You people with this phony Emoluments Clause

[kpitcher]

How is MAGA going to explain attacking the constitution?

I haven't seen any PR after the fact on this, although in light of all the other things going on it isn't surprising to try to ignore this one and let it fade away.

[Swordsmyth]

How is MAGA going to explain attacking the constitution?

I haven't seen any PR after the fact on this, although in light of all the other things going on it isn't surprising to try to ignore this one and let it fade away.
He is obviously referring to the phony claims of him violating the emoluments clause.

It is the emoluments clause claims that are phony.

[Superfluous Man]

How is MAGA going to explain attacking the constitution?

Explain it to whom? Who cares if he attacks the Constitution? Not Republicans. Not Democrats. Not the people who elected him when he campaigned on a platform of disdain for the Constitution.

[spudea]

It's phony because they are changing the meaning of emoluments. Just like they are forcing people to change the meaning of male and female.

[TheCount]

It's phony because they are changing the meaning of emoluments. Just like they are forcing people to change the meaning of male and female.

Please do go on.

[Danke]

Article II, Section 1: "The President 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. (https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/84/compensation)"




Who says that civics education is dead? From what I can see, so far from being ignorant of the basic workings of government, we have become an entire nation of Harvard Law professors. Remember two years ago when every other journalist was a scholar of the Logan Act? After that it was the scope and authority of the executive branch. Forget what that nacarat oaf in the Oval Office says.

We're a very smart bunch.


And now we've moved on to something even more abstruse, the constitutional meaning of the foreign emoluments clause, upon which the people who are paid to pretend that they are seeking Donald Trump's impeachment have recently lighted (https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/09/democrats-trump-impeachment-corruption-1487759). Those of you who do not spend your weekends in tricorn hats and woolen breeches handing out Cato Institute pocket Constitutions in a church parking lot — as I assume the average — can be forgiven for not having heard of it. It's the bit in Article 1, Section 9 in which the federal government is prohibited from issuing titles of nobility and certain persons from accepting them from foreign governments. Here is the full text:


No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Truft under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congrefs, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.


No matter what services I perform on behalf of this glorious Republic, I shall never, alas, be made Duke of Lower Upper Rural Opioid Whiteshire. What a shame! But what's all this about a "Person holding any Office of Profit or Truft under" the United States. Does this mean members of Congress themselves? All two million federal employees? People serving in the military? George Washington clearly did not think it applied to him when he graciously accepted a number of lavish gifts from the Marquis de Lafayette and King Louis XIV. Martin van Buren and John Tyler both got presents from an imam of the House of Said, but they donated them to the Treasury. Some scholars have argued (https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065&context=nulr_online) that "Office of Profit or Trust" only refers to those who are appointed — ambassadors, members of the president's cabinet, and so on.



The truth is that centuries later we still have no idea. Presidents receive hundreds of gifts each year and no one particularly cares. The clause has never given rise to any legal cases of note, and it has never been defined or even meaningfully addressed by the Supreme Court. Occasionally White House counsel will produce a memo like this ponderous one (https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2009/12/31/emoluments-nobel-peace_0.pdf) explaining why the president whose later mad bombing campaign in Libya would exacerbate arguably the worst refugee crisis in modern history could still receive the Nobel Peace Prize. But practically speaking, foreign emoluments are, like much of our written constitution, a dead letter.

There is a good reason for this. Like any body of law, ours is full of things that have become irrelevant since its ratification. In some cases this is because it addressed a problem or institution — chattel slavery, for example — that no longer exists. In others it is because the language itself was so vague that no one could ever be seriously accused of violating it — see the aforementioned Logan Act, signed into law by John Adams in 1799.

In the case of foreign emoluments, it is a bit of both. The ban on titles of nobility was included to distinguish the United States philosophically from the European monarchies; the prohibition of their acceptance was more practical, a shrewd response to the historical problem of courts like that of King Charles II being filled with pensioners of the French government. How we prevent something like this from taking place now, when, in a very real sense, virtually every living American who owns stock is a Chinese pensioner, is difficult to say. But legally preventing them from being named Duhu of the Western Regions is probably not the most pressing issue.

Which brings us back to the absurd claim that, because he owns hotels at which, among many thousands of other paying guests, foreign businessmen and diplomats have been known to stay, Trump has violated this all-important constitutional dictum. What in the world have his businesses got to do with the foreign emoluments clause? So far as I am aware, Russian oligarchs at Mar-a-Lago present their credit cards, not offers of baronetcy or a Russian Social Insurance card or forms to register as a candidate for the next Duma election. An "emolument" is "any perquisite, advantage, profit, or gain arising from the possession of an office." Any profits arising from guests staying at Trump's properties arises, one would think, not from the fact that he has held the office of the presidency for three years but from the rather longer standing one that he owns luxury hotels. (Bill Clinton on the other hand was somewhat newer to the hospitality business when he allowed his most generous financial supporters to rent out the Lincoln Bedroom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Bedroom_for_contributors_controversy).) The argument is risible on its face.


This is why a panel of three judges on the United States Court of Appeal for the Fourth Circuit recently dismissed (https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065&context=nulr_online) a lawsuit brought against Trump by the state of Maryland and the District of Columbia with such thinly veiled contempt: "The District and Maryland's interest in enforcing the emoluments clauses is so attenuated and abstract that their prosecution of this case readily provokes the question of whether this action against the president is an appropriate use of the courts, which were created to resolve real cases and controversies," they wrote. This is the first and only time a court has ever ruled on the meaning of foreign emoluments; the case to which they were responding reads more like a draft law review article than a serious filing in federal court.

