Emoluments Entanglements

[Zkribbler]

Federal courts have been struggling with the relatively simple question of whether Trump International Hotel profits derived from foreign governments violates the emoluments clause of the Constitution. [They do.]
Now, it looks as if we may finally get a ruling.

A federal judge on Monday questioned whether foreign governments staying at President Donald Trump’s Washington, D.C., hotel amounts to bribery when its done to curry favor with the president.

The suggestion was raised by U.S. District Judge Peter Messitte while overseeing a lawsuit filed by Maryland and Washington, D.C., over the Trump International Hotel, which is just blocks from the White House, The New York Times reported.

In addition to scrutinizing the hotel’s absorption of business in the area since Trump took office, the lawsuit questions whether the president’s financial stake in his company is constitutional.

U.S. presidents are barred under the constitution from receiving financial benefits, or emoluments, from a foreign state either at home or abroad. They are also not permitted to receive financial compensation, other than a salary, from federal or state governments.
The Trump International Hotel, located blocks from the White House, has become both a tourist attraction in the nation’s capital and also a symbol of President Trump’s intermingling of business and politics.
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate argued to the judge that Trump is not responsible for a foreign official’s “unilateral attempt to sow favor” by staying at one of his properties, CNN reported.

Messitte questioned how that was different from bribery.

“Another clause in the Constitution makes bribery a basis for impeachment,” Messitte said, according to The Associated Press. “Are you saying that Congress could consent to bribery?”

Shumate responded by suggesting that for the act to be bribery, the president must have “some corrupt intent.”

“As long as the president takes the money without a corrupt intent, then it’s OK?” Messitte asked.

Messitte said he would make a decision by the end of July on whether to dismiss the case or move it forward.

Trump’s ties to his business empire have been a talking point long before he took office.

In an effort to separate himself from his businesses, he turned over his company’s operations to his two sons, Don and Eric. He defended that he would not have any business-related contact with them while he serves as president. The Trump International Hotel has also vowed to donate any profits made from foreign governments to the U.S. Treasury.

Though he said he was removing himself from his company’s operations, Trump still owns it and maintains a financial stake in the business. He has said he plans to resume control once leaving office.

He has also gone out of his way to spend a good portion of his time as president at Trump-owned properties, in effect giving the locations free publicity, notably when high-profile guests appear, including world leaders.

“Many of the world’s great leaders request to come to Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach. They like it. I like it, we’re comfortable, we have great relationships,” Trump said in April after a visit to his Florida property with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

The Wall Street Journal reported in late DA bribe is the gift bestowed to influence the recipient's conduct. It may be money, goods, rights in action, property, preferment, privilege, emolument, objects of value, advantage, or merely a promise to induce or influence the action, vote, or influence of a person in an official or public capacity.[3]ecember that Trump spent nearly one-third of his first year in office at Trump-owned properties.

BTW: The govt's argument that the President must have "corrupt intent" is incorrect. What is critical is the intent of the person paying the bribe

A bribe is the gift bestowed to influence the recipient's conduct. It may be money, goods, rights in action, property, preferment, privilege, emolument, objects of value, advantage, or merely a promise to induce or influence the action, vote, or influence of a person in an official or public capacity.[3]

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't think they are struggling with the question, so much as with what to do about it. Let;s face it, if a court rules "this is unconstitutional, and you cannot keep doing it" what are the chances that Trump just keeps right on doing it? Then what?

 

[Zkribbler]

I don't think they are struggling with the question, so much as with what to do about it. Let;s face it, if a court rules "this is unconstitutional, and you cannot keep doing it" what are the chances that Trump just keeps right on doing it? Then what?

A better ruling is: This is unconstitutional: Trump International Hotel to be sold at auction and ALL profits to be turned over to US Dept. of Treasury.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

A better ruling is: This is unconstitutional: Trump International Hotel to be sold at auction and ALL profits to be turned over to US Dept. of Treasury.

By who? The department of justice? Whatever the ruling it precipitates a crisis of whether the executive branch can be forced to act against itself. This is like a parent telling a child "you better not, because if you do you are really gonna get it." That parent better have a genuine it for them to get, because if they don't they lose all credibility with the child.

Courts are really good at saying "you can't do this" and making it stick when some action Trump wants to take is illegal, because at every level below the president down to whatever street level nebish has to do the deed there's an inclination to not defy the court. All it takes is one person saying "no, the court ruled against that so we're not doing it."

On the other hand, when the court orders something done all it takes is one step in the chain saying "no, Trump said no and ultimately he is the boss" to keep it from happening.

 

[Kyriakos]

Federal courts have been struggling with the relatively simple question of whether Trump International Hotel profits derived from foreign governments violates the emoluments clause of the Constitution. [They do.]
Now, it looks as if we may finally get a ruling.



