What is the emolument clause?

[coorslite21]

You see these talking heads on the tube all the time talking this and that.....seeming so smug with thier supposed expertise.......on everything....

 

Lately it is the impeachment of Trump because of his violations of this "Emoluments Clause" in the Constitution.

 

My question is....as it is written.

in the Constitution......what is Trumps crime.....

 

Last night I spent some time reading it....(can be like reading the king james version of the Bible)......You all might want to look at it yourself.....dry, but good.....even learned it is illegal to use any tender other than gold and silver for exchange....hmmm....wonder how that Federal reserve snuck in?

 

Back on track......

 

Again we have the MSM pounding the impeachment drum now on Emoluments....decide for yourself....

 

To make it easier......you will find a summary below.....

 

My take on this is as far as Trump committing an impeachable act due to Emolument violations......another major whiff for the left and the MSM.......wonder what next weeks attempt will be...?

 

https://www.britannica.com/story/what-is-the-emoluments-clause

 

Sorry....no copy and paste....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 23, 2019 by coorslite21

[Shabibilicious]

Imagine that....taking Trump's side over the U.S. Constitution.  Say it ain't so.  Fifth Ave syndrome?...Seems you're advocating for a constitutional amendment or simply believe the constitution is a living document.  

 

GO RV, then BV 

[coorslite21]

33 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

Imagine that....taking Trump's side over the U.S. Constitution.  Say it ain't so.  Fifth Ave syndrome?...Seems you're advocating for a constitutional amendment or simply believe the constitution is a living document.  

 

GO RV, then BV 

 

Typical......I read it myself....and came to my own conclusion......I provided a cliff note link for those interested...

 

Have you read it?

 

If you bother to take the time to do so......you might be less likely to buy into all the garbage the MSM feeds the Country every day....

 

Did you read it?.......are you informed?......or are you content to just parrot the garbage the MSM is feeding you....?

 

CL

[Shabibilicious]

33 minutes ago, coorslite21 said:

 

Typical......I read it myself....and came to my own conclusion......I provided a cliff note link for those interested...

 

Have you read it?

 

If you bother to take the time to do so......you might be less likely to buy into all the garbage the MSM feeds the Country every day....

 

Did you read it?.......are you informed?......or are you content to just parrot the garbage the MSM is feeding you....?

 

CL

 

I have read it and yes, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 seems pretty straight forward to me.  If Trump has not fully divested himself from his company and even one member of a foreign government has stayed a Trump Hotel Washington, Donald will have profited and be in direct violation of said emoluments clause (the "phony" clause as he refers to it).

 

GO RV, then BV

[coorslite21]

38 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

I have read it and yes, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 seems pretty straight forward to me.  If Trump has not fully divested himself from his company and even one member of a foreign government has stayed a Trump Hotel Washington, Donald will have profited and be in direct violation of said emoluments clause (the "phony" clause as he refers to it).

 

GO RV, then BV

 

Trump is not a sole proprietor  of these businesses....there is no way to prove he has personally profited on any foreign stay......

 

The clause isn't phoney....just very vague..

 

These businesses are all corporations.......pretty hard, if not impossible to fin out an individuals profit.....

 

No court would ever prosecute this.....

 

but then again...

 

Impeachment isn't a court of law function......more like a kangaroo court......just like it was with BillyBob...

 

CL

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Theseus]

The problem with your reading of the emoulment clause and the actions of Trump before he was sworn in as President is this which makes the emoulment clause moot

 

Trump hands over business empire to sons

• 12 January 2017

• Share this with Facebook
•  
• Share this with Messenger
•  
• Share this with Twitter
•  
• Share this with Email
•  
• Share

 

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES Image captionDonald Trump and his lawyer Sheri Dillon outlined how his business interests will be managed

US President-elect Donald Trump says he is handing over his business empire to his sons, Donald Jr and Eric.

He told a news conference he had formally given "complete and total" control to them in a bid to avoid conflicts of interest.

Mr Trump's lawyer, Sheri Dillon said the President-elect had "isolated" himself from his businesses.

But the Office of Government Ethics said Mr Trump's plan didn't "meet the standards" of former presidents.

The organisation's director Walter Shaub said the office's primary recommendation was that Mr Trump "divest his conflicting assets".

Conflicts of interest

Speaking at Mr Trump's first news conference since he was elected in November, Ms Dillon explained that all of the Trump Organization's businesses would be transferred to a trust controlled by his sons and the chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, before Mr Trump takes power on 20 January.

