You people with this phony Emoluments Clause

[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/...nt/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.

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]

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/2019/1...y-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.

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/2019/1...y-rooms-016763

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

[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/t...nconsistencies), 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.