Trump II

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

If Trump owns a business and that business makes a profit from a foreign State (i.e. from a government official or office holder on official business from that foreign state) then it's a breach. 

“Too many people are asserting more than they could possible know,” said Seth Barrett Tillman, a lecturer on American law at Maynooth University in Ireland who has studied the Emoluments Clause. “Until the courts speak — particularly the Supreme Court — we don’t know.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/what-is-the-emoluments-clause-does-it-apply-to-president-trump/2017/01/23/12aa7808-e185-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.5e6048d5d6bd

[Peter McLennan]

Best takeaway from Slobodan's link:

Richard Painter, a University of Minnesota law professor and former chief White House ethics lawyer for President Bush. He is one of the attorneys on the case and vice chairman of the watchdog group’s board. “Basically the administration has opened up a whole new avenue of corruption.”

Oh good.

[Farmer]

Yes, we can't know in the sense that no one knows until a court has ruled.  Police don't fail to arrest someone because they don't know because the court hasn't yet ruled.

[Alan Klein]

If Trump owns a business and that business makes a profit from a foreign State (i.e. from a government official or office holder on official business from that foreign state) then it's a breach. 

The Constitution does not say anything about profits. You just made that up.   It also says nothing about selling a product.  It says the president can't take a gift or present.  If the hotel for example charges a foreign power who rents one of his hotel rooms the same amount as they would charge anyone else, that's not a present or gift.  It is a sale of a product or service and certainly there would be some profit.  But it's not a gift or a present.  That would be something like you give your child a present on his birthday.  He gives nothing of monetary value to you in return.  It is not a sale and there's no profit involved.  In any case, the amounts regarding a hotel room are nominal.  For a guy worth $3 billion, you have to prove that a substantial amount was involved and there was a link to some policy he enacted.   

I believe to eliminate any cause for action, Trump said all profits from any foreign business would be given to charity eliminating even that consideration.  And he turned over most control.  In the end, I think the purpose of the clause in the constitution was not to impoverish a person who becomes president by forcing him to give up all business ownership by having to sell at fire sale prices that would bankrupt his entire wealth.   

[Alan Klein]

Best takeaway from Slobodan's link:

Richard Painter, a University of Minnesota law professor and former chief White House ethics lawyer for President Bush. He is one of the attorneys on the case and vice chairman of the watchdog group’s board. “Basically the administration has opened up a whole new avenue of corruption.”

Oh good.

Peter, as you stated, Richard Painter is one of the lawyers representing people who are suing Trump over this issue.  So naturally he says Trump is wrong.  Well, duh! 

[Farmer]

The Constitution does not say anything about profits. You just made that up.   It also says nothing about selling a product.  It says the president can't take a gift or present.  If the hotel for example charges a foreign power who rents one of his hotel rooms the same amount as they would charge anyone else, that's not a present or gift.  It is a sale of a product or service and certainly there would be some profit.  But it's not a gift or a present.  That would be something like you give your child a present on his birthday.  He gives nothing of monetary value to you in return.  It is not a sale and there's no profit involved.  In any case, the amounts regarding a hotel room are nominal.  For a guy worth $3 billion, you have to prove that a substantial amount was involved and there was a link to some policy he enacted.   

I believe to eliminate any cause for action, Trump said all profits from any foreign business would be given to charity eliminating even that consideration.  And he turned over most control.  In the end, I think the purpose of the clause in the constitution was not to impoverish a person who becomes president by forcing him to give up all business ownership by having to sell at fire sale prices that would bankrupt his entire wealth.   

Look up the word emolument.  It literally includes "profit" in the definition.  It says no gift, present, or emolument.  You even quoted it before!

If a foreign power (whoever) randomly stayed at  a Trump hotel, so be it - all good.  When they do it as part of their official duties which include meeting with the President (and the President has directed them to be there - and that's the kicker) then that's a problem because he is using influence to obtain an emolument (he might not be trying to do it deliberately, but the constitution doesn't say "no worries if you didn't know you weren't supposed to do this".

He must be both clean, and appear to be clean.  He shouldn't be hosting these official events at his own hotels.

