GUTFELD: The Better Trump Does, The More Insane The LEFT Acts

[coorslite21]

48 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

He was talked off the ledge by just about everybody but his base in regards to Doral.....Trump Hotel Washington is another story altogether.

 

GO RV, then BV

Yes....DC is another story......project was started in 2012.......doubt he just ran hoping to win in 2016 so he could fill his Hotel rooms...

CL

[Shabibilicious]

25 minutes ago, coorslite21 said:

Yes....DC is another story......project was started in 2012.......doubt he just ran hoping to win in 2016 so he could fill his Hotel rooms...

CL

 

Which changes what exactly with regards to a "phony" emoluments violation?  

 

GO RV, then BV

[coorslite21]

25 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

Which changes what exactly with regards to a "phony" emoluments violation?  

 

GO RV, then BV

 

Zero ability to prove Trump benefited personally from any of this.....or that he planned the DC Hotel with intent to cash in......

 

I hear that angle is one of the upcoming MSM smears that we'll see soon.....perhaps even next week....   CL

[Karsten]

 

Karsten

[umbertino]

4 hours ago, yota691 said:

 

 

 

I don't quite get why having some critique toward some Politicians ( or one or more in particular) should be deemed here (by a specific group of Individuals) as "HATE" toward an entire Country.....

 

I can criticize someone without hating ...Infact for myself that's the norm ( in case I might feel like criticizing whoever or whatever, I mean...No hate...)

[Karsten]

 

Karsten

[caddieman]

18 minutes ago, Rafiki1 said:

 

Yota. PLEASE LET THESE FOLKS KNOW THAT LGD IS NOT A MODERATOR HERE!  He’s been spewing this s#”t for his own self aggrandizement and it is infuriating. 

HE is not a mod.........really!

[umbertino]

 

This thing needs to be clarified once and for all...Is he or not? Pls someone in the high ranks tell us....Thanks

[caddieman]

17 minutes ago, umbertino said:

 

This thing needs to be clarified once and for all...Is he or not? Pls someone in the high ranks tell us....Thanks

If he is not a mod that’s really screwed up

[coorslite21]

Try going  clicking on Staff....

 

 

Staff Directory

MODERATORS

Adam Montana

Administrator

Bumper64

Administrator

 Message

Documenting Services

Newbie

 Message

ipbdev

Newbie

 Message

 

ipbdev-unrestricted

Newbie

 Message

Julie.Moore

Administrator

TexasGranny

Platinum VIP

 Message

Caye98

Purveyor of Drink Umbrellas

 Message

 

EagleEye

Senior Member

 Message

kcw

Senior Member

ladyGrace'sDaddy

Senior Member

 Message

Markinsa

Saved By The Blood!

 Message

 

paperboy

Platinum VIP Moderator

 Message

tjokie

Destiny, Challenge, Perseverance

 Message

yota691

Enjoy the Ride...

 Message

• Theme 
•  
• Privacy Policy
•  
• Contact Us

Copyright 2017-2021 DinarVet

 

[coorslite21]

I might add he over sees the VIP cryptocurrency section.....and since it's inception there has been a great deal of financial success by members involved .....

 

LGD brings added value to this site......value other than just those who Trash Trump and are generally negative about life in general....

 

JMO.    CL

[caddieman]

6 minutes ago, coorslite21 said:

I might add he over sees the VIP!" rel="">VIP cryptocurrency section.....and since it's inception there has been a great deal of financial success by members involved .....

 

LGD brings added value to this site......value other than just those who Trash Trump and are generally negative about life in general....

 

JMO.    CL

Thanks CL

[Karsten]

Well....While we are talking about little Tid bits about the Constitution.....Can we talk just briefly on the Logan Act or say Violation of the Logan Act.

 

Obama Calls UN Security Meeting – US Officials Not Invited

 

https://obamawatcher.com/2019/06/obama-calls-un-security-meeting-us-officials-not-invited/?fbclid=IwAR0E3dcQILMpvLlK_niiv-bVt4UdSh2pyF5xc_XN6VQbE1PifO4nQs7hkFo

 

So maybe we should Talk about Due Process.....

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/due process

 

Maybe shall we discuss the 4th Amendment

 

The Fourth Amendment bars the government from unreasonable search and seizure of an individual or their private property.

 

How about the 5th Amendment....Again we want to follow the law here right.....Nothing like Closed Door Secret meeting and all.

