# Dems sue Trump over emoluments **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 14, 2017, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924 "2017-06-14T05:02:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/61 "2017-06-16T20:43:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > One argument is: not everyone agrees with you that Trump is an incompetent amoral scumbag. Other who might agree still think that the “amoral scumbag” is not grounds for impeachment. Therefore, any argument you make that rests on the truth of that claim is going to founder. The fact that he’s an amoral scumbag isn’t actually relevant to the argument, and the argument doesn’t rest on the truth of that claim. The relevant part of the sentence was “who very much seems to be influenced by foreign interests”, which I suppose his loyalists could also claim is unfounded, despite Trump’s utter failure to try to downplay his admiration for foreign dictators and such. Of course it’s worth noting that Trump’s obvious influenceability _also_ isn’t the real point, except in the sense that he makes it a hell of a lot harder to pretend that his malfeasance isn’t going on than prior presidents did. The real point that should have been taken from my post was, and I’ll quote myself here: [QUOTE=myself] So the argument is, because nobody bothered to enforce the constitution against [prior] presidents […], that should be taken as precedent that that little bit of the constitution doesn’t actually exist now that we’re dealing with [Trump]? [/QUOTE] Can utterly failing to invoke the law previously be considered precedent for it not being invokeable in the future? ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/62 "2017-06-16T21:42:19Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Billionaire businessman or not, the people can be taken to have voted for him in the expectation that, if elected, he would faithfully execute the Office of President and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, which presumably extends at the very minimum to not violating it. The legal issue is whether his continued receipt of certain income is a violation of the Constitution. His pre-existing status as a billiionaire businessman is irrelevant to that; there isn’t a different and less onerous Constitution for billionaire businessmen. But previous presidents have been in business and thus with private incomes. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/63 "2017-06-16T21:50:43Z")
BTW as an aside: > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > The (apparent) argument that everyone understood these things as being violations of the law but decided not to enforce it anyway is extremely dubious. You might look up _desuetude_. Not that it necessarily applies in this case, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/64 "2017-06-16T22:02:26Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Can utterly failing to invoke the law previously be considered precedent for it not being invokeable in the future? That’s what Comey based it on when he didn’t indict Hillary. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/65 "2017-06-16T22:58:33Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > That’s what Comey based it on when he didn’t indict Hillary. [No it wasn’t.](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/heres-why-james-comey-didnt-recommend-prosecution-for-hillary-clinton/) Stick to non-alternative facts, please. (His actual reasoning: It would be too hard to show intentional misconduct, since the misconduct in question was quite clearly unintentional. It seems that, when it comes to information leaks, accidental jackups aren’t considered a crime by the FBI. Similar reasoning will probably not work on Trump’s emoluments.) ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/66 "2017-06-16T23:07:23Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > [No it wasn’t.](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/heres-why-james-comey-didnt-recommend-prosecution-for-hillary-clinton/) Stick to non-alternative facts, please. > > (His actual reasoning: It would be too hard to show intentional misconduct, since the misconduct in question was quite clearly unintentional. It seems that, when it comes to information leaks, accidental jackups aren’t considered a crime by the FBI. Similar reasoning will probably not work on Trump’s emoluments.) His actual reasoning: the law says nothing about intent, and gross negligence is enough for the law to apply. But: “In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.” Which is exactly my point. Failing to invoke the law previously, although it clearly applied, is the cause for not applying it in the future in similar circumstances. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/67 "2017-06-16T23:19:26Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Which is exactly my point. Failing to invoke the law previously, although it clearly applied, is the cause for not applying it in the future in similar circumstances. In other words, others who have committed similar negligence as Hillary did were not prosecuted. So you have a point, if you can name someone who in the past have done something similar to what Trump is being accused of, but were not prosecuted. Can you? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/68 "2017-06-16T23:23:02Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > His actual reasoning: the law says nothing about intent, and gross negligence is enough for the law to apply. But: “In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.” > > Which is exactly my point. Failing to invoke the law previously, although it clearly applied, is the cause for not applying it in the future in similar circumstances. You know what? Fine - I’ll let you win, because who gives a crap about Clinton anymore except people who are desperate to point attention anywhere except at Trump. So you win something! On the internet! Yay! So would it be correct to say that Trump is guilty as sin, in flagrant and open conflict with the restrictions put on him by the constitution, but because nobody has ever attempted to bring this bit of the constitution to bear before, Trump should be immune to prosecution by it? In your opinion, I mean. