• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CNBC: US appeals court rules against Trump in foreign payments case

Lutherf said:
Here’s a comment. The appeals court used an absurdly expansive definition of “emolument” in their decision. In essence they decided that any money the president makes outside of his salary can be considered to be an “emolument” and that’s ridiculous.
Click to expand...

It might be 'ridiculous' if they decided that, but they didn't, never determined anything of the sort. You can't have read the case and concluded that, so I know you can't quote from the case and back that up. It's just not there.

The decision linked the outside money to the STATED belief by foreign governments that using Trump Hotels was to their benefit. They also quoted Trump saying of the Saudis and the Chinese that he liked them BECAUSE they spent money with him.

See pages 8 and 9 here: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6405431/9-13-19-CREW-2nd-Circuit.pdf

Screen Shot 2019-09-13 at 11.26.03 PM.jpg

Screen Shot 2019-09-13 at 11.26.55 PM.jpg
 
JasperL said:
It might be 'ridiculous' if they decided that, but they didn't, never determined anything of the sort. You can't have read the case and concluded that, so I know you can't quote from the case and back that up. It's just not there.

The decision linked the outside money to the STATED belief by foreign governments that using Trump Hotels was to their benefit. They also quoted Trump saying of the Saudis and the Chinese that he liked them BECAUSE they spent money with him.

See pages 8 and 9 here: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6405431/9-13-19-CREW-2nd-Circuit.pdf
Click to expand...


What you cite is merely a recitation of the plaintiff's argument. It isn't a discussion of the reasons why those complaints describe a legally actionable situation or not. The court's primary argument for reinstatement is that certain foreign officials have mentioned staying at a Trump property to, basically, play to the president's ego. They also say that Trump stated he prefers people who patronize his properties. Those comments, according to the court, are sufficient to prove that there is an emoluments case -

(holding that traceability is satisfied ”when plaintiffs established that the third‐party action leading to the alleged harm was “likely attributable at least in part to the challenged action, noting that “Article III requires no more than de facto causality”) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs need only plausibly allege that the President’s receipt of emoluments generates an unlawful competitive advantage for the Trump establishments.
Click to expand...

All that line does is say that the plaintiffs have standing because it's at least possible that Trump has a competitive advantage because he's president. It also blatantly (and expressly) dismisses the very reasonable claim Trump makes (and the lower court agreed with) that there is no good way to prove that Trump being president does create a competitive advantage because just as many people hate him as like him.

Discussion of the Emoluments Clauses actually begins at the very bottom of page 43 and ends at the top of page 45...without discussing the purpose, intent or meaning of those clauses. After going through 12 pages of getting DEEP into the weeds about unfair competitive advantages, the court gets back to the Foreign Emoluments clause on page 57. In that section the court decides that it, not congress, gets to determine what constitutes a violation of the Emoluments clause. As I said at the beginning, they then take offer an exceedingly broad interpretation and fail to give any historical, legislative or judicial basis for that interpretation.

Basically, the Emoluments Clauses were designed with the purpose of preventing a foreign government or one of the states (or a coalition of states) to exercise undue influence over the Executive (See Federalist 73 and 84). The intent was never that no party should ever seek to curry favor of the Executive (or any other elected official). Indeed, it's the nature of politics that one party will seek to curry favor from another (there is a practice in DC called "lobbying" which is based entirely on that principle and is, in fact, legal). That inherent aspect of politics is exactly why we have co-equal branches of government and checks and balances. It was NEVER intended that an elected official hand over all personal assets and receive no benefits from going concerns they had prior to their election.
 
Lutherf said:
What you cite is merely a recitation of the plaintiff's argument. It isn't a discussion of the reasons why those complaints describe a legally actionable situation or not. The court's primary argument for reinstatement is that certain foreign officials have mentioned staying at a Trump property to, basically, play to the president's ego. They also say that Trump stated he prefers people who patronize his properties. Those comments, according to the court, are sufficient to prove that there is an emoluments case
Click to expand...

Right, I provided screen shots of those claims. You said the court determined, "any money the president makes outside of his salary can be considered to be an “emolument” That's false. The examples show foreign governments paying money to Trump properties to curry favor. It's a backdoor bribe. We can all recognize that. Trump said he likes countries that make him money, so what do countries who want favors do? Make him money. THAT it what makes it arguably a prohibited emolument, not that it's outside money. EVERY President has outside income.

All that line does is say that the plaintiffs have standing because it's at least possible that Trump has a competitive advantage because he's president. It also blatantly (and expressly) dismisses the very reasonable claim Trump makes (and the lower court agreed with) that there is no good way to prove that Trump being president does create a competitive advantage because just as many people hate him as like him.
Click to expand...

Seems like that's an issue to be decided at trial, not at the standing stage. And it doesn't back up your claim...