"Together, Don, Eric, and Allen will have the authority to manage the Trump Organization and will make decisions for the duration of the presidency without any involvement whatsoever by President-elect Trump," said Ms Dillon, whose firm Morgan, Lewis and Bockius has been instructed by Mr Trump to draw up a structure to keep his business interest searate.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

 

inRead invented by Teads

Ms Dillon added that an ethics adviser would be appointed to the management board of the trust to oversee any potential conflicts of interest.

However, speaking later at the Brookings Institution think tank, Mr Shaub said: "Nothing short of divestiture will resolve these conflicts."

Constructive feedback

"I don't think divestiture is too high a price to pay to be the president of the United States of America," he added.

The Office of Government Ethics is not an enforcement body - it is there to guard against government members being involved in conflicts of interest.

Mr Shaub said: "My hope is that if the Office of Government Ethics can provide some constructive feedback on his plan he may choose to make adjustments that will help him resolve his conflicts of interest."

He said he had been glad in November when Mr Trump tweeted that he wanted to in no way have a conflict of interest with his businesses.

"Unfortunately his current plan can't achieve that goal." he said.

Mr Shaub pointed out that all presidents since 1978 had either established a blind trust, which is run by independent trustees, or limited their investments to non-conflicting assets like diversified mutual funds which are exempt under the conflict of interest law.

"This is not a blind trust, it's not even close, "said Mr Shaub. "The only thing it has in common with a blind trust is the label trust.

"His sons are still running the business and of course he knows what he owns."

Mr Shaub concluded his remarks by saying he was "happy to offer my assistance and the assistance of my staff if he [Mr Trump] decides to adjust his plan."

What conflicts of interest could Donald Trump have?

A list of Trump's potential conflicts

Trump's foreign business entanglements

Turning down deals

Ms Dillon said Mr Trump wanted to be clear that he was not using his presidency for his personal benefit.

No new foreign deals will be made during Mr Trump's presidency, according to Ms Dillon, and domestic deals will be subject to a "rigorous vetting process".

And she said the group has cancelled more than 30 pending deals in recent weeks, in order to avoid potential conflicts of interest.

Earlier in the news conference Mr Trump said he had rejected a $2bn deal in Dubai last weekend, demonstrating he was putting his business activities behind him.

[Shabibilicious]

April 3, 20178:53 PM ET

PETER OVERBY

 

At a Jan. 11 news conference at Trump Tower on in New York City, President-elect Trump gestures at a stack of folders that he said contained documentation separating him from his businesses. That revocable trust was modified about a month later to let Trump withdraw from it at any time, ProPublica reports.

With an oversized check for $78,333, written to the National Park Service, White House press secretary Sean Spicer on Monday took the first step in fulfilling President Trump's pledge to give away his presidential salary.

Spicer said that the sum equaled Trump's salary for the first quarter of 2017, and that similar charitable contributions will be made each quarter.

But a five-figure check is pocket change compared to the wealth of Trump's business empire — businesses now held by the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, and a newly released document opens new holes in the ethics wall between the president and that wealth.

Trump lawyer Sheri Dillon said, at a January press conference, that the revocable trust would prevent conflicts of interest.

"President Trump wants there to be no doubt in the minds of the American public that he is completely isolating himself from his business interests," she said.

 

This afternoon, however, after Spicer brought out the big check, he had to fend off questions as to just how isolated from the Trump empire the president is.

He said he didn't know of any changes in the trust since January. "I'm not aware there was any change," he said. "Just because a left-wing blog makes the point of something changing doesn't mean it actually happened."

It wasn't a left-wing blog, but rather Pro Publica — a nonpartisan, nonprofit investigative journalism outfit — that first reported the change. A document dated Feb. 17 lets Trump draw out profits and principal from his businesses.

It says the trustees "shall distribute" funds to Trump at his request. It also requires them to send him money when appropriate and for "his maintenance, support or uninsured medical expenses."

Essentially, the president can take money from his businesses whenever he wants.

Spicer dismissed a question of whether Trump already has done so, saying, "The idea that the president is withdrawing money at some point is exactly the purpose of why the trust — a trust — is set up regardless of the individual."

But the purpose of presidential trusts has been to avoid conflicts of interest.

The new document also sheds new light on how the trust works. It's run by two trustees, Donald Trump Jr. and an executive of the Trump Organization, who cannot give the president reports on the trust's finances. But Trump's second son, Eric, can do that as chair of the trust's advisory board, and told Forbes magazine last month that he plans to give his father big-picture financial briefings every quarter or so.

