@Bluebird
Here's a curious constitutional dilemma this case makes clear. The DOJ is defending POTUS, as one might expect of a division of the Executive Branch. But why do we expect that? The DOJ is the investigative/prosecutorial wing of the entire government, sworn to uphold the Constitution, the laws as passed by the House and Senate and as interpreted by the Courts. So DOJ should be acting as legal counsel for each of them. The Executive branch is supposed to faithfully execute the laws of the land, including any provisions that make actions of POTUS unconstitutional, unlawful, or in defiance of the Court. But legal counsels and prosecutors cannot easily represent adversarial sides in a criminal case. DOJ must not act as a political arm of POTUS and his party. Perhaps we need an amendment to make DOJ a 4th Branch. We cannot just assume that future presidents, Justices, or COmgress members will not be corrupt criminals with no respect for Congress, the Courts, and our laws.
1
The foreign emolument clause has a historical background.
In about 1770, John Dalrymple was allowed access to French diplomatic archives. There he discovered that King Charles II of England (reigned 1660-1685) secretly took French bribes, and that other great Englishmen of the same period including Algernon Sydney (died 1683) were secretly on the French payroll. Dalyrmple wrote of his findings in Memoirs of Great Britain (first volume 1771, second volume 1773).
There was great reaction. Heroes of England's 1688 Glorious Revolution were tarnished. The reputation of Sydney, a paragon to the American colonists, was diminished.
The drafters of the US Constitution, in reaction, required transparency: Congress must be advised that a federal officer received a gift from a foreign government.
Did the drafters consider an ordinary business transaction as violating the clause? History says not. President George Washington sold Mount Vernon grown tobacco in the market. On the other hand, a business transaction can conceal a gift.
Transparency is the key. All a deal's particulars must be reported to Congress. The Constitution textually commits to Congress this responsibility.
Samuel Johnson's quip on Dalrymple deserves repeating. "[H]e who does what he is afraid should be known, has something rotten about him."
I do not want my tax dollars paying for Trump's defense in this lawsuit. The Justice Department is defending him and making arguments on Trump's behalf with our tax dollars. This is something that Trump himself should foot the bill for as he created the problem. The tax-paying citizens of this country should not be paying for Trump's attorneys, i.e., the Justice Department has no business in defending the president as he tries to enrich himself while ignoring the best interests of the people.
8
The NYT article barely scratches the surface of Trump's dealings. For more details about the breadth & enormous scope, please read the Forbes article.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2018/12/16/mueller-exposes-putins-hold-over-trump/#56b2fb1648f6
Folks seem to be able cite to the rule correctly, but apparently haven't considered what it actually says. If Trump received a gift from a foreign actor this would violate the law. But, does the receipt of cash in exchange for a sale of services at a market rate constitute a gift? When you pay the bill at the end of your stay at a hotel, have you just given a gift to that hotel or did you merely pay what you owed for the services you purchased? I think any non-partisan judge would have to find that purchases of services at market rate without more does not constitute a gift. Otherwise you would essentially be saying that the emoluments clause prohibits any officeholder (not just the president) from engaging, even indirectly, in any business transaction where a counterparty has some kind of position with a foreign government. Perhaps that ought to be the rule. But it isn't the rule as it's written now, and it would clearly require some judicial legislating to find otherwise.
Note as well that Trump's net worth according to Forbes actually dropped by $1.5 billion since he announced his candidacy for president ($4.5 billion reduced to $3.1 billion). The NYT takes the position that Trump is selling out the office of the presidency, but the numbers don't seem to bear that out.
I'm not saying I have no problem with Trump's conflicts. I think he should have decided if he wanted to be president or owner of Trump organization; but I don't believe the law required him to.
1
Emoluments means a payment on account of or in recognition of an office as reflected in the actual constitutional language not a paraphrase by NYT biased and careless writers; it is not payment for goods or services in business dealings. What if the Mount Vernon estate of George Washington sold produce or whiskey to a foreign legation in Philadelphia or New York (the capitals when he was President)? It does not matter that the president retains an interest in the hotel in DC, nor did he have to say he would give away the profits from it -- it is still income to his organization even if he gives it away (tax law). An emolument is in effect a retainer.
