Trump and the emoluments clause

[Nebfanatic]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/17/us/politics/trump-emoluments-money.html

 

Given the discussion over in the DOJ investigation thread, I wanted to start this poll. This article by NY times late last year sums up the issue nicely. If you don't have a subscription just go incognito! 

[NM11046]

I wish there was an option for "Yes, duh"

[Nebfanatic]

39 minutes ago, NM11046 said:

I wish there was an option for "Yes, duh"

I didn't want to seem mean or unfair to our dear füh-ahem-leader.

[TGHusker]

No brainer  don't you think

[RedDenver]

I'm sure we'll hear about how "smart" Trump is for violating the Constitution to make money.

[knapplc]

Hey. Hi. Remember this funny little sidebar conversation? The least criminal of Trump's crimes (this year)? 

 

Yeah, well, he's doing it again. And his spokes folks are basically saying Trump is "too rich to profit from it."

 

But that begs the question - if Trump doesn't need to profit from it, why hold it at one of his properties? And if he doesn't need to profit from it, will he host them all for free?

 

 

 

[TGHusker]

Just amazing.  Dictators flaunt their power because there is no one to check it.  The Dems can't do it alone - they need the senate in order to kick him out.

 

Hey here are 2 ideas:

1. Impeach him, kick him out of office if possible and then the next President - (SAN FRAN NAN perhaps) can cancel the contract

2. Let the voters vote in a Dem Senate and even if he gets reelected, the Dems can then try to impeach him again on new charges.

[Moiraine]

5 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Just amazing.  Dictators flaunt their power because there is no one to check it.  The Dems can't do it alone - they need the senate in order to kick him out.

 

Hey here are 2 ideas:

1. Impeach him, kick him out of office if possible and then the next President - (SAN FRAN NAN perhaps) can cancel the contract

2. Let the voters vote in a Dem Senate and even if he gets reelected, the Dems can then try to impeach him again on new charges.

 

 

The problem with 2 is the senate heavily favors people the Democrats can’t seem to reach. 

[schriznoeder]

 

 

[QMany]

That's quite the holding.

 

House refiles today.

[Nebfanatic]

23 hours ago, schriznoeder said:

 

 

He might be guilty but not enough people want to press charges so we are throwing it out. Is that how violations of the constitution are supposed to be handled? You need a majority to hold someone accountable? 

[sho]

On 2/8/2020 at 10:12 AM, Nebfanatic said:

He might be guilty but not enough people want to press charges so we are throwing it out. Is that how violations of the constitution are supposed to be handled? You need a majority to hold someone accountable? 

 

Isn't that true in all things?   I mean if only 4 of the 12 jury members think a person is guilty, they don't find him guilty....if only 2 of 17 people in a grand jury think a defendant should be bound for trial, they don't get bound for trial.   If majority don't believe, or rather refuse to acknowledge, the case goes away.   Hence the phrase 'majority rules'

[Nebfanatic]

On 2/10/2020 at 3:38 PM, sho said:

 

Isn't that true in all things?   I mean if only 4 of the 12 jury members think a person is guilty, they don't find him guilty....if only 2 of 17 people in a grand jury think a defendant should be bound for trial, they don't get bound for trial.   If majority don't believe, or rather refuse to acknowledge, the case goes away.   Hence the phrase 'majority rules'

Those aren't apt comparisons to what we are seeing here. To bring the suit to court you have to have a majority regardless of the actual facts? That is not how our justice system is supposed to work. In the scenarios you presented those bodies would still be basing their decision on the actual evidence presented not if there is enough people that want this suit to happen.