Before Trump, recent presidents sold their assets or put them into a blind trust
when they took office.

"This is a ploy, okay?" said Kathleen Clark, a professor of law and ethics at Washington University in St Louis. "It's a public relations ploy to give people the impression that Trump has done something meaningful about the massive conflicts of interest he faces."

Those conflicts center mainly around his hotels and brands overseas, U.S. environmental laws that affect his golf courses, and his Washington, D.C., hotel.

 

https://www.npr.org/2017/04/03/522511211/change-to-president-trumps-trust-lets-him-tap-business-profits

 

GO RV, then BV

[umbertino]

 

Exactly same  of what had happened here when  good ole Silvio Berlusconi was PM ( a few times, sigh...) and officially had detached himself from his media empire (TV stations, newspapers, movie companies, investment companies and a lot more)  while un-officially  he was all over it...He was tried 88 times for a lot of crimes and found guilty on some....Hint: He has the best Italian lawyer team money can buy

 

 

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

 

 

http://ripeat.org/~qasvminy/library/6665-silvio-berlusconi-and-media-italy-conflicts-interest

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/guardianweekly/story/0,12674,918505,00.html

 

 

https://rsf.org/en/reports/media-conflict-interest-anomaly-italy

Edited October 23, 2019 by umbertino

[coorslite21]

47 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

April 3, 20178:53 PM ET

PETER OVERBY

 

At a Jan. 11 news conference at Trump Tower on in New York City, President-elect Trump gestures at a stack of folders that he said contained documentation separating him from his businesses. That revocable trust was modified about a month later to let Trump withdraw from it at any time, ProPublica reports.

With an oversized check for $78,333, written to the National Park Service, White House press secretary Sean Spicer on Monday took the first step in fulfilling President Trump's pledge to give away his presidential salary.

Spicer said that the sum equaled Trump's salary for the first quarter of 2017, and that similar charitable contributions will be made each quarter.

But a five-figure check is pocket change compared to the wealth of Trump's business empire — businesses now held by the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, and a newly released document opens new holes in the ethics wall between the president and that wealth.

Trump lawyer Sheri Dillon said, at a January press conference, that the revocable trust would prevent conflicts of interest.

"President Trump wants there to be no doubt in the minds of the American public that he is completely isolating himself from his business interests," she said.

 

This afternoon, however, after Spicer brought out the big check, he had to fend off questions as to just how isolated from the Trump empire the president is.

He said he didn't know of any changes in the trust since January. "I'm not aware there was any change," he said. "Just because a left-wing blog makes the point of something changing doesn't mean it actually happened."

It wasn't a left-wing blog, but rather Pro Publica — a nonpartisan, nonprofit investigative journalism outfit — that first reported the change. A document dated Feb. 17 lets Trump draw out profits and principal from his businesses.

It says the trustees "shall distribute" funds to Trump at his request. It also requires them to send him money when appropriate and for "his maintenance, support system" rel="">support or uninsured medical expenses."

Essentially, the president can take money from his businesses whenever he wants.

Spicer dismissed a question of whether Trump already has done so, saying, "The idea that the president is withdrawing money at some point is exactly the purpose of why the trust — a trust — is set up regardless of the individual."

But the purpose of presidential trusts has been to avoid conflicts of interest.

The new document also sheds new light on how the trust works. It's run by two trustees, Donald Trump Jr. and an executive of the Trump Organization, who cannot give the president reports on the trust's finances. But Trump's second son, Eric, can do that as chair of the trust's advisory board, and told Forbes magazine last month that he plans to give his father big-picture financial briefings every quarter or so.

Before Trump, recent presidents sold their assets or put them into a blind trust
when they took office.

"This is a ploy, okay?" said Kathleen Clark, a professor of law and ethics at Washington University in St Louis. "It's a public relations ploy to give people the impression that Trump has done something meaningful about the massive conflicts of interest he faces."

Those conflicts center mainly around his hotels and brands overseas, U.S. environmental laws that affect his golf courses, and his Washington, D.C., hotel.

 

https://www.npr.org/2017/04/03/522511211/change-to-president-trumps-trust-lets-him-tap-business-profits

 

GO RV, then BV

 

So many accusations......so far......zero proof of any wrong doing........"show me the money"....and the proof......and I'll jump right on the train.....

 

Otherwise your just riding that old nag horse of yours....(ie....MSM)....into the ground...    CL

[MyLadiesDaddy]

CL. Do you really think that anyone cares about the claus? This is a deliberate take down of America by inbeded Soviet style communist and the simpletons following them who don't know which bathroom to use. 

