Emoluments Entanglements

[stinkubus]

Not to mention Hillary was not President during that time, so the Constitution was silent on the subject of her foundation.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Not to mention Hillary was not President during that time, so the Constitution was silent on the subject of her foundation.

An even better point and a perfect illustration of how much of a red-herring/derail the statement was.

 

[Broken_Erika]

That's cause Hillary was colluding with the British to undermine the US independence movement and assassinate the founding fathers.

 

[Sommerswerd]

That's cause Hillary was colluding with the British to undermine the US independence movement and assassinate the founding fathers

via email of course.

 

[stinkubus]

An even better point and a perfect illustration of how much of a red-herring/derail the statement was.

It's really telling as to the mindset of their detractors that one of the world's most highly regarded charities is cast in the same light as the various operations of an ongoing criminal conspiracy.

 

[Birdjaguar]

From WaPo this morning:

The general manager of the Trump International Hotel in Manhattan had a rare bit of good news to report to investors this spring: After two years of decline, revenue from room rentals went up 13 percent in the first three months of 2018.

What caused the uptick at President Trump’s flagship hotel in New York? One major factor: “a last-minute visit to New York by the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia,” wrote general manager Prince A. Sanders in a May 15 letter, which was obtained by The Washington Post.

Neither Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman nor members of the royal family stayed at Trump’s hotel, Sanders said: He said the Trump hotel didn’t have suites big enough to accommodate them. But “due to our close industry relationships,” he wrote, “we were able to accommodate many of the accompanying travelers.”

The previously unreported letter — describing a five-day stay in March that was enough to boost the hotel’s revenue for the entire quarter — shows how little is known about the business that the president’s company does with foreign officials.

Such transactions have fueled criticism that Trump is reaping revenue from foreign governments, even as he controls U.S. foreign policy toward those countries. Trump’s company has disclosed few details about the business it does with foreign customers, saying it already reveals more than is required.

 

[Lexicus]

*me looking fondly at the kids playing in the sandbox* It's so cute how Trump and the other autocrats and kleptocrats get along

 

[Berzerker]

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 I am 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.

We know Trump rents hotel rooms and its legal and above board. We'll find out if it will be legal in the future, but I dont see how it would be an emolument if the French ambassador bought some of Jefferson's finest wine or tobacco.

from your link:

Such transactions have fueled criticism that Trump is reaping revenue from foreign governments, even as he controls U.S. foreign policy toward those countries.

And if these foreign governments gave millions to the Trump Foundation, would that be okay?

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

whataboutism - attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument

The hypocrisy aside, I did refute their position - if donations are okay, then so is renting a hotel room. If the latter violates the clause, how can the former avoid that fate?

Not to mention Hillary was not President during that time, so the Constitution was silent on the subject of her foundation.

"no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_of_Nobility_Clause

It's really telling as to the mindset of their detractors that one of the world's most highly regarded charities is cast in the same light as the various operations of an ongoing criminal conspiracy.

Trump renting hotel rooms is an ongoing criminal conspiracy but the Clinton's accepting over a billion is the moral high ground?

 

[stinkubus]

I assume you have proof the Clinton foundation is funneling money to the Clinton's personal accounts?

 

[Berzerker]

"If you wanted to bribe the current President of the United States, I'd think the simplest, cleanest way to do so would be just to throw money at his businesses" - Chris Hayes

and if you wanted to bribe a Senator from NY or Secy of State, I'd think the simplest, cleanest way to do so would be just to throw money at her foundation, speeches and books.

If Trump's cashing in it aint from renting hotel rooms. But if Hillary can take millions for her foundation then I cant see how renting hotel rooms is worse. As I see it, there's 3 options - its okay for both, its okay for neither, or its okay for 1 of them. From what I can gather from 'precedent' emoluments are basically double payment. For example, a Senator is appointed to a cabinet position. The pay may be different and overlaps in pay were not allowed. People had their appts delayed to avoid being paid an additional emolument.

The absence of precedent is a red flag... Why didn't this ever come up before? With all those wealthy Presidents and their extensive businesses and not one case? Did they all just stop doing business with every other government? That would seem undiplomatic, maybe even rude. Can you imagine Jefferson telling European heads of states they cant buy his wine or tobacco?

I assume you have proof the Clinton foundation is funneling money to the Clinton's personal accounts?

Does it matter? Trump put his kids in charge and said the money is going to the treasury. No emoluments means no emoluments... It doesn't mean emoluments to pay for Hillary's foundation are okay. I assume anyone bribing her would have paid her a small fortune for some speeches or books if they didn't do it thru her foundation.

Which of these 2 scenarios sounds more conducive to bribery? Trump rents hotel rooms to the Saudi royal family, or, the Saudi royal family donates $10 million to Hillary's foundation.

 

[Sommerswerd]

whataboutism - attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument

The hypocrisy aside, I did refute their position - if donations are okay, then so is renting a hotel room. If the latter violates the clause, how can the former avoid that fate?

