If that's not an emolument, I don't know what is

[Ann_Hedonia]

@Dewey_Finn

Whether this violates the Emolument Clause is, I think, irrelevant. It’s huge conflict of interest and violates any sort of ethical standards.

And it probably breaks a bunch of other laws, too. I’ve done business with the government. For purchases over a certain dollar amount they are legally required to obtain and evaluate multiple proposals and select the one that provides the best value for the taxpayer.

It sounds like they might be claiming an exception to the bid process on the grounds that the Trump Doral is the only suitable property. But that wouldn’t stand up to even the most cursory examination - as I believe other US properties have hosted the G7 and/or similar events in the past. These exceptions to the bidding rules were really designed for obscure and highly specialized technical processes, not hotel services.
Of course, by making it about emoluments, the Democrats have turned a clear cut issue into a debatable one. I really want to see some pushback from the other hotel companies that were denied their shot at winning the bid,

[Johnny_Bravo]

@Ann_Hedonia

It sounds like they might be claiming an exception to the bid process on the grounds that the Trump Doral is the only suitable property. But that wouldn’t stand up to even the most cursory examination - as I believe other US properties have hosted the G7 and/or similar events in the past. These exceptions to the bidding rules were really designed for obscure and highly specialized technical processes, not hotel services.

It’s been held many times in the US - the last time was at Camp David.

I have trouble believing that Camp David has somehow become unsuitable in the last seven years.

[Max_S]

[quote=“HMS_Irruncible, post:31, topic:841919”]

But -
[ul]
[li]these definitions are clearly not limited to profitability in the narrow sense of a business transaction.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]

My original assertion was that it is debatable whether a loss can be an emolument, and I still stand by that assertion.

Say Mr. President owns a restaurant and invites the Queen of England over to talk about official business over lunch. The President has no manners and mentions beforehand that he will not pay for the meal. The Queen does have manners and decides to buy lunch so HRH and Mr. President may both eat during their meeting, as opposed to the President eating while HRH sits without food. She could eat before or after the meeting at some other place, but feels that to do so would be disrespectful as Mr. President has chosen his own restaurant as the venue.

The Queen eats and pays the restaurant $35. The President indirectly makes a $12 profit from the Queen’s lunch. Is it an emolument? Definitely.

Now what if the President said to the Queen, I can’t let you eat on the house but I’ll give you a $12 discount. The Queen still recognizes the lack of American hospitality but eats nonetheless, paying the restaurant $23. The President makes a $0 profit. Is it an emolument when the Queen paid the restaurant?

I don’t think there’s a clear answer here. As I said before, whether to consider a transaction as a whole or just the individual transfer of money seems arbitrary to me. Let me know why you disagree.

[quote=“HMS_Irruncible, post:31, topic:841919”]

[ul][li]the defintions mention emoluments other than profit[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]

With regard to the above hypothetical, what other kind of emolument do you have in mind? The distinction of having served the Queen of England? It isn’t the Queen’s decision to pay or attend or not that gives the restaurant that benefit, her conduct follows from the rules of diplomacy. It is the President’s decision to have a meeting at his own restaurant that provides the advantage. That would fall under an entirely different clause, the domestic emoluments clause, and I agree that it is a violation there. The President is essentially using his office to refer customers to his own businesses, which gives him an advantage over other businesses. But I don’t think it’s a foreign emolument because it is the President that provides the advantage.

[quote=“HMS_Irruncible, post:31, topic:841919”]

[ul][li]this is all moot because there is literally zero chance of Trump opening his financial books for inspection[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]

There is practically zero chance of Trump opening his books up for inspection. But I still see utility in refining our understanding of the Constitution. So, not moot.

@HMS_Irruncible

[ul][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]

Yup, probably.

@HMS_Irruncible

So let’s please to put the whole profit margin thing to bed; it’s a losing argument.

I didn’t enter this thread to “win” or defend Donald Trump. Could you imagine? How would I sleep at night?

No, I entered to debate the meaning and application of the emoluments clause(s).

~Max

[bobot]

@Johnny_Bravo

It’s been held many times in the US - the last time was at Camp David.

I have trouble believing that Camp David has somehow become unsuitable in the last seven years.

Oh yeah, the Secret Service is unfamiliar with the place, that’s the ticket. And also, it doesn’t help prop up a failing Trump property. I hear revenues at the selected place are down 70% since about Nov. 2016.

[Max_S]

@Ruken

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.