Discussion of the Emoluments Clauses actually begins at the very bottom of page 43 and ends at the top of page 45...without discussing the purpose, intent or meaning of those clauses. After going through 12 pages of getting DEEP into the weeds about unfair competitive advantages, the court gets back to the Foreign Emoluments clause on page 57. In that section the court decides that it, not congress, gets to determine what constitutes a violation of the Emoluments clause. As I said at the beginning, they then take offer an exceedingly broad interpretation and fail to give any historical, legislative or judicial basis for that interpretation.
Click to expand...

The discussion starting on page 57 wasn't even defended by the President's team. And the court decides that the court can hear an emoluments case. That's it, really. It says if a plaintiff demonstrates the President is in violation of the law and that violation harms him, he can sue. Do you think that's inappropriate? Congress can also determine it but that doesn't preclude the court from ALSO hearing a legitimate case.

And I have no idea where you're getting the bolded. You'll have to quote it, screenshot it or give a page number reference. I see nothing like that anywhere.

Basically, the Emoluments Clauses were designed with the purpose of preventing a foreign government or one of the states (or a coalition of states) to exercise undue influence over the Executive (See Federalist 73 and 84). The intent was never that no party should ever seek to curry favor of the Executive (or any other elected official). Indeed, it's the nature of politics that one party will seek to curry favor from another (there is a practice in DC called "lobbying" which is based entirely on that principle and is, in fact, legal).
Click to expand...

Lobbyists aren't allowed to hand out bribes, so you're conflating currying favor using persuasion with currying favor by giving lavish gifts or, arguably (we'll find out...) funneling large amounts of money through businesses owned by President in lieu of lavish gifts, and which have the same effect - bribes, basically.

Bribes aren't equivalent to lobbying. To be sure campaign contributions walk up to the edge but the courts recognize a difference between $100k in cash in a paper bag, and $100k to your campaign. The first is criminal, the second isn't. And neither of those is lobbying.

That inherent aspect of politics is exactly why we have co-equal branches of government and checks and balances. It was NEVER intended that an elected official hand over all personal assets and receive no benefits from going concerns they had prior to their election.
Click to expand...

No one says that's what's required here. What's prohibited is profiting from foreign governments, not from individuals, American or foreign, with no business in front of the government. So the VAST majority of the world are free to rent rooms at Trump hotel, play golf, etc.

And the court laid out some possible remedies. See page 43, fn 12. Furthermore, even if renting rooms is an "emolument" the Constitutional remedy for President is laid out - get approval from CONGRESS. It's part of those checks and balances.

Screen Shot 2019-09-14 at 1.11.38 AM.jpg
 
JasperL said:
Right, I provided screen shots of those claims. You said the court determined, "any money the president makes outside of his salary can be considered to be an “emolument” That's false. The examples show foreign governments paying money to Trump properties to curry favor. It's a backdoor bribe. We can all recognize that. Trump said he likes countries that make him money, so what do countries who want favors do? Make him money. THAT it what makes it arguably a prohibited emolument, not that it's outside money. EVERY President has outside income.



Seems like that's an issue to be decided at trial, not at the standing stage. And it doesn't back up your claim...



The discussion starting on page 57 wasn't even defended by the President's team. And the court decides that the court can hear an emoluments case. That's it, really. It says if a plaintiff demonstrates the President is in violation of the law and that violation harms him, he can sue. Do you think that's inappropriate? Congress can also determine it but that doesn't preclude the court from ALSO hearing a legitimate case.

And I have no idea where you're getting the bolded. You'll have to quote it, screenshot it or give a page number reference. I see nothing like that anywhere.



Lobbyists aren't allowed to hand out bribes, so you're conflating currying favor using persuasion with currying favor by giving lavish gifts or, arguably (we'll find out...) funneling large amounts of money through businesses owned by President in lieu of lavish gifts, and which have the same effect - bribes, basically.

Bribes aren't equivalent to lobbying. To be sure campaign contributions walk up to the edge but the courts recognize a difference between $100k in cash in a paper bag, and $100k to your campaign. The first is criminal, the second isn't. And neither of those is lobbying.



No one says that's what's required here. What's prohibited is profiting from foreign governments, not from individuals, American or foreign, with no business in front of the government. So the VAST majority of the world are free to rent rooms at Trump hotel, play golf, etc.

And the court laid out some possible remedies. See page 43, fn 12. Furthermore, even if renting rooms is an "emolument" the Constitutional remedy for President is laid out - get approval from CONGRESS. It's part of those checks and balances.

View attachment 67263719
Click to expand...

You, like the appeals court, is looking at this issue as if ANY benefit received by the president's businesses is considered to be an emolument and that's absurdly extreme.

Becoming president did not give Trump more name recognition and thus a competitive advantage. He was most likely elected president because of his name recognition.

Gaining a competitive advantage over other hotel owners with regard to foreign dignitaries would be impossible to prove. While some may have stayed at his properties to curry some level of favor others may have stayed away because they hate the guy.