No you're wrong. My charge of whataboutism has nothing to do with hypocrisy. It has everything to do with you trying to change the subject as a defense rather than actually debating/discussing the topic at hand, especially when/because you're on the losing side of the argument. I know you luvs, luvs, luvs to talk about "hypocrisy", and refer to everything as "hypocrisy" but this was a little absurd... even for you. In fact, you misuse/mis-apply the word "hypocrisy" so often that I'm starting to think that you aren't really clear on what hypocrisy actually means.

Seriously, why are you so obsessed with calling everything "hypocrisy"?

As for your second point. No you're wrong about that too. Again... the emoluments clause isn't relevant to Hillary in this thread because we're talking about emoluments in context of the POTUS and Hillary is not, and never has been President.

So stop changing the subject. And STOP trying to derail YET ANOTHER thread into a discussion about Hillary. This thread is about Trump violating the emoluments clause. If you want to accuse Hillary of violating the emoluments clause... start a new thread.

 

[FriendlyFire]

We know Trump rents hotel rooms and its legal and above board. We'll find out if it will be legal in the future, but I dont see how it would be an emolument if the French ambassador bought some of Jefferson's finest wine or tobacco.

Thats why I pointed out there are other low hanging fruits, form them Trump inauguration fund, Cohens pay 2 play access, ZTE to Ivanaka Chinese trademark deals
No one complains that a Lot of Republicans are using Trump hotel and booking conventions or Trump supporters patronizing Trump hotels. Its if Trump is selling pay 2 play that is the issue

Add this to the pile
Its odd that Republicans are so silent, probably dosnt get reported in Trumpland

Deal Gives Kushners Cash Infusion on 666 Fifth Avenue
Brookfield Asset Management will take a 99-year lease on the troubled building, in a deal that eases the financial pressure on the Kushner family.
In the 666 Fifth Avenue deal, Brookfield paid about $1.1 billion in upfront rent
Brookfield is one of the world’s biggest real estate companies, and among its investors is the Qatar Investment Authority, one of the world’s largest sovereign funds, which bought a $1.8 billion stake in one of the company’s subsidiaries, Brookfield Property Partners in 2014, and is the second-largest investor in the company

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/03/nyregion/kushners-building-fifth-avenue-brookfield-lease.html

 

[Berzerker]

No you're wrong. My charge of whataboutism has nothing to do with hypocrisy.

That was the definition of whataboutism from google, it has something to do with hypocrisy. This 'whataboutism' is considered a sin when it exposes hypocrisy, and there I thought hypocrisy was the sin. When the adulteress was brought before Jesus, he ignored their accusation and asked them if they were without sin. The Pharisees turned away shamed by their hypocrisy, they didn't accuse Jesus of whataboutism. How dare you call attention to my hypocrisy!

It has everything to do with you trying to change the subject as a defense rather than actually debating/discussing the topic at hand, especially when/because you're on the losing side of the argument. I know you luvs, luvs, luvs to talk about "hypocrisy", and refer to everything as "hypocrisy" but this was a little absurd... even for you. In fact, you misuse/mis-apply the word "hypocrisy" so often that I'm starting to think that you aren't really clear on what hypocrisy actually means.

Seriously, why are you so obsessed with calling everything "hypocrisy"?

I began my argument with 'hypocrisy aside'... That means I was not addressing the element of hypocrisy in the definition of whataboutism. I explained that I did not ignore the accusation Trump violated the clause, 'whataboutism' exposes hypocrisy instead of refuting the argument. The defense relies on precedent - if donations to an office holder's foundation etc are okay, then so is renting a hotel room.

As for your second point. No you're wrong about that too. Again... the emoluments clause isn't relevant to Hillary in this thread because we're talking about emoluments in context of the POTUS and Hillary is not, and never has been President.

The clause does not limit the restriction to the President. It also applies to Senators and Secys of State, etc... Her case establishes precedent for this case and so do cases before hers, and so on.

From wiki:

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

There must be some history we're missing. Nobody in office ever sold their goods to a foreign state? Tobacco was pouring into the old world and these large plantation owners in office didn't export their green gold to foreign states? Not likely...

So stop changing the subject. And STOP trying to derail YET ANOTHER thread into a discussion about Hillary. This thread is about Trump violating the emoluments clause. If you want to accuse Hillary of violating the emoluments clause... start a new thread.

Hillary's just a recent example of politicians receiving possible emoluments, such examples establish precedent, and precedent will probably decide this case. If a politician can take money for their foundation or speech or book I'm sure they can rent a hotel room. The absence of legal precedent dealing with this specific situation suggests the emolument clause didn't apply to normal commercial relationships.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Moderator Action: Just a reminder that this thread is about emoluments and President Trump and the current administration. If you folks want to discuss how this applies to Hilary Clinton, then I would invite you to start a new thread on the subject, and not derail this one. Thank you.