Forget The Wall, Pussy -Grabbing Trump Now Making Secret Deals With Religious Extremists To Limit YOUR Liberty

Dotard calling upon the deity at the recent National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C. where hundreds of evangelicals came to kiss the ass of the nation's top pussy grabber.


Forget the stupid "wall" for now, even as the Dotard spewed 150 more lies about its value last night at his dope and pony show in El Paso  (e.g. that it brought crime down there when in fact crime went up 17 %).    While too many have had their brains and attention seized by Trump's fake border wall tropes, he's been making deals with religious  extremists to undermine American values, lives, freedoms.  And doing it by posing as a holy roller himself, when we all know he's a pervert and adulterer - not to mention the most colossal liar office holder ever. 

Cutting to the chase, let us accept as a primary proposition that an admitted, proud pussy grabber, as well as serial assaulter of women, cannot be "religious", "spiritual" or even morally decent. In fact, one can argue that the preponderance of evidence shows Trump lacks any moral compass at all, zero.  This elicits the question of how this swine could even preside over a national prayer breakfast, far less have all those in attendance kissing his fat, orange butt.  Hypocrisy anyone? What is wrong with these evangelical idiots anyway?

Hell, as the inimitable Richard Painter said - appearing as a guest on Chris Hayes'  All In  after the Stormy Daniels episode erupted:  "These folks are even prepared to let pass his perversions", e.g.

Brane Space: Why Do White Christian Evangelicals Worship A Pervert ...

 As I noted in that blog post:

In an  In Touch interview with Stormy Daniels she described having a sexual affair with Trump which included her beating his ass with a FORBES magazine. .. Subsequently,  Mother Jones basically confirmed all the sordid details that Daniels described from her 2006 encounters  For reference, see:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/01/stormy-daniels-trump-spanking-forbes-and-shark-week.html

According  to a trove of  2009 emails exchanged between political operatives (advising Daniels at the time on a possible political campaign), the adult film actress claimed that her affair with Trump included spanking him with a copy of Forbes.  By one account,  a political consultant to Andrea Dubé related in an email that:

"He made her sit with him for three hours watching Shark Week. Another time he had her spank him with a Forbes magazine," 

The magazine used evidently had Dotard's  face on the cover which no doubt provides endless material for any Freudian school psychiatrists and psychologists.   See this humorous take from  late night host Stephen Colbert:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-gMiiZOSYQ

-----------

Now, it is quite true the Christian ascetics believed strongly that a good flogging was needed from time to time to keep the desires of the flesh in check.  As one website dealing with the lives and times of Christian ascetics put it:

"For St. Francis this attitude entailed fasting and self-flagellation for the disciplining of the body, which he called "brother donkey." This metaphor, beloved by the ascetics, expresses the idea of the body as a beast of burden that, according to Legenda maior, the life of St. Francis by St. Bonaventure (c. 1217–1274), "should be weighed down by hard work, often scourged with the whip, and nourished with poor fodder."

(cf. Asceticism - Western Asceticism - The Middle Ages - Self, Body, Practiced, and Church )

But I sincerely believe most rational Americans will agree with me that Trump, aka Dotard, was not enlisting Stormy to impart a spanking in order to subjugate  "brother donkey",    follow St. Francis or emulate any other ascetics.   Further, it is abundantly clear that Trump's peeing antics (in the infamous "pee tape")  which we know Putin is keeping for future extortion,   would not be the behavior of a sainted persona. As former MI 6 spy Christopher Steele pointed out in his dossier:

"Trump's perverted conduct in Moscow (2013) included hiring the presidential suite of the Ritz Carlton Hotel. where he knew President and Mrs. Obama (whom he hated) had  stayed on one of their official trips to Russia, and defiling the bed where they had slept by employing a number of prostitutes to perform a 'golden showers'  (urination) show in front of him.   The hotel was known to be under FSB control with microphones and concealed cameras in all the main rooms to record anything they wanted to."