 

The Fifth Amendment provides several protections for people accused of crimes. It states that serious criminal charges must be started by a grand jury.  A person cannot be tried twice for the same offense (double jeopardy) or have property taken away without just compensation. People have the right against self-incrimination and cannot be imprisoned without due process of law (fair procedures and trials.)

 

Oh say it isn't also in the Bill Of Right....The 6th Amendment....This is bad...

 

The Sixth Amendment provides additional protections to people accused of crimes, such as the right to a speedy and public trial, trial by an impartial jury in criminal cases, and to be informed of criminal charges. Witnesses must face the accused, and the accused is allowed his or her own witnesses and to be represented by a lawyer. 

 

Then the 7th Amendment....Just who the hell wrote this stuff....Adam Schiff want the Trial in Secret.

 

The Seventh Amendment extends the right to a jury trial in Federal civil cases.

 

Now the Constitution flies in the Face of what is going on today....More So it says We Need To Stand Up.

 

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

 

Then you have the Petty Constitution to deal with or so the Liberal think.

 

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

Section 1

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Liberals really don't care about this part to start with as they think it is their show and nothing else matters.

 

Section 3

 

Maybe cutting AOC Cloce....Wasn't she just 29.

 

3: No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

 

I suppose Adam and Mistress pelosi forgot about this part.

 

6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

 

7: Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

 

Tired, I will get back to this in the AM.

 

Karsten

 

[nstoolman1]

Thank you. 

 

 

Edited October 24, 2019 by nstoolman1

[coorslite21]

1 hour ago, caddieman said:

Thanks CL

 

My pleasure!

CL

 

[Karsten]

Anyone recall the Complaining about Recess Appointment......

 

Section 2

1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

3: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

 

 

Section 3

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

 

 

Section 4

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

 

More later I am sure.

 

Article III (Article 3 - Judicial)

3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

 

 

Now this would be bad for a lot of folks on the Left .....IS, Pallets of cash sent to Iran, the Wars, The Antifa Up Rising.....one and on.

 

Section 3

1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

 

Article IV (Article 4 - States' Relations

 

Humm, Seems the liberals are dropping the ball here in a big way.

 

Section 3

1: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

2: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

 

 

I don't see where Secret meeting where mentioned but I will keep looking.....I am sure the Founding Father Wrote Something to Cover Adam Schiff.

 

So now going deeper....The Emoluments Clause.....I can find no where it has anything to do with anyone staying at any resort even World Wide....Titles, Gifts, Presents....(Obama comes to mind with wanting to keep something valued over $200.00)

 

Those greater than I will find it I am sure and when they do be sure and highlight it in red so we all will know.....That is until the Trump Era you will find way below if you read that long.

 

Title of Nobility Clause

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Not to be confused with Titles of Nobility Amendment.

"Foreign Emoluments Clause" redirects here. For other uses, see Emoluments Clause.

This article is part of a series on the
Constitution of the United States of America
Preamble and Articles of the Constitution
Preamble I II III IV V VI VII
Amendments to the Constitution
Bill of Rights I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII XIX XX XXI XXII XXIII XXIV XXV XXVI XXVII
Unratified Amendments
Congressional Apportionment Titles of Nobility Corwin Child Labor Equal Rights D.C. Voting Rights
History
Drafting and ratification timeline Convention Signing Federalism Republicanism
Full text of the Constitution and Amendments
Preamble and Articles I–VII Amendments I–X Amendments XI–XXVII Unratified Amendments
United States portal Law portal Politics portal Wikipedia book
v t e

The Title of Nobility Clause is a provision in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution,^[1] that prohibits the federal government from granting titles of nobility, and restricts members of the government from receiving gifts, emoluments, offices or titles from foreign states and monarchies without the consent of the United States Congress. Also known as the Emoluments Clause, it was designed to shield the federal officeholders of the United States against so-called "corrupting foreign influences." The clause is reinforced by the corresponding prohibition on state titles of nobility in Article I, Section 10, and more generally by the Republican Guarantee Clause in Article IV, Section 4.^[2]

Contents

• 1 Text
• 2 History
• 3 Titles of nobility
  • 3.1 President's title
  • 3.2 Constitutional amendment concerning titles of nobility
• 4 Foreign emoluments
  • 4.1 Presidential
    • 4.1.1 Traditional treatment
    • 4.1.2 Trump era
  • 4.2 Retired military
• 5 References
• 6 Further reading

Text

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.^[3]