Trump saying that he likes people that stay at his properties is no different than Ronald McDonald saying he likes people that eat at his restaurants. It doesn't mean anything and is certainly not part of a campaign to drum up business.

As far as "enriching himself", one would have to prove that his properties are doing more business since he became president AND that the reason they are doing more business is because he is president. Even then, one would likely need to show some significant increase in revenues combined with specific foreign or domestic policies. For example, one would likely need to show that the UAE delegation did not get a deal done while staying at the Motel 6, Pennsylvania Avenue but as soon as they moved to the Trump hotel everything fell into place.

Finally, if the court upholds this extreme view of the definition of an emolument then it will create a chilling effect on all future business owners who might choose to run for president. It will, effectively, create a new and additional requirement for anyone to bee eligible to become president. The presidency is a 4 year term that might be extended for another 4 if the voters approve. There is no reason that someone who has established a successful business should be required to forfeit that business if they choose to run for president and are elected.
 
Lutherf said:
How many copies of Dreams From My Father got sold AFTER Obama got elected?
Click to expand...

Yikes, was Obama telling government employees to buy his book like Trump tells government employees to stay at his resort?

You're desperate for an equivalency.
 
Hatuey said:
Yikes, was Obama telling government employees to buy his book like Trump tells government employees to stay at his resort?

You're desperate for an equivalency.
Click to expand...

The appeals court ruled that even the possibility of a violation warrants lifting the injunction because it might indicate that a...well, they never really do get into what the damages might be..if there are actually damages...but their might be so let's roll!
 
Lutherf said:
You, like the appeals court, is looking at this issue as if ANY benefit received by the president's businesses is considered to be an emolument and that's absurdly extreme.
Click to expand...

No, that's false. You're misstating the argument completely. If you want to continue this baseless and dishonest allegation, quote me or quote the court. You can't do it. About 99.999% or so of the world can patronize his businesses with no risk of anyone claiming it's an emolument. The Constitution is concerned about undue influence from representatives of a foreign government.

Becoming president did not give Trump more name recognition and thus a competitive advantage. He was most likely elected president because of his name recognition.
Click to expand...

LOL, that's absurd. Of course it gave him more name recognition. And it's not a "competitive advantage" that is the problem but backdoor BRIBERY.
Would it be OK if diplomats showed up with $100,000 in cash and handed it over when they met? Of course it wouldn't be. But what you're suggesting is it SHOULD be OK for them to buy a condo or 100 condos, or 1,000 condos at an inflated price and hand the same $100k, $10 million, whatever over to him through the backdoor.

Gaining a competitive advantage over other hotel owners with regard to foreign dignitaries would be impossible to prove. While some may have stayed at his properties to curry some level of favor others may have stayed away because they hate the guy.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if some stayed away. A single incidence of SA or China funneling money through Trump properties to influence U.S. foreign policy is enough. THAT is what it's supposed to prohibit. Not a net profit all things considered, etc. You're trying to argue that's OK if only a few do it, so long as more than that don't. It's just not defensible as a principle except that you don't care about bribery and self dealing and conflicts of interest.

Trump saying that he likes people that stay at his properties is no different than Ronald McDonald saying he likes people that eat at his restaurants. It doesn't mean anything and is certainly not part of a campaign to drum up business.

As far as "enriching himself", one would have to prove that his properties are doing more business since he became president AND that the reason they are doing more business is because he is president. Even then, one would likely need to show some significant increase in revenues combined with specific foreign or domestic policies. For example, one would likely need to show that the UAE delegation did not get a deal done while staying at the Motel 6, Pennsylvania Avenue but as soon as they moved to the Trump hotel everything fell into place.
Click to expand...

No. My gosh. :shock: The emoluments clause does not prohibit gifts IF THEY INFLUENCE POLICY but gifts, period, because they may influence policy. It's the conflict of interest, the POTENTIAL President puts his own interests above that of the country, that's concerning, and therefore gifts are prohibited unless approved by Congress who can weigh the risks, and will be informed of the gift.

Finally, if the court upholds this extreme view of the definition of an emolument then it will create a chilling effect on all future business owners who might choose to run for president. It will, effectively, create a new and additional requirement for anyone to bee eligible to become president. The presidency is a 4 year term that might be extended for another 4 if the voters approve. There is no reason that someone who has established a successful business should be required to forfeit that business if they choose to run for president and are elected.
Click to expand...

You've yet to quote from the case demonstrating any "extreme view." And there is nothing in the case indicating someone with a business must forfeit it under the rules. You can't quote anything saying that, and I quoted them and showed a screenshot of a footnote suggesting several alternatives way, way short of that. You ignore that 99.999% of the world can patronize any business with no risk, ZERO, of running afoul of the emoluments clause. You ignore that there is a remedy - get Congress to approve any arrangement.