This was reported in 2013, while Trump's spanking antics  with Stormy Daniels occurred in 2006,  little more than a year after his marriage to Melania and barely 3 months after the birth of son, Barron.

So why aren't evangelicals tarring and feathering his fat ass as opposed to kowtowing to him at prayer breakfasts?   WaPo columnist Jennifer Rubin provided one of the best explanations which I also cited in my blog post link, e.g.:

"These white Christians are now, for the first time, not in the majority of the American people.  So they're no longer just leaders, they are grievance leaders.  They feel  this put upon, discriminated against, angry sentiment that their fellowship voices. They don't like being displaced from authority in society. They think women, they think immigrants, they think gays are somehow displacing them taking what is rightfully theirs. And these people are out to claim it. They believe - and in some really interesting polling - they think they are the victims and not African -Americans, and not gays in terms of discrimination in America. That is how twisted it is."

For which insights I give her a '10' out of 10. 

 Hmmmm....grievance leaders?  Poor little victims of those nasty "libtards", "commies", Blacks and gays. Oh, the pity!  No wonder so many Americans now are losing any impetus to join a religion. Seeing the spectacle of the 'hear no evil, see no evil' Evangelicals, how could they?


 The real issue is what these sanctimonious maggots are planning to do to the rest of us using Trump as their Trojan horse.  How much these vermin own Trump was exposed in the October 2018 issue of 'Church and State', in an article by Rob Boston - wherein we learn, that Right Christian extremist Rev. Johnnie Moore boasted on CSPAN that the Evangelical Advisory Board:

"Pays regular visits to the White House which can start with policy briefings from West Wing staff and agency official and end with impromptu visits to the Oval Office."

Moore added "the advisory board has a pretty significant hand in directing or affecting administration policy".  This can be on everything from immigration, to  LGBT soldiers in the military (i.e. keeping them out), to bans on abortion - even if the mother's life is in danger if carried out, or in the case of incest of a young teem.  And all of the policy outcomes disclose that "the Evangelical Advisory Board is not merely ceremonial, it has had substantial input on administration policies and decisions. 

Further, these moral degenerates are in violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) a 1972 law that Congress enacted to: "ensure that advice by the various advisory committees formed over the years is objective and accessible to the public."

As noted by Mr. Boston (ibid.):

"Under FACA, all meetings of a presidential committee must be open to the public and a timely notice of each meeting must be published in The Federal Register.  In addition, interested parties must be permitted to attend meetings, appear before the committee and file statement with it.  Detailed minutes of each meeting must also be kept and various records related to committee meetings must be made available to the public".

Needless to say,  the Evangelical Advisory Board  has met none of these conditions. And yet "its members openly brag about the important work they're doing to formulate policies."  Yes, policies that would turn most Americans into religiously dominated serfs under the thumb of one or ,more Trump associates or Nazis. 

 Incredibly, the top Xtian Nazi, Rev. Johnnie Moore, to avoid scrutiny by The Washington Post in followup inquiries, claimed the advisory board doesn't really exist. According to Rev. Johnnie,   who must now be regarded as a rival liar to Trump (ibid.):

"The truth is there actually isn't a board. That's just slang language that's carried on from the campaign into the administration.  There is no formal faith advisory board of any sort at the White House."

Okay, well if that's the case we ought not expect any draconian laws or policies to pop up, eh? Say like limiting access to abortion providers, or disallowing LGBT folks from entering the military?  Otherwise, if such policies actually exist, and have been tweeted on and promoted by Trump - we know an advisory board had to be behind them. The reason? Trump lacks the brains and religious fervor to forge such policies on his own, he is being used as a puppet - just like Putin is using him. 

 Now some may retort at this point, "Hold on! Obama also had faith advisory councils!"  But let us make clear these differences:

- All Obama's advisory sessions were open to the public

- All notices for such were first published in The Federal Register.

-  All interested parties were allowed to attend the meetings.

