Posted on 01/27/2017 7:38:39 PM PST by ButThreeLeftsDo
Lately a little-known clause in the Constitution has been making big headlines. It's called the emoluments clause, and it's just 49 words total.
The clause reads in full: "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."
The ethics group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) claims President Donald Trump is in violation of that clause, and as a result, they've filed a lawsuit.
"Our organization is suing the president in his official capacity to ask a judge to require the president to stop taking payments from foreign governments and companies controlled by foreign governments in violation of the Constitution," explained CREW Vice Chair Richard Painter, a current University of Minnesota law professor and the former chief White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush.
The lawsuit claims, "These violations of the foreign emoluments clause pose a grave threat to the United States and its citizens."
"The founders of our country envisioned this threat," Painter said. "What is the point of having a tea party and throwing King George's tea in the Boston Harbor and having a revolution, and then electing a president who's going to be buying and selling tea with King George?" He added, "We worry a lot about jobs in this country and jobs going out of the country. How can we depend upon the president to protect the interests of American workers in trade negotiations, if the president is receiving money from foreign governments while the negotiations are going on?"
But Trump did explain why he and his lawyers do not believe he's in violation of the Constitution at a Jan. 11 press conference.
"No one would've thought when the Constitution was written that paying your hotel bill was an emolument," a lawyer explained.
Painter believes the president and his team are off-base. "If he does not divest himself of ownership in his businesses, then he still has the conflicts of interest, including the foreign government payments that will be to his benefit regardless of who manages the businesses," he said.
Painter also reiterated that he served under George W. Bush, a Republican, and added, "This is not a partisan issue. This is about the United States and the American people."
She has a very interesting case.
1st, the court allowed the case to proceed. That just means the judge did not dismiss it on motions. Not a big deal.
2s, the court will most probably hold that she is a “public person.” That means she will have to PROVE “actual malice,” that the Defs KNEW the report was false, but published it anyway, with malintent, that they were TRYING to hurt her, for profit, for example.
3, Defs will claim they only reported a fact that was true, i.e. that there was a rumor that she was an escort. Defs will claim they never said she was an escort, only that there were rumors that she was, and the need for element of truth in the defense in such a case attaches only to the existence of the rumors, not that she actually was an escort.
She will claim Defs published the rumors as fact, (and the blogger may well have,) but she will still have the public person problem from 2 above.... but the blogger will have the problem of the legal fees to lay out in advance.....
4, Too bad she couldn’t bring case in some of the European court. She could have a much better legal course there.
While I recognize that what you describe is a correct way to go about lawyering, it’s also the reason why the justice system is now a pay-to-play operation and completely inaccessible to anyone without indefinite sums to throw at it.
Probably an attempt to get his tax returns as the side product of attacking Trump.
Thanks Att, well put out.
Rule 11 speaks to that problem.
A more universal “loser pays” system exists in many states but needs to be much more widely enforced.
“Divesting” is quite a different thing than “putting into trusts”. The latter is more or less a renaming/retitling exercise. For Trump to actually sell (divest) all his holdings would be an astronomically complicated affair probably rivaling the complexity of his legitimate startup tasks as POTUS. Think about selling trophy properties such as his Palos Verdes Gold Course on the CA Coast and his golf course in Scotland. (Not pretending I have the slightest idea of the scope of his holdings but it is obviously vast) But it would take years, probably, and there are obviously huge tranches of debt and bonds and all sorts of complexities surrounding them.
In practical fact, in the same way that Tony Rezko gave 0bama a huge bribe by selling him that piece of land next to his house for well under market; the same types of opportunities would exist in scores of instances in the transactions he would have to enter into in order to divest his holdings.
When Henry Paulsen came in (CEO of Goldman Sachs) as Tsy Sec’y and had to sell his GS shares...that’s somewhat a different affair. He had a huge pile of shares, too. But they were probably disposed of in an orderly fashion over several weeks.
It seems to me the demand that a plaintiff demonstrate financial capability to pay an adverse judgment means that one can’t be a plaintiff - and thus can’t bring a case - unless he has the ever-increasing amount of money it takes to litigate.
How is that different from saying that the courts shouldn’t be accessible to the vast majority of the population which has no ability to pay judgments of such size?
Perhaps it would stop many of these frivolous law suits abuses.
“allow the ‘plaintiff’ to soak up valuable court time (and money)”
OH YES This reminds me.
We need some serious tort reform in this country. I think Loser Pays Court Costs is probably the best strategy.
Two words: Clinton Foundation
Ohio State class teaches students to detect and respond to microaggressions, white privilege,
this is what they are good at destroying what is left of our young people.
as a U of M professor he is a state employee.. while anyone can sue anyone on any grounds... I believe as a public employee he is more limited than a “private citizen” when suing another govt. employee??
Any armchair lawyers out there who can shed light on this??
Manure.
Agrre wholly.
It’s almost as if Soros is just throwing his money away at this point.
In his book 30 years ago Trump discussed going after foreigners as customers.
He tailored his buildings to them, almost.
Professor, my Obamahole.
Guess that the cookie monster can be a professor too.
It is not a “benefit” directed to Trump from a foreign state at the same level as a title or gift to have a business conduct its normal affairs at its normal pricing.
Moreover, that foreign benefits can be approved by Congress suggests there are levels of involvement that are worse and those that are better.
U of M Professor, Former White House Lawyer Explains Why He’s Suing President Trump
Another resident of the “Institution of Educated Beyond Their Intelligence.”
It strikes me that this is a benefit specifically directed to a specific government official by a foreign power.
I don’t think staying at a hotel chain owned by an official even begins to rise to the level of a personalized benefit granted by a foreign power.
If it were a foreign contract to exclusively use Trump hotels, I’d see that as rising to the level that Congress would have to approve it.
That said, it sounds to me like congress would have to review and reject before it would be illegal. Then, if continued one might have a legal case.
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.