Emoluments clause

  • Thread starter Thread starter Economist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is odd that I can’t find anything from Fox, not even to dismiss it. Maybe I am using the wrong search terms.
 
Last edited:
Exactly what I would expect, can’t argue the point so you resort to name calling. You have no idea how I think. You have no idea who I am. You assume I am distressed when really I am amused mostly.

It’s quite funny actually that many on the left can’t really say where they get their information on Trump. They are so conditioned to react in horror anytime the left wing media reports anything about Trump. You (the left) never question the source even when the source has been proven unreliable.
 
Horton said:
He also donates his salary we pay him. Both Bush presidents were very rich while in office, no one made a big deal about them continuing their family business. John F Kennedy’s father was one of the richest men in the country at the time, no one made a big deal about how much money the Kennedys had.
Click to expand...
The issue is not about how much money the President has but about avoiding potential conflicts of interest. The situations with Trump is different from that with other Presidents. See, for example, Walter M. Shaub, Jr., Director, U.S. Office of Government Ethics about Trump’s plans, coming into office:

This isn’t the way the Presidency has worked since Congress passed the Ethics in Government Act in 1978 in the immediate aftermath of the Watergate scandal. Since then, Presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama all either established blind trusts or limited their investments to non-conflicting assets like diversified mutual fun
Click to expand...
Also:
https://www.law.columbia.edu/sites/...integrity/ethical_issues_in_the_trump_era.pdf

Trump has operations in countries in which we have strong foreign policy interests. It is important for the POTUS to hold to as high a standard opf avoiding potential conflicts of interest as other who work for him the Executive Branch.

As to his salary … Is there a public record of his successive donations over the years?
 
Theo520 said:
Trump is afflicted with a severe affinity for hyperbole, no question about it.
Click to expand...
The question is not his “hyperbole”, it is his attempt to cash-in on his presidency. Which is clearly illegal. Now I would really like to see his tax records, because I have a real suspicion that his alleged “riches” are simply cooked books. If all his holdings and all his debts would be put up for examination, I think that the end result would be stated in red ink. After all how can any casino owner lose money?
 
Horton said:
Exactly what I would expect, can’t argue the point so you resort to name calling.
Click to expand...
You DARE to talk about name calling, you who said: “Mine being based on truth, not on the filtered garbage coming from leftist media, is certainly has more credence.”
 
Economist said:
The question is not his “hyperbole”, it is his attempt to cash-in on his presidency. Which is clearly illegal.
Click to expand...
Let’s leave that to the court to decide. I’m confident you are spouting nonsense, but neither of us make that call.
 
Economist said:
Sure. All we can do is “cross our fingers”. You for one decision, I for the opposite.
Click to expand...
I don’t expect anything from the courts.
In discussing COI issues Shaub (above), notes that the laws do not apply to the POTUS but tells of remarks by Scalia:
Back when he was working for the Justice Department, the late Antonin Scalia also wrote an opinion declaring that a President should avoid engaging in conduct prohibited by the government’s ethics regulations, even if they don’t apply. Justice Scalia warned us that there would be consequences if a President ever failed to adhere to the same standards that apply to lower level officials. The sheer obviousness of Justice Scalia’s words becomes apparent if you just ask yourself one question: Should a President hold himself to a lower standard than his own appointees
Click to expand...
We have departed from such principled values and think of only what is illegal and involves sufficient evidence for a winning case in court. Even that standard, however, is out of play, since it seems that Trump cannot be indicted while President. I expect that courts will ultimately see is that the only recourse against such conduct is action by the House and Senate.
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
I don’t expect anything form the courts.
Click to expand...
Yes, but if he fails to be re-elected… then he will be indicted (hopefully) and then convicted. The big trouble is that the democrats are so incredibly impotent, that he might get re-elected, and then some of his crimes might fall through the cracks due to the statute of limitations. We shall see…
 
Theo520 said:
LOL, you seem to have no ability for self reflection.
Click to expand...
I have great ability for self reflection without taking on the burden of guilt you try to lay on me. But thank you for your paternalism.
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
I don’t expect anything form the courts.
Click to expand...
The emoluments clause very much applies to the President, but I believe the intent was to catch actual bribery, not charging the market rate for a room.
 
Actual bribery would be the Clinton pay-to-play scandal over the uranium mine sale to the Russians in 2012.

Actual bribery would be Hunter Biden cashing in on his father’s connections with the Chinese and the Ukrainians. Now there’s an emoluments violation. Yet people wonder why the Chinese vastly prefer Biden to Trump? But would be perfectly fine of the Chinese interfere with our elections so long as it’s against Trump?

Trump, by comparison, is charging for actual private business services provided by businesses that predated his accession to the Presidency and it’s on the accusers to prove there is more to it. But remember even if they do, it’s going to be tough to drag down Trump without smearing Clinton and Biden with him. They never faced the rule of law over their actions, says here Trump won’t either. Because that would establish the precedent that could be turned on them.

Remember also that insider trading prohibitions on the public do not apply to Congress or its staff, hence they self deal themselves into incredible fortunes off of their government salaries. But no one will look into Pelosi or McConnell for that matter because it’s legal even if it’s just as abusive.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn’t holding the next G7 meeting at a Trump facility be a case of cashing in on his position (if that is where it ends up being held at)?
 
It is correct that other administrations have used the power of the budget in a way to personally profit, Warren G. Harding, for example, without being impeached. For those use to the President’s ability to understand the law, his knowledge of history, and his past judgement, this action should not be surprising.
 
Last edited:
Yes I dare to. I did not demean a person with my comment, I stated a fact.
 
Horton said:
Yes I dare to. I did not demean a person with my comment, I stated a fact.
Click to expand...
But you only stated your unsupported and demeaning opinion. " garbage coming from leftist media"… if that is not demeaning, I don’t know what is.
 
Demeaning to who? I believe the leftist media is playing out a narrative and most of the reporters I’ve seen appear to be little drama queens with their fake outrage and tears.

You may certainly have another opinion and that is okay, even though I disagree with it. The fact remains much of the information about Trump is filtered through the media, and the media has an agenda to make the country hate Trump as much as they do.
 
Horton said:
I believe…
Click to expand...
You can believe whatever you want to, but don’t try to peddle it as FACTS. It is your opinion. Personally, I am not a fan of Fox News, but I would not call what they say “garbage from the rightist media”. As a matter of fact, their NEWS division is quite good, but the Opinion division is not. But even then I would not place all of them into one group.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top