- Obama's councils were uniformly non-partisan in contrast to Trump's

This is a rather different kettle of fish from operating in the shadows, then trying to deny such a board even exists when caught out.   Americans ought to be roused to fury by this B.S. but I understand there are more than ample issues inducing outrage right now  - so we will give people an "outrage pass".  But at least keep this shadowy collusion between the Trump Nazis and Evangelical extremists on your radar!

See also:

1. Cached

Brane Space: Narcissism, The Pre-Moral Mind and Donald J. Trump

Bill Maher Blows It On Political Strategy - Dems Must Avoid Saying Anything That Fires Up The Trumpie Base

Bill Maher, who admitted donating $1 million to the Dems for their push to take back the House,was in high rant mode last night on  HBO's  'Real Time'.  In his final segment of 'New Rules' he fairly blasted the Democrats for not going all out ripping Donnie T. (for Traitor) Trump a new one, e.g.

"Someone has to tell me why all the best voices speaking out against Republicans are Republicans, Nicole Wallace, Steve Schmidt, Rick Wilson, George Will, Brett Stephens, Joe Scarborough, Richard Painter, Michael Steele, Jennifer Rubin, Dave Jolly, Anna Navarro, Max Boot, David Frum"

They're the ones out there landing head punches, not any Democrat.  Even Trump's own people tear him down better than any Democrat. McMaster called him a 'dope', Mattis a 'fifth grader',  Steve Mnuchin 'Idiot', Reince Priebus, 'idiot'.  John Kelly 'fucking idiot', Rex Tillerson 'fucking moron'. Gary Cohn 'dumb as shit'"

And so on.

You can watch the whole rant here.
 .New Rule: Scary Socialism | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO) - YouTube

All of this Anti- Trump lot have been spot on, skewering the slime- in- chief and also using cutting edge rhetoric to call attention to the ongoing GOP cowardice is bending over for Trump, enabling him.  But...they also have tons more credibility than any Dem trying to match their vehemence and put down power - precisely because they all hail from Republican tribal stock, and are also principled conservatives - as opposed to suck ups and submissives for the Trump cult.

Thus, they are the ones to go after Trump, not Dems, especially in any use of the I (for impeachment) word.   Hence, Bill's calling for the Democrats to be more outspoken is simply "poor politics" as Nancy Pelosi put it in a recent TIME magazine piece on her.  Why is it poor politics? I suggest anyone who needs to understand read Kimberley  Strassel's piece in the WSJ yesterday:

How Republicans Could Still Win - WSJ

Strassel's  optimal means to win?   Get the Trump idiot base all riled up to increase their yen to "protect their president".  Hence, using every tactic to try to invoke the specter of impeachment, or endless persecution  (and "unhinged rhetoric") by Dems - especially in the battlefield districts.  Or, in campaign ads, integrating any robust, anti-Trump rhetoric (pulled off the transom)  from assorted Dems that may appear threatening to the same base.

Smart guy that he is (certainly with close to a Mensa level I.Q.) Maher ought to know then the last thing Dems ought to do is play right into the Trumpie cult's hands. Do not deliver fodder for their upcoming campaigns, but instead keep a low profile and let the outspoken (and far more credible Reepo anti-Trumpers) do that for them.   After the House at least is taken back, there's time to be more outspoken - but even then the long game goal is to get rid of the Trump cabal entirely - i.e. in the 2020 general election.

For perspective, just imagine ANY Demo running for a House seat - especially in a battleground district - using just half the rhetoric most of Bill's cited critics have used.  They'd be inserted into GOP political ads in a heartbeat and it would be 'Katy, bar the door' when the election gets underway. (As guest Richard Clarke informed Maher, by one recent poll projection, the Ds get 206 seats, the Rs 205, and the others are "jump balls".   Point being this is not the time for complacency, or over-confidence by firing up the Trump base)

So hate to disagree, Bill, but this is the smart way to go,  though yes, it lacks the  appealing vitriol against Dotard we'd all like to see from the Ds.  But right now, with zero leverage or  political power, these are the cards they need to play.  Keep quiet on dissing Trump too much (or threatening indictment or impeachment) and let the Reepo critics or Never Trumpers do it for them.

