4 ms·

Yeah I guess to you breaking the Foreign Emoluments Clause in the Constitution is nothing. And its funny you say that when that is exactly why they impeached Cl

Yeah I guess to you breaking the Foreign Emoluments Clause in the Constitution is nothing. And its funny you say that when that is exactly why they impeached Clinton.

loafa 10y ago
The argument that Trump is breaking the emoluments clause by (for instance) having foreign governments paying market rents as tenants in his building is ridiculously thin. Here's the real trouble with these ridiculously exaggerated criticisms of everything Trump: there's nowhere to go from here. By the time Trump actually does something bad, everyone will be totally immune to the constant wailing, it will be impossible to cut through the noise and say "oh wait, this is actually bad". It's similar to how we got the Iraq War: the left had been complaining about everything that Bush did from day one, so by the time he had a genuinely bad idea everyone just sorta ignored the criticism of it. When everybody is Hitler all the time, nobody is Hitler.
- ntelson1s 10y ago
  Well said. I wish others would stop typing the same things over and over to read some informed comments such as this instead.
- ascorbic 10y ago
  "Emolument. Noun. Profit, salary, or fees from office or employment; compensation for services" http://www.dictionary.com/browse/emolument http://www.dictionary.com/browse/emolument Receiving market rate for a service absolutely does count.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
downandout 10y ago
They impeached Clinton for committing the crime of perjury, so your comparison makes no sense. With regard to the Foreign Emoluments Clause, Trump is donating all proceeds from stays in his hotels by foreign officials directly to the US Treasury. I am not a constitutional lawyer, but apparently he has been advised by those who are that this solution solves that particular legal issue. I realize that this issue will never be solved in the minds of Clinton voters, but as long as it legally resolves the problem, opinions simply don't matter.
- int_19h 10y ago
  Trump claimed that he will do so with hotel profits, but we have no evidence that he's actually doing that. This is exactly the place where his finances should be disclosed, at a minimum, to a bipartisan ethics commission for review. And it's not like he only has hotels. He owns, or has stake in (not necessarily controlling, but still enough to derive profit) many other businesses. Some of which aren't even in US. As many people - including several specifically involved in government ethics compliance - states, the only thing that can truly and definitely resolve this problem is divestment and transfer of control to a blind trust. Anything else is going to be suspect.
  - downandout 10y ago
    >Trump claimed that he will do so with hotel profits, but we have no evidence that he's actually doing that. Given how hard he fought for the Presidency, I seriously doubt that he would endanger his ability to continue in office just to keep a few tenths or hundredths of a percent of his overall hotel revenue.
    - rat87 10y ago
      Given how he actually used one of his campaign speeches as a hotel infomercial I have no doubt that he will use the office for his own benefit.
    - SapphireSun 10y ago
      You may be right you may be wrong. Do you remember that time when he claimed he was going to personally donate money to veterans and then only did so when the media caught him having not done it (though others in his fundraiser had)? [1] And then he bought a giant portrait of himself with charity money? [2] The point is when it comes to ethics in leadership is that you are supposed to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. For that to happen, we must see evidence. If its good enough for rank and file members of corporate America, it's good enough for the President of the United States. He must disclose his financial conflicts of interest and resolve them -- in public. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/05/24/four-months-later-donald-trump-says-he-gave-1-million-to-veterans-group/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/05... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-clue-to-the-whereabouts-of-the-6-foot-tall-portrait-of-donald-trump/2016/09/14/ae65db82-7a8f-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-clue-to-the-wherea...
Shivetya 10y ago
it is one hell of a stretch to claim that any foreigner making standard use of a business you own or have interests is somehow violating this law. if anything it seems tailored made to keep non politicians from ever taking office without sacrificing a lot. funny how many politicians come in with little and leave with a lot more

Yeah I guess to you breaking the Foreign Emoluments Clause in the Constitution is nothing. And its funny you say that when that is exactly why they impeached Clinton.

loafa 10y ago

The argument that Trump is breaking the emoluments clause by (for instance) having foreign governments paying market rents as tenants in his building is ridiculously thin. Here's the real trouble with these ridiculously exaggerated criticisms of everything Trump: there's nowhere to go from here. By the time Trump actually does something bad, everyone will be totally immune to the constant wailing, it will be impossible to cut through the noise and say "oh wait, this is actually bad". It's similar to how we got the Iraq War: the left had been complaining about everything that Bush did from day one, so by the time he had a genuinely bad idea everyone just sorta ignored the criticism of it. When everybody is Hitler all the time, nobody is Hitler.

ntelson1s 10y ago
Well said. I wish others would stop typing the same things over and over to read some informed comments such as this instead.
ascorbic 10y ago
"Emolument. Noun. Profit, salary, or fees from office or employment; compensation for services" http://www.dictionary.com/browse/emolument http://www.dictionary.com/browse/emolument Receiving market rate for a service absolutely does count.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

downandout 10y ago

They impeached Clinton for committing the crime of perjury, so your comparison makes no sense. With regard to the Foreign Emoluments Clause, Trump is donating all proceeds from stays in his hotels by foreign officials directly to the US Treasury. I am not a constitutional lawyer, but apparently he has been advised by those who are that this solution solves that particular legal issue. I realize that this issue will never be solved in the minds of Clinton voters, but as long as it legally resolves the problem, opinions simply don't matter.

int_19h 10y ago
Trump claimed that he will do so with hotel profits, but we have no evidence that he's actually doing that. This is exactly the place where his finances should be disclosed, at a minimum, to a bipartisan ethics commission for review. And it's not like he only has hotels. He owns, or has stake in (not necessarily controlling, but still enough to derive profit) many other businesses. Some of which aren't even in US. As many people - including several specifically involved in government ethics compliance - states, the only thing that can truly and definitely resolve this problem is divestment and transfer of control to a blind trust. Anything else is going to be suspect.
- downandout 10y ago
  >Trump claimed that he will do so with hotel profits, but we have no evidence that he's actually doing that. Given how hard he fought for the Presidency, I seriously doubt that he would endanger his ability to continue in office just to keep a few tenths or hundredths of a percent of his overall hotel revenue.
  - rat87 10y ago
    Given how he actually used one of his campaign speeches as a hotel infomercial I have no doubt that he will use the office for his own benefit.
  - SapphireSun 10y ago
    You may be right you may be wrong. Do you remember that time when he claimed he was going to personally donate money to veterans and then only did so when the media caught him having not done it (though others in his fundraiser had)? [1] And then he bought a giant portrait of himself with charity money? [2] The point is when it comes to ethics in leadership is that you are supposed to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. For that to happen, we must see evidence. If its good enough for rank and file members of corporate America, it's good enough for the President of the United States. He must disclose his financial conflicts of interest and resolve them -- in public. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/05/24/four-months-later-donald-trump-says-he-gave-1-million-to-veterans-group/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/05... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-clue-to-the-whereabouts-of-the-6-foot-tall-portrait-of-donald-trump/2016/09/14/ae65db82-7a8f-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-clue-to-the-wherea...

Shivetya 10y ago

it is one hell of a stretch to claim that any foreigner making standard use of a business you own or have interests is somehow violating this law. if anything it seems tailored made to keep non politicians from ever taking office without sacrificing a lot. funny how many politicians come in with little and leave with a lot more