Quantcast
Connect with us

The founding fathers had the Trump family in mind when they wrote this part of the Constitution that deals with presidential grifting

Published

on

- Commentary
Terry H. Schwadron
Terry H. Schwadron

That pesky, annoying caboose of legal problems for Donald Trump continues to move through the federal courts, thanks to a decision last week.

While Trump faces attacks on his taxes, his business practices and ethics, and the findings of the Mueller Report, this challenge focuses on the idea that Trump continues to bank profits from his hotel business while serving in the White House, an alleged abridgment of the “emoluments” clause of the Constitution.

ADVERTISEMENT

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan in Washington denied a Justice Department request to dismiss the lawsuit, filed in 2017 by Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal and 200 other members of the House and Senate who claim Trump is violating the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the Constitution by doing business with foreign governments through his hotels.

Two hundred members of the House and Senate claim Trump is violating the  Constitution by doing business with foreign governments through his hotels.

As summarized by Fortune Magazine, the judge’s ruling would allow the Democrats to start seeking financial records from the Trump Organization in a pre-trial exchange of information. The Justice Department can try to block that by appealing the ruling. Trump is already fighting congressional subpoenas for his tax information in court and has vowed to fight “all subpoenas.”

Sullivan in September ruled the Democrats have legal standing to pursue their claim, and held off deciding on the merits. Last Tuesday’s 48-page decision gives a detailed explanation for siding with the Democrats in a fight they say is crucial for battling corruption by the Trump White House.

As part of the clash, Democrats using a broad definition of emoluments to cover profits from Trump’s businesses and Trump seeking a narrow meaning. Sullivan said the Democrats had the more convincing argument.

ADVERTISEMENT

Eighteenth-Century Definition

Trump’s definition “disregards the ordinary meaning of the term as set forth in the vast majority of Founding-era dictionaries,” Sullivan said in his ruling. The judge also said Trump’s definition “is inconsistent with the text, structure, historical interpretation, adoption, and purpose of the clause; and is contrary to executive branch practice over the course of many years.”

Democrats argued the word is broadly defined “as any profit, gain or advantage.” The president countered that an emolument would be, for example, a payment from a foreign government for an official action or a salary from a foreign power.

The clause says that certain federal officials, including the president, can’t accept an emolument from “any King, Prince, or foreign State” without “the Consent of the Congress.” The congressional Democrats are seeking an order compelling Trump to notify Congress when he’s offered an emolument, giving them the option to vote on whether he can accept it. Blumenthal has called the emoluments clauses the Constitution’s “premier anti-corruption provision.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Needs Congressional Approval

Trump said he stepped down from running his $3 billion empire but retained his ownership interests, a decision the Democrats say violates the Foreign Emoluments clause because he’s getting payments from foreign governments without congressional approval.

While the Democrats claimed they’re being denied the right to vote on the benefits, attorneys for the president say the matter should be resolved in Congress, not in court.

ADVERTISEMENT

Meanwhile, Reuters has an interesting report about what appears to be another Emoluments Clause controversy. This one aims at how Trump has allowed at least seven foreign governments to rent luxury condominiums in New York’s Trump World Tower in 2017 without approval from Congress, according to documents and people familiar with the leases, a potential violation of the U.S. Constitution’s emoluments clause.

The Emoluments Clause controversies started out as debates among legal scholars regarding provisions of the Constitution that had not been interpreted by any court of record in the United States since the adoption of the Constitution itself. Over the past two years, though, the issue that the two clauses raise has given rise to litigation across the nation and allegations of self-dealing and what amounts to what some might call influence pedaling through Trump’s businesses in a form that has never been seen with any previous president.


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Trump promises to sign Executive Order today to punish Facebook and Twitter after he was fact-checked on two tweets

Published

on

President Donald Trump on Thursday will sign an executive order in retribution for Twitter appending a "get the facts" label on two of his tweets that were not only false but designed to suppress the vote. On Wednesday Trump responded to the new labels by tweeting, “Social Media Platforms totally silence conservatives voices,” which is false, and promising tech companies he would “strongly regulate, or close them down."

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Here’s a major risk for coronavirus spread that everyone seems to be overlooking

Published

on

A public health expert warned that the coronavirus can linger in the air and infect others.

Joseph Allen, director of the Healthy Buildings program at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, told MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the World Health Organization are overlooking airborne transmission and focusing instead on COVID-19's spread through droplets and surfaces.

"This is why you clean and disinfect surfaces, but they've ignored airborne transmission," Allen said.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Central Park incident just one more example of white women using their status to terrorize black men: NYT’s Charles Blow

Published

on

Amy Cooper is just the latest example of white women using their privilege and femininity to terrorize black men, according to a new column from Charles Blow.

The New York Times columnist explains that a video recording of an incident involving Cooper, an investment manager, and Christian Cooper, a science editor, has a long and shameful historical precedent.

"This racial street theater against black people is an endemic, primal feature of the Republic," Blow write. "Specifically, I am enraged by white women weaponizing racial anxiety, using their white femininity to activate systems of white terror against black men. This has long been a power white women realized they had and that they exerted."

Continue Reading
 
 
You need honest news coverage. Help us deliver it. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1. Go ad-free.
close-image