If this is how a foreign emoluments case fares in court, how can anyone possibly take it seriously as grounds for the president's impeachment? Does anyone really believe that Trump is guilty under the terms of a 231-year-old law that has apparently never once been broken in all of American history, one that probably does not even apply to elected as opposed to appointed officials? Of course not. They just want him out of office. It doesn't take a Harvard Law degree to figure that out.





https://www.theweek.com/articles/864240/emoluments-clause-meaningless

[Sammy]

What is Ron Paul's position on the Emoluments Clause?

[Sonny Tufts]

"Any profits arising from guests staying at Trump's properties arises, one would think, not from the fact that he has held the office of the presidency for three years but from the rather longer standing one that he owns luxury hotels."

Not necessarily. Profits could arise because guests stayed at Trump's properties solely because he is President and in an effort to curry his favor; were he a private cuitizen they would have stayed somewhere else.

In addition, the 4th Circuit decision referred to was based solely on the plaintiffs' lack of standing; the court didn't addess the merits of the case, including "the meaning of foreign emoluments", contrary to the article's claim.

Incidentally, the case is being heard again en banc by the entire 4th Circuit judges in December.

[Swordsmyth]

"Any profits arising from guests staying at Trump's properties arises, one would think, not from the fact that he has held the office of the presidency for three years but from the rather longer standing one that he owns luxury hotels."

Not necessarily. Profits could arise because guests stayed at Trump's properties solely because he is President and in an effort to curry his favor; were he a private cuitizen they would have stayed somewhere else.

In addition, the 4th Circuit decision referred to was based solely on the plaintiffs' lack of standing; the court didn't addess the merits of the case, including "the meaning of foreign emoluments", contrary to the article's claim.

Incidentally, the case is being heard again en banc by the entire 4th Circuit judges in December.
The burden of proof rests on the state, unless they can read minds they can't prove such theories.
Doing business isn't getting a gift, if the Constitution wanted to bar politicians from doing business it would have.

[Sonny Tufts]

The burden of proof rests on the state, unless they can read minds they can't prove such theories.
Doing business isn't getting a gift, if the Constitution wanted to bar politicians from doing business it would have.

The Constitution doesn't bar politicians from doing business in general, but it does bar federal officials from receiving emoluments from foreign governments without the consent of Congress. The Framers couldn't read minds either, which is why the prohibition in the Emoluments Clause is broader than a mere prohibition of bribery, which is a ground for impeachment the Constitution addresses elsewhere. Prohibiting the receipt of emoluments avoids even the appearance of impropriety or corruption.

[spudea]

The Constitution doesn't bar politicians from doing business in general, but it does bar federal officials from receiving emoluments from foreign governments without the consent of Congress. The Framers couldn't read minds either, which is why the prohibition in the Emoluments Clause is broader than a mere prohibition of bribery, which is a ground for impeachment the Constitution addresses elsewhere. Prohibiting the receipt of emoluments avoids even the appearance of impropriety or corruption.

Charging a person for a service, in a long standing business that existed prior to election, that has an established market value, is clearly not an emolument, not a wage, or a gift.

Even if you can't understand that. Donald Trump turned over all control of his businesses. He has no clue who is staying at his hotels or what they are paying, so how can YOU establish the required proof that foreigners are giving the president a gift that violates the clause????

[Sonny Tufts]

Charging a person for a service, in a long standing business that existed prior to election, that has an established market value, is clearly not an emolument, not a wage, or a gift.

The fact that fair market value is paid for the rooms doesn't negate the fact that there's a profit margin built in to the price and that the owner of the hotel will reap an economic benefit. Now if Trump's ownership of the entity or entities that are the legal owners of his hotels were small enough, there might not be a problem. But that's a different issue.

[spudea]

The fact that fair market value is paid for the rooms doesn't negate the fact that there's a profit margin built in to the price and that the owner of the hotel will reap an economic benefit. Now if Trump's ownership of the entity or entities that are the legal owners of his hotels were small enough, there might not be a problem. But that's a different issue.

So your position is an economic benefit is an emolument? That is complete distortion of the words meaning.

[dannno]

The fact that fair market value is paid for the rooms doesn't negate the fact that there's a profit margin built in to the price and that the owner of the hotel will reap an economic benefit. Now if Trump's ownership of the entity or entities that are the legal owners of his hotels were small enough, there might not be a problem. But that's a different issue.

I have officially diagnosed you with TDS.

[Sonny Tufts]

So your position is an economic benefit is an emolument? That is complete distortion of the words meaning.

It's not a distortion of the way the word was used at the time the Constitution was adopted.


In its motion to dismiss in CREW et al. v. Trump, the Department of Justice (DOJ) defines the word “emolument” as “profit arising from office or employ.” DOJ claims that this “original understanding” of “emolument” is both grounded in “contemporaneous dictionary definitions” and justifies an “office-and employment-specific construction” of that term. On this basis, it argues that the Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution “do not prohibit any company in which the President has any financial interest from doing business with any foreign, federal, or state instrumentality.”

Unfortunately, DOJ’s historical definition of “emolument” is inaccurate, unrepresentative, and misleading. Particularly because the government might seek to rely on its flawed definition in subsequent court filings, this Article seeks to correct the historical record. It does so based on a comprehensive study of how “emolument” is defined in English language dictionaries published from 1604 to 1806, as well as in common law dictionaries published from 1523 to 1792.

