Trump has awarded G-7 summit to his Miami-area resort, the White House says
Geez, they’re not even trying to pretend that they’re doing the right thing any more.
Yeah, Mr. Trump’s decision seems unethical and unconstitutional.
The ways out of this are:
[ul][li]There actually aren’t any other facilities in the entirety of the United States suitable for the G-7[/li][li]He’s just kidding[/li][li]It turns out that Mr. Trump is gifting the resort to the federal government[/li][li]The resort, subsidiaries, & parent organization(s) make exactly $0 in revenue from the gig, before expenses[/ul][/li]
ETA: But then again, once upon a time President George Washington was all like, “let’s put the new capital in my backyard!” And critics said, “he just wants to raise his property value”. And GW said, “no, it’s a great place, trust me”.
~Max
That was not a foreign emolument. Silly Max.
~Max
Apologies for the triple post. But I am unsure if it would be a violation of the Foreign Emoluments clause if the federal government pays the resort, and the resort provides accommodations for G-7 at no charge to participants. Just thinking out loud here. Not sure if that’s how this thing works.
~Max
Given that the summit location was apparently selected by President Trump / the US government, is this a foreign emolument?
For reference:
And, for that matter, given this:
(emphasis mine)
Is it even an emolument at all?
I think there are some ethical concerns at play, but I’m not sure it’s an “emoluments clause” violation.
Open the books and prove there was no profit. I’m sure he knows all about Hollywood accounting schemes.
Right. The selection itself is not a foreign emolument, if it is even an emolument at all. The foreign emolument is triggered when a foreign state actually pays Mr. Trump’s personal company for the privilege of attending an official state function.
If they are really operating at a loss, it’s debatable. But I don’t place any weight on a for-profit company’s claim that they accepted a government contract at a loss. I’m thinking about a Hollywood-style accounting “loss”.
~Max
Hmm, I kind of assumed that the other G7 governments would be paying their way…thinking about it, maybe not, though.
But we’d have to take Trump at his word that the property wouldn’t be making any money. And how good is his word?
The G7 summit in Doral isn’t until next June.
Is it the “attending an official state function” that’s the relevant distinction for you?
I readily admit my lack of expertise in this field, but “at cost” or “with no profit” doesn’t seem to me to be the definition of an emolument.
Let’s say a government employee goes to give a speech in Saudi Arabia and receives a payment of $5,000. This person claiming that the trip cost him $10,000 because he flew business class would make the payment not an emolument.
Yes, I meant “in the future, open the books”
Edit: to explicitly state the subtext, I don’t believe Trump would willing open his books.
I bet Trump will be trying to sell fucking golf club memberships during the entire summit, Jesus Christ.
Uh, yeah, that was 100% clear. It’s not clear why anyone would decide to read it in a fashion that makes it nonsensical.
My question: is there a chance greater than 0% that foreign leaders will decline to come to Trump’s resort for the conference? I think if I were a foreign leader, I’d be livid at the flagrant violation of international norms, norms heretofore unspoken, that world leaders don’t try to personally profit off you when you visit their country.
Judge Napolitano on FOX: “[Trump] has bought himself an enormous headache now with the choice of this. This is as about as direct and profound a violation of the emoluments clause as one could create.”
Educate me, please. Does it matter if the recipient of the emolument is operating at a loss? I didn’t happen to see that in the constitution, so, at the moment, my uneducated best guess is the answer is “Not at all”. Just because you’re a bad businessman doesn’t mean you get to violate the constitution.
I don’t think it is debatable. The emoluments clause doesn’t say anything whatsoever about profitability. And arguably, setting aside the monetary compensation, there is some intangible value to the property that comes from the prestige of hosting the G7 convention.
That’s not to say this is a smoking-gun emoluments violation. But profitability doesn’t figure into it at all.
Thank you for sharing this.
Good catch, you can cut that out. “The foreign emolument is triggered when a foreign state actually pays Mr. Trump’s personal company[.]”
~Max
There’s a domestic emoluments clause, too. U.S. Const. art. II, sect. 1, cl. 7:
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
~Max