Emoluments Case against Trump to Proceed

[exotix]

Just In


Federal Lawsuit Against President Trump's Business Interests Allowed To Proceed

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/25/632300960/federal-lawsuit-against-president-trumps-business-interests-allowed-to-proceed

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=ostYW-ClHcma_QaFrZSoCQ&q=Emoluments+Case+against+Trump+to+Proceed&oq=Emoluments+Case+against+Trump+to+Proceed&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i160k1.2686.2686.0.4033.3.2.0.0.0.0.127.12 7.0j1.2.0....0...1c.2.64.psy-ab..1.2.209.6..35i39k1.82.DKBGt2Iuy_w


'President Trump doesn't care about the Constitution nor the Law(s)'

~ U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte


This ruling appeared to mark the first time a federal judge had interpreted those Constitutional provisions and applied their restrictions to a sitting president.

If the ruling stands, it could bring unprecedented scrutiny onto Trump’s businesses — which have sought to keep their transactions with foreign states private, even as their owner sits in the Oval Office.


In a blow to President Trump, a federal judge says a lawsuit that alleges Trump's business interests violate the Constitution can proceed.

Federal District Judge Peter Messitte denied the Department of Justice's request to dismiss a case brought by the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia.

The Emoluments Clause bars any president from personally profiting from his dealings with foreign governments — or even U.S. state governments.

It's the first ruling in federal court to define "emolument," which goes undefined in the U.S. Constitution's two emoluments clauses.





The presidential limousine is parked in front of the Trump hotel as President Trump attends a dinner with supporters in April 2018 in Washington, DC.

The hotel is a focal point of litigation that charges Trump's continued business interests violate the Constitution.


https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2018/07/25/gettyimages-953345632_slide-d22f94670ea00d885a51552d5cd8608191943d5f-s800-c85.jpg

[Common]

Trump has alreadyw won, the liberals ALL said he wouldnt be potus 6months, then they made it a year, now theyre saying he wont get re elected. Never before has a President been set upon like this one, with legions of individuals and organizations trying to set him up. Over 90 percent constant negative press, relentless anti trump stories on front page newspapers and magazines.

After all that his favorability is higher than Clinton, Bush and OMG Obama at the same time in their presidency.

Seems theres a whole lot of americans not buying the hate trump folks

[barb012]

Our biggest enemy to our Democracy is not any other nation, but here at home with Democrats making it extremely difficult for Trump to do his job. The hateful media that is brainwashing their democratic voter base with so many lies and giving no credit to Trump on anything he has done that has helped so many Americans is a disgrace to our country.

[El Guapo]

Trump has alreadyw won, the liberals ALL said he wouldnt be potus 6months, then they made it a year, now theyre saying he wont get re elected. Never before has a President been set upon like this one, with legions of individuals and organizations trying to set him up. Over 90 percent constant negative press, relentless anti trump stories on front page newspapers and magazines.

After all that his favorability is higher than Clinton, Bush and OMG Obama at the same time in their presidency.

Seems theres a whole lot of americans not buying the hate trump folks

The big blue wave is going to be a wave goodbye to even more Democrat seats in '18.

This ceaseless infantilism is a major reason why.

[DGUtley]

Emoluments. We will see.
exotix — where does this quote come from?


'President Trump doesn't care about the Constitution nor the Law(s)'

~ U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte

Did you make it up?

[Cletus]

This is a frivolous lawsuit. The emoluments clause does not prohibit a sitting President from engaging in foreign commerce. Trump has plenty of precedent on his side. George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe all did business with foreign governments and private businesses. I am sure there are others, but for those who don't know, those are our first 5 Presidents. They ALL engaged in foreign commerce.

The Emoluments Clause, contained in Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution reads as follows... 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.

So, what is an "emolument"?

Webster defines it as the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites. Unless Trump is actually employed by a foreign government, profits from his various businesses are not "emoluments" anymore than George Washington's or Thomas Jefferson's or James Madison's profits from the sale of tobacco and other crops to governments overseas were emoluments.

[El Guapo]

The filing of frivolous lawsuits is the new gold standard for proof of guilt in the squalid leftard thinking process.

[exotix]

Emoluments. We will see.
@exotix (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=516) — where does this quote come from?



Did you make it up?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwEIMbgwEko

[Hoosier8]

Someone thinks that paying for a service is a gift.

[El Guapo]

I ain't clicking dat sheeit nigga

[DGUtley]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwEIMbgwEko

Yes, Dave - I did make it up. The video absolutely doesn’t say that. The judge’s order doesn’t say that. FAKE QUOTE. FAKE QUOTE. FAKE QUOTE. FAKE DISHONEST QUOTE.

[spunkloaf]

Trump has alreadyw won, the liberals ALL said he wouldnt be potus 6months, then they made it a year, now theyre saying he wont get re elected. Never before has a President been set upon like this one, with legions of individuals and organizations trying to set him up. Over 90 percent constant negative press, relentless anti trump stories on front page newspapers and magazines.

After all that his favorability is higher than Clinton, Bush and OMG Obama at the same time in their presidency.

Seems theres a whole lot of americans not buying the hate trump folks

Wow.

You have TDS so bad, dude.

Thoughts and prayers.

[spunkloaf]

That's right. Your president is in violation of the constitution. And it only goes to show ya...you act like you're all about the constitution until the pesky, darn thing gets in YOUR way, or bites your beloved president in the ass.

Lock him up! Lock him up!

[spunkloaf]

Trump has alreadyw won
This is all we need to prove that you are not about the prosperity of America, you only wanted Trump to win to smite liberals. Your vote comes from a place of hatred, not love.

[exotix]

Yes, Dave - I did make it up. The video absolutely doesn’t say that. The judge’s order doesn’t say that. FAKE QUOTE. FAKE QUOTE. FAKE QUOTE. FAKE DISHONEST QUOTE.[RWNJ hysterics on]... 'Don't look over there at Trumps' taxpayer Limo parked in front of his Hotel collecting Millions from domestic and international criminals in violation of so many Constitutional Articles and the Law never seen before ... look over here at exotix faking the funk !' ... [RWNJ hysterics off]



LOL




The presidential limousine is parked in front of the Trump hotel as President Trump attends a dinner with supporters in April 2018 in Washington, DC.

The hotel is a focal point of litigation that charges Trump's continued business interests violate the Constitution.


https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2018/07/25/gettyimages-953345632_slide-d22f94670ea00d885a51552d5cd8608191943d5f-s800-c85.jpg

[MisterVeritis]

Just In


Federal Lawsuit Against President Trump's Business Interests Allowed To Proceed

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/25/632300960/federal-lawsuit-against-president-trumps-business-interests-allowed-to-proceed

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=ostYW-ClHcma_QaFrZSoCQ&q=Emoluments+Case+against+Trump+to+Proceed&oq=Emoluments+Case+against+Trump+to+Proceed&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i160k1.2686.2686.0.4033.3.2.0.0.0.0.127.12 7.0j1.2.0....0...1c.2.64.psy-ab..1.2.209.6..35i39k1.82.DKBGt2Iuy_w


'President Trump doesn't care about the Constitution nor the Law(s)'

~ U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte


Kook judge:

"Judge Messitte is a former member and currently Special Advisor to the Council of the American Bar Association Rule of Law Initiative for Latin America and the Caribbean. He is Adjunct Professor of Comparative Law at the American University Washington College of Law, where he directs the Brazil-U.S. Legal and Judicial Studies Program."

http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/peter-j-messitte-district-judge

[spunkloaf]

[RWNJ hysterics on]... 'Don't look over there at Trumps' taxpayer Limo parked in front of his Hotel collecting Millions from domestic and international criminals in violation of so many Constitutional Articles and the Law never seen before ... look over here at exotix faking the funk !' ... [RWNJ hysterics off]



LOL




The presidential limousine is parked in front of the Trump hotel as President Trump attends a dinner with supporters in April 2018 in Washington, DC.

The hotel is a focal point of litigation that charges Trump's continued business interests violate the Constitution.


https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2018/07/25/gettyimages-953345632_slide-d22f94670ea00d885a51552d5cd8608191943d5f-s800-c85.jpg
They just hate you because you're right. :laugh:

[MisterVeritis]

That's right. Your president is in violation of the constitution. And it only goes to show ya...you act like you're all about the constitution until the pesky, darn thing gets in YOUR way, or bites your beloved president in the ass.

Lock him up! Lock him up!
For exercise, you jump to conclusions. Good job.

[Dr. Who]

It could be considered an emolument if heads of state or any other government sponsored activity is hosted at say Mar a Lago and the government is paying the tab. Then Trump is essentially profiting from the government which arguably violates the emoluments clause unless the government is being charged cost only and no profit is accruing to the resort and thus to Trump.

[spunkloaf]

Kook judge:

"Judge Messitte is a former member and currently Special Advisor to the Council of the American Bar Association Rule of Law Initiative for Latin America and the Caribbean. He is Adjunct Professor of Comparative Law at the American University Washington College of Law, where he directs the Brazil-U.S. Legal and Judicial Studies Program."

http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/peter-j-messitte-district-judge

Hmm. Only a kook because he is hurting your beloved president. If it were Obama, you wouldn't think so.

[AlmostRightofRight]

It could be considered an emolument if heads of state or any other government sponsored activity is hosted at say Mar a Lago and the government is paying the tab. Then Trump is essentially profiting from the government which arguably violates the emoluments clause unless the government is being charged cost only and no profit is accruing to the resort and thus to Trump.
About half of the Constitutional law experts that have appeared on "news" shows on the bastions of conservatisms CNN and MSNBC say that an arms length transaction does not violate the emoluments clause. Just like anyone from overseas who purchases a book written by a sitting President (I think the latest was one by Obama but I am fairly sure Bush43 had one as well) is not an emolument.