Among other things, the Article demonstrates that every English dictionary definition of “emolument” from 1604 to 1806 relies on one or more of the elements of the broad definition DOJ rejects in its brief: “profit,” “advantage,” “gain,” or “benefit.” Furthermore, over 92% of these dictionaries define “emolument” exclusively in these terms, with no reference to “office” or “employment.” By contrast, DOJ’s preferred definition—“profit arising from office or employ”— appears in less than 8% of these dictionaries. Moreover, even these outlier dictionaries always include “gain, or advantage” in their definitions, a fact obscured by DOJ’s selective quotation of only one part of its favored definition from Barclay (1774). The impression DOJ creates in its brief by contrasting four historical definitions of “emolument”—two broad and two narrow—is, therefore,
highly misleading.

The suggestion that “emolument” was a legal term of art at the founding, with a sharply circumscribed “office-and-employment-specific” meaning, is also inconsistent with the historical record. A vast quantity of evidence already available in the public domain suggests that the founding generation used the word “emolument” in broad variety of contexts, including private commercial transactions. This Article adds to that emerging historical consensus by documenting that none of the most significant common law dictionaries published from 1523 to 1792 even includes “emolument” in its list of defined terms. In fact, this term is mainly used in these legal dictionaries to define other, less familiar words and concepts. These findings reinforce the conclusion that “emolument” was not a term of art at the founding with a highly restricted meaning.

Finally, the Article calls attention to the fact that the government’s dictionarybased argument is flawed in another, more fundamental respect. Little or no evidence indicates that the two historical dictionaries—Barclay (1774) and Trusler (1766)—on which DOJ relies in its brief to defend its “office-and-employmentspecific” definition of “emolument” were owned, possessed, or used by the founders, let alone had any impact on them or on the American people who debated and ratified the Constitution. For example, neither of these dictionaries is mentioned in the more than 178,000 searchable documents in the Founders Online database, which makes publicly available the papers of the six most prominent founders. Nor do these volumes appear in other pertinent databases, such as the Journals of the Continental Congress, Letters of Delegates to Congress, Farrand’s Records, Elliot’s Debates, or the Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution. By contrast, all of the dictionaries that the founding generation did possess and use regularly—e.g., Johnson, Bailey, Dyche & Pardon, Ash, and Entick—define “emolument” in the broad manner favoring the plaintiffs: “profit,” “gain,” “advantage,” or “benefit.”

To document its primary claims, the Article includes over 100 original images of English and legal dictionaries published between 1523 and 1806, as well as complete transcripts and easy-to-read tables of the definitions contained therein. A second study is currently underway of dictionaries from 1806 to the present, which seeks to determine how and why definitions of “emolument” may have changed over time. Collectively, these inquiries are designed to accomplish more than simply aiding judges and holding lawyers’ feet to the fire in the emoluments cases now pending in three federal courts. They also provide a basis for educating members of Congress, government officials, journalists, scholars, and the broader public about the historical meaning of this important yet obscure constitutional term.

The Definition of "Emolument in English Language and Legal Dictionaries, 1523-1806, by John Mikhail, Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2995693&download=yes

[Swordsmyth]

The Constitution doesn't bar politicians from doing business in general, but it does bar federal officials from receiving emoluments from foreign governments without the consent of Congress. The Framers couldn't read minds either, which is why the prohibition in the Emoluments Clause is broader than a mere prohibition of bribery, which is a ground for impeachment the Constitution addresses elsewhere. Prohibiting the receipt of emoluments avoids even the appearance of impropriety or corruption.
An emolument is a gift, doing business isn't receiving a gift.
You would have to prove that the business transaction took place as cover for a gift.

[Sonny Tufts]

An emolument is a gift, doing business isn't receiving a gift.
You would have to prove that the business transaction took place as cover for a gift.

No, the term is much broader than just a gift; see my previous post.

Apparently Trump thought there was an issue because he promised in his campaign to donate profits from foreign government use of his properties to the U.S. Treasury, and his organization has in fact made two such donations ($151,470 and $191,538 for 2017 and 2018). See https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-25/trump-s-company-reports-profit-rose-from-foreign-governments

Unfortunately, neither the Trump organization nor the Treasury Department has revealed how these donations were calculated. One article reported that Saudi Arabia’s government alone spent more at Trump International Hotel in the four months after Trump won the presidency than the entire Trump Organization donated to cover foreign profits either year. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/06/trump-foreign-business-interests/

[dannno]

//

[Swordsmyth]

No, the term is much broader than just a gift; see my previous post.

Apparently Trump thought there was an issue because he promised in his campaign to donate profits from foreign government use of his properties to the U.S. Treasury, and his organization has in fact made two such donations ($151,470 and $191,538 for 2017 and 2018). See https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-25/trump-s-company-reports-profit-rose-from-foreign-governments

Unfortunately, neither the Trump organization nor the Treasury Department has revealed how these donations were calculated. One article reported that Saudi Arabia’s government alone spent more at Trump International Hotel in the four months after Trump won the presidency than the entire Trump Organization donated to cover foreign profits either year. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/06/trump-foreign-business-interests/
Even if we take emoluments to include all profits from any activity (which is dubious) it can't be applied to profits received through an entity he doesn't control as opposed to received directly.