[Shabibilicious]

43 minutes ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

CL. Do you really think that anyone cares about the claus? This is a deliberate take down of America by inbeded Soviet style communist and the simpletons following them who don't know which bathroom to use. 

 

It's unamerican and unpatriotic to dismiss portions of the U.S Constitution....a document that supersedes all of us, including Trump.  You, as a vet, should know better...you took an oath to defend that document, not to defend Donald who has stated that clause is "phony".  You should be outraged by his cavalier comment.

 

GO RV, then BV 

[MyLadiesDaddy]

2 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

It's unamerican and unpatriotic to dismiss portions of the U.S Constitution....a document that supersedes all of us, including Trump.  You, as a vet, should know better...you took an oath to defend that document, not to defend Donald who has stated that clause is "phony".  You should be outraged by his cavalier comment.

 

GO RV, then BV 

I'm OUTRAGED by people like you who could give 2 Shiites about the constitution. It only serves the Democratic Socialists Party  [and people like you] when you can use it to create more chaos and destruction of the United States of America.  I'm OUTRAGED at people who think just because they have a military background they can disparage the office of the President of the United States of America and still be Patriotic. 

I'm OUTRAGED by Insane MORONS who think they can hold secret meetings and lie to the SANE American public expecting us to swallow the CRAP their dishing out. But most of all I'm OUTRAGED because MY COUNTRY is being destroyed from within by IDIOTS who hate America and are SO FREAKING STUPID as to think that the sane law abiding people are just gonna sit by and do nothing.  But don't worry BROTHER ,I will bring my OUTRAGE to the battlefield. 

Siempre Fi. 

[Shabibilicious]

23 minutes ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

I'm OUTRAGED by people like you who could give 2 Shiites about the constitution. It only serves the Democratic Socialists Party  [and people like you] when you can use it to create more chaos and destruction of the United States of America.  I'm OUTRAGED at people who think just because they have a military background they can disparage the office of the President of the United States of America and still be Patriotic. 

I'm OUTRAGED by Insane MORONS who think they can hold secret meetings and lie to the SANE American public expecting us to swallow the CRAP their dishing out. But most of all I'm OUTRAGED because MY COUNTRY is being destroyed from within by IDIOTS who hate America and are SO FREAKING STUPID as to think that the sane law abiding people are just gonna sit by and do nothing.  But don't worry BROTHER ,I will bring my OUTRAGE to the battlefield. 

Siempre Fi. 

 

Whoa...you said a whole lot there, even ended it with a threat....Now, how about that pesky U.S. Constitution we swore to defend?   Hooah!

 

GO RV, then BV 

Edited October 23, 2019 by Shabibilicious

[bostonangler]

1 hour ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

CL. Do you really think that anyone cares about the claus? This is a deliberate take down of America by inbeded Soviet style communist and the simpletons following them who don't know which bathroom to use. 

 

The only one I see sucking up to soviet style politics is...… You guessed it, our fearful leader.... And now he bends over for the evil dictator from Turkey... I notice a trend of him sucking up to leaders where he is interested in building motels... Coincidence?

 

B/A

 

[bostonangler]

I agree it is confusing, that a president of the United States would suck up to evil dictators for personal gain... 

 

B/A

[MyLadiesDaddy]

15 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

Whoa...you said a whole lot there, even ended it with a threat....Now, how about that pesky U.S. Constitution we swore to defend?   Hooah!

 

GO RV, then BV 

Only someone of your mental capacity could think that the battlefield of cyberspace with weapons of words is a  threat. 

However,  your misrepresentation of my words allowed you to avoid addressing the rest of my comments. And That is deceitful, which is what you always do. 

[Shabibilicious]

18 minutes ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

Only someone of your mental capacity could think that the battlefield of cyberspace with weapons of words is a  threat. 

However,  your misrepresentation of my words allowed you to avoid addressing the rest of my comments. And That is deceitful, which is what you always do. 

 

Actually, of the two of us, you and me....only one of us has expressed the importance of defending the entirety of the U.S. Constitution....the other has placed a mere mortal above it.  So let's call it a draw...I'll side with the document and you side with Donald...let bygones be bygones.

 

GO RV, then BV 

Edited October 23, 2019 by Shabibilicious

[MyLadiesDaddy]

11 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

Actually, of the two of us, you and me....only one of us has expressed the importance of defending the entirety of the U.S. Constitution....the other has placed a mere mortal above it.  So let's call it a draw...I'll side with the document and you side with Donald...let bygones be bygones.

