Trump Foreign Profits in Violation of Constitution, Suit Claims

ABC News ^ | 1/23/2017 | Brian Ross Matthew Mosk Rhonda Schwartz Randy Kreider Jan 23, 2017, 6:37 PM ET

[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.

[billyboy15]

Wasn’t Clinton sued by Paula Jones while he was president? He paid her $850,000 if I remember correctly.

[StAnDeliver]

Yawn.

[Avalon Memories]

Got to hand it to the Left. They sure know how to cherry pick parts of the Constitution to suit their purposes even though they trash it most of the time. All Leftists are scum.

[New Jersey Realist]

As soon as Sessions becomes AG, Trump administration should announce that they will get a Special Prosecutor to look into every member of congress for the same thing Trump is being attacked. Fight fire with fire. Even an ignorant liberal will eventually get the message.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Bogus lawsuit. Plaintiff has no standing. Fake news. Propaganda.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Trump’s lawyers should be able to drag this case out eight years. . ."

I doubt that will be necessary. The idea is so ridiculous that I can't imagine any judge will do other than throw the case out.

[fireballxl5]

the emoluments clause refers specifically to gifts, payments etc. “...from any King, Prince or foreign state.”

Where is the sleight of hand?

[Political Junkie Too]

Of course, with Clinton it was a true emolument, a payment arising from being in office. With Trump, it is a pre-existing cash flow that stays the same whether the hotel bookings are from repeat customers or new foreign governments, becoming a zero net gain to Trump.

Besides, he's donating all foreign hotel profits to treasury.

-PJ

[Steve_Seattle]

I do not think that revenues stemming ordinary business activities in foreign countries - especially those undertaken before becoming president - are what is meant by “emoluments.” That guy that Tucker Carlson interviewed last night was a disgusting, lying POS.

[blueyon]

They did not listen to Trumps lawyer a week or so before he was swore in......that act does not apply to him and any foreign money from Hotle in DC will go to Fed treasury so this lawyers are just trying to make name for themselves

[Steve_Seattle]

"Where is the sleight of hand?"

I would go further and say that the "emoluments clause" doesn't refer to ordinary business activities, but is rather intended to prevent the president from using his office for the purpose of gaining financial benefit from foreign governments. Trump's business arrangements preceded his presidency, and were not intended for the purpose of using the presidency for personal financial advantage, nor as some quid-pro-quo with foreign governments with regards to official government business.

To me, the actions of the Clinton Foundation much more closely corresponded to what the emoluments clause was trying to prevent. Those were not routine business transactions, but large cash donations to a foundation linked to the Secretary of State, and which were often closely followed by US government actions favorable to the donors.

[Stingray51]

1. Private individuals and groups likely have no standing to bring this lawsuit. The plaintiff group’s interest in the outcome is no greater than that of any other American group or individual. So I would expect the case to be tossed for that reason.

2. The clause has no enforcement provision. I think it is highly likely that the courts will find that the impeachment process is the sole means of enforcing it.

3. There is nothing in or about the clause that indicates it is to apply to legitimate business transactions.

4. There are many things to take seriously. This is not one of them.

[DoodleDawg]

The key to the emolument clause is the words, “without Consent of Congress”. Congress can end the whole non-issue with a pair of votes.

[struggle]

If that’s the case, isn’t every international sale of “Dreams of my Father” the same to Obama?

[Steve_Seattle]

"3. There is nothing in or about the clause that indicates it is to apply to legitimate business transactions."

I think that's the key. I think the clause is intended to prevent a president from USING HIS OFFICE to obtain personal financial gain from foreign governments, and to prevent him from rewarding those governments with favorable policies. That sounds much more like the Clinton Foundation than anything Trump has done.

That freak on the Carlson show last night went on and on about Trump's DC hotel, as if the fact that foreign diplomats might stay there is some sort of conflict of interest. Did that guy really think that Trump is going to tell some sheik, "Hey, stay at my hotel and we can do business; I'll make it worthwhile." The idea is ludicrous.

[RegulatorCountry]

If he didn’t make a dime they’d still be up in arms just because his name’s on it.

[Eleutheria5]

“The market value / market rates is entirely irrelevant to the issues at hand.”

Trump’s attorney at his presser said that emoluments are gifts, not contractual transactions. If you are saying that this is not the case, do you have case or statutory authority you would care to cite? She was very definite, and high-powered lawyers generally don’t talk out of their a@#es.

[Steve_Seattle]

"Trump’s attorney at his presser said that emoluments are gifts, not contractual transactions. If you are saying that this is not the case, do you have case or statutory authority you would care to cite? She was very definite, and high-powered lawyers generally don’t talk out of their a@#es."

I think that is the core issue, but even a "contractual transaction" might be a problem if it is viewed as a deliberate attempt by the president to gain personal financial benefit from his office, especially as a quid-pro-quo with a foreign government. But there is no evidence whatsoever that Trump has done anything like that. However, some of the dealings of the Clinton Foundation gave that appearance.

[Eleutheria5]

That’s why I look at the amount paid for the room. If Bahrain for example paid excessive rates for their convention, or rooms at the hotel, that’d be very suspicious, especially if he then gave preferential treatment to Bahrain. It would look like a thinly veiled bribe. If it was at normal rates, and they get no preferential treatment, or they do get preferential treatment but there’s no visible quid pro quo other than the hotel room, it’s less suspicious.

[Fhios]

It happened before he was President. So he was in jeopardy. If it happened while he was President, then no.

I remember it was all explain back then.