That’s really interesting, thank you for your answer. When’s the president allowed to take bribes, constitutionally speaking?
That’s really interesting, thank you for your answer. When’s the president allowed to take bribes, constitutionally speaking?
I thick the Clintons set the precedent that taking bribes for pardons is acceptable behavior
So, because of the Clintons, it’s okay now for presidents to take bribes? I wasn’t aware they’d changed the constitution like that. Can you remind me how that happened?
Who claimed the constitution was changed? I said they set a precedent it was acceptable and they did.
So, right now, constitutionally speaking, is it legal for the current president to take bribes? Does it make a difference if the bribe comes from a foreigner? It’s so confusing.
Again you can use google I don’t tutor for free. Your ignorance is not my problem
Well, Google tells me the president is absolutely not allowed to take bribes under any circumstance. How does that square with the payments he’s been personally extracting from universities, law firms, the people who buy his crypto, the government of Vietnam, the government of Qatar, and Tim Apple?
Like with infringement you not understanding what the definition of bribe is is about 99% of your problem
A bribe is a quid for a quo. It’s not all that hard to understand, seems to me. Tim Apple gives Donald Trump a gold bar; Donald Trump gives Apple no tariffs. What about that exchange isn’t a bribe, since you understand it better than I do?
You have not proven the two are connected. You just made a statement and hope no one challenges it. It’s not that hard to understand
Well, it wouldn’t matter who challenged it, you and I both know Donald Trump’s AG is corrupt and would never apply the law to him regardless, don’t we?
Vietnam wants to avoid tariffs; Vietnam gives Trump permission to build Trump Tower Saigon; Trump spares Vietnam the tariffs its neighbors get slapped with. How is this not a bribe?
You support the constitution, don’t you?
Or is all this just one of those “10% for the big guy” situations that constitutional scholars like yourself let presidents exercise as they see fit?
If you’re stumped, you could always fall back on your one real answer: