But if the government pays the resort, and the resort is Mr. Trump’s company, that would violate the domestic emoluments clause. So this is not a constitutional option.
~Max
The debate would be over the definition of emolument as used in the Constitution. Can one receive an emolument while not gaining an advantage or benefit?
The going definition of “Emolument” is “any profit, gain, or advantage”. The president’s lawyers had attempted (and failed) to construe “Emolument” as “the receipt of compensation for services rendered by an official in an official capacity or in an employment (or equivalent) relationship with a foreign government, and to the receipt of honor and gifts by an office-holder from a foreign government”. See Blumenthal v. Trump, 373 F. Supp. 3d 191, 196 (D.D.C. 2019).
A loss fits neither definition, so there’s that.
I recommend reading the case, you can see the President duking it out with Congressional Democrats over the definition and scope of the emoluments clause. The President lost, but is appealing.
~Max
Advertising that the club was host to the G7 is, in and of itself, some tangible value - it raises its perceived value to other activities that require that kind of capabilities. Trump didn’t choose it out of the goodness of his heart - he’s not inviting the cousin’s to stay the weekend at his place.
I’ll disagree that the value you describe is tangible, but I admit that there is some intangible value in the prestige of hosting world leaders. That’s basically what HMS Irruncible was saying, but I’m not super convinced that it’s worth getting worked up about.
Basically the President can go out after the Summit and say, stay in my resort! Sleep in the bed where Angela Merkel once slept! No offense to the Chancellor but I don’t think that will help with marketing.
~Max
Let’s say it costs you 10 large to do whatever. If I give you 5g’s, your still at a loss of 5 g’s, but you are still at an advantage over if I gave you nothing.
Whether you take the whole transaction or just the one side into account seems rather arbitrary to me. But 92.5% of historical definitions of “emolument” use the word “profit”, according to John Mikhail of Georgetown University. The implication is that both sides of the transaction are involved (Figure 1, page 33).
~Max
So if any of the delegates pay for any goods or services of any kind at the hotel during the summit, would that be an emolument?
Perhaps Trump’s income isn’t considered as worthy of close monitoring as something *really * important like an NCAA basketball player who might be given a McDonald’s coupon.
US Constitution doesn’t mention profitable emoluments here.
I.9.8: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], 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. No foreign governmental present OF ANY KIND without approval by Congress, including political dirt. But does that include supposedly civilian bribes?
II.1.7: The President shall [be paid] 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. No payment from federal or state governments, period. But cities aren’t feds nor states. Can Las Vegas legally bribe him? Can a VEEP take federal, state, and civic bribes?
Those clauses clearly say no federal officer or employee can take foreign gifts and the President can’t take anything beyond his paycheck from any government body. This POTUS has clearly violated the Constitution he swore to uphold and so has disqualified himself from office. It’s perp-walk time.
In his defense, he never read it.
What does “at cost” really mean for a hotel anyway? Certainly there’s a number that they can’t routinely price their hotel rooms below without losing money, but that’s an easily manipulated figure. And when the hotel is operating at a significant loss to begin with, a week of having the rooms filled “at cost” represents a gain.
But -
[ul]
[li]these definitions are clearly not limited to profitability in the narrow sense of a business transaction.[/li][li]the defintions mention emoluments other than profit[/li][li]this is all moot because there is literally zero chance of Trump opening his financial books for inspection[/li][li]in the distant chance he does open his books, it’s likely he’s maintaining a fraudulent shadow copy as was revealed in Trump org just a couple of days ago.[/li][/ul]
So let’s please to put the whole profit margin thing to bed; it’s a losing argument.
I recall an event planner for a federal agency being adamant they be charged “fair market value” and not receive any special pricing or discounts that anyone else wouldn’t normally get.
As though Trump’s previous actions haven’t ALSO called for a good, thorough federal accounting of his books, this certainly pushes it into obviousland. What a shyster. How this can even be allowed is beyond me. Why other politicians didn’t immediately put the brakes on it, again, beyond me.
I think you could have posted this in every single Trump-related thread and it would be accurate. It’s crazy how we’ve normalized his behavior that something like this will be forgotten within a couple of days because he’ll do some other crazy thing. And when the next G7 actually rolls around, it’ll be old news and there will be some other outrageous thing going on and no one will really care about him hosting it at his own resort.
I’ll tell you what this is. This is Trump trolling everybody to distract from all the other crimes he’s committed and tried to cover up. He’s given up all pretense of winning 2020 on actual accomplishments and is trying to overwhelm the system with audacity. What’s more, he’s far from finished. And just maybe, by some miracle, there will be a large enough MAGAcult turnout in 2020 to put him over the top again. It’s not a good plan. Hell, it’s not a plan at all. What it is, is a huge "FUCK YOU!. It’s all he’s got left, and he’s going to go out in a blaze glory as the biggest, most outrageous dumpster fire in American politics. See if he doesn’t.
So, who do you think they’re going to send in at the end of Trump’s presidency to tell him that he’s not allowed to keep the gifts people gave him while president?
Federal and State law enforcement, if any rule of law remains in this republic.
Whether this violates the Emolument Clause is, I think, irrelevant. It’s huge conflict of interest and violates any sort of ethical standards.
Even if he doesn’t directly profit from the booking (which I seriously doubt), he’s receiving international marketing worth millions.
This could have been said on a hundred different occasions in the last three years.
Trump has normalized the abnormal.
One of the less malignant legacies of Donald Trump will be the coining of a new verb: to trump; the normalizing of destructive, bizarre behaviour and naked, unapologetic hypocrisy, the former used to pre-emptively defuse criticism of the latter.