6 ms·

Failure to give up his business interests is an impeachable offense. He literally does not meet the requirements set forth in the Constitution. He isn't being

Failure to give up his business interests is an impeachable offense. He literally does not meet the requirements set forth in the Constitution. He isn't being impeached because his party controls both houses.

dllthomas 10y ago
> He literally does not meet the requirements set forth in the Constitution. You need to be more specific. If you mean the emoluments clause, I think it's more accurate to say that it's hard to verify whether he meets "the requirements set forth in the Constitution." If you know of an instance of his business accepting a gift from a "king, prince or foreign state" since he's assumed office, then he's actually in violation. > He isn't being impeached because his party controls both houses. There is also that. Although I think a not insignificant fraction of that party would much prefer Pence, and if they were going to oust him doing it as far from the next election as possible would seem preferable.
- ryanhuff 10y ago
  Does it say "gifts" or "payments"?
  - dllthomas 10y ago
    "accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever" Payments in exchange for regular business which would have been engaged in anyway would seem not to apply, although there's disturbing room for corruption there.
    - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
      U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 8. states: "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." [1] Add to that: - The lack of case law or Congressional guidance; - George Washington receiving and accepting "two gifts from officials of the French government" without asking for nor receiving any Congressional consent [2]; and - Almost every Founding Father from the South operating their plantations while in public service. I think it's safe to say (at least as a non-Constitutional scholar) that this clause is far from definitive on anything. Please note that I am not defending Trump's behavior nor saying this clause cannot be interpreted to apply. I'm saying we cannot comment on this with any reasonable degree of certainty. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_of_Nobility_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_of_Nobility_Clause [2] http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/11/17/would-trumps-foreign-business-ties-be-constitutional/constitutional-restrictions-on-foreign-gifts-dont-apply-to-presidents http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/11/17/would-trumps...
      - redler 10y ago
        It's certainly untested. One scenario that might be trouble for Trump would be, for example, an easement, tax credit, extraordinary incentive, or other streamlining of a Trump project in a foreign state. What nation, looking to create a favorable deal of some kind with the US, would allow a Trump project to languish in frustrating red tape -- or allow a Trump project to lose out to a competitor in cases where the government is the decision-maker? What would the informal Trumpian chatter be like around that international negotiating table?
    - jobigoud 10y ago
      I'm not a native speaker but shouldn't this be "of any kind whatsoever"?
      - azernik 10y ago
        In current English, yes, but usage was different in the late 18th century. There's quite a lot of archaic language in the Constitution, which is one cause of the endless arguments about its exact interpretation. (Some of the language was very ambiguous even at the time.)
      - ScottBurson 10y ago
        "Whatsoever" is the stronger form, but either is correct.
    - int_19h 10y ago
      "Emolument" is exactly the word that's supposed to cover that. Unless he's operating not for profit. Whether it does or not is ultimately something that'll have to be decided in court.
- chris_va 10y ago
  While they would prefer Pence, their base is still enamored with Trump. The legislators are scared, and don't want to endanger their reelection until he is no longer popular.
  - jakeogh 10y ago
    Na, he just won in a near landslide. Sure Pence could have won too, but he's nowhere as capable as Trump taking on the established false left-right MSM.