[dannno]

Unfortunately, neither the Trump organization nor the Treasury Department has revealed how these donations were calculated. One article reported that Saudi Arabia’s government alone spent more at Trump International Hotel in the four months after Trump won the presidency than the entire Trump Organization donated to cover foreign profits either year. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/06/trump-foreign-business-interests/

I know the media has been really successful and duping dunderhead "college educated" folks into believing this bullshit, but even somebody with a high school diploma who owns a small business would see a huge problem with what you just said. Aren't you supposed to be an attorney or something???? Can't you see TDS is messing with your mental faculties?


Profits = Revenue - Expenses

aka

"profits" = "spent more" - Expenses




No, the term is much broader than just a gift; see my previous post.

Apparently Trump thought there was an issue because he promised in his campaign to donate profits from foreign government use of his properties to the U.S. Treasury, and his organization has in fact made two such donations ($151,470 and $191,538 for 2017 and 2018). See https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-25/trump-s-company-reports-profit-rose-from-foreign-governments

This is what people with TDS like to do the most. They like to assume what Trump was thinking and why he said or did something, when it is often not the case.

[Sonny Tufts]

I know the media has been really successful and duping dunderhead "college educated" folks into believing this bullshit, but even somebody with a high school diploma who owns a small business would see a huge problem with what you just said. Aren't you supposed to be an attorney or something???? Can't you see TDS is messing with your mental faculties?


Profits = Revenue - Expenses

aka

"profits" = "spent more" - Expenses

Your point would be well taken if Saudi Arabia was the only foreign government to use Trump properties. But it isn’t. By one account at least 21 other governments have; see https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/reps-22-foreign-governments-have-spent-money-trump-properties-n1015806).

Assuming a pretax operating profit margin of 10% (this seems reasonable – see https://csimarket.com/Industry/industry_Profitability_Ratios.php?ind=906&hist=5 ), the profit just from the Saudis during just the four-month period at just one property would be at least $19,000, which represents at least 13% of the donation for 2017.

Considering that the Trump organization has many more properties worldwide that have been used by many more governments, it’s not unreasonable to question the accuracy of the donation figures.

[osan]

It's phony because they are changing the meaning of emoluments. Just like they are forcing people to change the meaning of male and female.


I'm just a woman with a gigantic clitoris. REALLY gigantic. Pity me for the cross I bear.

[Ender]

It's phony because they are changing the meaning of emoluments. Just like they are forcing people to change the meaning of male and female.

Nope.
Emoluments Clause: It was originally intended and continues to represent an absolute prohibition of the receipt of anything of value by a federal government officeholder from a foreign government.

This was very important to the FF because of the strong ties many "Americans" had to the British gov. The meaning has NEVER changed.

[dannno]

Your point would be well taken if Saudi Arabia was the only foreign government to use Trump properties. But it isn’t. By one account at least 21 other governments have; see https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/reps-22-foreign-governments-have-spent-money-trump-properties-n1015806).

Assuming a pretax operating profit margin of 10% (this seems reasonable – see https://csimarket.com/Industry/industry_Profitability_Ratios.php?ind=906&hist=5 ), the profit just from the Saudis during just the four-month period at just one property would be at least $19,000, which represents at least 13% of the donation for 2017.

Considering that the Trump organization has many more properties worldwide that have been used by many more governments, it’s not unreasonable to question the accuracy of the donation figures.

So because 13% of the budget was used by the Saudis, clearly Trump's calculations were wrong, he owes more money, and he must be removed from office.

Do you know what that is??

TD fucking S.

[Sonny Tufts]

So because 13% of the budget was used by the Saudis, clearly Trump's calculations were wrong, he owes more money, and he must be removed from office.

Do you know what that is??

TD fucking S.

Damn, you're dense, but that I guess that goes with being a Trump apologist. There is no budget, and I haven't said he should be removed from office. In a previous post I said that if his ownership in the entities that own his properties is low enough, there shouldn't be a problem. But he's so tight-assed about his finances there's no way to verify the accuracy of the donations. Given his propensity to not be truthful I'm sure not going to take his or his organization's word for it, but the gullible and credulous just might.

[Stratovarious]

What exactly is the charge here against Trump, does anyone here claim to have a legit charge
against Trump regarding this Clause, lol , I didn't think so.

Your time would better serve America by worrying about the attacks that matter:
Patriot Act
DHS
TSA
NSA
NDAA
DUE PROCESS
ASSEST FORFEITURE
POLICE HOME INVASIONS
FOREIGN WARS (ILLEGAL)


No, you just want to jump on some obscure semantics game and spin your fake concern
to make Trump look the bad ORANGE MAN.
Where there are constitutional issues with him that matter, those are the issues
that you all ignore.

:frog:

[Swordsmyth]

Your point would be well taken if Saudi Arabia was the only foreign government to use Trump properties. But it isn’t. By one account at least 21 other governments have; see https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/reps-22-foreign-governments-have-spent-money-trump-properties-n1015806).

Assuming a pretax operating profit margin of 10% (this seems reasonable – see https://csimarket.com/Industry/industry_Profitability_Ratios.php?ind=906&hist=5 ), the profit just from the Saudis during just the four-month period at just one property would be at least $19,000, which represents at least 13% of the donation for 2017.

Considering that the Trump organization has many more properties worldwide that have been used by many more governments, it’s not unreasonable to question the accuracy of the donation figures.
Trump doesn't get 100% of the profits from his company and he doesn't control who they do business with.

That's the end of any emoluments claim.

[fcreature]

The Constitution doesn't bar politicians from doing business in general, but it does bar federal officials from receiving emoluments from foreign governments without the consent of Congress. The Framers couldn't read minds either, which is why the prohibition in the Emoluments Clause is broader than a mere prohibition of bribery, which is a ground for impeachment the Constitution addresses elsewhere. Prohibiting the receipt of emoluments avoids even the appearance of impropriety or corruption.