You mean like, an agency sends Bob out to plan an event and Bob tells the contractor not to give him any discounts?

I don’t know if that’s applicable because in a sense, Mr. Trump is both the agency and the contractor; further, I think it’s foreign delegates that will do the paying, not the federal government.

~Max

[Max_S]

@Sinaptics

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?

I imagine the next President saying, oh those are mine now.

~Max

[Ruken]

@Max_S

You mean like, an agency sends Bob out to plan an event and Bob tells the contractor not to give him any discounts?

I don’t know if that’s applicable because in a sense, Mr. Trump is both the agency and the contractor; further, I think it’s foreign delegates that will do the paying, not the federal government.

It was a funding agency. A funding recipient had an event space and offered to host a meeting. There were rules that I didn’t listen to. So maybe this is a completely different situation.

[Dinsdale]

Remember the folk who said they had had enough with career politicians, and that they wanted a “businessperson” as president? Here ya go!

And for the folk who try to compare their personal government expenditures with what happens at this level, I’ve long ago just accepted that there are entirely different sets of rules. For example, I read this a.m. about a $1000 bar tab for gov’t staff at (IIRC) Mar-a-lago (sp?). Yeah - try expensing booze on YOUR gov’t credit card.

I agree with those who say discussing emoluments unnecessarily confuses things. Instead, just beat the drum that this is yet another instance of Trump running his office for personal advantage and financial gain. Hopefully, enough voters will find that troublesome… (HOPEfully!)

[Omar_Little]

@Max_S

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.

One time, I stayed in the same suite right after Michael Jordan and his wife checked out. It didn’t enhance the experience for me.

[Czarcasm]

@Max_S

I imagine the next President saying, oh those are mine now.

~Max

I imagine anything of value will be quietly shipped out before he leaves office without fear of having to provide a list of what was taken to those who couldn’t even manage to get his tax records. “You want a list of what I took? I would love to hand it over…just as soon as my person auditors are done with it.”

[Omar_Little]

@Czarcasm

I imagine anything of value will be quietly shipped out before he leaves office without fear of having to provide a list of what was taken to those who couldn’t even manage to get his tax records. “You want a list of what I took? I would love to hand it over…just as soon as my person auditors are done with it.”

Well I’m sure that the Clinton’s will send back all the “W”'s from the keyboards they took when Elizabeth Warren takes up residence.

[enipla]

@Dinsdale

And for the folk who try to compare their personal government expenditures with what happens at this level, I’ve long ago just accepted that there are entirely different sets of rules. For example, I read this a.m. about a $1000 bar tab for gov’t staff at (IIRC) Mar-a-lago (sp?). Yeah - try expensing booze on YOUR gov’t credit card.

Yep, I used to get a per-diem check. I could do whatever the fuck I wanted to with it. It was payment for being away from home.

Now, I still have a per-diem, but it’s charged to a gov CC. I can’t even buy a beer with dinner. Got to get a separate check. It’s sort of embarrassing.

[begbert2]

@Dinsdale

I agree with those who say discussing emoluments unnecessarily confuses things. Instead, just beat the drum that this is yet another instance of Trump running his office for personal advantage and financial gain. Hopefully, enough voters will find that troublesome… (HOPEfully!)

I’m not sure that ANY Trump supporter would find “Trump figured out how to personally benefit using his connections to the US government” troublesome. The wealthy types would see it as no different from what they do, and the deplorables would think it was awesome that he was bilking The Man.

[PhillyGuy]

@DoctorJ

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.

Exactly.

June in Miami-Dade, 30 minutes from the ocean, is not when you can fill a 643 room luxury hotel, even one with a good rep. From what I read in the Commander in Cheat book, Doral is often deserted.

I have a request for any foreign leaders lurking here

Attend the meetings, but please stay in another hotel! I checked Google Maps. There is an affordable Holiday Inn just a nine minute walk away!

I realize there is a question as to whether the likely small number of ordinary guests might be kept away during the confab. If they all are, there might be a little something to the at-cost thing. But the way Doral is set up, with many separate buildings, it opens the possibility of ordinary guests being kept well apart from Merkel and Putin. The many-buildings design could even be why Trump proposed this particular property.

If I’m wrong, one of the Republicans here can tell me. Maybe they can tell us what Trump is planning to charge Merkel for a room.

[simster]

@PhillyGuy

Exactly.

June in Miami-Dade, 30 minutes from the ocean, is not when you can fill a 643 room luxury hotel, even one with a good rep. From what I read in the Commander in Cheat book, Doral is often deserted.

