Emoluments Entanglements

[stinkubus]

Some hotel stay seems like small potatoes to me.

Didn't the Saudis give $1.5 billion to the Bushes and allies over the years?

Now China investing $500 million in a Trump property would cause me to flip a lid.
Something which recently occurred I believe.

The courts need to shut this stuff down hard.

China granted Trump trademarks with values in the millions after his election.

 

[Berzerker]

“The first five presidents were farmers and plantation owners who maintained their businesses while in office. Some of their crops, especially tobacco, were sold abroad to companies and foreign governments.”

https://cei.org/blog/emoluments-clause-does-not-ban-sales-foreigners

 

[Zkribbler]

“The first five presidents were farmers and plantation owners who maintained their businesses while in office. Some of their crops, especially tobacco, were sold abroad to companies and foreign governments.”

https://cei.org/blog/emoluments-clause-does-not-ban-sales-foreigners

Are you still beating this dead horse?

A)

Some of their crops, especially tobacco, were sold abroad to companies and foreign governments

Notice that this blogger quote fails to specify who was selling the crops abroad. An exporter/importer perhaps?

B) Even if your assertion is true, all this would prove is that early presidents violated the emoluments clause.

C) The court in the pending case has already ruled that the allegations, if proven to be true, would constitute a violation.

 

[metalhead]

Berzerker has already made it clear he has no interest in reading the federal judge's opinion on the matter, so it's really not worth arguing this with him. He intends to remain ignorant, so you may as well let him.

 

[Lexicus]

Berzerker has already made it clear he has no interest in reading the federal judge's opinion on the matter, so it's really not worth arguing this with him. He intends to remain ignorant, so you may as well let him.

52 pages! muh precious time!

 

[Berzerker]

Even if your assertion is true, all this would prove is that early presidents violated the emoluments clause.

Or it would prove their definition of emoluments didn't include normal business activities.

Berzerker has already made it clear he has no interest in reading the federal judge's opinion on the matter, so it's really not worth arguing this with him. He intends to remain ignorant, so you may as well let him.

I asked you to quote the opinion and you refused and told me to read 52 pages instead. You didn't even read it.

52 pages! muh precious time!

Did you read 52 pages?

 

[metalhead]

I still have no idea what your fascination is with me quoting the opinion. I provided a link. If you choose to remain ignorant, surely that is your fault and not mine. I don't understand why I have to quote something here when I already provided you a link to it.

I'm not disagreeing with the judge's conclusion, and I read the pertinent part to see if the reasoning comported with mine. It does. You seem to disagree, but you won't take the time to read the opposing view. So how can you expect anyone to take what you say seriously when you insist on remaining ignorant, and blaming others for your ignorance?

 

[Broken_Erika]

Ignorance is bliss.

 

[Berzerker]

I still have no idea what your fascination is with me quoting the opinion. I provided a link. If you choose to remain ignorant, surely that is your fault and not mine. I don't understand why I have to quote something here when I already provided you a link to it.

I'm not disagreeing with the judge's conclusion, and I read the pertinent part to see if the reasoning comported with mine. It does. You seem to disagree, but you won't take the time to read the opposing view. So how can you expect anyone to take what you say seriously when you insist on remaining ignorant, and blaming others for your ignorance?

I didn't ask for a link, I asked for a quote. Instead you gave me a link with 52 pages and told me to find the quote myself. If you dont want to quote your link, dont tell me to read thru 52 pages looking for it. When someone asks me for a quote, I dont link 50+ pages and tell them to read it and then accuse them of insisting on remaining ignorant for asking me to quote my own link.

 

[Lexicus]

Did you read 52 pages?

No, but I'm also not claiming the judge is wrong or that I know the applicable law better than the judge. Unlike you.

 

[metalhead]

I didn't ask for a link, I asked for a quote. Instead you gave me a link with 52 pages and told me to find the quote myself. If you dont want to quote your link, dont tell me to read thru 52 pages looking for it. When someone asks me for a quote, I dont link 50+ pages and tell them to read it and then accuse them of insisting on remaining ignorant for asking me to quote my own link.