1
We have spent the last 50 - 60 years recreating the President into an emperor. No where is it required that one must strip himself bare and done a hair shirt to enter the White House. The President may not comment on the news of he day, Yesterday's outrage was a comment on the Army Major in Afghanistan, he must just waive his arm aloft withholding opinion. Tax Returns, Blind Trusts, not commenting on the news of the day, disagreeing with this or that judge - all of these things are phony, none of it comes down from the founders or our own history. This imperial Presidency is a non-sense. The President is and always has been a purely political animal. Maybe its the perpetual state of war, never declared of course, we have been in for 60 years or maybe our role on the World stage has become so large we need a grand emperor. Who bought Thomas Jefferson tobacco? Did that violate the emoluments clause? of course not.
1
All the presidents I remember strove to distance themselves from emoluments issues. Trump just says he's above the law. I hope I live in a country where the president is NOT above the law. If I do, then he is no longer a president. He's a tyrant.
so Hillary and Bill made millions while in office, trading on their pay for play,
Who says so, the National Enquirer? Show us where they made $millions while in office.
2
The title alone sounds like one step away from Atlas Shrugged. How dare he profit from his business!
1
“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States ….”
Which is a pity and a shame because ...
No man alive has ever deserved the title of “King of Stooges and Fools” more than Trump.
And we, the American people, are of course his stooges and fools.
1
A few thoughts:
1)A number of commenters have raised elections have consequences. Yes, elections do have consequences. In the past, those consequences have included the victor placing his assets in a blind trust, doing everything possible to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, and listening to the advice of ethics experts. I think a lot of us who are not members of the Trump cult of personality miss those consequences. I think the nation was stronger with those consequences than it is without them.
2)What is and what is not an emolument is for the courts to decide. Some commenters here argue that the people have already decided the issue through the electoral process. However, the American people were not in a position to judge any potential foreign entanglements of candidate Trump because he did not release his tax returns nor did he answer questions about his debts and obligations. President Trump has followed suit.
3)President Trump's assets are different from the assets that many previous Presidents have owned. The blind trust solution would not have been easy in his case. Congress should enact a law stating that a President who owns business assets such as hotels that can be patronized by foreign governments can elect to have their privately held companies follow the reporting standards of publicly held companies for the duration of their Presidency. Let's see the Trump Organization file quarterly reports showing sources of revenue and liabilities.
1
Notice that they didn't include the fact that he takes no salary from the Federal Government? Hummmm...thinks some press might be one-sided.
1
You as tax payer have paid almost $75 million personal travel and golf for Donald in only 696 days.
That 400k salary is nothing compared to golf travel expenses all tax payers are paying for.
President Trump has spent more than 200 days out of 696 days at his for personal time at company's properties, with the tax payers money going to Trump properties
4
And we paid Zero for O etc?
1
All those golf club rentals, all the fees and other services paid for by the Secret Service at his golf clubs, have exhausted their budget.
This has always been a ridiculous argument. Of course Trump is awful, and one would think that eventually he will do something proven and he will resign, but this is not it.
Anything and everything associated with trump is looked at as a way to void the election, lost by seemingly the only candidate worse than trump, Hilary.
To imagine that somehow Trump is gaining on these hotel rooms is absurd, and as stated above, not even what the definition of emoluments is .
Go find something else
3
Just try to imagine the outrage of the Republican party if Hillary Clinton had won and was doing something similar, or even a fraction of the corrupt actions of this president.
2
According to the emoluments clause of the Constitution, what Trump has been doing is not constitutional (at least not in any "strict constructionist" sense).
According to very well-documented history, Trump's violation of the emoluments clause was patently obvious -to anyone paying attention at the time- by January 2017
According to basic facts and common sense, the Democratic and Republican members of the 115th Congress are most shamefully collectively guilty of world historical gross dereliction of duty, for having utterly failed to even attempt to take any credible and substantive action on this salient issue, thereby allowing by far the most unfit and destructive president of all time to be an unfettered wrecking ball smashing at the American political system, American culture, American institutions, American traditions thereby damaging the worldwide reputation of the United States of America for many years to come.
10
I agree. Congress has been silent, numb and playing the ostrich in the sand. This corrupt, inept, inintelligible and illegitimate President has managed one thing in 2 years: he has conned his base and made Congress irrelevant. A victory for him but certainly a defeat for America. We will never be the same after this. Even if this man gets impeached, indicted and imprisoned, he will have wounded America to its core, that is to its institutions and to its constitution. WE, THE PEOPLE, have a tough road ahead, we will make it but the wounds will be deep. Poor America!
1
Didn't vote for Trump.
Don't support Trump.
Don't like Trump.
HOWEVER
The dictionary definition of "emolument" is:
"a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office."
The Framers were quite specific in their choice of words. Applying the "reasonable person" standard, a government official who stays at a Trump property and pays a market rate for that stay is not providing Mr. Trump with either "employment" or an "office".
The Framers also believed in the concept of the citizen-statesman, that an individual would perform his/her public duties but remain connected to his/her private ventures.
The legal scholars whose heads are exploding over the President owning a hotel room are too narrowminded in their expectation that every senior-level politician must be by definition a career politician. Mr. Trump breaks this stereotype, regardless of how offensive his methods, personality and policies may be.
1
The founders also did not consider corporations as people.
It is more than a hotel room, it is using the office of the President in order to influence foriegn or domestic personal business deals.
Trump has refused to do as predecessors have done to sever ties to the companies or financial interests that pose, a conflict of interest.
By keeping his assets Trump and his family are in the unique position to profit directly from his public service.
Special interests in Washington seeking to curry favor with Trump are not only donating to his reelection campaign, but holding fundraisers and galas at his resorts, private clubs and hotels.
All the proceeds of which directly benefit Donald and his family.
1
I'm not sure it is legal or Constitutional, as a Federal Employee we had to adhere to strict guidelines of ethics and conflicts of interest with yearly disclosures.
I know Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner from everything I have read are not working within the prescribed ethic and conflicts of interest standards, and should both be fired and possibly fined.
I do think the Republican Congress has looked the other way at Trump's lack of separating himself from his businesses and I think there should be a constitutional scholars reading on Trump's conflicts and force him to follow the law or be impeached and prosecuted to payback the Government and taxpayers.
3
Of course it's not "constitutional". It's illegal, in violation of the emoluments clause. But until the "lawmakers" (joke) and the Justice Department (more jokes) get off their posteriors and ENFORCE THE LAW, this horrible, lying crook, and his crooked family, will continue to fleece the American people.
YOU, NYT, are NOT doing your "truth to power" job by ignoring this constant stain on our country. PUBLICIZE THE CRIME, and not with some occasional, timid, "is this illegal?" column, but EVERY DAY.
7
Trump will some day brag about how much money he made as president.
4
I have no issue with covering this issue. There are law suit in play, after all, and a lot of debate about the issue. So how about discussing the other side of the argument - at least some of it.
Republican voters see people like Pelosi, Obama, and many others gain vast sums of money while in office and wonder why anyone would be surprised that someone who's fortune is tied up in real estate might make money from it while in office.
The spin on this article - to include the headline - don't help the idea of having impartial news (not opinion) pages.
Corporate contributions are problematic for both Dems & Repubs. But that's vastly different than using the presidency for personal financial gain as Trump, his sons, daughter, and Kushner are all doing.
4
There's a big difference between a book deal and a business that involves favors from other countries.
3
I don't really disagree with you - but that must have been some book deal for someone like Nancy Pelosi!
My bigger point is that there is another side to the story that the Times is not bothering to even express. This is not the opinion page - this presents itself as a news story/analysis which is supposed to be freer of spin.
'Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.' Samuel Johnson.
Trump wraps himself in the flag to hide the fact that he uses the Presidency to further his family's business interests. Embracing Putin and Prince MBS of Saudi Arabia where he is negotiating to erect colossal hotels in both Moscow and S.A. He made concessions to the Chinese whereupon his daughter's line of expensive fashion accessories was granted 'trademark' status. Something that is otherwise non-existent in China.
Making his hotel in NY the designated place foreign visitors must stay to meet with him.
While his son and son-in-law go overseas and leverage their influence to sell million dollar condos to foreign billionaires providing them a path to US citizenship.
5
That question will be left up to the Supreme Court which is a puppet for the Republican Party. Don't hold your breath waiting for Trump to stop making money on his properties or any other grifting thing his family has done since squatting in the White House.
4
Before he was elected President in 2016, Trump made a campaign promise that "if elected he would have his children manage his business and would not discuss business matters with them."
Despite the hullabaloo about how a "Trump presidency would be ethically compromised" from two of Trump's current harassers, Richard Painter and Norman Eisen (Wash. Post, Sept. 20, 20i6), one month the electorate swallowed any qualms it had and voted Trump into the White House. There he kept his promise!
Kudos to Painter & Eisen for alerting us to Trump's plans. They served our democracy well. But the electorate rejected their advice and elected Trump anyway.
But the usual Trump haters won't accept that choice. So they have dredged the matter up once again. And Painter and Eisen are among Trump's principal tormentors.
Their refusal to accept the voters' choice raises the question: Why bother with Presidential elections at all? Or democracy? The "ethics experts" have spoken. Who is the electorate to question their judgment? Can we safely entrust such a fateful choice as who is to be in the White House to a bunch of deplorables?
Let's just allow the ethics experts to decide who is to govern us.
2
Let's wait and see what comes out of the lawsuits.
1
Donald needs all the money he can get, because I think that in reality he is up to his eyeballs in debt.
2
Is this Constitutional?
What has become obvious is the laws of this country are only as strong as the people who are defending them and the publics desire to see parties brought to justice.
The Vichy GOP, the collaborators of the Reality Show Con Artist, are actively obstructing them to protect someone they know is unfit and a probable Russian dupe.
And why not? The American public just rewarded them with additional seats in the Senate.
Is it Constitutional? For today, the American public and the Vichy GOP say it is and this is how they want their Constitution interpreted.
The grifter in chief has never been the problem. The desire and acceptance by the American people for him, and the Vichy GOP's collaboration with him are the real tragedies.
1
Like many Americans, ever since Donald Trump took up residence in the White House while building the new Trump International Hotel only steps away from it, I've wondered about the validity of his business ventures, his conflict of interest, and how it all stands in relation to the Emoluments Clause to the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 8), which explicitly prohibits members of the U.S. government from receiving gifts, offices or titles from foreign states, its rulers, offices or representatives.
That said, is it any wonder that Trump has remained so willfully ignorant of the very constitutional laws that govern this land?
16
Where do we even begin to trace the corruption of Donald J. Trump? New Yorkers have known about his shady "real estate" dealings for years, so his refusal to place his privately owned company in a blind trust (the traditional means for avoiding conflicts of interest and, equally important, the appearance of conflicts of interest), and to release his tax returns (as all modern presidents have) is hardly surprising. Trump has no one to blame but himself for the investigations and criminal indictments that have plagued his administration. Some crooks learn from their mistakes and transgressions. Others just dig themselves in deeper. Trump is the latter kind.
7
I cant help but feel I what as I can only describe as " political incarceration " with all the news about the Trump and his clan's shenanigans. Trump with Putin, Moscow hotels, to MBS and Kushner in cahoots- now the border wall (that Mexico was going to pay for) /government shutdown< where does it all end?
Everyday our laws, ethics, decorum and civility all out the window, and for what and who? The Trumps? People, Trump is just not worth tanking our values, tossing out our strives for a inclusive society for an narcissist, only cares about himself, period. If the U.S. citizens don't get informed, stand up for America, then this "Trump mess" will continue to set precedents we cant afford to let stand. The Trump reality show needs to be canceled.
3
This is hardly a controversial issue.
A president is not allowed to benefit, through gifts/payments (emoluments), while in office. The types of benefits can be numerous, and the founding fathers did not try to define each benefit - they simply said it was disallowed. Could this be any simpler?
We see trump benefiting from his presidency when he decides to stay mostly at his own properties, as he travels as president. He does so every week when he stays at his "resort" in Florida (Mar-a-Lago), at his NJ golf course/hotel, at his NYC tower, at his Scotland golf course/hotel, etc.
Each time trump stays at his own property, his business (and so he) benefits. The U.S. govt must pay for his cabinet's and Secret Service security staff (numbering in the 100s) to stay WITH him (earning him $1000s/person/night that we taxpayers pay for hotel charges, meals, phone/laundry, parking, "resort fees", "special event fees" at his New Years Eve party, etc.). He makes millions per trip to his own property.
So clearly trump decides where he will stay - at his own properties. Clearly his properties get paid per stay by him and his large entourage of 100s of people and media/press-pool. Clearly he is a major owner/beneficiary of these properties. His decision to stay at his properties earns him at least millions per year.
He makes presidential decisions that benefit him. Even if we ignore foreign gov'ts staying at his hotels, trump is benefiting.
He is violating the emoluments clause.
9
"The types of benefits can be numerous, and the founding fathers did not try to define each benefit - they simply said it was disallowed."