Where I DO agree with Maher  is the need for more education about socialism, given the media and GOOPs appear determined to try to frighten Americans.  This is generally because our countrymen don't know enough, e.g.

Brane Space: Corporate Media Pushes Socialism Bogey To Scare ...

But we just need those socialists (self declared) running in given districts to make clear there are many U.S. programs that already can be considered under that umbrella, including Social Security and Medicare.  Oh - also the GOP defense spending bills - to make more F- 35s as a jobs program, and bailing out heartland farmers because of Trump's tariffs. In other words, give exact examples when the 'S' word comes up, to show there are already multifold forms of socialism in the country.

But going full tilt on Trump with super harsh rhetoric is not a political winner, at least not yet.  We have the proper voices doing their job on Donnie Dotard and the GOP, let them continue. 

Be Afraid...Be Very Afraid...Dotard Appoints John "Ripper" Bolton To NSC Adviser

"He (Bolton) is not only a hawk, he's extremely reckless. He believes in going to war first, and diplomacy second. Having him as the National Security adviser would be a terrible situation and put us into a likely nuclear war. He could go after North Korea and that would result in millions of people being killed and I wouldn't put it beyond him to drag China and Russia into it."- Richard Painter, last night on All In.

For those too young to register it the 1964 film 'Dr. Strangelove',  starring George C. Scott and Peter Sellers, featured an unhinged United States Air Force general ("Jack D. Ripper") who orders a first strike nuclear attack on the Soviet Union.. (Ripper  believes the Soviets have been using fluoridation of United States water supplies to pollute the "precious bodily fluids" of Americans.)  The film revolves around the various efforts of the sane contingent  to try  to stop the madman's plans which include dispatching a B-52  with a hydrogen bomb- and ordering radio silence. In the last scene Major T.J. Kong rides the bomb down to its target like a rodeo bull until detonation, e.g.


That story was a farce depicting the folly of nuclear weapons and the greater folly of irrational men who might be controlling their use (including the codes to the nuclear football) - in this case a pre-emptive strike setting.  Alas, with the appointment of John Bolton as Trump's new National Security adviser  yesterday, we may be seeing the beginnings of a play that ends not too differently from Dr. Strangelove. To  sum up, Bolton's basic philosophy translates to "bomb first - preferably with nukes - and talk later."

Which brings us to Bolton's justification for pre-emptive strikes as laid out in his recent WSJ op -ed,''The Legal Case For Striking North Korea First'.

Seldom in human history are malignant intentions and vile future acts telegraphed in blunt terms. The problem is too many of us are too preoccupied - often with irrelevant fluff and nonsense - to take note when it happens. Because we ignore the warning shots over our existential bows, we pay dearly for our nonchalance later. Such was the case after the publication of Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' in which he literally laid out in black and white his foul plan to exterminate the Jews   But too few took note at the time, and read the warning signs mostly after the fact.

In the most recent iteration of this John Bolton published a commentary arguing for the "legality" of a first strike against North Korea in the February 28th WSJ . Bolton's piece: 'The Legal Case For Striking North Korea First', telegraphs, as clearly and blatantly as Hitler did in Mein Kampf, what he would do if the conditions merit. That is, he'd launch a pre-emptive (first) strike against North Korea.

Let us carefully note here that if this psychopath were to follow through on his plan, many millions more would perish than  all the Jews who died in Nazi gas chambers.

Without being hyperbolic with rhetoric,  let me try to impress upon readers the gravity of the situation and why Bolton's nuclear strike document - which is what it really is - ought to scare the bejeezus out of any sentient person.

Interviewed in April last year about a possible U.S. first strike attack on North Korea, former CIA North Korean analyst Sue Mi Terry responded:

 “I can’t see him following through on this and that is the problem with the brinksmanship policy. Because you’re putting yourself in a bind. You will either have to back down and lose credibility or you are stuck on a ledge with a military option which is very, very risky.