I mean, it's fine if you want to remain ignorant, I just don't understand how that is my fault. You're claiming the judge is wrong. His reasoning is spelled out in detail. Why wouldn't you want to read his opinion? It's far better informed than any of ours.

There's not, like, a sentence or 2 I can quote that breaks it down. You need to read the details if you want to understand the reasoning behind it. Again - if you're too lazy to do that, then fine. That's not my fault.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Are you still beating this dead horse?

You expected facts to stop him? Did you think this was a different @Berzerker?

 

[Berzerker]

No, but I'm also not claiming the judge is wrong or that I know the applicable law better than the judge. Unlike you.

Dont you need to read (and quote) the opinion too if you think the judge is right? I dont know what the judge said other than the plaintiffs have standing to proceed with their lawsuit. I dont know what argument was offered, but if Presidents could sell their products to foreign governments then how do business profits become an emolument? That profit is not a gift, emoluments are gifts. If a foreign official showed up with treasure and gave it to Trump, that would be an emolument. Did the judge explain that problem with the lawsuit? Thats my argument...

I mean, it's fine if you want to remain ignorant, I just don't understand how that is my fault. You're claiming the judge is wrong. His reasoning is spelled out in detail. Why wouldn't you want to read his opinion? It's far better informed than any of ours.

There's not, like, a sentence or 2 I can quote that breaks it down. You need to read the details if you want to understand the reasoning behind it. Again - if you're too lazy to do that, then fine. That's not my fault.

But you didn't read it. Yeah, I'm too lazy to read a 52 page opinion you didn't read either because its too long. I asked you to quote the judge's argument(s), not dump 52 pages on my doorstep and gripe at me for being lazy when it took you seconds to find it. Its your link, you quote it. Is there a paragraph or 3 with the reasoning? I cant ask the judge so I'm asking you guys - if Presidents could sell their merchandise to foreign governments, why cant Trump rent a hotel room?

You expected facts to stop him? Did you think this was a different @Berzerker?

You've changed... Trump is wearing off on you. I saw what you did to MechSalv. You're welcome to explain why renting a hotel room is an emolument while selling other things is not, but the non-stop abuse is not welcome.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Since I had intended to read the ruling anyway, I went ahead and culled out key passages, so as to do your reading for you Berzerker:

The Court agrees with the parties that the term “emolument” must be read in harmony with the surrounding text of the Emoluments Clauses. But ultimately it finds Plaintiffs’ arguments more Case 8:17-cv-01596-PJM Document 123 Filed 07/25/18 Page 18 of 52 -19- persuasive. The text of both Clauses strongly indicates that the broader meaning of “emolument” advanced by Plaintiffs was meant to apply. As Plaintiffs point out, the Foreign Clause bans, without Congressional approval, “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 8 (emphasis added). Use of such expansive modifiers significantly undermines the President’s argument that this Clause was meant to prohibit only payment for official services rendered in an employment-type relationship. If there were any doubt as to the limits of the Foreign Clause, the Framers used the word “any” twice, ensuring a broad and expansive reach. The President’s argument that these modifiers merely ensure that the Foreign Clause bans receipt of every type of “present,” “emolument,” “office,” or “title” is unconvincing. Even without the inclusion of the modifier “of any kind whatever” in the Foreign Clause, it would still ban every type of prohibited category because it provides no exceptions. If “no word was unnecessarily used,” as the President argues, Def.’s Mot. Dismiss at 36, his own position runs aground. The more logical conclusion is the one that Plaintiffs urge: The use of “any kind whatever” was intended to ensure the broader meaning of the term “emolument.”