History

The Framers' intentions for this clause were twofold: to prevent a society of nobility from being established in the United States, and to protect the republican forms of government from being influenced by other governments. In Federalist No. 22, Alexander Hamilton stated, "One of the weak sides of republics, among their numerous advantages, is that they afford too easy an inlet to foreign corruption." Therefore, to counter this "foreign corruption" the delegates at the Constitutional Convention worded the clause in such a way as to act as a catch-all for any attempts by foreign governments to influence state or municipal policies through gifts or titles.^[4]

The Title of Nobility Clause is constitutionally unique in other respects. First, it is a "negative" clause—a restriction prohibiting the passage of legislation for a particular purpose. Such restrictions are unusual in that the Constitution has been historically interpreted to reflect specific (i.e., "positive") sources of power, relinquished by the states in their otherwise sovereign capacities.^[5] Moreover, it is a negative clause without a positive converse. A common example of this is how the Commerce Clause represents the positive converse to the restrictions imposed by the Dormant (or "Negative") Commerce Clause. However, neither an express nor implied positive grant of authority exists as a balance against the restrictions imposed by the Title of Nobility Clause. For this reason, the clause was cited by Anti-Federalists who supported the adoption of a Bill of Rights. Richard Henry Lee warned that such distinctions were inherently dangerous under accepted principles of statutory construction, which would inevitably "give many general undefined powers to congress"^[6] if left unchecked.

Why then by a negative clause, restrain congress from doing what it would have no power to do? This clause, then, must have no meaning, or imply, that were it omitted, congress would have the power in question, either upon the principle that some general words in the constitution may be so construed as to give it, or on the principle that congress possesses the powers not expressly reserved. But this clause was in the confederation, and is said to be introduced into the constitution from very great caution. Even a cautionary provision implies a doubt, at least, that it is necessary; and if so in this case, clearly it is also alike necessary in all similar ones.^[7]

According to Lee, the true purpose of the clause was merely to protect popular tradition: "The fact appears to be, that the people in forming the confederation, and the convention ... acted naturally; they did not leave the point to be settled by general principles and logical inferences; but they settle the point in a few words, and all who read them at once understand them."^[6] It was argued, therefore,^{[by whom?]} that a Bill of Rights was needed to safeguard against the expansion of federal power beyond such limited purpose(s).

Titles of nobility

The issue of titles was of serious importance to the American Revolutionaries and the Framers of the Constitution. Some felt that titles of nobility had no place in an equal and just society because they clouded people's judgment. Thomas Paine, in a criticism on nobility in general, wrote:

Dignities and high sounding names have different effects on different beholders. The lustre of the Star and the title of My Lord, over-awe the superstitious vulgar, and forbid them to inquire into the character of the possessor: Nay more, they are, as it were, bewitched to admire in the great, the vices they would honestly condemn in themselves. This sacrifice of common sense is the certain badge which distinguishes slavery from freedom; for when men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.^[8]

He felt that titles blinded people from seeing the true character of a person by providing titled individuals a lustre. Many Americans connected titles with the corruption that they had experienced from Great Britain,^[9] while others, like Benjamin Franklin, did not have as negative a view of titles. He felt that if a title is ascending, that is, it is achieved through hard work during a person's lifetime, it is good because it encourages the title holder's posterity to aspire to achieve the same or greater title; however, Franklin commented, that if a title is descending, that is, it is passed down from the title holder to his posterity, then it is:

groundless and absurd, but often hurtful to that Posterity, since it is apt to make them proud, disdaining to be employ'd in useful Arts, and thence falling into Poverty, and all the Meannesses, Servility, and Wretchedness attending it; which is the present case with much of what is called the Noblesse in Europe.^[10]

President's title

One of the first issues that the United States Senate dealt with was the title of president. Vice President John Adams called the senators' attention to this pressing procedural matter. Most senators were averse to calling the president anything that resembled the titles of European monarchs, yet John Adams proceeded to recommend the title: "His Highness, the President of the United States, and Protector of their Liberties," an attempt to imitate the titles of the British monarch: "By the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, Prince-Elector of Hannover, Duke of Brunswick" and the French monarch: "By the Grace of God, Most Christian King of France and Navarre." Some senators favored "His Elective Majesty" or "His Excellency" (the latter of which would become the standard form of address for elected presidents of later republics). James Madison, a member of the House of Representatives, would have none of it. He declared that the pretentious European titles were ill-suited for the "genius of the people" and "the nature of our Government." Washington became completely embarrassed with the topic and so the senators dropped it. From then on the president would simply be called the President of the United States or Mr. President, drawing a sharp distinction between American and European customs.^[11]