    - rat87 10y ago
      What landslide he barely slid in a electoral vote disaster, despite the electoral vote being meant to be used against men like Trump
      - jakeogh 10y ago
        227 vs 306 is not close. I said near-landslide because a landlside (I think) is usually something >=370. No worries, it might still happen.
        twright0 10y ago
        I'll also point out that Trump lost the popular vote by almost 3 million votes (2%), which makes it really stretch the imagination to even call it a "near-landslide".
        jakeogh 10y ago
        Sure, except popular vote does not matter, nor should it. If it did, CA and NY's echo boxes would run the US, and there would be no US in short order. Don't forged why the Unites States exists; taxation without representation. He could have lost FL _or_ OH and still won.
        10y ago
maxerickson 10y ago
I think they are just taking their sweet time with it because he is well enough aligned with their agenda. The second a big enough scandal comes up, away we go.
- aaronbrethorst 10y ago
  I think you have it backwards. The second he is no longer aligned with their agenda, they will clutch their pearls, blow up one of the existing scandals, and away we go.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    That too, but I think a big enough scandal will be used regardless of alignment. Pence isn't unpredictable.
    - aaronbrethorst 10y ago
      Trump won the Presidency, and his impeachment by Paul Ryan et al would tear the Republican Party asunder. Impeachment has to be an option of last resort for them. There's absolutely no guarantee that they'll be able to maintain their majority in the House after that. There's indirect evidence of this in how Republicans treated Trump in the run-up to November.
      - eropple 10y ago
        There's also no indication that they'd be able to get enough Democratic support for it. I would hope so, because frankly Trump is such a loon that I would rather Mike "electrocute the gay away" Pence, but... Sigh.
JumpCrisscross 10y ago
> Failure to give up his business interests is an impeachable offense...[as] set forth in the Constitution U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 8. states: "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." [1] U.S. Const. art. II, § 1 cl., 7 states: "The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them." [2] There isn't a lot of case law surrounding these clauses [3] nor guidance from Congress. It could be an impeachable offense, though frankly that's true of anything. Impeachment is a political, not judicial, process. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_of_Nobility_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_of_Nobility_Clause [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_7:_Salary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_Stat... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/what-is-the-emoluments-clause-does-it-apply-to-president-trump/2017/01/23/12aa7808-e185-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/what-is-the-emolumen...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
edblarney 10y ago
"Failure to give up his business interests is an impeachable offense." Nope. They've had lawyers on this for a while, and I think he's ok on it. FYI - do you know how many Republican secretly wished that Trump were 'gone'? Probably most of them. He's a) a loose cannon and b) not actually a conservative on many issues. I think he's legally in the clear on his ownership issues.
- int_19h 10y ago
  They wish he were gone for sure, but they're also too scared of his voters. If they impeach him? They're going to be facing a new pro-Trump Tea Party-like wave in the primaries, and many of them will get kicked out pronto. They need a really, really good excuse to kick him out... to the point where they could say "we really didn't want to, but we had no choice" to their constituents.
- arachnids 10y ago
  The Republicans don't want him gone at all. With him in the office, they can aggressively push the conservative agenda and have him be the fall guy if things don't work out.