[Alan Klein]

Phil:  First off, Trump said any profits his hotels may gain from foreign dignitaries renting one of his hotel rooms would be given to the US Treasury.

But, that's really beside the point.  The key issue as I see it facing the Supreme Court, assuming it eventually goes before it, would be how does this clause effect very successful people who have international businesses from becoming President?  Was the Consitution's intent to exclude from being President a whole class of people who would be otherwise acceptable?   Why would the country exclude the very type of people with executive experience from becoming our chief executive?  We'd be cutting our nose off to spite our face. 

I don't think the Constitution's intent was that.  Even "poorer" candidates could be excluded.  Let's say a President owns a Cadillac car dealership in NYC.  Would he be in violation of the clause if the French ambassador to the U.N. leases a car from his dealership? What if he own a bunch of McDonald's franchises.  Would he be in violation if the King of Morocco bought a hamburger from his store? 

It seems that in this case, it would have to rise to a value that could be interpreted it really effected the President's unbiased decision making.  This reminds me of Obamacare.  Chief Justice Roberts ruled that the so called "penalty" for not buying health insurance was really a "tax" thusly eliminating the constitutional rule preventing government from forcing people to buy a product in this case a health insurance plan.  Roberts ruled that the amount was too small to force people to buy so it was really a "tax" which is allowed.  The point being that the court could rule something similarly with emoluments and gifts.  There has to be enough money involved before it reaches a level of violation.  A president worth billions is not going to be influenced because a foreign leader rented one of his hotel rooms.

Also, the constitution allows Congress to modify the requirement.  I believe that should there be a ruling against the president, Congress might pass a law detailing what might be considered acceptable or not.  Of course this whole thing is about politics rather then what's really good for the country.  Just another thing to beat up Trump and delegitimize his presidency.   

[Farmer]

Complete straw man.

There is literally no need to have any official business or official guests hosted at Trump hotels.  Problem solved.  End of discussion.

Non-official business interactions of an ad hoc nature, where the President has properly (unlike Trump) removed themselves from any position of control, wouldn't be an issue.

There is no need to adversely affect anyone and this would be a non-issue except Trump hasn't properly removed himself from control and insists on conducting official business at his private businesses instead using the available public and official options (which would also cost the tax payer less than flying Trump and his entourage down to Florida all the time).

[Peter McLennan]

The story continues to accellerate. The State Department is officially promoting Mar-a-Lago

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/24/state-department-us-embassy-mar-a-lago-237537

[Schewe]

And then there is this...

7 Baffling Moments From Donald Trump’s AP Interview

So many words, so little sense.
By Alana Horowitz Satlin

President Donald Trump lied about his policy accomplishments, interrupted himself, and went off on a series of incoherent rants during a recent interview with The Associated Press’ Julie Pace.

The AP released part of the interview last week, but made a fuller transcript available late Sunday. You can read it in fullHERE, but beware: It’s a doozy. The phrase “Donald Trump is unintelligible” was even a top trending topic on Twitter early Monday ― referring to the 16 instances where the AP marked parts of the transcript “unintelligible.” (Pace later told the Toronto Star that one of Trump’s aides was talking over him at those moments, and that the aide did not want their comments included in the transcript. The Star notes that “this is itself highly unusual.”)

Here are some of the interview’s most bizarre moments:

Shunning reality, Trump said he’s “mostly there” on fulfilling the promises of his first 100 days.

Trump claimed he’s never supported WikiLeaks, despite having repeatedly said otherwise.

Trump said the Electoral College is “very difficult for a Republican to win” because it’s “so skewed” toward Democrats. (It’s not.)

He admitted that when he bashed NATO during his presidential campaign, he didn’t actually know what the alliance did. He also erroneously said that “back when they did NATO there was no such thing as terrorism.”

Describing a meeting with Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), Trump offered the following word salad:

“Well he said, you’ll be the greatest president in the history of, but you know what, I’ll take that also, but that you could be. But he said, will be the greatest president but I would also accept the other. In other words, if you do your job, but I accept that. Then I watched him interviewed and it was like he never even was here. It’s incredible. I watched him interviewed a week later and it’s like he was never in my office. And you can even say that.”

