Quote:
Originally Posted by hcap
Has nothing to do with bribing Russians to beak their laws. Bribery alone is enough.
Trump was trying to grease the Russians and specifically Putin by offering him a 50 million dollar apartment in Trump Towers Moscow.
The Emoluments Clause, prohibits presidents and other high officials from....
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.
Trump already even before profiting from Trump Tower Moscow, has run afoul of that constitutional clause
Federal Lawsuit Against President Trump's Business Interests Allowed To Proceed
https://www.npr.org/2018/07/25/63230...wed-to-proceed
Federal District Judge Peter Messitte denied the Department of Justice's request to dismiss a case brought by the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia. The Emoluments Clause bars any president from personally profiting from his dealings with foreign governments — or even U.S. state governments.
It's the first ruling in federal court to define "emolument," which goes undefined in the U.S. Constitution's two emoluments clauses. |
It has everything to do with bribing foreign officials in their official duties. A foreign official's duties have nothing to do with enforcing the laws of the U.S. Also, a candidate is not the President.
Quote:
|
The core aim of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) is to prohibit companies and their individual officers from influencing foreign officials with any personal payments or rewards.
|
[emphasis added]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreig..._Practices_Act
Do you see the part in bold, it is to prevent
companies and their individual officers from influencing foreign officials. The statute has no applicability unless the Russians owe Trump favors and not vice-a-versa as you are alleging.
A trial court letting a case go forward means the matter is in litigation and it has not been resolved.
A candidate is not the president, just ask HRC.
