Two U.S. Attorneys General to sue over foreign payments to Trump

>>148612
So much Trump articles holy fuck

>>148612
But why loli?

Don't you know this is a sfw board? If I had been viewing this in public people would think I was pedoing like a champ.

>>148636
He can't go 2 days without a major controversy. Half of it is his own distractions and the other half is a mix of malice and incompetence. People keep pointing out how the media is biased but maybe he can try and do something good. Like donate some money to a charity. Don't just do a fundraiser. Even his veterans fundraiser is in controversy for lying about the sum they donated (any of it) Like holy fuck just let them have the donation. Why intentionally be an asshole at every opportunity?

>>148649
He has done good things, you never talk about them. Half these articles are like essentially annonymous sources say x and the other half are mad that he isn't a liberal

>>148649
The fact that he can't go 2 days without a controversy has nothing to do with "distractions" "malice" or "incompetence". The media has been whipping up these controversies either by escalating the small things and completely fabricating the big things (they've even been caught doing it). The media and the democrats are trying to get him impeached by any means necessary even if it completely destroys their reputations which ironically is all they've done so far. They're not any closer to Trumps impeachment but they want us to believe that they are by having cucks like Don Lemon and Maxine Waters and the like going on every single day saying "this is it...this could be the information we need to impeach him" then they turn around and spew a bunch of garbage like the article in this thread. Its all propoganda and half of it is lies...hence the term "fake news".

>>148652
>He has done good things, you never talk about them.
Apparently _you_ don't talk about them either.

>>148661
>The media and the democrats are trying to get him impeached by any means necessary
...because he's such a horrible president.


>spew a bunch of garbage like the article in this thread. Its all propoganda and half of it is lies...hence the term "fake news".
???
He's pretty clearly in violation of the Constitution.
In the case of the hotel in the old D.C. Post Office building, he's in violation of his lease with the government too.
None of that is "fake" or "garbage".
Maybe if he didn't break the law so much, he wouldn't be in court so much.
Maybe if you looked into his history, you'd have expected this all along.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump

>>148612

>...because he's such a horrible president.
First of all that's a bullshit argument...give me some proof...
>In the case of the hotel in the old D.C. Post Office building, he's in violation of his lease with the government too.
This incident happened before he was president so technically he didn't violate shit.
>Maybe if he didn't break the law so much, he wouldn't be in court so much.
When has he gone to court over any of this? Oh wait that's right...he hasn't. He's been accused of a bunch of shit but yet he has never been subpoenaed to court over any of it...coincidence? No...they don't have enough to charge him for anything because everything he's being accused of hasn't been proven. Any more garbage or fake news you wanna mention?

move the the EU faggot

>>148667
>>...because he's such a horrible president.
>First of all that's a bullshit argument...give me some proof...
https://news.google.com

>This incident happened before he was president so technically he didn't violate shit.
The lease specifically says no government official can profit from the hotel.
He's in violation every single day it's open.

>When has he gone to court over any of this?
He hasn't been called to testify, so no, he's not _physically_ in a courtroom.
But his lawyers are, and his policies are.
The point is, he's been involved in 3500 lawsuits between 1973 and 2016, an average of 6 suits a month.
Even if he's not physically there, he spends a lot of time "in court".

>>148672
Lawsuits are pretty common for a business holder - Tesla, Apple, Hilton, etc get his with thousands of lawsuits a year. Of course his company has been in lawsuits, that's why companies have legal teams numbnuts.

Heck, the Clinton Foundation is under a lawsuit for racketeering and monetary fraud. Bernie Sanders daughter and Joe Bidens daughter are both in legal battles for credit fraud.

>>148649
>The news can't go 2 days without tying to invent a major controversy.

FTFY. There's a reason they all fall flat after a few days. They're transparently pathetic.

>>148612

>The lease specifically says no government official can profit from the hotel.
He probably passed it onto his sons along with the rest of his businesses so he's actually not violating anything.
>The point is, he's been involved in 3500 lawsuits between 1973 and 2016, an average of 6 suits a month.
Everything from 1973 to 2016 is completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters at this point is 2017. And either way the fact that he's been involved in court cases over the years is pointless given the fact that he was never convicted of anything. All that says is that people have been trying to get him in trouble for years and haven't been able to because he hasn't done anything wrong.

