1. The Kuwaiti government could pay up to $60,000 to President Donald Trump's hotel in Washington for a party on Saturday that will be an early test of Trump's promise to turn over profits from such events to the U.S. Treasury.
One of Trump's lawyers, Sheri Dillon, pledged at a Jan. 11 press conference to donate any Trump Hotel profits from foreign governments to the U.S. Treasury.
The White House and Alan Garten, the general counsel for the Trump Organization, did not return calls for comment on whether any profits from foreign government payments to the hotel have been donated. Dillon's firm declined to comment.
A watchdog group led by former ethics lawyers for the Obama and George W. Bush administrations sued Trump in federal court in January, accusing him of violating the Constitution by allowing foreign government payments to businesses he owns.
Some ethics lawyers say even if Trump turns over all of the profits from the Kuwait National Day party, he would still be in violation of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits government officials from accepting "any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind wh**ever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
They say all of the income from the event, not just profits, would need to be donated to the U.S. Treasury to avoid contravening the constitutional ban.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-hotel-idUSKBN1640LE
2. Shortly after trump talked to Xi Jinping, the head of China, a year-long court case in that country over his name as a recognized trademark was suddenly decided in his favor. This will mean millions upon millions for Trump as well as other substantial benefits. What did they talk about? What was promised?
3. Trump's refusal to release his Tax Returns. This is both very perplexing and highly suspicious. All presidents and even candidates for that office had released their returns. The tradition of doing so is not an empty gesture. T***sparency of government is both a staple of and fundamental to the running of a Republic. The nation's security is also tied to what holdings a president may have in foreign countries. How or if he may profit as well as how or if he may be influenced by some foreign power is vital information for the American public.
During his campaign, Trump made a number of promises to release his returns if certain stipulations demanded by him were met. Each time these conditions were met, he still refused. He never gave a principled answer for his decision. He could have simply stated, “No, this is a matter of privacy” or a matter of wh**ever. But he never did. Why not?
A disclosure of his Tax Returns could help in shedding any possible links to Russia. But Trump preferred to pressure the FBI into saying there was no connection. And then he went even further. He told the Chairs of Intelligence, both Republicans in the House and Senate, to call reporters and tell them this Russian connection was a non-story. Both admitted their duplicity. And both Committees were at the start of an investigation into these allegations of a Trump/Russia connection; no conclusions reached. So at least three things are very wrong here. One, these Chairs are supposed to act independently of the Executive branch; they are not to be under its direction, jurisdiction, or influence—yet they obeyed Trump's command unethically, immorally, and possibly criminally to undermine their own investigation. Two, evidence was still in the early stages of being accumulated and analyzed so to declare a conclusion without all the facts by these two puppets was an egregious wrong. Three, Trump's action was a peek at how a Banana-Republic acts.
4. Not divesting himself into a Blind Trust. This is outrageous and any sane person would agree. Defending this action is akin to s******n. The reason for the refusal is obviously craven. Trump wants to make more money off of his presidency. Now we enter substantial cause for impeachmment.
Foreign interference in the American political system was among the gravest dangers feared by the Founders of our nation and the framers of our Constitution. The United States was a new government, and one that was vulnerable to manipulation by the great and wealthy world powers (which then, as now, included Russia). One common tactic that foreign sovereigns, and their agents, used to influence our officials was to give them gifts, money, and other things of value. In response to this practice, and the self-evident threat it represents, the framers included in the Constitution the Emoluments Clause of Article I, Section 9. It prohibits any “Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States]” from accepting “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind wh**ever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” Only explicit congressional consent validates such exchanges.
While much has changed since 1789, certain premises of politics and human nature have held steady. One of those t***hs is that private financial interests can subtly sway even the most virtuous leaders. As careful students of history, the Framers were painfully aware that entanglements between American officials and foreign powers could pose a creeping, insidious risk to the Republic. The Emoluments Clause was forged of their hard-won wisdom. It is no relic of a bygone era, but rather an expression of insight into the nature of the human condition and the preconditions of self-governance.
