Did Trump violate the emoluments clause?

[Greedo punched first]

Did Trump violate the emoluments clause?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I'm not convinced that he has. He is not required to sell all his belongings just because he became president...

[Virginiá]

I'm not convinced that he has. He is not required to sell all his belongings just because he became president...

The spike in business for his DC Hotel and Mar-a-lago club (with it's doubled fee) expose him on this. I mean you can't honestly think all these foreign diplomats, business people and other officials are flocking to Trump properties just because. Further, expecting a violation of that clause to be dependent on something such as a foreign official handing him a sack of money or other expensive gifts is not reasonable. It's much better to just give his funnel that money into his businesses to curry favor.

A decent president wouldn't have pushed the envelope like this and insisted on keeping control (indirect or not) of his businesses, even when they presented big conflicts of interest. Personally, it's my hope that future reforms might some day force presidents to relinquish control of their businesses if they wish to take office. No one is forcing them into that office, and it's pretty clear now that we can't always expect them to follow tradition.

[YE]

Given he opened 8 new business in Saudi Arabia prior to to being elected, yes.

[Frodo]

Definitely, and if we had a Congress worthy of the name, he’d be getting hammered on this, among other issues.  

Unfortunately we have a Republican electorate (whom their congressmen represent) that cares nothing for the republic, only in shafting their enemies.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I'm not convinced that he has. He is not required to sell all his belongings just because he became president...

The spike in business for his DC Hotel and Mar-a-lago club (with it's doubled fee) expose him on this. I mean you can't honestly think all these foreign diplomats, business people and other officials are flocking to Trump properties just because. Further, expecting a violation of that clause to be dependent on something such as a foreign official handing him a sack of money or other expensive gifts is not reasonable. It's much better to just give his funnel that money into his businesses to curry favor.

A decent president wouldn't have pushed the envelope like this and insisted on keeping control (indirect or not) of his businesses, even when they presented big conflicts of interest. Personally, it's my hope that future reforms might some day force presidents to relinquish control of their businesses if they wish to take office. No one is forcing them into that office, and it's pretty clear now that we can't always expect them to follow tradition.

He should have put them all in a blind trust, like Micheal Bloomberg did when he got elected NYC Mayor in 2001. And put someone trustworthy in control of that blind trust until he let office. As it currently stands, he is in violation in ethics standards but not yet at the point of violating the emoluments clause.

[Kingpoleon]

Should he place all his properties and businesses in a blind trust? Yes.
Does not doing so constitute a violation of the Titles or Nobility Clause? Yes.
Does aforementioned Clause necessitate impeachment and relief of office upon violation thereof? No.

[Badger]

Duh!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Definitely, and if we had a Congress worthy of the name, he’d be getting hammered on this, among other issues.  

Unfortunately we have a Republican electorate (whom their congressmen represent) that cares nothing for the republic, only in shafting their enemies.

While he's violating the clause, it's something that Congress could either impeach him for, or give him permission to do what he's doing.  The Republicans don't want to impeach him, but neither do they have the political courage to explicitly allow it, so they instead have chosen to implicitly allowed it by doing nothing.  I suspect and hope that one effect of this is that when the Democrats are next in charge of Congress they will make explicit more things that are violations of the emoluments clause so that someone like Trump can't cowardly hide behind ambiguity like The Donald has thanks to previous Congresses assuming Presidents would act honorably.

[Torie]

No, I don't think so, unless Trump pressured folks to stay at his properties.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No, I don't think so, unless Trump pressured folks to stay at his properties.

The emoluments clause does not ban quid pro quo, it bans receiving quid from a foreign power regardless of whether there is any quo at all.  Simply by accepting the quid, Trump is in violation unless Congress authorizes him to take it.

[Torie]

No, I don't think so, unless Trump pressured folks to stay at his properties.

The emoluments clause does not ban quid pro quo, it bans receiving quid from a foreign power regardless of whether there is any quo at all.  Simply by accepting the quid, Trump is in violation unless Congress authorizes him to take it.

Maybe, but in application that makes no sense. Suppose some foreign diplomat just chooses to stay at a Trump property without the knowledge of Trump? Is there any case law on this?

[bandg]

No, I don't think so, unless Trump pressured folks to stay at his properties.

