Posted on 01/24/2017 1:10:44 AM PST by greeneyes
Two days after staff at Donald Trump’s Washington hotel dropped balloons and popped champagne corks to salute his inauguration, America’s first billionaire President was put on notice – he is being sued because of profits that the hotel and other businesses earn from foreign governments.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Trump’s lawyers should be able to drag this case out eight years. . .
The emoluments clause applies to all persons holding any office, not just POTUS.
Which means Hillary Clinton was was covered by it when she was SoS.
Funny how they didn’t seem to remember this clause in the Constitution whilst Hillary was raising money from foreign governments with business before the US State Department.
CREW did nothing to stop Obama from going around Congress time and again....this is political harassment of Trump and a harmful impediment to the security to the USA!
The Left keeps flinging horse sh*t at Trump, hoping some of it will find its target.
Classy bunch.
Are they paying excessive amounts for their patronage of Trump businesses and hotels? Or are they in line with the market value? It’s a question of fact, not law, unless you don’t believe that paying fair consideration for a good or service is different than getting it for free or at an inflated price. That’s the basis of their confusion. Non-partisan group? I don’t think so.
The claims by these provocateurs are totally without merit. The lawsuit will be tossed.
He doesn’t have to.
The only people who can touch him is Congress through impeachment. He can’t be dragged into civil litigation while President and the alleged activity didn’t happen until he was President.
Bill Clinton was deposed for something before he was President, and subsequently impeached for being caught lying.
And it’s not clear that POTUS is subject to the emolument clause.
Go to the link and scroll down to this:
"Trump plans to donate hotel profits from foreign government payments to U.S. Treasury"
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-trump-plans-to-donate-hotel-profits-1484154101-htmlstory.html
Lawfare is Trump’s playground.
Interesting; thanks.
You’d think entities would learn Trump DESTROYS his opponents, not just wins.
#### em.
Thank you; I see that’s buried way down on the ABC article, too.
I thought he was donating all foreign profits to the US gummint.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3516866/posts?page=3#3
Does this open the plaintiffs up to a riposte from President Trump’s lawyers, that illary buck-raked foreign $ and there were no repercussions?
Hope so.
And I read on another thread that the emoluments clause didn’t apply to a president.
Also, on another thread, that President Trump had set it up so that any profit from the overseas holding would be put into the US Treasury.
Instead of attacking Trump for legitimate business profits, this group would do more good for the American people by looking at all politicians and the means by which they pocket money from foreign governments. It seems to me that the Clintons profited greatly. So did Al Gore. I suspect Diane Feinstein profits, as well.
It would be a major victory for the American people if we could stop foreign governments/operatives from buying influence from liberal politicians.
Business man making legitimate profit vs female politician using taxpayer money for personal gain, using foreign donations also for personal gain and access. no I dont see a problem here
The key to the emoulment clause is the phrase “without consent of Congress”. Congress can make this all go away.
Have to read the "fine print" here.
1. As you can see, this only refers to "foreign government" payments (which would be rare or non-existent) not private parties doing business with Trump Organization or its many affiliates, so that's a sleight of hand trick / diversion.
2. Even if (1) above is true (and it's tremendously difficult to track and/or enforce) it doesn't avoid the emolument clause.
3. Trump / TO are now both the lessor and lessee of this particular hotel and there is an iron-clad clause in the GAO contract about prohibiting any government official's ownership / stake in the hotel.
The only question at this point is one of "standing" / "injured party" but these would not be hard to find even if this particular suit is thrown out on this ground.
Are they paying excessive amounts for their patronage of Trump businesses and hotels? Or are they in line with the market value?
The market value / market rates is entirely irrelevant to the issues at hand.
Bill / Hillary / Chelsea Clintons Foundation was "creative" way of avoiding the legal problems while she was SoS, but created a different set of problems in and of itself.
Thanks for the analysis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.