The Pinocchio Test
While spoken in classic “Trumpese” that fails to capture the nuances of the law, the president-elect did rightly point to an exemption for the president and vice president in conflicts of interest laws. And while such an exemption exists, the theory was that the presidency has so much power that any policy decision could pose a potential conflict. The law assumed that the president could be trusted to do the right thing and take actions to avoid appearance or presence of impropriety — not that the law is “totally” on the president’s “side” or that it would allow the president to use the exemption to his favor.
Trump’s statement does not quite rise to the level of a Geppetto Checkmark, nor does it qualify for a Pinocchio. So we will not rate this claim. Trump, nevertheless, should be more careful about his wording on this point. It’s quite possible he will face a number of conflicts of interest during his presidency. The law may offer an exemption for the president, but political reality — and perception— often does not.
Even is someone wants to push the envelope and try to prove that there is some law somewhere that does not so obviously exempt the executives, the recourse (as we all know) is that Trump would have to be impeached. For more reasons than I care to offer, this would not happen. I would start with the obvious. The American public is fully aware of Trump's business and his name brand, and still elected him President. Trying to impeach him for being a businessman who was elected President is just downright silly.
41 comments:
one problem is that the media is not sure what to make of this.
for 8 years they had a president whose early efforts at creating wealth for himself consisted of standing on a chicago street corner waving an ACORN protest sign.
not exactly the most profitable enterprise.
in other fact checking news it's being reported that facebook is teaming up with 'politifact' and 'snopes' to root out 'fake news' stories.
the jokes just write themselves.
The Constitution’s “Emoluments Clause,” provides that “no person holding any office of profit or trust under” the United States “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.”
I guess you can't read English. No person means the President too.
God Trump is not a person, he's a God.
I guess you can't read English.
Apparently the Justice Department cannot either, huh?
But then again, nobody at the Justice Department is as smart as good old Roger, so what do they know, huh? But even if they are not as smart as you, and apparently cannot read as well as you... their authority in this matter generally supersedes yours.
So of the two opinions regarding this clause:
- Roger
- Justice Department
I think I have to go with the latter... no offense.
rog,
serious question -
what part of the justice department's ruling on this do you not understand???
i strongly suspect that justice is quite clear on the constitution's 'Emoluments Clause', and i'll bet they even have an opinion on santa claus, so are you intentionally digging your heels in and missing the point, or are you just an idiot?
inquiring minds want to know.
I will go with the justice depart.
HB again is wrong, but being the child he is , he will stomp his little feet, cry that he is right.
Then entire Democrat Party is acting like him.
Hillary was not "entitled" to win, every leftist here thought so, one problem the voters said other wise, and gave him the congress to get r done.
Trump's claim is unambiguously false. The President obviously CAN have a conflict of interest. As he has more outside interests than is usually the case, he has potentially more conflicts of interest than usual.
Whether his conflicts of interest are illegal, unethical, immoral, or abrogate tradition, or are downright stupid, are all different questions.
Anyone notice the lack of diversity of trumps pick......and yes, the token ben and 2 incompetent women are just that, i
I guess you can't read English. No person means the President too.
Why am I not surprised
I guess you flunked English since you have no idea what emolument means much less present, office or title.
If the Electoral College acted as designed, except with the way to empower slave holding states, can save us from the Second Coming of the CHTTrumpSecondcoming.blog
With the Electoral College set to meet next week, millions of Americans horrified by the prospect of a Donald J. Trump presidency have implored red-state electors to vote for Hillary Clinton or an establishment Republican. Millions of Americans supportive of Mr. Trump find these efforts galling. But both sides agree on what to call such electors: “faithless.”
This is a loaded label. Is it warranted? Do presidential electors have an obligation to ratify their state’s popular vote?
As a matter of state law, the answer is mixed. Just over half of the states have enacted measures that instruct electors to vote for their party’s designated candidate. The rest have not. And even in the states that tell their electors how to vote, the penalties for disobeying tend to be modest and to go unenforced.
As a matter of federal constitutional law, there is little basis for thinking that electors must side with their party’s candidate when that candidate carries the state. The Constitution says only that they “shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot.” Some evidence suggests that the framers envisioned the independent judgment of electors as a check against populist passions. Alexander Hamilton, for instance, wrote that the Electoral College would allow the presidency to be decided “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation.”