>>148672
>The point is, he's been involved in 3500 lawsuits between 1973 and 2016, an average of 6 suits a month.
>Even if he's not physically there, he spends a lot of time "in court".

That what happens when your political opposition tries to lock you down with legal nonsense after trying and failing to "expose" you by spying on your using foreign private intelligence agencies.

>>148677
>Heck, the Clinton Foundation is under a lawsuit for racketeering and monetary fraud. Bernie Sanders daughter and Joe Bidens daughter are both in legal battles for credit fraud.
Don't forget the impending investigation into their relationship with Loretta Lynch that the media will surely attempt bury quicker than Seth Rich.

>>148612
>>>...because he's such a horrible president.
>https://news.google.com
By the way this isnt even an article and it definitley doesnt prove that he's a "horrible president"...

>>148677
>Lawsuits are pretty common for a business holder -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump
>Trump has, however, been involved in far more litigation than fellow real-estate magnates; the USA Today analysis in 2016 found that Trump
>had been involved in legal disputes more than Edward J. DeBartolo Jr., Donald Bren, Stephen M. Ross, Sam Zell, and Larry Silverstein combined.

>>148681
>>The lease specifically says no government official can profit from the hotel.
>He probably passed it onto his sons along with the rest of his businesses so he's actually not violating anything.
Donnie Jr is managing the bulk of Trump's businesses, but Trump still owns them.
So, yes, he is in violation of the lease.
He didn't even put them in a blind trust like Cheney.

>>148681
>Everything from 1973 to 2016 is completely irrelevant.
...except the part where I said:
>Maybe if you looked into his history, you'd have expected this all along.

If you didn't want the POTUS to be in court all the time, you shouldn't have voted for the guy with Trump's court history.

Several of his 2016 lawsuits involve improper activity in relation to the election.
Never mind the Russians, there's enough American-made election tampering to go around.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump#Assault_claims
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump#Poll_watching_controversy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump#Nevada_early_voting_Latino_turnout_controversy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump#Lawsuit_for_inciting_violence_at_March_2016_campaign_rally
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump#Campaign_contributions


...and if you're one of the many conservatives upset about Hillary's mysteriously deleted emails:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump#Destruction_of_documents
>In June 2016, a USA Today article reported that Donald Trump and his companies have been deleting emails and other documents on a
>large scale,[186] including evidence in lawsuits, sometimes in defiance of court orders and under subpoena since as early as 1973.[187][188][189]
>Trump and his companies "hid or destroyed thousands of documents" involving several court cases from as early as 1973.

>>148682
>That what happens when your political opposition tries to lock you down with legal nonsense after trying and failing to "expose" you by spying on your using foreign private intelligence agencies.
They've been doing that since 1973????

>>148688
>Never mind the Russians, there's enough American-made election tampering to go around.
Then maybe there would be more evidence than wiki articles with giant disclaimers stating the information may not be accurate and is subject to review due to bias.

>If you didn't want the POTUS to be in court all the time, you shouldn't have voted for the guy with Trump's court history.
Or you know, you could not cry about obstruction when it's used against your guy only to support it when it's used against the guy you don't like.

Second thought, never-mind. Let the suicide demon win. You're hopelessly broken and beached on boomer-politics. All you're missing is an opioid dependency. Or are you?

>>148688
The fact of the matter is that if he was doing something wrong he would be tried AND convicted. He may have been tried multiple times but if he was never convicted of a crime enthen this whole conversation is pointless. If something comes up over the DC post office shit then so be it. But until then let the courts deal with it. The fact that they haven't yet just goes to show that they don't suspect any illegal activity at this point. I'm sure they know more about the law than both of us. In fact I'm sure they know more about these cases in general than both of us

>>148612

>If you didn't want the POTUS to be in court all the time, you shouldn't have voted for the guy with Trump's court history.

And we already established that he's not in court...

>>148695
>And we already established that he's not in court...
He's currently involved in several lawsuits you mong.