Is this serious or a joke? Please be a joke.

I guess only life-long, cradle-to-grave, career politicians who don't privately own any business can now get into politics. Because that's worked so well!

[Sonny Tufts]

I guess only life-long, cradle-to-grave, career politicians who don't privately own any business can now get into politics. Because that's worked so well!

Good grief. Look, a politician can own a business, but neither he nor his business can receive anything of value from a foreign government without the consent of Congress (Constitution I.9.8). If he's the President then in addition he can't receive value from the federal government or any state government, other than his salary (Constitution II.1.7).

[Sonny Tufts]

Trump doesn't get 100% of the profits from his company and he doesn't control who they do business with.

That's the end of any emoluments claim.

Hardly. The foreign Emoluments Clause doesn't permit the receipt of ANY emoluments, so it's immaterial whether he receives 100% or 1%. And the question's not one of control, because the foreign Emoluments Clause isn't phrased in terms of willfully receiving emoluments or causing them to be paid. It's a blanket prohibition on receipt, period.

[Swordsmyth]

Hardly. The foreign Emoluments Clause doesn't permit the receipt of ANY emoluments, so it's immaterial whether he receives 100% or 1%.
It certainly affects whether his donations cover his portion of the profits.


And the question's not one of control, because the foreign Emoluments Clause isn't phrased in terms of willfully receiving emoluments or causing them to be paid. It's a blanket prohibition on receipt, period.
That is just ridiculous, you can't be guilty of doing something you have no control over and have made efforts to avoid (the donations).
And no other President has ever been held to such a ridiculous standard.

[Sonny Tufts]

That is just ridiculous, you can't be guilty of doing something you have no control over and have made efforts to avoid (the donations).
And no other President has ever been held to such a ridiculous standard.

Unlike previous Presidents who put their financial holdings in a blind trust run by an independent third-party Trustee, Trump put his in a revocable trust run by one of his sons and the CFO of his organization. Don't be naive -- he has de facto control, and he can cause his organization to stop dealing with foreign governments at any time.

[jmdrake]

It's not a distortion of the way the word was used at the time the Constitution was adopted.

Among other things, the Article demonstrates that every English dictionary definition of “emolument” from 1604 to 1806 relies on one or more of the elements of the broad definition DOJ rejects in its brief: “profit,” “advantage,” “gain,” or “benefit.” Furthermore, over 92% of these dictionaries define “emolument” exclusively in these terms, with no reference to “office” or “employment.” By contrast, DOJ’s preferred definition—“profit arising from office or employ”— appears in less than 8% of these dictionaries. Moreover, even these outlier dictionaries always include “gain, or advantage” in their definitions, a fact obscured by DOJ’s selective quotation of only one part of its favored definition from Barclay (1774). The impression DOJ creates in its brief by contrasting four historical definitions of “emolument”—two broad and two narrow—is, therefore,
highly misleading.



Using your argument, the person suing over the emoluments clause would have to prove that Trump's properties have been gaining money since he became president. But all of the data shows they have been losing money since then.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/05/15/trump-organization-loses-money-after-donald-trump-elected-president/3679722002/

Trump has certainly violated the constitution. (Key example, bumpfire stock ban by executive order). But he has done so in ways the "deep state" (since that's the popular term) approves. Trying to impeach him on the emoluments clause is BS.

[Sonny Tufts]

Using your argument, the person suing over the emoluments clause would have to prove that Trump's properties have been gaining money since he became president. But all of the data shows they have been losing money since then.

If the organization lost less because of foreign-government business it's still an emolument because it's an economic benefit.

[jmdrake]

If the organization lost less because of foreign-government business it's still an emolument because it's an economic benefit.

:confused: Losing business is an economic benefit? Dude you're losing it.

[Swordsmyth]

Unlike previous Presidents who put their financial holdings in a blind trust run by an independent third-party Trustee, Trump put his in a revocable trust run by one of his sons and the CFO of his organization. Don't be naive -- he has de facto control, and he can cause his organization to stop dealing with foreign governments at any time.
That's nonsense.

[Sonny Tufts]

:confused: Losing business is an economic benefit? Dude you're losing it.

Which is better -- losing $1 million or losing $750,000? And if that hypothetical $250,000 came from foreign-government business, isn't the Trump organization better off because of it?

[jmdrake]

Which is better -- losing $1 million or losing $750,000? And if that hypothetical $250,000 came from foreign-government business, isn't the Trump organization better off because of it?

Not if they wouldn't have lost $1 million but for Trump being president.

[jmdrake]

Unlike previous Presidents who put their financial holdings in a blind trust run by an independent third-party Trustee, Trump put his in a revocable trust run by one of his sons and the CFO of his organization. Don't be naive -- he has de facto control, and he can cause his organization to stop dealing with foreign governments at any time.

So if this was a Trump owned McDonald's your view is that it would need to check the passport of anyone buying a happy meal? Seriously?

[Swordsmyth]

So if this was a Trump owned McDonald's you view is that it would need to check the passport of anyone buying a happy meal? Seriously?
According to him Trump has to make McDonald's do that and cease operations all over the world if he owns one share of stock.


It's the perfect example of why "emoluments" can't possibly refer to simple business transactions.

[Sonny Tufts]

So if this was a Trump owned McDonald's your view is that it would need to check the passport of anyone buying a happy meal? Seriously?

