Exclusive: Foreign government leases at Trump World Tower stir more emoluments concerns https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...CN1S80PP?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social
To do what he should have done once he won the nomination. Separate from his personal conflicted businesses.
Well, that doesn't tell me who has standing to sue, in what court, with what possible verdicts, with what consequences, enforced by whom?
The DC circuit already ruled that Congressmen have standing to sue. So that's your first 2 questions. I found a good but old entry on Lawfare: https://www.lawfareblog.com/reading...-emoluments-do-super-rich-presidents-get-pass. My takeaway from that is there isn't much precedent to go on for possible verdicts and remedies because no other president dared flirt with this provision. The aim of the suit, however, appears to be to collect information from Trump and the Trump Org for Congress to inform a potential impeachment case. So the court case itself might fizzle out once this is accomplished. Or, maybe it goes before the USSC, I don't know.
It seems to me you have to go a lot further than showing that these people stayed at or leased from his properties. They can stay anywhere. To profit from the office Trump seems to have to offer something or threaten something for them to stay there
I'll say this again but Trump should've been impeached on emoluments. I think that is a far stronger case and more understandable than the Ukraine scandal or obstruction of justice. To quote Sen. Alexander and Rubio those are impeachable offenses but emoluments is the one specifically laid out int he Constitution.
....perhaps. ...I'd still contend that, even with a more-or-less line-of-sight-argument about the Donald's "business" dealings in relation to Russia... ...the sticking point on any prosecution of him would have come down to Citizens United...and what it has specifically said about how direct an influence money can and "should" have on (our) democracy... ...and to that point...it might actually have been a delicious irony to see Justice Roberts have to confront what he and the Court have wrought unfettered now...because that's all that's happening with these state circuit motions and appeals...delaying the inevitable reconciliation of the mantra that "...corporations are people..." ...and determining just what type of "people" are in these "corporations" in the first place... ...good times, I tell you that much....
52% of the public understood enough to say the Criminal in Chief should impeached and removed. An emoluments impeachment ends the same way as the Ukraine extortion impeachment. The Senate Republicans let the CiC walk. Even though the emoluments trial goes forward, this will still boil down to the court requesting Trump Inc. for documents and the Criminal in Chief saying "Make me".
Yes no matter what they impeach him on most likely the Senate doesn't remove. 67 votes is a very high threshold. My argument isn't that it makes it more likely he get's removed but that it's a something that the public understands better which means it's easier to campaign on. Further it reinforces a view that many already have about Trump. That he's always in for a buck, he says that himself. Ukraine and Russia aren't things that the public thought of regarding Trump and are difficult to follow. Saying Trump is making money using the Presidency is easy to understand and makes perfect sense for the guy who hawked Vodka and wine even though he doesn't drink.
This ad from the Lincoln Project is what I'm talking about. People might not understand the term emoluments but they understand getting rich off of the office.