Now, if a foreign government made reservations at the Trump hotel in DC (or any other Trump property) and paid 1,000 times the going market rates there would probably be an issue.

[exotix]

About half of the Constitutional law experts that have appeared on "news" shows on the bastions of conservatisms CNN and MSNBC say that an arms length transaction does not violate the emoluments clause. Just like anyone from overseas who purchases a book written by a sitting President (I think the latest was one by Obama but I am fairly sure Bush43 had one as well) is not an emolument.

Now, if a foreign government made reservations at the Trump hotel in DC (or any other Trump property) and paid 1,000 times the going market rates there would probably be an issue.LOL



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQO3y_OyWqo





Donald Trump’s luxury resort in Florida is making the most of his leap into the White House by doubling its initiation fee to $200,000, it was reported Wednesday.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/26/trumps-mar-lago-doubles-initiation-fee-to-200k.html

The price hike at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach took effect on Jan. 1, less than two months after Trump’s defeat of Hillary Clinton, according to CNBC. (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/25/mar-a-lago-membership-fee-doubles-to-200000.html)

A Reuters report said the increase occurred in two phases — from $100,000 to $150,000 in June, and then to $200,000 this month.

The timing raised red flags for a government watchdog.

[AlmostRightofRight]

FYI...an initiation fee of $200,000 does not make it the most expensive (not even close). A local country club that makes a couple of million a year off a PGA event has (according to a couple of members I know) an initiation fee of $75,000. Now, they only have a waiting list that prospective members will be on for about 5 years. I was told by one of the club managers during the tour event that when someone is contacted that a spot is open for them they have 10 days to pay the initiation fee or their name goes back to the bottom of the list.

The wealthy will pay A LOT to be members of high profile clubs...especially those where they can play golf about 350 days a year.

[Tahuyaman]

Emoluments Case against Trump to Proceed
If they want to waste their time, let them.

[Tahuyaman]

FYI...an initiation fee of $200,000 does not make it the most expensive (not even close). A local country club that makes a couple of million a year off a PGA event has (according to a couple of members I know) an initiation fee of $75,000. Now, they only have a waiting list that prospective members will be on for about 5 years. I was told by one of the club managers during the tour event that when someone is contacted that a spot is open for them they have 10 days to pay the initiation fee or their name goes back to the bottom of the list.

The wealthy will pay A LOT to be members of high profile clubs...especially those where they can play golf about 350 days a year.


There are country clubs and yacht clubs all over the country with a higher initiation fee than that.

[exotix]

FYI...an initiation fee of $200,000 does not make it the most expensive (not even close). A local country club that makes a couple of million a year off a PGA event has (according to a couple of members I know) an initiation fee of $75,000. Now, they only have a waiting list that prospective members will be on for about 5 years. I was told by one of the club managers during the tour event that when someone is contacted that a spot is open for them they have 10 days to pay the initiation fee or their name goes back to the bottom of the list.

The wealthy will pay A LOT to be members of high profile clubs...especially those where they can play golf about 350 days a year.
There are country clubs and yacht clubs all over the country with a higher initiation fee than that.Notice how the only Trump state-run *Real News* coins the *emoluments venture* ... LOL


Donald Trump’s luxury resort in Florida is making the most of his leap into the White House by doubling its initiation fee to $200,000, it was reported Wednesday.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/26/trumps-mar-lago-doubles-initiation-fee-to-200k.html

[MisterVeritis]

Hmm. Only a kook because he is hurting your beloved president. If it were Obama, you wouldn't think so.
No. The judge is a kook for his own reasons.

[Tahuyaman]

Notice how the only Trump state-run *Real News* coins the *emoluments venture* ... LOL

Huh?

[MisterVeritis]

It could be considered an emolument if heads of state or any other government sponsored activity is hosted at say Mar a Lago and the government is paying the tab. Then Trump is essentially profiting from the government which arguably violates the emoluments clause unless the government is being charged cost only and no profit is accruing to the resort and thus to Trump.
I love how a good stretch makes me feel. Clearly, you do too.

[Hoosier8]

LOL



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQO3y_OyWqo





Donald Trump’s luxury resort in Florida is making the most of his leap into the White House by doubling its initiation fee to $200,000, it was reported Wednesday.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/26/trumps-mar-lago-doubles-initiation-fee-to-200k.html

The price hike at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach took effect on Jan. 1, less than two months after Trump’s defeat of Hillary Clinton, according to CNBC. (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/25/mar-a-lago-membership-fee-doubles-to-200000.html)

A Reuters report said the increase occurred in two phases — from $100,000 to $150,000 in June, and then to $200,000 this month.

The timing raised red flags for a government watchdog.

Still not a gift.

[Ransom]

This was inevitable from the moment Trump took the oath of office. It's idle noise. We will continue to bolster this thriving economy, continue border protection, continue tariff wars, continue to seat Kavanaugh.

It's a nice try, but it's more fake news from exotix who too often reports fake news to be taken seriously.

[Dr. Who]

I love how a good stretch makes me feel. Clearly, you do too.

The fact that Trump did not divest himself of all of his real estate business left him open to this particular accusation particularly when he elects to conduct state business in his own for-profit enterprises. The Constitution clearly states that he is to receive no funds from the Nation or the States above and beyond his salary. I don't think anyone would deny that a state-sponsored event held at Mar a Lago or at one of his hotels is a coup for that business in terms of profit. An additional issue is his shameless hawking of his businesses before various audiences whom Trump is addressing in his capacity as President i.e. using his position to advertise his businesses is also, in spirit, a violation of the domestic emoluments clause.

Trump profiting from his businesses in the "normal" course of events is not a violation of the emoluments clauses, it is only a violation when he is profiting from federal or state coffers or foreign governments by hosting events at his own properties. The wording of the clauses are very clear in that respect.

[MisterVeritis]

The fact that Trump did not divest himself of all of his real estate business left him open to this particular accusation particularly when he elects to conduct state business in his own for-profit enterprises. The Constitution clearly states that he is to receive no funds from the Nation or the States above and beyond his salary. I don't think anyone would deny that a state-sponsored event held at Mar a Lago or at one of his hotels is a coup for that business in terms of profit. An additional issue is his shameless hawking of his businesses before various audiences whom Trump is addressing in his capacity as President i.e. using his position to advertise his businesses is also, in spirit, a violation of the domestic emoluments clause.

Trump profiting from his businesses in the "normal" course of events is not a violation of the emoluments clauses, it is only a violation when he is profiting from federal or state coffers or foreign governments by hosting events at his own properties. The wording of the clauses are very clear in that respect.
No one is required to end their businesses because they are elected to an office.

This is just one more attempt to make sure no non-politician ever again runs for office.

[Lummy]

No one is required to end their businesses because they are elected to an office.

This is just one more attempt to make sure no non-politician ever again runs for office.

Yep. The politburo will supply all candidates from the deep state, if they can get away with it.

[Dr. Who]

No one is required to end their businesses because they are elected to an office.

This is just one more attempt to make sure no non-politician ever again runs for office.
That is a particularly lame and unconsidered argument. I did not suggest that he end his businesses. I suggested that the fact that he did not left him open to accusations of emoluments transgressions BECAUSE he has CHOSEN to mix his business interests with his role as President. That is quite obviously entirely voluntary on his part. Had he avoided mixing the two, this issue would not have legs. Now address the actual issue rather than pretend that Trump has not created this conflict by his own deliberate actions which I expect he was advised to avoid.

[MisterVeritis]

That is a particularly lame and unconsidered argument. I did not suggest that he end his businesses. I suggested that the fact that he did not left him open to accusations of emoluments transgressions BECAUSE he has CHOSEN to mix his business interests with his role as President. That is quite obviously entirely voluntary on his part. Had he avoided mixing the two, this issue would not have legs. Now address the actual issue rather than pretend that Trump has not created this conflict by his own deliberate actions which I expect he was advised to avoid.
There is nothing lame about it. I just cut to the core of the matter.

There is no requirement for an individual to give up his businesses because he holds a public office. This is a warning to other successful businessmen who opt to run for office after long, successful business careers.

In my opinion, the people who brought this lawsuit to harass the President are working for Putin and for Communist China.

[Dr. Who]

There is nothing lame about it. I just cut to the core of the matter.

There is no requirement for an individual to give up his businesses because he holds a public office. This is a warning to other successful businessmen who opt to run for office after long, successful business careers.

In my opinion, the people who brought this lawsuit to harass the President are working for Putin and for Communist China.
You didn't cut to the core, you cut out the core. You are pretending that dictating that state events take place at his own places of business, rather than the WH, is not violating the Constitution. Never again say to me that you are a strict Constitutionalist. You are just as willing as anyone else historically to overlook the Constitution in favor of your own beliefs or your own partisan bias. At least others are honest about it.

[MisterVeritis]

You didn't cut to the core, you cut out the core. You are pretending that dictating that state events take place at his own places of business, rather than the WH, is not violating the Constitution. Never again say to me that you are a strict Constitutionalist. You are just as willing as anyone else historically to overlook the Constitution in favor of your own beliefs or your own partisan bias. At least others are honest about it.
I do not believe you are telling the truth.

[Peter1469]

It could be considered an emolument if heads of state or any other government sponsored activity is hosted at say Mar a Lago and the government is paying the tab. Then Trump is essentially profiting from the government which arguably violates the emoluments clause unless the government is being charged cost only and no profit is accruing to the resort and thus to Trump.

That would be a business deal. George Washington did a lot of deals with foreign nations and businessmen. To be an emolument there would have to be a quid-pro-quo. If Trump did political favors for a foreign leader for staying at Trump's hotel you would have a case.

[Peter1469]

Washington also benefited from his properties while president.


The fact that Trump did not divest himself of all of his real estate business left him open to this particular accusation particularly when he elects to conduct state business in his own for-profit enterprises. The Constitution clearly states that he is to receive no funds from the Nation or the States above and beyond his salary. I don't think anyone would deny that a state-sponsored event held at Mar a Lago or at one of his hotels is a coup for that business in terms of profit. An additional issue is his shameless hawking of his businesses before various audiences whom Trump is addressing in his capacity as President i.e. using his position to advertise his businesses is also, in spirit, a violation of the domestic emoluments clause.

Trump profiting from his businesses in the "normal" course of events is not a violation of the emoluments clauses, it is only a violation when he is profiting from federal or state coffers or foreign governments by hosting events at his own properties. The wording of the clauses are very clear in that respect.

[Peter1469]

That is a particularly lame and unconsidered argument. I did not suggest that he end his businesses. I suggested that the fact that he did not left him open to accusations of emoluments transgressions BECAUSE he has CHOSEN to mix his business interests with his role as President. That is quite obviously entirely voluntary on his part. Had he avoided mixing the two, this issue would not have legs. Now address the actual issue rather than pretend that Trump has not created this conflict by his own deliberate actions which I expect he was advised to avoid.
Is the president making these deals or are his property managers. The value of the property is the same either way.

[Dr. Who]

That would be a business deal. George Washington did a lot of deals with foreign nations and businessmen. To be an emolument there would have to be a quid-pro-quo. If Trump did political favors for a foreign leader for staying at Trump's hotel you would have a case.
The wording of the Constitution is very specific. The President cannot earn money from any level of government over and above his salary. Now I wouldn't be making an issue of it if a government even was coincidentally held at one of his hotels because they offered the best rates. I do have an issue when Trump is dictating that certain events take place in his places of business. That puts an entirely different complexion on it.

[MisterVeritis]

The wording of the Constitution is very specific. The President cannot earn money from any level of government over and above his salary. Now I wouldn't be making an issue of it if a government even was coincidentally held at one of his hotels because they offered the best rates. I do have an issue when Trump is dictating that certain events take place in his places of business. That puts an entirely different complexion on it.
You err. You frequently do.

[Dr. Who]

Is the president making these deals or are his property managers. The value of the property is the same either way.
His property managers are not privy to the affairs of state. There is a problem with viewing Mar a Lago as the "winter White House". It's a for profit establishment, not Trump's exclusively private residence. If Trump dictates that a head of state visit at Mar a Lago, all aspects of that visit are subject to profit taking, unlike at the WH. Furthermore, using Mar a Lago as the "winter WH" advances its profile as a club or resort and also increases Trump's profits. Furthermore, he shamelessly uses his government paid engagements to plug his properties.

It's no small wonder that there are emolument lawsuits. Trump simply doesn't even recognize the concept of conflict of interest, which is essentially what the emolument clauses are all about.

[Dr. Who]

Washington also benefited from his properties while president.
SCOTUS also gave slavery it's blessing back then. I would hope that both the highest court and the body of law has advanced beyond those more primitive times.

[Dr. Who]

You err. You frequently do.

That's not an argument. Provide me with something from the Constitution that contradicts what I have said. I'll wait.

[Captdon]

Emoluments Case against Trump to Proceed


If they want to waste their time, let them.



I guess Obama didn't sell any books overseas.

[Tahuyaman]

With all of these investigations, I'd just let them go on unobstructed. By doing that you are letting the political opposition destroy their own credibility.

When your enemy is destroying themselves, don't stop them. Get out of their way.

[MisterVeritis]

The wording of the Constitution is very specific. The President cannot earn money from any level of government over and above his salary. Now I wouldn't be making an issue of it if a government even was coincidentally held at one of his hotels because they offered the best rates. I do have an issue when Trump is dictating that certain events take place in his places of business. That puts an entirely different complexion on it.
Let's make sure we are talking about the same thing.

Article 1 Section 9 says:

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.

Is this what you refer to?

Or do you refer to Article 2 Section 1?

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased 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.

[exotix]

With all of these investigations, I'd just let them go on unobstructed. By doing that you are letting the political opposition destroy their own credibility.

When your enemy is destroying themselves, don't stop them. Get out of their way.LOL



The 2018 Congressional Retirement Tracker

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/the-2018-congressional-retirement-tracker/545723/

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/10/politics/house-retirement-tracker/index.html


The wave of Republicans leaving Congress.


If you want to see a political wave forming a year before an election, watch the retirements.

They’re often a leading indicator for which direction a party is headed, and so far, 2018 is shaping up ominously for Republicans, who will be defending 40 open House seats this fall compared with the Democrats’ 20.

By far the biggest and most consequential retirement announcement came in early April, as Speaker Paul Ryan told his colleagues he would not seek reelection (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/paul-ryan/557732/) to his House seat.



https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/mt/2017/12/_Retirement_Tracker_lead_NEW_1/lead_720_405.gif?mod=1522767783

[MisterVeritis]

SCOTUS also gave slavery it's blessing back then. I would hope that both the highest court and the body of law has advanced beyond those more primitive times.
The Constitution was amended to end slavery. Has it been amended to ensure only professional, lifelong politicians may seek office?

[MisterVeritis]

That's not an argument. Provide me with something from the Constitution that contradicts what I have said. I'll wait.
What you stated was untrue.

This is what you wrote: The wording of the Constitution is very specific. The President cannot earn money from any level of government over and above his salary. "

Article 2 Section 1:

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased 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.

This says the President cannot receive money above his salary from the United States or from any individual state. It does not address selling goods or services to those who want to pay for them. It makes no mention of earning money from willing customers.

[MisterVeritis]

...
When your enemy is destroying themselves, don't stop them. Get out of their way.
They are not destroying themselves. They are harming the nation.

[Tahuyaman]

I view it as a positive when career politicians decide to change careers. It kind of negates the need for term limits.

[Tahuyaman]

They are not destroying themselves. They are harming the nation.
Causing more harm is not the solution.

[MisterVeritis]

Causing more harm is not the solution.
Relying on Rinos like you is not the solution.

[Dr. Who]

Let's make sure we are talking about the same thing.

Article 1 Section 9 says:

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.

Is this what you refer to?

Or do you refer to Article 2 Section 1?

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased 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.



Article 2 Section 1.

[Tahuyaman]

Relying on Rinos like you is not the solution.
I’m not a Republican. They abandoned me several years ago.

Blind partisan Hackery is not something one should boast about.

[Dr. Who]

What you stated was untrue.

This is what you wrote: The wording of the Constitution is very specific. The President cannot earn money from any level of government over and above his salary. "

Article 2 Section 1:

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased 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.

This says the President cannot receive money above his salary from the United States or from any individual state. It does not address selling goods or services to those who want to pay for them. It makes no mention of earning money from willing customers.



If the President is drumming up business for his properties by purposely hosting government paid events at same, then the profits from those events flow to Trump. He is thus receiving funds from the government that is not part of his salary and using the government to directly increase his own personal income.

[Lummy]

With all of these investigations, I'd just let them go on unobstructed.


What, in your opinion, are they accomplishing?

Nothing.

[Tahuyaman]

What, in your opinion, are they accomplishing?

Nothing.

I think that they are destroying their own credibility. They are showing the public that they are partisans first.

[MisterVeritis]

I’m not a Republican. They abandoned me several years ago.
Blind partisan Hackery is not something one should boast about.
Right. You are neither hot nor cold. Being a milquetoast is nothing to boast about either.

[MisterVeritis]

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased 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.

This says the President cannot receive money above his salary from the United States or from any individual state. It does not address selling goods or services to those who want to pay for them. It makes no mention of earning money from willing customers.


If the President is drumming up business for his properties by purposely hosting government paid events at same, then the profits from those events flow to Trump. He is thus receiving funds from the government that is not part of his salary and using the government to directly increase his own personal income.
Which States are giving President Trump additional compensation?

The right answer is none.

Is the United States giving President Trump additional money? No.

[MisterVeritis]

LOL

The 2018 Congressional Retirement Tracker

The wave of Republicans leaving Congress.

If you want to see a political wave forming a year before an election, watch the retirements.

Most of the retiring members are losing Chairmanships. It is a good thing.

[Sergeant Gleed]

Our biggest enemy to our Democracy is not any other nation, but here at home with Democrats making it extremely difficult for Trump to do his job. The hateful media that is brainwashing their democratic voter base with so many lies and giving no credit to Trump on anything he has done that has helped so many Americans is a disgrace to our country.


Don't forget the damn Never-trumper RINO pigs.


I'm not going to forget them.

[Sergeant Gleed]

I think that they are destroying their own credibility. They are showing the public that they are partisans first.


They have credibility?

What have they done since That Idiot Carter to regain it?

[Sergeant Gleed]

This is a frivolous lawsuit. The emoluments clause does not prohibit a sitting President from engaging in foreign commerce. Trump has plenty of precedent on his side. George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe all did business with foreign governments and private businesses. I am sure there are others, but for those who don't know, those are our first 5 Presidents. They ALL engaged in foreign commerce.

The Emoluments Clause, contained in Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution reads as follows... 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.

So, what is an "emolument"?

Webster defines it as the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites. Unless Trump is actually employed by a foreign government, profits from his various businesses are not "emoluments" anymore than George Washington's or Thomas Jefferson's or James Madison's profits from the sale of tobacco and other crops to governments overseas were emoluments.

So you mean, like, say...the Secretary of State taking a cool $35,000,000 into her personal funds to guarantee that her pals in Russia get access to 20% of American uranium is a violation of the Emoluments Clause?

Why haven't the Rodents pounced on that one?

[Sergeant Gleed]

The filing of frivolous lawsuits is the new gold standard for proof of guilt in the squalid leftard thinking process.


It helped them destroy the female governor of Alaska, didn't it?

The Rodents just hate powerful women who think for themselves, just like they hate thinking black people.

They only want slaves.

[Sergeant Gleed]

It could be considered an emolument if heads of state or any other government sponsored activity is hosted at say Mar a Lago and the government is paying the tab. Then Trump is essentially profiting from the government which arguably violates the emoluments clause unless the government is being charged cost only and no profit is accruing to the resort and thus to Trump.

No.

Selling established services for nominal profit cannot be considered a violations of the Emoluments Clause.

It's not like when Hillary was selling her services as SoS to the highest bidders.

[Crepitus]

Don't forget the damn Never-trumper RINO pigs.


I'm not going to forget them.

Get everybody who doesn't worship tRump! Kill the infidels!

I swear, you people have gone insane.

[Sergeant Gleed]

No one is required to end their businesses because they are elected to an office.

Hillary didn't stop selling her favors just because she carpet-bagged a Senate seat, nor did she stop when she was given the Secretary of State fire-sale position.

[Crepitus]

It helped them destroy the female governor of Alaska, didn't it?

The Rodents just hate powerful women who think for themselves, just like they hate thinking black people.

They only want slaves.

Lol, you mean Palin?

Her downfall was a serious lack of active braincells.

[Sergeant Gleed]

Get everybody who doesn't worship tRump! Kill the infidels!

I swear, you people have gone insane.


Please cite your posted objections to the treasons of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Obama when they were selling access for cash.

Or in some other way establish your credibility that you are so clearly lacking.

You got a DD214, perhaps?

A real history of defending the Constitution? We have not seen it here, and...we know you don't have one, your posts are hormonally driven.

[Sergeant Gleed]

Lol, you mean Palin?

Her downfall was a serious lack of active braincells.


So you agree that the Rodents, when they have absolutely nothing, resort to totally frivolous and at times outright false lawsuits to harass and destroy officials elected to office by lawful democratic means.

There's Sarah Palin, a successful woman.

There's Trump, a successful American.

So you're on record for hating women and Americans, which means you also hate American women, right?

[Sergeant Gleed]

Is the president making these deals or are his property managers. The value of the property is the same either way.

Trump does not have time to micromanage his personal holdings right now.

He's busy restoring American greatness after it's been tarnished by being left between some Bushes to be mauled by a Pervert and a traitor.

[Sergeant Gleed]

SCOTUS also gave slavery it's blessing back then.

That would be Justice Taney, a Democrat appointed by a Democrat.


I would hope that both the highest court and the body of law has advanced beyond those more primitive times.

It probably has. Justice Kennedy is out. So when Kavanaugh comes in there will be a solid 5 vote majority bloc for the Constitution, and this emoluments nonsense will be rejected.

I can't wait until Ruth Buzzy has her stroke and dies. if you think the Rodents are bothered now, wait until their President nominates a SIXTH Constitutionalist to the Court.

Be like Hank Aaron hitting the world's biggest hornet's nest into a home run.

So much WINNING!

Trump has been wrong on just one thing. We Americans can never get sick of winning.

And then Brayer, another damn fossil, can kick off, too. At any time. That would make SEVEN possible Constitutionalist justices. OMG!!!!!!!!!

[Crepitus]

Please cite your posted objections to the treasons of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Obama when they were selling access for cash.

Or in some other way establish your credibility that you are so clearly lacking.

You got a DD214, perhaps?

A real history of defending the Constitution? We have not seen it here, and...we know you don't have one, your posts are hormonally driven.

You've been watching too much faux noize. There was no "treason" from the Clintons or Obamas, and my status, military or otherwise is none of your business. Only an idiot would ask for personal information on the internet, and I feel sure that no one who actually has a DD214 would ask anyone else to display his on an open forum.

I suspect you are a liar, and a not very smart one at that.

[Crepitus]

So you agree that the Rodents, when they have absolutely nothing, resort to totally frivolous and at times outright false lawsuits to harass and destroy officials elected to office by lawful democratic means.

There's Sarah Palin, a successful woman.

There's Trump, a successful American.

So you're on record for hating women and Americans, which means you also hate American women, right?

You are functionally retarded. You are claiming I said things I didn't, you are making unwarranted accusations for no reason other than you disagree with me.

I'm afraid I have to dismiss you as hoplessly irrelevant.

Have a good night.

[Sergeant Gleed]

You've been watching too much faux noize. There was no "treason" from the Clintons or Obamas, and my status, military or otherwise is none of your business. Only an idiot would ask for personal information on the internet, and I feel sure that no one who actually has a DD214 would ask anyone else to display his on an open forum.

I suspect you are a liar, and a not very smart one at that.


I never watch Fox. They're as reliable as CNN, which you apparently mainline.

And you didn't answer the question, to establish your bona fides.

And you've resorted to personal invective, too.

Are you the very best defender of liberalism this board has to offer?

[Sergeant Gleed]

You are functionally retarded. You are claiming I said things I didn't, you are making unwarranted accusations for no reason other than you disagree with me.

I'm afraid I have to dismiss you as hoplessly irrelevant.

Have a good night.


I am drawing logically valid conclusions.

It's what rational people do.

Your responses aren't rational, which is what rational people expect from your posts.

You must dismiss an awful lot of good Americans simply because you can't hold up your end of a rational discussion.

Is that assumption valid?

You should answer honestly because there are other people watching you here.

[DGUtley]

You are functionally retarded. You are claiming I said things I didn't, you are making unwarranted accusations for no reason other than you disagree with me. I'm afraid I have to dismiss you as hoplessly irrelevant. Have a good night.
NOTICE - Crepitus TB’D for insult by calling someone ‘retarded’ which is also bad faith posting.

[Peter1469]

Don't forget the damn Never-trumper RINO pigs.


I'm not going to forget them.

The never Trumpers were mostly NEOCONS.

[MisterVeritis]

No one is required to end their businesses because they are elected to an office.

Hillary didn't stop selling her favors just because she carpet-bagged a Senate seat, nor did she stop when she was given the Secretary of State fire-sale position.
Right. She was not selling goods and services so much as she was selling herself. Of course, she was selling the promise of future access to a President of the United States. I have heard there are not many buyers for her promises, lately. I could be wrong. I often am.

[MisterVeritis]

SCOTUS also gave slavery it's blessing back then. I would hope that both the highest court and the body of law has advanced beyond those more primitive times.
I have not looked at that decision lately. Was that the fugitive slave decision? If so it would appear it was decided correctly. If there is enough interest I will look it up and read the arguments and the opinions.

[DGUtley]

The Emoluments Clause? You realize that there's no settled law that it actually applies to the President, right? Constitutional Scholars cannot even agree that POTUS is an office of "Trust or Profit" under the USC. Then, if they even have a cause of action constitutionally (remember, the scholars cannot agree -- nor has any Court ever agreed before), there's no provision that a violation of same is a 'high crime or misdemeanor" which rules out impeachment.

I will wait for the appeal but will plan my pay-backs (7-fold) for the next D WH occupant. You know what they say - they are a Pelosi.

[Dr. Who]

The Emoluments Clause? You realize that there's no settled law that it actually applies to the President, right? Constitutional Scholars cannot even agree that POTUS is an office of "Trust or Profit" under the USC. Then, if they even have a cause of action constitutionally (remember, the scholars cannot agree -- nor has any Court ever agreed before), there's no provision that a violation of same is a 'high crime or misdemeanor" which rules out impeachment.

I will wait for the appeal but will plan my pay-backs (7-fold) for the next D WH occupant. You know what they say - they are a Pelosi.


The focus of the Emoluments Clauses is the legal notion of conflict of interest, whether that be the inherent conflict of interest on the part of federal officeholders in taking gifts or titles from foreign nations/leaders which might constitute buying favors or represent a divided loyalty or alternatively in using or in using their office to personally profit from federal or state governments (over and above the salary paid to the officeholder). The only issue which should be before the court is whether the interest of the officeholder conflicted with those of the office and whether the evidence demonstrates that officeholder violated the prohibition.

As to whether or not it applies to the President - is the President not a federal officeholder? Is it not the highest office in the land?

I'm afraid Constitutional Scholars often get mired in the minutia of language and miss the forest for the trees. The USC does not define the term "office of profit", but nevertheless uses that term along with offices of honor and trust in Article I, section 3, clause 7; Article I, section 9, clause 8 and Article II, section 1, clause 2. The term "office of profit" comes from the British "office of profit under the crown" which were considered profitable public offices, the holders of which were ineligible to serve as members of Parliament. In short, any unelected person on the federal government payroll works for an office of profit. Offices of honor are honorary offices with no regular duties, salary, or other emoluments and offices of trust are elected positions and constitutionally created offices.

