First off, you don’t have to put emoluments clause in quotes.
Gail M. Eppers

“ First off, you don’t have to put emoluments clause in quotes.” — you should when you are quoting someone else’s point.

“ unless you call NY Times “fake news”..” You provided a NyMag link. The NyTimes has published items that Director Comey has reported as false based on fake information. The NyTimes has been caught reporting many fake items.

FYI, Fake includes items that are one-sided. NyTimes has not backed any non-Dem since 1956. The NyTimes has many wonderful and fact-based articles, that does not mean they are not also very fake.

(Many publications and media are very biased/“Fake”)

I notice that you provide a “fact” about $9 million dollars then I debunk it and you provide no reference to your fact.

Instead you “move the goal posts” by providing a bunch of opinion pieces that take statements and make biased/opinionated analysis.

“ our President is guilty of obstruction of justice for endeavoring to obstruct an FBI investigation” — Since it has already been proven that Pres. Obama (and many other Presidents) have suggested to CIA, FBI, NSA… what he deemed relevant to investigate. It is part of his job as The President.

Comey was also able to recite some conversations but was unable to even recall subjects of others.

Did you watch the hearing? I watched the whole thing and found much of what Comey said credible but much without. He contradicted himself but more importantly he seemed more disgruntled than unbiased.

“ won lawsuits challenging Trump’s bans…” — they have now lost. False information to base ones opinion on, needs to be reexamined.

“ The new lawsuit argues that D.C. and Maryland, specifically, are being harmed because the Trump International Hotel near the White House may be drawing business away from the taxpayer-owned Walter E. Washington Convention Center in the District and a facility in Maryland subsidized by taxpayers.” — “show me the money” is the reason why they are creating a lawsuit? Their pocketbooks are being hurt and no facts to make their point.

I am not surprised if the foreign companies & countries do try to gather favor from the current administration. We saw this with The Clinton Foundation donations dried up after the November election.

The newsmax article says that their view is based on opinion and that the Justice Department disagrees with them.

“ An ethics lawyer who worked under former President Barack Obama said Wednesday he believes Ivanka Trump’s official role at the White House violates federal law. … My view — and it’s a bipartisan view, professor [Richard] Painter, the Bush ethics czar, agrees with me — is that the nepotism statute does apply,” Eisen said.

“For decades, the Justice Department held [the position], ‘Yes, the nepotism statute does apply to the White House office.’ It’s a murky area, reasonable minds can disagree.

“President Trump got an opinion from the Justice Department that the nepotism statute doesn’t apply to his White House. We disagree with that opinion, but we recognize that reasonable minds can disagree.”

Again, Opinion/Accusations do not equate to facts.

“a whole bunch of allegations and conspiracy theories that have had no factual basis.”

Like what you read? Give aztekman a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.