What's wrong with POTUS working with Congress to devise a plan to address the issue? You cited separation of powers in the previous post, but ignore the Constitution when it gives Congress the authority to approve emoluments.
 
Lutherf said:
The appeals court ruled that even the possibility of a violation warrants lifting the injunction because it might indicate that a...well, they never really do get into what the damages might be..if there are actually damages...but their might be so let's roll!
Click to expand...

You're blabbering. You want there to be an equivalency between Obama's books and Trump encouraging people in government to stay at his hotels. You refuse to compare it to Trump's own books, who the overwhelming majority of liberals mock, but don't seriously consider when discussing why he is defrauding tax payers. It's not hard to see why.

Aren't you an accountant of some sort?

Lol, how are you struggling to see that if midlevel account manager Donny J. working for Luther Inc. used Luther Inc.'s company credit card to stay at a hotel that Donny J. owns, when he can stay at 30 others he doesn't own but are 40 miles closer then Donny J. is clearly stealing from Luther Inc?

It's depressing.



Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.
 
Conservatives would allow the president to post a for sale sign outside the WH it they thought t pissed off liberals.

True story.

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.
 
Lutherf said:
Basically, the Emoluments Clauses were designed with the purpose of preventing a foreign government or one of the states (or a coalition of states) to exercise undue influence over the Executive (See Federalist 73 and 84). The intent was never that no party should ever seek to curry favor of the Executive (or any other elected official). Indeed, it's the nature of politics that one party will seek to curry favor from another (there is a practice in DC called "lobbying" which is based entirely on that principle and is, in fact, legal). That inherent aspect of politics is exactly why we have co-equal branches of government and checks and balances. It was NEVER intended that an elected official hand over all personal assets and receive no benefits from going concerns they had prior to their election.
Click to expand...

I have two points to make...

1. This is the plain, English definition of Emolument.

Emoluments | Definition of Emoluments at Dictionary.com

Emolument - noun - profit, salary, or fees from office or employment; compensation for services.

I just finished reading Federalist 73 and Federalist 84. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in Federalist 73 or Federalist 84, or in the Constitution, or in the case law, which says anything about an Emolument not including things like profit, salary or fees from office, employment, or compensation for services. If I missed something please let me know. I would like to know where in Federalist 73 and Federalist 84 you think a suggestion was made to strip the word Emolument of its plain meaning, or restrict the definition of Emolument in any way?

This point you're making that the Emoluments clause was "NEVER intended that an elected official hand over all personal assets and receive no benefits from going concerns they had prior to their election" is a Strawman Fallacy. This isn't an argument that the vast majority of Trump critics are making, either in this thread, in the media, or those associated with the Democratic Party.

The problem is that we now have proof that foreign governments are making direct payments to Trump's businesses for the purpose of influencing Trump's decision-making process. This is a threat to our national security and our sovereignty.

There is no need to make Trump a pauper. Nobody is suggesting this, but there are steps our country can take, and Trump can take to help mitigate this risk. Instead, he is rushing head-long into the risk and encouraging these sorts of payments to his businesses.

This is a problem.

2. Nobody is suggesting that Trump hand over all his personal assets, but it's in the best interests of the country for the President to sell his businesses and shift his assets to cash, and put that cash in a blind trust. At the very least, Trump could do things to help mitigate the risk by selling his assets most at risk of being used against him and our country. We should not risk Trump being at risk of foreign influence. It's only prudent to mitigate this risk. So if he still owns property in DC which foreign officials are frequenting, he can sell it. I think another way Trump could mitigate the risk of influence by foreign governments is to refinance his loans. So both he and members of his administration (*cough* Kushner *cough*) should not seek or obtain loans from foreign governments or banks closely associated from foreign governments. Another way he could mitigate the risk of influence by foreign governments is simply give or sell his businesses to his children, and then not allow his children to participate in his administration. Another way he could mitigate the risk is simply make the accounting records of his companies public, or at the very least, the accounting records of those properties most susceptible to foreign influence. So if someone is trying to bribe the President, we'd know about it.

There is a whole host of things Trump and his family could do to help the country with this risk, but in nearly every conceivable instance where there is some sort of conflict or choice between something which might personally benefit him or his family and something which would be in the best interests of the country, he always chooses to do things in a way which benefits himself or his family even if it is at the expense of the country.

Why? Trump is a CROOK! Why has that not been made clear to you yet?
 
Last edited:
W_Heisenberg said:
I have two points to make...

1. This is the plain, English definition of Emolument.

Emoluments | Definition of Emoluments at Dictionary.com

Emolument - noun - profit, salary, or fees from office or employment; compensation for services.

I just finished reading Federalist 73 and Federalist 84. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in Federalist 73 or Federalist 84, or in the Constitution, or in the case law, which says anything about an Emolument not including things like profit, salary or fees from office, employment, or compensation for services. If I missed something please let me know. I would like to know where in Federalist 73 and Federalist 84 you think a suggestion was made to strip the word Emolument of its plain meaning, or restrict the definition of Emolument in any way?