Under the rules of etiquette, the President, Vice President, members of both houses of Congress, governors of states, members of state legislatures, and mayors are accorded the title "The Honorable".^[12]

Constitutional amendment concerning titles of nobility

Main article: Titles of Nobility Amendment

In 1810, Democratic–Republican Senator Philip Reed of Maryland^[13] introduced a Constitutional amendment modifying the Title of Nobility Clause. Under the terms of this amendment any United States citizen who accepted, claimed, received or retained any title of nobility from a foreign government would be stripped of their U.S. citizenship. After being approved by the Senate on April 27, 1810, by a vote of 19–5^[14] and the House of Representatives on May 1, 1810, by a vote of 87–3,^[15] the amendment, titled "Article Thirteen", was sent to the state legislatures for ratification. On two occasions between 1812 and 1816 it was within two states of the number needed to become a valid part of the Constitution.^[16] As Congress did not set a time limit for its ratification, the amendment is still technically pending before the states. Currently, ratification by an additional 26 states would be necessary for this amendment to be adopted.

Foreign emoluments

The prohibition against officers receiving a present or emolument is essentially an antibribery rule to prevent influence by a foreign power.^[17] At the Virginia Ratifying Convention, Edmund Randolph, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, identified the Clause as a key "provision against the danger ... of the president receiving emoluments from foreign powers."^[18]

The Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel has opined that

[t]he language of the Emoluments Clause is both sweeping and unqualified. See 49 Comp. Gen. 819, 821 (1970) (the "drafters [of the Clause] intended the prohibition to have the broadest possible scope and applicability"). It prohibits those holding offices of profit or trust under the United States from accepting "any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever" from "any . . . foreign State" unless Congress consents. U.S. Const, art. I, § 9, cl. 8 (emphasis added). . . . The decision whether to permit exceptions that qualify the Clause's absolute prohibition or that temper any harshness it may cause is textually committed to Congress, which may give consent to the acceptance of offices or emoluments otherwise barred by the Clause.^[19]

The word "emolument" has a broad meaning. At the time of the Founding, it meant "profit," "benefit," or "advantage" of any kind.^[20] Because of the "sweeping and unqualified" nature of the constitutional prohibition, and in light of the more sophisticated understanding of conflicts of interest that developed after the Richard Nixon presidency, most modern presidents have chosen to eliminate any risk of conflict of interest that may arise by choosing to vest their assets into a blind trust.^[17] As the Office of Legal Counsel has advised, the Constitution is violated when the holder of an "Office of Profit or Trust", like the President,^[21] receives money from a partnership or similar entity in which he has a stake, and the amount he receives is "a function of the amount paid to the [entity] by the foreign government."^[19] This is because such a setup would allow the entity to "in effect be a conduit for that government," and so the government official would be exposed to possible "undue influence and corruption by [the] foreign government."^[19] The Department of Defense has expressly held that "this same rationale applies to distributions from limited liability corporations."^[22]

Presidential

Traditional treatment

Foreign states often present the President of the United States with gifts. While President, George Washington received a painting of, and key to, the Bastille from the Marquis de Lafayette, as "a tribute Which I owe as A Son to My Adoptive father."^[23] After leaving office, Washington also took home to Mount Vernon a painting of Louis XIV that he had received as a gift from a French diplomat who had been his aide during the American war of independence.^[24] However, nothing is known about Washington’s motivations, or whether he considered the emoluments clause to apply to either gift.^[25]

Post-Washington Presidents have traditionally sought permission from Congress to keep gifts. Absent permission, the President will deposit the object with the Department of State. For example, Andrew Jackson sought permission from Congress to keep a gold medal presented by Simon Bolivar; Congress refused to grant consent, and so Jackson deposited the medal with the Department of State.^[26] Martin Van Buren and John Tyler received gifts from the Imam of Muscat, for which they received congressional authorization either to transfer them to the United States Government or to auction them with proceeds vesting to the United States Treasury.^[17]

Trump era

American politician and academic Zephyr Teachout has argued that the extensive business and real estate dealings of President Donald Trump, especially with respect to government agencies in other countries, may fall within the clause's scope,^[17] but academic Seth Barrett Tillman has argued that the restriction does not apply to the president.^[27][28]