He claimed the U.S.-Mexico border wall is “not going to be that expensive.”

[Schewe]

Sounds like Trump needed an education in the 'fundamentals' of EU trade BEFORE he met with her...prolly would have involved more than just bullet points (which is probably why it didn't happen).

Angela Merkel reportedly had to explain the 'fundamentals' of EU trade to Trump 11 times

President Trump did not understand that the US cannot negotiate a trade deal with Germany alone and must deal with the European Union as a bloc, a senior German official told The Times of London. .

"Ten times Trump asked [German chancellor Angela Merkel] if he could negotiate a trade deal with Germany. Every time she replied, 'You can’t do a trade deal with Germany, only the EU,'" the official said.

They continued: "On the eleventh refusal, Trump finally got the message, 'Oh, we’ll do a deal with Europe then.'"

Wow, who knew that foreign trade with the EU could be so complicated? Not Trump...

[Schewe]

Also, the constitution allows Congress to modify the requirement.  I believe that should there be a ruling against the president, Congress might pass a law detailing what might be considered acceptable or not.  Of course this whole thing is about politics rather then what's really good for the country.  Just another thing to beat up Trump and delegitimize his presidency.   

Yeah, actually it's all about the friggin' United States Constitution...if you want to change it, that takes a constitutional amendment...

And we don't need to "delegitimize his presidency", he's doing great at that all by himself...

[Alan Klein]

Complete straw man.

There is literally no need to have any official business or official guests hosted at Trump hotels.  Problem solved.  End of discussion.

Non-official business interactions of an ad hoc nature, where the President has properly (unlike Trump) removed themselves from any position of control, wouldn't be an issue.

There is no need to adversely affect anyone and this would be a non-issue except Trump hasn't properly removed himself from control and insists on conducting official business at his private businesses instead using the available public and official options (which would also cost the tax payer less than flying Trump and his entourage down to Florida all the time).

Just thought of an amusing anecdote when Bill Clinton was president.  When they were looking for contributions to their election campaign for re-election, they "sold" the Lincoln bedroom at the White House to contributors to stay overnight if their contribution was substantial enough.  Of course, the press pretty much like Clinton so they didn't make such a stink about it.

Regarding trumps hotels, they're around the world as are his condominiums.  However, many of them are not owned by him.  He just sells the Trump name and takes a fee. Would that count if someone bought a condo at one of these places?   How does a hotel monitor who's taking a room?  What government official risen to the level that it might be considered a "monarch".  Would government trade representatives from a foreign country be considered a "emolument"?  Would a business official from a company owned by a government let's say from China be excluded.  Or would it have to be someone from elected office?  Who decides these things? 

I agree we don't want a president to accepts bribes or be influenced by foreigners who spend money in any of his enterprises.  But we also don't want to exclude a whole class of citizens who could be great Presidents.  We should try to establish a balance.  It may take congress to write a law that clarifies the situation if this continues as an issue. 

[Alan Klein]

Yeah, actually it's all about the friggin' United States Constitution...if you want to change it, that takes a constitutional amendment...

You're incorrect.  It doesn't take a constitutional amendment.  An act of Congress could change it.

The constitution states: "“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

"....without the Consent of the Congress..." means that congress can approve a president taking any of these things.  They could write terms in advance of what could be acceptable.  Just like they write the variable terms regarding Patents and Intellectual Property law that's required per the constitution.

As an aside, when Obama was awarded the Nobel prize for peace which was worth over a million dollars, Congress approved his acceptance of it, even though he gave the money to charity.  In  any case, I think the "bribe" worked anyway as he acted as a very weak president, trying to show he "deserved" a peace prize.  So in that sense, the emolument worked even though he passed on the award money.

[Alan Klein]

Sounds like Trump needed an education in the 'fundamentals' of EU trade BEFORE he met with her...prolly would have involved more than just bullet points (which is probably why it didn't happen).

