Even if The Wire is SD, it is still good stuff.
Oh nbcnews.com, have you learned nothing at all?
The headline:
Trump’s Salary Will Be Donated at the End of the Year, Says Sean Spicer
What Spicer actually said:
“the president’s intention right now is to donate his salary at the end of the year.”
Anyone who speaks even the smallest amount of Trump knows the factual translation of this is, “This will never, ever happen.”
(See: all those contractors Trump stiffed.)
Best case scenario: He donates it to…
drum roll
The Trump Foundation.
Oh but he is shutting it down. Of course it is under investigation and can’t be shut down yet. Which I guess Trump donate his salary to the foundation. Which could spend money on lawyers to make sure that none of the foundations double dealings see the light of day.
But honestly he’ll probably just take the salary and never donate it. Cause fuck rules
Lawrence O’Donnell pointed out that if he actually donates it, he’ll deduct it and ultimately cost the American tax payers more.
So basically, the money is just resting in his account?
It doesn’t really matter. Every weekend trip to Florida is costing millions (not to mention the cost to the city unlucky enough to have this piece of shit human being living there.)
And no doubt his own business is profiting directly from those trips, in billing taxpayers for accommodation for his retinue.
Is the IRS audit of his taxes done yet? Can we call him on that so that he can weasel out of releasing them again? Hmm, weasel is a good nickname for him, the orange weasel…
Nah. You’re doing a disservice to the honest, hard working weasels out there. That’s why I prefer the more fantastic nicknames. Like Cheeto Jesus.
I’ve always like Mandarin Mussolini.
Walking back the wiretapping accusation now, when will there be meaningful consequences for this fucker?
When his beef-clogged ticker takes its final licking and not before.
I was wondering if Obama had grounds to sue for defamation of character or something, at this point. I’m guessing not, though.
I’ve wondered that too, for a number of reasons. Mostly due to the fact he is accusing the former president of a crime against him, so regardless of it was a tweet/speech/formal statement, that should apply?
So looking up things, it appears complicated:
[quote]The Attorney General’s Office of Legal Counsel has considered this issue in depth twice in the past half-century – in 1973, in connection with President Richard Nixon’s role in Watergate, and again in 2000, after President Bill Clinton was acquitted of impeachment charges. On both occasions, federal lawyers in the Attorney General’s office apparently determined that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President was impermissible and unconstitutional because it would undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.
The United States Constitution provides only for impeachment and is silent on the issue of whether federal officials can be criminally prosecuted while holding office. As a result, analysists are forced to comb through fragments of debates held during the constitutional conventions to discern the Framers’ intent with regard to this issue. In 1973 and 2000, lawyers in the Attorney General’s Office determined because of the singularly unique duties and demands of the position, a President cannot be called upon to answer the demands of another branch of government – in this case the judicial branch – in the same manner as all other individuals. They concluded as a matter of policy that a President cannot both serve as the nation’s chief executive and defend criminal charges.[/quote]
So wait… If a President literally murdered someone on stage during a broadcast address, there’s nothing anyone can do until after he’s impeached?
Let’s just hope no one utters such words on Fox and Friends.
Sounds like a dare to me!