# Trump's vulnerability to legal problems as President: How Severe? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 22, 2017, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872 "2017-01-22T21:15:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2017, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872/41 "2017-01-23T23:06:31Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > This has nothing to do with the strength of the position. It’s just a weird ad hominem, implying that the poster doesn’t really believe the thing they assert. People would do well not to engage you if you insist on attacking the poster’s sincerity rather than the strength of the assertion itself. That’s also sure interesting. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2017, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872/42 "2017-01-23T23:14:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s also sure interesting. The thread was far more interesting before it became about you and your wallet. [edit: and I realize now I’m really helping this silly hijack, so I’ll leave it be.] ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2017, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872/43 "2017-01-23T23:28:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Can you give a specific example of how a nation might “call in” debt? > > For example, I owe (let’s say) $250,000 on my home mortgage. But the bank that holds my mortgage can’t just send me a letter saying, “Dear Bricker, We’re calling in your note. Please remit a check for $250,000 or we will begin foreclosure proceedings.” I have a debt, but the terms of repayment are fixed. > > Can you explain what kind of debt you’re picturing, with terms so fluid that the nation holding the debt can just call it in? Mortgages have fixed terms of repayment. There are a number of “financial instruments” that don’t; they’re called _call loans_, and can be redeemed by the lender at any time, not on a date certain. The public isn’t offered them because federal law doesn’t allow it, but they’re not uncommon in finance (particularly for brokerages). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872/44 "2017-01-24T00:20:25Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Mortgages have fixed terms of repayment. There are a number of “financial instruments” that don’t; they’re called _call loans_, and can be redeemed by the lender at any time, not on a date certain. The public isn’t offered them because federal law doesn’t allow it, but they’re not uncommon in finance (particularly for brokerages). I am somewhat out of my depth here, but I have only ever heard of call loans in association with margin calls – that is, a brokerage (as you say) buying on margin. Is this type of loan that Trump might have? ---
**Author:** ![jasg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f0a364/32.png) [@jasg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jasg)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872/45 "2017-01-24T03:12:36Z")
[Callable loans](https://www.realpropertycheck.com/latest/how-banks-can-call-due-commercial-loan-even-though-it-is-being-serviced-on-time/) seem to be possible in commercial real estate - whether or not the Trump organization has them is anyone’s guess but this [article](http://washingtonmonthly.com/2016/12/14/donald-trumps-german-debt-bomb/) in Washington Monthly is interesting. It discusses possible problems with Deutsche Bank. > [@Washington Monthly](#): > > In practice, since loan covenant breaches, even “technical” ones are so common, a lot of real estate loans can be called anytime. Now consider what that means for Donald Trump, a lot of whose net worth consists of his participation in big real estate projects. Trump has a bad reputation with lenders (they got burned 4 times) – Deutsche Bank was odd in that it was a major bank prepared to lend to Trump – but who knows the details, how the loan was syndicated. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872/46 "2017-01-24T03:38:04Z")
I hazard a guess that he’s _severely_ severely vulnerable. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872/47 "2017-01-24T03:49:29Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Every reference in this thread to someone saying Trump broke the law is a complete irrelevance. A political lawsuit by someone who hates Trump? Happens every administration. A journalist doesn’t like Trump? Well of course he doesn’t. Who cares? People don’t like Trump not divesting his holdings? No law against it. > > Articles and opinion pieces on the Internet are not worth the paper they aren’t printed on. This is all the buzzing of gnats. Even evidence Trump broke the law’s irrelevant. He can’t be impeached unless Republicans want to impeach him, and they don’t care if his charity broke the law and probably wouldn’t care if he was proven he raped someone. We are a long, long way from 1974, when Congress actually cared about Presidents breaking the law. > > When someone **who can actually have influence in starting impeachment proceedings** says they’re really thinking about it, then it’s a story. Not before. True, but you’re neglecting these points: 1. Such articles will haunt Trump, because his whole standard for success is the popular belief in his success. The more legal attacks on him, the more proof that people think poorly of him, etc. the more erratic and error-prone he will become. At some point (in theory) this could be sufficient to make him a large enough liability that the Republican party will grab one of these legal arguments and run with it. 2. A standard politician is the slave of his electorate. Regardless of the reality of everything, what the people want is what they will get. If they are sufficiently sold on arguments like these, in sufficient percentiles, for a long enough period, the politicians will start moving to please their electorate. I am not saying that either of these is a likely outcome. But I do think you’re underestimating the malleability of reality to popularity. It is, after all, exactly that process which got us to this point. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872/48 "2017-01-24T03:51:33Z")
Anyone have an opinion on whether Trump is now in violation of his lease on the Old Post Office Pavilion (now the Trump International Hotel)? According to [Government Executive magazine](http://www.govexec.com/excellence/promising-practices/2016/11/gsas-trump-hotel-lease-debacle/133424/), “The contract language is clear: ‘No … elected official of the Government of the United States … shall be admitted to any share or part of this Lease, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom…’” ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872/49 "2017-01-24T04:09:16Z")
I would say that Trump is completely immune to everything, so long as he wants it. Before even talking about evidence or even talking about whether the Republican party would really go after him, we have to consider the Presidential pardon. Trump is widely accepted to take advantage of any and all loopholes that he can avail himself of, even social ones - like the expectation that people won’t sue him over stiffing then on a bill. So where a politician, like Nixon, might step down rather than take advantage of the Presidential pardon to clear away all threats. Trump will simply tap dance around granting every person he’s ever had dealings with a guaranteed no-penalty blessing. You will have to convict him without a single witness. And when you do, he’ll simply pardon himself. This isn’t to say that such a strategy would really work. If the people want him gone, he will be booted out no matter what. But to get him out will not be pretty. He will make it far harder than almost anyone you could think of but David Miscavige, and the Legislature is going to realize this, from working with him. The amount of pressure that would need to be applied by the people is going to be a lot higher than was required by Nixon. No one wants to have to deal with an angry toddler in the middle of a supermarket. No matter how it plays out, no one is going to come out of it looking good. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872/50 "2017-01-24T04:28:36Z")
Wait, where is a pardon relevant? Which of the legal issues in play are pardonable to begin with? ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872/51 "2017-01-24T04:48:22Z")
Question to Bricker re: [Ethics Experts File Lawsuit Saying Trump’s Overseas Interests Violate Constitution](http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/23/511183740/ethics-experts-to-file-lawsuit-saying-trumps-overseas-interests-violate-constitu) 1. Do these “ethics experts” have standing? “CREW says in the suit that it has been harmed by Trump’s conflicts of interest because as a government-ethics watchdog, it has been forced to put more time and resources into opposing and publicizing them.” That sounds awfully flimsy to me. 2. “The group says it is asking the court “to stop Trump from violating the Constitution by illegally receiving payments from foreign governments” with ties to Trump interests.” - how exactly can the court “stop” Trump? By what mechanism? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 10:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872/52 "2017-01-24T10:04:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Wait, where is a pardon relevant? > > Which of the legal issues in play are pardonable to begin with? Perhaps I am wrong, but as I understand it there is no limit to a Presidential pardon. A President may, for example, give a blanket statement that all Southerners are pardoned for trying to secede - regardless of whether there would be any practicable way of penalizing them. A President may, for example, offer a blanket statement that Hillary Clinton is pardoned from any financial crimes, regardless of the question of whether she did actually commit any financial crimes. Or, simply, a President could issue a statement about a select group of people, stating that they are immune from investigation, immune from warrants, immune from court summons, immune from contempt of court charges, etc. Now, granted, this would only be a pardon so far as Federal agencies might be concerned. But that does cover quite a wide range of scenarios. It makes almost any attempt to establish criminal behavior very difficult to accomplish. As I understand it, a person does not need to be prosecuted and found guilty, prior to a Presidential pardon being able to have any effect. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872/53 "2017-01-24T11:41:25Z")
There’s the example of [Carter pardoning the draft-dodgers](http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/carter-pardons-draft-dodgers), which he did at the start of his administration. > [@](#): > > Carter’s pardon stated that only civilians who were convicted of [violating] the Military Selective Service Act by draft-evasion acts or omissions committed between August 4, 1964 and March 28, 1973 were eligible. The pardon was unconditional and wiped criminal records clean, but it only applied to civilians, not the estimated 500,000 to 1 million active-duty personnel who went AWOL (absent without leave) or deserted during the war. I’d have to read the specific terms of the pardon and more about the circumstances, but it looks like it covered thousands of people without having to name all of them, and many of them were still in hiding somewhere in the U.S. or Canada and had thus never been indicted, let alone convicted, yet could step forward and request and receive a pardon. I don’t know if this required some rubber-stamp admission/conviction/pardon paperwork. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872/54 "2017-01-24T11:53:33Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Do these “ethics experts” have standing? “CREW says in the suit that it has been harmed by Trump’s conflicts of interest because as a government-ethics watchdog, it has been forced to put more time and resources into opposing and publicizing them.” That sounds awfully flimsy to me. Yes, it’s very flimsy. If federal standing could be established so easily, advocacy groups across the board could easily establish standing. The Drug Policy Alliance could sue to enjoin the enforcement of any federal drug law; PETA could sue to stop wind farms because they kill golden eagles. In fact, such suits fail because of lack of standing. _Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife_ is a specific example of an animal advocacy group seeking a rule to more widely apply the Endangered Species Act. The Court absolutely rejected the wide standing arguments offered up by Defenders of Wildlife. > [@](#): > > The group says it is asking the court “to stop Trump from violating the Constitution by illegally receiving payments from foreign governments” with ties to Trump interests." - how exactly can the court “stop” Trump? By what mechanism? That’s actually another good point. The group vaguely alleges monetary harm (“CREW’s in-house attorneys have diverted their time and resources from other projects to counteract Defendant’s violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause. Since the election, CREW has received numerous requests for information and guidance about the Foreign Emoluments Clause from policymakers. To respond to those requests, and as part of CREW’s advocacy in support of its mission of ensuring the integrity of government officials, CREW has expended significant resources conducting legal research regarding the history and scope of the Foreign Emoluments Clause. Moreover, CREW’s attorneys, including its executive director, have spent a significant amount of time on phone calls and meetings responding to those inquires…”) but does not ask for monetary damages. The Clause has no criminal penalties and no enforcement mechanism. It’s almost certainly what the Court would call a political question, with enforcement arising from political action, not judicial. In short: this suit is garbage, filed for publicity and leveraging public lack of information on the issue. Which makes it sauce for the goose, I suppose. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872/55 "2017-01-24T12:04:51Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > A President may, for example, give a blanket statement that all Southerners are pardoned for trying to secede - regardless of whether there would be any practicable way of penalizing them. Yes. > [@](#): > > A President may, for example, offer a blanket statement that Hillary Clinton is pardoned from any financial crimes, regardless of the question of whether she did actually commit any financial crimes. Yes, as to federal financial crimes. > [@](#): > > Or, simply, a President could issue a statement about a select group of people, stating that they are immune from investigation, immune from warrants, immune from court summons, immune from contempt of court charges, etc. Now, granted, this would only be a pardon so far as Federal agencies might be concerned. But that does cover quite a wide range of scenarios. It makes almost any attempt to establish criminal behavior very difficult to accomplish. No. The pardon power may not reach future activities. A pardon can only forgive what has past, and not prospectively immunize future acts. This does not forbid investigation, warrants, summons, or contempt of court charges. Indeed, the existence of a pardon is for the defense to establish, not for the prosecution to introduce. But the commentary about leases with GSA, the Emoluments Clause, the called loans – none of these are criminal issues to begin with. Trump cannot pardon anyone for violating the GSA lease. It’s not a crime, even if it turns out that the lease was violated six ways from Sunday. What criminal issues do you see in play? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872/56 "2017-01-24T17:44:24Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I’ll give you three to one odds that he won’t stop. > > Regards, > Shodan > [@Bricker](#): > > So I decline your invitation to stop. You couldn’t have waited until someone fell for it? I need the money. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872/57 "2017-01-24T17:52:25Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > You couldn’t have waited until someone fell for it? I need the money. > > Regards, > Shodan Actually, since then he’s engaged in substantive legal analysis, of the sort that he’s rightly respected for. Reading his posts in this thread have nudged my opinion of this case from “optimistic” to “wearily suspicious,” because they appear (to my untrained legal eye) persuasive. You’re lucky I dislike betting; you woulda lost :). ---
