DOJ: Trump can accept payments from foreign governments
Source: The Hill
By Brandon Carter
Lawyers for the Justice Department are arguing that President Trump isnt violating a Constitutional provision that bars federal officials from accepting payments from foreign governments because the clause doesnt apply to certain transactions.
In a new brief asking a judge to throw out a lawsuit brought against Trump by ethics watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), DOJ lawyers contend that the foreign emoluments clause doesnt apply to fair-market commercial transactions like payments for hotel rooms and golf club fees, according to Bloomberg.
Trump administration lawyers also argue that CREW and other plaintiffs lack legal standing to bring the case against Trump and that Congress, not the court system, should determine whether Trump is in violation of the emoluments clause.
CREW filed the lawsuit during Trumps first week in office to stop President Trump from violating the Constitution by illegally receiving payments from foreign governments."
"We did not want to get to this point. It was our hope that President Trump would take the necessary steps to avoid violating the Constitution before he took office," CREW Executive Director Noah Bookbinder said at the time.
Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/337210-doj-lawyers-argue-trump-can-accept-payments-from-foreign-governments
rurallib
(62,346 posts)Roy Rolling
(6,853 posts)Trump University graduates? They should be sued for malpractice. Sadly, they work for us---taxpayers. But an orange dementia patient does the hiring.
bitterross
(4,066 posts)While I disagree with what would be the outcome I'd say they have a good chance with the argument. Two reasons.
First, the founders were probably thinking of DIRECT payments and gifts to a specific person. Trump would have to accept money directly into his personal accounts or have the Saudis deliver a new Maybach to the White House with a bow and a tag that says "To: Donald" on it for him to violate the clause as it was probably originally intended.
I'm not a Constitutional scholar but I don't think I'm too far off on the logic above.
Second reason and one I'm shakier on. This thinking toes nicely with the same thinking in decisions like Citizens United. The corporation that 45 and his family own that is receiving the money is a separate legal entity than the persons (entities) in government. That entity has not been elected to government and therefore, cannot violate the clause no matter how much money it receives. 45 and his family still have the possibility of losing money on the whole from the entity. There is no guarantee they will benefit from that entity receiving foreign money.
This is hardly different from the campaign contributions to political campaigns and PACs that corporations make that curry favor despite all of our courts ignoring this obvious fact.
rurallib
(62,346 posts)after my reaction, I sort of thought about that, also
Most of us would try to avoid any and all appearances of crossing any line.
But this is Trump and he's a bully who is determined to do whatever he wants no matter what.
TomSlick
(11,035 posts)I'm not convinced that routing an emolument through a corporate alter ego would be sufficient to escape the constitutional prohibition.
To allow a payment / gift / bribe to a corporation that is owned by the President on the theory that the corporation is a separate person than the President, would elevate form over substance.
I'm no more a constitutional scholar than any other yeoman lawyer but it is incomprehensible to me that the Emoluments Clause is so easily defeated as a simple expediency of making payments to a closely held corporation with the President as the only, or primary, shareholder.
bitterross
(4,066 posts)However, I'm afraid the courts have frequently ruled for form over substance.
TomSlick
(11,035 posts)I'm afraid that court reasoning is often outcome determinative. The Citizens United case is a great example of an outcome determinative decision.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)First, the Emoluments Clause:
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.
Note that this applies to all persons holding federal office, including Congress or any federal officeholder. Not just the president. The Clinton family received far more financial benefit from foreign governments through the Clinton Foundation than Trump is doing.
First, consider history:
1) All presidents in recent memory, and certainly several of the original generation, were businessmen, or held a lot of stock in companies. At the time of the passage of the Constitution, most of the Congress were businessmen. In their capacity as businessmen, and as an active governmental policy in the early history of the US, they were trying to develop industry and exports. Cotton, lumber, anything we could ship. It's a certainty that the plantation owners were exporting and receiving payments, to some degree, from foreign governments. Thus, they all, in one way or another, were receiving payments from foreign governments. You think IBM, CISCO, Microsoft, etc don't receive payments from foreign governments. You think Verizon and the utility companies don't receive payments from foreign governments? You think it is illegal for a US office holder to own stock in those companies?
Second, consider possibility:
2) Many Congressional Senators & Representatives receive payments from foreign governments in theoretically arms-length transactions. They publish books. They own houses. They have shares in companies. Many of them are involved in real estate, some in foreign holdings of real estate. This is a standard impossible to impose.