This point you're making that the Emoluments clause was "NEVER intended that an elected official hand over all personal assets and receive no benefits from going concerns they had prior to their election" is a Strawman Fallacy. This isn't an argument that the vast majority of Trump critics are making, either in this thread, in the media, or those associated with the Democratic Party.

The problem is that we now have proof that foreign governments are making direct payments to Trump's businesses for the purpose of influencing Trump's decision-making process. This is a threat to our national security and our sovereignty.

There is no need to make Trump a pauper. Nobody is suggesting this, but there are steps our country can take, and Trump can take to help mitigate this risk. Instead, he is rushing head-long into the risk and encouraging these sorts of payments to his businesses.

This is a problem.

2. Nobody is suggesting that Trump hand over all his personal assets, but it's in the best interests of the country for the President to sell his businesses and shift his assets to cash, and put that cash in a blind trust. At the very least, Trump could do things to help mitigate the risk by selling his assets most at risk of being used against him and our country. We should not risk Trump being at risk of foreign influence. It's only prudent to mitigate this risk. So if he still owns property in DC which foreign officials are frequenting, he can sell it. I think another way Trump could mitigate the risk of influence by foreign governments is to refinance his loans. So both he and members of his administration (*cough* Kushner *cough*) should not seek or obtain loans from foreign governments or banks closely associated from foreign governments. Another way he could mitigate the risk of influence by foreign governments is simply give or sell his businesses to his children, and then not allow his children to participate in his administration. Another way he could mitigate the risk is simply make the accounting records of his companies public, or at the very least, the accounting records of those properties most susceptible to foreign influence. So if someone is trying to bribe the President, we'd know about it.

There is a whole host of things Trump and his family could do to help the country with this risk, but in nearly every conceivable instance where there is some sort of conflict or choice between something which might personally benefit him or his family and something which would be in the best interests of the country, he always chooses to do things in a way which benefits himself or his family even if it is at the expense of the country.

Why? Trump is a CROOK! Why has that not been made clear to you yet?
Click to expand...
You're right but Lutherf isn't going to understand because he would allow his employees to spend the company business cards at companies they own as long Trump owns the liberals.

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
I have two points to make...

Why? Trump is a CROOK! Why has that not been made clear to you yet?
Click to expand...

You don't need to read that far into Federalist 73 to get Hamilton's take on emoluments. The first two paragraphs pretty much cover the whole idea -

THE third ingredient towards constituting the vigor of the executive authority, is an adequate provision for its support. It is evident that, without proper attention to this article, the separation of the executive from the legislative department would be merely nominal and nugatory. The legislature, with a discretionary power over the salary and emoluments of the Chief Magistrate, could render him as obsequious to their will as they might think proper to make him. They might, in most cases, either reduce him by famine, or tempt him by largesses, to surrender at discretion his judgment to their inclinations. These expressions, taken in all the latitude of the terms, would no doubt convey more than is intended. There are men who could neither be distressed nor won into a sacrifice of their duty; but this stern virtue is the growth of few soils; and in the main it will be found that a power over a man's support is a power over his will. If it were necessary to confirm so plain a truth by facts, examples would not be wanting, even in this country, of the intimidation or seduction of the Executive by the terrors or allurements of the pecuniary arrangements of the legislative body.

It is not easy, therefore, to commend too highly the judicious attention which has been paid to this subject in the proposed Constitution. It is there provided that "The President of the United States shall, at stated times, receive for his services a compensation WHICH SHALL NEITHER BE INCREASED NOR DIMINISHED DURING THE PERIOD FOR WHICH HE SHALL HAVE BEEN ELECTED; and he SHALL NOT RECEIVE WITHIN THAT PERIOD ANY OTHER EMOLUMENT from the United States, or any of them.'' It is impossible to imagine any provision which would have been more eligible than this. The legislature, on the appointment of a President, is once for all to declare what shall be the compensation for his services during the time for which he shall have been elected. This done, they will have no power to alter it, either by increase or diminution, till a new period of service by a new election commences. They can neither weaken his fortitude by operating on his necessities, nor corrupt his integrity by appealing to his avarice. Neither the Union, nor any of its members, will be at liberty to give, nor will he be at liberty to receive, any other emolument than that which may have been determined by the first act. He can, of course, have no pecuniary inducement to renounce or desert the independence intended for him by the Constitution.
Click to expand...

If the objective of the domestic emoluments clause is to preclude undue influence from the states then it holds that the foreign emoluments clause is intended to do the same with regard to foreign actors.

The sentence, "They can neither weaken his fortitude by operating on his necessities, nor corrupt his integrity by appealing to his avarice." is rather telling as to the intent of the clauses and speaks to corrupting influence of BOTH the executive and those that seek to influence him. The idea is that Congress can't promise to raise his salary to get what they want nor can they threaten to take it away for the same purpose. It's not about gifts of nominal value or business dealings wholly within the normal course of operations.

