I won't pretend that there are no potential conflicts of interest here, but under legal ease can "accept" be construed to also include buying something?
I think that would depend on whether it was finalised because he was president as opposed to because of the normal process.
For example, if a normal billionaire (is there any such thing?) offered to purchase something (a trademark, a national treasure - e.g. Mona Lisa, Terracotta Army, Tower of London, Ayers Rock, Yellowstone, Chichen Itza, Sphinx, Acropolis, Mecca, Kremlin, Valley of the Kings) but they are all turned down - except for a private purchase by a billionaire who also happens to be the POTUS. That I think might fall under the emoluments clause,
"bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians" are "never justified,"
agreed that terrorist attacks are "never justified";
are not the same thing.
At the time the following actions were done, they were not regarded as terror attacks, but as militarily justifiable:
nuclear bombing of Hiroshima
nuclear bombing of Nagasaki
fire-bombing of Tokyo
fire-bombing of Dresden
carpet bombing of various European cities during WWII
Therefore depending on how the question is phrased, some might and some might not regard the above as terror attacks, therefore influencing their answer.
Were the semantics of the questions asked of each of those groups the same? e.g. Were the questions couched in terms of the local languages, attitudes, definitions, understandings of the words? I mean, the quote you provided doesn't give the results in a common semantic framework.
If the volume of those calls are greater than normal background noise in that area at that time of day (construction work, trucks driving past, kids playing, crowds at sports events, aircraft flying overhead. etc) then make a noise complaint to the appropriate authorities.
If it isn't any greater than other same time-of-day noise, then what does it matter?
In the comments to various stories on this topic on this site and many other, I frequently see commenters decrying the mere audacity of the courts to review an EO - "How dare they, they don't have the right, it is unreviewable!".
Therefore to me, the most important sentence in the entire ruling is the conclusion of section IV. Reviewability of the Executive Order on page 18 (emphasis mine):
In short, although courts owe considerable deference to the President’s policy determinations with respect to immigration and national security, it is beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action.
An EO must still, theoretically at least, conform to the constitution and any laws passed. Otherwise the Judge in Washington state (I think it was) couldn't have suspended the immigration EO.
It's actually more like a Judge making common law, in that it can only exist in the vacuum left by lack of legislation or constitutional coverage. If there is legislation that says "all houses must be painted red", and that legislation is held up as constitutional, the president can't enforce an EO that says that all houses must be blue. Sure, he could issue it, but it wouldn't be legally enforceable.
At least, that's my understanding, usual disclaimers (IANAL, IAN SCOTUS etc.) apply.
bah, should have added this to original reply, but no edit.
Get a supply of business cards for a lawyer, and if they ever speak to you, hand them the card and say "speak to my lawyer - BTW he doesn't have a telephone or email address, you'll have to arrange an appointment to speak to them via postal mail or fax".
Does this mean if an agent doesn't like his daughters date he can screw with the guy? If he's teed off at his girl or ex he can mess with them? If his neighbor is married to a foreigner he can look them up?
TL:DR it's par for the course.
Of course they can, and have since day dot of the existence of any such body.
Police have done it for ever, staff at intelligence agencies, Attorney General's staff, DA's, Sheriff's (both the US-style Sheriff and the 'old times' Sheriff of Nottingham-type Sheriffs) and other positions that give access to such information/powers.
It is illegal in most places for 'the authorities' to do that. But in many departments it's one of those nudge-nudge-wink-wink type situations, as long as you aren't too obvious about it it's ignored and swept under the rug. In others, it might be a sackable (even indictable) offense, but if there is no oversight or monitoring in place (if you don't audit accesses to records, you'll never know) then it's never found out.
There were articles on TD a couple years ago about the NSA/CIA having a term for it, LOVINT ("love" intelligence, a play on the term intelligence agencies have for Human Intelligence, that is actual spies/informants on the ground, HUMINT, and Signals Intelligence, that is interception of communications, SIGINT, and the other xxxINT terms). An employee would look up the backgrounds of loved ones, family, partners, potential love interests etc. And they were only found out because THEY came forward to their auditors that they had done it (guilty conscience - they are actually the ones who we want to keep in the agencies), not because they were "found out" by their auditing systems.
Don't make up stupid complaints completely unsupported by evidence.
Interesting, you've managed to do exactly what you're complaining about in your very next sentence (emphasis in original changed to bold instead of italics as markdown has made the whole quote italics!):
Everybody on the left has been doing this, and they are making themselves look ridiculous.