Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

swag

(26,480 posts)
Fri Jun 9, 2017, 09:32 PM Jun 2017

DOJ: Trump can accept payments from foreign governments

Source: The Hill

By Brandon Carter

Lawyers for the Justice Department are arguing that President Trump isn’t violating a Constitutional provision that bars federal officials from accepting payments from foreign governments because the clause doesn’t 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 doesn’t 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 Trump’s 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

48 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
DOJ: Trump can accept payments from foreign governments (Original Post) swag Jun 2017 OP
WOW - they are nuts rurallib Jun 2017 #1
"lawyers from the DOJ" Roy Rolling Jun 2017 #30
Actually, probably not. Think like an Attorney for a minute bitterross Jun 2017 #33
thank you rurallib Jun 2017 #35
Well, thinking like a lawyer, TomSlick Jun 2017 #38
I don't disagree with your​ assertions/premise. bitterross Jun 2017 #39
Unquestionably correct. TomSlick Jun 2017 #46
I don't think so, based on two prongs. Yo_Mama Jun 2017 #47
Coming soon: Don, Melania, Jared, & Ivanka infomercials Freethinker65 Jun 2017 #2
And what is the "fair market value" for a club fee that doubled after he was elected? (nt) thesquanderer Jun 2017 #3
...and the membership fee that doubled to $200K! Qutzupalotl Jun 2017 #18
The DOJ brief totally ignores those glaring facts. SunSeeker Jun 2017 #22
And an author doesn't get to know the names of who buys his books muriel_volestrangler Jun 2017 #25
Fair enough Roy Rolling Jun 2017 #31
Or Trump charging the taxpayers $35,000 for renting his golfcarts to himself stuffmatters Jun 2017 #43
F'ckng crooked country. CentralMass Jun 2017 #4
Our banana republic certification is in the mail! swag Jun 2017 #5
No. I ain't goin for this shit. Just not. No. NYET goddamit. end of message Leghorn21 Jun 2017 #6
Did they say anything about bucolic_frolic Jun 2017 #7
Or Trump selling green cards as real estate investments. He did it before Jared bigtime. stuffmatters Jun 2017 #44
OMG. One corrupt thing after another. nt Honeycombe8 Jun 2017 #8
The situation is without precedent so some law is gonna get made. Shrike47 Jun 2017 #9
Or as Trump would say: "unpresidented". keithbvadu2 Jun 2017 #10
Makes sense - the law applies to everyone except Trump. procon Jun 2017 #11
Originalism? Never heard of it. NT mahatmakanejeeves Jun 2017 #12
That's some Newt Gingrich thinking right there ProudLib72 Jun 2017 #13
Sure enough dalton99a Jun 2017 #14
keep on bringing him to the courts. This is how the shady deals of his 'charities', foundations, Sunlei Jun 2017 #15
Has anyone found a link to the DoJ brief? TomSlick Jun 2017 #16
Here's the feds' Motion to Dismiss. SunSeeker Jun 2017 #20
Otherwise known as a Silkwood Shower Hestia Jun 2017 #37
LOL Exactly. SunSeeker Jun 2017 #41
It's a very pretty brief but TomSlick Jun 2017 #48
Also, see my Reply 22 up the thread. SunSeeker Jun 2017 #23
as crooked as it gets now folks. just wow. TeamPooka Jun 2017 #17
Who else claimed that if the president does it, that means it isn't illegal? FuzzyRabbit Jun 2017 #19
Well, there's no chance they could disguise bribes as "fair-market commercial transactions", so OK ! eppur_se_muova Jun 2017 #21
OK, Original Intent guys, where does it say bucolic_frolic Jun 2017 #24
Is this mercuryblues Jun 2017 #26
LOL! And in the small print it says, "As long as he shares his booty with his DOJ appointees." Squinch Jun 2017 #27
So now the DOJ argues that the Constitution is an unenforceable Progressive dog Jun 2017 #28
Exactly stuffmatters Jun 2017 #45
Isn't that special. C_U_L8R Jun 2017 #29
Okay then, let's make this Article II of the impeachment, right behind treason. sinkingfeeling Jun 2017 #32
Trump's assets were SUPPOSED to go into a BLIND TRUST !! vkkv Jun 2017 #34
Well, that's it then. It is now legal to take bribes, hush money louis-t Jun 2017 #36
The Day the Music Died jpak Jun 2017 #40
And to use his hotels as cash cow question everything Jun 2017 #42