Did foreign dignitaries stay at Trump properties prior to his election? If so, then it would be difficult at best to show that such an arrangement while he is president was intended to enrich or unduly influence the president.

There is one thing that, in relation to Hamilton's words, could be in play here. It's possible that a totally frivolous suit like this is intended to accomplish and that it to establish a precedent where no capitalist can any longer be president without falling prey to this kind of judicial malfeasance.
 
ludin said:
actually it says nothing of the kind. trump is not receiving anything. the the hotel is and the hotels are run by his sons not trump.
so there is no violation of anything.

let me know when you finally understand facts instead of lies.
Click to expand...

No, they are being run for Trump's benefit. Trump continues to have a financial interest in the Trump Organization. Investigating emoluments is a noble pursuit. The very definition of corruption is to use your power to profit from the public trust.
We do not know for sure if that is happening; but we do know the Trump never took steps to protect himself from the question of impropriety.

Trump choose not divest himself of his businesses NOR has he been deliberate about steering government business FROM his businesses to protect himself from these questions. Since he fails to do anything to protect himself from questions of impropriety, those questions are not only appropriate, it would be malfeasance not to ask them.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
I have two points to make...

1. This is the plain, English definition of Emolument.

Emoluments | Definition of Emoluments at Dictionary.com

Emolument - noun - profit, salary, or fees from office or employment; compensation for services.

I just finished reading Federalist 73 and Federalist 84. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in Federalist 73 or Federalist 84, or in the Constitution, or in the case law, which says anything about an Emolument not including things like profit, salary or fees from office, employment, or compensation for services. If I missed something please let me know. I would like to know where in Federalist 73 and Federalist 84 you think a suggestion was made to strip the word Emolument of its plain meaning, or restrict the definition of Emolument in any way?

This point you're making that the Emoluments clause was "NEVER intended that an elected official hand over all personal assets and receive no benefits from going concerns they had prior to their election" is a Strawman Fallacy. This isn't an argument that the vast majority of Trump critics are making, either in this thread, in the media, or those associated with the Democratic Party.

The problem is that we now have proof that foreign governments are making direct payments to Trump's businesses for the purpose of influencing Trump's decision-making process. This is a threat to our national security and our sovereignty.

There is no need to make Trump a pauper. Nobody is suggesting this, but there are steps our country can take, and Trump can take to help mitigate this risk. Instead, he is rushing head-long into the risk and encouraging these sorts of payments to his businesses.

This is a problem.

2. Nobody is suggesting that Trump hand over all his personal assets, but it's in the best interests of the country for the President to sell his businesses and shift his assets to cash, and put that cash in a blind trust. At the very least, Trump could do things to help mitigate the risk by selling his assets most at risk of being used against him and our country. We should not risk Trump being at risk of foreign influence. It's only prudent to mitigate this risk. So if he still owns property in DC which foreign officials are frequenting, he can sell it. I think another way Trump could mitigate the risk of influence by foreign governments is to refinance his loans. So both he and members of his administration (*cough* Kushner *cough*) should not seek or obtain loans from foreign governments or banks closely associated from foreign governments. Another way he could mitigate the risk of influence by foreign governments is simply give or sell his businesses to his children, and then not allow his children to participate in his administration. Another way he could mitigate the risk is simply make the accounting records of his companies public, or at the very least, the accounting records of those properties most susceptible to foreign influence. So if someone is trying to bribe the President, we'd know about it.

There is a whole host of things Trump and his family could do to help the country with this risk, but in nearly every conceivable instance where there is some sort of conflict or choice between something which might personally benefit him or his family and something which would be in the best interests of the country, he always chooses to do things in a way which benefits himself or his family even if it is at the expense of the country.

Why? Trump is a CROOK! Why has that not been made clear to you yet?
Click to expand...

Good post. Welcome to DP!
 
Lutherf said:
There is one thing that, in relation to Hamilton's words, could be in play here. It's possible that a totally frivolous suit like this is intended to accomplish and that it to establish a precedent where no capitalist can any longer be president without falling prey to this kind of judicial malfeasance.
Click to expand...

The "malfeasance" here is the court ruled that the case can be heard and decided on the merits, as opposed to dismissed for lack of standing. How in the hell is that judicial malfeasance? Should we assume that the next President can in fact purchase an interest in condos and put them up for sale at inflated prices, and that foreign governments SHOULD be able to buy them up at those prices to funnel backdoor bribes? It's banana republic stuff and you're demanding, effectively, that it be the accepted norm here in this country.