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/69 "2017-06-16T23:38:44Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > So would it be correct to say that Trump is guilty as sin, in flagrant and open conflict with the restrictions put on him by the constitution, but because nobody has ever attempted to bring this bit of the constitution to bear before, Trump should be immune to prosecution by it? In your opinion, I mean. The conflict is arguable. But even if you argue for the conflict, it is unprosecutable. In my opinion, I mean. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/70 "2017-06-16T23:39:44Z")
> [@scr4](#): > > In other words, others who have committed similar negligence as Hillary did were not prosecuted. > > So you have a point, if you can name someone who in the past have done something similar to what Trump is being accused of, but were not prosecuted. Can you? Look upthread. There are numerous examples. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/71 "2017-06-16T23:49:35Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > The conflict is arguable. But even if you argue for the conflict, it is unprosecutable. In my opinion, I mean. Unprosecutable because nobody to date has attempted to enforce that bit of the constitution before, or for some other reason? (I apologize if you’ve already answered this.) And if it is indeed due to the lack of prior attempts to do so, two questions: 1. Does this apply to every law that hasn’t ever been prosecuted? (Which, at one point or another, included all of them.) 2. Is that bit of the constitution now entirely meaningless, to the point that it could be literally cut out and burned without effecting anything? ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/72 "2017-06-16T23:57:00Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Unprosecutable because nobody to date has attempted to enforce that bit of the constitution before, or for some other reason? (I apologize if you’ve already answered this.) > > And if it is indeed due to the lack of prior attempts to do so, two questions: > > 1. Does this apply to every law that hasn’t ever been prosecuted? (Which, at one point or another, included all of them.) > > 2. Is that bit of the constitution now entirely meaningless, to the point that it could be literally cut out and burned without effecting anything? 1. If the law has been in effect for a long time and has never been applied, yes. See Logan Act, for example. 2. This is being discussed elsewhere on the board. Basically, even if you could prove that someone paying for a room in a Trump hotel constitutes an “emolument” (which is a huge stretch), unless you can show how you personally were caused some specific damage from that action, you do not have standing to sue. So, no, it is not meaningless, as it describes an impeachable violation. But you cannot prosecute it in courts. Only in Congress. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2017, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/73 "2017-06-17T00:12:40Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > 1. If the law has been in effect for a long time and has never been applied, yes. See Logan Act, for example. > > 2. This is being discussed elsewhere on the board. Basically, even if you could prove that someone paying for a room in a Trump hotel constitutes an “emolument” (which is a huge stretch), unless you can show how you personally were caused some specific damage from that action, you do not have standing to sue. > > So, no, it is not meaningless, as it describes an impeachable violation. **But you cannot prosecute it in courts. Only in Congress.** [Ohh… I guess we’ll see about that](http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/337710-nearly-200-democrats-file-emoluments-lawsuit-against-trump). ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2017, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/74 "2017-06-17T01:06:29Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > [Ohh… I guess we’ll see about that](http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/337710-nearly-200-democrats-file-emoluments-lawsuit-against-trump). Did you completely miss the OP? I guess we will. Would you like to make a bet? ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2017, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/75 "2017-06-17T01:10:44Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > … > In any case, Hoover did make an effort to avoid having conflicts of interest. > > … Which is no exception in the Constitution. There is no exemption for businesses, investments, or assets held in blind trust or any other attempts at shielding. > [@Emoluments clause](#): > > …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. [QUOTE=begbert] Unprosecutable because nobody to date has attempted to enforce that bit of the constitution before, or for some other reason? (I apologize if you’ve already answered this.) [/quote] Or perhaps because such business profits were not considered emoluments? Hypothetical here. Trump is at a meeting of the G8 countries and runs into Putin in a vending machine room. Trump wants to buy a Diet Coke and asks Putin if he has change for a €20 note. Trump hands over his €20 note and Putin gives Trump five Euros of assorted Euro coins and 15 Euro of smaller Euro notes, exactly €20 in total. Has Trump committed an emoluments violation? I would argue no. Even though in this hypothetical Trump directly receives cash