Roy Rolling

(6,853 posts)
30. "lawyers from the DOJ"
Sat Jun 10, 2017, 08:59 AM
Jun 2017

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)
33. Actually, probably not. Think like an Attorney for a minute
Sat Jun 10, 2017, 11:27 AM
Jun 2017

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)
35. thank you
Sat Jun 10, 2017, 11:55 AM
Jun 2017

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)
38. Well, thinking like a lawyer,
Sat Jun 10, 2017, 03:28 PM
Jun 2017

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)
39. I don't disagree with your​ assertions/premise.
Sat Jun 10, 2017, 04:38 PM
Jun 2017

However, I'm afraid the courts have frequently ruled for form over substance.

TomSlick

(11,035 posts)
46. Unquestionably correct.
Sat Jun 10, 2017, 08:18 PM
Jun 2017

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)
47. I don't think so, based on two prongs.
Sat Jun 10, 2017, 09:11 PM
Jun 2017

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.

thesquanderer

(11,955 posts)
3. And what is the "fair market value" for a club fee that doubled after he was elected? (nt)
Fri Jun 9, 2017, 09:50 PM
Jun 2017

Last edited Fri Jun 16, 2017, 08:16 AM - Edit history (1)

Qutzupalotl

(14,230 posts)
18. ...and the membership fee that doubled to $200K!
Fri Jun 9, 2017, 11:55 PM
Jun 2017

Obvious self-dealing. Sticking his hand out asking for bribes. I hope they get laughed out of court.

SunSeeker

(51,377 posts)
22. The DOJ brief totally ignores those glaring facts.
Sat Jun 10, 2017, 02:58 AM
Jun 2017
http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015c-8f93-d070-a57d-effbb03c0001

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)
25. And an author doesn't get to know the names of who buys his books
Sat Jun 10, 2017, 07:03 AM
Jun 2017

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)
31. Fair enough
Sat Jun 10, 2017, 09:04 AM
Jun 2017

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?

procon

(15,805 posts)
11. Makes sense - the law applies to everyone except Trump.
Fri Jun 9, 2017, 10:38 PM
Jun 2017

After all, it's not like he's a Democrat or a black man who would be forced to comply with the law.

Sunlei

(22,651 posts)
15. keep on bringing him to the courts. This is how the shady deals of his 'charities', foundations,
Fri Jun 9, 2017, 11:02 PM
Jun 2017

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)
16. Has anyone found a link to the DoJ brief?
Fri Jun 9, 2017, 11:03 PM
Jun 2017

I gotta read the argument about a "fair-market commercial transactions" exception. Sounds like an exception to swallow the rule.

FuzzyRabbit

(1,958 posts)
19. Who else claimed that if the president does it, that means it isn't illegal?
Sat Jun 10, 2017, 12:15 AM
Jun 2017

Oh, yeah, I remember now! And I also remember how it ended for him.



eppur_se_muova

(36,227 posts)
21. Well, there's no chance they could disguise bribes as "fair-market commercial transactions", so OK !
Sat Jun 10, 2017, 02:52 AM
Jun 2017

There's absolutely *NOTHING* about this argument that might open the door to unlimited corruption ! Nope, nosiree !

bucolic_frolic

(42,676 posts)
24. OK, Original Intent guys, where does it say
Sat Jun 10, 2017, 06:24 AM
Jun 2017

"fair-market commercial transactions" in the United States Constitution?

Just asking

mercuryblues

(14,491 posts)
26. Is this
Sat Jun 10, 2017, 07:39 AM
Jun 2017

something that OUR DoJ should even be handling? It looks to me like they are defending fuck faces businesses on OUR dime.

Progressive dog

(6,862 posts)
28. So now the DOJ argues that the Constitution is an unenforceable
Sat Jun 10, 2017, 07:54 AM
Jun 2017

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.

C_U_L8R

(44,897 posts)
29. Isn't that special.
Sat Jun 10, 2017, 07:58 AM
Jun 2017

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 !!!

 

vkkv

(3,384 posts)
34. Trump's assets were SUPPOSED to go into a BLIND TRUST !!
Sat Jun 10, 2017, 11:34 AM
Jun 2017

and now this STRETCH of the law ????

louis-t

(23,199 posts)
36. Well, that's it then. It is now legal to take bribes, hush money
Sat Jun 10, 2017, 02:00 PM
Jun 2017

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?

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»DOJ: Trump can accept pay...