As to the "no capitalist can any longer be president" claim, you can repeat it as many times as you like and it will be nonsense every single time. You can't justify that on the merits or by quoting anything in the decision, which is why you just assert it without evidence. The emoluments restrictions limit relationships with foreign governments and presumably state governments, not individuals and certainly not individuals with no business in front of the WH, so roughly 99.999% or so or more of the world and the country can do business with Trump properties and never run a risk of violating the foreign or domestic emoluments clauses.

Furthermore, there is a remedy and it's laid out in the Constitution - get Congress to approve of the disclosures, restrictions, etc. Why are you opposed to the stipulated separation of powers in the Constitution?
 
JasperL said:
The "malfeasance" here is the court ruled that the case can be heard and decided on the merits, as opposed to dismissed for lack of standing. How in the hell is that judicial malfeasance? Should we assume that the next President can in fact purchase an interest in condos and put them up for sale at inflated prices, and that foreign governments SHOULD be able to buy them up at those prices to funnel backdoor bribes? It's banana republic stuff and you're demanding, effectively, that it be the accepted norm here in this country.

As to the "no capitalist can any longer be president" claim, you can repeat it as many times as you like and it will be nonsense every single time. You can't justify that on the merits or by quoting anything in the decision, which is why you just assert it without evidence. The emoluments restrictions limit relationships with foreign governments and presumably state governments, not individuals and certainly not individuals with no business in front of the WH, so roughly 99.999% or so or more of the world and the country can do business with Trump properties and never run a risk of violating the foreign or domestic emoluments clauses.

Furthermore, there is a remedy and it's laid out in the Constitution - get Congress to approve of the disclosures, restrictions, etc. Why are you opposed to the stipulated separation of powers in the Constitution?
Click to expand...

I'm not the least bit opposed to the separation of powers. I am, however, wholly opposed to abuses of power by one branch against another.
 
Lutherf said:
I'm not the least bit opposed to the separation of powers. I am, however, wholly opposed to abuses of power by one branch against another.
Click to expand...

You haven't identified any abuse. What the appeals court effectively ruled is that the issue can be heard by the courts, on the merits. You'll have to explain how that's an abuse of power.

You're manufactured "abuse" by deliberately misstating what the court ruled and the implications of that ruling - e.g. by claiming it means no "capitalist" can be President even though the emoluments restrictions allow about 99.999% or so of the public to do business with Trump properties (in this case) without ever touching on emoluments concerns.
 
JasperL said:
You haven't identified any abuse. What the appeals court effectively ruled is that the issue can be heard by the courts, on the merits. You'll have to explain how that's an abuse of power.

You're manufactured "abuse" by deliberately misstating what the court ruled and the implications of that ruling - e.g. by claiming it means no "capitalist" can be President even though the emoluments restrictions allow about 99.999% or so of the public to do business with Trump properties (in this case) without ever touching on emoluments concerns.
Click to expand...

There is a rather obvious and consistent abuse of the Executive by the Legislative. Schiff and Nadler in particular have gone power mad to get Trump out of office and CREW (Richard Painter and Norm Eisen) are merely acting as the private sector arm of their public sector attacks. This method of attack has less to do with the law and FAR more to do with a coordinated political attack on the Trump administration.
 
Lutherf said:
There is a rather obvious and consistent abuse of the Executive by the Legislative. Schiff and Nadler in particular have gone power mad to get Trump out of office and CREW (Richard Painter and Norm Eisen) are merely acting as the private sector arm of their public sector attacks. This method of attack has less to do with the law and FAR more to do with a coordinated political attack on the Trump administration.
Click to expand...

OK, so you're just abandoning the topic of emoluments entirely, and this case in particular, for generalized whining about Democrats being unfair to Trump overall.... So the principle here is if it owns the libs, you're for it. Got it.

What I don't get is why if that's your position why you tried to misrepresent the case and the court's decision and its implications in defense of really nothing but that the Democrats are being unfair.
 
JasperL said:
OK, so you're just abandoning the topic of emoluments entirely, and this case in particular, for generalized whining about Democrats being unfair to Trump overall.... So the principle here is if it owns the libs, you're for it. Got it.

What I don't get is why if that's your position why you tried to misrepresent the case and the court's decision and its implications in defense of really nothing but that the Democrats are being unfair.
Click to expand...

I'm not abandoning anything. You are clinging to this decision while completely dismissing the lower court decision. You've got two decisions and, like the appellate court, you are simply ignoring the reasoning in the prior opinion because you agree with this one. Furthermore, you are completely ignoring the reasons that this case was brought to begin with.

It's nothing but a political hit job.
 
Lutherf said:
You don't need to read that far into Federalist 73 to get Hamilton's take on emoluments. The first two paragraphs pretty much cover the whole idea -
Click to expand...

The main gist of the first paragraph of the passage you reference concerns the idea that Congress cannot restrict the President's pay during his term in office.

