Could an October Surprise Shift the Deadlocked Trump-Harris Race?

[Srikcir]

2 hours ago, Diplomatico said:

on, no one with any business holdings could ever be elected President because their business might accept payment from a foreign entity.  So, the Prime Minister of England can't eat at a McDonald's (see what I did there - McDonald's) if it's owned by a President because that's an emolument?  Absurd.

"The president’s lawyers have argued that the constitutional provision does not apply to fair-market payments, such as a standard hotel room bill, and is intended only to prevent federal officials from accepting a special consideration or gift from a foreign power.

'No one would have thought when the Constitution was written that paying your hotel bill was an emolument,' one of the lawyers, Sheri A. Dillon, a partner at Morgan Lewis, said at a news conference this month."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/22/us/politics/trump-foreign-payments-constitution-lawsuit.html\

 

The potential issue is whether foreign dignitaries are being charged fair market rents or paying a premium above what would be standard ("all things being equal test") such as median value  per square foot of comparable lodging in the the same vicinity. Premium value might be justified by intangible factors unique to a particular lodging such as (in this case) the name "Trump" in Trump Tower and/or easy/direct access by foreign powers to the President when he is in residence. Such premium value might be construed as an emolument of which 77% based on (for example) ownership goes to Trump. Remember that Trump places 70-80% of his asset value on his tradename/trademark "Trump" to give himself a net worth in the billions of dollars. The same valuation issue might also apply to Mar Largo, called by Trump as his "Winter White House."

 

So maybe not an absurd issue but a complex valuation issue if the court doesn't give Trump a pass simply because this unique case has never been addressed. It would then pass to the Republican-controlled Congress to pass legislation to exempt such income issues for a POTUS to deflect the issue. But as "commerce" legislation the Congress cannot target a particular person or company and must apply to Trump and all subsequent POTUS.

 

 

[cncltd1973]

10 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

Of course its harassment. His term of office will be plagued by liberal PC mischief makers playing all the tricks, legal, media, "celebrities" they possibly can to try and derail, hinder and block the new POTUS. They hope the public won't see or understand what they're up to and so vote for the politicians they support next time around.

 

But of course, nothing wrong in Hilary's family trust receiving massive payments from the Saudis and Germany. All above board. Just like Bill's lying to the American people and government and impeachment. He showed the way. He got away with lying, being recorded openly lying, and and glossed all over it. 

The Clinton Foundation should be investigated, there are donations that look like paying for access. Some of the dealings are suspect. So is that a reason to give a Republican president get a free pass? He hasn't been transparent about his overseas debt or holdings, or his national debt or taxes. The Clintons have to all, as have all the presidents before. Before you think this is unfair to Trump, let Trump be at least as transparent to the nation, so the nation can decide if he is being honest or if he is compromised. Anything less is unpatriotic and self serving.

[F4UCorsair]

6 hours ago, Mansell said:

You got that wrong, the trailer trash voted for him.

Nope, Some have left and right confused.

[lannarebirth]

10 hours ago, kamahele said:

So, the Clinton's didn't' accept money for a personal family trust, they accepted money for their charitable organizations. There is a slight difference.

 

If Trump is guilty I hope they throw the book at him. Similarly I hope they pursue the Clintons as well. Interesting the Clinton Global Initiative is now shutting down. A cynical person might suggest that foreign governments have withdrawn their support because the Clintons no longer have any influence to peddle.

[Jingthing]

15 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

Nope, Some have left and right confused.

What are you talking about? Poor white people voted for trump overwhelmingly. 

[howto]

back on topic...

 

This issue has been brewing for awhile...

Dems are grasping at straws.

 

Several links...

Donald Trump’s Far-Flung Holdings Raise Potential for Conflicts of Interest
By ERIC LIPTON and SUSANNE CRAIGNOV. 14, 2016

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/donald-trump-holdings-conflict-of-interest.html?_r=0

 

Constitutional Restrictions on Foreign Gifts Don’t Apply to Presidents
Seth Barrett Tillman  Updated November 18, 2016, 2:30 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/11/17/would-trumps-foreign-business-ties-be-constitutional/constitutional-restrictions-on-foreign-gifts-dont-apply-to-presidents

 

Trump’s Foreign Business Ties May Violate the Constitution
Updated November 17, 2016, 5:06 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/11/17/would-trumps-foreign-business-ties-be-constitutional/trumps-foreign-business-ties-may-violate-the-constitution

 

The Emoluments Clause — is Donald Trump violating its letter or spirit?
By Jonathan H. Adler November 21, 2016

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/11/21/the-emoluments-clause-is-donald-trump-violating-its-letter-or-spirit/

 

Jared Kushner, Trump’s Son-in-Law, Is Cleared to Serve as Adviser
By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT and ERIC LIPTONJAN. 21, 2017

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/politics/donald-trump-jared-kushner-justice-department.html?_r=0

 

Ethics lawyers to sue Trump over foreign payments
By Dan Levine  Mon Jan 23, 2017 | 12:09am EST

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-ethics-lawsuit-idUSKBN15701V

 

 

quote

'Whether or not one concludes that Trump’s business dealings violate the letter or the spirit of the Emoluments Clause, the underlying controversy is almost certainly non-justiciable. It is difficult to conceive of a scenario in which someone would have standing to challenge Trump’s arrangements, and even harder to think what sort of remedy could be ordered by a court. In other words, if there are concerns about how President Trump handles his various investments, the only remedies will be political.'