What is the "it" that is disallowed? At one point you say that the president is not allowed to benefit through gifts/payments (emoluments), while in office. That may seem to be a fair interpretation of the clause to the uninitiated, but it isn't. He's not allowed to receive gifts (a specific class of payments) from foreign actors. Note that the examples you cite to would involve the federal government reimbursing Trump's hotels for putting up the security detail. Even if that does in fact occur, there's not even an argument that this is an emoluments clause violation because there is no foreign actor in the equation, and the emoluments clause was designed to prevent foreign interference in politics. It's also not by any means clear that Trump receives a gift when a foreign actor pays his company the market rate for a night's stay in one of his hotels. In fact that kind of transaction (done at a market rate) is literally the standard definition of something that is NOT a gift.
OK, so Trump's business practices clearly violate the standard definition of the Emoluments Clause, and courts could easily find that this is a constitutional violation. Then what?
He has been and is and will be profiting from his 'foreign entanglements', but he has not accepted Titles or Offices from foreign governments and heads of state. HIs defense? Well, folks, that's just the nature of international business today, and I am a businessman. So, what is the penalty? Impeachment and removal for this 'High Crime"? Article 1.9.8 does not specify a penalty. He could be fined the estimated value of his gains, but on what authority? Any immediate actions would not prevent foreign powers from enriching him massively after he leaves office.
This is the problem of a strongly worded law with no associated penalty, and any penalty added later would be ex post facto for prior misdeeds. Unless a plausible charge of hurting the U.S.A. in return for these rewards (treason) can also be proven, all this is sadly just additional reasons to impeach on some other grounds.
1
So 45 is for global business when it benefits him but otherwise globalism is
our nemesis; according to 45.
4
even if he's impeached senate wont convict, so this would be another exercise if democrat's futility.
I have found it particularly brazen that he is not benefiting just from owning properties, but his clearly commercial marketing of himself as easily influenced by people who are "nice" to him, and whom he "likes".
Clearly one of the huge attractions to properties which he frequents is pay-per-view access to POTUS himself, and the chance to unfairly influence someone whose whole life has been about selling himself. If he doesn't frequent a place, splashing around lots of money will no doubt still bring attention.
A little visit here, a little visit there is goosing profits quite nicely... But one must question the other side of what, exactly, is being bought as well.
2
It's a shame that people don't have the same passion for the Emoluments Clause that they have for the Second Amendment. But curiously, many of the same people who talk in quavering voices about their sacred duty to the Constitution when it comes to gun rights seem perfectly willing to overlook the founder's intent when it comes to emoluments.
The Emoluments Clause is straightforward, and its purpose is obvious. It is intended to prevent even the appearance that the president might personally profit from his dealings with other nations. It does not require that the president be caught executing a quid pro quo. It exists to guarantee that such deals are simply not possible.
There is no possible way to read Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 and avoid the conclusion that Trump needs to seek congressional approval for what he's doing. I assume all those who favor a "strict constructionalist" interpretation of the Constitution agree?
4
Jeez
Before this latest obsession no one had ever heard of an emolument. Now everyone's a constitutional scholar. If you had quizzed them they probably would have said its a form of mayonnaise
Are we supposed to effectively bar the most successful people, billionaires, from office? They are naturally going to have holdings in hundreds of different investments.
Do we want to limit our Presidential candidates to only those with no record of economic achievement? E.g. a community organizer?
Did you miss the part about a blind trust?
1
No, but you need to follow the law and put your money and companies in a blind trust for the duration you are in office. Otherwise, when something goes wrong, or tax increase is happening to a certain sector, the person in office will do things that benefit his businesses.
2
Didn't President Carter get in trouble with his ties to his peanut farm after he became President?
Boy, the boundaries have sure changed.......
2
This story is one of many examples from the troubles our democracy is now facing. In olden times of, say, 20 years ago nothing like this would be permitted. If a candidate for office did not declare a separation from financial interests during the campaign they would never get as far as the primary. But Trump and his Republican supporters have pushed the limits of normalcy and acceptability so very far. We have become numb. In this case it's only two lawsuits plus the occasional media article for us to hear about this nearly tangential plot line. But this illegal behavior is a representation of much bigger and unfortunate path that we are on. I do hope that we can reign it in and become a nation of normal ethics and respect, at least to the degree that we have been in the past.
2
I read the Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 & it seems to me that he can collect the profits from foreign countries because Congress has pretty much consented by not requiring him to do otherwise with his businesses. Not only is he collecting profits but he & Jared are using their positions to increase their financial positions with foreign countries.
Kushner should not have been allowed to accept that medal from Meixco. He is a senior adviser in the administration & the medal may have been privately negotiated for some influence with trump.