**Author:** ![Tired\_and\_Cranky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tired_and_Cranky)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872/58 "2017-01-24T20:48:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I will bet you $500 that if this if this matter ends up being tried, the final federal appellate decision will be that the Emoluments Clause is not violated by Trump. (emphasis added) **Bricker** , I really want to take your bet but I know I’ll never be able to collect. I’ll spend all my time arguing about what the bet really meant and why you owe me $500. > [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, it’s very flimsy. If federal standing could be established so easily, advocacy groups across the board could easily establish standing. The Drug Policy Alliance could sue to enjoin the enforcement of any federal drug law; PETA could sue to stop wind farms because they kill golden eagles. In fact, such suits fail because of lack of standing. _Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife_ is a specific example of an animal advocacy group seeking a rule to more widely apply the Endangered Species Act. The Court absolutely rejected the wide standing arguments offered up by Defenders of Wildlife. If a court dismisses the case based on standing, that’s not a finding that the Emoluments Clause wasn’t violated by Trump. It’s a procedural holding that the people who sued aren’t appropriately situated to sue. The court will never reach the substantive issue of whether Emoluments Clause was violated. If you are right about this, and you likely are, you have lost your bet. > [@Bricker](#): > > It’s almost certainly what the Court would call a political question, with enforcement arising from political action, not judicial. Again, even if you are right about this, and you probably are, if the court dismisses the suit because it’s a non-justiciable political question, you’ve still lost your bet. That’s not a holding by a court that the Emoluments Clause wasn’t violated. It’s a finding that court isn’t situated to address any violation and the redress is through the political process – either the next election or impeachment. The problem with this suit is that Trump can try to spin any dismissal on non-substantive grounds as complete vindication of his activities. That won’t be true. No court will have vindicated him. They won’t really express any claim about the substance. However, Trump will claim that he was vindicated and many headlines worded as sloppily as your bet will wrongly back him up. The case has the real potential to take away the political power of a very serious issue. Of course, a holding that this is a non-justiciable political question should put pressure on Congress to act, but if voters who don’t understand the courts’ proceedings feel that the courts have vindicated Trump, all that pressure will dissolve. FYI, there are reports that other lawyers are trying to find better plaintiffs with better standing to sue under the Emoluments Clause. Would your $500 bet cover every final appeal of every lawsuit under the Emoluments Clause? You just say the “the final federal appellate decision” but you don’t limit it to any one particular lawsuit. If you’re going to waive your wallet around, please do it more carefully. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872/59 "2017-01-24T21:34:31Z")
I wonder if hotel companies might have standing. We already have evidence (video interviews) of foreign dignitaries stating that they’ve chosen to stay in a Trump-branded property because they want to please Trump. Therefore Trump’s decision to violate the Emoluments clause (by owning or owning an interest in hotel properties) has materially harmed hotel-company competitors. Of course that’s not the same thing as ‘a citizen of the United States has been materially harmed due to Presidential decisions made by Trump that put his own business interests above the interests of US citizens,’ which I assume would be the gold standard. But as to how that could be proven–there’s the rub. Would proof reply upon the existence of, and access to, parallel universes in which Trump did NOT make Presidential decisions that prioritized his own business interests above the interests of US citizens—? (For the purpose of measuring the harm, that is–comparing the prosperity of a citizen in Universe Y, the ‘Trump has integrity’ universe, with the prosperity of that same citizen in Universe Eccch, our universe.) If so then _no_ lawsuit against Trump for violation of the E.C. could succeed. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872/60 "2017-01-24T21:43:08Z")
> [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](#): > > If a court dismisses the case based on standing, that’s not a finding that the Emoluments Clause wasn’t violated by Trump. It’s a procedural holding that the people who sued aren’t appropriately situated to sue. The court will never reach the substantive issue of whether Emoluments Clause was violated. If you are right about this, and you likely are, you have lost your bet. No. I probably won’t have. Because the bet offer says, “If this if this matter ends up being tried…” If it’s dismissed then it won’t be tried. > [@](#): > > Would your $500 bet cover every final appeal of every lawsuit under the Emoluments Clause? You just say the “the final federal appellate decision” but you don’t limit it to any one particular lawsuit. > > If you’re going to waive your wallet around, please do it more carefully. The bet I offered above was tied to this case. But I’m willing to entertain a similar bet for any finding on the merits of the Emoluments Clause. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872.md?page=4)