U of M Professor, Former White House Lawyer Explains Why He's Suing President Trump

KSTP.com ^ | 1/27/17 | Josh Rosenthal

[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."

[P-Marlowe]

This guy has no standing. Congress can approve a waiver so the only body in the United States that has standing to sue Trump on this issue is Congress.

This case will be thrown out by the first real judge that reads it.

[xzins]

That’s the way I read it. And congress hasn’t even weighed in on it yet, much less as a body giving guidance.

[Steve_Seattle]

A foreign official renting a hotel room at normal rates in a hotel that Trump owns - and owned prior to becoming president - is not an “emolument” under the Constitution. There is not even an appearance of special favors or of a policy quid-pro-quo.

[Steve_Seattle]

"Heaven forbid if someone pays a hotel bill; but look the other way when Hillary Clinton accepts millions and millions of dollars from foreign leaders into her Clinton foundation which is a money laundering scheme and is mostly a slush fund for the Clinton family."

The CF was far more like the sort of thing that the emoluments clause was intended to prevent than anything Trump has done or plans to do. Large cash sums - which were not normal business transactions - were given to the fund by foreign governments, and this was often followed by policy decisions favorable to those governments.

[Steve_Seattle]

"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."

Or if a foreign government was given special rates - higher or lower than the norm. A higher rate could be seen as a personal gift to the president, a lower rate could be seen as a carrot offered by the president in return for some special favor.

Or it can involve special favors at the hotel itself: my daughter used to work at the Marriott Hotel in downtown Seattle, and she said the hotel looked the other way when Saudi royalty broke various hotel policies.

[Steve_Seattle]

"the former chief White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush"

I often defended Bush when he was in office, several of his ex-staffers ended up as turds.

[RikaStrom]

William Jonstone was prophetic, just 30 years to soon. I thought we were going to be living the Out of Ashes series until Mr. Trump was President-elect. Then there was a BIG sigh of relief.

He was certainly a prolific writer until his passing. I think one of his family members is finishing out some of his manuscripts.

[grey_whiskers]

The only title of nobility which Trump will be given is one he will earn: Sofa King.

As in, making America Sofa King great again!

[Almondjoy]

Reading word for word I would say it doesn’t cover business for one. All monies received from foreign governments is donated for two. Congress is the only one that can hold Trump accountable for it for point three.