kinda sucks when your assetts are frozen by an exec order against human trafficking eh?
Hi @MolochHunter, as far as I remember, this is mere speculation at this point. I'd like to ask you to please add a link that either proves assets of the Clintons have been frozen by an executive order (IIRC, Trump's EO only applies for assets of foreign citizens, and the Clintons are not named in the annex) or to change your wording, indicating that you are speculating that their assets might have been frozen, maybe in the form of a question.
Thank you. I'll give you the 24 hours Grace flair, so that you'll have some time to edit.
My reading of the EO in question seems to apply to everyone, foreign and domestic alike. Specifically Section 1. (a) appears to imply this:
Section 1. (a) All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:
(i) the persons listed in the Annex to this order;
(ii) any foreign person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General:
(A) to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have directly or indirectly engaged in, serious human rights abuse;
(B) to be a current or former government official, or a person acting for or on behalf of such an official, who is responsible for or complicit in, or has directly or indirectly engaged in:
(1) corruption, including the misappropriation of state assets, the expropriation of private assets for personal gain, corruption related to government contracts or the extraction of natural resources, or bribery; or
(2) the transfer or the facilitation of the transfer of the proceeds of corruption;
I updated my statement to better and further cite the EO and specifically address applications to US persons, as defined by the EO, along with current or former government officials. As cited in my now updated comment, it could be applied not only to the Clintons, but also Obama and even John Podesta, as they're all former government officials.
As cited in my now updated comment, it could be applied not only to the Clintons, but also Obama and even John Podesta, as they're all former government officials.
No, unfortunately this is not possible, since the provisions in A-C only refer to the persons defined in (i) and (ii), and these are (see my comment above) only
any United States person of the following persons
[my reading: only persons listed in the Annex]
or any foreign person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General
My TL;DR: The EO only applies to the United States citizens actually listed in the EO and foreign citizens, who also might be determined later by the SOSs. US citizens cannot be determined by the Secretaries at a later date.
Since the Clintons are not listed in the EO Annex, and cannot be determined eligable at a later date, they are not targeted by the EO.
view the rest of the comments →
think- ago
Hi @MolochHunter, as far as I remember, this is mere speculation at this point. I'd like to ask you to please add a link that either proves assets of the Clintons have been frozen by an executive order (IIRC, Trump's EO only applies for assets of foreign citizens, and the Clintons are not named in the annex) or to change your wording, indicating that you are speculating that their assets might have been frozen, maybe in the form of a question.
Thank you. I'll give you the 24 hours Grace flair, so that you'll have some time to edit.
therealkrispy ago
My reading of the EO in question seems to apply to everyone, foreign and domestic alike. Specifically Section 1. (a) appears to imply this:
Section 1. (a) All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:
(i) the persons listed in the Annex to this order;
(ii) any foreign person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General:
(A) to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have directly or indirectly engaged in, serious human rights abuse;
(B) to be a current or former government official, or a person acting for or on behalf of such an official, who is responsible for or complicit in, or has directly or indirectly engaged in:
(1) corruption, including the misappropriation of state assets, the expropriation of private assets for personal gain, corruption related to government contracts or the extraction of natural resources, or bribery; or
(2) the transfer or the facilitation of the transfer of the proceeds of corruption;
think- ago
Thank you! So we have 'the persons listed in the Annex to this order, or any foreign person determined....' = definitely not the Clintons (sadly).
@Vindicator @EricKaliberhall @ben_matlock @srayzie @bopper
therealkrispy ago
I updated my statement to better and further cite the EO and specifically address applications to US persons, as defined by the EO, along with current or former government officials. As cited in my now updated comment, it could be applied not only to the Clintons, but also Obama and even John Podesta, as they're all former government officials.
think- ago
No, unfortunately this is not possible, since the provisions in A-C only refer to the persons defined in (i) and (ii), and these are (see my comment above) only
[my reading: only persons listed in the Annex]
My TL;DR: The EO only applies to the United States citizens actually listed in the EO and foreign citizens, who also might be determined later by the SOSs. US citizens cannot be determined by the Secretaries at a later date.
Since the Clintons are not listed in the EO Annex, and cannot be determined eligable at a later date, they are not targeted by the EO.
@Vindicator @EricKaliberhall @ben_matlock @srayzie @bopper
therealkrispy ago
Ah, I see it now. Yes, you're correct. Clearly I should've started the day with caffeine, then gotten into legal debates.
think- ago
Well, actually I'm glad that you disagreed with me - this way I was forced to look into the EO again, and read the details!
Hope you gonna continue contributing to our discussions - with or without caffeine. ;-)
@Vindicator @EricKaliberhall @ben_matlock @srayzie @bopper
therealkrispy ago
Thank you. I plan on it.