 North Korea is not Syria. It’s not Afghanistan. It’s going to have very devastating consequences.  North Korea will retaliate to any kind of military option. They will retaliate against South Korea given seventy percent of its ground forces are deployed within 100 kilometers (60 miles) of the DMZ.  And there’s twenty thousand U.S. military in South Korea and twenty million people in Seoul”

She was warning that any U.S. first attack would assuredly incept a powerful counter attack that would  wreak havoc on Seoul, South Korea – with the potential to obliterate over 20 million people as well as all U.S. troops stationed in S. Korea.  She was referring to more than 10,000 artillery pieces capable of hurling shells into Seoul bearing not only sarin nerve agent but biological weapons such as anthrax, Ebola, smallpox and cholera.

While the U.S.  has focused on the North's nuclear capability, there has been little mention of this formidable conventional arsenal.  Nor has it evidently been on Bolton's radar or he'd have been more circumspect with his op ed.  He simply appears not to have processed that even if a first strike were to eliminate the North's nuclear missiles, it would barely scratch the surface of its highly fortified artillery. Worse, such a foolhardy strike could also draw in the Chinese and even the Russians. At the end we could be looking at a full, all- out thermonuclear war with more than 9,500 hydrogen weapons exchanged.  It's difficult to get a sense of what such a war wold look like but this clip from the 1984 Brit film 'Threads' gives some idea, e.g.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrHoMSRZOS4

Watch it then watch again- especially the last 2 minutes of the clip-  to see what we may be in for with this goddamned lunatic.

What is especially unnerving in his WSJ piece is how he justifies a pre-emptive strike on the basis of what is am "imminent" threat, predicated on an 1837 'test of necessity' formulated by Daniel Webster.  Webster's test referred to when British forces invaded the U.S.  to destroy the steamboat 'Caroline' in 1837. It had been used by Canadian rebels to transport weapons into Ontario.

Webster argued that Britain had failed to show 'the necessity of self-defense was' instant', leaving no choice of means and no moment of deliberation.

Bolton, having set the premise up then writes (ibid.):

"Would an American first strike today against North Korea's nuclear weapons' program violate Webster's necessity test? Clearly not. Necessity in the nuclear and ballistic missile age is simply different than in the age of steam.....In 1837 Britain unleashed pre-emptive 'fire and fury' against a wooden steamboat. It is perfectly legitimate for the United States to respond to the current necessity posed by North Korea's nuclear weapons by striking first."

Missing in Bolton's "necessity" doctrine is any element of ethics or basic morality. Namely, that he is fully willing to sacrifice 20-25 million South Korean lives to justify this perfidy under the banner of some abstract "Caroline criteria" argument. Effectively doing so merely because North Korea possesses  weapons that might hit the U.S. Bolton also appears never to have learned the most fundamental lesson of basic morality: the ends never justifies the means.

Bolton is also amiss in terms of international law and specifically Nuremberg Principle VI:
"The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

(b) War crimes:

Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

(c) Crimes against humanity:

Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime."

So Bolton's claim of "legaality" for his first strike is total bollocks.

As Richard Painter, former ethics adviser to George W. Bush put it last night.: "We already had one hothead now we have another hothead who believes the same crazy stuff." Sen. Chris Murphy was even more specific noting Bolton advocates for a first strike on the North for the "mere possession of weapons that might hit the United States" adding, "that is a Pandora's box."

Bolton, of course, is also willing to scuttle the Iranian nuclear deal.. Bolton's appointment, then,  is also the latest in a long series of signals Trump has sent in recent months that he is determined to take the U.S. out of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. This despite strong protests from European allies, as well as Russia and China, who are join signatories to the deal.  Bolton himself Bolton published an open memo on how to “free America from this execrable deal at the earliest opportunity”.

Some conservatives close to the White House had argued that Bolton was too hawkish for Trump, and that his foreign adventurism would detract from Dotard's“America first” strategy of concentrating on creating U.S, jobs and cutting immigration. But it is now apparent that Trump - increasingly besieged by the Mueller investigation into his campaign’s contacts with the Kremlin- aims for reckless military distraction and asserting U.S. might abroad. 

