Can the Constitution be Used to Get Rid of Trump?

vaggar99

Yes

DC hotel
edition.cnn.com/2016/12/14/politics/donald-trump-deposition-washington-hotel/index.html

vaggar99

Yes

i'm a smart guy and probably already know whats in this, so i haven't read it. someone do me a favor and read and then you brief tomorrow morning if i decide to log on.
https://brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gs_121616_emoluments-clause1.pdf

benjs

vaggar99 said:

i'm a smart guy and probably already know whats in this, so i haven't read it. someone do me a favor and read and then you brief tomorrow morning if i decide to log on.
https://brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gs_121616_emoluments-clause1.pdf

Let me try to play devil's advocate (because Trump's lawyers certainly will).

The paper you linked to defines what an emolument is, what 'offices' are affected by it, and which foreign entities transacting would define a breach of the clause. People in the US government regularly attempt to work with foreign entities, and the public encourages them: trade deals, cooperative relationships, alliances, military aid. Supposedly, the US government is meant to speak for the people, and to treat them favourably over all other nations - so one would hope that they are making international negotiations which provide advantages and benefits (in other words, emoluments) to Americans, which includes those same people making the policies or deals themselves (who are then stakeholders, rather than sole proprietors, in these transactions).

In this sense, most international agreements could be seen as breaches of the emoluments clause, unless one admits that being a stakeholder while holding office is not direct enough of receipt of emoluments from foreign entities (which, clearly, is implicitly admitted by the fact that these types of deals occur regularly). Trump is expected to go one step further, and to remove himself from these businesses (legally), and will be nothing more than an incidental beneficiary (an indirect stakeholder with no legal connection to the receiving groups of said emoluments - namely, his family and other Trump business shareholders). Precedence is important if you're to claim a legal violation of a Constitutional law, and America has absolutely shown precedence that an indirect receipt of emoluments from foreign entities is insufficient grounds for impeachment. Further precedence is set through Cheney's indirect compensation from his ties with Halliburton, and he wasn't impeached.

foodshop65

the constitution?
how many executive orders?
how many backroom deals?
biggest NSA spy ring in history?
just imagine if they covered bho like they do trump

JC29856

foodshop65 said:

the constitution?
how many executive orders?
how many backroom deals?
biggest NSA spy ring in history?
just imagine if they covered bho like they do trump

They can't, they will be called names.

vaggar99

Yes

foodshop65 said:

the constitution?
how many executive orders?
how many backroom deals?
biggest NSA spy ring in history?
just imagine if they covered bho like they do trump

woah..obama is done. we are talking about the next guy

josevolution

Well we all know Bafoon getting elected is Obamas fault , who are you guys going to blame after 1/20/17 when King Bafoon takes office ?

vaggar99

Yes

josevolution said:

Well we all know Bafoon getting elected is Obamas fault , who are you guys going to blame after 1/20/17 when King Bafoon takes office ?

if you call being black a fault, then yes, he deserves part of the blame. its hilarious to hear so many people hate on a guy who graduate Magna Cum Laude from Harvard and still put up with a DOE secretary nominee who could barely pass a class called 'Meats'.

benjs

vaggar99 said:

josevolution said:

Well we all know Bafoon getting elected is Obamas fault , who are you guys going to blame after 1/20/17 when King Bafoon takes office ?

if you call being black a fault, then yes, he deserves part of the blame. its hilarious to hear so many people hate on a guy who graduate Magna Cum Laude from Harvard and still put up with a DOE secretary nominee who could barely pass a class called 'Meats'.

Seriously? You don't think any of Obama's actions or inactions could've contributed to disdain with the DNC? I don't care where he graduated from - he was not perfect.

PS, Do you have any comment on what I wrote above? I took a good ten minutes of effort to debunk why your hopes and dreams are just hopes and dreams and not valid strategy.

vaggar99

Yes

benjs said:

vaggar99 said:

josevolution said:

Well we all know Bafoon getting elected is Obamas fault , who are you guys going to blame after 1/20/17 when King Bafoon takes office ?

if you call being black a fault, then yes, he deserves part of the blame. its hilarious to hear so many people hate on a guy who graduate Magna Cum Laude from Harvard and still put up with a DOE secretary nominee who could barely pass a class called 'Meats'.

Seriously? You don't think any of Obama's actions or inactions could've contributed to disdain with the DNC? I don't care where he graduated from - he was not perfect.