 

GO RV, then BV 

YES,  What we have here is IDENTICAL to our differing perspectives of the Bible.  So bygonads be bygonads 

[coorslite21]

12 hours ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

I have read it and yes, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 seems pretty straight forward to me.  If Trump has not fully divested himself from his company and even one member of a foreign government has stayed a Trump Hotel Washington, Donald will have profited and be in direct violation of said emoluments clause (the "phony" clause as he refers to it).

 

GO RV, then BV

I see Schiffty Schiff and his Clown show have now dropped the Emolument Impeachment side show.......guess they realized there wasn't any "there.....there".......wonder what the next rabbit hole will be about......?

 

Last thought on the Emolument issue.....

 

 

 

 

 

• Emoluments Clause Does Not Ban Sales to Foreigners

 

Emoluments Clause Does Not Ban Sales to Foreigners

Hans Bader • June 9, 2017

 

 

The Constitution is not hostile to the free market or international trade. Indeed, many Constitutional provisions are designed to protect them, such as the Contracts Clause, the Takings Clause, and the Constitution’s ban on state taxes on exports and imports.

 

And early American presidents often owned businesses, which they kept operating even while in office. As Greg Jarrett notes, “The first five presidents were farmers and plantation owners who maintained their businesses while in office. Some of their crops, especially tobacco, were sold abroad to companies and foreign governments.”

 

So it is more than a little strange to see claims that President Trump has somehow violated the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause merely by owning hotels and other business interests that are patronized by foreigners. Yet, as law professor Eugene Kontorovich notes, “earlier this year a group of law professors and prominent attorneys filed a lawsuit [alleging that] the Trump Organization’s hotel rentals to a Chinese state-owned bank—along with royalties on ‘The Apprentice’ from state television in countries such as Vietnam—violate the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause.”

 

This odd reading of the Emoluments Clause is contrary to its historical understanding, notes Jarrett, since sales to foreigners by the Founding Fathers “were never regarded, even by their political opponents, as emoluments because they were unrelated to the holding of office.”

 

The framers of the Emoluments Clause were concerned about gifts to officials from foreign powers – such as the money France gave a British king to enter into a treaty ceding territory, and the pension it gave him that enabled him to avoid summoning parliament; and lavish gifts to diplomats by kings. There is little evidence that it was aimed at sales at market prices, even to foreign officials.

 

Indeed, as Prof. Kontorovich notes, President George Washington even asked a British official to help find renters for his land: “On Dec. 12, 1793, Washington wrote to Arthur Young, an officer of the U.K. Board of Agriculture…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.”

 

But left-leaning academics are suspicious of the free market, and have come up with an anti-market interpretation of the Emoluments Clause that essentially requires presidents to divest such business interests (presumably, at fire sale prices) before assuming office. In the Los Angeles Times, a May 14 op-ed claimed “the Constitution's emoluments clause” is based on “a dread of corruption” from “officeholders” tainted by “the scrum of the marketplace,” and that Trump’s continuing business holdings are “violating it.”

 

As National Review notes, these expansive, anti-market interpretations of the Emoluments Clause would snare not just Trump, but also other modern presidents such as Barack Obama, who obtained copyrights while in office from many foreign governments to sell his books overseas: The law professors and attorneys bringing the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) lawsuit “advocate a broad view of ‘emoluments’ to cover any sort of commerce between any foreign sovereign entity and the Trump Organization, a view so broad that it would hold President Obama to have violated the Foreign Emoluments Clause every time a foreign public library bought a copy of Dreams of My Father…By contrast, University of Iowa Law Professor Andy Grewal marshalled historical evidence (mainly from the 19th century) showing that the traditional understanding of ‘emoluments’ was limited to salary and other financial benefits attached to the holding of an office, and did not cover outside private business interests.” As Grewel observes, “market-rate transactions between the Trump Organization and foreign governments do not come within the clause.”

Grewel’s conclusions are echoed by University of Montana Law Professor Robert Natelson, author of The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant, who analyzed the legislative history of the Clause and its precursor in the Maryland Constitution. As Natelson notes, CREW’s interpretation of emoluments “would have eliminated Virginia tobacco planters like Thomas Jefferson or James Madison from ever being considered for the presidency.”

Some law professors say the Emoluments Clause may not even apply to Presidents, as opposed to appointed federal officials like diplomats.

CL

 

 

Edited October 24, 2019 by coorslite21