Strawman. The Foreign Emoluments Clause prohibits receiving benefits from foreign governments, not foreign citizens.

Interesting story about a report that groups including a foreign government have booked blocks of rooms at Trump-owned hotels without using them. https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/02/trump-hotel-empty-rooms-016763

[Sonny Tufts]

According to him Trump has to make McDonald's do that and cease operations all over the world if he owns one share of stock.

That's a lie. In post #12 I said, "Now if Trump's ownership of the entity or entities that are the legal owners of his hotels were small enough, there might not be a problem."

Is that the best you can do -- misrepresenting my position in a pathetic attempt to support yours?

[jmdrake]

Strawman. The Foreign Emoluments Clause prohibits receiving benefits from foreign governments, not foreign citizens.

:rolleyes: So if the President of France buys a happy meal then it's a problem? Come on dude.



Interesting story about a report that groups including a foreign government have booked blocks of rooms at Trump-owned hotels without using them. https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/02/trump-hotel-empty-rooms-016763

Missing from the article is any indication that these unused rooms were actually paid for. :rolleyes:

[Swordsmyth]

That's a lie. In post #12 I said, "Now if Trump's ownership of the entity or entities that are the legal owners of his hotels were small enough, there might not be a problem."

Is that the best you can do -- misrepresenting my position in a pathetic attempt to support yours?
You have not made any logical rule to determine where any threshold might be.


The Constitution says the President (if it applies to him {but I'm willing to concede that it does}) can't take emoluments from foreign governments, it doesn't say he can't get profits from a corporation that makes money from foreign governments, the President and the corporation are separate entities legally.

[spudea]

Nope.
Emoluments Clause: It was originally intended and continues to represent an absolute prohibition of the receipt of anything of value by a federal government officeholder from a foreign government.

This was very important to the FF because of the strong ties many "Americans" had to the British gov. The meaning has NEVER changed.

If that is true, then good, Trump isn't receiving anything. The hotel is receiving payment for services rendered. Then you'll probably say "HURR DURR trump owns the hotel so he receives the profit from the service". No the business receives the profit which is used to cover costs and pay their employees. "HURR DURR foreigners only stay at his hotels to influence him!!" No, Trump turned over control of all his businesses and properties, and put all his other assets in a trust not controlled by him. "HURR DURR ORANGE MAN BAD!!!"

Did I miss anything??????

[Ender]

If that is true, then good, Trump isn't receiving anything. The hotel is receiving payment for services rendered. Then you'll probably say "HURR DURR trump owns the hotel so he receives the profit from the service". No the business receives the profit which is used to cover costs and pay their employees. "HURR DURR foreigners only stay at his hotels to influence him!!" No, Trump turned over control of all his businesses and properties, and put all his other assets in a trust not controlled by him. "HURR DURR ORANGE MAN BAD!!!"

Did I miss anything??????

I was only commenting on the clause, not Trump.

[Sonny Tufts]

Did I miss anything??????

Yes, quite a lot. You assumed that the entity that owns the hotel doesn't make any distributions to its owner(s) out of its profits (assuming it has any). I wonder whether Congress has asked for the tax returns of these entities to investigate whether they paid dividends to Trump, thereby implicating the Foreign Emoluments Clause.

But even if all of the profits were plowed back into the business, that would only increase the value of the equity in the entity, which is still an economic benefit to the owner(s).

Trump placed his holdings in a revocable trust, which means he can assume control at any time. In addition the trust was amended in 2017 to allow Trump to demand distributions from the trust any time he wants. Moreover, the Trustees are his son Donald Jr. and an executive of the Trump Organization, and one would have to be incredibly naive to think they don't listen to the beneficiary and do what he wants, especially since they can be removed by Trump for any reason or no reason.

[Superfluous Man]

No the business receives the profit which is used to cover costs and pay their employees.

Since when is money used to cover cost and pay employees profit?

[Sonny Tufts]

You have not made any logical rule to determine where any threshold might be.

It certainly wouldn't be as low as the asinine one-share-of-McDonald's-stock example you came up with or jmdrake's idiotic Happy Meal.


the President and the corporation are separate entities legally.

They are for certain purposes. But if a business funnels money earned from dealings with foreign governments to a federal official who owns a large enough piece, I don't see why the Foreign Emoluments Clause wouldn't apply. The potential for corruption would still exist, and that's what the Founding Fathers were concerned about.

[angelatc]

The fact that fair market value is paid for the rooms doesn't negate the fact that there's a profit margin built in to the price and that the owner of the hotel will reap an economic benefit..


Which gives the open appearance of being incredibly corrupt, even if it's not. It's like giving the mayor's brother-in-law a contract. Even if the guy does stellar work at less-than-market prices, it's ugly.

Even if Trump is giving the government workers a yuge discount, it looks corrupt.

[angelatc]

. No the business receives the profit which is used to cover costs and pay their employees.

The business receives revenue which is used to cover costs. Profit is what is left over.


Trump turned over control of all his businesses and properties, and put all his other assets in a trust not controlled by him.

Did he? Post-election, he said he wasn't going to do that, which caused a lot of pearl grabbing.

[Swordsmyth]

It certainly wouldn't be as low as the asinine one-share-of-McDonald's-stock example you came up with or jmdrake's idiotic Happy Meal.

Laws are not meant to be subjective, they have to have clear definitions, if you don't provide a rule with a threshold then you are opening the law up to the single share of stock etc.



