No, Moose, I really do love you, but with respect, you are a Trump supporter of the very worst kind. Regardless of what other kind of supporter you are. (Me, sometimes I am an athletic supporter!)
First you brought up Vince Foster. That is so far afield of any conversation about any legitimate political conversation. It started to become a hot button issue for the slanderers in the campaign, and I personally felt terrible, when one if his family issued a release asking people to get off their personal political hack agendas, and stop mentioning his suicide. It was a suicide. Period. At the time, his family to a person agreed with the findings. When I refer to 'barbarians in Christian clothing,' this kind of intentional action is near the epicenter. I will assume we can just drop this one.
Second, a number of high profile individuals who have had less that stellar images made big contributions to the Clinton Foundation. One of the hallmarks of the Clinton Foundation is their success at getting bad actors to make large donations to do good things. Which if you look at it, is how you change things in the world. Once everyone, including repressive regimes acknowledge the problem, and legitimize everyone working for the solution, how much better of a situation is that within the world community for eradicating the problem? Because after all, we are talking about people who live in abject poverty, sometimes miles from the richest mineral reserves in the world, who have been infected heterosexually by HIV, whose children are doomed to awful existence.
As far as the legality of the Clinton Foundation, the US Supreme Court, found in 2014, with a majority of Republican justices seated, in a case related to a political issue, and the Republican party, that providing access for cash isn't illegal, in fact, they wouldn't even call it unethical. Yet with the Clinton's, some of the same people positively affected by the very Supreme Court decision cried that the Clinton's were breaking the law. Why? What about that Clark?
And as far as your understanding of the emoluments rules : You cannot interpret them related to an individual if you have no clear idea of that individuals holdings, can you? Would you guess that DJT bragging about the favorable treatment Trump was going to get when he had his first conversation with the President of Argentina, when he first mentioned that he did some business asking for favorable interpretations of restrictions hamstringing his Trump Towers project! Later he and his reps changed their tune and said they only talked about times they worked together in the past.
Another time Donald Trump mentioned when talking about a Dubai connection that they threw 2 billion dollars worth of deals on the table, and later he denied that, kind of like Spicer's two step about Flynn's conversation with the Russians. None of these guys are with portfolio presently!
And at the far end, so you think I am a dick? Welcome to a long and distinguished list! I am glad you think that, because, for as far back as I have posted in this thread, I have tried to wait until I, someone else, or a principle I believe in was unfairly attacked.
It is not only nice to be appreciated, but to know that I am having the effect I intended.