>>148690
>Then maybe there would be more evidence than wiki articles with giant disclaimers
The articles also have sources cited in the footnotes. Knock yourself out.

>only to support it when it's used against the guy you don't like.
When did I do that?

>>148693
>The fact of the matter is that if he was doing something wrong he would be tried AND convicted.
Not while the GOP controls Congress but refuses to see the forest for the trees.
Don't believe me? OK, ask Trump himself: "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters."
Like Reagan, he can break all the laws he wants and he still thinks he's bulletproof.
But Reagan was much more popular, and had a LOT more political clout.

>The fact that they haven't yet just goes to show that they don't suspect any illegal activity at this point.
???
Are you excpecting somebody from the D.C. police force to show up at the WH and arrest him?
Lease violations aren't a crime. It;s a civil matter.
And yes, it IS going to court.
What part of this don't you understand?

>>>148667

>He hasn't been called to testify, so no, he's not _physically_ in a courtroom.

>>148612
>>>148693

>Not while the GOP controls Congress but refuses to see the forest for the trees.
The GOP has hated Trump since the beginning...
>Lease violations aren't a crime.
You're digging yourself a hole here man...

>>148612
>>>148695
>He's currently involved in several lawsuits you mong.

Typical...you're having a hard time proving me wrong so of course you have to reduce to name calling...you can't just have a civilized debate.

>>148688
>be billionaire playboy philanthropist
>be celebrity
>be target for frivolous lawsuits because people want money
>refuse to settle in court because it will only encourage others to do so
>hurrdurr other rich guys have less lawsuits
>they are literally who?
>if you didn't want a president constantly harrassed by people who would not vote for him and the media you should have voted for my guy.
>he's going to get impeached!
>he broke the constitution...said his opponents nervously for the 9001st time
I mean do you honestly have no concept of how retarded you sound? You are saying if we didn't want a president to be mired by fake outrage and fabricated controversy we shouldn't have voted the way we wanted but how the media wanted us? And you somehow don't see how this is totalitarian and fascist?

>>148684
If you know anything about Trump, it's that he never settles cases, even when he's advised not to.

>>148701
>The articles also have sources cited in the footnotes. Knock yourself out.
Not big on sifting though propaganda. Feel free to post them though, seeing as how the burden of proof is on you.

>When did I do that?
Everyday, since the beginning and till the end of your life.

>>148707
>>be target for frivolous lawsuits because people want money
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump
> Trump had been involved in legal disputes more than Edward J. DeBartolo Jr., Donald Bren, Stephen M. Ross, Sam Zell, and Larry Silverstein combined.[1]

>>148707
>>refuse to settle in court because it will only encourage others to do so

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump
>Although Trump has said that he "never" settles legal claims, Trump and his businesses have settled with plaintiffs in at least 100 cases

>>148707
>>he's going to get impeached!
I've claimed just the opposite.

>>he broke the constitution...said his opponents nervously
Then you shouldn't mind him going to court over it.

>>148709
>Feel free to post them though, seeing as how the burden of proof is on you.
The page I linked has all of them at the bottom.
If you want to dispute them, go right ahead.
I'll wait.

>>148707
>philanthropist
Trump is the antithesis of a philanthropist

>>148612
>allege Trump violates the Constitution's "emoluments" clause, which bars him from accepting gifts from foreign governments without congressional approval, by maintaining ownership over his business empire despite ceding day-to-day control to his sons.

I don't remember George Washington being forced to sell off his plantation when he became President

Meanwhile, the "Clinton Foundation" continues to rake in bazillions of dollars in foreign "donations"....

>>148787
There isn't a Clinton in the white house

>>148714
>I'll wait.
Of course you will. Your supervisor says you have to.

>>148831
You do remember she was Secretary of State, yes child?

>>148833
>was

>>148880
she didn't separate herself from the foundation until half way through her campaign. And foreign donors dropped out of her foundation after she lost the election...go figure. plus the emoluments clause would have applied to her since she was a "Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them" even during her time as a senator.

>>148911
Lock them both up.
Adjacent cells.

>>148911
man, the point is it's not a problem anymore. History. Only useful for those who like to tally points.