After China provisionally granted 38 "Trump" trademarks in March 2017, Democratic senators protested Trump's acceptance of the trademarks without congressional approval.^[29] In December 2018, there were reports of Saudi Arabia indirectly funneling funds to Donald Trump through Trump businesses, such as his hotels, that may be in breach of the Emoluments Clause.^[30]

The group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, including former White House lawyers Norman L. Eisen and Richard Painter, filed a lawsuit against Trump alleging violations of the clause,^[29] including the acceptance of the Chinese trademarks.^[31] As of September 2019, three separate lawsuits were pending in various federal courts: CREW v. Trump, D.C. and Maryland v. Trump, and Blumenthal v. Trump (filed by members of Congress).^[32]

Retired military

Under interpretations of the Emoluments Clause elaborated by the Comptroller General of the United States and the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (but which have never been tested in court) retired military personnel are forbidden from receiving employment, consulting fees, gifts, travel expenses, honoraria, or salary from foreign governments without prior consent from Congress. Per section 908 of title 37 of the United States Code 908, this requires advance approval from the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the relevant branch of the Armed Services.^[33] Retired military officers have voiced concerns through the Retired Officers Association that applying the clause to them but not to retired civil service members is not an equal application of the clause, and therefore illegal.^{[citation needed]}

In 1942, Congress authorized members of the armed forces to accept any "decorations, orders, medals and emblems" offered by allied nations during the course of World War II or up to one year following its conclusion.^[34] Notably, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower accepted a number of titles and awards pursuant to this authorization after the fall of Nazi Germany, including a knighthood in Denmark's highest order of chivalry, the Order of the Elephant.^[35]

Congress has also consented in advance to the receipt from foreign governments by officials of the United States government (including military personnel) of a variety of gifts, subject to a variety of conditions, in the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act^[36] and section 108A of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act, otherwise known as the Fulbright–Hays Act of 1961.^[37] Under these rules numerous foreign decorations have been awarded to American military and civilian personnel, such as for diplomatic service or during the Vietnam and Gulf Wars. Presidents Obama and Trump both received the The Collar of the Order of Abdulaziz Al Saud from Saudi Arabia, a decoration frequently given to heads of state.^[38]

The New York Times has reported that, according to two defense officials, the Army is investigating whether Michael T. Flynn "received money from the Russian government during a trip he took to Moscow in 2015" while he was a government official.^[39] According to the officials, there was no record that Flynn has "filed the required paperwork for the trip", as required by the Emoluments Clause.^[39]

References

1.  

 

Karsten

[MyLadiesDaddy]

1 hour ago, coorslite21 said:

I might add he over sees the VIP!" rel="">VIP cryptocurrency section.....and since it's inception there has been a great deal of financial success by members involved .....

 

LGD brings added value to this site......value other than just those who Trash Trump and are generally negative about life in general....

 

JMO.    CL

Thanks CL.I might add myself that as I've shown myself to be  level headed and concerned for the wellbeing of this site I've been considering asking @Adam Montana for a Promotion to be a moderator of the whole site. Though that designation doesn't create much more a difference than what I now have. 

Furthermore,  I truly don't blame anyone for their disbelieve of my position here, I once was literally banned for insisting that @Markinsa was not a Mod. God Bless his soul, he forgave me. 

Being a Moderator on DV is, (as Adam Montana told me) a thankless job. But I See the position as an extension of the hopes and dreams of ALL of us. Weather by Dinar or by crypto, that some day we will all be rich. 

[boosterbglee]

Thanks Karsten.....you always bring your A game!

[bostonangler]

10 hours ago, coorslite21 said:

Try going  clicking on Staff....

 

 

Staff Directory

MODERATORS

Adam Montana

Administrator

Bumper64

Administrator

 Message

Documenting Services

Newbie

 Message

ipbdev

Newbie

 Message

 

ipbdev-unrestricted

Newbie

 Message

Julie.Moore

Administrator

TexasGranny

Platinum VIP!" rel="">VIP

 Message

Caye98

Purveyor of Drink Umbrellas

 Message

 

EagleEye

Senior Member

 Message

kcw

Senior Member

ladyGrace'sDaddy

Senior Member

 Message

Markinsa

Saved By The Blood!

 Message

 

paperboy

Platinum VIP!" rel="">VIP Moderator

 Message

tjokie

Destiny, Challenge, Perseverance

 Message

yota691

Enjoy the Ride...

 Message

 

• Theme 
•  
• Privacy Policy
•  
• Contact Us

Copyright 2017-2021 DinarVet

 

 

A discussion moderator or debate moderator is a person whose role is to act as a neutral participant in a debate or discussion, holds participants to time limits and tries to keep them from straying off the topic of the questions being raised in the debate.

