# 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:** 5
**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, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/81 "2017-06-17T02:00:44Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > 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. Are you willing to bet something other than money? ---
**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, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/82 "2017-06-17T03:03:13Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > 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… And if the Chinese government owned bank keeps paying rent on an office in a Trump owned building in accordance with their lease at the same rate they paid before Trump ever declared himself as a candidate is that now going to be impermissible? If such rent payments are impermissible then what must a property owner do should he be elected president? Unilaterally break the lease and suffer whatever penalties that may involve such as facing a lawsuit by the foreign government? Forced sale of the property, which would open a whole can of worms about prospect of the buyer to overpay to seek influence? Let the tenant have rent for free so that a president would be subsidizing a foreign government? The precedent seems to be that a presidents business dealings are not automatically impermissible emoluments. Other precedents indicate that individuals do not have standing due to some sort of generalized feeling of harm. Between those two factors these lawsuits are looking like a long shot. If they just don’t like it then the Dems should try to impeach. The courts cannot give them what they seem to really want and its not clear the court could issue any order correcting any imagined harm in at least two of these cases. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2017, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/83 "2017-06-17T03:21:21Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > And if the Chinese government owned bank keeps paying rent on an office in a Trump owned building in accordance with their lease at the same rate they paid before Trump ever declared himself as a candidate is that now going to be impermissible? > > If such rent payments are impermissible then what must a property owner do should he be elected president? Unilaterally break the lease and suffer whatever penalties that may involve such as facing a lawsuit by the foreign government? Forced sale of the property, which would open a whole can of worms about prospect of the buyer to overpay to seek influence? Let the tenant have rent for free so that a president would be subsidizing a foreign government? You put your assets in a [blind trust](http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/blindtrust.asp). Bill Clinton and George W. Bush did that. ---
**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, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/84 "2017-06-17T03:29:08Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > You put your assets in a [blind trust](http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/blindtrust.asp). Bill Clinton and George W. Bush did that. [What’s A Blind Trust, Anyway, And Why Won’t It Work For President-Elect Trump?](https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2017/01/12/whats-a-blind-trust-anyway-and-why-wont-it-work-for-president-elect-trump/#2668440a725b) ---
**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, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/85 "2017-06-17T03:52:33Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > You put your assets in a [blind trust](http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/blindtrust.asp). Bill Clinton and George W. Bush did that. Point out that blind trust exemption in the Constitution for me please. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2017, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/86 "2017-06-17T08:13:19Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > 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. > > 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. Except that there’s an issue with who gets the business, and how much business. Fair value or not, if a foreign power is throwing all its business to one owned by a government official in preference to other, competing businesses, that could clearly be an attempt to curry favor with him or her. It’s also quite easy to argue that Trump’s hotels don’t charge fair market value anyway. They charge premium prices. Now if, say, the Saudis sink $270K in fees into that particular hotel (hmm, where did I come up with that ‘hypothetical?’), is it really credible that they didn’t choose it primarily to curry favor with Trumpo the Capitalist Clown? ---
**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 17, 2017, 9:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/87 "2017-06-17T09:09:37Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > In Trump’s case, his greedy abuses What greedy abuses? Or, cite? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2017, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/88 "2017-06-17T11:13:08Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > Point out that blind trust exemption in the Constitution for me please. Huh? In order to steer clear of violating the emoluments clause, which is in the constitution, previous presidents have made use of a blind trust. That is probably not the only way but seems to be a popular way to comply with the law. ---
**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, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/89 "2017-06-17T13:12:35Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Now if, say, the Saudis sink $270K in fees into that particular hotel (hmm, where did I come up with that ‘hypothetical?’), is it really credible that they didn’t choose it primarily to curry favor with Trumpo the Capitalist Clown? Yes – if you can show that he was getting similar prices prior to his election. ---
**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, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/90 "2017-06-17T13:39:13Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Huh? > > In order to steer clear of violating the emoluments clause, which is in the constitution, previous presidents have made use of a blind trust. That is probably not the only way but seems to be a popular way to comply with the law. After November 8th, how many threads here discussed the possibility that the electoral college would act in some way to select either Clinton, or some non-Trump Republican? How many posts were devoted to those scenarios? If pressed, people might acknowledge that perhaps the