BTW: The govt's argument that the President must have "corrupt intent" is incorrect. What is critical is the intent of the person paying the bribe

Afaik Trump even opened new hotels, eg one in Constantinople. Doing business with tyrants is always fun.

 

[Broken_Erika]

So, if they rule against trump, how long until they get charged with contempt of the president?

 

[Zkribbler]

By who? The department of justice?

The US Marshall's Office enforces court orders.

...when the court orders something done all it takes is one step in the chain saying "no, Trump said no and ultimately he is the boss" to keep it from happening.

This would mean the end of separation of powers, checks and balances, the rule of law, and democracy as we know it. And for what? So Donald J. Trump can collect bribe money unhindered? Hopefully, patriotism is not yet completely dead in America.

 

[Lexicus]

If a federal court rules against him, he'll take it to the Supreme Court, no? And judging from their recent track record on corruption, they'll rule that it only counts as a violation of the emoluments clause if Trump parades naked down Pennsylvania Avenue wearing a sandwich board that says "I took bribes from foreign actors via Trump Hotel properties".

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This would mean the end of separation of powers, checks and balances, the rule of law, and democracy as we know it.

Yes, it would. That's why the courts need to weigh very carefully whether to issue an order that may not be followed. These are perilous times.

 

[warpus]

Why don't you guys have stuff in place that outlines what happens in this situation?

Seems like quite an oversight.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Why don't you guys have stuff in place that outlines what happens in this situation?

Seems like quite an oversight.

They probably do, but the republicans will most likely ignore it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Why don't you guys have stuff in place that outlines what happens in this situation?

Seems like quite an oversight.

Because at the time the constitution was written the concept of someone who had no personal interest in maintaining the carefully crafted separation of powers, rule of law, and democracy somehow getting themselves elected president was pretty outlandish.

 

[Bootstoots]

Why don't you guys have stuff in place that outlines what happens in this situation?

Seems like quite an oversight.

The degree to which the president turns out to be entirely above the law while in office has been one of the biggest surprises of the Trump presidency to me. I always naively assumed that this is a rule of law society, where the president is legally just another citizen, albeit a very powerful one. But as it happens, it looks like everything is designed assuming that the president has some level of fundamental decency (at least on Nixon's level) and isn't just going to exploit their near-immunity and violate every law they feel like violating and be as corrupt as desired. Or at least that Congress would impeach and remove the president if this happened.

It's funny to me to listen to some Baby Boomers describing how serious Watergate was at the time, and how cynical it made them feel. It strikes me that they grew up in an amazingly naive time, with an astoundingly high level of trust in just about every institution. We live in an era today where, if Trump and co. had been behind a burglary at the DNC's headquarters and tried to cover it up, it would be utterly routine - just one of many scandals. There would be no way in hell that Trump could lose the support of the GOP just for something like that - instead they'd throw up a rhetorical smokescreen of whataboutism and equivocating for a few days, and then they'd move on to the next scandal. The media would circle back to Watergate every so often, but it would only be like #5 on the scandal list. Definitely below Watersportsgate.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The degree to which the president turns out to be entirely above the law while in office has been one of the biggest surprises of the Trump presidency to me. I always naively assumed that this is a rule of law society, where the president is legally just another citizen, albeit a very powerful one. But as it happens, it looks like everything is designed assuming that the president has some level of fundamental decency (at least on Nixon's level) and isn't just going to exploit their near-immunity and violate every law they feel like violating and be as corrupt as desired. Or at least that Congress would impeach and remove the president if this happened.

It's funny to me to listen to some Baby Boomers describing how serious Watergate was at the time, and how cynical it made them feel. It strikes me that they grew up in an amazingly naive time, with an astoundingly high level of trust in just about every institution. We live in an era today where, if Trump and co. had been behind a burglary at the DNC's headquarters and tried to cover it up, it would be utterly routine - just one of many scandals. There would be no way in hell that Trump could lose the support of the GOP just for something like that - instead they'd throw up a rhetorical smokescreen of whataboutism and equivocating for a few days, and then they'd move on to the next scandal. The media would circle back to Watergate every so often, but it would only be like #5 on the scandal list. Definitely below Watersportsgate.

Nixon didn't lose the support of the GOP over the break in at the Watergate. The Democrats controlled both houses of congress, so the investigations were not the "see no evil" monkey shows that have annoyed Trump, they were the real deal. Nixon aids couldn't just tell the judicial committee "no, it isn't executive privilege I guess, but I am just not gonna answer." So there was nasty stuff about what Nixon and his minions were doing coming out every day. And if you've seen X-Men: Days of Future Past you know that at the time there were "three networks, plus PBS." No fake news, just the news, and Nixon's nastiness was in everyone's living room at six o'clock every night.

With his staff unable to just not answer, they lied. Congress knew they lied. Everybody knew they lied. And the purpose of the special prosecutor was to prove they lied and throw them in jail. But another thing that everyone, including Nixon, knew was that at least some of those weasels who had been willing to lie to congress would not be interested in going to jail for it, and they would roll to avoid it; testifying that Nixon had suborned them into perjury to congress. So he attacked the separation of powers directly, by trying to stop the investigation in order to protect his minions. With a Democrat majority there was no question that the House would impeach, and with a Democrat majority in the Senate there were going to be no delays or shenanigans to keep it off the floor. Senate Republicans were either going to have to find him guilty, which he obviously was, or claim to find him innocent in the face of insurmountable evidence. Either way, in November they would have been annihilated for whatever they did.

So he lost the Senate Republicans, and they let him know that he'd lost them. Faced with, on the one hand, the indignity of being impeached and removed from office, and on the other with the absolute destruction of the GOP if there had been an actual floor vote in the Senate on articles of impeachment, he bailed.

 

[Farm Boy]

Boots, they aren't naive. They just had a generation older than them that very much understood the costs of not making those hokey "made up" ideals a truth. I'd say having no draft looming makes our ascendant generations blind to the costs of unremitting destructive cynicism. It's been a luxury that we all have been allowed to forget.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The degree to which the president turns out to be entirely above the law while in office has been one of the biggest surprises of the Trump presidency to me. I always naively assumed that this is a rule of law society, where the president is legally just another citizen, albeit a very powerful one.

We've had at least some evidence against this since before I was born, "rule of law society" has not 100% applied to any president in recent memory. You can make a legit case that present scenario is more visible and/or has higher prevalence and scrutiny, but if we're seeing anything new it's a matter of rate/scale, not occurrence vs not.

Wouldn't hurt to do things properly regardless though.

No fake news, just the news

That's about as likely as me bench pressing the moon. On the other hand, he got caught in something not-so-easy to cover up with the only people who could have allowed it being hostile to his position, so there's the difference. Nobody's going to back a beaten-dead horse, looks a lot better if you just turn on him...and as you said he knew it too.

 

[Lexicus]

We've had at least some evidence against this since before I was born, "rule of law society" has not 100% applied to any president in recent memory. You can make a legit case that present scenario is more visible and/or has higher prevalence and scrutiny, but if we're seeing anything new it's a matter of rate/scale, not occurrence vs not.

Wouldn't hurt to do things properly regardless though.

Well, "rule of law society" has applied 100% to no system or society ever.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Well, "rule of law society" has applied 100% to no system or society ever.

True, but our military conduct for the past decade and a half, tendency to oust every dictator that just happens to threaten the petrodollar (with impressive timing), and recurrent theme of "x foundation" are specific examples. I don't care whose foundations are dirtier.

 

[Berzerker]

Federal courts have been struggling with the relatively simple question of whether Trump International Hotel profits derived from foreign governments violates the emoluments clause of the Constitution. [They do.]
Now, it looks as if we may finally get a ruling.

BTW: The govt's argument that the President must have "corrupt intent" is incorrect. What is critical is the intent of the person paying the bribe

I dont know about that, Washington and Jefferson were major drug dealers and I doubt they got into trouble for selling their alcohol (and tobacco?) to other countries. Many of the politicians were involved with trade. Now if there was evidence more money was being paid by foreign interests to avoid detection, but that would be fraud I'd think. Bush 1 got a bunch of treasure from Kuwait for saving their country but the Congress gave their permission. Sidenote: George didn't share it with the people who actually fought his war. Most political donations are given by people expecting something in return, they're all bribes in my book. But they aint asking me, their rules allow bribery.

 

[Zkribbler]

I dont know about that, Washington and Jefferson were major drug dealers and I doubt they got into trouble for selling their alcohol (and tobacco?) to other countries. Many of the politicians were involved with trade. Now if there was evidence more money was being paid by foreign interests to avoid detection, but that would be fraud I'd think. Bush 1 got a bunch of treasure from Kuwait for saving their country but the Congress gave their permission. Sidenote: George didn't share it with the people who actually fought his war. Most political donations are given by people expecting something in return, they're all bribes in my book. But they aint asking me, their rules allow bribery.

Staining Washington & Jefferson with the pejorative "drug dealers" is a stretch. They were farmers engaged in legal crops.Addictive drugs weren't illegal until the late 19th Century.

I've never seen any indication that they were exporters. I also doubt foreign princes were importers. More like, in a mercantile era, trade was carried on by private companies.

Most political donations are given by people expecting something in return...

Having given quite a few political donations, let me say, I had no expectations of getting something in return. I did it to improve the chances of someone with my political viewpoint being in office.