
Do you believe everyone anti-Trump is pro-Hilary?
Nathan Nguyen
You lost Jeb, get over it.
Logan Lee
You're a mess, Jeb
Justin Myers
>the constitution suddenly matters to libtards now
Andrew Howard
"Please clap"
Jaxon Lee
>they don't want reimbursement >they are looking for something much more dangerous for Trump > MUH FKIN TAXRETURNS god damnit can't believe they're still working on this. I bet it will take another 6 months, they'll roll out the biggest drums they can find to announce it
and then it's fucking nothing.
Jaxson Hill
99 percent of them are, yeah.
No one gave a fuck that Saudi Arabia and fucking Qatar gave Hillary millions -- the latter finances fucking IS.
Ryder Edwards
What the fuck is an "ethics lawyer"?
Luis Myers
Trumps attorneys have been preparing for every possible suit with any realistic chance of mattering for at least a year.
Joseph Torres
How could you not know how wide the political spectrum is?
Jace Taylor
Continuing:
The US isn't at war with Russia
It's at war with IS and Al-Q, though
Henry Cox
who did you vote for?
Brody Morales
>how wide
~49 percent will vote for Hillary ~49 percent will vote for Trump The other 2 percent for Greens/Libertarians
>inb4 I felt the Bern I hope you voted for Harambe or Joe Exotic, just to make it more interesting
Jacob Price
You cant make this shit up
Trump just has businesses, Hillary meanwhile accepted hundreds of millions through her foundation from dictators, despots and third world shitholes but thats OK
This world has gone fucking mental
Owen Rivera
They literally have no case. Presidents pre-elected lives don't exist in a vacuum. Every president brings business, personal, and political connections to the table. Those decisions may influence their decisions. So what? Most of the time those connections make it easier to get shit done to help the people.
Who do you trust less - Trump for having foreign nationals stay in his hotel and trying to start businesses in Russia way back in the 80s, or Hillary Clinton, the embodiment of mainstream political corruption incarnate who sold access to herself through the Clinton Foundation and whose said Foundation actually funded Islamic terrorism?
Jayden Thompson
Those connections, my bad
Jaxon Perez
>3rd-day-office-trump-facing-major-lawsuit Just that Gennifer Flowers one that totally fucked him over right? Oh wait...
Kevin Brooks
>who did you vote for?
Absolutely no one.
Is there 1% or less of Sanders supporters? I don't know when that poll was taken, though, or if it's a poll, or if it's real, or how to save a steak I just made that I put a little too much salt on (IRL). Thought it would be a noticable number, but I'm sure it wouldn't even show up on a poll like that.
Most likely it'll get dismissed out right and immediately. The dismissal will be what they always use when some dipshit sues the President.
"No legal rights to bring a suit. As you are not the aggrieved party."
You can't sue someone breaking a law, that is not affecting you. These people are NOT the US government and the only true redress for illegal actions by the President is impeachment through Congress. This isn't the first time this has been tried, but with other agendas.
And yeah, this is in reality only about his fucking taxes.
Jeremiah Murphy
>Absolutely no one. So you're totally useless as a eligible voter and member of society? Good to know.
Ayden Clark
I believe in that clause it pertains to "political party platforms" not fucking building codes and permits or payments on property etc.
This is just more Jew shit. The Jews are going to throw everything they can at him. Pro tip- they have already lost.
Jaxson Lewis
Only if you clump all of them together. It's confusing if I see it that way, especially since I've heard of liberals attempting to sue Clinton as well. It's a huge mess. That's why I wonder why you guys aren't acknowledging the full spectrum. Only spectrum you see is my autism spectrum, and it's off the charts.
Jaxson Morgan
Is this similar?
Kayden Jackson
Yeppers.
Jacob Allen
and accepting money from a country that beats kills and jail women because they got raped is somehow acceptable
Adam Moore
> >"without approval of congress" >its nothing There's congressional approval? Is it written?
>"No legal rights to bring a suit. As you are not the aggrieved party." Has this been said during constitutional cases?
>49% of registered voters are not contributing members of society
No true American judges one's worth these days by that. I saw no point in wasting my vote. A man who goes outside and experiences the real world would not say that.
Either way, Trump is still going to be chortling Israel's balls while pepes watch stroking their massive ogre dicks for Shrek's glorious kek.
Hunter Miller
3rd day into office OMG
Evan Russell
I wonder what the next four years will be like for the rights of men. And not that men are oppressed, but the idea that men can be raped is laughed. Men are seen as more violent, and are treated less fairly. If there was a Men's March, you'd see some arrests. You'd see the media hounding on them. Regardless of convictions, this is the media fucking people over again. At least Trump acknowledged them as protesters and didn't talk about rioting.
Adrian Martin
Yes. You can't just sue the President without being the injured party, and it mostly has to be an injury that has nothing to do with being President.
This lawsuit is everything that Paula Jones suing Clinton wasn't.
dude fuck off, you're a faggot who is just baiting people into shitty arguments. Hillary lost, get over it.
Hudson Thomas
So Trump did nothing to aggreive these parties until after taking the oath.
This is a junk lawsuit and like I said, its been creatively tried before and failed.
Ryder Phillips
0/10
Try much harder. Sad!
That's interesting, I didn't know about that. Well maybe an impeachment is more of what they're looking for, although they're not going to get one in three days that's for sure.
Daniel Ward
...
Alexander Peterson
A good reminder that this can also happen to Presidents that needed to be sued.
Alexander Smith
>Do they have a valid argument? Can you explain why not?
Prediction: This gets tossed out because they have no standing to sue. This isn't even Haliburton class.
>>"No legal rights to bring a suit. As you are not the aggrieved party." >Has this been said during constitutional cases? All the fucking time.
At best they're trying to get to discovery to get him to release documents and associate his name with scandal.