The emoluments clause does not ban quid pro quo, it bans receiving quid from a foreign power regardless of whether there is any quo at all.  Simply by accepting the quid, Trump is in violation unless Congress authorizes him to take it.

Maybe, but in application that makes no sense. Suppose some foreign diplomat just chooses to stay at a Trump property without the knowledge of Trump? Is there any case law on this?

Let's take it one step further. What if a foreign diplomat buys a copy of one of Obama's books? Would that violate the emoluments clause?

[krazen1211]

Of course not. As the DC district court (Clinton appointed judge) noted while dismissing this nonsense, these claims are wholesale bunk and are only being filed because some folks are upset with the outcome of the 2016 election.

[krazen1211]

Let's take it one step further. What if a foreign diplomat buys a copy of one of Obama's books? Would that violate the emoluments clause?

The Department of Justice noted that our great founders like Thomas Jefferson owned tobacco and other agricultural plantations and sold goods on the open market.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No, I don't think so, unless Trump pressured folks to stay at his properties.

The emoluments clause does not ban quid pro quo, it bans receiving quid from a foreign power regardless of whether there is any quo at all.  Simply by accepting the quid, Trump is in violation unless Congress authorizes him to take it.

Maybe, but in application that makes no sense. Suppose some foreign diplomat just chooses to stay at a Trump property without the knowledge of Trump? Is there any case law on this?

Until now we've had no President who maintained an actively-run business beyond a farm while in office.  I suppose the closest would've been Herbert Hoover's mining interests including a gold mine in Australia, but unlike Trump's brand-centric businesses, with commodity businesses it would be fairly obvious if someone were overpaying so as to curry favor with someone.

Moreover, the problems a diplomat staying at a Trump property can cause can happen even if Donald is unaware of it.  It wouldn't that difficult for that diplomat to namedrop where's he's staying to the government functionary he's here to meet and thus now has to worry if something bad will happen to him if he displeases the government spending money with Trump.  It's precisely to avoid such concerns that the emolument clause is so absolute.  If it's too absolute, then Congress has the power to authorize loosening it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Of course not. As the DC district court (Clinton appointed judge) noted while dismissing this nonsense, these claims are wholesale bunk and are only being filed because some folks are upset with the outcome of the 2016 election.

Why do you lie when it's so easy to prove you wrong?

This is what he noted:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indeed, that's footnote #1 from his decision.  So it wasn't because the cases were "wholesale bunk".  Rather, the cases were dismissed because the plaintiff's were unable to establish standing, not because Trump wasn't violating the Foreign Emoluments Clause.  The judge ruled that it's up to Congress to enforce the clause, not private lawsuits.  Not that the Republican Congress will do anything.  Politically it loses regardless of what it does, so they'll do nothing as that's what will hurt them the least politically.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Incidentally, when it comes to the CREW lawsuit, I agree that there's lack of standing for an emoluments lawsuit.  Since Congress hasn't passed an act to allow private lawsuits for violations of the emoluments clauses, the only potential avenue for a lawsuit is a tort for economic harm.  CREW isn't even in business, let alone one that competes with The Trump Organization, so there's no tort for them and hence no standing.  The hoteliers that brought suit would have a very tough time showing economic harm, but at least they have the outline of a plausible case, which is why some of the other suits haven't been simply dismissed. Whether they'll ever get past the discovery phase is something that remains to be seen.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

I'm not convinced that he has. He is not required to sell all his belongings just because he became president...

This.

I don't think the Founders would be bent out of shape over what Trump is doing, as far as the emoluments clause goes.  They, themselves, were businessmen. 

That's not an answer for what Trump SHOULD do, clause or no clause.  I will say that at certain times, Trump hasn't been overly concerned with the APPEARANCE of impropriety, even if there was no ACTUAL impropriety.  This tendency is what keeps him in hot water, but it's also Donald being Donald.

[Virginiá]

Let's take it one step further. What if a foreign diplomat buys a copy of one of Obama's books? Would that violate the emoluments clause?

Maybe if they bought 1,000 copies with the implicit desire to garner favor (assuming Obama knew about the purchase as president). I think the judge in one of these cases actually used a similar example involving hotdogs.