dllthomas 10y ago

> He literally does not meet the requirements set forth in the Constitution. You need to be more specific. If you mean the emoluments clause, I think it's more accurate to say that it's hard to verify whether he meets "the requirements set forth in the Constitution." If you know of an instance of his business accepting a gift from a "king, prince or foreign state" since he's assumed office, then he's actually in violation. > He isn't being impeached because his party controls both houses. There is also that. Although I think a not insignificant fraction of that party would much prefer Pence, and if they were going to oust him doing it as far from the next election as possible would seem preferable.

ryanhuff 10y ago
Does it say "gifts" or "payments"?
- dllthomas 10y ago
  "accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever" Payments in exchange for regular business which would have been engaged in anyway would seem not to apply, although there's disturbing room for corruption there.
  - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
    U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 8. states: "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." [1] Add to that: - The lack of case law or Congressional guidance; - George Washington receiving and accepting "two gifts from officials of the French government" without asking for nor receiving any Congressional consent [2]; and - Almost every Founding Father from the South operating their plantations while in public service. I think it's safe to say (at least as a non-Constitutional scholar) that this clause is far from definitive on anything. Please note that I am not defending Trump's behavior nor saying this clause cannot be interpreted to apply. I'm saying we cannot comment on this with any reasonable degree of certainty. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_of_Nobility_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_of_Nobility_Clause [2] http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/11/17/would-trumps-foreign-business-ties-be-constitutional/constitutional-restrictions-on-foreign-gifts-dont-apply-to-presidents http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/11/17/would-trumps...
    - redler 10y ago
      It's certainly untested. One scenario that might be trouble for Trump would be, for example, an easement, tax credit, extraordinary incentive, or other streamlining of a Trump project in a foreign state. What nation, looking to create a favorable deal of some kind with the US, would allow a Trump project to languish in frustrating red tape -- or allow a Trump project to lose out to a competitor in cases where the government is the decision-maker? What would the informal Trumpian chatter be like around that international negotiating table?
  - jobigoud 10y ago
    I'm not a native speaker but shouldn't this be "of any kind whatsoever"?
    - azernik 10y ago
      In current English, yes, but usage was different in the late 18th century. There's quite a lot of archaic language in the Constitution, which is one cause of the endless arguments about its exact interpretation. (Some of the language was very ambiguous even at the time.)
    - ScottBurson 10y ago
      "Whatsoever" is the stronger form, but either is correct.
  - int_19h 10y ago
    "Emolument" is exactly the word that's supposed to cover that. Unless he's operating not for profit. Whether it does or not is ultimately something that'll have to be decided in court.
chris_va 10y ago
While they would prefer Pence, their base is still enamored with Trump. The legislators are scared, and don't want to endanger their reelection until he is no longer popular.
- jakeogh 10y ago
  Na, he just won in a near landslide. Sure Pence could have won too, but he's nowhere as capable as Trump taking on the established false left-right MSM.
  - rat87 10y ago
    What landslide he barely slid in a electoral vote disaster, despite the electoral vote being meant to be used against men like Trump
    - jakeogh 10y ago
      227 vs 306 is not close. I said near-landslide because a landlside (I think) is usually something >=370. No worries, it might still happen.
      - twright0 10y ago
        I'll also point out that Trump lost the popular vote by almost 3 million votes (2%), which makes it really stretch the imagination to even call it a "near-landslide".
        jakeogh 10y ago
        Sure, except popular vote does not matter, nor should it. If it did, CA and NY's echo boxes would run the US, and there would be no US in short order. Don't forged why the Unites States exists; taxation without representation. He could have lost FL _or_ OH and still won.
        10y ago

maxerickson 10y ago

I think they are just taking their sweet time with it because he is well enough aligned with their agenda. The second a big enough scandal comes up, away we go.

aaronbrethorst 10y ago
I think you have it backwards. The second he is no longer aligned with their agenda, they will clutch their pearls, blow up one of the existing scandals, and away we go.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  That too, but I think a big enough scandal will be used regardless of alignment. Pence isn't unpredictable.
  - aaronbrethorst 10y ago
    Trump won the Presidency, and his impeachment by Paul Ryan et al would tear the Republican Party asunder. Impeachment has to be an option of last resort for them. There's absolutely no guarantee that they'll be able to maintain their majority in the House after that. There's indirect evidence of this in how Republicans treated Trump in the run-up to November.
    - eropple 10y ago
      There's also no indication that they'd be able to get enough Democratic support for it. I would hope so, because frankly Trump is such a loon that I would rather Mike "electrocute the gay away" Pence, but... Sigh.

JumpCrisscross 10y ago

> Failure to give up his business interests is an impeachable offense...[as] set forth in the Constitution U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 8. states: "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." [1] U.S. Const. art. II, § 1 cl., 7 states: "The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them." [2] There isn't a lot of case law surrounding these clauses [3] nor guidance from Congress. It could be an impeachable offense, though frankly that's true of anything. Impeachment is a political, not judicial, process. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_of_Nobility_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_of_Nobility_Clause [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_7:_Salary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_Stat... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/what-is-the-emoluments-clause-does-it-apply-to-president-trump/2017/01/23/12aa7808-e185-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/what-is-the-emolumen...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

edblarney 10y ago

"Failure to give up his business interests is an impeachable offense." Nope. They've had lawyers on this for a while, and I think he's ok on it. FYI - do you know how many Republican secretly wished that Trump were 'gone'? Probably most of them. He's a) a loose cannon and b) not actually a conservative on many issues. I think he's legally in the clear on his ownership issues.

int_19h 10y ago
They wish he were gone for sure, but they're also too scared of his voters. If they impeach him? They're going to be facing a new pro-Trump Tea Party-like wave in the primaries, and many of them will get kicked out pronto. They need a really, really good excuse to kick him out... to the point where they could say "we really didn't want to, but we had no choice" to their constituents.
arachnids 10y ago
The Republicans don't want him gone at all. With him in the office, they can aggressively push the conservative agenda and have him be the fall guy if things don't work out.