If the objective of the domestic emoluments clause is to preclude undue influence from the states then it holds that the foreign emoluments clause is intended to do the same with regard to foreign actors. The sentence, "They can neither weaken his fortitude by operating on his necessities, nor corrupt his integrity by appealing to his avarice." is rather telling as to the intent of the clauses and speaks to corrupting influence of BOTH the executive and those that seek to influence him. The idea is that Congress can't promise to raise his salary to get what they want nor can they threaten to take it away for the same purpose.
Click to expand...

There is nothing about this section of the passage which changes the plain meaning of the term emolument.

It's not about gifts of nominal value
Click to expand...

This isn't an argument anyone is making. Nobody has criticized Trump for receiving gifts of nominal value. You are using a strawman in this instance.

The funds Trump has received are significant:

Reps of 22 foreign governments have spent money at Trump properties

business dealings wholly within the normal course of operations.
Click to expand...

This isn't a thing. This isn't a defense. There is no defense in the Constitution or in the case law or anywhere, even in the passage you cited, that says that the emoluments clause doesn't apply if the payment comes about because the President happens to own a business which provides some product or service. The bottom line is that if the President's business dealings result in a situation where he is at risk of being bribed or influenced by foreign governments then the emoluments clause would still apply.

You are assuming, and take as fact, that all the crooked stuff Trump and his family have been doing, and with regard to foreign loans, and the fact that foreign officials stay at Trump hotels are no big deal, and do not influence the decisions Trump makes. In fact, there is already a great deal of evidence to the contrary.

Did foreign dignitaries stay at Trump properties prior to his election? If so, then it would be difficult at best to show that such an arrangement while he is president was intended to enrich or unduly influence the president.

There is one thing that, in relation to Hamilton's words, could be in play here. It's possible that a totally frivolous suit like this is intended to accomplish and that it to establish a precedent where no capitalist can any longer be president without falling prey to this kind of judicial malfeasance.
Click to expand...

This is a ridiculous notion. He can just sell his assets and then buy them back when he is voted out of office in 2021. He can sell those properties must at risk.

With regard to the loans people like Kushner get, it's quite simple. Don't take gigantic loans from foreign countries or organizations closely affiliated with foreign countries. And if you can't refrain from doing stuff like that you can't work in the White House.
 
Reps of 22 foreign governments have spent money at Trump properties


The extent and amount of foreign spending at Trump's hotels, golf clubs and restaurants is not known, because the Trump Organization is a private company and declines to disclose that information. Trump promised to donate any profits from foreign governments, and the Trump Organization has sent $343,000 to the U.S. Treasury for 2017 and 2018. The company did not release underlying numbers to support that figure.
Click to expand...

In the Federalist Papers No. 73, published in 1788, one of the Constitution's authors, Alexander Hamilton, wrote that the emoluments ban would insure that foreign governments "can neither weaken (the president's) fortitude by operating on his necessities, nor corrupt his integrity by appealing to his avarice."

Trump-owned properties — including his D.C. hotel and his Mar-a-Lago golf club — have been the frequent recipients of foreign money.

According to news accounts and other public records:

At least nine foreign governments were involved in hosting events at a Trump property: Afghanistan, Cyprus, Ireland, Japan, Philippines, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Turkey

At least nine foreign governments rented or purchased property in buildings or communities owned by Trump businesses: Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, China, Malaysia, Slovakia, Thailand, India and the European Union.

Representatives of at least five foreign governments — Georgia, Nigeria, Malaysia, Romania and Saudi Arabia — have stayed at a Trump property.

Foreign governments have improved infrastructure in a way that benefited Trump properties in Indonesia and Panama.

At least eight foreign governments or their representatives attended parties or gatherings at Trump properties: Brazil, Dominica, Georgia, Nigeria, Russia, Turkey, Malaysia and Qatar

An event at the Trump International Hotel in Washington last May exemplifies the risk of a conflict of interest, or the risk of an appearance of such a conflict.

The purpose of the gathering, as first reported by journalist Zach Everson, was described in a report in the Cyprus News Agency, which gets funding from the government. The group was examining "ways of exerting influence on US President Donald Trump with a view to avert the Islamization of the Turkish-occupied part of Cyprus," the report said.

In February, the investigative reporting site ProPublica observed that Nigerian presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar and his entourage were staying at the Trump Hotel in Washington, despite Abubakar reportedly having been barred from the U.S. for his alleged involvement in corruption while he was Nigeria's vice president.

And last week, The Washington Post reported that a wealthy Iraqi sheikh who was trying to influence the Trump administration spent 26 nights in a suite at the hotel at an estimated cost of tens of thousands of dollars.

In a court ruling last year denying Trump's motion to dismiss an emoluments lawsuit, a federal judge in Washington, Peter Messitte, raised the seminal question: When "a President maintains a premier hotel property that generates millions of dollars a year in profits, how likely is it that he will not be swayed, whether consciously or subconsciously, in any and all of his dealings with foreign or domestic governments that might choose to spend large sums of money at that hotel property?"
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom