OMG!!! :eek::eek:
nm
You’re just a big silly! They were trading borscht recipes-- for Valentine’s Day. Borscht is a very Valentine-y dish because it’s red, dontcha know. Red for lurve, not Red for, you know “Reds.”
She can reach anyone.
I am not sure that this is a hypothetical or a real example anymore, but in either case, the answer is the same. Obama should not make a profit off of books sold over seas while he is a sitting president. How exactly he goes about this, I am not sure what is best (charity, donation to the govt, or just not receiving royalties), but I would be concerned, as a citizen, if I knew that he was receiving substantial monies from foreign actors.
We had this discussion about a year ago, when we were talking about McDonnell (maybe) and his questionable income and gifts, when I was talking about how I didn’t think that any govt officials of any type should be receiving any sort of valuable gifts from anyone without clearing them through an ethics committee first. People at that point said I was too strict, and that no one would want the job if you cut off all the perks.
I personally think that being president is perk enough, and that if there are some obligations that come with being in the most powerful office in the world, well, that’s just the price to pay.
I honestly don’t know. I would have thought it would, as the plain reading of the text in the constitution would suggest, prevent govt officials from receiving money or valuable gifts from foreign entities.
As that is not the case, I suppose it is more like an appendix. Serves no purpose, and it only gets noticed when it is inflamed.
The point that I think that you are making is that the clause has no purpose, no meaning, and no enforcement mechanism. I understand that point, and that seems to be what congress is operating under at the moment, but I thoroughly disagree that this constitutional clause should be so ignored and put aside.
I am not okay with that. I kinda understand why it exists, in that it is impossible for a president to recuse themselves, and it is possible that even in a blind or clear trust, the president may have a conflict of interest that cannot be resolved, so it makes sense that a president doesn’t need to always worry about that sort of thing. The problem is that these laws invite abuse by unscrupulous actors.
I do not know how the laws could be easily changed in order to accommodate both the need for a president to not need to recuse himself, while protecting the office from those who would abuse it, but I wold say the current setup is problematic.
As the reason for the FGaDA is to keep office holders from having to declare and clear every penne-ante gift they receive, the idea is that these gifts would not be enough to sway the official’s opinion enough to create a conflict of interest.
The $400 limit sounds good. I would say that if it is greater than that, then even a president should be required to return or donate the money, or face sanction by courts or congress.
My issue is that there does not seem to be ANY trigger for the clause. I’ve asked if trump were to blatantly and obviously violate the clause, by say, publically taking a 100 million dollar check from putin, and declaring it is in exchange for our backing out of nato, would that trigger any sort of sanction, and got no answer, so I have to assume the answer is, and that you don’t want to give it, is “no”, and that I was right at the beginning, when I said that trump could get away with anything.
I do hear there are some hotter, younger countries out there.
Naw, see, 18? For Borscht and Valentine’s day? I’d believe two for Borscht, maybe five for the Valentine. So you’ve got seven. I’ll give you seven.
That’s certainly a position to take, but I hope you see that it’s in the strong minority: there is no real support, from either major party, to impose that strict a scheme.
Congress certainly COULD impose it.
But I’m saying that they haven’t, and don’t seem to want to.
Right. But here’s the way our system works: typically cases arise under constitutional guarantees, and then courts adjudicate them, and the legislature passes laws that give them shape.
The Fourth Amendment has been the subject of roughly one zillion Supreme Court decisions. And as a result we have a reasonably good picture of most of the Fourth Amendment’s contours.
The Emoluments Clause has never once been construed by the Supreme Court.
So I’m suggesting that while this may be a great place to start framing it, the plain fact is that the strict view you advise was not adopted by George Washington, who accepted gifts from the French (painting and a key to the Bastille) without an apparent concern about triggering the Emoluments Clause, even though the people that had just approved the Clause were all right there.
I am also suggesting that now, you cannot really say, “This is what the Clause does actually mean,” when no one in power treated it that way for the past 240 years. You can of course say that we should adopt a new meaning.
But can you really say, “…and then apply it retroactively?”
Back to the original topic.
Things are progressing nicely, slowly as expected, but nicely. Did a check of Fox News for their tone these days and if that one snapshot of time is any indication they seem to be quietly starting to inch in the direction of the lifeboats off of the S.S. Trump, just in case. And the number of ambitious people who are willing to go on record defending him is getting smaller and smaller.
Hell, if you’re ambitious, you shouldn’t have anything to DO with this administration.
Sorry to take so long to get back to this. My busy work periods run in fits and starts.
If I’ve distilled all your language down to its essentials, what I think you are saying is that because there is no case law on the subject, the Emoluments Clause doesn’t apply. Huh? I don’t believe you can ignore the spirit and intent of the Constitution on that basis.