On the other hand, the President’s cramped interpretation of the term would seem to create its own concerning redundancies within the Constitution. Characterizing an “emolument” as “the receipt of compensation for services rendered by an official in an official capacity,” Def.’s Mot. Dismiss at 31, is tantamount to defining the transaction as nothing less than one of federal bribery, a crime which prohibits a federal public official from, directly or indirectly, receiving or accepting “anything of value” in return for “being influenced in the performance of any official act.” 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2). Given that Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution already addresses the crime of bribery, making it an impeachable offense,23 there would have been little need to include two additional and distinct Emoluments Clauses prohibiting the acceptance of money from foreign or state governments for official services rendered. Moreover, it seems highly unlikely that the Framers would have intended bribery to be both an impeachable offense and, at the same time, an activity Congress could consent to when a foreign government donor is involved. The President makes no attempt to come to terms with this anomaly.


The clear weight of the evidence shows that an “emolument” was commonly understood by the founding generation to encompass any “profit,” “gain,” or “advantage.”


Similarly, Adam Smith in his The Wealth of Nations—a treatise which the Framers were unquestionably well aware of28—used the term “emolument” twice to refer to instances involving private market transactions.


In the Court’s view, the decisive weight of historical evidence supports the conclusion that the common understanding of the term “emolument” during the founding era was that it covered any profit, gain, or advantage, including profits from private transactions


Plaintiffs argue that even if the meaning of the term “emolument” is deemed ambiguous, the constitutional purpose of the Clauses indicates that it was Plaintiffs’ broader definition that was intended. Pls.’ Opp’n at 32 (citing Noel Canning, 134 S. Ct. at 2561). As to the Foreign Emoluments Clause, Plaintiffs argue that the purpose of the Clause was to prevent the least possibility of undue influence and corruption being exerted upon the President by foreign governments. Id. at 34. That is, the Framers created a prophylactic rule to prevent the slightest chance of such influence. Id. Plaintiffs assert that the President’s narrow interpretation, which they emphasize essentially boils down to the equivalent of a prohibition against bribery, would completely erode this aim. Bribery as a crime is very difficult to establish, they point out, and any requirement that a quid pro quo for official services has to be established would be easy to circumvent while at the same time difficult to prove. Id. at 42-43. It therefore seems highly unlikely that the Framers would have wanted to leave a large loophole that would preclude the Clause from accomplishing any meaningful purpose.


[As to the Domestic Emoluments Clause, Plaintiffs argue that it reflects a similar intention to “eliminate any pecuniary inducement the President might have to betray his constitutional duty in solely serving the People of the United States.” Id. at 35. Citing The Federalist Papers, Plaintiffs assert that the Framers worried about any state government or its officials being able to tempt the President and cause him “to surrender” his “judgment to their inclinations,” while forcing states to compete with each other to “appeal[] to his avarice.” Id. (citing The Federalist No. 73 (Alexander Hamilton)).Thus, say Plaintiffs, it makes sense to infer that the Framers intended the term “emolument” to sweep broadly]




Where, for example, a President maintains a premier hotel property that generates millions of dollars a year in profits, how likely is it that he will not be swayed, whether consciously or subconsciously, in any or all of his dealings with foreign or 31 U.S. Const. art. II, § 4 provides: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Case 8:17-cv-01596-PJM Document 123 Filed 07/25/18 Page 36 of 52 -37- domestic governments that might choose to spend large sums of money at that hotel property?32 How, indeed, could it ever be proven, in a given case, that he had actually been influenced by the payments? The Framers of the Clauses made it simple. Ban the offerings altogether (unless, in the foreign context at least, Congress sees fit to approve them)


In any event, it must be remembered that the Emoluments Clauses only prohibit profiting from transactions with foreign, the federal, or domestic governments; they do not prohibit all private foreign or domestic transactions on the part of a federal official.


The President highlights the fact that many early Presidents engaged in private commerce, suggesting that it is reasonable to infer that at least some of their transactions must have been with foreign or state government entities. Id. The Court finds executive branch precedent and practice overwhelmingly consistent with Plaintiffs’ expansive view of the meaning of the term “emolument.” The President has not cited a single Government opinion that conclusively supports his position. He simply submits that his proposed definition is “not inconsistent” with existing precedent. That sort of argument clearly does not make the grade.