outcome was not likely, but, they argued, it was at least possible, wasn’t it? I perceive a great similarity with that thinking now, exhibited during the emoluments discussion. At some level you acknowledge that a blind trust didn’t affect Obama’s getting the Nobel Prize money, or income from sales of his book overseas, but because you see those as different, you imagine the Constitution contains some unwritten but judicially-cognizable framework that would have permitted Obama’s income but forbidden Trump’s. And so your hope is that the courts will somehow act to create that explicit rule. If pressed, you might acknowledge that perhaps the outcome is not likely, but, you now argue, it is at least possible, isn’t it? More fundamentally, I think there’s a certain class of people who are comforted by reading about these things. It’s almost escapist fantasy. It’s enjoyable to speculate about how Trump’s comeuppance might unfold. It’s comforting. But no one wants to wager on it as a real-world outcome, because at the level of thought that considers real-world outcomes, they know it unlikely. They just don’t want that fact thrown in their faces. It’s perceived as a rude interjection to escapist fantasy, like a discussion of Star Wars being interrupted by someone pointing out that a light saber violates all sorts of physical constraints. This is simply my perception. But I am absolutely confident, in a real-world sense, that there will be no final court decision that construes the Emolument Clause in any meaningful way that forces Trump to divest assets or change business practices. Are you confident, in a real-world sense, of the contrary? Or is it just unlikely, but have to admit possible, so we should enjoy the discussion while it’s still at least possible? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2017, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/91 "2017-06-17T14:48:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > At some level you acknowledge that a blind trust didn’t affect Obama’s getting the Nobel Prize money, or income from sales of his book overseas, but because you see those as different, you imagine the Constitution contains some unwritten but judicially-cognizable framework that would have permitted Obama’s income but forbidden Trump’s. And so your hope is that the courts will somehow act to create that explicit rule. If pressed, you might acknowledge that perhaps the outcome is not likely, but, you now argue, it is at least possible, isn’t it? We have been here before. The courts have never handled and emoluments case because no president till now has been as brazen as Trump has in cashing in on being president. I submit that now would be an excellent time for the courts to deal with this and outline the borders of what is excessive enrichment while holding office. Do you disagree with that? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2017, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/92 "2017-06-17T14:53:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But I am absolutely confident, in a real-world sense, that there will be no final court decision that construes the Emolument Clause in any meaningful way that forces Trump to divest assets or change business practices. Are you confident, in a real-world sense, of the contrary? Confident? No. The courts have been reluctant to stray into political questions. I think they will view this as a hornet’s nest and dance around it and not deal with it. Shame though. The emoluments clause IS there like it or not. It is a law. Part of the highest law of the land. If there is a question of someone breaking it who should adjudicate it? Congress? That is laughable for a variety of reasons. Only the courts can set bright lines for what is and is not a violation of the emoluments clause. Left to congress the definition will change with the political winds to the point of being useless as a guidepost. Otherwise we just ignore it as congress is currently doing. Are you comfortable with a law just being ignored because those currently in power find it convenient to do so? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2017, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/93 "2017-06-17T14:57:18Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > …what is excessive enrichment while holding office. I phrased that poorly. I mean to say using political office as a means to enrich oneself. ---
**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, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/94 "2017-06-17T15:06:25Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > We have been here before. > > The courts have never handled and emoluments case because no president till now has been as brazen as Trump has in cashing in on being president. > > I submit that now would be an excellent time for the courts to deal with this and outline the borders of what is excessive enrichment while holding office. > > Do you disagree with that? Yes. This would, however, be an excellent time for Congress to enact laws that accomplish that same end. Substantive legal boundaries that don’t appear in the Constitution are the province of the legislature to flesh out, not the judiciary. ---
**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, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/95 "2017-06-17T15:13:20Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Are you comfortable with a law just being ignored because those currently in power find it convenient to do so? The law that’s supposedly being ignored is not being ignored: it’s simply not defined. You want to take that clause of the Constitution and end up with a framework in which Nobel Prizes and book sales are permissible but hotel stays are not. That’s a job for Congress. Now, you complain, “But Congress won’t do what I want them to do!” That’s a feature of representative democracy. If Congress is truly at odds with the will of the voters, then let every recalcitrant representative and somnolent senator be challenged this mid-term with an opponent who promises to enact Emoluments-enabling language. Each and every member of the House and one-third of the Senate is up for re-election. But then your complaint becomes, “But the voters won’t do what I want them to do!” That’s THE feature of representative democracy. When the voters won’t do what you want them to do, you cannot call that a failure of democracy. ---
**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, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/96 "2017-06-17T15:13:25Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Huh? > > In order to steer clear of violating the emoluments clause, which is in the constitution, previous presidents have made use of a blind