from the leader of a foreign country it was not a present. Office or title do not apply. But this is an exchange of equal value at a rate offered to anyone which would mean it was not an emolument either. The argument can be extended to businesses of presidents. So long as the payment received for service rendered and/or product received is in line with the market and available to others then it is an exchange for fair value and not an emolument. This would be in line with how past presidents have been treated. Surely if the Russian government is booking rooms in a Trump hotel at 40x the going rate then that gives rise to the supposition that they expect more than a night in a hotel. But if the Chinese government pays for a bureaucrat to attend a conference hosted at the Trump International Hotel in Washington DC and stay in that hotel and the Chinese government pays the going rate then I would surmise that this is not an emolument for Trump. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2017, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/76 "2017-06-17T01:19:26Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Did you completely miss the OP? > > I guess we will. Would you like to make a bet? LOL, missed it briefly, got confuzzled about which emoluments thread I was in. I do think your statement is an odd one, though, with a case pending. As for betting, all due respect but no, thanks. Something I don’t do on message boards. I reserve the right to ridicule you mercilessly if you lose, however. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2017, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/77 "2017-06-17T01:24:46Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > LOL, missed it briefly, got confuzzled about which emoluments thread I was in. I do think your statement is an odd one, though, with a case pending. There is no case “pending”. There is a case filed. Anyone can file any lawsuit for any reason whatsoever, you know. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2017, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/78 "2017-06-17T01:32:42Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > There is no case “pending”. There is a case filed. Anyone can file any lawsuit for any reason whatsoever, you know. I think you’re attempting to draw a distinction without a substantial difference. But pick your nits if it pleases you. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2017, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/79 "2017-06-17T01:51:47Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > Alas the tradition of presidents putting their businesses or assets into a blind trust only started in the 1960s. It has become the typical method of handling assets in office in recent times. But, of course, the Constitution does not provide an emoluments exception if assets are held in a trust. > > Several presidents continued to run their personal business while in office . Trump is hardly the first. Early presidents such as Washington and Jefferson to more recent times with Kennedy and LBJ, the White House has seen its share of office holders with business and/or investments. > > And though LBJ ostensibly placed his assets in a blind trust, the first president to do so, he also spoke frequently with the primary trustee who was well known to him. And LBJ had phone lines installed to the residence of the White House that bypassed White House operators. All to continue conducting his business according to biographer Robert Caro. > > But somehow now there is a belief that business transactions and profit equate to emoluments, a definition of emoluments that has not applied to entrepreneurial presidents before. I don’t think the issue relates to presidents being entrepreneurial. I think it relates to the extent to which a president specifically uses his office to profit by his position, and how vulnerable he becomes to adjusting his policy positions to foreign governments based on his ability to profit. You made the point well in your last post about fair value for a room v. the Russian government paying 40x for the same room and expecting something in return. Further, I think the concept that the appearance of impropriety is as important as actual impropriety is well established throughout our government. Judges recuse themselves from cases all the time because of this concern, even if they privately believe they can remain impartial in deciding a case. It’s why presidents have voluntarily separated themselves from their private enterprises in modern times. In Trump’s case, his greedy abuses and those of his family members are so bald as to be insulting and appear to amount to actual impropriety, with obvious potential if not already actual damage to the best interests of our country. In my opinion, he is the poster boy that the Emoluments Clause has been waiting for. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2017, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/80 "2017-06-17T01:56:57Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Unprosecutable because nobody to date has attempted to enforce that bit of the constitution before, or for some other reason? (I apologize if you’ve already answered this.) > > And if it is indeed due to the lack of prior attempts to do so, two questions: > > 1. Does this apply to every law that hasn’t ever been prosecuted? (Which, at one point or another, included all of them.) > > 2. Is that bit of the constitution now entirely meaningless, to the point that it could be literally cut out and burned without effecting anything? No. But that section of the Constitution gives Congress the power to enact laws that apply to the President. That section alone, without any legislation to give it teeth, can’t be used to convict anyone of anything criminal. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924.md?page=5)