I have a request for any foreign leaders lurking here

Attend the meetings, but please stay in another hotel! I checked Google Maps. There is an affordable Holiday Inn just a nine minute walk away!

I realize there is a question as to whether the likely small number of ordinary guests might be kept away during the confab. If they all are, there might be a little something to the at-cost thing. But the way Doral is set up, with many separate buildings, it opens the possibility of ordinary guests being kept well apart from Merkel and Putin. The many-buildings design could even be why Trump proposed this particular property.

If I’m wrong, one of the Republicans here can tell me. Maybe they can tell us what Trump is planning to charge Merkel for a room.

Look - he keeps repeating that no one other than the USA pays thier fair share, so he clearly can’t charge Merkel the going rate, he has to charge her triple just to get half.

[Kobal2]

@Dinsdale

I agree with those who say discussing emoluments unnecessarily confuses things. Instead, just beat the drum that this is yet another instance of Trump running his office for personal advantage and financial gain. Hopefully, enough voters will find that troublesome… (HOPEfully!)

The funny thing (well, not funny ha-ha) is that he would run his office for so little financial gain. I mean, once you’ve cast away any moral fiber in your heart, there’s a million ways to make a lot of money out of a senior government position. Like, a lot a lot. Many in Trump’s administration do and have done before leaving. And Trump is the most powerful man on the planet, he could be taking in briefcases full of cash on a daily basis from dozens of sources foreign and domestic. He could sell insider info, leak decisions and executive orders the day before, rent the military, sell UN votes and vetos, start giant public work projects and distribute pork left and right… really, when you’re the imperial president, the sky’s the limit.
But all he can imagine to do is a penny-ante real estate grift. And I don’t know why, but it’s somehow worse to sell out for a bag of peanuts than to sell out at all.

[KidCharlemagne]

@Czarcasm

I imagine anything of value will be quietly shipped out before he leaves office without fear of having to provide a list of what was taken to those who couldn’t even manage to get his tax records. “You want a list of what I took? I would love to hand it over…just as soon as my person auditors are done with it.”

The place will be completely bare except for a bust of MLK in the basement.

[Johnny_L.A]

Does this apply [emphasis mine]?

U.S. Code § 208. Acts affecting a personal financial interest

(a) Except as permitted by subsection (b) hereof, whoever, being an officer or employee of the executive branch of the United States Government, or of any independent agency of the United States, a Federal Reserve bank director, officer, or employee, or an officer or employee of the District of Columbia, including a special Government employee, participates personally and substantially as a Government officer or employee, through decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, the rendering of advice, investigation, or otherwise, in a judicial or other proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other determination, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest, or other particular matter in which, to his knowledge, he, his spouse, minor child, general partner, organization in which he is serving as officer, director, trustee, general partner or employee, or any person or organization with whom he is negotiating or has any arrangement concerning prospective employment, has a financial interest—

Shall be subject to the penalties set forth in section 216 of this title.

[Buck_Godot]

@Kobal2

The funny thing (well, not funny ha-ha) is that he would run his office for so little financial gain. I mean, once you’ve cast away any moral fiber in your heart, there’s a million ways to make a lot of money out of a senior government position. Like, a lot a lot. Many in Trump’s administration do and have done before leaving. And Trump is the most powerful man on the planet, he could be taking in briefcases full of cash on a daily basis from dozens of sources foreign and domestic. He could sell insider info, leak decisions and executive orders the day before, rent the military, sell UN votes and vetos, start giant public work projects and distribute pork left and right… really, when you’re the imperial president, the sky’s the limit.
But all he can imagine to do is a penny-ante real estate grift. And I don’t know why, but it’s somehow worse to sell out for a bag of peanuts than to sell out at all.

Your posting as if this is an “or” proposition, rather than an “and”. I have no doubt that he’s doing all of the other things you posted as well as grafting for his hotel. It force of habit not to leave any money on the table. If your cleaning out the bank vault, why not go a head and take that big bag of nickles on your way out.

[Walken_After_Midnight]

Catherine Rampell, Washington Post:

Sen. Ken Cramer (R-ND) on Trump’s decision to award G7 summit to his own Miami property: “It may seem careless politically, but on the other hand there’s tremendous integrity in his boldness and his transparency”

Josh Dawsey, Washington Post:

“It is a form of shamelessness worn as a badge of protection — on the implicit theory that the president’s alleged offenses can’t be that serious if he commits them in full public view.”