They are for certain purposes. But if a business funnels money earned from dealings with foreign governments to a federal official who owns a large enough piece, I don't see why the Foreign Emoluments Clause wouldn't apply. The potential for corruption would still exist, and that's what the Founding Fathers were concerned about.
There is always potential for corruption, you can't take a law intended to limit corruption and stretch it to cover things that aren't in it because they might be corrupt too or you end up with subjective rule by judges instead of the rule of law.

The emoluments clause doesn't and can't apply to anything but personal emoluments and it certainly can't apply to part ownership of an entity he doesn't control that does legitimate business with foreigners, especially when he has taken pains to try to donate his share of any foreign profits to the treasury.

[Sonny Tufts]

The emoluments clause doesn't and can't apply to anything but personal emoluments and it certainly can't apply to part ownership of an entity he doesn't control that does legitimate business with foreigners, especially when he has taken pains to try to donate his share of any foreign profits to the treasury.

As the litigators would say, you are assuming facts not in evidence. First, I haven't seen anything to suggest he has only part ownership of all of the entities that do businesses with foreign governments or that any part ownership he may have is a minority interest. Second, he has de facto control over the assets in his revocable trust because he can revoke or amend it at any time. Third, the assumption that the amounts contributed to the treasury are accurate is unsubstantiated, and given the fact that the Trump Organization may not be above manipulating numbers (see https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-never-before-seen-trump-tax-documents-show-major-inconsistencies), there's no reason to believe the donations are accurate without further information.

[jmdrake]

It certainly wouldn't be as low as the asinine one-share-of-McDonald's-stock example you came up with or jmdrake's idiotic Happy Meal.

They are for certain purposes. But if a business funnels money earned from dealings with foreign governments to a federal official who owns a large enough piece, I don't see why the Foreign Emoluments Clause wouldn't apply. The potential for corruption would still exist, and that's what the Founding Fathers were concerned about.

LOL. A lot of happy meals add up. Those Saudis have big families. You stated what is known as a bright line rule. If any payment received by a business owned by a president in whole or in part counts as an emolument then a happy meal bought by a foreign diplomat at a 1% owned McDonald's counts. If the emolument has to be "significant" in terms of ownership in the company and the amount of payment received then there has to be some definition of what constitutes "significant." Don't get made just because you haven't fleshed this argument all the way out. You could be right. You could be wrong. Just make your argument.

[Ender]

LOL. A lot of happy meals add up. Those Saudis have big families. You stated what is known as a bright line rule. If any payment received by a business owned by a president in whole or in part counts as an emolument then a happy meal bought by a foreign diplomat at a 1% owned McDonald's counts. If the emolument has to be "significant" in terms of ownership in the company and the amount of payment received then there has to be some definition of what constitutes "significant." Don't get made just because you haven't fleshed this argument all the way out.

Dude- I think the clause counts when you schedule a YUGE political global meeting at your hotel/golf course/etc. such as the G7.

[jmdrake]

Dude- I think the clause counts when you schedule a YUGE political global meeting at your hotel/golf course/etc. such as the G7.

If it had happened....turns out it got cancelled. Does the emoluments clause kick in if the payment doesn't happen? And if that's the case, then why isn't Pelosi and company jumping on that instead of the "But he tried to get our (corrupt) boy Biden investigated!" angle? Just curious.

[Swordsmyth]

Dude- I think the clause counts when you schedule a YUGE political global meeting at your hotel/golf course/etc. such as the G7.
Not if you do it at cost or even for free.

[acptulsa]

Not if you do it at cost or even for free.

Yadda yadda spin spin spin.

'At cost' has long been one of the most flexible phrases in the English language. It can mean anything. And the offer to host it for free was an offer Trump didn't make until it was crystal clear there was no way in hell that facility would host that event.

Trump tossed those out as throwaways. You're the only person on earth silly enough to glom on to that crap and try to preserve it in amber.

[Swordsmyth]

Yadda yadda spin spin spin.

'At cost' has long been one of the most flexible phrases in the English language. It can mean anything. And the offer to host it for free was an offer Trump didn't make until it was crystal clear there was no way in hell that facility would host that event.

Trump tossed those out as throwaways. You're the only person on earth silly enough to glom on to that crap and try to preserve it in amber.
Sorry, the burden of proof is on your side, you can't impeach him for something you think he would have done.

[acptulsa]

Sorry, the burden of proof is on your side, you can't impeach him for something you think he would have done.

I can't impeach him at all.

Your problem is you can't defend him with something he didn't even offer to do until after he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

[Swordsmyth]

I can't impeach him at all.

Your problem is you can't defend him with something he didn't even offer to do until after he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
He wasn't caught with his hand in the cookie jar, you are just making things up.
And you have no idea what he had offered to the government behind the scenes.

You seem to be agreeing with Brennan that people are no longer innocent once accused.

[acptulsa]

And you have no idea what he had offered to the government behind the scenes.

So, your position is, when he said he offered use of the facility at "cost", he was lying?

[Swordsmyth]

So, your position is, when he said he offered use of the facility at "cost", he was lying?
:confused:

That's your position and you have no idea what you are talking about.

[acptulsa]

Not if you do it at cost or even for free.



So, your position is, when he said he offered use of the facility at "cost", he was lying?

:confused:

That's your position and you have no idea what you are talking about.

Ah. I see. You know you can't win and you won't shut up, so you're circling the wagons.

[Swordsmyth]

Ah. I see. You know you can't win and you won't shut up, so you're circling the wagons.
That's what you seem to be doing.