Having another rank lunatic by his side in Bolton, instead of someone like HR McMaster to curb his worst instincts, means we are all on the muclear countdown  clock. This because many actually believe if an indictment does come from Mueller Trump will punch in the nuclear codes. And with "Ripper" Bolton there to urge him on, there will be no second chances.  Hyperbolic? No, not from a character who believes firmly he is more important than the entire world and all 7.5 billion on it.  Can you say "malignant narcissist"?

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/william-rivers-pitt/78331/the-last-person-in-the-room-john-bolton-pnac-and-the-end-of-the-world

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/p-m-carpenter/78321/with-bolton-our-national-nightmare-of-trump-just-got-much-much-darker

Lawsuits Against Trump for "Emoluments" Need To Go Forward

Trump, about to face multiple lawsuits over his handling of business entanglements

The news that a citizen watchdog group (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington)  on Monday filed a lawsuit  claiming that President Donald Trump is violating the Constitution by allowing his business to accept payments from foreign governments shouldn't have come as any surprise.  The lawsuit claims that a constitutional clause prohibits Trump from receiving money from diplomats for stays at his hotels or foreign governments for leases of office space in his buildings.

That clause is quite correct, as we read Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution stating that no American officeholder shall, “without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”

The clause is not a historical quirk. Gordon Wood, an American historian, argues that America’s founding fathers were obsessed with the problem of corruption, which they believed had doomed earlier republics. Hence, they inveighed against even the appearance of being "gifted" by foreign interests, nations.

Trump called the lawsuit “without merit, totally without merit” after he signed some of his first executive actions (not technically "orders"  since they've not been legally vetted) Monday in the Oval Office. But he is wrong, dead wrong.  It is fully with merit and he will learn in the ensuing months just how off base he is.

The watchdog group filed the lawsuit in the Southern District of New York. The group is being represented in part by two former White House chief ethics lawyers: Norman Eisen, who advised Barack Obama, and Richard Painter, who worked under George W. Bush. The two have expresse,d frustration that Trump has refused to take their recommendation and divest from his business, and feel they had no choice but to take legal action. The lawsuit at its core argues:

“As the Framers were aware, private financial interests can subtly sway even the most virtuous leaders,  and entanglements between American officials and foreign powers could pose a creeping, insidious threat to the Republic.”

At a news conference earlier this month, Trump Organization lawyer Sheri Dillon insisted that the so-called emoluments clause of the Constitution isn’t meant to ban fair-value exchanges. "They didn’t think paying your hotel bill was an emolument,” she said.

But Dillon is wrong. When the hotel bill is paid by a foreign potentate or dignitary or office holder, and to a hotel that is owned by a President - then it IS an emolument.  So Sherri doesn't know what she's yapping about, clearly as uninformed as that mistress of misdirection Kellyanne Conway. And btw turning over these business interests to relatives like Jared Kushner, or Donald Jr.,  is not divesting.

That's why Harvard Law prof Lawrence Tribe was quite clear Monday night  on exactly why Trump is guilty of constitutional violations As he observed, after being asked to make his case:

"It's pretty easy. He's receiving benefits big time, of a financial kind from foreign governments all over the world. And that's illegal. It's what the emoluments clause forbids."

Prof. Tribe went on to elaborate the sources from foreign governments that are problematic:

"The first are leases, or private arrangements between businessman Trump and foreign governments. They are hotels, they are easements, all kinds of financial instruments, very intricate and complicated like a Matrushkan doll - inside one another. Corporations inside LLCs - all complicated ways of doing one thing and one thing only: funneling money to Donald Trump when foreign governments decide they want to benefit him in whatever way - whether expanding his Aberdeen golf course, or something else. it enriches him even if they don't pay top dollar for the hotel rooms.