Trump’s situation is exactly what you yourself define as emoluments: “It referred to benefits in money or in other items of financial value, other than periodic pay (salary), received as a result of occupying a particular civil or military position.”
You know better than most that case law is made when new issues/situations are tested against existing legislative law and/or what is stated in the Constitution. To slightly alter the famous Carl Sandburg saying, “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, you argue equity. And if all three are against you, you pound the table and yell like hell.”
In this instance, I think the facts, law and equity are all entirely on the side of the Constitution. Just because it has not previously been interpreted doesn’t mean it won’t be now or should not be.
Re the Obama case, I was aware of what it said when I cited you to the link. But I think you’ve cherry-picked some very narrow language and have misinterpreted it in the cases against Trump. It’s exactly because of that language that the case against Trump is strengthened. In Obama’s case, you argue that in my link it says that the Nobel Prize money was acceptable “primarily because the Norwegian group that awards the prize was not deemed a governmental entity.”
You then ask, “If that’s the operative word, then which of Trump’s supposed violations come at the hands of a “governmental entity?””
This argument makes no sense to me at all. He and his family profit – rather flagrantly, in my opinion – from foreign governments in so many ways it’s mind boggling. From rooms and event venues rented in his hotels, to “donations” made to his charitable organizations that then flow through to him personally, from loans made by foreign entities where private business and government are seamlessly blended as in the cases of Russia and Saudi Arabia… surely you understand this? There has never been such shameless disregard of a Section in our Constitution – so important to the framers that it is enshrined in Article 1! The Emoluments Clause is not just a quaint antiquity. The entire point of it is to prevent corruption of our leaders by foreign governments through pay-to-play schemes. Trump is a walking advertisement for pay-to-play.
I don’t think we will understand the operation of the Clause until it has been interpreted into case law. But to ignore the spirit of the law simply because it’s never previously been tested seems like a weak argument to me. Interpretation of that Clause has never been tested in 240 years because prior to now, it never had to be. Today, I’d say interpretation of it is 240 years overdue.
I think the strongest part of what you argued is that Congress has chosen to be unconcerned over the consent issue and to do nothing which, as a practical matter, has resulted in no consequences to Trump. But I would modify that statement in a couple of ways. Let’s make it clear: This Congress has chosen to do nothing. But based on the lawsuit now filed by Democrats in Congress, that would no longer appear to be the case. It’s true they are not working within the framework of congressional procedure, but obviously they can’t. Yet. Should the makeup of the Congress change significantly at the mid-terms, I think you will be surprised (though you should not be) at how fast they act. By failing to act, this Congress has made Trump’s profiteering a political issue and not a legal one. Shame on them.
Of course as you know, IANAL.
I hadn’t seen Greg Jarrett in 20 years and he shows up on Hannity with the most repellent slavish talking point rant I have ever seen. Wow. I thought he was a normal person when he was on Court TV.
Your entire post is well-argued, but I had to highlight this passage. Because the GOP Congress has so far made it clear that they put party before country, a de facto ‘normalization’ of Trump’s blatant corruption has lulled many Americans into indifference. But as you say, the framers of the Constitution saw corruption and potential foreign influence as issues of so great import, as to merit placement in Article 1.
Returning the favor, what I think you’re saying is: yes, there’s no precedent, but the courts could craft specifics, or Congress could act.
To which I say: yes, of course. Both those outcomes are possible.
I confidently predict neither will happen.
Thank you. 
I did try to address what you pointed out in my next-to-last paragraph. And I completely agree with what you stated with respect to the GOP. As to normalization, my hope is bolstered somewhat based on some things we’re seeing around the country pertaining to a re-engagement by left-leaning types in the democratic process. In the Virginia primary election that took place on Tuesday, Democratic turnout increased by a whopping 170%. That’s going to leave a mark come the mid-terms.
I look forward also to seeing how Jon Ossoff does next week.
Ok.
Me, as well. Without putting too much weight on the significance of the outcome, of course, remembering how much money is being spent to defeat Ossoff. (And plenty is being spent to elect him, too.)
One thing this whole horror-show has accomplished is to remind me that many life-long Republicans are people who do put country before party; expressions of what is surely genuine dismay at the Trump Administration’s violations of long-held norms aren’t difficult to find, either in print or on television news. For me, that’s a heartening development.
Another step on the road.
The Washington Post reports that the special counsel is investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice.
LOL, I was just coming here to post that.
Happy birthday, Mr. President. 
At this point, I could picture the outcome being every American except Trump gets impeached.
And the inching seems to have become more pronounced now, as a check over at Fox’s site, on this the day the that Trump is under investigation was reported, shows no Pro Trump content or opinion on the top “Page”.