Ivanka's continued Chinese trademarks may also be used for some exchange of influence with trump.
Conflicts of interest are everywhere in this family owned & run administration. And Congress is consenting to it all. Maybe Jan, 2019 will begin a change in consent.
1
I like the graphic approach used. I would like to see this type of communication applied to more off Trump's more complex deals.
I hope the courts find for a strict interpretation of Emoluments. To do otherwise throws open the doors to corrupt foreign influence. Blind trust is a good strategy for typical derivative asset types (eg stocks) but for someone like Trump, whose assets are inextricably tied to him personally, nothing short of complete severance of owner or investor benefits will suffice. Even the most charitable view of such entanglement between private benefit and public service requires an unrealistic expectation of benign intent on the part of public officials. The Constitution erected a wall of separation between personal benefit from foreign sources (emoluments), of any kind whatsoever, and public service.
The courts should firmly apply this separation. Any candidate contemplating office should face the necessity of complete divestiture of Trump-like assets should they win an election, and appointees should expect rejection by the Senate. High office is not an entitlement - rather it is a privilege. Office holders must comply with the strictest interpretation of the Constitution.
So where are all the Republicans who raised such a stink about Bill Clinton's use of the Lincoln Bedroom to house campaign contributors? They must find Trump's behavior outrageous, right? Why don't we hear even a peep out of them?
4
Nancy Pelosi is worth $100M. This isn't a great line of reasoning to follow. At least Trump had the money before he entered politics.
1
Yes, and please point to how she has enriched herself by having foreign dignitaries and governments stay at her hotels and properties.
2
Of course it is. Trump needed to put his money in a blind trust, once he's out of office, he can have them back. But he should not be running or overseeing his businesses while in office. It's a conflict of interest. Whoever is in office could potential decide laws and taxes based on what will benefit his/her own company. And yes, even in a blind trust that could happen, but with a blind trust the person isn't supposed to be informed of what is going on with the innerworkings of the company.
1
well, she did something to enrich herself. Funny how when the dems accumulate money it's perfectly fine.
I'm a Canadian, so correct me if I'm wrong, but is it legal for Trump to be profiting by all his weekend golfing trips to his own golf clubs in NJ and Florida? I am sure the WH must pay for his and his entourage's rooms, meals, increased security, etc? Plus when he meets foreign leaders/diplomats at Mar-a-Lago, he is prifiting from foreign powers paying for their stay there, possibly?
2
The concept of a blind trust is idiotic. What do you think the trustee is going to do, liquidate his holdings and put him into Treasury bonds?
And the idea that "foreign payment" someone paying the hotel rack rate for a night's stay at a hotel is ludicrous. On that basis, if a Russian government official purchases a copy of the NY Times, the Times is taking payments from foreign governments.
7
A blind trust is not idiotic if truly blind. And, in any case, the idea is to distance the president as far as possible for any appearance of commercial transactions affecting decision making and/or policy. That is not possible today. And the analogy you make for payments is 'idiotic'. The issue raised by the direct ownership of the properties is once again the appearance of commercial transactions affecting decision making and/or policy. It becomes difficult to discern if business is directed to the president's business to curry favor or influence and that in and of itself is a problem - and possibly illegal.
8
If a trustee began selling off Trump properties, it would be front page news in the Times and the Wall Street Journal, as the transactions would be public information. Therefore, it can never be "blind", and any effort to suppress this news would violate the First Amendment.
How and why is a "blind trust" idiotic? The idea is, the president doesn't know what he's invested in, so he can't make decisions based on his own profit motive. See how simple that is. Now explain to me why a president would refuse to do that-- unless he wanted to be able to profit from his decisions.
The Swindler in the White House.
The Dishonest Donald Business. Republicans call him a business man, many people voted for him because they think the government should be run like a business. His business is Racketeering, all you have to do is look.
Its business is Racketeering. Trump facing lawsuit over misleading investors - JURIST - News ... https://www.jurist.org/.../rico-lawsuit-filed-against-trump-corporation-and-donald-tru... Lawsuit accuses President Trump and his family of misleading investors
https://www.nbcnews.com/...trump/lawsuit-accuses-president-trump- his-family-misle Trump and his Trump Organization RICO suit: pyramid scheme near ...
https://www.dailykos.com/story/.../-Trump-and-his-Trump-Organization-RICO-suit Oct 29, 2018 - The Trumps involved in a pyramid scheme? Say it ain't so, it's not like he created a fake university… oh wait. It's not like they've been involved ... Is this what you call good business sense?