The issue isn't how much they pay, but that they're paying anything. The Constitution basically says that if you're President of the United States you should not be in bed with business partners. Because if you are there is just no way for the American people to know when you make a deal with one of these countries, whether you're making it in the best interests of the country or you want Trump to be first"

To be specific, here are a few examples by geographic location:

- Trump Tower Mumbai, partnered with the Lodha Group whose chairman and founder (Mangal Prabhat) is  the VP of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). How do we know what favors Prabhat may curry from the Donald to secretly help advance the BJP? We don't. How do we know how many billions from the BJP may indirectly cross Trump's grubby palms? We don't.

- Trump partnered with Indonesian billionaire Hary Tanoesoedibja on management and branding deals for a resort and residential complex in Bali and a 1700 acre resort in West Java. Hary Tanoe as he's known locally, has been active in opposition parties against President Joko Widodo. Tanoe introduced Trump to several local politicians including one at the center of a corruption scandal. Trump's deals with Hary also entail Chinese and South Korean state-controlled companies.

- Dubai properties: Trump is involved with multiple deals with billionaire developer Hussain Ali Sajwani. Sajwani himself has engaged in several controversial land deals with senior officials in the United Arab Emirates .During Trump's recent news conference he actually admitted Sajwani offered him $2 billion worth of development deals in Dubai. The question elicited is: How do we know what Trump ISN'T telling us? We don't. Can we trust him to reveal all his deals and offers? I doubt it! The bastard is a congenital liar so you can't trust anything he blabbers or tweets.


 How should Trump solve his problem? Tribe again:

"All he has to do is dissolve his assets. He has to sell off his interest in the hotels, liquidate them and then convert them into assets that can be put into a genuinely blind trust. So he has no way of knowing which governments are greasing his palm. What he's done instead is simply put them behind a kind of one way mirror. He still has these properties but he says.  it's enough for them to be managed by his sons and a long time employee. That doesn't solve the problem at all, it just exacerbates it by creating an optical illusion that some people may be deceived by".

On the issue of  needing "Standing" to bring such a case, Tribe is equally clear:

"Well, the group is positively harmed by this labyrninthine maze of emoluments that the president is involved in It's whole mission is devoted to getting corruption out of government, especially where money is involved.  So it's having to use money and resources it could have used instead on shadowy political campaigns or other corruption. These now must be used going down the rabbit hole of tracking down all the mysterious ways Trump is enriching jhis empire, day by day. That's the kind of harm the Supreme Court, in a case called Haven's Realty gives you standjng to sue.

When Trump says the case has no merit, I wonder what constitutional law course he took but I don't think he knows what he's talking about".

In the end, the decision to hear the case will show whether we are still a nation of laws, or have mutated to become so lawless that we can't even recognize constitutional violations when they occur.

The group behind Monday’s lawsuit also filed a complaint Friday addressed to the General Services Administration, an agency that oversees the lease of the government-owned building that houses Trump’s new Washington hotel. The complaint, argued the agency,  must cancel the lease because it expressly forbids any elected official from benefiting from it.

GSA officials had said they needed to wait until Trump took office before weighing in on the issue. They have yet to issue an opinion, though, and have not responded to repeated requests for comment. Democrats in the House and Senate on Monday sent letters to Acting Administrator Timothy Horne seeking information about what the agency plans to do. One must hope Mr. Horne is not intimidated into inaction by the Trumpsters.

Are we a nation of laws or scofflaws?  The answer is contingent on whether Trump is held to account for his multiple, dangerous business entanglements - which fairly reek of potential corruption. How can we know, in deed, what nefarious deals he is making to enrich himself behind our backs? The argument from the likes of Sherri Dillon that he "shouldn't have to lose money" is insane bollocks. He ought to have thought of that before running for President!

If he didn't wish to "lose money" or profits by divesting from business assets, then he should have remained a real estate tycoon and developer and not campaigned for the Oval Office.  NO President has a God-given right to also be a billionaire and real estate tycoon!

Mr. Trump will now learn his own extensive Trump assets will be his likely downfall... IF we are a nation of laws and adhere to the Constitution.