In the circumstances "office of profit" is inapplicable as the President is not an unelected government employee, nor does he occupy an honorary position. Only "office of trust" is applicable. How can that not apply to the office held by the President?

[Peter1469]

The focus of the Emoluments Clauses is the legal notion of conflict of interest, whether that be the inherent conflict of interest on the part of federal officeholders in taking gifts or titles from foreign nations/leaders which might constitute buying favors or represent a divided loyalty or alternatively in using or in using their office to personally profit from federal or state governments (over and above the salary paid to the officeholder). The only issue which should be before the court is whether the interest of the officeholder conflicted with those of the office and whether the evidence demonstrates that officeholder violated the prohibition.

As to whether or not it applies to the President - is the President not a federal officeholder? Is it not the highest office in the land?

I'm afraid Constitutional Scholars often get mired in the minutia of language and miss the forest for the trees. The USC does not define the term "office of profit", but nevertheless uses that term along with offices of honor and trust in Article I, section 3, clause 7; Article I, section 9, clause 8 and Article II, section 1, clause 2. The term "office of profit" comes from the British "office of profit under the crown" which were considered profitable public offices, the holders of which were ineligible to serve as members of Parliament. In short, any unelected person on the federal government payroll works for an office of profit. Offices of honor are honorary offices with no regular duties, salary, or other emoluments and offices of trust are elected positions and constitutionally created offices.

In the circumstances "office of profit" is inapplicable as the President is not an unelected government employee, nor does he occupy an honorary position. Only "office of trust" is applicable. How can that not apply to the office held by the President?
Yet our first president did the same thing Trump is doing. You would think our Founding generation had a good idea what the Emoluments Clause meant.

[Peter1469]

George Washington was the first president to stay in the real estate business (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/04/14/george-washington-was-the-first-president-to-stay-in-the-real-estate-business/?utm_term=.ee2abae1acb0)


In today’s Wall Street Journal, I have an op-ed (https://www.wsj.com/articles/did-george-washington-take-emoluments-1492123033), “Did George Washington Take ‘Emoluments’ “? It examines the first president’s extensive and hands-on business affairs to get a better handle on the nature of constitutionally prohibited “foreign emoluments. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/what-is-the-emoluments-clause-does-it-apply-to-president-trump/2017/01/23/12aa7808-e185-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.0836f45e09e2)”

Here’s an excerpt (article requires a subscription):



Mr. Trump is not the first president to have business dealings with foreigners. That was actually George Washington, whose conduct in office has been a model for every president.


By the 1790s, Washington was wealthy primarily because of real estate — renting and selling his vast holdings. As with Mr. Trump’s hotels, Washington’s renters or purchasers could include foreigners.


The president received constant reports from his nephew and subsequent managers and wrote to them at least monthly… This belies the notion that the Constitution limits a president’s management of, or benefit from, his existing business ventures.

***
One letter written by Washington deserves great attention in the current debate. On Dec. 12, 1793, Washington wrote to Arthur Young, an officer of the U.K. Board of Agriculture, an entity newly created and funded by Parliament at the initiative of William Pitt. The president asked for Young’s help in renting out his Mount Vernon lands to secure an income for his retirement. Not finding customers in America, he wondered if Young, with his agricultural connections, could find and organize some would-be farmers in his home country and send them over.


The op-ed is drawn from a larger research project on Washington’s business interests and the prohibition on emoluments. Here, I’ll take the space to address possible limitations to this evidence. In particular, Washington insisted that his December 1793 letter to Young be kept private. (Prof. Seth Barrett Tillman has presented (http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065&context=nulr_online) strong evidence of the allowance of business dealings from Washington’s public conduct (http://reformclub.blogspot.ie/2017/03/business-transactions-for-value-are-not.html) in relation to the domestic emoluments clause.) He suggested that “in the opinion of others, there [may] be impropriety” in his solicitation but makes clear that he himself disagreed with that position.


In the context of Washington’s correspondence with Young, the “impropriety” is almost surely not constitutional in nature. Young and Washington had long exchanged agricultural observations about their respective countries. The former had repeatedly requested that he might reprint some of Washington’s decidedly apolitical musings in a respected series he published, “The Annals of Agriculture.” (Washington was happy to receive copies of the books as gifts, even as president.)


Crucially, even before assuming the presidency, Washington vehemently insisted on keeping their rather banal exchanges strictly private. Given the great pains he took with his reputation, he explained, he would be chagrined of something “however distant itself from impropriety” would nonetheless “give occasion for one officious tongue to use my name with indelicacy.”


While he does not elaborate on the nature of the “impropriety,” it seems that they were about political optics, rather than constitutional constraint. Indeed, in hisDecember 1793 letter (https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-14-02-0337#GEWN-05-14-02-0337-fn-0001), the president asked Young himself — hardly an expert on the U.S. Constitution — whether he saw anything untoward about it. The sensitivity seemed to be about the U.S. president seeking to induce migration from a foreign country. Thus Young replied (https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-16-02-0146) that Washington’s discretion was “founded in great delicacy of sentiment, but there is nothing in the laws of England … which can occasion the least hesitation on the subject.”


Whether Washington was right or wrong in directly propositioning an official of a foreign semi-governmental agency to help him in a business venture thus remains a question. But it does suggest that Trump, with his business practices — far more greatly mediated and attenuated, through both managers and publicly traded entities — is in good company, down to the “officious tongues.”

[Sergeant Gleed]

I have not looked at that decision lately. Was that the fugitive slave decision? If so it would appear it was decided correctly. If there is enough interest I will look it up and read the arguments and the opinions.

There were many. The most infamous was Dred Scot.


Edit:
Oh. Pardon me. I didn't realize who I was responding to. My bad.

[Sergeant Gleed]

Yet our first president did the same thing Trump is doing. You would think our Founding generation had a good idea what the Emoluments Clause meant.


You're talking to people who are gullible enough to believe their Owners when new "rights" are discovered in the Constitution sometimes more than two centuries after it's ratification.

Suddenly, "health care" is a right that must be funded by taxpayers.

Abortion, which every physician of the 18th century took an oath to never perform, emanating from mysterious unseen penumbras of clearly worded Amendments that don't mention it.

As Albore told them, and they took to heart, "what is up, is down, what is mine is mine and what it yours is mine, too".

They're dumb enough to buy all that nonsense.

One of their Plantation Overseers told them, "You must emolument today" and they're doing it! Even if they're too stupid to know what it is. (Hint: It's not a verb, peeps.)

[Dr. Who]

Yet our first president did the same thing Trump is doing. You would think our Founding generation had a good idea what the Emoluments Clause meant.
I can find no evidence that Washington was using his real estate properties to profit from government events as compared to Trump hosting Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe and Chinese President Xi Jinping at Mar-a-Lago, instead of at the U.S. government’s presidential retreat, Camp David; using his platform as President to advertise his hotels and golf clubs nor were foreign lobbyists from various nations spending lavish amounts of money at Washinton's real estate holdings, hoping to curry US government favor. Furthermore, it would also appear that even U.S., state and local officials also are trying to gain favor with the Trump family by staying at the Trump International in D.C.

Owning real estate is not the issue. The issue is being seen as using the office of President for monetary gain. Were his real estate holdings commercial office buildings, parking lots and amusment parks, there would be no issue. However, they are primarily hotels and golf clubs which directly benefit from Trump's position as President, particularly when he fails to avoid mixing government business with his personal business.

[MisterVeritis]

There were many. The most infamous was Dred Scot.
Edit:
Oh. Pardon me. I didn't realize who I was responding to. My bad.
If there are many wouldn't it be useful to identify the one in question in this thread? If the poster intended Dred Scott why not identify it? If it involved the fugitive slave why not identify it as well?

Dr. Who says the SCOTUS gave slavery its blessing. Perhaps. Depending on the case they simply sided with the Constitution.

[MisterVeritis]

I can find no evidence that Washington was using his real estate properties to profit from government events as compared to Trump hosting Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe and Chinese President Xi Jinping at Mar-a-Lago, instead of at the U.S. government’s presidential retreat, Camp David; using his platform as President to advertise his hotels and golf clubs nor were foreign lobbyists from various nations spending lavish amounts of money at Washinton's real estate holdings, hoping to curry US government favor. Furthermore, it would also appear that even U.S., state and local officials also are trying to gain favor with the Trump family by staying at the Trump International in D.C.

Owning real estate is not the issue. The issue is being seen as using the office of President for monetary gain. Were his real estate holdings commercial office buildings, parking lots and amusment parks, there would be no issue. However, they are primarily hotels and golf clubs which directly benefit from Trump's position as President, particularly when he fails to avoid mixing government business with his personal business.
Article 2 makes no such soft arguments. The President gets paid once. The US and individual states may not add to his pay.

"The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased 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."

[Dr. Who]

Article 2 makes no such soft arguments. The President gets paid once. The US and individual states may not add to his pay.

"The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased 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."
Exactly. However, when Mar a Lago is paid from government funds for hosting foreign leaders at whatever the going rate is for their no doubt very expensive accommodations, there is a profit which accrues to Donald Trump - paid by the government. That is an emolument. Furthermore, when officials and lobbyists from Saudi Arabia spend $270,000 in rooms, catering and parking fees at the Trump’s Washington, D.C., hotel, that might not pass the other emoluments sniff test.