 

 

 

 

Perhaps moderator is not the correct title... 

 

B/A

[yota691]

12 hours ago, Rafiki1 said:

Yota. PLEASE LET THESE FOLKS KNOW THAT LGD IS NOT A MODERATOR HERE!  

Don't ya'll see this...

ladyGrace'sDaddy

• Senior Member
• 
• Platinum VIP
• 
• 
• 
• 

[coorslite21]

4 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

 

A discussion moderator or debate moderator is a person whose role is to act as a neutral participant in a debate or discussion, holds participants to time limits and tries to keep them from straying off the topic of the questions being raised in the debate.

 

 

 

 

Perhaps moderator is not the correct title... 

 

B/A

 

So now you're the "word police"?

 

You are going to define what this site represents by redefining free speech on this site?

 

Pathetic and delusional.....

It really might be better if you took your devisiveness else where......it's getting old!

JMO.       CL

 

 

[bostonangler]

23 minutes ago, coorslite21 said:

 

So now you're the "word police"?

 

You are going to define what this site represents by redefining free speech on this site?

 

Pathetic and delusional.....

It really might be better if you took your devisiveness else where......it's getting old!

JMO.       CL

 

 

 

It is a definition. I didn't invent it. I just find it amusing. Moderator comes from the word moderate... And as we all know moderation is the key to healthy living...

 

And what is divisional about proper English. Geez you guys are getting pretty touchy

 

B/A

Edited October 24, 2019 by bostonangler

[coorslite21]

13 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

 

It is a definition. I didn't invent it. I just find it amusing. Moderator comes from the word moderate... And as we all know moderation is the key to healthy living...

 

And what is divisional about proper English. Geez you guys are getting pretty touchy

 

B/A

 

Sure.....just a definition.....

 

It's your intent I question......why are you here......it certainly isn't  "value added"......more like "stir the pot"...."how can I agitate"....

 

Now I value your 1st Amendment Rights.....but DV is privately owned and operated....Montana is the leader of the pack......if he wants any one of us gone.......it would only take a second...

 

I believe he appreciates the "value added" concept.....perhaps you should put your focus on that.....

 

I'm probably just a grumpy old guy...and...In my world those who don't fit in with the culture are let go....that concept makes for a much more productive and positive atmosphere.......

 

DV is not a democracy.......

 

Perhaps you should consider getting involved with some other site where you can share all of your complaints, and hate, with some like minded people......If this was my site you, and a few other of your like minded friends, would have been gone long ago....

 

JMO.     CL

 

 

 

 

[bostonangler]

8 minutes ago, coorslite21 said:

Now I value your 1st Amendment Rights.

 

8 minutes ago, coorslite21 said:

If this was my site you, and a few other of your like minded friends, would have been gone long ago....

 

CL what is the point of discussion if opposing views are not appreciated. What if I said if this was my site you would gone because I disagree with you. I suppose I would be considered The Deep State or George Soros. Most people here on DV don't even wander to this part of the site because they don't find politics entertaining or stimulating. Then there are those of us who enjoy the banter.

 

Gratefully, Adam may not appreciate everyone's views on politics, but he does seem to appreciate the worthiness of everyone's input and their right to express themselves. Basically it is good for business. Imagine how boring it would be if I wasn't here for everyone to neg... It would become a boring lovefest of hand holding and singing Kumbaya. 

 

B/A 

Edited October 24, 2019 by bostonangler

[Shabibilicious]

13 minutes ago, coorslite21 said:

 

Sure.....just a definition.....

 

It's your intent I question......why are you here......it certainly isn't  "value added"......more like "stir the pot"...."how can I agitate"....

 

Now I value your 1st Amendment Rights.....but DV is privately owned and operated....Montana is the leader of the pack......if he wants any one of us gone.......it would only take a second...

 

I believe he appreciates the "value added" concept.....perhaps you should put your focus on that.....

 

I'm probably just a grumpy old guy...and...In my world those who don't fit in with the culture are let go....that concept makes for a much more productive and positive atmosphere.......

 

DV is not a democracy.......

 

Perhaps you should consider getting involved with some other site where you can share all of your complaints, and hate, with some like minded people......If this was my site you, and a few other of your like minded friends, would have been gone long ago....

 

JMO.     CL

 

 

 

 

 

Never thought I'd witness it from you, CL.  

 

GO RV, then BV