Wow, who knew that foreign trade with the EU could be so complicated? Not Trump...

  Don't be so naïve.  Do you really think Trump didn't know this, just because the Germans stated it?  It sounds more like the Germans overplaying their hand in trying to arrange a better deal with America for the EU and themselves over any deal he might separately make with the Brits.  Also, it's a way for the Germans to stick their finger in the Brit's eye for pulling out of the EU and causing Germany to lose a lot a wealth, especially if it leads to the final breakup of the EU.  It also will make it more difficult for the Brits to negotiate a better deal with the EU when they pull out.  If they could make a good deal with America first, they would be in a stronger position in the negotiations. 

[Schewe]

Do you really think Trump didn't know this, just because the Germans stated it?

Yes...because compared to Trump, the Germans have a much more reliable "truthiness" of late than Trump does. Based on the fact he's so ignorant about, well, the whole world, I'm very sure that Trump and his admin had no clue that the US couldn't just unilaterally negotiate with the individual countries in the EU...this article point that out Trump puts EU ahead of Britain in trade queue

Britain has been pushed behind the European Union in the queue to strike a free-trade deal with the United States, officials in Washington have said.

President Trump has softened his opposition to negotiating with the bloc as a whole after attempts by his officials to open talks with individual European nations were rebuffed.

Trump's good friend Theresa May probably isn't happy :~(

Jeeesh, this is the same dumbass that didn't know Korea didn't used to be part of China:

Trump’s claim that Korea ‘actually used to be a part of China’.

[Alan Klein]

Yes...because compared to Trump, the Germans have a much more reliable "truthiness" of late than Trump does. Based on the fact he's so ignorant about, well, the whole world, I'm very sure that Trump and his admin had no clue that the US couldn't just unilaterally negotiate with the individual countries in the EU...this article point that out Trump puts EU ahead of Britain in trade queue

You keep believing Trump is some dumb rube who knows nothing.  Trust me that Trump is a tough and knowledgeable negotiator.  He shows no mercy.  Doesn't give a nickel.  I worked for an American company in NYC that he negotiated with and saw him first hand take our price down to the lowest point possible for us.  Then he dumped us anyway when we wouldn't drop it 5% further and went with another company.  This should interest you.  The company was Siemens, a German manufacturer.  Maybe he did such good deals with Siemens he though he could get Merkle to continue with all German companies.  But don't believe what the Germans said about their meeting with him.  If he can play companies against one another to squeeze out the best deal, he'll do the same with countries.

[Schewe]

You keep believing Trump is some dumb rube who knows nothing.

I don't think he's a rube...he's a pathological liar, a malignant narcissist, a misogynist, a xenophobe and he's rather uneducated and ignorant of some truly fundamental aspects of the US government.

And yes, all you need to do is listen to him speak and he sounds, uh, really dumb...

From the AP interview:

AP: Do you feel that one of the things with cable is there's such real-time reaction with everything you say?

TRUMP: Yeah.

AP: Can you separate that sometimes from that actual decision?

TRUMP: The one thing —

AP: That you have to do —

TRUMP: OK. The one thing I've learned to do that I never thought I had the ability to do. I don't watch CNN anymore.

AP: You just said you did.

TRUMP: No. No, I, if I'm passing it, what did I just say (inaudible)?

AP: You just said —

TRUMP: Where? Where?

AP: Two minutes ago.

TRUMP: No, they treat me so badly. No, I just said that. No, I, what'd I say, I stopped watching them. But I don't watch CNN anymore. I don't watch MSNBC. I don't watch it. Now I heard yesterday that MSNBC, you know, they tell me what's going on.

AP: Right.

TRUMP: In fact, they also did. I never thought I had the ability to not watch. Like, people think I watch (MSNBC's) "Morning Joe." I don't watch "Morning Joe." I never thought I had the ability to, and who used to treat me great by the way, when I played the game. I never thought I had the ability to not watch what is unpleasant, if it's about me. Or pleasant. But when I see it's such false reporting and such bad reporting and false reporting that I've developed an ability that I never thought I had. I don't watch things that are unpleasant. I just don't watch them.