Now in 2016, when there is overwhelming evidence that a foreign power has indeed meddled in our political system, adherence to the strict prohibition on foreign government presents and emoluments “of any kind wh**ever” is even more important for our national security and independence.
Never in American history has a president-elect presented more conflict of interest questions and foreign entanglements than Donald Trump. Given the vast and global scope of Trump’s business interests, many of which remain shrouded in secrecy, we cannot predict the full gamut of legal and constitutional challenges that lie ahead. But one violation, of constitutional magnitude, will run from the instant that Mr. Trump swears he will “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” While holding office, Mr. Trump will receive—by virtue of his continued interest in the Trump Organization and his stake in hundreds of other entities—a steady stream of monetary and other benefits from foreign powers and their agents.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-emoluments-clause-its-text-meaning-and-application-to-donald-j-trump/
On Monday morning, a liberal watchdog group filed a lawsuit against President Trump, alleging he’d violated a previously obscure provision in the Constitution, the “Emoluments Clause.”
The watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said that the clause prohibits Trump-owned businesses from accepting payments from foreign governments.
They asked a court to stop Trump’s businesses from taking them now.
“This cannot be allowed,” the group wrote in its legal complaint.
What, exactly, is the Emoluments Clause?
It is 49 words in Article I of the Constitution.
“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 wh**ever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
In this instance, the words that matter most are the ones we have placed in italics.
According to legal scholars, these words were added out of a concern from the 1700s that American ambassadors, on the far side of the ocean, might be corrupted by gifts from rich European powers.
Benjamin Franklin, for instance, had accepted a snuffbox festooned with 408 diamonds from the King of France. John Jay accepted a horse from the King of Spain.
After that, the Emoluments Clause rarely came up again. It’s never been the subject of a major court case and never been taken up by the Supreme Court, leaving great uncertainty about what it means — and to whom, exactly, it applies — in the 21st century.
Is President Trump violating the Emoluments Clause?
That’s uncertain.
The group that filed Monday’s lawsuit — whose attorneys include prominent ethics lawyers from the Barack Obama and George W. Bush White Houses — says Trump is in violation.
Their logic is that the clause prohibits Trump from taking any money at all from a foreign state. To them, the clause prohibits not just straight-up gifts but also payments for services rendered. So it would prohibit a Trump-owned hotel from renting a ballroom to a foreign embassy and prohibit Trump Tower from renting out office space — as it already does — to a state-controlled Chinese bank.
In their complaint, they ask a federal judge to stop Trump’s businesses from taking those payments.
“A federal officeholder who receives something of value from a foreign power can be imperceptibly induced to compromise what the Constitution insists be his or her exclusive loyalty: the best interest of the United States of America,” the group wrote in its legal filing.
Trump and his attorneys have rejected that idea.
Although Trump has promised to relinquish management of his companies to his two oldest sons and top executives, he will continue to own the businesses.
His attorney said Trump will avoid running afoul of the Constitution because his businesses will not be accepting gifts from foreign countries, rather they’ll be accepting payments, for services rendered.
“Paying for a hotel room is not a gift or a present,” attorney Sheri Dillon said at a news conference before his inauguration.
Dillon also sought to address a secondary concern — that foreign governments might turn those payments into gifts, by wildly overpaying Trump for a ballroom or a round of golf.
Dillon said that Trump would turn over “profits” from foreign governments at his hotels to the U.S. treasury. It is unclear, however, exactly how Trump’s businesses would calculate that, because the Trump Organization hasn’t provided any details on how such payments would be tracked, collected and dispersed.
Is that enough?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/what-is-the-emoluments-clause-does-it-apply-to-president-trump/2017/01/23/12aa7808-e185-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.82f9958ff664
1. The Kuwaiti government could pay up to $60,000 ... (
show quote)