The primary purpose of the Electoral College, however, was nothing so high-minded. It was to facilitate political compromise and shore up the power of slaveholding states by allowing them to count three-fifths of their slaves toward their allotment of votes. That sorry history does not clarify or constrain how a member of the college should behave today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/opinion/why-gop-electoral-college-members-can-vote-against-trump.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
The fact that an elector can vote her conscience does not necessarily mean she should. The proper course of action depends not only on what Mr. Trump might be like in the White House, but also on what the effects of an Electoral College revolt would be. Mr. Trump’s critics may be overstating or misreading the danger he poses. The effort to thwart his presidency may be so unlikely to succeed, or so likely to cause destructive political alienation and social unrest, that the game is not worth the candle. A failed attempt might only feed Mr. Trump’s paranoia and aggravate his illiberal tendencies.
Since the President Elect doesn't have a problem with his BFF being directly in attacking our democracy, they should do the right thing.
My vocabulary tested at a level of 95% of those tested. Wanna bet my score is better than yours was?
My SAT score was in the top 95%, the only thing that held me back from 99% was my math issues, that since I have gotten past too.
Just over a month before President-elect Donald Trump takes office, few Americans expect he will be a good president, while most are concerned he will have conflicts of interests between his business relationships and his decisions in the Oval Office, according to a CBS poll released Thursday morning.
http://quotes.wsj.com/CBSA
Just over a third of Americans, 34%, think Mr. Trump will be a good or very good president, and 36% of respondents said he will be a poor president, according to the poll. By comparison, in December 2008, 63% of Americans expected Barack Obama to make a good or very good president, with 7% of Americans expecting him to perform poorly. In Dec. 2000, less than half of Americans thought George W. Bush would be a good president, but just 14% expected him to be a poor president.
Only the supporters of the Second Coming think he's going to be a fucking disaster. And since he does not think that a foreign nation attacking our democracy, he should be tossed out on his ear.
Lindsey Graham said that he's 100% that the BFF hacked our system, but our God Worshiping formerly esteemed host, finds NO problem with an attack on our democracy.
Trump poised to violate Constitution his first day in office, George W. Bush’s ethics lawyer says.
The Constitution doesn’t allow presidents to seek gifts from foreign agents.
Friday evening, the Washington Post reported that about 100 foreign diplomats gathered at President-elect Donald Trump’s hotel in Washington, DC to “to sip Trump-branded champagne, dine on sliders and hear a sales pitch about the U.S. president-elect’s newest hotel.” The tour included a look at the hotel’s $20,000 a night “town house” suite. The Post also quoted some of the diplomats saying they intended to stay at the hotel in order to ingratiate themselves to the incoming president.
“Why wouldn’t I stay at his hotel blocks from the White House, so I can tell the new president, ‘I love your new hotel!’” said one diplomat from an Asian nation. “Isn’t it rude to come to his city and say, ‘I am staying at your competitor?’”
The incoming president, in other words, is actively soliciting business from agents of foreign governments. Many of these agents, in turn, said that they will accept the president-elect’s offer to do business because they want to win favor with the new leader of the United States.
In an exclusive exchange with ThinkProgress, Richard Painter, a University of Minnesota law professor who previously served as chief ethics counsel to President George W. Bush, says that Trump’s efforts to do business with these diplomats is at odds with a provision of the Constitution intended to prevent foreign states from effectively buying influence with federal officials
«ûThe Constitution’s “Emoluments Clause,” provides that “no person holding any office of profit or trust under” the United States “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.”
Roger.
I cite the opinion of the Justice Department.
You cite the opinion of a writer for the Washington Post.
Who, objectively, is more likely to really understand the law?
Roger -
you believe he will be impeached on his first day of office for conflict of interest. I believe he will not be impeached for conflict of interest.
One of us will be right (again) and the other (you) will be wrong (again).
First day?
No. But you really f can't see who this man is.
You know he's a compulsive liar.
You know that his personality is going to be very difficult to deal with as President.
You know that when he can't restore the blue collar jobs.
You know that he has retreated from every single thing that he said he would do.
Yet for reasons, that I cannot understand, why given your abilities to analyze, supposedly dispassionately, that you completely believe that he will be an outstanding President.
His character flaws, well, you just ignore them. I have always been analytical. And most of the time, I've been correct. I don't ignore them, they are there to see.
Impeachment? I didn't think that even as crazy as the Republicans were during the Clinton administration they would do it, but they did. So given his overwhelming arrogance, he may even get a Republican controlled congress to pursue that. Likely? No. But far more possible than you think.
