Interesting question. Let’s say a country actually did this. and let’s say they admitted it. "Yes, we booked the whole floor for a month rather than 10 rooms for two weeks because we wanted to do something nice for Trump, hoping he will look favorably upon doing X for us.’ Wouldn’t there have to be some kind of quid pro quo delivered, or at least some knowledge about it on Trump’s end. If not, what would prevent a country unfriendly to Trump’s, ay Iran, from renting out 2 floors for 3 months, have no one stay in them, and then when this was miraculously discovered by the press, the government of Iran says, “Yes, it was a gift to Trump”?
Sounds like a good reason to divest your holdings and investments before taking public office so that situations like that don’t come up.
Well, even without the hotels, Iran can send a big unsolicited check to Bernie Sanders (or his campaign without his knowledge) and if he keeps it he’s in trouble.
They key would be to make sure that whomever is in charge of your businesses is aware of this and to refuse reservations from Foreign governments.
Working in government we are heavily schooled that you don’t have to actually act in a biased way to get into trouble. Even the appearance of a conflict of interest is enough.
What are the prohibitions against the President conducting ordinary business? Surely some previous presidents were in business? Wasn’t Carter a peanut farmer at the time of his presidency?
And here I thought you were an original constructionist.
And that is the only goal: harassment.
So what should Trump do now? Declare that no foreigners can stay in his hotel? Then he’ll get blasted for that.
Divest from his business holdings.
Why should he? The presidency is a temporary position and he may well want to return to his business afterwards. Imagine he were much younger. Looking at Wikipedia I don’t see any mention of Carter divesting himself of his peanut business.
Carter put his farm into a blind trust.
Uhh, because of conflicts of interest. You know, the entire point of this thread.
Here’s a really good thread about why this is important. You should really read it!
Yes. See here: WSJ - Did George Washington Take Emoluments
Isn’t it a little late for that? If the problem is that he’s selling stuff, how will his selling even more stuff fix anything?
Seems so but Trump has other accusations that might still constitute an emolument violation. Here’s one as an example.
Thank you.
I don’t have a subscription so can’t read it, but a commentary here indicates that Washington saw no problem with it.
Having read those I do think Trump should have distanced himself from his businesses but there is precedent for him not doing so and it is not reasonable for him to be required to do so. Those demanding he divest himself of his business interests are simply playing into his hands.
The emoluments suit may proceed.
The climate change lawsuit by a bunch of kids may proceed.
The “don’t be the kind of asshole who asks about citizenship on the census for partisan purposes” lawsuit may proceed.
Kemp’s voter suppression efforts are overturned.
That was a pretty good end to the weekend, legally speaking; and I admit that my worst fears about the Supreme Court haven’t manifested so far.
Putting your businesses into a blind trust is not the same as divesting yourself of those businesses. It is merely putting the administration of those businesses in the hands of someone else so you avoid conflicts of interest. When you stop being president you get it all back.
Only the climate change and census thing are the supreme court and letting the cases proceed is far from a decision on the case so I would not get too excited. For instance I can not imagine the climate change lawsuit amounting to anything. Letting it proceed to die of its own accord is the smart thing to do.