 

As I said,

Dems grasping at straws.

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

50 minutes ago, howto said:

 

back on topic...

 

This issue has been brewing for awhile...

Dems are grasping at straws.

 

Several links...

Donald Trump’s Far-Flung Holdings Raise Potential for Conflicts of Interest
By ERIC LIPTON and SUSANNE CRAIGNOV. 14, 2016

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/donald-trump-holdings-conflict-of-interest.html?_r=0

 

Constitutional Restrictions on Foreign Gifts Don’t Apply to Presidents
Seth Barrett Tillman  Updated November 18, 2016, 2:30 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/11/17/would-trumps-foreign-business-ties-be-constitutional/constitutional-restrictions-on-foreign-gifts-dont-apply-to-presidents

 

Trump’s Foreign Business Ties May Violate the Constitution
Updated November 17, 2016, 5:06 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/11/17/would-trumps-foreign-business-ties-be-constitutional/trumps-foreign-business-ties-may-violate-the-constitution

 

The Emoluments Clause — is Donald Trump violating its letter or spirit?
By Jonathan H. Adler November 21, 2016

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/11/21/the-emoluments-clause-is-donald-trump-violating-its-letter-or-spirit/

 

Jared Kushner, Trump’s Son-in-Law, Is Cleared to Serve as Adviser
By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT and ERIC LIPTONJAN. 21, 2017

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/politics/donald-trump-jared-kushner-justice-department.html?_r=0

 

Ethics lawyers to sue Trump over foreign payments
By Dan Levine  Mon Jan 23, 2017 | 12:09am EST

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-ethics-lawsuit-idUSKBN15701V

 

 

quote

'Whether or not one concludes that Trump’s business dealings violate the letter or the spirit of the Emoluments Clause, the underlying controversy is almost certainly non-justiciable. It is difficult to conceive of a scenario in which someone would have standing to challenge Trump’s arrangements, and even harder to think what sort of remedy could be ordered by a court. In other words, if there are concerns about how President Trump handles his various investments, the only remedies will be political.'

 

As I said,

Dems grasping at straws.

 

 

  %0

Edited January 24, 2017 by Scott

[Srikcir]

8 hours ago, howto said:

It is difficult to conceive of a scenario in which someone would have standing to challenge Trump’s arrangements

As some news sources have suggested, the Lower Court might relax standards on legal standing if only to allow arguments to be made before the court as to what constitutes legal standing in such an untried case against a POTUS. Such arguments do not guarantee the court's acceptance of a lawsuit against Trump as a defendent - the Lower Court could still dismiss the lawsuit without a trial. Even should the Lower Court ultimately rule in favor of the plaintiffs, more restrictive standards might be applied by the Court of Appeals to overturn the Lower Court.

More importantly, should any legal process procede on the issue of imoluments they will likely trigger an unpredictable and perhaps  irresponsible response from POTUS Trump whose primary focus now seems to be protecting his "greatness."

[boomerangutang]

On 1/23/2017 at 3:12 PM, little mary sunshine said:

Put HRC in Jail before you start on Trump!

.....for what? ....being a proponent of policies which would be beneficial for Americans?

 

On 1/23/2017 at 3:15 PM, Baerboxer said:

Of course its harassment.

Trump may feel harassed, but he deserves every bit and more.  What the OP is, in reality, is about litigation regarding law-breaking by an American citizen.  Because he's now prez, are you saying he should be immune from laws?

 

[boomerangutang]

On 1/24/2017 at 2:13 AM, cncltd1973 said:

The Clinton Foundation should be investigated, there are donations that look like paying for access. Some of the dealings are suspect. So is that a reason to give a Republican president get a free pass? He hasn't been transparent about his overseas debt or holdings, or his national debt or taxes. The Clintons have to all, as have all the presidents before. Before you think this is unfair to Trump, let Trump be at least as transparent to the nation, so the nation can decide if he is being honest or if he is compromised. Anything less is unpatriotic and self serving.

     "....let Trump be at least as transparent to the nation, so the nation can decide if he is being honest or if he is compromised."

 

     The sorry fact is; no matter how obvious it is - that Trump is a life-long shyster and is profiteering from his office and, worse still, predicating foreign policy on his business dealings .....there are always going to be a hard-core of his supporters who will love him to death.  Trump's supporters can only respond with hate and vindictiveness against any person or entity which doesn't praise him.   It sounds like supporters of Stalin or Chairman Mao or Pol Pot or Fat Boy Kim, doesn't it?