Trump Faces Contractual Violation on Jan. 20th.

[Nurvus]

In the article you have the perfect answer:
"Trump was admitted when the lease was signed entitling him to whatever benefits current and future and the Feds to whatever payments current and future and other terms. Change the terms of the contract during the Trump Presidency and you have a case Councilor. Your example of the Senator admission is the type of change in terms that is not permitted. It is not applicable to the current scenario. Prior to the inauguration both Trump and GSA abide the contract terms and each receives the benefits due. After inauguration, provided Trump and GSA continue to abide by the contract terms, each receiving only what is due, how has Trump been unduely enriched and how has the Government been harmed? Where is the wrong requiring correction? Also no doubt there is a termination clause; what say it? Termination could enrich Trump at the expense of the Government and that would seem to harm the Government. On a side note, it seems unlikely a GSA clause in a civil contract would take precedence over the Presidential qualifications in the Constitution but maybe you can find an example. The extra-Constitution requirement for the President to divest property seems... unconstitutional but maybe you know of some legal example of extra-Constitution requirements found to be... Constitutional, please enlighten Councilor. The GSA clause may be unenforceable. "

[Stacyrect]

than what is contract law?

It's a lease, not a contract

[Cebel]

they would be screaming regardless.

as if the dems havent been in the streets screaming shit for years since that criminal michael brown.

[Slant]

From http://www.govexec.com/excellence/pr...ebacle/133424/ *



Why was the underline section omitted? You can't just say "No" and dot-dot-dot to the part that upsets you.

Sounds like someone took journalistic "liberties".

--Update--

Further digging. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...m_content=2056



Better clarification. The clause says nothing about changing the ownership to the lease to his adult-children.

--Update--


Also he can just make his legal-adult kids lease the property instead.

Next fake news thread.

The dots are an editorial method to omit the irrelevant parts that they are not referring to. This is totally valid if they are not mandatory conditions to make a case. Ironically, this method (usually seen as [...], although it depends on the style of the editor) is meant to assist the feeble minded in understanding the argument without getting confused. Why is this ironic? Because of your post, really... :P

[ImpTaimer]

So....were u as vocal as when it showed The Clinton Foundation did shady crap? Probably not.

It's easily fixable. OR his lawyers could argue the point when the lease was signed he wasn't violating it.

I just wish to hell people would quit digging deep to find frivolous shit.

What about being FORCED to pay for Healthcare and get denied to be able to use it? That's the crap I'm more concerned about

You won't get any real conversation out of the mouthbreathing attack dogs.

Trump already said he's letting his adult-children run the company. So all he as to do is change the lease to one of their names.

We still have over two weeks to see what happens.

-snip-

Do you feel better projecting your arm-chair journalism and contributing nothing to the thread?

[Anevers]

Contracts aren't laws.

This is so face palming it is sig worthy.


edit: Quoting the right person is hard.

[Slant]

Do you feel better projecting your arm-chair journalism and contributing nothing to the thread?

I explained why there are dots. That is contributing to the thread, since the post I responded to was questioning the use of dots and used it as an argument to invalidate the whole text.

That's more contribution than trying to insult me and accusing me of not contributing in the face of me actually contributing. :P

Ah, Trumpsters... almost as amusing as Putinistas. :P

[Wells]

I cannot wait when all the foreign dignitaries stay in that hotel when visiting. Isn't hat pay for play?

Emoluments Clause.

[Slant]

Emoluments Clause.

Is that actually applicable to foreign dignitaries? Why would they care about US power separation?

[Wells]

Is that actually applicable to foreign dignitaries? Why would they care about US power separation?

No, its what Trump is probably going to be violating on day one.

[Belize]

Is that actually applicable to foreign dignitaries? Why would they care about US power separation?

They don't, but out government does. Remember that there are two parties involved in a transaction. One of them happens to be the President-Elect here.

[Super Kami Dende]

I wonder what contractual Violations Hillary made when she used Charity Funds to fund her Daughters Wedding.

[Kronik85]

Can't he just transfer the lease to his kids and job done? If he'd used his office to secure the lease for one of his kids then that would of been shady as hell but that's not what's happened here. I'm sure there will be plenty to rabble about once he actually gets into office but this doesn't seem to be one of them.

[Soeroah]

Still boggles my mind how people think giving control of his businesses to his kids somehow nullifies any conflict of interest.

[Wells]

I wonder what contractual Violations Hillary made when she used Charity Funds to fund her Daughters Wedding.

A) The story is false
B) Who the fuck cares? What is this childish shit excuse supposed to show?

[- Kronos -]

...Then what's the point of a contract if it isn't binding?

- - - Updated - - -



Clinton will not be President, and therefore does not matter anymore.
Stop deflecting.

There are laws dealing with the execution, formation, and breach of contract. A contract itself is not a law.

[Super Kami Dende]

A) The story is false
B) Who the fuck cares? What is this childish shit excuse supposed to show?

A) Linking Washingtonpost as a Source lel.
B) That Democrats are huge Hypocrites.

[Wells]

A) Linking Washingtonpost as a Source lel.
B) That Democrats are huge Hypocrites.

Make a thread about the Clinton Foundation then, I don't give a shit.

Meanwhile, Trump is going to be using the Presidency to enrich himself. If that kind of corruption actually bothers you you'd spend less time using Clinton as an excuse for it.

[Paranoid Android]

I wonder what contractual Violations Hillary made when she used Charity Funds to fund her Daughters Wedding.

Deflect much.

Actually its the Republicans that are the hypocrites. They cried about this same shit all through the campaign. Looks like it is CROOKED DONALD now.

[KrazyK923]

I wonder what contractual Violations Hillary made when she used Charity Funds to fund her Daughters Wedding.

Not only is this false, but its a laughable pathetic defense. Can't you ever defend your Glorious Leader without bringing up Clinton?

She lost. She's not relevant to anything anymore. You can stop strawmanning every attack on Trump by bringing up Clinton at any time.

You can deflect better than that. This was a pathetic attempt.