monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

So you're cool with the fact that Trump has not divested the property, and is personally profiting from membership fees and annual dues?

You're critical of people who made a donation to the DNC being invited to stay at the Lincoln Bedroom, but Trump personally raking in what are most likely millions of dollars in private profits is nothing to be too concerned about?

Oh yeah, you're right. If it's not in the contract, then it doesn't matter.

Of course, there is a lot of proof now that you might run into the President at Mar-a-Lago. Or that you might run into top ranking White House staff. Or that you might be able to take a selfie with the guy who carries the nuclear football. Or that you might personally witness how the President and his international partners react to an international crisis. Or that the President might come over to crash your wedding party and personally congratulate you.

As long as you paid your $200,000 membership fee and your $14,000 annual dues, of course.

But if it's not in a contract, then it's completely irrelevant. As irrelevant as the accusations against Hillary that a donation to the Clinton Foundation would grant anyone access to the Secretary of State.

Why do you guys on the left begrudge someone making a profit from their private business, but you don't from a foundation? You do realize there is a difference between the two, right?

A big difference yes. Clinton in no way has profited from the Clinton foundation. Unlike Trump's charities, the foundations financial record books have been open and public for decades.

Baldimo still hasn't figured out that Trump is a liar, scammer, and bigot.

Quote:

A big difference yes. Clinton in no way has profited from the Clinton foundation. Unlike Trump's charities, the foundations financial record books have been open and public for decades.

Biggest difference being is that Trump didn't make his money from a charity, he made it from being an actual business man. The other difference is that according to federal law, Clinton wasn't allowed to benefit from her position in the govt, which she clearly has since her foundation is starting to fold like a house of cards since she lost the election. If the Foundation wasn't a pay for play scam, then it should have been just fine without Hillary holding a position of power. Trumps business's will continue on just fine once he leaves office.

What you guys are missing is what is allowed by law and what isn't. You want the law to say one thing but it doesn't. Change the law if you don't like the President profiting from a personal business while in office.

That's a LOT of words to say exactly nothing of value.

Oh, the sky is falling, the sky is falling!

I expect the left to continue to scour the landscape for anything they can turn into a crisis. Next week they will be claiming that someone in the administration had a coffee cup or a tie clip that is really a secret endorsement of the the KKK or the Nazis. Trump wore a neck tie that looks very much like one that Hitler wore in a speech in 1934 and we all know what that means!

They have no credibility. It's foolish to be dragged down into their hysteria. The rational response for conservatives is to let them stand off to the side shrieking accusations and insults (racist, sexist, homophobe, Islamophone, xenophobe, etc.) and get on with business. Nothing they say even rises to the level at which it would deserve a response. We have the votes in Congress and that's all that we need.

Quote:

That's a LOT of words to say exactly nothing of value.

That's because you are so deep in your hatred for Trump that you can't see what the law actually says on the matter.

Trump used Trump Foundation (a charitable org) money to pay for his personal legal fees.

Selling access to something you don't own is one things, selling memberships to a private golf course is another.

Nope. That's not it. You just spread falsehoods, unsupported accusations, and blatant lies. You're just like Trump.

"General Flynn is a wonderful man. I think he's been treated very, very unfairly by the media, as I call it the fake media, in many cases, and I think it is really a sad thing he was treated so badly,"

I love it!

You're defending a President promoting his private businesses and profiteering because there "is nothing unconstitutional or against the law" about it.

Yet you feel the need to go back more than two decades to drag out something that is neither unconstitutional nor against the law either, but you're wildly attacking it because...... why exactly?

The evolving and eroding level of trust as a result of this situation in a series of other questionable instances is what led the president to ask for Gen. Flynn's resignation.

Gen. Flynn, in the end, decided he was a lightning rod. He did not want to be a distraction and he tendered his resignation last night because…because what he had provided the vice president either was a product of misleading information or forgetfulness and neither one was sustainable long-term.

General Flynn is a wonderful man. I think he's been treated very, very unfairly by the media, as I call it the fake media, in many cases, and I think it is really a sad thing he was treated so badly.
[...]
I think that it is very, very unfair what's happened to General Flynn, the way he was treated and the documents and papers that were illegally, I stress that, illegally leaked.