[Peter1469]

I can find no evidence that Washington was using his real estate properties to profit from government events as compared to Trump hosting Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe and Chinese President Xi Jinping at Mar-a-Lago, instead of at the U.S. government’s presidential retreat, Camp David; using his platform as President to advertise his hotels and golf clubs nor were foreign lobbyists from various nations spending lavish amounts of money at Washinton's real estate holdings, hoping to curry US government favor. Furthermore, it would also appear that even U.S., state and local officials also are trying to gain favor with the Trump family by staying at the Trump International in D.C.

Owning real estate is not the issue. The issue is being seen as using the office of President for monetary gain. Were his real estate holdings commercial office buildings, parking lots and amusment parks, there would be no issue. However, they are primarily hotels and golf clubs which directly benefit from Trump's position as President, particularly when he fails to avoid mixing government business with his personal business.
Read the article following the quote that you are responding too.

[Peter1469]

The issue has never really been litigated. But look at the current and future SCOTUS. I am confident they will rule as I state the law.

[MisterVeritis]

Exactly. However, when Mar a Lago is paid from government funds for hosting foreign leaders at whatever the going rate is for their no doubt very expensive accommodations, there is a profit which accrues to Donald Trump - paid by the government. That is an emolument. Furthermore, when officials and lobbyists from Saudi Arabia spend $270,000 in rooms, catering and parking fees at the Trump’s Washington, D.C., hotel, that might not pass the other emoluments sniff test.
No. It isn't.

The "sniff" test is a simple one. Did the US add to the President's salary? Yes or no? Did an individual State add to the President's salary? Yes or no?

[Dr. Who]

No. It isn't.

The "sniff" test is a simple one. Did the US add to the President's salary? Yes or no? Did an individual State add to the President's salary? Yes or no?
Yes. The clause does not use the word salary, it uses the word compensation. If the President directs a state activity to take place at his place of business, from which he earns income off profits, the state has increased his compensation. IOW, but for this President owning Mar a Lago and dictating that the state visitors be hosted there rather than at government facility, he would not have earned that income.

If the concept of conflict of interest eludes the Trump faithful there is nothing that I can say that will make one iota of difference. However, virtually every constitution in the western world has rules regarding such conflict of interest (although generally in more modern language) and for good reason.

[Captdon]

I have not looked at that decision lately. Was that the fugitive slave decision? If so it would appear it was decided correctly. If there is enough interest I will look it up and read the arguments and the opinions.


Dred Scott Decision:Dred Scott was a slave whose owner, an army doctor, had spent time in Illinois (https://www.history.com/topics/us-states/illinois), a free state, and Wisconsin (https://www.history.com/topics/us-states/wisconsin), a free territory at the time of Scott’s residence. The Supreme Court was stacked in favor of the slave states. Five of the nine justices were from the South while another, Robert Grier of Pennsylvania (https://www.history.com/topics/us-states/pennsylvania), was staunchly pro-slavery. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote the majority decision, which was issued on March 6, 1857. The court held that Scott was not free based on his residence in either Illinois or Wisconsin because he was not considered a person under the U.S. Constitution–in the opinion of the justices, black people were not considered citizens when the Constitution (https://www.history.com/topics/constitution) was drafted in 1787. According to Taney, Dred Scott was the property of his owner, and property could not be taken from a person without due process of law.
From the internet.


The problem this caused was the idea that slavery was legal everywhere. There was nothing to back that up except racism.

[Dr. Who]

Read the article following the quote that you are responding too.

I read it before you posted it. If Trump only owned commercial and residential buildings, he would be in the same position as Washington, however, he owns hotels and golf clubs. The very nature of their occupancy and use makes them amenable to conflict of interest and "emoluments".

[Sergeant Gleed]

If there are many wouldn't it be useful to identify the one in question in this thread? If the poster intended Dred Scott why not identify it? If it involved the fugitive slave why not identify it as well?

Dr. Who says the SCOTUS gave slavery its blessing. Perhaps. Depending on the case they simply sided with the Constitution.


All it takes is one, and historically that one is considered to be the Dred Scot decision which declared that slaves are property and that as property slaves have no personhood even when they are moved, as property, to states that do not permit the ownership of persons.

That, as I recall, set the foundations for the Fugitive Slave Act with the North flatly refused to obey, to the great annoyance and fury of the Democrats owning property that could #walkaway from the (real) plantations of the time.

It set the stage, also, for Uncle Tom's Cabin, by Harriet Beecher Stowe, a story generations of subsequent plantation dwellers refuse to understand and aren't intelligent enough to realize that Uncle Tom was the #resist of the era.

[Sergeant Gleed]

I read it before you posted it. If Trump only owned commercial and residential buildings, he would be in the same position as Washington, however, he owns hotels and golf clubs. The very nature of their occupancy and use makes them amenable to conflict of interest and "emoluments".


People who own sporting gear might own golf clubs.

People who own large tracts of commercial real estate might own country clubs.

That help ya any?

[Peter1469]

I read it before you posted it. If Trump only owned commercial and residential buildings, he would be in the same position as Washington, however, he owns hotels and golf clubs. The very nature of their occupancy and use makes them amenable to conflict of interest and "emoluments".
That is a ridiculous argument.

SCTOUS will likely not even include it in it future majority opinion.

[stjames1_53]

The focus of the Emoluments Clauses is the legal notion of conflict of interest, whether that be the inherent conflict of interest on the part of federal officeholders in taking gifts or titles from foreign nations/leaders which might constitute buying favors or represent a divided loyalty or alternatively in using or in using their office to personally profit from federal or state governments (over and above the salary paid to the officeholder). The only issue which should be before the court is whether the interest of the officeholder conflicted with those of the office and whether the evidence demonstrates that officeholder violated the prohibition.

As to whether or not it applies to the President - is the President not a federal officeholder? Is it not the highest office in the land?

I'm afraid Constitutional Scholars often get mired in the minutia of language and miss the forest for the trees. The USC does not define the term "office of profit", but nevertheless uses that term along with offices of honor and trust in Article I, section 3, clause 7; Article I, section 9, clause 8 and Article II, section 1, clause 2. The term "office of profit" comes from the British "office of profit under the crown" which were considered profitable public offices, the holders of which were ineligible to serve as members of Parliament. In short, any unelected person on the federal government payroll works for an office of profit. Offices of honor are honorary offices with no regular duties, salary, or other emoluments and offices of trust are elected positions and constitutionally created offices.

In the circumstances "office of profit" is inapplicable as the President is not an unelected government employee, nor does he occupy an honorary position. Only "office of trust" is applicable. How can that not apply to the office held by the President?

ok, what brought this up..............again?
He has signed all the papers to clear his tracks. This is proven science. So, if I understand you, correctly, you want a shot at changing the law, after the fact, and charge Trump, after the fact.
Do you think Mueller has failed to examine this at every turn since he started investigating the so-called collusion thing? Do you not believe that Mueller wouldn't hesitate to approach Trump if he could prove it?
There are more eyes on Trump than just yours, people who are paid vast sums of money to try and catch him doing something wrong.........just waiting like vultures.
So, no. There's been no violation under the Clause. You cannot change rowers in a one man boat.

[Dr. Who]

That is a ridiculous argument.

SCTOUS will likely not even include it in it future majority opinion.
It is the use and occupancy of his businesses that is inviting questions. Were they other sorts of real estate enterprise, they would not be useful for state functions, nor would they be useful for foreign or even individual US State agents like Maine Governor Paul LePage and his staff to patronize while visiting DC. No one would be concerned that the price of a Mar a Lago membership has doubled to $200K, since Trump took office or that his hotels have become a magnet for all manner of individuals seeking influence within his administration.

[stjames1_53]

It is the use and occupancy of his businesses that is inviting questions. Were they other sorts of real estate enterprise, they would not be useful for state functions, nor would they be useful for foreign or even individual US State agents like Maine Governor Paul LePage and his staff to patronize while visiting DC. No one would be concerned that the price of a Mar a Lago membership has doubled to $200K, since Trump took office or that his hotels have become a magnet for all manner of individuals seeking influence within his administration.

.......again, if there had been any level of wrongdoing, Mueller would have had Trump's ass out to dry in a Kansas city second. No if's or buts about that.
Trust us, like those fantastic tapes Cohen claimed to have, tis a nothingburger with a slice of disappearing guilty cheese.

[DGUtley]

The focus of the Emoluments Clauses is the legal notion of conflict of interest, whether that be the inherent conflict of interest on the part of federal officeholders in taking gifts or titles from foreign nations/leaders which might constitute buying favors or represent a divided loyalty or alternatively in using or in using their office to personally profit from federal or state governments (over and above the salary paid to the officeholder). The only issue which should be before the court is whether the interest of the officeholder conflicted with those of the office and whether the evidence demonstrates that officeholder violated the prohibition.

As to whether or not it applies to the President - is the President not a federal officeholder? Is it not the highest office in the land?

I'm afraid Constitutional Scholars often get mired in the minutia of language and miss the forest for the trees. The USC does not define the term "office of profit", but nevertheless uses that term along with offices of honor and trust in Article I, section 3, clause 7; Article I, section 9, clause 8 and Article II, section 1, clause 2. The term "office of profit" comes from the British "office of profit under the crown" which were considered profitable public offices, the holders of which were ineligible to serve as members of Parliament. In short, any unelected person on the federal government payroll works for an office of profit. Offices of honor are honorary offices with no regular duties, salary, or other emoluments and offices of trust are elected positions and constitutionally created offices.