AP: And do you feel like that's, that's because of the office that you now occupy —

TRUMP: No.

AP: That you've made that change?

TRUMP: I don't know why it is, but I've developed that ability, and it's happened over the last, over the last year.

AP: That's interesting.

TRUMP: And I don't watch things that I know are going to be unpleasant. CNN has covered me unfairly and incorrectly and I don't watch them anymore. A lot of people don't watch them anymore, they're now in third place. But I've created something where people are watching ... but I don't watch CNN anymore. I don't watch MSNBC anymore. I don't watch things, and I never thought I had that ability. I always thought I'd watch.

AP: Sure.

TRUMP: I just don't. And that's taken place over the last year. And you know what that is, that's a great, it's a great thing because you leave, you leave for work in the morning you know, you're, you don't watch this total negativity. I never thought I'd be able to do that and for me, it's so easy to do now. Just don't watch.

AP: That's interesting.

TRUMP: Maybe it's because I'm here. I don't know.

What? So does he watch CNN? We all know he watches Fox & Friends and uses it as a source of his daily briefing :~(

He speaks like he's having verbal diarrhea...unless he's on a teleprompter. Really, you should try to read the AP Interview and see if YOU can make sense of it.

[Schewe]

I think this may be just the beginning...

Commentary: I voted for Donald Trump. Now I feel betrayed.

Justin Raimondo
For the Los Angeles Times

I voted for Donald Trump because he promised to pursue a new foreign policy. As he said in December, “We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments. Our goal is stability, not chaos, because we want to rebuild our country.” He vowed to appoint those with “new approaches, and practical ideas, rather than surrounding myself with those who have perfect résumés but very little to brag about except responsibility for a long history of failed policies.”

After decades of disastrous interventions, Trump inspired me. But less than 100 days into his administration, I’m feeling the sting of betrayal. In recent weeks, Trump and his surrogates have abandoned virtually every foreign policy stance he took during the campaign.

--snip--

Ann Coulter, author of “In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome,” wrote recently that “Trump’s Syrian misadventure is immoral, violates every promise he ran on, and could sink his presidency.” At Breitbart News, the online headquarters of the Trump insurgency, a piece about the Syria attacks attracted more than 50,000 ferociously negative comments. Pat Buchanan, the ideological godfather of Trumpism, despaired that “the promise of a Trump presidency … appears, not 100 days in, to have been a mirage. Will more wars make America great again?” A baffled Laura Ingraham tweeted, "Missiles flying. Rubio's happy. McCain ecstatic. Hillary's on board. A complete policy change in 48 hrs." Talk radio host Michael Savage complains that “People in Trump’s own sphere are turning him toward the beating war drums.” Nigel Farage, the leader of the Brexit forces in Britain who campaigned for Trump in the U.S., opined that the president’s supporters “will be scratching their heads” at these foreign policy reversals.

Justin Raimondo is editorial director of Antiwar.com and author of “Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement."

Hum...did he mean Make America Fight Again? Does he really want a shooting war with Korea?

[Schewe]

And the conservatives keep piling on...

The "Oh, Never Mind" President

Trump has cavalierly repudiated his most vocal supporters.

In his first annual message to Congress, John Quincy Adams, among the most experienced and intellectually formidable presidents, warned leaders against giving the impression that “we are palsied by the will of our constituents.” In this regard, if in no other, the 45th president resembles the sixth.

Donald Trump’s “Oh, never mind” presidency was produced by voters stung by the contempt they detected directed toward them by the upper crust. Their insurrection has been rewarded by Trump’s swift shedding of campaign commitments, a repudiation so comprehensive and cavalier that he disdains disguising his disdain for his gulled supporters.

--snip--

Messages are important, whether delivered by words or missiles or words about missiles. Trump’s retreat from positions that enchanted his supporters is a matter mostly between him and them. How he addresses the world, however, will reveal whether he has gone from candidate to commander in chief without becoming presidential.

— George Will is a Pulitzer Prize–winning syndicated columnist. © 2017 Washington Post Writers Group

This is George Will mind you...