What's banned by the Emoluments clause cannot be a standard commercial transaction.
Finally, consider nine Supreme Court justices considering this matter. They are certainly not going to try to interpret this standard in a way that makes them all potentially subject to such charges.
Freethinker65
(9,934 posts)Hawking books, trinkets, and get rich schemes
thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)Last edited Fri Jun 16, 2017, 08:16 AM - Edit history (1)
Qutzupalotl
(14,230 posts)Obvious self-dealing. Sticking his hand out asking for bribes. I hope they get laughed out of court.
SunSeeker
(51,377 posts)They appear to just assume all transactions were for market value.
The DOJ attorneys even have the nerve to cite to Barack Obama's full 2009 tax return (without any sense of irony!) in noting that Obama made money from the sale of his book and that some of that had to be foreign money since his book was found in foreign libraries. (See footnote 65, page 46 of the DOJ brief at the above link.) But of course, they don't point out that Obama did not jack up the price of his book once he became president; nor did he charge foreign entities more than anyone else, if he charged them anything. Nor do they point out that most of the money he made from book sales, along with all of the cash he got for his Nobel Prize, went to charity, which Obama's 2009 tax return confirms and attaches a letter from the Nobel Prize committee stating the charities it sent his prize money to.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,154 posts)and the amount of each transaction is trivial (if someone did a bulk buy of thousands of books, then that might be different. That is, after all, how some dubious RW organisations have financed RW politicians). But by definition using hotel or clubs involves knowing the name of the payer, and far greater amounts.
Roy Rolling
(6,853 posts)Obama's 2009 tax returns as evidence? Show us the proof of Trump's income---his tax returns. What moron would use Obama's tax returns as an example and not expect a demand for Trump's tax returns to examine for similarity?
stuffmatters
(2,574 posts)CentralMass
(15,265 posts)swag
(26,480 posts)Leghorn21
(13,520 posts)bucolic_frolic
(42,676 posts)campaign cash disguised as real estate sales?
stuffmatters
(2,574 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Shrike47
(6,913 posts)Whoo Hoo!
keithbvadu2
(36,369 posts)procon
(15,805 posts)After all, it's not like he's a Democrat or a black man who would be forced to comply with the law.
mahatmakanejeeves
(56,897 posts)ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)"Rules don't apply to gods"
dalton99a
(81,070 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)golf courses, casinos and hotels come to light.
No more "Mr. big guy" hiding behind your "I'll ruin you" Lawyer.
TomSlick
(11,035 posts)I gotta read the argument about a "fair-market commercial transactions" exception. Sounds like an exception to swallow the rule.
SunSeeker
(51,377 posts)I bet those DOJ lawyers needed to take long, skin scraping showers after filing that thing.
Hestia
(3,818 posts)SunSeeker
(51,377 posts)TomSlick
(11,035 posts)the argument is bizarre.
SunSeeker
(51,377 posts)TeamPooka
(24,156 posts)FuzzyRabbit
(1,958 posts)Oh, yeah, I remember now! And I also remember how it ended for him.
eppur_se_muova
(36,227 posts)There's absolutely *NOTHING* about this argument that might open the door to unlimited corruption ! Nope, nosiree !
bucolic_frolic
(42,676 posts)"fair-market commercial transactions" in the United States Constitution?
Just asking
mercuryblues
(14,491 posts)something that OUR DoJ should even be handling? It looks to me like they are defending fuck faces businesses on OUR dime.
Squinch
(50,774 posts)Progressive dog
(6,862 posts)contract where "fair market value" bribes are fine.
Those DOJ lawyers took an oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies, they are defending Trump instead.
The DOJ is acting as Trump's personal law firm and we are paying for it.
stuffmatters
(2,574 posts)C_U_L8R
(44,897 posts)Let me get this straight.... So Trump's DOJ says it's
okay for Trump to accept bribes, graft and payola??!!
Not to mention the money laundering. What a racket !!!
sinkingfeeling
(51,279 posts)vkkv
(3,384 posts)and now this STRETCH of the law ????
louis-t
(23,199 posts)pay to play, enrich yourself while pretending to represent citizens, ignore national security, charge taxpayers for your golf outings and put the money in your pocket. What have we become?
jpak
(41,742 posts)yup
question everything
(47,271 posts)why not?
Can Sessions be impeached?
Here is the cover of TIME