When you say “that interpretation,” are you talking about receiving gifts of business and trademarks rather than your traditional suitcase of bribe money and/or a puppy?
Dude, in my hypothetical, I specified that the Democrats do so well in 2018 that they win seats that weren’t up for election. I don’t know how much more I could have done to make it clear that I wasn’t describing a scenario that actually might happen.
But apologies for missing your answer to my question from earlier in the thread.
So the specific market I have found so far…
Trump is impeached in 2017:
https://www.predictit.org/Contract/5470/Will-Donald-Trump-be-impeached-in-2017#data
That’s a 93-7 against. (A share that pays a dollar if he’s impeached can be bought for seven cents right now.)
Democrats control the Senate after 2018 mid-terms:
https://www.predictit.org/Market/2703/Which-party-will-control-the-Senate-after-2018-midterms
That’s 80-20 against. (A share that pays a dollar if the Democrats control can be bought for twenty cents right now.)
Democrats control the House after 2018 mid-terms:
https://www.predictit.org/Market/2704/Which-party-will-control-the-House-after-2018-midterms
That’s 65-35 against. (A share that pays a dollar if the Democrats control can be bought for thirty-five cents right now.)
Which specific proposition was 50-50?
Yup, I missed that obvious clue – sorry. :smack:
Yes, and the idea that a trademark granted to a daughter’s business or a business in which the President has ownership but no control are constructive gifts for the purposes of the Clause.
I self-medicate with Macallan.
I want to be clear that I’m not arguing the overall likelihood of impeachment, because that rests not on the merits of an impeachment case, but whether Trump makes the Republicans in power happy or unhappy, and I have no idea how that’s gonna turn out.
That said, there’s very little precedent for modern economic interpretations of the “don’t take bribes” clause only because there haven’t been that many opportunities to test it in a modern economy. Most folks who are rich enough to be tempted by such opportunities don’t need to run for office; they’ve already [DEL]purchased their Congresspeople[/DEL] made PAC donations.
These are people of the highest integrity, whose opinions are to be cherished and principles worshipped.
Also, were they a UN committee formed to preserve an endangered species from extinction, every last animal of that species would be dead before sundown.
Bribery, if proven, is a separate legal issue, and a crime, and could easily serve as the basis of an impeachment.
But the reason we hear “Emoluments Clause,” and not “violation of 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act,” when discussing impeachment is that the acts alleged don’t fit into the bribery statutes. The helpfully vague Emoluments Clause is used for this reason.
Even better!
That’s a link to a Politico story.
When I actually search the Ladbrokes site mentioned in the story, in the “US Elections section,” I don’t see the contract for “Trump’s chances of leaving office via resignation or impeachment and removal.”
Can you help?
Because -
Actually I pay pretty close attention to the news. I tend, however, to disregard spin.
Your first link says right in the header that the idea that the trademarks violate any law comes from critics, meaning partisans.
Also I pay attention to the fact that Ivanka Trump’s companies have filed for 173 foreign trademarks, and that Ivanka left the company when her father became President.
I also pay attention to Bricker, and he has pretty clearly explained how these things work. Or, from the point of view of Democrats, don’t work.
Regards,
Shodan
Emoluments Clause - isn’t that what those hip-hoppity kids glue to their fingernails?
Maybe all those Faithless Electors will finally show up and vote to impeach.
IMHO, at present and in the near future, Trump is popular enough with his base (not necessarily Republicans/conservatives but there is overlap) that any Republican Congressman who appears to support impeachment would have their re-election prospects endangered.
Note that you took that one line out of context.
If you had read the rest of my post, you would have seen how I explained that while I would not be ecstatic with any republican in office, that I would be much happier with any republican in office than with Trump.
So your accusation of partisanship is directly contradicted by evidence that you conveniently left out of your quote.
You do realize that just taking a line out of context is not actually a valid strategy of creating a good argument, right?
And if paid any attention my post, and most of the posts in this thread, you would see that they usually start with an “if”, as in these are hypothetical scenarios, and we realize that they are hypothetical, and that we realize that they are not highly likely.
So you pointing out that these are hypothetical scenarios, and not necessarily likely is redundant, at best.
One, “he”, not “she”.
Two, Like I pointed out, the only way to get that out of my post is to take it out of context, removing the parts of the post that explain that, while I would prefer to not have a republican in office, I would prefer any republican over trump. The only way to get what you did out of my post is to, whether through your error or disingenuous intent, ignore the bulk of my post, and concentrate only on a couple of lines out of context.
Is it only princes that are covered by the emoluments clause?
But, yeah, be careful what you ask for, we don’t know the detail of the dealings between trump and foreign powers, but those details are being investigated, and will be coming out. Obviously, any speculation as to what those details are is just that, speculation, but if (and I did say “if”) the investigation does conclude that Trump and co acted inappropriately and/or illegally, will you continue to stand by him?
And you, my very good friend, have a great day!
K9
Have we ever had a president with income deriving from overseas assets in this manner?
Most presidents have divested their investments into blind trusts long before. There may be no caselaw to deal with this situation, but that may be because this situation has never come up before.
“We don’t have a precedent to deal with this unprecedented situation.” does not, to me, make a good defense.
I thought the entire point of the enrolment clause was to prevent the president from being swayed due to the efforts of foreign actors. It does seem as though Trump is receiving payments from foreign actors, and I have no reason to think that those payments would not sway him in any way.
Your example narrative is stronger worded than most of the posters here, as you begin with “after”, and most of the posters here wishing to see trump go are starting their scenarios with “if”.
Then you agree with the majority of the posters in this thread who would like to see trump get the boot.
That there is zero accountability to speculation frustrates you?
I get that sometimes, people make concrete predictions that they cast in stone, and browbeat others with.
But if you are saying that it is wrong to make any predictions whatsoever, even if they are begun with a conditional “if”, and it is clear that these are hypotheticals, then you simply don’t want any discussion of the future, not just years or months down the road, but even what tomorrow holds.
The only way to get that analogy would be to assume that all the trump threads are speaking with an air of absolute authority, rather than idle speculation on a messageboard. Rather than a mind reading robot that everyone is convinced is a mind reading robot, these are taken about as seriously as horoscopes, and I hope you don’t right a letter to the editor complaining every time that your horoscope turned out wrong.
Air of absolute authority, or idle speculation?
Even better (from upthread):
“But it doesn’t matter; I’ll wager he doesn’t last long enough to even be impeached, and if noises started coming out of Mitch McConnell’s excuse for a face about impeachment hearings, Trump would resign faster than a Trump casino goes bankrupt, and if for some reason he tried to fight it he’d go down harder than Joe Pesci in a mob movie.”
I wonder if “I’ll wager” means he’s open to an actual wager?
It’s entirely possible his charitable self-named Foundation accepted millions from such bastions of freedom as Saudi, Qatar, UAE, and the late much-missed President Karimov.
If so I fully expect him to be prosecuted.
The problem with that is that, as we’ve repeatedly seen, the GOP “leadership” couldn’t lead sailors to a whorehouse. They’d have to get Democratic help, which would presumably come with strings attached (the Dems are inept, but not that inept).
I’m going to assume that you’re not posting from a survivalist bunker with a treatise about Ohio not being properly admitted to the Union in 1803 open in another window – i.e. I’m going to assume that you stipulate the income tax itself, and the associated reporting requirements imposed upon taxpayers, to be constitutional. That being the case, the administrativia of the income tax (i.e. which items of reported data do, and do not, enjoy legally mandated confidentiality) is within the legislative purview of Congress.