trust. That is probably not the only way but seems to be a popular way to comply with the law. The theory that is being raised against Trump is that his investment and business income is an “emolument” and he is constitutionally prohibited from accepting emoluments from a king, prince, or foreign state. It is true enough that some presidents since LBJ have placed assets or income into some form of trust, whether a blind trust or other form of trust. But they are still receiving the benefits of that trust. I am simply pointing out that the constitutional bar on accepting foreign emoluments does not include an exemption for assets or business income in a trust. Constitutionally it makes absolutely no difference. You seem to be arguing that if a president does not know about the source of any foreign income that it is not an emolument barred by the Constitution. If we accept that it raises a problem for those filing a lawsuit against Trump as it provides him a defense of ignorance. It seems highly unlikely in a real estate empire the size of which Trump holds that he would be personally aware of events and hotel room bookings at the properties he (or his owned businesses) own. After all does Richard Collins, the CEO of InterContinental Hotels Group, have any personal knowledge of who is renting a hotel room at the Crowne Plaza in Times Square? Would we expect him to? Any reason Mark Hoplamazian, the CEO of Hyatt Hotels Corporation, would be assumed to know who is booking events in the Hyatt Centric Fisherman’s Wharf in San Francisco? Not really. If it is reasonable to believe that a CEO of a real estate company doesn’t know the details of individual bookings then that eviscerates the argument made in the one legal case against Trump that might have standing. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2017, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/97 "2017-06-17T15:43:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. > > This would, however, be an excellent time for Congress to enact laws that accomplish that same end. > > Substantive legal boundaries that don’t appear in the Constitution are the province of the legislature to flesh out, not the judiciary. > [@Bricker](#): > > The law that’s supposedly being ignored is not being ignored: it’s simply not defined. You want to take that clause of the Constitution and end up with a framework in which Nobel Prizes and book sales are permissible but hotel stays are not. That’s a job for Congress. > > Now, you complain, “But Congress won’t do what I want them to do!” > > That’s a feature of representative democracy. If Congress is truly at odds with the will of the voters, then let every recalcitrant representative and somnolent senator be challenged this mid-term with an opponent who promises to enact Emoluments-enabling language. Each and every member of the House and one-third of the Senate is up for re-election. Seems to me the emoluments clause is in the US Constitution and not an act of congress. As such it seems to me it is in the purview of the courts to interpret. To do otherwise means you are leaving a law, written into the document that is the highest law of the land, to politicians to decide whether or not it counts. ---
**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, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/98 "2017-06-17T15:53:00Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Seems to me the emoluments clause is in the US Constitution and not an act of congress. As such it seems to me it is in the purview of the courts to interpret. The difference is that the Second Amendment is the courts interpreting the language of the amendment as it relates to the rights of the people. The Emoluments Clause would be the Court deciding an issue that directly constrained the Executive. Look, this is not physics. There is no natural law of the universe in play here. The question is what will happen, not what MUST be true as a matter of physical universal truth. Agreed? So the question now becomes what will actually happen, in real life. There’s no question that the courts could, theoretically, craft an Emoluments rule in detail. No scientific law of physics stops this outcome. I have a confident prediction about what will happen. And it does NOT involve that outcome. I contend that I am accurately able to predict how this will end. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2017, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/99 "2017-06-17T15:54:16Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > It is true enough that some presidents since LBJ have placed assets or income into some form of trust, whether a blind trust or other form of trust. But they are still receiving the benefits of that trust. The point of the blind trust is that a foreign entity cannot give a backhanded bribe to get the president to do something for them. Yes the president will still benefit from their investments but in a blind trust someone else is managing it all so they don’t know where the money coming in is coming from so will not be swayed in their decisions. As has been noted this is a problem with Trump because blind trust or not it is trivial for a foreign delegation to say they are all staying at a Trump hotel and, just cuz, brought extended family and rented extra rooms for a nice vacation. It remains though that the constitution wants to prohibit an elected official from using their office to enrich themselves. You cannot just waive that away because it is inconvenient. Former justice Scalia would (probably) tell you the mechanism is there if you don’t like it. Amend the constitution. Till then deal with it. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2017, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/100 "2017-06-17T16:04:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Look, this is not physics. There is no natural law of the universe in play here. The question is what will happen, not what MUST be true as a matter of physical universal truth. > > Agreed? Yes and no. Yes, the rules are written by humans and are subject to change. No, the rules, once set, need to be followed else you have anarchy. The mechanisms for changing the rules exist. The highest set of rules that govern this country suggest president Trump is in violation of them. We do not know for sure though. How do we usually solve this problem? We go to the courts and ask them to decide. Not seeing how congress figures in to this. We are not asking the courts to create a law. That is the role of congress. The law already exists in this case. So you go to the courts for a decision. Same as is done a million times a year across the country. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924.md?page=6)