What case law construing the Emoluments Clause are you relying upon in reaching this legal conclusion?
Under oath in a criminal grand jury proceeding, Clinton spoke as follows concerning the definition of “sexual relations” presented at his deposition in the Jones case, which was: “A person engages in ‘sexual relations’ when the person knowingly engages in or causes contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.”
That testimony was determined to be false.
Sessions’s testimony was shown to be false as well, wasn’t it?
The only ways to get him out are:
[ul]
[li]Death[/li][li]25th Amendment[/li][li]Half the country stops going to work until he quits[/li][li]Not reelected[/li]
[/ul]
He’ll never be impeached and convicted. He could be indicted, tried and convicted of a crime and Repubs won’t even blink.
Four years is a long time for people to be laughing at you though. Bannon’s gonna have to gin something up major pretty soon to get that to stop.
Where did you get the idea I was making a legal argument?
As I have often pointed out, IANAL. I am not making a legal argument. Not submitting a brief, don’t have time to head to the law library to research case law for you. But from me as a layperson and as you know, the Emoluments Clause appears in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution. It bars any “person holding any office of profit or trust under” the United States from accepting any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign state” “without the consent of the Congress.” It obviously applies to a President, the precedent being that it has most recently been applied to President Obama and his acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize. (In a 13-page opinion, President Obama was found to be not in violation of the Clause.)
In short, Trump is very likely in violation of the Constitution. Personally, I don’t think this is even in question. If the Emoluments Clause can be so narrowly construed as to apply to Obama’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize, then certainly it ought to apply to Trump’s wide and far-reaching international investments.
Trump has only divested the management function of his businesses to his sons – not the ownership. He has not put his business into a blind trust. He continues to profit from those businesses and the extensive contact he and his family members have had with foreign governments. The examples are myriad:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/22/us/politics/trump-foreign-payments-constitution-lawsuit.html?_r=0"]Payments made to Trump from foreign governments expressly violate the Emoluments Clause.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/china-grants-trump-38-trademarks-reopening-debate-about-conflicts-of-interest/2017/03/08/3b2e8434-0414-11e7-a391-651727e77fc0_story.html?utm_term=.75bd2255e3c1"]38 trademarks granted by China.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-13/kushners-set-to-get-400-million-from-chinese-on-marquee-tower"]Kuschner family to receive 400 million from China for the Marquee Tower.
But do you honestly believe there is not a strong argument to be made that he is in violation? Do you imagine he has no communication with his family members about the status of the family business? Does benefiting family members not also benefit Trump? His son-in-law and daughter work with him within the White House, FFS. These people appear to spend 24/7 with each other.
From a layperson, for what it’s worth.
Republican. Different rules.
Proof that Trump colluded with Russia to influence the election may indeed sway opinion against him enough to lead to impeachment.
But what would constitute proof; photos of Trump meeting with known Russian agents, documents showing the Trump campaign knew about the DNC hacking before it happened, traceable payment from Russia to Trump’s personal accounts, sworn testimony from a Russian agent who participated? I think we could have video footage on the evening news of Trump ordering the whole thing and his supporters would still dismiss it, because liberal media, and it’s just talk, and everyone is against him, and it didn’t really sway the election, and what about those millions of illegal Democratic votes anyway.
Republican. Different reality.
I wish they really were in a different reality. I’m tired of sharing mine with such vile specimens of the race.
Nothing will make Trump resign. Or make his tax returns public. Nothing. And no one can make him. Short of a SWAT team storming the oval office and physically carrying him off to maximum security solitary confinement without his phone. Sad.
I believe attention is being paid to the change* in the GOP platform (last July). The fact that it was so clearly and unambiguously a change made to please the Kremlin, combined with the pattern of meetings and contacts between the Trump campaign and known Russian actors/agents prior to the change, may make it possible to prove an unmistakable quid pro quo (or as near as these things ever get).
- A short excerpt from a good account:
Donald Trump's Campaign Tweaked The GOP Platform On Ukraine In Putin's Favor : NPR
It stinks to high heaven, sure, but it’s not proof, especially to people with their fingers in their ears.
Wouldn’t it be awesome if in order to impeach Trump (and Lock Him Up!), all you needed was the same level of proof that Trump uses to fuel his hallucinatory accusations? To be able to gather all of Congress up at one time, and say:
“Many people are saying.”
As the economy goes south, more and more will start pulling those fingers out of those ears.
People smell through their ears?
Yeah, but they won’t blame Trump. They’ll say he inherited a bad situation from Obama. Wait–Trump and his cronies are saying that already. The man is untouchable until his cronies grow some gonads. That’s not likely to happen.
I hope I’m proved wrong.
Let me clarify the point of the question in the context of WordMan’s post. I am aware that Clinton lied under oath, but by then the investigation was well advanced. At the point the investigation started - which is where we are now with Trump - Clinton had done nothing wrong (well, nothing legally wrong - infidelity is a separate issue).
WordMan asked what Trump had done that “could lead to legal or congressional action”. Clinton hadn’t done anything at this stage and yet there was deemed sufficient evidence to start a long, expensive and very broadly scoped investigation. There’s more than enough evidence to initiate a similar investigation into Trump. I suspect the level of proof required will be much, much higher because Trump has a sympathetic Congress, but nonetheless they could certainly start the ball rolling whenever they like.
Thanks. That speaks to how I have been trying to think about things. While an explicit law may not have been crossed (yet) by Trump’s tweets, taken as a whole, there is enough evidence to warrant special investigation, should Congress be so inclined. As others have said, I suspect they won’t be so inclined unless / until a complaint against Trump crosses a line, e.g. A result from the FBI investigators, or movement on a case regarding emoluments, nepotism, unfair advantage, etc.
I am seeing a little light in a number of things: The town halls that have become chants of “DO your job!!!”; The media getting more of a handle on how to cover lying; The natural progress of investigations; the lawsuits that are being filed against don the con by organizations with resources.
There will be public pressures that are not being accounted for now, because we have been traumatized lately as a country, and are basically punch drunk.
"Members of the Donald Trump transition team, possibly including Trump himself, were under surveillance during the Obama administration following November’s election, House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes told reporters Wednesday.
Nunes said the surveillance appears to have been legal, incidental collection and that it does not appear to have been related to concerns over collusion with Russia."
The "incidental"ness of the collection did not prevent Flynn’s conversations to be published in the press, did it?