In the circumstances "office of profit" is inapplicable as the President is not an unelected government employee, nor does he occupy an honorary position. Only "office of trust" is applicable. How can that not apply to the office held by the President?

i researched this considerably shortly after it came up. I don’t recall the details but one of the arguments was that the President would not be an “office of trust” for a number of reasons — including that he isn’t an office holder constitutionally. There were a number of reasons. I cannot find my research but probably posted links a year and a half ago, or so.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/09/28/the-emoluments-clauses-litigation-part-3-so-what-if-the-president-does-not-hold-office-under-the-united-states/

https://conlaw.jotwell.com/constitutional-officers-a-very-close-reading/

I may be 100% wrong or right — None of these have been tested and all of our arguments appear to be cases of first impression. I will wait for the appeal.

[Dr. Who]

i researched this considerably shortly after it came up. I don’t recall the details but one of the arguments was that the President would not be an “office of trust” for a number of reasons — including that he isn’t an office holder constitutionally. There were a number of reasons. I cannot find my research but probably posted links a year and a half ago, or so.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/09/28/the-emoluments-clauses-litigation-part-3-so-what-if-the-president-does-not-hold-office-under-the-united-states/

https://conlaw.jotwell.com/constitutional-officers-a-very-close-reading/

I may be 100% wrong or right — None of these have been tested and all of our arguments appear to be cases of first impression. I will wait for the appeal.
It appears to me that the Constitution has internal inconsistencies that should have been properly addressed and clarified long ago. Any decision by SCOTUS that declares the President unbound by the emoluments clauses leaves the nation open to corruption by the occupier of the highest office of the land. It has been fortunate indeed that later Presidents have assumed that they were bound by the emoluments clauses and the logic that they should be so bound.

[DGUtley]

It appears to me that the Constitution has internal inconsistencies that should have been properly addressed and clarified long ago. Any decision by SCOTUS that declares the President unbound by the emoluments clauses leaves the nation open to corruption by the occupier of the highest office of the land. It has been fortunate indeed that later Presidents have assumed that they were bound by the emoluments clauses and the logic that they should be so bound.

I agree that there are some inconsistencies in the USC, intentional or otherwise. There is always a way to fix it. Again, I will wait for the appeals.

[Safety]

Like I’ve said before, those defending the argument that a president that is profiting from his presidency is not a violation of the emoluments clause, are doing so with great vigor because of the person that is holding the office at the moment. Everyone with an IQ above room temperature would know how this argument by the forum’s lawyers would go if this was Obama or Clinton we were discussing.

You can have a heartache and upset stomach over my words, but there is no escaping that little nugget of facts.

[stjames1_53]

I agree that there are some inconsistencies in the USC, intentional or otherwise. There is always a way to fix it. Again, I will wait for the appeals.

again, trust me that if there were ANY problems with Trump and his "alleged profits," Mueller would have been all over this and he would have brought Trump into the light by now.
Change the law, but in the mean time, you cannot charge Trump retroactively once the law has been changed, and Mueller, again, would have brought the appropriate level of accusations against Trump. I'd bet he looks into this daily, maybe twice, and has found nothing.

[DGUtley]

Like I’ve said before, those defending the argument that a president that is profiting from his presidency is not a violation of the emoluments clause, are doing so with great vigor because of the person that is holding the office at the moment. Everyone with an IQ above room temperature would know how this argument by the forum’s lawyers would go if this was Obama or Clinton we were discussing. You can have a heartache and upset stomach over my words, but there is no escaping that little nugget of facts.

Your "little nugget of facts" is actually opinion. I defend the law not the person -- and fully admit that I may be wrong on the law, although there's no precedent for it. I take it you didn't even read the discussion. If you had, you wouldn't have made the statement that you did. Some of us, not you mind you -- but some of us -- analyze things regardless of who the players are.

[Safety]

Your "little nugget of facts" is actually opinion. I defend the law not the person -- and fully admit that I may be wrong on the law, although there's no precedent for it. I take it you didn't even read the discussion. If you had, you wouldn't have made the statement that you did. Some of us, not you mind you -- but some of us -- analyze things regardless of who the players are.

Yes, some of the people here are capable of analyzing things irregardless of whom the players are, and it’s nice that you speak so highly of Dr. Who, because she is the only one that fits your narrative.

This is why I have no issues with lawyers having bias, it’s when they become judges with bias, but pretend they don’t, that’s the issue...oh look, another opinion of mine.

[hanger4]

Question, are these dignitaries/diplomats being forced to stay at Trump Inc. properties ??

[Peter1469]

The first Emolument Clause suit was brought by the owners of a high end restaurant who are losing business to the restaurant at Trump Hotel. Is it a silly claim for DC- the fortunes of high end restaurants have always ebbed and flowed with the party in power especially with regards to people coming to town who have government business. So far as locals go- to include lobbyists, Congress and its staff, their list of "acceptable" restaurants remains fairly constant.

As I have said before, our Founders never intended to keep businessmen out of office. Quite to the contrary, they wanted them to serve in government for a short time and go back to their civilian lives. Over time we have turned that on its head and seem to prefer the career politician to the civic minded civilian.

[DGUtley]

Yes, some of the people here are capable of analyzing things irregardless of whom the players are, and it’s nice that you speak so highly of @Dr. Who (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=2702), because she is the only one that fits your narrative.

This is why I have no issues with lawyers having bias, it’s when they become judges with bias, but pretend they don’t, that’s the issue...oh look, another opinion of mine.

You speak highly of Dr. Who because she agrees with you. If she didn’t, you would level the same accusations at her that you routinely level at me.

[Dr. Who]

The first Emolument Clause suit was brought by the owners of a high end restaurant who are losing business to the restaurant at Trump Hotel. Is it a silly claim for DC- the fortunes of high end restaurants have always ebbed and flowed with the party in power especially with regards to people coming to town who have government business. So far as locals go- to include lobbyists, Congress and its staff, their list of "acceptable" restaurants remains fairly constant.

As I have said before, our Founders never intended to keep businessmen out of office. Quite to the contrary, they wanted them to serve in government for a short time and go back to their civilian lives. Over time we have turned that on its head and seem to prefer the career politician to the civic minded civilian.
I agree that there would be no reason to exclude businessmen and wealthy land owners from holding office, including that of President. However, candidates for President have for the most part always come from those who have served in Congress or the Senate, since those businessmen and wealthy land owners have always had a personal stake in the direction of government and thus often endeavored to serve in those capacities.

The question that I think should be asked with respect to both emoluments clauses is why the drafters of the Constitution would want to exclude the office of President from what is essentially anti-conflict of interest rules?

[Peter1469]

I agree that there would be no reason to exclude businessmen and wealthy land owners from holding office, including that of President. However, candidates for President have for the most part always come from those who have served in Congress or the Senate, since those businessmen and wealthy land owners have always had a personal stake in the direction of government and thus often endeavored to serve in those capacities.

The question that I think should be asked with respect to both emoluments clauses is why the drafters of the Constitution would want to exclude the office of President from what is essentially anti-conflict of interest rules?
He is not excluded- it does not apply here as I have explained. (It is untested, but that will be the final result with this Court.)

[MisterVeritis]

It appears to me that the Constitution has internal inconsistencies that should have been properly addressed and clarified long ago. Any decision by SCOTUS that declares the President unbound by the emoluments clauses leaves the nation open to corruption by the occupier of the highest office of the land. It has been fortunate indeed that later Presidents have assumed that they were bound by the emoluments clauses and the logic that they should be so bound.
The President is bound by Article 2. The Congress is bound by Article 1.

[MisterVeritis]

Like I’ve said before, those defending the argument that a president that is profiting from his presidency is not a violation of the emoluments clause, are doing so with great vigor because of the person that is holding the office at the moment. Everyone with an IQ above room temperature would know how this argument by the forum’s lawyers would go if this was Obama or Clinton we were discussing.

You can have a heartache and upset stomach over my words, but there is no escaping that little nugget of facts.
Neither Obama nor BJ Clinton had private businesses, did they?

[MisterVeritis]

Yes. The clause does not use the word salary, it uses the word compensation. If the President directs a state activity to take place at his place of business, from which he earns income off profits, the state has increased his compensation. IOW, but for this President owning Mar a Lago and dictating that the state visitors be hosted there rather than at government facility, he would not have earned that income.
That is incorrect. The State did business for which the State paid the going rate.


If the concept of conflict of interest eludes the Trump faithful there is nothing that I can say that will make one iota of difference. However, virtually every constitution in the western world has rules regarding such conflict of interest (although generally in more modern language) and for good reason.
It would help if now and then your arguments were true, and right. Unfortunately, they seldom are when President Trump is involved in the discussion.

[MisterVeritis]

Dred Scott Decision:Dred Scott was a slave whose owner, an army doctor, had spent time in Illinois (https://www.history.com/topics/us-states/illinois), a free state, and Wisconsin (https://www.history.com/topics/us-states/wisconsin), a free territory at the time of Scott’s residence. The Supreme Court was stacked in favor of the slave states. Five of the nine justices were from the South while another, Robert Grier of Pennsylvania (https://www.history.com/topics/us-states/pennsylvania), was staunchly pro-slavery. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote the majority decision, which was issued on March 6, 1857. The court held that Scott was not free based on his residence in either Illinois or Wisconsin because he was not considered a person under the U.S. Constitution–in the opinion of the justices, black people were not considered citizens when the Constitution (https://www.history.com/topics/constitution) was drafted in 1787. According to Taney, Dred Scott was the property of his owner, and property could not be taken from a person without due process of law.
From the internet.


The problem this caused was the idea that slavery was legal everywhere. There was nothing to back that up except racism.
Slavery was legal everywhere. Racism had nothing to do with it.