PS, Do you have any comment on what I wrote above? I took a good ten minutes of effort to debunk why your hopes and dreams are just hopes and dreams and not valid strategy.

Magna Cum Laude!! That is hard shit. I could have never done that. Yes, I plan to respond. I still need to read the document thouroughly. Give me till the weekend. Work is a little too busy right now...thanks for following up. Somehow I knew you would!

benjs

vaggar99 said:

benjs said:

vaggar99 said:

josevolution said:

Well we all know Bafoon getting elected is Obamas fault , who are you guys going to blame after 1/20/17 when King Bafoon takes office ?

if you call being black a fault, then yes, he deserves part of the blame. its hilarious to hear so many people hate on a guy who graduate Magna Cum Laude from Harvard and still put up with a DOE secretary nominee who could barely pass a class called 'Meats'.

Seriously? You don't think any of Obama's actions or inactions could've contributed to disdain with the DNC? I don't care where he graduated from - he was not perfect.

PS, Do you have any comment on what I wrote above? I took a good ten minutes of effort to debunk why your hopes and dreams are just hopes and dreams and not valid strategy.

Magna Cum Laude!! That is hard shit. I could have never done that. Yes, I plan to respond. I still need to read the document thouroughly. Give me till the weekend. Work is a little too busy right now...thanks for following up. Somehow I knew you would!

There's this Mitch Hedberg routine where he talks about how in comedy, they hear that you're good at one thing and assume you'll be good at something related - like saying to a cook "you're a great cook - can you farm"? Sure, there are transferrable skills between strong academic abilities and leadership in government, but to write off the possibility for wrong decisions based on doing well in college 25 years ago is ludicrous.

And I'm glad you plan on responding - do you often post links to articles and papers which you haven't read yourself?

vaggar99

Yes

.

benjs said:

vaggar99 said:

i'm a smart guy and probably already know whats in this, so i haven't read it. someone do me a favor and read and then you brief tomorrow morning if i decide to log on.
https://brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gs_121616_emoluments-clause1.pdf

Let me try to play devil's advocate (because Trump's lawyers certainly will).

The paper you linked to defines what an emolument is, what 'offices' are affected by it, and which foreign entities transacting would define a breach of the clause. People in the US government regularly attempt to work with foreign entities, and the public encourages them: trade deals, cooperative relationships, alliances, military aid. Supposedly, the US government is meant to speak for the people, and to treat them favourably over all other nations - so one would hope that they are making international negotiations which provide advantages and benefits (in other words, emoluments) to Americans, which includes those same people making the policies or deals themselves (who are then stakeholders, rather than sole proprietors, in these transactions).

In this sense, most international agreements could be seen as breaches of the emoluments clause, unless one admits that being a stakeholder while holding office is not direct enough of receipt of emoluments from foreign entities (which, clearly, is implicitly admitted by the fact that these types of deals occur regularly). Trump is expected to go one step further, and to remove himself from these businesses (legally), and will be nothing more than an incidental beneficiary (an indirect stakeholder with no legal connection to the receiving groups of said emoluments - namely, his family and other Trump business shareholders). Precedence is important if you're to claim a legal violation of a Constitutional law, and America has absolutely shown precedence that an indirect receipt of emoluments from foreign entities is insufficient grounds for impeachment. Further precedence is set through Cheney's indirect compensation from his ties with Halliburton, and he wasn't impeached.

I understand your point. But T.'s conflicts are entirely different. He has hotels and perhaps even more important proposed real estate projects across the globe. In the paper, the author makes clear that T. will need to completely remove himself and his family from all of his businesses in order to avoid the kind of impropriety the founders feared. In other words, we can't have a situation in which foreign leaders/govts and their citizens can manipulate the US through actions related to T's businesses in that country.

And so he will never be just a incidental beneficiary of compensation. His actions already suggest that he is willing to use his new clout to further not only his own businesses also to aid his children's side aspirations.

Thanks for making me finally read something of journalistic value, although perhaps minor. So much crap out there these days. Now gotta wrap presents for the kiddos. I am sure this debate will continue for months/years.

benjs

vaggar99 said:

.

benjs said:

vaggar99 said:

i'm a smart guy and probably already know whats in this, so i haven't read it. someone do me a favor and read and then you brief tomorrow morning if i decide to log on.
https://brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gs_121616_emoluments-clause1.pdf

Let me try to play devil's advocate (because Trump's lawyers certainly will).

