Next Year's G7 in the USA

And guess where? Yes, the Trump Doral Resort in Florida.

And the rationale? Trump is already rich so this doesn't really benefit him. That's pretty much what Acting Press Secretary Mulvaney says.

Oh, and if the the rest of the G7 doesn't want Russia there? Too bad, says Mulvaney, Trump can invite Putin anyway.

This was just announced and could get walked back, but I mean holy emoluments, Batman.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/10/17/politics/donald-trump-g7-doral-resort/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2F


I'm shocked, shocked!


But what about when Hunter Biden was paid $50,000 per year to destroy Hillary's emails?


mrincredible said:

Oh, and if the the rest of the G7 doesn't want Russia there? Too bad, says Mulvaney, Trump can invite Putin anyway.

"Dobryy vecher, my name is Vladimir and I will be your waiter this evening."


I really hope that the rest of the 7 just refuse to come.


This is something that Congress could put a stop to if they had the political will. He could pass a resolution or legislation or something that should be veto-proof to prevent the president from personally profiting from this meeting. I can't imagine that every Republican congressperson is incapable of convincing their constituency that this was the right thing to do.

I honestly think the president is enjoying pushing the outrage button more and more frequently. I don't think he would actually care what people think of him, because it seems that he can get away with pretty much anything.


So now they’re looking for a new venue, because we all criticised too much.  red face Why do I feel this entire ‘leak’/pre-announcement & retraction were a set-up designed to keep the supporters in line? (He said he wasn’t profiting, everyone picks on him; for goodness sake respect the Office)

I think someone needs better script writers. Maybe after your elections, when he has more time to concentrate. 


joanne said:

So now they’re looking for a new venue, because we all criticised too much. 
red face

 Good. So, criticism works. Trump's critics should not let up.


They backed off due to gathering disapproval on the Republican side I’m sure. The next time trump gives even an inch of ground to ”media and Democrat crazed and irrational hostility” will be the first. 


mrincredible said:

This is something that Congress could put a stop to if they had the political will. He could pass a resolution or legislation or something that should be veto-proof to prevent the president from personally profiting from this meeting. I can't imagine that every Republican congressperson is incapable of convincing their constituency that this was the right thing to do.

The constitution specifies that he can't profit. The constitution is the "highest" law, its rules and conditions superseding everything else. If Trump doesn't follow the constitution what makes you think he'll follow a statute?

A statute that could be useful is assessing a penalty when the emoluments clause is violated. A very large fine with a mandatory criminal sentence. It can be argued why bother because Trump's justice department will not prosecute. However, charges can be brought under a successor administration.


Smedley said:

They backed off due to gathering disapproval on the Republican side I’m sure. The next time trump gives even an inch of ground to ”media and Democrat crazed and irrational hostility” will be the first. 

 Yes, "Trump's critics" includes Republicans. All of Trumps critics, including the Republican, should keep it up.


BG9 said:

The constitution specifies that he can't profit. The constitution is the "highest" law, its rules and conditions superseding everything else. If Trump doesn't follow the constitution what makes you think he'll follow a statute?

A statute that could be useful is assessing a penalty when the emoluments clause is violated. A very large fine with a mandatory criminal sentence. It can be argued why bother because Trump's justice department will not prosecute. However, charges can be brought under a successor administration.

 It's a fair question. And I like your solution.

The problem is the extremely vague way in which he supposedly divested himself of his assets. He claims he wouldn't personally profit from the event, and was also saying they would provide the venue and services at cost. So technically no profit at all. 

I don't buy for two seconds that he's divested from his investments, and he's got a history of inflating costs (2017 inaugural, anyone?) So I could see millions disappearing as made-up "costs" (yes of course we had five hundred additional staff for the event!).  

I'm glad they're backing off. It's like a 2-year-old testing their boundaries. Someone finally told him "no!" 


The Doral has only two presidential suites. I'm thinking Trump was planning on upgrading the place to add five more suites. And guess who was going to pay for it? Not the Mexicans.....


Jaytee said:

The Doral has only two presidential suites. I'm thinking Trump was planning on upgrading the place to add five more suites. And guess who was going to pay for it? Not the Mexicans.....

 Six more. Putin will need one.



In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.