[MisterVeritis]

Change the law, but in the mean time, you cannot charge Trump retroactively once the law has been changed, and Mueller, again, would have brought the appropriate level of accusations against Trump. I'd bet he looks into this daily, maybe twice, and has found nothing.
Changing the Constitution used to require an amendment.

[MisterVeritis]

I agree that there would be no reason to exclude businessmen and wealthy land owners from holding office, including that of President. However, candidates for President have for the most part always come from those who have served in Congress or the Senate, since those businessmen and wealthy land owners have always had a personal stake in the direction of government and thus often endeavored to serve in those capacities.

The question that I think should be asked with respect to both emoluments clauses is why the drafters of the Constitution would want to exclude the office of President from what is essentially anti-conflict of interest rules?
See Article 2. It contains all the relevant points.

[stjames1_53]

Slavery was legal everywhere. Racism had nothing to do with it.

and is still practiced today, primarily in the ME.............

[stjames1_53]

Changing the Constitution used to require an amendment.

Ah know.............and that ain't gonna happen

[Dr. Who]

He is not excluded- it does not apply here as I have explained. (It is untested, but that will be the final result with this Court.)
It is untested, however there is some debate as to whether they apply.

I understand that it would not apply in the case of the restaurant losing business, however where Mar a Lago is concerned, I don't think it's as clear cut.

Ultimately ethical questions arise when the President opens a DC hotel just as he is taking office and while expected to lose money in its first year, it makes a healthy profit because of all of the foreign dignitaries, lobbyists, and Republican lawmakers patronizing the hotel in hopes of currying favor with Trump. As I said previously, it's the nature of his businesses that presents the ethical problem. Case in point, Jimmy Carter put his peanut farm into a blind trust to avoid such ethical conundrums and it's not like he would have had to worry about foreign interests or lobbyists hanging out at his farm and attempting to influence the President. In fact, "since the 1970s every president until Mr. Trump placed his assets other than “plain vanilla holdings” (personal residences, cash, treasury notes, shares in diversified mutual funds, etc.) in a “blind trust” that hid their contents from him and was administered by an independent trustee. They did so because they understood that even the appearance of decisions tainted by financial self-interest undermines the president’s legitimacy (https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/strengthening-presidential-ethics-law)."

It also isn't as if Trump didn't consider the possibility of monetary gain from pursuing the Oval Office. In a 2000 interview with Fortune (http://fortune.com/2000/04/03/what-does-donald-trump-really-want/) he suggested: “It’s very possible that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it.” In fact many of his actions since taking office give every impression that he is monetizing (https://www.economist.com/business/2017/07/20/how-donald-trump-is-monetising-his-presidency) his Presidency, whether that be through using his own hospitality industry venues for government business or by choosing to unduly patronize events held at his own properties in his capacity as POTUS. He may well be legally exempt from these ethical transgressions, but the optics are poor and reflect badly on the character of the President.

[stjames1_53]

It is untested, however there is some debate as to whether they apply.

I understand that it would not apply in the case of the restaurant losing business, however where Mar a Lago is concerned, I don't think it's as clear cut.

Ultimately ethical questions arise when the President opens a DC hotel just as he is taking office and while expected to lose money in its first year, it makes a healthy profit because of all of the foreign dignitaries, lobbyists, and Republican lawmakers patronizing the hotel in hopes of currying favor with Trump. As I said previously, it's the nature of his businesses that presents the ethical problem. Case in point, Jimmy Carter put his peanut farm into a blind trust to avoid such ethical conundrums and it's not like he would have had to worry about foreign interests or lobbyists hanging out at his farm and attempting to influence the President. In fact, "since the 1970s every president until Mr. Trump placed his assets other than “plain vanilla holdings” (personal residences, cash, treasury notes, shares in diversified mutual funds, etc.) in a “blind trust” that hid their contents from him and was administered by an independent trustee. They did so because they understood that even the appearance of decisions tainted by financial self-interest undermines the president’s legitimacy (https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/strengthening-presidential-ethics-law)."

It also isn't as if Trump didn't consider the possibility of monetary gain from pursuing the Oval Office. In a 2000 interview with Fortune (http://fortune.com/2000/04/03/what-does-donald-trump-really-want/) he suggested: “It’s very possible that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it.” In fact many of his actions since taking office give every impression that he is monetizing (https://www.economist.com/business/2017/07/20/how-donald-trump-is-monetising-his-presidency) his Presidency, whether that be through using his own hospitality industry venues for government business or by choosing to unduly patronize events held at his own properties in his capacity as POTUS. He may well be legally exempt from these ethical transgressions, but the optics are poor and reflect badly on the character of the President.

Trump turned over control of his businesses when he signed his agreement. You had no problem with Obama netting 15 mill on his book while he was in office, but you have a problem with Trump's name appearing on different buildings..................

[Dr. Who]

Trump turned over control of his businesses when he signed his agreement. You had no problem with Obama netting 15 mill on his book while he was in office, but you have a problem with Trump's name appearing on different buildings..................
I doubt that book sales could be in any way interpreted as influence peddling or a conflict of government and private interests, nor did it ever appear that any foreign nation was buying vast amounts of his books in order to curry favor. It is not the independent earning of money while in office that is at issue, it is whether the President is potentially being bribed or co-opted by foreign governments by receiving emoluments or whether the President is using the office to profit from the public purse, i.e. federal or states government or in fact to be bribed by the latter in exchange for favors.

[MisterVeritis]

I doubt that book sales could be in any way interpreted as influence peddling or a conflict of government and private interests, nor did it ever appear that any foreign nation was buying vast amounts of his books in order to curry favor. It is not the independent earning of money while in office that is at issue, it is whether the President is potentially being bribed or co-opted by foreign governments by receiving emoluments or whether the President is using the office to profit from the public purse, i.e. federal or states government or in fact to be bribed by the latter in exchange for favors.
If President Trump wanted to earn another billion dollars he would have stayed in the private sector.

[stjames1_53]

I doubt that book sales could be in any way interpreted as influence peddling or a conflict of government and private interests, nor did it ever appear that any foreign nation was buying vast amounts of his books in order to curry favor. It is not the independent earning of money while in office that is at issue, it is whether the President is potentially being bribed or co-opted by foreign governments by receiving emoluments or whether the President is using the office to profit from the public purse, i.e. federal or states government or in fact to be bribed by the latter in exchange for favors.
now, that's a mouthful of nothing....ten lb. bag of supposition is still supposition.

who is bribing who? Don't you think he would have been caught by Mueller by now?
Is Mueller all of a sudden inept?

[stjames1_53]

If President Trump wanted to earn another billion dollars he would have stayed in the private sector.

I think she's confusing Hillary with Donald.....................pay to play scheme thing is her area of specialization

[Dr. Who]

now, that's a mouthful of nothing....ten lb. bag of supposition is still supposition.

who is bribing who? Don't you think he would have been caught by Mueller by now?
Is Mueller all of a sudden inept?
I was defining the conflict, not making any specific suppositions. You referred to book sales as a violation of the emoluments clause. It's not - I was explaining why it was not.

[Captdon]

Neither Obama nor BJ Clinton had private businesses, did they?

Doesn't matter to safety.

[Captdon]

Slavery was legal everywhere. Racism had nothing to do with it.

Bullshit. If it was legal everyplace was the Taney decision, not the truth. Most Northern States had outlawed it. Yes, racism had everything to do with it.

Argue with yourself on this. You don't know what you're talking about. You also refuse to learn anything. You and Taney would have been buddies.

[MisterVeritis]

Slavery was legal everywhere. Racism had nothing to do with it.

Bullshit. If it was legal everyplace was the Taney decision, not the truth. Most Northern States had outlawed it. Yes, racism had everything to do with it.
Argue with yourself on this. You don't know what you're talking about. You also refuse to learn anything. You and Taney would have been buddies.
Slavery was legal in the US until the Constitution was amended. Racism had nothing to do with slavery being legal in the US. If slavery was not profitable slavery would not have thrived. It is that simple.

[Safety]

You speak highly of Dr. Who because she agrees with you. If she didn’t, you would level the same accusations at her that you routinely level at me.

No, I speak highly of her because during my entire existence here she is able to objectively argue her positions without resorting to broadbrushing or using the latest meme of the day. I used to have the same admiration for several here that appeared to have the same character, but after witnessing the fall from grace they suffered when they chose to place petty politics above rationality, has left me jaded.

I know no one here personally, so the only insight into their character is what/how they post. If anyone feels like I have unfairly critiqued them, then there are several avenues they can use to rectify the situation...either ignore my posts or pursue inner reflections on what they have posted in the past that may have warranted my thoughts about how I see them as a member.

[Tahuyaman]

Emoluments Case against Trump to Proceed
The motivation here is to paralyze the Trump administration and it pisses them off that he’s not capitulating to them.

These people expected Trump to be out of office within six months and the fact that he’s not is killing them.

What’s worse is how they will react when the day comes that Trump is no longer in office. What’s their plan then? They are setting themselves up to be the party of opposition to everything.

[MisterVeritis]

Emoluments Case against Trump to Proceed

The motivation here is to paralyze the Trump administration and it pisses them off that he’s not capitulating to them.
These people expected Trump to be out of office within six months and the fact that he’s not is killing them.
What’s worse is how they will react when the day comes that Trump is no longer in office. What’s their plan then? They are setting themselves up to be the party of opposition to everything.
I see the people doing this as enemies of America's system of governance. The judges involved should face impeachment but the House of Representatives is filled with cowards.