The paper you linked to defines what an emolument is, what 'offices' are affected by it, and which foreign entities transacting would define a breach of the clause. People in the US government regularly attempt to work with foreign entities, and the public encourages them: trade deals, cooperative relationships, alliances, military aid. Supposedly, the US government is meant to speak for the people, and to treat them favourably over all other nations - so one would hope that they are making international negotiations which provide advantages and benefits (in other words, emoluments) to Americans, which includes those same people making the policies or deals themselves (who are then stakeholders, rather than sole proprietors, in these transactions).

In this sense, most international agreements could be seen as breaches of the emoluments clause, unless one admits that being a stakeholder while holding office is not direct enough of receipt of emoluments from foreign entities (which, clearly, is implicitly admitted by the fact that these types of deals occur regularly). Trump is expected to go one step further, and to remove himself from these businesses (legally), and will be nothing more than an incidental beneficiary (an indirect stakeholder with no legal connection to the receiving groups of said emoluments - namely, his family and other Trump business shareholders). Precedence is important if you're to claim a legal violation of a Constitutional law, and America has absolutely shown precedence that an indirect receipt of emoluments from foreign entities is insufficient grounds for impeachment. Further precedence is set through Cheney's indirect compensation from his ties with Halliburton, and he wasn't impeached.

I understand your point. But T.'s conflicts are entirely different. He has hotels and perhaps even more important proposed real estate projects across the globe. In the paper, the author makes clear that T. will need to completely remove himself and his family from all of his businesses in order to avoid the kind of impropriety the founders feared. In other words, we can't have a situation in which foreign leaders/govts and their citizens can manipulate the US through actions related to T's businesses in that country.

And so he will never be just a incidental beneficiary of compensation. His actions already suggest that he is willing to use his new clout to further not only his own businesses also to aid his children's side aspirations.

Thanks for making me finally read something of journalistic value, although perhaps minor. So much crap out there these days. Now gotta wrap presents for the kiddos. I am sure this debate will continue for months/years.

I'm not disputing the intentionality of the Emoluments Clause; what I'm disputing is solely the Clause's applicability to Trump and Trump's businesses when he takes office. Regrettably, as I outlined above, the impropriety the founders feared is not adequately prevented through the Clause.

What the Emoluments Clause prevents is a legal transaction between the US and a foreign entity, which directly profits the/those American office-holder(s) responsible for the design of a deal - 'direct' being the operative word, as I showed above how 'indirect' profiting has historically been insufficient to prove a breach. If an indirect stakeholder has historically not been persecuted for breach of the Emoluments Clause, then I'd have to assume that to persecute for breach of the Emoluments Clause would have to be done by proving the directness of the profiting of Trump or Trump's administration (since the article above does a decent job of defining the stakeholders and the definition of emolument). I don't know that it would be deemed 'directly profiting' if Trump's children profited off of actions designed by Trump: I'd be surprised if a great lawyer couldn't argue the fact that there's no issue. If Trump is then gifted millions of dollars from his children (birthdays, holidays, etc.), he would certainly be an incidental beneficiary of compensation. It's good to be discussing this, as this Clause could be one of the few ways to hold the Trump administration accountable for their actions. Thanks for engaging in solid discussion, vaggar

Happy holidays!

Go Beavers

JC29856 said:

foodshop65 said:

the constitution?
how many executive orders?
how many backroom deals?
biggest NSA spy ring in history?
just imagine if they covered bho like they do trump

They can't, they will be called names.

Like "journalists".

PJfanwillneverleave1

Not sure yet.

vaggar99

Yes

are you creating a poll of polls?

PJfanwillneverleave1

^^^
We need Bpops opinion on this.

vaggar99

Yes

heres one i haven't seen:
independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trump-inauguration-impeach-process-get-rid-of-him-25th-amendment-a7528421.html

vaggar99

Yes

another week, another lawsuit.
abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-foreign-profits-violation-constitution-suit-claims/story?id=44994530&cid=social_fb_abcn

Kat

Donald J. Trump Verified account @realDonaldTrump
Are you allowed to impeach a president for gross incompetence?
RETWEETS 148,801
LIKES 121,669
5:23 AM - 4 Jun 2014

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/474134260149157888