Trump said he was going to do it for no profit or even a loss and you can't prove otherwise.

[acptulsa]

That's what you seem to be doing.

Trump said he was going to do it for no profit or even a loss and you can't prove otherwise.

Anyone who spends forty-eight hours a week doing something productive knows businesses in general, and hospitality most specifically, is highly cyclical. They not only make all their profits in as little as two weeks of the year, but that peak even pays for operations over slow periods when income is nil.

Covering costs--only just costs--during one of those lulls preserves profits from the peak. The effect that has on the bottom line is, to borrow a turn of phrase, yuge.

You sound like a used car salesman barking "at cost at cost at cost!!" But it's just silly. In the off season, covering costs is a major boon.

[Swordsmyth]

Anyone who spends forty-eight hours a week doing something productive knows businesses in general, and hospitality most specifically, is highly cyclical. They not only make all their profits in as little as two weeks of the year, but that peak even pays for operations over slow periods when income is nil.

Covering costs--only just costs--during one of those lulls preserves profits from the peak. The effect that has on the bottom line is, to borrow a turn of phrase, yuge.

You sound like a used car salesman barking "at cost at cost at cost!!" But it's just silly. In the off season, covering costs is a major boon.
You are stretching "emoluments" until the word has no meaning anymore.

And Trump said he would have done it for FREE if that is what was required.

[acptulsa]

You are stretching "emoluments" until the word has no meaning anymore.[QUOTE]

You don't consider breaking even during money losing season to be a thing of value? You would if you worked for a living.

[QUOTE=Swordsmyth;6878914] And Trump said he would have done it for FREE if that is what was required.

You're spamming again. He still never even brought that up until it was clear that event would not be held there.

[James_Madison_Lives]

LOL no one talking about the biggest attack on the Constitution of all, NDAA military detention of American citizens. which still stands and passes every year in the NDAA. We are living in the idiocracy.


https://youtu.be/Leyn-oS5ASI

[acptulsa]

LOL no one talking about the biggest attack on the Constitution of all, NDAA military detention of American citizens. which still stands and passes every year in the NDAA. We are living in the idiocracy.


https://youtu.be/Leyn-oS5ASI

That's the sort of thing modern impeachments are designed to distract us from.

And similar subjects have come up...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?540236-Requiem-for-a-Constitution

[Swordsmyth]

You don't consider breaking even during money losing season to be a thing of value? You would if you worked for a living.
You just keep changing the definition every time you lose the argument.
If the corporation breaks even Trump doesn't receive any profits even if we count a corporation that he doesn't control or own completely as the same as him legally.




You're spamming again. He still never even brought that up until it was clear that event would not be held there.
You have no idea what he offered to do before that and he says he offered to do it for free if that is what is required.
The burden of proof is yours, you don't just get to speculate.

[Swordsmyth]

LOL no one talking about the biggest attack on the Constitution of all, NDAA military detention of American citizens. which still stands and passes every year in the NDAA. We are living in the idiocracy.


https://youtu.be/Leyn-oS5ASI
Congress isn't about to impeach itself.

[acptulsa]

You just keep changing the definition every time you lose the argument.
If the corporation breaks even Trump doesn't receive any profits even if we count a corporation that he doesn't control or own completely as the same as him legally.




You have no idea what he offered to do before that and he says he offered to do it for free if that is what is required.
The burden of proof is yours, you don't just get to speculate.

https://s3-media1.fl.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/j1aNi0zoEBAGuEFQYJEBGA/348s.jpg

[Swordsmyth]

https://s3-media1.fl.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/j1aNi0zoEBAGuEFQYJEBGA/348s.jpg

When losing the argument resort to insults.

[acptulsa]

When losing the argument resort to insults.

From Spam to spin.

[Swordsmyth]

From Spam to spin.
When losing the argument resort to insults.

[acptulsa]

When losing the argument resort to insults.

...to spamming spin.

[Sonny Tufts]

You stated what is known as a bright line rule. If any payment received by a business owned by a president in whole or in part counts as an emolument then a happy meal bought by a foreign diplomat at a 1% owned McDonald's counts.

Apples and oranges. If Trump owns 100% of the business and the profit from a foreign government is only $1, then there's still a technical violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause. Of course, such a business shouldn't be dealing with foreign governments in the first place.

On the other hand, owning one share of McDonald's is de minimis. Contrary to what I may have suggested earlier (I've had time to reconsider), I think the element of control is important, and owning one share of a publicly-traded company like McDonald's is no control at all. How much control crosses the line? It depends. Even a large enough minority interest in a public corporation might be de facto control or at the least would carry enough influence to impact corporate decisions. Suppose you owned 30% of Apple. Don't you think the directors are going to listen to you very carefully?

Even with closely-held companies, a minority position can have de facto control. Consider: an extremely wealthy parent gives his children 60% of a business, retaining 40%. He makes it clear that if the kids gang up to outvote him he will change his last will and testament in a heartbeat and disinherit them. He's got real control (I could make his retained interest a lot smaller and the result would be the same).

So I don’t think you could craft a bright line rule that would fit all possible cases, nor do you need to; after all, Trump is the first President whose business holdings are large enough to attract foreign governments looking for influence.

[Sonny Tufts]

double post

[Sonny Tufts]

So, your position is, when he said he offered use of the facility at "cost", he was lying?

Given that Trump is a chronic and habitual liar, that's a pretty safe bet.

[Sonny Tufts]

another double post; site is acting up.