The paragraph I put in brackets maybe encapsulates things most directly. The founders didn't want elected officials getting money, anyhow, from foreign governments.

It's likely you'll feel you have to read the whole thing, though. Much of the judge's decision is arguing against an overly narrow definition of the term "emoluments" that the President's lawyers tried to float, and his objections to it can't be reflected terribly well in excerpts. The whole thing is a careful weighing of the evidence for each side's definition of the word "emolument."

On this smaller point:

if Presidents could sell their merchandise to foreign governments, why cant Trump rent a hotel room?

the President evidently couldn't provide evidence of this ever having actually happened. He just assumed that it must have. That's the final paragraph in my collection of excerpts.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You're welcome to explain why renting a hotel room is an emolument while selling other things is not, but the non-stop abuse is not welcome.

Just out of curiosity, what makes you think you are qualified to determine what I am "welcome" to do? Did you get some sort of promotion?

But, since so many people have already said it and you are ignoring it.

THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT ONE IS HAPPENING AND THE OTHER DIDN'T.

Yes, that was the equivalent of yelling in your oblivious face, which I would enjoy immensely. I might have to go out to a bar and see if I can find someone as intellectually dishonest as you to debate with, just to work out some kinks. Of course, in real life people like you are hard to find.

Moderator Action: Take another three days off for flaming. - Bootstoots
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[FriendlyFire]

“The first five presidents were farmers and plantation owners who maintained their businesses while in office. Some of their crops, especially tobacco, were sold abroad to companies and foreign governments.” https://cei.org/blog/emoluments-clause-does-not-ban-sales-foreigners

Trump is going to enrich himself and hes friends openly using the US government
Hell Cohen made Millions selling access to Trump, and yet Republicans screamed about pay 2 play with Clinton.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Trump is going to enrich himself and hes friends openly using the US government
Hell Cohen made Millions selling access to Trump, and yet Republicans screamed about pay 2 play with Clinton.

When I was a car salesman I had a rule of thumb when I got a new job. I'd go out to the point and steer a conversation with the other salesmen into "is there a problem with people snaking deals here?" Without fail, someone would come up later to "warn" me about some other salesman that couldn't be trusted. Also without fail, the guy who showed up with said warning would be the one who required the closest monitoring.

 

[Berzerker]

The paragraph I put in brackets maybe encapsulates things most directly. The founders didn't want elected officials getting money, anyhow, from foreign governments.

It's likely you'll feel you have to read the whole thing, though. Much of the judge's decision is arguing against an overly narrow definition of the term "emoluments" that the President's lawyers tried to float, and his objections to it can't be reflected terribly well in excerpts. The whole thing is a careful weighing of the evidence for each side's definition of the word "emolument."

On this smaller point:

the President evidently couldn't provide evidence of this ever having actually happened. He just assumed that it must have. That's the final paragraph in my collection of excerpts.

I did a little reading on the history of cases and they mostly seem to involve people getting paid twice when an overlap occurred while changing offices or changes in salary. Seems strange no case arose about an office holder doing business with foreign or domestic governments. Is there precedent for calling a business transaction an emolument? I cant find any... I'm sure politicians invest money with government contractors.

ed: Was Hillary Clinton violating the emoluments clause by accepting money from foreign entities for the Clinton Foundation?

Moderator Action: Snipped out internet tough guy stuff. - Bootstoots

 

[FriendlyFire]

Was Hillary Clinton violating the emoluments clause by accepting money from foreign entities for the Clinton Foundation?

I dunno Berzerker its seems very Trumpish to accept Foreign donations which have to be publicly disclosed annually audited and as a Charity have to publicly disclose what the money is actually spent on.
While Iam certain that foreign money is being used to curry favor with the Clintons, its all above board and legal especially since Citizens United.

Just like how Lobbying and campaign donations have flooded Washington politics.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Ignorance is bliss.

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, get it right

ed: Was Hillary Clinton violating the emoluments clause by accepting money from foreign entities for the Clinton Foundation?

This is pretty rank whataboutism... just pointing that out...