Eric Jensen Constitutional Lawyer
The Foreign Emoluments Clause in Article I, section 9, provides that “no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States] shall, without the Consent of Congress, accept of [sic] any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
I began paying attention to this Clause because of controversy about contributions to the Clinton Foundation made by foreign governments while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. If the concern underlying the Clause is the possibility of an “Office[r] of Profit or Trust” having divided loyalties — holding a U.S. office while getting goodies from another government — does the concern disappear if a “present” or “emolument” is paid by a foreign state to a foundation in which an officer has a significant say, at least indirectly, rather than to the officer personally? I didn’t think so, but who knows? The founders were thinking about foundational issues, but they obviously weren’t thinking about foundations.
If nothing else, however, the Clause emphasizes the founders’ fears about economic benefits coming to American officials from foreign governments. It adds a constitutional dimension to some good, old-fashioned appearance-of-impropriety concerns.
The issues have, if anything, intensified with the election of Donald Trump, and the Foreign Emoluments Clause has become a hot topic, as evidenced by Professor Zephyr Teachout’s op-ed [and Professor Seth Barrett Tillman’s counterpoint] in yesterday’s New York Times. Mr. Trump has business holdings around the world, and his enterprises inevitably deal with foreign governments and entities that are arms of foreign governments. Given that the presidency is clearly an “Office of Trust or Profit,” will those business dealings be a problem if they continue, assuming that Congress doesn’t give its okay? (Congress has given consent in some cases, such as for presents of trivial value, when influence peddling doesn’t seem to be involved.)
The answer is again an unequivocal Who knows? Some of the key questions are as follows:
1. Whether a corporation created by a foreign state ought to be treated as the foreign state for these purposes. The founders wouldn’t have been contemplating such an arrangement, but the answer, if the Clause is going to have any effect, ought to be yes.
2. Is an apparently arms-length business deal, with value going in both directions, between an entity connected to the president and an enterprise controlled by a foreign state potentially covered by the Clause? In such a case no “present” seems to be involved, unless the terms aren’t in fact arms-length. But, even so, the term “emoluments” picks up some arms-length arrangements, at a minimum including compensation for services provided to the foreign government. (An American official’s being paid for actual services is clearly more problematic than getting a “present” from the government.)
3. If the president’s business enterprise strikes a deal with a corporation formed by a foreign government not directly involving provision of services, is it clear that no “emolument” is involved? It’s not clear to me.
4. Does it matter that the Trump kids, rather than President Trump himself, will be running the Trump enterprises? In that case, maybe the emolument, if any, is going to the kids rather than to Dad. But surely the purpose underlying the Foreign Emoluments Clause is implicated. What are called “blind trusts” are often like the “blind” beggars in The Hunchback of Notre Dame. With the Trump family in charge, I don’t see how anyone can even pretend blindness.
--------
The President Elect could easily dismiss this issue with a blind trust. But he is so stubborn and impulsive that he believes he can do pretty much what ever he wants to do, even if the Constitution is clear, he refuses to do it.This type of thought process, along with other issues, why I am unable to just move on. I'm a life time political junkie, and a person who believes, even with some faults, has for 240 years, the longest single government on the planet, he makes me worry that he may do more harm than anyone in our history.
You are interpreting the emolument clause so broadly that anyone who has so much as a 401K or IRA is disqualified from public service in the federal government.
Under you interpretation, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison would be disqualified for the presidency because they owned plantations the profited directly from trade with England.
That is absurd and I'm pretty sure that is not what the founding fathers (in this case James Madison) had in mind.
What your interpretation does is limit public service to professional politicians and life-long bureaucrats.
And I know that is what the founding fathers feared the most.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
My vocabulary tested at a level of 95% of those tested. Wanna bet my score is better than yours was?
My SAT score was in the top 95%, the only thing that held me back from 99% was my math issues, that since I have gotten past too.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
well that's nice (i'll get you a cookie), but all that doesn't square with your complete inability to reason.
but alas, you're not alone.
last night on MSDNC, joy reid insisted, and was cheered on by some moveon clown, that a foreign leader staying in a trump hotel would be bribing trump when he/she...
get this...
...swiped their credit card to pay the room trate and incidentals.
i shit you not.
"without the consent of the Congress"
well there you go.
who controls congress, liver boy?
oh, that's right - the GOP.
so, if i'm reading this right, as a non-lawyer and garden variety deplorable working stiff, if congress says it's ok, then all the teeth-gnashing, foot stomping, wailing, crying, and visits to the psychiatrist for depression therapy aren't going to change this.
whew!
i'm glad i cleared that up.
ladies and gentlemen, i give you the enduring legacy of our asshat in chief, skeets hussein 0linsky:
"Above all, Aleppo represents a meltdown of the West’s moral and political will — and in particular, a collapse of U.S. leadership. By refusing to intervene against the Assad regime’s atrocities, or even to enforce the “red line” he declared on the use of chemical weapons, President Obama created a vacuum that was filled by Vladimir Putin and Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. As recently as October, Mr. Obama set aside options drawn up by his advisers to save Aleppo. Instead, he supported the delusional diplomacy of Secretary of State John F. Kerry, whose endless appeals to Moscow for cease-fires yielded — as Mr. Putin no doubt intended — nothing more than a humiliating display of American weakness."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-bloodbath-in-aleppo-will-haunt-humanity/2016/12/14/ffe0d646-c22a-11e6-9a51-cd56ea1c2bb7_story.html?utm_term=.3a996cf79af0
even the WaPo, like a blind squirrel, finds a nut once in a while.
Hillary has lost, she is in a depression reports have it.
So that explains why she has attacked every part of the election process in her failing attempt to win the lost Presidency.
It was her's, she was told that, we read that here, only one problem WE THE PEOPLE. If not for WE THE PEOPLE she would be Queen.
, but our God Worshiping formerly esteemed host" The Mutt
really, you are that far gone, hope you enjoy watching Obama leave and a real President take command.
LOL @ HB more every day on every topic
who controls congress, liver boy?
The idiot voters like you rat boy. LOL
A mixed bag.
Just under half of Americans -- 46 percent -- are excited or optimistic about the presidency of Donald Trump, and just over half are either concerned (31 percent) or scared (22 percent) about what Mr. Trump will do as president. A new CBS News poll shows what the optimists are most excited about and what most worries those who are concerned or scared about Mr. Trump’s presidency.
Do Americans think Donald Trump will be a good president?
Thirty-six percent of Americans who are at least optimistic about a Trump presidency volunteer an improved economy or bringing back jobs as the thing they are most excited or optimistic about, by far the top choice. Other reasons for optimism are the prospect of deporting illegal immigrants (5 percent), making America great again (4 percent), the way Mr. Trump will handle foreign policy (4 percent), bringing change to Washington, (4 percent), and getting rid of Obamacare (4 percent).
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/most-think-trump-will-bring-change-but-most-also-think-hell-divide-the-nation/
Any and ever excuse on why Hillary lost to the non politican Trump is being used, it is funny and a joy to watch.
Hillary is in a deep depression over loss, good, she deserves it.
She should have worked in those States she took for granted.
Did she ever travel and campaign in the last two weeks in PA, Ohio, MI, or FL?
Among the states, there are 31 Republicans, 18 Democrats, and 1 independent that hold the office of governor.
HB, why are you so negative on the up coming Trump Presidency?
In your own words this time, no , cut and paste.
Dear Mr Beaners, rotting bodies and rag heads,(quotes)
In the post that I wrote myself, I cited the fact that President Obama failed to address the slaughter in Aleppo Syria. Unlike you, I can write a coherent sentences and paragraphs, without using third grade level grammar.
You should try it sometime, between your hate filled, angry rants.
I Just finished my walk thru of the best of the ALT-Left Web Sites, like Whitehouse.org, where the president said he is going to attack Russia , Really, how will you attack them. Go on TV and lay out your case to WE THE PEOPLE, get some balls.
Over at ALT-Left Huffington Post, they act like Obama is not the President. Proof Headline "China Holds Live-Fire Aircraft Carrier Drills Amid Rising Tensions With Trump"
Really, So Obama has stepped aside already.
When will Syria be blamed on Trump?
We are back to the days of Bush, where if your dog got sick, it was Bush's fault.
Democrats Reject Muslim to Lead them, oh oh.
"
by Warner Todd Huston15 Dec 2016133
With Muslim Minnesota Representative Keith Ellison’s star fading, Democrats have been searching for someone else to jump into the race for chairman of the Democrat National Committee. Now, at the urging of many Democrats, Obama’s Secretary of Labor, Tom Perez, has announced his entry into the contest to lead the party. "
Conflict, going from government to lead a political party. Shame.
