The Ethics Suit Against Trump – A Helpful Reader Pointed Me to More Info:

A helpful reader pointed me to recent debates between Professor Teachout and Professor Seth Tillman on whether the Foreign Emoluments Clause even applies to Presidents, a point I briefly said was an “open question” in my analysis of the ethics suit against Trump 10 days ago. Very interesting stuff:

Seth Barrett Tillman, Room for Debate, Constitutional Restrictions on Foreign Gifts Don’t Apply to Presidents, The NY Times, Nov. 18, 2016, 10:41 AM, http://tinyurl.com/jpbhom5

Zephyr Teachout & Seth Barrett Tillman, Common Interpretation—The Foreign Emoluments Clause: Article I, Section 9, Clause 8, in The Interactive Constitution (National Constitution Center 2016), http://tinyurl.com/jxro4o9

Zephyr Teachout, Matters of Debate—The Foreign Emoluments Clause, in The Interactive Constitution (National Constitution Center 2016), http://tinyurl.com/hkf35q5

Seth Barrett Tillman, Matters of Debate—The Foreign Emoluments Clause Reached Only Appointed Officers, in The Interactive Constitution (National Constitution Center 2016), http://tinyurl.com/zgbdtso

Professor Tillman recently appeared on:

Prime Time: A Segment on Trump, RTÉ (Jan. 12, 2017, 9:00 PM), http://tinyurl.com/jjm38q6 (at 5:50ff) (also with Eric Walker for DNC);

Cormac Ó hEadhra, The Late Debate: U.S. Election Night, RTÉ Radio 1 (Nov. 8, 2016, 9:00 PM), http://tinyurl.com/jy3ngp4; and,

The Pat Kenny Tonight Show, TV3 (Nov. 9, 2016, 9:30 PM), https://www.tv3.ie/3player/show/1032; and,

Prime Time, RTÉ (Nov. 10, 2016, 9:00 PM), http://tinyurl.com/jhw6jhd

 

 

 

 

CNN: “Trump Just Got Checked and Balanced.” Me: “Y’all Got Trumped.”

CNN gloats  “Trump just got checked and balanced,” but it should say, “Y’all Got Trumped!”

A”so-called judge” has overturned President Trump’s immigration order  (actual text – what media give you that?) blocking entry to immigrants and travelers from certain countries (Iran, Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan and Libya), because those countries (Iran, Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan and Libya) are said to have lots of radical Islamic terrorists.

To put it another way:  Liberals got a federal judge to overturn it.

Or another way: Now people from these seven countries can come into our country.

Or another: And destroy it.

Or another: Or just loaf around.  But mostly destroy it.

I don’t think President Trump is all that sad (Sad!) about this overturn of events.  If any one of these immigrants or tourists commits a terrorist act, or even just a crime or leaves a bad tip, President Trump gets to say I told you so, with a dash of liberals and so-called judges are just all going to get us all killed.

I swear, I came up with that idea on my own about how Trump made this move. Then I decided to get the link to the Trump Tweet I referenced above  (“so-called judge”), and I saw this Tweet by Trump:

Actually, I was trying to post the Tweet that says:

“The judge opens up our country to potential terrorists and others that do not have our best interests at heart. Bad people are very happy!”

But it wouldn’t copy! The other one is what copied. People who don’t like accuracy in links are very happy!  So I got 2 for 1. A great deal. The Art of the Deal.

Liberals will not enjoy trying to argue their way out of this one – the one where someone from one of these seven countries comes in today or anytime after and commits a terrorist act or even a crime in our country.  A parking violation will be enough for many Americans to throw up their hands and say, “This wouldn’t have happened if that so-called judge had just let President Trump protect us!”

Backlash against liberals and rule of law coming soon?

Rob Reich, Stop Wasting Our Time

In a very short video from MoveOn.org, “Why Democrats Must Fight for America,” Rob Reich asks Democrats why they didn’t push harder in the vote recount cases (brought by Green candidate Jill Stein); object to the Electoral College vote instead of rubber-stamping it on January 6; why they haven’t objected to Trump’s conflicts of interest; his appointment of family members to the White House; “kept the heat” on the investigation of Russia involvement in Trump’s campaign; or “used every procedural tool at proposal to slow approval of Trump’s terrible cabinet appointees.” He also asks, “Why did 13 Senate Democrats [including rising star Cory Booker, which Reich doesn’t mention] vote against Bernie Sanders’ proposal to import prescription drugs from Canada?”

Reich offers the standard answers (Democrats don’t want to be sore losers, they  want to take the high road, etc.).

Reich neglects the obvious answers: Democrats don’t care. They’re beholden to the same interests. They’re a fake opposition party. Remember back in the George W. Bush years, when the Democrat majority in Congress stood up to Bush and dismantled his assault on civil liberties, human rights, and his military assault on Afghanistan and Iraq?

I don’t, either. It never happened. Instead, the Democrat majority just went along.

The Democrats’ nominating pro-war, corporate-owned Hillary Clinton explains their true nature. Recall that the party was able to crown Clinton only by relying on the votes of party-insider “super-delegates,” because Clinton couldn’t win the requisite number of regular delegates based on popular voting. Too many people voted for Bernie Sanders.

Reich calls on us to call on elected Democrats to say “you want them to fight as if your life, and the well-being of your family and community, depends on it — which they do.”

There should be no need to call any Democrats. Certainly, they see what’s going on even more clearly than we do.

Elected Republicans don’t wait until their constituents call them before taking action.  President Trump certainly doesn’t.

Given the real reasons Democrats don’t/won’t “fight back,” it’s clear that calling them is a waste of time.

Open Letter to DNC – Blame Yourselves, not Sanders, in November

Dear DNC:

You know NOW that Sanders is actually very likely more electable than Clinton, and that he’d be polling even better without your and Big Media’s thumbs on the scale for Clinton. You know NOW that thousands of Sanders supporters have pledged NOT to vote for Clinton if she’s nominated (here and here). Yet you persist in promoting Clinton. You persist in not letting the primaries play out so that voters may decide. If Clinton loses in November, don’t blame Sanders’ supporters (the way you blamed Nader supporters in 2000), who have made clear that they are opposed to Big Money in politics (for which Clinton is the poster child) and have demonstrated that a candidate can get widespread funding, from small donors, without selling out. Your conduct is the definition of “reckless.”

If Clinton loses in November, you will have only yourselves to blame. 

Best,

Brian J. Foley