This is just a sample, there is his attempt to evade the mortgage on his Chicago hotel, mone to pay came from Deutschebank, which got it from Bank of Cypress, with Wilbur Ross and Oleg Derapaska on its board.
6
The TrumpRepublican nexus of looting and exploiting has grown so powerful there seems to be little recourse to stop it. It didn't start with Trump, but he embodies the willful conscienceless otherblaming of it all.
We humans had a chance to live and work together for the common good, but we are blowing it at speed. The greed and blindness on a rapidly heating earth is leading to unimaginable breakdown of the social contract.
The promotion of hatred and violence is not helping.
"Envy, hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness" is their creed. And they call themselves Christians: these people would have Jesus in jail in a heartbeat!
So evil, the classics have named it over and over:
Evil, be thou my good.
Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven.
The path to death in life is short and easy.
Noooooooo! Danger!!!
2
We know his swindling and profiteering from his position as president is unconstitutional.
However the Constitution does not not provide any penalty and no statute has been passed to specify a penalty for this. The only recourse from a constitutional view is impeachment.
5
Billionaires are just poor people with money and poor people are Billionaires waiting for the temporary cash flow problem to work itself out. The poor look up to Trump for this Constitutional snag is just what the poor like to blame their poverty on: the government, taxes, and the press. If everybody could just do what they want, like our Donald, then nobody would be poor, they claim, and if nobody hears the sound of the criminal felling trees in our Constitutional Forest, then, they will argue, no trees were felled. It's only the liberal media is hearing things.
5
Does the Emoluments Clause apply to payments (or other benefits) that Trump (his company or family members) may receive AFTER he leaves office? Trump touts his "personal relationships" with foreign leaders, such as MBS and Putin, that run counter to US government institutional policy. I fear he intends to trade this personal favoritism to US adversaries for financial benefits from foreign leaders after he returns to private life.
4
No. Monetizing your government experience after you leave office is a time-honored American tradition, which is why something like 40% of all members of Congress go on to become Lobbyists after they leave office.
In the past, however, most people have waited until they left office to leverage the profits. Trump isn't able to do that, apparently.
7
@Sam
Monetizing *after* leaving office is ethically suspect, but at least it's after.
The fact that the Trump organization makes money shows good business sense, however Trump himself can have no hand in that as it would put him in a compromising position.
This is where congress is suppose to come into play and keep checks on the president.
Now does Trump separate himself from his organization, no, so it's about time for congress to move on it.
1
The tRump organization business is swindling, it has a long history of not paying bills, forcing contractors to sue, then settling for far less than the contracts because the claimant can not afford the legal costs.
Its business is Racketeering.
Trump facing lawsuit over misleading investors - JURIST - News ...
https://www.jurist.org/.../rico-lawsuit-filed-against-trump-corporation-and-donald-tru...
Lawsuit accuses President Trump and his family of misleading investors
https://www.nbcnews.com/...trump/lawsuit-accuses-president-trump-
his-family-misle
Trump and his Trump Organization RICO suit: pyramid scheme near ...
https://www.dailykos.com/story/.../-Trump-and-his-Trump-Organization-RICO-suit
Oct 29, 2018 - The Trumps involved in a pyramid scheme? Say it ain't so, it's not like he created a fake university… oh wait. It's not like they've been involved ...
Is this what you call good business sense?
9
Yes, it is time for congress to move on it - or individual citizens through the courts ala the suits here - especially in light of congress not acting.
Such questions only can be answered by The Supreme Court, which currently is a branch of the Republican Party.
25
In the case of Donald Trump, his violations of the emoluments clause are so egregious and so plain for the world to see, that it is a dereliction of the congressional oath of office for any sitting member of Congress to not bring him to the Senate for trial. Trump is virtually selling himself to the highest bidder.
There simply is no argument for doing nothing.
35
Is this constitutional ?
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson both made money from their properties while being President.
George Washington, in addition, as a land speculator (Historically G.W. was one the United States largest land speculators)
By precedent:: Yes, this is constitutional
4
The rub in the clause is not making a profit from one's business dealings, but receiving profit from FOREIGN powers in connection with one's office. In this case, the fact is that several foreign powers have opted to spend money in Trump-branded businesses. Would they rent these same spaces were Donald Trump not president? It is difficult to prove a negative, but the clause makes clear that it is illegal for an office-holder to profit from foreign states because that could create conflicts of interest in matters of state (e.g., how to respond to MBS). The Apprentice would likely be legal since those profits and are not from foreign governments, but foreign companies. Reading the clause closely, I suppose Congress could offer explicit consent through statute or even a joint-committee's resolution.
