Emoluments? Any comments from President Trump's supporters appreciated, regarding this: https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/january-february-march-2018/a-year-in-trump-corruption/...

acknowledgeurma

Any comments from President Trump's supporters appreciated, regarding this:
https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/january-february-march-2018/a-year-in-trump-corruption/

JW

acknowledgeurma wrote:

Any comments from President Trump's supporters appreciated, regarding this:
https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/january-february-march-2018/a-year-in-trump-corruption/

If the clientele pay established rates for services, as they would apply to anyone, they do not constitute emoluments.

Loki Loc: Georgia

acknowledgeurma wrote:

Any comments from President Trump's supporters appreciated, regarding this:
https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/january-february-march-2018/a-year-in-trump-corruption/

I would suggest that an emolument requires a profit be shown. At no point does this article state that President Trump has made a profit without the consent of Congress. If the Democrats or the RINO Never Trumpers had a legal leg to stand on they would have already filed suit and it would be all over the media. The Constitution does not say a president cannot accept emoluments. It says he must have Congressional consent to do so.

acknowledgeurma

Loki wrote:

I would suggest that an emolument requires a profit be shown. At no point does this article state that President Trump has made a profit without the consent of Congress. If the Democrats or the RINO Never Trumpers had a legal leg to stand on they would have already filed suit and it would be all over the media. The Constitution does not say a president cannot accept emoluments. It says he must have Congressional consent to do so.

When did Congress consent? Does lack of of objection qualify as consent? It has been in some of the media (exclusively Fox-watchers might have missed it). If Congress decides not to consent, then that would be (I presume) grounds for impeachment and conviction. As long as Republicans hold the majority, I don't see this happening. I'm not sure it would happen if Democrats gained the majority in 2018. I think some Democrats want Trump to still be around in 2020 to fire up their supporters.

Lonewolf

this Congress looks the other way by doing so there not doing their jobs. But they keep him in power because they know he will sign anything they place in front of him unless Putin objects!

acknowledgeurma wrote:

When did Congress consent? Does lack of of objection qualify as consent? It has been in some of the media (exclusively Fox-watchers might have missed it). If Congress decides not to consent, then that would be (I presume) grounds for impeachment and conviction. As long as Republicans hold the majority, I don't see this happening. I'm not sure it would happen if Democrats gained the majority in 2018. I think some Democrats want Trump to still be around in 2020 to fire up their supporters.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

acknowledgeurma wrote:

Any comments from President Trump's supporters appreciated, regarding this:
https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/january-february-march-2018/a-year-in-trump-corruption/

It's BS and we don't care.

Loki Loc: Georgia

acknowledgeurma wrote:

When did Congress consent? Does lack of of objection qualify as consent? It has been in some of the media (exclusively Fox-watchers might have missed it). If Congress decides not to consent, then that would be (I presume) grounds for impeachment and conviction. As long as Republicans hold the majority, I don't see this happening. I'm not sure it would happen if Democrats gained the majority in 2018. I think some Democrats want Trump to still be around in 2020 to fire up their supporters.

Once more, if the Dems had a leg to stand on they would have already started legal proceedings. It has nothing to do with a majority in Congress. The fact is that it is a bulls**t accusation.

Loki Loc: Georgia

acknowledgeurma wrote:

When did Congress consent? Does lack of of objection qualify as consent? It has been in some of the media (exclusively Fox-watchers might have missed it). If Congress decides not to consent, then that would be (I presume) grounds for impeachment and conviction. As long as Republicans hold the majority, I don't see this happening. I'm not sure it would happen if Democrats gained the majority in 2018. I think some Democrats want Trump to still be around in 2020 to fire up their supporters.

It is obvious you have no idea what the actual legal definition of an emolument is.

Bug58

I'd have more of an issue if they went to the hotel and stayed and were given 'free nights' to stay there as opposed to them paying for the services of the hotel staff and such they are receiving.

The real question is he actually profiting from their stay anymore than anyone else staying the night at his hotels??? Are they being charged more than others that there would some how be a larger profit margin for them than others?? Was he issued a 'gift from their stay or renting the hotel?? Doesn't sound like it, was he given a title of nobility?? doesn't sound like it..

https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/68/emoluments-clause

acknowledgeurma

Loki wrote:

Once more, if the Dems had a leg to stand on they would have already started legal proceedings. It has nothing to do with a majority in Congress. The fact is that it is a bulls**t accusation.

In case you missed it:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal-judge-allows-emoluments-case-against-trump-to-proceed/2018/07/25/c8070206-8fa4-11e8-8322-b5482bf5e0f5_story.html?utm_term=.a3a42e6aa30e

acknowledgeurma

Loki wrote:

It is obvious you have no idea what the actual legal definition of an emolument is.

Is it something other than this:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emolument
Wherein we find:
the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites

acknowledgeurma

Bug58 wrote:

I'd have more of an issue if they went to the hote... (show quote)

If they were being given 'free nights', then one might assume that President Trump was attempting to gain some favor or good relations with that person. I don't think their is any US law that would prohibit this unless it was intended to gain some personal advantage for the President.

From:
https://www.britannica.com/story/what-is-the-emoluments-clause
The emoluments clause, also called the foreign emoluments clause, is a provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8) that generally prohibits federal officeholders from receiving any gift, payment, or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives.

So, even if a representative of a foreign state paid a penny (assuming a penny is a thing of value), it could be considered an emolument. One might even argue that, because hotels and resorts sometimes offer "free" services to celebrities to enhance the property's cultural cachet, giving 'free nights' to a prestigious foreign representative might be questionable.

These are some of the reasons many a POTUS have put their holdings in blind trusts.

JW

acknowledgeurma wrote:

Is it something other than this:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emolument
Wherein we find:
the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites

That hotel would be there whether Trump was President or not. Returns are not a result of office and since he owns the hotel, he gets nothing he wouldn't always get.

Loki Loc: Georgia

acknowledgeurma wrote:

Is it something other than this:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emolument
Wherein we find:
the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites

You mean like the millions of dollars Obama and Moochelle spent on personal travel, and school vacations for their kids and their little friends? You think that came out of their pockets? Basically an emolument is an emolument when Congress says it is, not when some left wing journalist says so. The definition is pretty vague.

From Black's Law Dictionary, the one used by the Supreme Court for more than one hundred years:
The profit arising from office or employment; that which is received as a compensation for services, or which is annexed to the possession of office as salary, fees, and perquisites; advantage; gain, public or private. Webster. Any perquisite,advantage, profit, or gain arising from the possession of an office. Apple v. Crawford County. 105 Pa. 303. 51 Am. Itep. 205; Iloyt v. U. S., 10 IIow. 135, 13 L. Ed. 34S;Vansant v. State, 90 Md. 110, 53 Atl. 711
So you see the legal definition of emoluments is wh**ever the Congress says. Under this definition the taxpayer funded vacations taken by the Obama daughters and the first wookie are emoluments, but they were not prohibited.

acknowledgeurma

JW wrote:

That hotel would be there whether Trump was President or not. Returns are not a result of office and since he owns the hotel, he gets nothing he wouldn't always get.

I googled the following:
occupancy rates at trump properties since e******n
and
foreign leader occupancy rates at trump properties since e******n

Got some interesting results. Generally, occupancy has been down (may be due to decrease in foreign tourists since e******n).

But shortly after e******n DC property had an influx of foreign representatives. And that is what the Constitution's Emolument Clause is about, foreign emoluments.