What's new
By:

The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

Catchall said:
The legal questions might include whether the resort intends to profit from the G7 conference, or host it at a break-even or loss, and whether Trump has distanced himself from the operations of the resort. I can only assume that White House counsel is guiding him on this.

I don't think Trump is impeachable for hosting world leaders at his hotel. I guess we'll see if this gets added to the impeachment inquiry.
Click to expand...

Why do you assume that? I now assume that Trump isn't listening to any sort of ethical or legal advice when it comes to stuff like this, and as far as I can tell I'm right 100% of the time.

But anyway
a) it doesn't matter if the resort profits or not, it's still against the emoluments clause
b) there's no way that it will be for break even or worse
c) even if it is for break even, the resort is currently losing money (from what I have read) so that's a huge gain for Trump Corp

and most importantly
d) YOU CANNOT STEER GOVERNMENT FUNDS TO YOUR OWN BUSINESS. IT'S AGAINST THE LAW, NOT JUST AGAINST THE EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE.
 
Catchall said:
The remedy would be for WH counsel, or people of both political parties, to say to Trump, "This isn't appropriate, let's host the event at the Ritz Carlton in Half Moon Bay instead."
Click to expand...
And if he has ignored that advice from the WH counsel?
 
Zombie said:
The role of the WHC has long been to tell presidents how to get around doing things that are illegal. See John Yoo and his torture memos for example. They aren't the end all be all of legal opinion.
Click to expand...
Which, among other reasons, is why we also have an office of governmental ethics. See my quote posted yesterday from the past director of that office.
 
sirkickyass said:
So these aren't in my core area of expertise, but I don't think your conclusion that "it must be fine" is warranted.

A big chunk of the issue is "who has the right to sue" over it. Every lawsuit requires an injured party to be the Plaintiff. And that injury has to be "real" in the sense that there's something that the court can do, in response to the complaint, that would address it.

...

No one has ever made any substantive judgments about the emoluments case against Trump. There's a procedural problem that's prevented it from ever getting a real hearing. Stop giving this guy the benefit of the doubt!
Click to expand...

The burden of proof born by the plaintiff and the presumption of innocence on the part of the defendant warrant giving Trump the benefit of the doubt. However, I can see the challenge in finding a relevant plaintiff to make the case on emoluments. There could also be challenges related to identifying a relevant jurisdiction.

In lay terms, however, the gist of the emoluments clause is that Trump is accepting a bribe in one form or another. The constitution has its guidelines, but it's really federal statutes that would provide the basis for litigation. The case might be pursued federally or by a state prosecutor as a bribery case, but that assumes a sitting president can be indicted.
 
Catchall said:
It matters if the hotel/resort is a different corporate entity from Trump the individual, and if the connections between the two are limited or indirect. I suspect this is why the other investigations into emoluments haven't gained much traction.
Click to expand...
You suspect wrong. The connections between the two are direct and not limited at all.

Trump *said* he was going to distance himself from his business interests, implying some sort of blind trust like Carter did, but then he never followed through with that promise. Surprise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trump_Organization
"The Trump Organization is a group of approximately 500 business entities of which Donald Trump is the sole or principal owner."
 
Catchall said:
I haven't followed them closely, just checked in from time to time. One issue appears to be that if a diplomat stays at the Trump hotel in DC, that's really the diplomat's own choice and not something Trump is involved in. At the same time, however, it seems that the Trump admin hasn't proactively told people not to stay at Trump hotels (that I'm aware of) and so this could still be construed as 'accepting' value from foreign diplomats. So I'm left to conclude that President Trump must be insulated enough from the businesses, at least while he's in office, that this isn't an issue.
Click to expand...

Why do you conclude that? It's completely faulty.

Look, @Catchall, you seem like a decent guy. But you are woefully uneducated here. You are wrong on what you assume the law is and you are wrong on what you assume is happening.
 
colton said:
Click to expand...


Easy test on whether this would be against the emoluments clause:

Would Trump defenders be defending the Clintons if they owned properties and were steering taxpayer dollars to their properties in the way the Trumps are?

A simple “Yes” or “No” would suffice.
 
sirkickyass said:
I read @JazzyFresh's posts and watch Fox News when I'm on the road for work and, I gotta say, are we at the point where the only Conservative response to all of this is just to sneer at anyone else who gives a ****?
Click to expand...
Judging by who started this thread, another Conservative response is to call for Trump's impeachment. :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top