General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJustice Department attorneys argue 45* should be legally allowed to profit from foreign governments
http://theweek.com/speedreads/778351/doj-argues-trump-should-allowed-profit-from-hotels-because-no-corrupt-intentDOJ argues Trump should be allowed to profit from his hotels because he has no 'corrupt intent'
Justice Department attorneys believe President Trump should be legally allowed to profit from foreign government officials during his presidency.
DOJ lawyers were arguing Monday to fight a lawsuit that accused Trump of using his businesses to violate constitutional laws that prevent elected officials from accepting gifts from foreign governments, BuzzFeed News reports. Foreign officials have said that they would visit Trump's hotels and various businesses to curry favor with the president, but Justice Department lawyers said that their intent wasn't important in determining whether the act was a bribe, so long as Trump didn't explicitly agree to give those foreign officials something in return.
The lawsuit, filed in Maryland, claims that Trump is violating the Constitution's foreign and domestic Emoluments Clauses, which state that no U.S. official "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," nor should they receive any other benefit from U.S. entities other than their salary.
But attorneys said that the federal judge should take a broader view of the clause, given that many presidents have "profited" from outside entities, both figuratively and literally, while in office. The profit Trump earns from foreign officials who visit his various hotels and golf resorts don't amount to a bribe, argued DOJ lawyers, because there was no "corrupt intent" and because it's hard to prove that Trump's foreign policy decisions are influenced by his business holdings.
Link to tweet
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,869 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 11, 2018, 07:00 PM - Edit history (1)
The fucker breathes with corrupt intent. And the Constitution doesn't require a showing of corrupt intent (an express quid pro quo); it just says: "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." Period.
triron
(22,023 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,869 posts)The argument being made on Trump's behalf is that the emoluments clause isn't violated unless there is an agreement for a quid pro quo - that is, that Trump would have had to agree to give the foreign government a specific thing or concession or favors in exchange for, e.g., paying to stay in a Trump hotel. The "corrupt intent" standard applies to charges of obstruction of justice (and there's plenty of that going on), but there's nothing in the Emoluments Clause that requires proof of corrupt intent.
Freethinker65
(10,061 posts)Corrupt intent is how Trump has always run his businesses. Now that is how he is running the country. If the court sides with Trump/Trump Corp, might as well hand Trump the Constitution and let him rip it up. No need for anyone to scotch tape it together. The country is finished.
donkeypoofed
(2,187 posts)That says that Congress can do something about it,and we all know those sadsack corrupt losers will keep sitting on their hands, doing nothing.
Progressive dog
(6,920 posts)and Trump does not have the consent of the Congress.
RandomAccess
(5,210 posts)foreign governments while President would have been "corrupt intent" enough.