This point has been litigated and adjudicated three times now and dismissed each time. In different centuries. It is well-settled law and this is a nuisance lawsuit which is perhaps sanctionable. Long ago and far away, when Geo Washington and a few other presidents grew tobacco and sold it while in office, it was perfectly clear that whatever monies they received from the sale of the tobacco emanated from the delivered tobacco, not bribes from those seeking to buy influence. This is not only established law, it is among the longest established law under the Constitution. For those legal pinheads who don’t give a flying crap about the Constitution except when it suits their needs to be the open, running sores they truly are.
Emoluments must “emanate from the office”.
When Hillary (and especially Bill) Clinton gave speeches where the payment for those speeches suddenly tripled once she attained the SOS office with the clear intention and plan to run for president, those payments “emanated” from the office. There was nothing tangible HRC or BJC gave those “sponsors” other than future access or present consideration. They were payments, in advance, for face time or for favors, most of which were granted, some in astonishingly short time. The Uranium One deal was signed sealed and delivered in blazingly short time.
When a foreign diplomat or government official stays at a Trump hotel, the payment is a payment for a service that “emanates” from the hotel. Not Trumps’ office. Trump has already stated that he would pass on either 100% of the “profits” (which can be calculated 10 different ways) or the gross payments from foreign hotel stays or golf course rounds to the Treasury. Of course, to these partisan legal jackals, they only read “payments received” and as usual with all liberal arguments, cut the sentence short early.
It’s time for Rule 11 sanctions.
It has to be profits. Otherwise, every foreign government in the world could book rooms and hold conferences in Trump hotels, filling them and running them into bankruptcy.
And from the article I was thinking “Yeah - it would be easy enough for some foreigner to write a check for $500,000 for his one night and mark it as “hotel accommodations”. But in your post you highlight that would be taken into account as a profit.
BTW - I thought all foreigners hated Trump./s Why would they want to give him money, much less stay in a hotel with his name on the front door!?
Thanks Att, well put out.