(July 28, 2018 at 12:02 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:(July 28, 2018 at 7:36 am)Brian37 Wrote: The reason the founders put in the emolument's clause was so that our head of state could not make money off possible conflicts of interests with foreign leaders. It was put in place to avoid possible corruption. I can remember Shithole's lawyers saying they fully divested which is a load of crap. Now the asshole is rightfully being sued, and a judge denied the fuckface's request to block the suit. The good part about his stupidity, is that it may force his tax records into the public eye and we can finally see the full depth of his bullshit.
https://nypost.com/2018/07/25/judge-reje...e-lawsuit/
That being said, I think if the President were taken down on the basis of the emoluments clause, many would think it a petty and inappropriate way to take him down, and I would for my part think that they might have a point.
Petty? So it is ok for a western leader to be in the position of conflict of interests and subject to an enemy, to hold something over their heads?
HOW ABOUT NO!
It is not only right to subject a potential president to that kind of scrutiny, without it it opens the door to corruption.
If you were to apply for a mere teller at a bank, at least in America, they won't simply ask for your prior work experience or references, they will investigate your finances to make sure you are not so much in debt you'd get desperate to steal money.
Tell me why a bank teller would be subject to more financial scrutiny than a President? That is fucking absurd.
