‘Emoluments’ Challenge To Donald Trump’s Ethics Conflicts Gets A Big Boost

By then they may have stacked the SC so the hope is the SC is above this partizan fray and follows the constitution.

 

Oh look another one with no idea how it works.

First of all, it's irrelevant, because the POTUS is immune to conflict of interest laws, so there is no case even if he did it.

Secondly, the SCOTUS has nothing to do with it, Congress would be the one's making the decision if they decided it was wrong and impeached him.

Those Liberal Arts degrees aren't education, no matter how much you tell yourselves otherwise.

 

This thread is about a court case, so if the courts won't decide, please enlighten me as to the process you are referring to.

 

It is difficult for some to stay on topic. Too much spinning and deflections.

 

A court case about conflict of interest concerning the POTUS. Yeah.

If you don't understand how stupid that is I can't help.

 

This lawsuit is based on the emoluments clause of the constitution. POTUS is not immune to that.

You may be correct that POTUS is not legally subject to the same conflict of interest laws that apply to everyone else in the federal government. Something can be wrong without it being strictly illegal. This is why, for decades, presidents have released their tax returns and put their financial holdings into blind trusts. They wanted to do what was right, even if it was not legally required.

Trump's approach is that if it is not illegal, it is not wrong. I think that approach is unethical, but it is entirely consistent with his approach for decades.

The emoluments clause case will decide whether he is doing anything unconstitutional. So the courts will decide. Not you. Not me.

 

A court case about the emoluments clause. The courts, and only the courts, can determine the outcome of a court case. Or do you say that court case will somehow be determined outside the court system?

 

No, the courts won't decide, Congress will, since they're the ones with that responsibility.

If they decide to stay at his hotel at market rate, good luck proving that's a gift. He's already come out and said that any overpayments will go to the US Treasury:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...-six-months/1PgaNgev6Jlufi9DOWXNxO/story.html

So you guys keep tilting at those windmills. Have fun.

 

Yes, since enforcement of the emoluments clause is up to Congress. Toodles.

 

Do you have any authority for that statement?

Cases that are filed in federal court are determined by the federal courts. Not by Congress.

 

No I don't have any authority, that belongs to Congress.

So let's recap: a group of restaurants and an event planner are saying that their businesses have been harmed and filed a lawsuit against the POTUS.

So they have to prove that THEIR SPECIFIC businesses would have been chosen if not for the POTUS, then they have to prove that the consumer did so for the express purpose of garnering some kind of benefit by "gifting" the POTUS with their decision. Someone call the thought police.

The only thing this lawsuit can determine is if that is indeed the case (I'm trying to keep a straight face here, really), and award damages. To make this case even more hilarious, they're not claiming specific damages. You know why? Cause they can't put a number on it. (We've been damaged! How bad? We don't know!).

On top of that, the POTUS has already said that those hotel funds will go to the US Treasury. If those funds are going to the Treasury, neither Trump nor his businesses can benefit in any way.

So all the court could determine is if the POTUS is responsible for the consumer's decision (thought police some more) and award damages, which are not even part of the lawsuit.

Let's say you have the most liberal judge panel in the world. Can they get rid of the POTUS? No. Only Congress can do that.

So you see, with some thinking, you could have gotten there yourself.

 

Those presidents had different assets than Trump.

 

According to a dictionary then in use at the time, an 'Emolument' comes from the Latin emolumentum and means profit or advantage. See A DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IN WHICH The WORDS are deduced from their ORIGINALS, Explained in their Different Meanings, AND Authorised by the NAMES of the WRITERS in whose WORKS they are found. Abstracted from the Folio Edition by the AUTHOR SAMUEL JOHNSON, AM. To WHICH are PREFIXED, a GRAMMAR of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE, and The PREFACE to the Folio Edition.10th Edition London, 1785.

It is much easier to argue that Trump is receiving and emolument, than a present or gift.

 

How do you propose verifying his plan?

 

A gift can apply in a situation for services rendered if that purchase would not have occurred, but for a desire to confer a benefit upon the person from whom you are purchasing or in the situation where you are paying above market value.

And then you have things like the Chinese trademarks.

 

this had to happen, Trump has pushed to the limits and this will set how future Presidents are judged on conflict of interests be they republican or democrat

 

I do wonder how much money the tax payers have given to his businesses thus far in the 1st 100 days

 

Nope. Obama didn't use a blind trust. He didn't have a lot of stuff to use one for, but he didn't use one:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/16/AR2010041603420.html

 

true, that article says Obama invested in plain vanilla U.S. Treasury bonds

now had he raised interest rates a lot, the right would of been screaming conflict of interest for sure

 

How do you know Iran didn't give millions to Obama by putting it in an offshore shell company.

How are the Clintons worth millions of dollars on a Senator and SoS salary when they were broke leaving the White House?

 

Be sure and look in the mirror when you argue with yourself.

 

Nunes' betrayal of his own committee and of Congress was worthy of complaint. The entire thing was nothing but a conspiracy hatched in the White House to try and undermine the Russia investigation. And it didn't work.

CREW is also the organization that brought down Casino Jack Abramoff.

 

Yep, and the hearings are public again. Last time the Cheeto Jebus got so upset he almost burnt the House down.

 

This is the stupidest thing I've read in the entire thread.

I don't think you're bothering to read Raytri's posts. He's repeatedly said in no uncertain terms that he doesn't conclude that something nefarious is going on, only that he's arguing for transparency and continuity of the expectation of transparency. We will continue to argue that this precedent is worth preserving. It's insane to invite LESS transparency into the process... And your conclusion that "he's too rich to be bribed..." is surely the worst read on rich people ever presented. You have NO idea how or whether he is leveraged and by whom. NO IDEA. You just assume he's lily white when you've got decades of Page 6 proving you wrong over and over and over.

The POTUS is immune to conflict of interest laws therefore there cannot be conflicts of interests... How idiotically convenient. You do see how stupid that is yes? Wouldn't you like to know about where the potentials are so you could understand them if not try to mitigate them? Reminds me of defunding NASA's earth science because you don't like what it's finding.

My god.

 

Great post!