President Obama failed " The Mutt
Other Failures:
Worsened Race Relations in the USA
Economy sucks
Education in the USA has been dumbdown further by CommonCoreCommies
The list is endless, but that will do for now.
"RED LINE " Obama
KD, the thing that bothers me the most, is his tendency towards authoritarian actions.
He is defying reasonable actions like not putting his business into a blind trust.
He expresses admiration towards brutal dictators like Putin.
He said yesterday that the United States will build safe zones, implying boots on the ground, without congressional approval.
I could make a ten item list, but those represent his point of view.
If God forbid, and we suffer from a massive terrorist attack, he will act outside the restrictions on Presidential power. And most of his supporters will go along with him, despite the fact that he doesn't have those powers under the constitution.
The country is deeply divided at this time. He could very well, exceed his powers granted by the Constitution. And a majority would go along with him
My own words.
KD, the thing that bothers me the most, is his tendency towards authoritarian actions.
I got a pen and a phone.
Barack Obama
You weren't bother by Obama's authoritarian (and illegal) actions.
Hypocrisy --- bedrock --- liberalism.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
KD, the thing that bothers me the most, is his tendency towards authoritarian actions. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
your dear leader set the precedent, sonny.
you reap what you sow.
captain "I WON" with his pen and phone (and the cheering and encouragement of democrats in congress) went on an executive order spree completely convinced that he was above the constitution - the one that he called a constitution of 'negative rights' - that he held in such disdain.
you were told repeatedly by many from the right on this blog that, when you were cheering him on, that there would come a time when you would rue this day.
well pal, that day has arrived. and in a big, big way.
as a leftist, embrace your new status as someone who has been completely and totally marginalized. your opinions don't matter, your crying and wailing about trump and the GOP doesn't matter...
YOU don't matter.
but please, continue to act like a petulant child. it is extremely fun to watch.
If God forbid, and we suffer from a massive terrorist attack, he will act outside the restrictions on Presidential power.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
why the sudden interest in the president acting within the confines of his authority in accordance with the constitution?
Hypocrisy --- bedrock --- liberalism?
"The country is deeply divided at this time."
that, and aleppo are the sum total of your dear leader's legacy, pal.
embrace the suck.
You just don't get it.
Obama used far fewer executive orders than almost any other president in the last several administrations.
And not one of you really addressed my comments line by line. Instead, insults. Sad.
People are hoping that Trump is at least smart enough to know his limitations, and will take a CEO approach of surrounding himself with executives and delegating decisions. That's best case. Looking at Trump's history, there is not much there to hang that hope on. He's more than likely in over his head so far that he doesn't even realize what the job is. But, best case relying on a competent organization structure, look at who he's surrounding himself to see where he's going. Cabinet, and second level advisers.
We all want to put the best face on it, and everyone hopes that Trump surprises us by somehow being different than the man we've elected. But let's be realistic. President Trump is likely to be the same Donald Trump that we've seen in and out of the news for decades. There isn't really much chance that it was all an act all along - what it all means now is that the Republicans created him, and now they're stuck with him. It will be interesting to see how the Republican Congress handles their Republican President.
Maybe there is a glimmer of hope that his Chief of Staff (Chairman of the RNC) and VP Pence will actually run the government and keep the rest of them from floundering.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
You just don't get it.
Obama used far fewer executive orders than almost any other president in the last several administrations.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
i get it quite well. what you don't "get" is the difference between an executive ORDER and an executive ACTION.
skeets was the FIRST modern president to use executive actions in lieu of executive orders. in fact, he issued 23 executive ACTIONS on gun violence alone. the net result of his 'pen & phone' bullshit.
get your facts straight, mr IQ.
"And not one of you really addressed my comments line by line. Instead, insults. Sad."
if i want to respond to one of your cut n' pastes i'll do it on the comments section of the place you stole it from.
And not one of you really addressed my comments line by line.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
0linsky himself said we're not supposed to consume or comment on 'fake news.'
wphamilton said...
People are hoping that Trump is at least smart enough to know his limitations,
And pigs can fly. I'm not that hopeful, but hope that the congressional swamp he is trying to drain will have enough intestinal fortitude not to be run over by him like he is trying to do with LMT and BA. Yes, reduce the costs, but the requirements remain unchanged. I doubt if he really understands what goes into the AF 1 design, like filter pin connectors on everything for EMP hardening. Those alone, and there are thousands cost 10 x the regular connector not to mention shielded cables. Oh well, I'm sure he knows that. Right.
Post a Comment