16
Foreign, foreign, foreign profit. Don't be disingenuous. Anyway, the "blind trust" is a relatively modern innovation. You know, like freeing the slaves. Or, since Washington and Jefferson both had slaves, was that a mistake as well?
@Mr S:
You misunderstand the emoluments clause, which disallows benefits (payments, awards, titles, etc.) from either foreign or domestic entities. It is not limited only to foreign powers, as you mistakenly cite.
Also, you are wrong with your point about royalty payments he receives from his Apprentice shows. Those are shown in foreign nations, including the U.K. where the BBC (television/entertainment broadcaster) is fully a government entity. Thus, royalties paid by the U.K. BBC are payments coming directly from the U.K. government to trump. His shows also violate the emoluments clause. He was expected to place his rights (and royalty payments) in to a blind trust - which he did not. Trump has failed in every way to follow the emoluments clause. Any remedy (punishment) must remove all conditions that continue his emoluments violations. He should have been removed from office on January 21st 2017 (the day after his oath, when he still owned his assets). However, since the complicit GOP Congress failed to remove him, he must now be punished by either (1) impeachment or (2) federal disgorgement penalties that take (confiscate) all disallowed financial assets from him.
1
This is a cut-and-dried case of willful Republican forfeiture of the senses of vision and hearing...oh, and smell.
1
What a shame we don't have Marlin Brando—in his much older version, say, around 1989—around to take the lead role in the Hollywood version of "Trump." Imagine Brando saying, "The point is, you can never be too greedy."
5
I guess this will be discussed again when Bezos is POTUS. Republicans always want to cut regulations in general and the regulations that try to keep the politicians hoenst in particular.
1
I'm mostly ticked off the federal government is wasting tax payer dollars defending clearly corrupt behavior. When Trump is found guilty, I want the judge to order the Trump family to pay legal fees equivalent to every hour spent by a public attorney, defense or prosecution, working on this case. I want my money back.
45
Trump thieves every day, he has all of his life.
It is all he knows.
12
A good piece, but while perhaps the DOJ offers too narrow a reading of the constitution, many are advocating for too broad a definition to replace it. Back when the constitution was crafted I doubt that the Framers had any idea of the complexity of our modern day financial systems, something that the average person - and, I dare say, many if not most members of Congress - barely grasps to a very full point.
With the interplay of finances for the wealthy, a class which now includes many politicians of both parties (just look at the list of millionaires in office) how do we come up with something that prevents what is essentially bribery from the normal gain of owning properties, businesses and investments? Some seem to argue that virtually ANY benefit, even from a rising stock market, should be illegal. But is that realistic? Can we expect office seekers to essentially own nothing? And with the droves of lawyers available to craft trusts and the like that can still be gotten around in the privacy of one's family, how, exactly do we deal with things? Or do we just go to the more basic bribery and direct remuneration that some readings of the clause seems to present?
Either way, this is not as easy to resolve as some seem to pretend, and any legislation or court decisions will be controversial to one side or the other - probably for years to come.
9
I think we can safely assume that the man who created the framework for our complex modern financial systems, and was a delegate at the Constitutional Convention, could grasp the essence of the problems here. Alexander Hamilton, after all, was a pretty smart guy, and a capitalist down to his philandering toes. Keeping greed and undue influence controlled was considered a necessity by the founders. Trump's only genius lies in squirming his way around all standards of decency. The founders would have recognized him as the guy they were trying to protect us from.
Shorter George S, of New York NY:
It's just so complicated, we should let the thievery thrive.
First of all, the Founders would've been familiar with some pretty complex financial systems--Adam Smith published "The Wealth of Nations" in March of 1776.
Second, and more importantly, the kind of corrupt practices Trump is engaging in were perfectly familiar to them. They would've recalled the complaints about Charles II being on the Bourbon dole, and had more than a decade of experience with American officials being given gifts. Hamilton wrote, "One of the weak sides of republics, among their numerous advantages, is that they afford too easy an inlet to foreign corruption." in Federalist 22 for a reason.
Trump's grift is and always has been right out in the open; it can't be dismissed with lofty on-the-other-handism.