Isn’t this a distinction without a difference, since the Trump Organization is still largely owned by Trump, any benefit IT derives is STILL a violation of the Emoluments Clause. Trump should have NO financial interests, period, except those held in a blind trust, which is blind to BOTH Trump and his potential foreign benefactors. I don’t see how this DoJ argument changes anything.
2 Likes
“curry favor with the President might continue to do so by supporting his family’s business and brand even if he lacked a personal financial interest.”
Well, that to me smells like emoluments.
4 Likes
This is what’s on the back of my car!
5 Likes
Such an argument suggests the breadth of proper regulation in this area – which goes above and beyond what courts alone can do here – but I question the value of it as an argument. He still is getting the emoluments and unlike “ordinary business profits” in general (to cite a usual handwave), there is a direct concern about corruption and other concerns of the type the emolument clauses (there is more than one – one addresses, e.g., a state paying him, ala the governor of Maine) are there to address.
I also think we can separate book sales from foreign dignitaries purposely going to his hotels to aim for access. I’m unsure including on de minimis grounds how much buying Obama’s book is comparable.
2 Likes
I had to read the article 3 times because I could not understand the stupidity of the DOJ arguments.
Essentially, they claim a foreign govt has to specifically demand a bribe, in writing, to be unlawful. Otherwise, they will just spend their money on the rest of the family.
I heard the Obama book royalty “argument” before. What a crock of shite.
9 Likes
Thank you! I just saw this. His brand is toxic. The D.C. hotel will not be profitable to him after he’s out of office. Nobody could possibly want to do business with him and the money-laundering angle is a cat-out-of-the-bag now.
3 Likes
That’s absolutely lovely!
1 Like
Trump Hotels: Come for the emoluments, stay for the unsafe dining conditions!
6 Likes
Exactly! This is not defending the office of president. This is Trump’s own personal business and bribery racket. I can’t believe the taxpayers are paying for this!
4 Likes
Maybe Trump could get away with this easier if he called them "Papal indulgences". Seemed to have worked pretty well in the past…
1 Like
Free lawsuits against every customer.
No one loves Trump’s hotels. They’re shoddily built pieces of crap gussied up with cheap bling.
1 Like
Not only that, language changes based on usage and technology. There is no new technological definition and it’s never been a widely used word: in other words, there’s no reason for there to be any evoluttion of how “emoluments” is used, and the 18th C. definition, meaning, and connotations, are not significantly different from modern usage.
Yeah, I don’t get this either. The DoJ should not be involved in defending Trump’s personal business interests.
Period.
2 Likes
I wonder how many career DOJ lawyers have quit and moved on to saner pastures in the past two years.
1 Like
If she wants it. I suspect Michelle might not be interested in the Presidency after getting a front row view of all the shit her husband put up with for his 8 years in office.
They weren’t citing precedent - they were misleadingly framing a non-analogous reference.
If by people, you mean Democratic appointees.
1 Like
Ha! No way does she want that! But I agree, I love the photo.
1 Like
She’ll never do it!
1 Like