Zombie
Well-Known Member
The word profit doesn't appear in the emoluments clause. It really doesn't matter.
The official "let's impeach Trump" thread
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
A high end hotel. Used to take my ex wife there all the time.
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.
Well done. I haven't been able to spend time there. I think there's a golf course there too, no?
Have you been following them closely or is this just speculation?
candrew
Well-Known Member
Emoluments haven't gained much traction because they all do it from one degree to another.
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.
The gray area is that Trump's family members and business partners could well be running the business. So this looks like "soft" corruption that everyone is now talking about, including with Hunter Biden. Or, maybe Trump will get more involved in the businesses again once he leaves office, and those businesses will have gained long-term value.
I can see what Trump is doing politically though. He wants to be the host for his own political stature. My guess is that he wants to sign a historic trade deal and then pose in front of the hotel. Like it or not though, as president, his personal bravado becomes part of the nation's bravado. People who support him seem to love him for it, and people who don't support him want to punch him in the face.
Last edited:
Zombie
Well-Known Member
The reason is because it's difficult to litigate due to the plaintiffs lack of standing. There are a couple of cases working their way through the courts right now however. Ultimately though, I think the proper channel for presidential oversight is impeachment. Trump's violation of emoluments will hopefully find their way into articles of impeachment.
Zombie
Well-Known Member
Even if Trump isn't involved in the day to day operation of the Trump org, he is still the owner of the company. Dollars spent at his properties are ultimately landing in his pocket. This is why presidents usually divest from their business interests when getting elected.
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.
The quickie three element version of "do I have a right to sue" is:
1) Injury in Fact
2) Connected to Actions by the Defendant
3) Redressable by the Court
The Emoulments thing is tricky because, even though it's clearly provided for in the Constitution itself, it affects everybody in an abstract way but no one person in a totally obvious and concrete way. Further, the United States rejects "taxpayer standing" so that taxpayers can't sue the Government for violating rights on the basis of "I pay taxes, do your job."
One way to go about this, with respect to the G-7 summit, would be another hotel owner who would have obtained the contract absent the President directing a contract to himself (say someone who'd had the event before, like the resorts at Sea Island, Georgia), and could then claim that they were denied business by the decision to allow the president to profit. This has it's own problems. It's speculative and it would be difficult to prove that you actually were injured unless you could get testimony saying that the contract was coming your way until the President stepped in.
Some abstract harm cases have specific laws that grant people standing to sue under them, but no one has ever created one for Emoulments because no one has ever tried to run their business empire at the same time as the country before.
No one has ever made any substantive judgments about the emoulments 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!
Impeachments are so rare. The president has to do something pretty egregious, and it has to culminate in a bi-partisan criminal investigation and trial before the Senate. So far, there hasn't even been a vote in the House to support the inquiry. Emoluments probably won't be significant enough to provide ammunition for impeachment.
Hotdog
Well-Known Member
Maybe thats why she is your ex wife. I used to take her to motel 6. She still calls me. She likes it dirty.
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.
And if he has ignored that advice from the WH counsel?
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.
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.
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."
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.